Parents lose custody of children for a month after innocent bathtime photos developed at Walmart

page: 2
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RadicalRebel
 


Hey,,I'm just pointing to the fact that there are some crazy people out there who do anything to get some easy cash....I am not approving what they did to that particular family but never the less the facts remain the same....And who died and gave you the permission to tell people what to do?!




posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

In this day I would think parents would be smart enough not to take nude photos with their little ones since there is such a disgusting appetite for those pictures by the depraved who are very willing to pay just to view them.


Seriously? You are arguing that people shouldn't take pictures of their kids naked in the bath as they may fall into the hands of pedophiles?

What?


Originally posted by Char-Lee
An employee would not set off an alarm if the pictures were as sweet and as the article shows. imo


$75,000 later, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that the photographs were not, in fact, pornographic.

ABC



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

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!


Child pornography on the Internet is another growing problem. Pedophiles document sexual abuse of children and use the material to sell or exchange on the Internet. In addition to the abuse these children suffer, images of the abuse circulate worldwide across the Internet for many years, repeating the abuse.


www.childhood-usa.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
What would have been the outcome for the parents who don't have $75,000 handy to pay legal fees?

Totally disgusting, and those walmart employees should be fired. They've clearly shown they lack the understanding required to distinguish between child porn and family photography.


When did you see the photos?



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Creep Thumper
 





If WM had done nothing and the parents turned out to be pervs the public would still be screaming for their heads.


You are speculating on potential events.

We're talking about facts

If we're basing our reasonements on speculations only, we can debate about the viability of the subject for YEARS

what if WM had done nothing and the parents turned out to be terrorist ,taking pictures of their kids naked, building bombs ?

or what if the parents turned out to be turned out to be paedo terrorist meth cookers, takin pics of their naked kids cooking meth and building bombs ?

mmmh ?
edit on 9-3-2013 by AnonyWarp because: i spell like a potato



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee
Personally I would feel the horror of people thinking I did something like sell pictures of my kids but i would be glad someone gives a darn about the kids too. An employee would not set off an alarm if the pictures were as sweet and as the article shows. imo


Really? You do realize this world is full of functional retards right? Just look at the daily headlines for christ sake! Do you not recall a recent headline when a school went on lockdown because of the fresh prince of bel air's theme song? Yeah keep up the faith in people like that!


Have you ever even been in a Wal-mart? I don't trust half the employees there to know how to properly stock a shelf let alone make a judgement call such as this!



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wingsfan
Just when you think you finally seen it all in another thread, then you get this. What flipping planet does someone come from that doesn't know about these types of family photos? We can assume the wal-mart worker was of suspect IQ, that goes without saying, but law enforcement actual carrying out medical exams for abuse? And then putting them on the registry?

All involved should be sued to hell in back, then sued again for ruining our country with this endless insanity.



When did YOU see the photos in question? Now all of you are judging the worker and her bosses and the child protective persons all in the wrong and YOU never saw the photos in question!



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 




YOU never saw the photos in question!


neither did you ...



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by Char-Lee

You don't assume anything... you protect the kids. Have you seen the evidence.


No, and neither have you. You don't blindly "protect the kids" based on your point of view. What about the point of view of the children? You do realize that these children were ripped from their family correct? How in gods name is traumatizing these children by removing them from their parents home in any way "protecting the kids" when there was nothing wrong done in the first place?

People that immediately assume the worst and defend their position to death make me sick. What happened to properly investigating a situation before acting? I guess many are right that here in Amerika you are now guilty until proven innocent. Hope that the next family is as well off as this one or they might just permanently lose their children because of some schmucks assumptions.


What do you think the system is for? Why do you think it even exists? They are the ones who saw the evidence and tried to do their job! I don't need to see it to know that. Every time they ere on the side of not protecting a kid and something goes wrong what happens?

Later the kids are older and come forward and say, where were you when it was reported to you you did nothing!



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Without seeing the pictures it's hard to say "why" these pics sent up a red flag to a number of people. It would seem if these were family photos, it should have been in context that these pics weren't sexual in nature. Who among us doesn't have the "nakie" pics our folks took and then embarressed us with when our first BF or GF came over!
edit on 9-3-2013 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

When did YOU see the photos in question? Now all of you are judging the worker and her bosses and the child protective persons all in the wrong and YOU never saw the photos in question!


No I didn't, but the judge didn't see the porn connection and since I assume most everyones parents take these types of photos, I would expect innocent till proven guilty to stand, not let's fiddle your kids in the exam room till we know for sure.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
People shouldn't be taking naked photos of their kids. It's weird.

What is the purpose? A picture with their clothes on isn't good enough?



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonyWarp



You don't assume anything... you protect the kids.


In order to protect the kids, lets now ban all devices able to capture / record an image.


No just don't lay your little girls on the floor with their legs spread for daddy to take pictures.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

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?


Well, besides the point that I seriously doubt anyone would pay money to look at pictures of me naked, the parents weren't selling naked pictures of their kids. They were on vacation and took some bath time pictures of their kids.


Child pornography on the Internet is another growing problem.


In what way did seizing three kids from innocent parents and putting the parents on a sex offenders register do anything to reduce child pornography on the Internet?



edit on 9-3-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Char-Lee

In this day I would think parents would be smart enough not to take nude photos with their little ones since there is such a disgusting appetite for those pictures by the depraved who are very willing to pay just to view them.


Seriously? You are arguing that people shouldn't take pictures of their kids naked in the bath as they may fall into the hands of pedophiles?

What?


Originally posted by Char-Lee
An employee would not set off an alarm if the pictures were as sweet and as the article shows. imo


$75,000 later, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that the photographs were not, in fact, pornographic.

ABC



The sad thing to me, is a caring person and their boss who gained nothing but tried to protect kids will never try again.


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   


No just don't lay your little girls on the floor with their legs spread for daddy to take pictures.
reply to post by Char-Lee
 





but there are a few after the bath. Three of the girls are naked, lying on a towel with their arms around each other, and we thought it was so cute.”



From abcnews.go.com...

Sorry , but i dont see anywhere in the article the girls were spreading their legs for daddy

maybe you have a problem ?






posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee

What do you think the system is for? Why do you think it even exists? They are the ones who saw the evidence and tried to do their job! I don't need to see it to know that. Every time they ere on the side of not protecting a kid and something goes wrong what happens?

Later the kids are older and come forward and say, where were you when it was reported to you you did nothing!


The system is supposed to have a set of checks and balances to prevent something as absurd as this happening to an upstanding family that did nothing wrong! There are proper procedures for situations such as this and immediately crucifying the parents and removing the children based on the word of a Wal-mart employee is not part of the process. Again, guilty until proven innocent is not how the justice system in this country is supposed to work.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wingsfan

Originally posted by Char-Lee

When did YOU see the photos in question? Now all of you are judging the worker and her bosses and the child protective persons all in the wrong and YOU never saw the photos in question!


No I didn't, but the judge didn't see the porn connection and since I assume most everyones parents take these types of photos, I would expect innocent till proven guilty to stand, not let's fiddle your kids in the exam room till we know for sure.


if they were the kind "everyone takes" they would not have been subject to all of this.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnonyWarp



No just don't lay your little girls on the floor with their legs spread for daddy to take pictures.
reply to post by Char-Lee
 





but there are a few after the bath. Three of the girls are naked, lying on a towel with their arms around each other, and we thought it was so cute.”



From abcnews.go.com...

Sorry , but i dont see anywhere in the article the girls were spreading their legs for daddy

maybe you have a problem ?





Listen to the video. Clearly that was the problem.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
well then we have to jail the person who took this picture then ?






new topics
top topics
 
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join