Gardai cricitise paedophile hunters

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ELM327 wrote: »

You don't, it's a hypothesis based on experience/presumption.
You then try to prove or disprove the null based on evidence. In the evidence of proof to the contrary the null hypothesis is presumed correct.

The null hypothesis here is that the target has not offended before. Until evidence - and by evidence, I mean empirical, statistical, verifyable evidence - is presented that they have, this remains the case.

The idea that he has ofeended IS provable as there will have been at least one witness (the child)

Innocent until proven guilty.

Billy Mays

paleoperson wrote: »

There is something to what you're saying, but that just makes it all the more futile to try to come along and say "a pedophile is actually this".

There is no good word that encapsulates a pedophile who is attempting to be active which is what they're talking about here. While I am totally against these gangs, I'm not going to get on board of trying to dismiss the language those people use. The way they're using the word is perfectly useful for what they mean.

Let's tackle the real issue instead of bringing up semantics. Words are not what the dictionary defines them as, they're what the people who use them think they are.

With a username like yours you could easily fall foul of the hunters yourself

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Again, proving the point.

I'm not proving your point. We were talking about active paedophiles who have their wits about them. Obviously you didn't pick that up which surprised me because you come across as intelligent enough to be able to read between the lines and be with it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not proving your point. We were talking about active paedophiles who have their wits about them. Obviously you didn't pick that up which surprised me because you come across as intelligent enough to be able to read between the lines and be with it.

Active pedophiles who have their wits about them don't fall for stings.

Snide ad homeinem aside, this doesn't really counter any of my posts. I know who we're talking about, you know who we're talking about

A dictionary definiton and an emotive rant are not going to tell you what it actually means.

I know a pilot is a guy who flies planes, but I don't know what it means to be a pilot.

Garibaldi?

Absolutely unbelievable that individuals with no legal remit consider themselves entitled to confront others in public places!!

Strazdas

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Absolutely unbelievable that individuals with no legal remit consider themselves entitled to confront others in public places!!

I think the tide has (quite rightfully) turned against them though. Most people regard them as scumbags and thugs.

They still have their cheerleaders on social media but these are usually rough elements : racists and far right types etc.

Nokia6230i

CPAs latest sting from Sunday is of a guy in a ******* wheelchair who, quite clearly has additional needs to just that of being mobility impaired; yet they see fit to light him up & use his name?

He may not have the mental capacity to comprehend his actions; being in charge of an electronic device with access to the internet may not be in his best interests; given it's not a real child in these circumstances can these plebs not do the decent f*****g thing and simply alert the local barracks who can then take action without it escalating subsequently off camera as it inevitably will in his neighbourhood?

Video for context; I only watched first minute or so of it; once I saw the situation I stopped; the videoing should have too > https://www.facebook.com/ChildProtectionIreland/videos/2566360056973883/

Killinator

Nokia6230i wrote: »

CPAs latest sting from Sunday is of a guy in a ******* wheelchair who, quite clearly has additional needs to just that of being mobility impaired; yet they see fit to light him up & use his name?

He may not have the mental capacity to comprehend his actions; being in charge of an electronic device with access to the internet may not be in his best interests; given it's not a real child in these circumstances can these plebs not do the decent f*****g thing and simply alert the local barracks who can then take action without it escalating subsequently off camera as it inevitably will in his neighbourhood?

Video for context; I only watched first minute or so of it; once I saw the situation I stopped; the videoing should have too > https://www.facebook.com/ChildProtectionIreland/videos/2566360056973883/

Looks at the comments, they're doing it for the praise and attention and they're getting it in bucket loads.
It doesn't matter the lads mental capacity, it makes a good vid for Facebook.

I've seen these CPA lads when the camera isn't on and it isn't any bit as respectful or obliging as portrayed on the live feeds.

Nokia6230i

Stung the wrong man, a security guard, (names an individual) in a hospital (Portlaoise or Cork) on a previous sting from 15:46 in the video above & that man, accused in the WRONG, lost his job too?????

He should sue the hole off of his employers for wrongful dismissal so; because he shure as **** can't sure these vigilante scum as they've no legal standing and don't give their names, they've no assets or capital and can just f**k off into the sunset when they've done someone completely in the wrong in such a scenario.

So tell me CPA defenders & those who defend their actions; what do you think of that?

If AGS make a wrongful arrest they can be sued; they were done so in 2019 in a wrongful arrest case over a 2012 rape case.

So where does the security guard go to? It shouldn't have to be suing his employers for wrongful dismissal; it shouldn't've gone that far but for these vigilantes!!!

Strazdas

Nokia6230i wrote: »

CPAs latest sting from Sunday is of a guy in a ******* wheelchair who, quite clearly has additional needs to just that of being mobility impaired; yet they see fit to light him up & use his name?

He may not have the mental capacity to comprehend his actions; being in charge of an electronic device with access to the internet may not be in his best interests; given it's not a real child in these circumstances can these plebs not do the decent f*****g thing and simply alert the local barracks who can then take action without it escalating subsequently off camera as it inevitably will in his neighbourhood?

Video for context; I only watched first minute or so of it; once I saw the situation I stopped; the videoing should have too > https://www.facebook.com/ChildProtectionIreland/videos/2566360056973883/

That FB page is like a cross between a religious cult and a far right / extreme right outfit. The real weirdos are the people behind the camera and commenting on the videos.

sabat

What kind of person would walk into a facility like that and threaten someone with that man's conditions? To actually be capable of doing that? Genuinely one of the scummiest things I've ever seen-at the very least imagine what effect it could have on the other residents/clients.
You could make a strong case that the "hunters" are the ones guilty of sexual abuse here-I wonder what his mental age is or if he's legally considered a competent adult.

Ozymandius2011

There was an important test case last year (I forget the names as it was months ago) where a man in Ireland was caught by using such techniques and was convicted. Interestingly his defence did not use the argument that it was "entrapment". In fact the judge herself said when sentencing him that he could have done. Since this seems to be the first porn related case where we know such techniques were used, and since the man didnt invoke the entrapment defence, , its unclear how much of a precedent it will set.

Also The Irish Sun reported last year that a man was wrongly identified by CPA in Monasterevin as convicted sex offender Anthony Luckwill and was chased through the town by a mob and had to seek refuge with the Gardai. It illustrates the dangers of mistaken identity.

Nokia6230i

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There was an important test case last year (I forget the names as it was months ago) where a man in Ireland was caught by using such techniques and was convicted. Interestingly his defence did not use the argument that it was "entrapment". In fact the judge herself said when sentencing him that he could have done. Since this seems to be the first porn related case where we know such techniques were used, and since the man didnt invoke the entrapment defence, , its unclear how much of a precedent it will set.

Also The Irish Sun reported last year that a man was wrongly identified by CPA in Monasterevin as convicted sex offender Anthony Luckwill and was chased through the town by a mob and had to seek refuge with the Gardai. It illustrates the dangers of mistaken identity.

The Monasterevin case cost a seller a house; I remember Kildare Now put up a story about Mr. Luckwill being seen nearby or in the town itself; some knobs saw someone who looks like him (I'm not naming the guy; I know his name even without the Sun article and this is a number of years later; if I remember it so do others and that's the problem for him now but the mob don't care) and followed him round the town; he went on Liveline about it.

I remember seeing a comment under another persons FB post and her justification was....."Better to be safe than sorry".......crikey like!!

El_Duderino 09

I'm always amused that criminals take pride in giving sex criminals a hard time. As if the normal law abiding citizen thinks Jimmy the scumbag is morally superior to a rapist.

I suppose everyone needs someone to look down on. Criminals taking the law Into their own hands isn't something to be happy about. It's just 2 classes of criminals in a civil war.

pah

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There was an important test case last year (I forget the names as it was months ago) where a man in Ireland was caught by using such techniques and was convicted. Interestingly his defence did not use the argument that it was "entrapment". In fact the judge herself said when sentencing him that he could have done. Since this seems to be the first porn related case where we know such techniques were used, and since the man didnt invoke the entrapment defence, , its unclear how much of a precedent it will set.

Any more on this? I'm pretty sure there is no entrapment defence in Ireland.

Ozymandius2011

pah wrote: »

Any more on this? I'm pretty sure there is no entrapment defence in Ireland.

On the case concerned, I'm pretty sure I heard about it last year perhaps also on RTE but I dont remember the details. But the judge did say he could have used that defence.

There is an entrapment defence in Irish criminal law, though I dont know if it has been successfully invoked in this type of case before. More on the history of the entrapment defence here (lower down the page). The High Court has held in the past that test purchases (which in some cases might be considered entrapment in cases where someone is selling something illegal like cigarettes to minors) are allowed by law enforcement. But the ECHR has held that evidence obtained by "police incitement" is not in the "public interest" (page 98), because of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.

Strazdas

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

On the case concerned, I'm pretty sure I heard about it last year perhaps also on RTE but I dont remember the details. But the judge did say he could have used that defence.

There is an entrapment defence in Irish criminal law, though I dont know if it has been successfully invoked in this type of case before. More on the history of the entrapment defence here (lower down the page). The High Court has held in the past that test purchases (which in some cases might be considered entrapment in cases where someone is selling something illegal) are allowed by law enforcement.

I suspect what is happening here is that the Gardai and DPP are showing common sense and simply refusing to cooperate with the vigilantes, bar taking the details from them and mounting a cursory investigation.

It's a small country, unlike the UK.....they'e probably well aware that many of the vigilantes are criminals themselves (they no doubt recognise some of them).