Strazdas wrote: » I'd be against it myself. Self appointed vigilantes have no role in a civilised society. I would be extremely wary of the motives of any private citizens doing this stuff....I can't help thinking a lot of them are probably scumbags themselves looking for some form of fame or validation.
Zillah wrote: » The legal framework here is curious. He's being charged with encouraging a 13-year-old girl to engage in sex. But there is no actual girl, it was a fake account run as a sting. Like, if I see a silhouette in the dark and I stab it with a knife and it turned out to be a mannequin I can't be charged with attempted murder. He's a scumbag and can rot in a dungeon for all I care, but it's interesting from a legal standpoint that one can be charged with a child sex offence without there being any actual child involved.
yesto24 wrote: » But a civilised country would have no need for vigilantes. Where the police or state fail to enforce the law or fail to enact legislation to catch such people vigilantes will and should step in. I have no problem with this happening. It is the second best option.
PandaPoo wrote: » My son has a game on the tablet, it's aimed at kids aged 7-12. I always check through them and Google them to see if they're suitable.. .turns out there's a chat function on it to chat to other users. Such an odd and unnecessary feature. Wonder how many other parents don't realise it and their kids are chatting away to God knows who.
GT_TDI_150 wrote: » Some of the commentary on the girls pictures is disturbing ... some of tbe post from uber creepy looking ****ers seem to point at the girls acceptig friend requests from these weirdos ... Is the need for friends on face book really that great? Ive rejected friend request from people sitting a desk away from me in work... i dont get on with u in person, im not gonna accept some phoney electronic handshake.. And on the lad himself i hope he gets a kick in the sack every remaining day of his life. Alarm goes off at 08.00, kick in the nuts by a designated kicker at 08.05, every morning!
Tell me how wrote: » Is it just me or is the thread title deliberately inflammatory? It implies that this person's job description included an instruction to behave as a paedophile. He just happens to be an RTE employee.
Dev84 wrote: » Guy:Incognito wrote: » Any summary of the 40 min video? Does he sit and spill his guts to them when they nab him or what's the deal? No. Rabbit in the headlights stuff.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Any summary of the 40 min video? Does he sit and spill his guts to them when they nab him or what's the deal?
end of the road wrote: » ....the state is the only legitimate enforcers of the law. vigilantes would most usually be very dubious people and should be looked upon with the suspicion they deserve. you might get the odd case of not but i wouldn't trust them as far as i could throw them myself. i'd take the gards with their faults every day of the week. if these groups actually do give a damn, campaign for the resources to be given to the police and campaign for a change in the law so that paedophiles are locked up for life. they would actually get support for that across the whole of society.
fatknacker wrote: » Yeah it must be gone. All I can see are a bunch of regular type Asian dudes of same name.
DrPhilG wrote: » I can still see it. He has a picture of u2 at Croke park which now has 180 comments (and they ain't about music)...
LewisR wrote: » It's sexist against men so it's OK.
Strazdas wrote: » The counter argument is that the vigilantes are "creating" criminals. A lot of the guys they seem to catch are middle aged saddos and loners and one wonders if many of them pose any threat to society or if they have committed any other crimes at all.
gozunda wrote: » The police do not appear to have issue with how he was reported and there appears to be actual evidence that he posted pornographic photos to the targeted profile. He has been charged and arranged for court appearance. I don't think we need worry about how he is to be charged - that's for the courts to decide. The fact is that he believed he was contacting a young girl and he then acted on it by arranging to meet up with her with the alledged intention of illegal activity. He was 'caught' as he arrived at his prearranged meeting place.
gozunda wrote: » If anything it's going to make paedophiles think twice about trying this sh!t elsewhere - if it results in them getting caught or not doing it in the first place - I and sure others don't have any problem with that.
gozunda wrote: » I note some evident low level attack on the group who caught this guy out like the above - branding the group as "weirdos" or some type if criminals etc - beware shooting the messengers for the reason that some perhaps don't like what is being outed. I would have concerns with that response tbh ...
gozunda wrote: » The group are not 'enforcers'. They reported him to the police who charged the guy as required. I have serious issues with those booting the messengers in this regard - almost as if they are attempting to blame them for the crimes of the paedophiles. Very strange response indeed. Eotr - I always took it that you advocated that it was the duty of concerned citizens to act out of moral and civic duty to report criminal or otherwise illegal behaviour? Why does that change here? I don't get your volte-face with this issue with regard to paedophilia at all ...
Minderbinder wrote: » Have I missed something here or do people still not understand what a paedophile is?
end of the road wrote: » nope. the state is the only legitimate enforcers of the law.
deco nate wrote: » My mind is melted, didn't one of these groups targeted an innocent man and he hanged himsel/f killed himself on one of they're investigations? I'm not a fan of the live FB feed bollocks. When these groups can just had over the evidence that they have on to the courts to the police yet they don't. It really is how great are we, we found perverts, but we will live stream it. Instead if telling the police. Cos we are the law. Why the fook otherwise would they not give their info and let the law deal with it? Hope they have good insurance when they hit someone is innocent they will lose everything. Better leave to the people that know how to deal with it. (give all info to the police an stop the we are hero b*******)
You know what they call you ere?? No. Pedo scum bastid! But I'm not. I just wanted to take her to see Leeds play. Is this your penis? I don't know. You don't know your own penis?? Well they all look the same. You're a clever bastid, you! You want us to let you go? Yeah. No, we won't.
end of the road wrote: » the police have a difficult balancing act here. they need to keep the peace in these situations where these groups are involved. they need to get the suspect away to the police station, and not cause a situation where people start to cause any trouble. I'd reccan that the police being seen by these groups to be sort of okay with them, even if they actually aren't, means there is a large chance of being able to get the job done. it's how the legal framework will work, that is being discussed by a couple of posters who your reply is aimed at, rather then people worrying about how he will be charged. it's an interesting discussion in itself and one worth having i think.
end of the road wrote: » sadly i think you are naive on this one. if you were right we wouldn't have an issue with such people. unfortunately we do.
end of the road wrote: » how so. people have seen it before with what can happen when this sort of "justice" goes wrong. so it's not surprising they believe these groups to be untrust worthy. they are likely not wrong.
end of the road wrote: » there is a big difference between a random person or witness simply giving information to the gards, and these groups.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Highlights were:
Omackeral wrote: » They did give the info to the police in this instance. It's all there in the video.
Omackeral wrote: » This particular guy was talking to three decoys, at least, posing as young girls. He was saying suggestive stuff and sending pictures of his penis. I know the argument is there that he wasn't talking to real girls but when you couple it with the fact he had a fake FB profile with exclusively teen girls as friends I'd say it's a good thing he was caught. He could've easily got chatting to any of those Facebook friends via private mail and steered the conversations the same way as these ones with horrific potential.
deco nate wrote: » See, that's the problem. They gave the evidence After they live streams across Facebook. They had the info before the stream. If they had given the info to the police before hand, the police would have been there waiting to arrest him. But they didn't, they waited till they streamed it before they called the cops. Because they are heros in there small minds. I'm sure one of these groups streamed an Innocenced guy before. And he killed himself. Just give the evidence to the police and stop the b*******
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
