CeilingFly wrote: » Been hearing stories of issues he had when he was a teenager himself. Back then he fancied much older women. Would love to give the first hand stories - they are very funny, but can't
gctest50 wrote: » Have you any source for that information or is it just in your own head ?
Strazdas wrote: » If the police needed assistance in their work (and they don't), the last people on earth they would go to would be a bunch of scumbag chavs with criminal records like these vigilantes.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41203273 Police admit they may have to work with "paedophile hunters" after figures obtained by the BBC revealed a rise in their evidence being used in court. Figures show 11% of court cases in 2014 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the crime of meeting a child after sexual grooming used vigilante evidence, rising to 44% in 2016
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Or, we could require the police and the courts to actually do their jobs - that way, vigilantes wouldn't be needed.
gctest50 wrote: » did you miss this ? .
Chrongen wrote: » Since the gangs probably really only care about the shock value and clicks/likes/views I'm sure it won't take long for them to realise that they can make infinitely more cash by blackmailing the perp.
Peatys wrote: » Or they're not just in it for the shock value/clicks/likes/views/cash. They think they're doing the right thing by children. Probably.
Strazdas wrote: » The idea that police need the assistance of vigilante groups is clearly complete nonsense. In all of the criminal activities they investigate, they work alone and not alongside members of the public (for a load of legal reasons that should be perfectly obvious to anyone). The vigilantes have forced themselves onto the main stage of 'crime solving' unwanted and uninvited by anyone.
BoroMan32 wrote: » Disgusting. One look at his fake Facebook page and you'd know he belongs behind bars.
Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: » He's getting a rake of abuse on both profiles atm.
Dev84 wrote: » Madness. Your logic is typical lefty liberal portect everyone except the law abiding hard workers.
Dev84 wrote: » The means are fully justified by the outcome.
Dev84 wrote: » What innocent people?
gctest50 wrote: » They may be working together soon .
Chrongen wrote: » Then why not stay anonymous and just pass their findings on to law enforcement?
Mebuntu wrote: » Just on a point of law. How can you be charged with committing a crime against someone who doesn't exist? Any legal eagles on here?
....... wrote: » Well so far he hasnt been convicted of any crime that I am aware of. However, dont let that get in the way of trial by social media. This is exactly why this type of thing should not be allowed. We have due process for a reason.
end of the road wrote: » we can have a problem with both. people are capible of caring about multiple issues.
end of the road wrote: » it actually backs up his opinion. the police cannot say publically that they have no time for these groups, but it is well known that they don't have any time for these groups.
weldoninhio wrote: » Get 10 small baggies. Half fill each with baking powder. Bring them to a nightclub. Get a friend to “tip-off” the Gardai that you are selling drugs. See if they laugh it off as no harm done, or charge you with dealing.
DrPhilG wrote: » I have no issue with the video being shown. The look of absolute despair on these peoples faces as they realise their lives are screwed should be a serious deterrent to someone on the verge of stepping over the line from fantasy to reality. But it should not be live. Should be released only after the suspect is convicted.
....... wrote: » Really? There could well be books in peoples homes, anatomy books for example, with pictures of penises, genitalia etc... I cant say Ive ever read a case where someone was charged for showing a child such an image. (obviously context would be different). Im just interested to know the actual crime committed. We can all agree it sounds wrong - but I wonder what the crime is?
Grayson wrote: » There are occasions where they do open themselves up for a civil suit. However the question isn't "Have they broken the law" but rather is this the correct way of doing what they do. There's an ethical question about whether this guy did anything wrong. He talked with adults and didn't make contact with a child. It may be that he has on other occasions but in this particular case he hasn't. It's like the difference between screaming racial abuse at a black man or screaming it at a black mannequin or a white person in blackface. Even if we excuse that and assume that the vigilantes were correct in what they did, there's the question about whether or not they took the correct action afterwards. If they had handed over all the information to the police they would have the same effect. Someone would be arrested and charged. So why turn it into a public spectacle? That's the main difference. They did it because it made them feel good. there's no practical benefit. It's not going to stop any other paedophiles. It'll just make them more careful. And if anyone here can show me proof that their actions in creating a spectacle have prevented any crimes, then I'd like to see it. Once they had the evidence they should have turned it over to the police and that's it. That is the safest way of doing this. They don't risk damaging any ongoing investigations and they don't risk naming someone who might be innocent. The simple fact is that these guys do what they do because it makes them feel like heros. they don't care about the potential negative impact of what they are doing all they care about is that they get to slap themselves on the back in front of a large audience.
Omackeral wrote: » Do you know any of the people in this particular group? Can you share their names with us? Have you got any links to their criminal histories?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
