Strazdas wrote: » I agree that he's a wrong 'un and a creep but would you not be even a little bit concerned about a guy in his mid 50s being entrapped in this manner if there are no other victims uncovered by the cops? Why would there be no other victims traceable if his favoured form of grooming was online? If there are other victims, then by all means throw the book at him.
gozunda wrote: » Exactly how familiar are you with the myriad of offenders who have been suspected and / or convicted for paedophilia? Please link to the stats that show how many do or dont have other convictions for similar crimes. These cnuts don't materialise out of thin air. They 're ones making contact with both the real and virtual victims. Remember paedophilia is not only actual abuse - it also involves the indirect abuse of children groomed for pornography and the online .sex industry. This is not a victimless crime either. If they truly have done nothing wrong - then they can't be convicted of criminal acts.
Omackeral wrote: » Would you rather he got to abuse a real child before getting sent down? Or would you rather he was caught before having the chance to destroy a young girl's life. He had every intention of committing statutory rape. He had a list full of real underage age girls on a fake Facebook account. Add them elements together and tell me it's a bad thing he's caught.
Strazdas wrote: » zHow come these would be predators never seem to have a string of convictions or their arrest doesn't lead to a load of other victims? You would imagine the cops could go through their mobile phone records and social media accounts and charge them with a load of offences relating to other victims. And yet the only thing they ever seem to have done is talked to the vigilantes online. This is what worries me, that the vigilantes are merely 'creating' criminals where none exist.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Yeah, cause I thought it would shut you up. Clearly not.
Strazdas wrote: » It certainly does matter. Wouldn't the police be far more interested in charging him with genuine sexual abuse of real people than with having a conversation with a bunch of middle aged men online?
JenovaProject wrote: » So the best bit is how he was questioned...ok...whatever floats your boat.
The best bit is seeing a paedo getting caught red handed.
Edit:Outlaw deleted his post I replied to.
JenovaProject wrote: » FFS...it doesnt matter if he did it before he was going to do it this time!!!!
Strazdas wrote: » If he has done it before and there actual real victims as opposed to a fake one, that surely would come to light given that the cops could trace his social media activity since the moment the account was opened.
gozunda wrote: » That's is certainly one possibility. However in the video the spokesperson clearly states they are videoing what is happening to protect them both. But also in the face of the evidence they have gathered and the guy admitting who he was - the group clearly states their wish to broadcast to as many people as possible - who the guy was and what he had been doing and also what he planned to do with what he the '13 yr old girl' I find the groups methods were quite meticulous in that they carried on with the meeting right up to the point of the time and place he had arranged with the girl in order to be able to hand that information over to the police. I believe that had the suspect seen the police around he would have legged it. The group also used one designated spokesperson to talk to the guy and didn't imo engage in a mob mentality. The spokesperson was quite restrained considering the issues at hand. I believe once they had the suspect in hand- they then rang the police to report the matter and not before. The police would have been unlikely to have arrived there that quickly- hence the time spent talking to the guy and publically live streaming the encounter in that it could not be thrown at them that they used threats or violence in this instance. Whatever we think of the methods employed. They appeared to have achieved the end result of the arrrest and charging of the suspect by the police.
PARlance wrote: » ... The only defence I can think of re the publicity is that they're doing it so the Police have no option not to act or work with them.
Omackeral wrote: » As I already said, this creep had a Facebook page devoted to young girls under a false name. If he's sending sick pics to a decoy (who he thinks is a real child) then chances are he'll do it to one of these actual girls given half the chance.
Strazdas wrote: » If some middle aged saddo in his 40s or 50s in a bedsit fantasies about this type of stuff, he doesn't pose a threat to society, only if he acts on these fantasies. It's debatable whether a lot of these guys would ever try and meet anyone if they hadn't come into online contact with the vigilantes (no inverted commas).
Strazdas wrote: » How come these would be predators never seem to have a string of convictions or their arrest doesn't lead to a load of other victims? You would imagine the cops could go through their mobile phone records and social media accounts and charge them with a load of offences relating to other victims. And yet the only thing they ever seem to have done is talked to the vigilantes online. This is what worries me, that the vigilantes are merely 'creating' criminals where none exist.
JenovaProject wrote: » No just to young girls....ffs. There is no usual suspect in these cases. Any fcuker from any backround can decide to groom young underage girls for sex. Fcuk him and the horse he rode in on. Cant belive some of the crap posted tonight,these "vigilantes" are saving young girls lives from being ruined and theyre doing it all within the law.
Omackeral wrote: » I've no love for innocent people being hit by vigilantes but this chap was far from innocent. They had the transcripts from his conversations to hand. Yes they could have just handed it to the police but this video shows him admitting things on film and catching himself out. That could prove useful. Also, I think their work here was fairly thorough, they knew his flight times and which hotel he was going to. They did their research. In other words I think they're more than just a group of scumbags out for a fight. They're gruff and rough sounding but fcuk it, they got a result and got the police to arrest a would-be predator. I wouldn't be having a go at them.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » You're thinking of 'Synopsis'. 'Highlights' means the best bits.
Strazdas wrote: » For sure, but this specific guy seems somewhat or even very unusual compared to the usual men caught by the vigilantes ie. being a TV producer and travelling to another country to meet the "girl". From what I've seen of previous cases, they've often caught middle aged loners living in bedsits and the likes. Even if they catch one genuine predator, it's debatable if a lot of men they are catching are serial predators or abusing a number of victims. If they entrap a 50 year old loner who has never done anything before, it's a complete waste of time and resources IMO, it's unlikely such a person poses a threat to society.
JenovaProject wrote: » Thats odd. Highlights were paedo getting caught red handed.
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*******
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.
Omackeral wrote: » They did give the info to the police in this instance. It's all there in the video.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Highlights were:
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.
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?
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
