deco nate wrote: » Sorry, I wasn't on point yesterday when I posted my views on those groups. I just assumed people would understand my point at the time. But looking back at my post and replys. I found out I omitted this part of my argument. That is on me. It's a pity I didn't put this as the main point. Again, sorry
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » He broke the law.
wonderfullife wrote: » Tell that to Darren Kelly who was stabbed to death after a vigilante sting operation by another paedophile hunter group in Essex. He was lured to a meeting and killed by the group because he was resisting. Oh and he was resisting because he was completely innocent (text messages proved he was led to believe he was meeting a grown woman). "Speaking after the hearing senior investigating officer Detective Chief Inspector Stephen Jennings said: “While nothing will bring Darren back, we hope the verdict will help give his family some closure so they can move forward. “Darren was viciously attacked and lost his life due to the completely unfounded belief that he intended to meet an underage girl. “Essex Police strongly deter anyone from vigilante behaviour at any level. They could be acting upon inaccurate information and putting innocent people at serious risk. “Anyone who has a genuine concern about potential criminal activity should always contact us so that we can investigate and not take the law into their own hands." Win some, lose some I suppose, right?
Strazdas wrote: » As I said further up the thread, there's a real risk you're 'creating' criminals where none exist. A pervert or potential predator only becomes a threat to society if he (or she) is actually acting out his desires and meeting and abusing people. If the vigilantes are luring people who have never actually abused anyone, then it is debatable if they achieved anything and this would also be counterbalanced by the trauma, distress and shame they have caused to the family, relatives and friends of that individual. Saying that all of this would be down to the perv and nothing whatsoever to do with the vigilantes is a cop out - they're the ones who have turned this stuff into a career and a mission.
:...the BBC revealed that 44% of prosecutions in 2016 for the crime of meeting a child after sexual grooming in England, Wales and Northern Ireland used vigilante evidence - up from 11% in 2011. Chief Constable Simon Bailey, who works as the national lead for child protection, admitted, “I think [working with them]'s something we're going to have to potentially have to look at, yes, but it comes with some real complexity." Source: https://www.irishcentr...exual-activity-child Like it or not it would appear that these groups are making some signifiant impacts with regard to the collection and use of evidence in relevant court cases
deco nate wrote: » That's the courts, nothing to do with the hard work the police force put in to the case.
gozunda wrote: » Yes you said that- once again without any qualification Do I really have to post this for the third time? Jeez H Chxst .... Unlike Santa Claus these scum do exist and are getting caught .
Omackeral wrote: » That's horrible and they're scum. I haven't once advocated violence against these suspects by the way. Major difference in this case we're discussing is that the police were en route from the start of the video. Nobody was physically harmed or injured.
Lackey wrote: » When you see scumbags walking away from our courts with 80+ convictions, including the lenient sentences that are handed down for sex crimes..... people taking things into their own hands is no surprise. I'm sure we would all like to be against it...until its one of our kids on the wrong end of it.
Omackeral wrote: » Anyway, you don't really engage in proper debate IMO, it's just ''nope, proof, wrong, fact'' in no particular order.
deco nate wrote: » Your posts in full, I said that's the courts. Not the police, I said the police work hard, not their fault a judge let's them go. Your post alludes to the police not doing enough, so people take things into their own hands.(ie.) vigilante law
gozunda wrote: » Adults targeting young children for sex is not normal behaviour either and yet you fail to mention this. Why?
gozunda wrote: » Are those attempting to stop such behaviour really deserving of your derision?
gozunda wrote: » Not everyone may agree with the methods however the proof that their operations do work are there for all to see.
Lackey wrote: » I quoted my full post and can quote previous posts where I have specifically said a guards job is like pissing against the wind You are focusing on a point that I have clarified twice, I can see why these situations will happen If it was one of your kids would you keep a cool head...but before you reply really think about it. Close your eyes and picture an adult sending one of your young teenagers pictures of their genitals...fantasising about them asking them questions about their body and arranging to meet up with them. Edited to add/change the tone of my post: as no actual vigilantism took place in this case ...I'm just interested TBH what your stance would be if it was a child close to you and not the hypothetical child in this case
lukesmom wrote: » Not sure how I feel about the groups who use decoys to target and catch potential pedophiles. On one hand I think it's great to expose them and catch them out when they are on the way to meet their victim. On the other hand they are taking the law into their hands and are pretending to be younger than they are. They aren't 'technically' catching the supposed pedophiles physically doing anything wrong apart from apparent grooming, which by all accounts seems to be quite sketchy if the transcript above is anything to go by. I have very young children myself and the thought of them being groomed terrifies me, but at the same time, how can you be sent to jail for trying to groom and rape a minor that turns out to be a decoy? Where is the justice in that?. I also have watched quite a few of the videos where they rock up to where they have agreed to meet the perpetrator. There can be quite a bit of laughing and immature behaviour from these groups which really undermines their apparent intention and does little to validate their sincerity. I'm really 50/50 on how ethical this practice is (the decoy).
Strazdas wrote: » It doesn't help either that every one of them seems to be an inarticulate chav from a rough housing estate. They are unlikely bedfellows to be helping the police and I'd say the cops on the beat are sick of them and want absolutely nothing to do with them - these are people they'd normally be arresting rather than "liaising" with.
mkdon wrote: » Did this monster have kids himself? Was he married? Rte suspended him - surely that means he is fired for good? Did gards check his laptop
GT_TDI_150 wrote: » I for one am happy people like him get caught before they get their hands on any real life kids (as far as we know anyway).
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Vitaly did a prank version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3txXyKfQZ4w
wonderfullife wrote: » ....... During the course of the conversation, the Decoy then reveals "Oh by the way I am actually 15 is that ok?". Look let's call a spade a spade - that's not targeting paedophiles or trying to protect children. It's trying to entrap people who clearly are not seeking out children and for whatever reason they continue the conversation after the Decoy reveals a lower age. The whole lot of these groups - and their tactics - stink to high heaven.
511 wrote: » I discovered that video a few months back. She easily looks like she's in her 20s. Rumour has it some of his videos are fake.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » Except the ones where he did porn, including gay porn.
wonderfullife wrote: » Nobody was physically harmed or injured partly because the fella didn't resist or attempt to run or fight. So what if police were en route? Police were on the way to Darren Kelly too but he was stabbed in the meantime. Not everyone will be passive. People will get hurt, people will die. Innocent people have lost their lives and had their lives destroyed by these groups.
rebel456 wrote: » And gay porn is worse?
wonderfullife wrote: » It's MENTAL that this carry on happens on a daily basis in a country that's supposed to be against this sort of carry on. SMH.
Strazdas wrote: » Reaction to those 'paedophile hunter' documentaries that were shown on Ch. 4 in recent times was overwhelmingly negative towards the vigilantes. People felt what they were watching was disturbing and sinister, definitely not something positive or empowering. It's obvious that the police would secretly regard these guys as scum and nothing but a nuisance but they cannot say so publicly, especially as the vigilantes are going on the pretext of supposedly helping the police.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
