It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kimcam
reply to post by ollncasino
I feel like everyone is on the 'WAL-MART Blame' wagon here. How would you all feel if you saw a man bring in a roll of pictures of several little girls naked (or close to it) and you had no idea it was the father? What if it turned out that he was a predator and you did nothing? It is not the responsibility of Wal-Mart to investigate and determine if the act was lewd, it is the responsibility of CPS or whichever agency they contacted. These children's parent should have been interviewed and then everything dropped. The failure is not Wal-Mart or their employee.
S&F for the article OP!
Detectives said the photos depicted the girls, ages 1 1/2 to 5 at the time, in "posed" positions of nudity and showed "close-up views" of their genitalia. Read more: www.azcentral.com...
Originally posted by Char-Lee
Originally posted by ollncasino
Originally posted by Char-Lee
You don't assume anything... you protect the kids. Have you seen the evidence.
They didn't protect the kids. They traumatized the kids and subjected them to a genital examination.
The kids didn't need protecting from the parents - they needed protected from the Child Protection agency.
Yes well if you has sick parents maybe you would feel differently. Who is going to stop them if they are selling pictures of you...do you think that is a parents right? The persons who saw the photos clearly found them extreme. YOU did not see them!
Originally posted by violet
Yes I agree but these days the sharing is not just with friends and family.
Current technology has to be taken into consideration.
I trust you find it ok to take perverts into consideration when sending children off to school on their own? You run through the list of don'ts.
Maybe its just me and a few others that feel we should assess safety precautions with every situation regarding our children? I hope you think of it on Halloween as well, when you say to your child not to let a stranger invite them in.
Again I'm only saying this because these pictures caused a sensation. The parents were investigated for child pedophelia.. Of course the children should not have been taken in the manner they were.
You are all assuming these photos were as innocent as the parents claim them to be. One article said "3 of the photos can't be shown". Why is that?edit on 10-3-2013 by violet because: (no reason given)edit on 10-3-2013 by violet because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by redhorse
Originally posted by Char-Lee
Originally posted by ollncasino
Originally posted by Char-Lee
You don't assume anything... you protect the kids. Have you seen the evidence.
They didn't protect the kids. They traumatized the kids and subjected them to a genital examination.
The kids didn't need protecting from the parents - they needed protected from the Child Protection agency.
Yes well if you has sick parents maybe you would feel differently. Who is going to stop them if they are selling pictures of you...do you think that is a parents right? The persons who saw the photos clearly found them extreme. YOU did not see them!
And neither did YOU.
And yet... In spite of what a judge ruled, you will assume the worst based on...? A Wal-Mart (see something say something mentality) employees over-reaction. Okaaaayyy....
I'll go with the judge. But hey... We all have our baggage I guess. Besides it's more fun to jump up and down all indignant than actually think something through.
Nicole told her mother, in a burst of tears, what had been going on at her father’s house. Her father was arrested for child rape. The police asked Nicole whether he took pictures. She said yes, but that she didn’t think he showed them to anyone. A few months later, while her father was out on bail, Nicole was using a computer he gave her to work on a presentation for Spanish class when she came across a file with a vulgar name that she couldn’t open
Originally posted by Char-Lee
Most Mothers don't even know when the father is abusing the children, may be innocent to her and not to him. I would not take that chance with my daughters.
To may cases and to many children to count. How hard is it to put cloths on your little girls in the presence of their dad when they are not infants any longer and make sure? is a picture worth the risk you husband may be attracted and you not know...it happens all the time!
Originally posted by Creep Thumper
People shouldn't be taking naked pictures of their children in the first place.
To may cases and to many children to count. How hard is it to put cloths on your little girls in the presence of their dad when they are not infants any longer and make sure? is a picture worth the risk you husband may be attracted and you not know...it happens all the time!
reply to post by jdub297
Funny thing, every one of the perverts I ever prosecuted ALWAYS confused and equated nudity with sexuality; and none of the parents I've known EVER did.
Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I'm not sure how photo machines work these days, but years ago I would go help out in the Customer service department for the market I worked for and they had a developing machine. If I recall the machine spits out the roll of pics, we put them in the customers envolope for pick-up. Sure I guess we would see a few of the pics, but we never looked through them.