Strazdas wrote: » And they've taken to wearing black uniforms / jackets with the name of the vigilante group printed on them. It's so obvious they are trying to set themselves up as some sort of militia or alternative police force. It's no wonder the PSNI have taken to prosecuting the vigilantes and treating them as criminals. A gang of 8 or 10 people surrounding a person and preventing them from moving for an hour (whilst screaming abuse in their face and live streaming it on Facebook) is clearly a criminal act. Only the police force have the legal right to stop and detain people on the street, absolutely nobody else.
McCrack wrote: » There is a lot of inaccuracy in this thread Please look up Criminal Law Act 1997 and in particular Section 4 which permits any person to arrest another that has committed an arrestable offence
Hector Savage wrote: » Also, lets say someone is about to shoplift ... but chickens out and doesn't do it ... so hasn't committed an offence, can they be done for it ? In this case too, I mean we all are fairly certain he would have acted if there had been a girl there, but there wasn't and he didn't. Who knows how people would act, maybe chatting online is one thing but when he saw the child in reality he would have copped on and walked away ? It brings up a lot of tough questions, where do you draw the line on intent ...
Hoboo wrote: » An arrestable offence is defined as a crime punishable by more than 5 years in prison, you can not detain someone for any or every crime.
McCrack wrote: » Yes, hence why I specifically said "arrestable offence"
Strazdas wrote: » If you have a trail of documentary or online evidence about a person you believe to have committed a crime or who is planning to commit one, you should pass that evidence onto the police and allow them to proceed as they see fit. You do not have the right to surround the person along with eight of your mates on the street and illegally detain them for half an hour or an hour. There is only one legitimate police force.
AllForIt wrote: » Pat Kenny tonight at 10pm talking to the vigilant group.https://www.joe.ie/movies-tv/pat-kenny-predator-exposure-619380
McCrack wrote: » But you see the right of arrest in a public place exists Refer to Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1997 Use of information and communication technology to facilitate sexual exploitation of child is an offence under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 punishable on indictment up to 14 years - therefore it is an "arrestable offence" - therefore any person/s can detain/arrest another person in a public place for this offence.
Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: » I wonder will he be able to refrain from swearing?
Strazdas wrote: » Catching someone who has just mugged somebody on the street or carried out a violent assault and with who there is a serious chance they might get away and never be identified is one thing. Setting yourself up as a private police force, amassing evidence and then detaining or effectively 'arresting' people on the street is quite another. What if the person you detain turns out to be innocent? It means you have unlawfully imprisoned them for a period, as well as intimidated and harassed them.
AllForIt wrote: » Check out these numbskulls on LBC just last week.http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/paedophile-vigilante-group-dark-justice-lbc/ I was rather surprised by this lowbrow interview by James O'Brien. For example he enquired as to what they did before they became hunters and they said they ran a media company. Pfff...they can hardly speak properly. Check out how they explain how they get away with using pics of young girls used for the entrapment - if you can understand a word they are saying - like. They seem to be very well supported on the legal side of things because they hardly figured out all that by themselves did they. It's almost like someone is putting them up to it.
McCrack wrote: » Remedies exist both civil and criminal for false imprisonment and defamation. I was simply pointing out that the actions of these groups are perfectly lawful and they can exercise powers of arrest - in fact any person can once an arrestable offence has been commited and as Ive said using technology to facilitate sexual exploitation of a child is an arrestable offence.
Strazdas wrote: » There is still only one legitimate police force. The real police want nothing to do with vigilantes.In Northern Ireland, the PSNI have taken to prosecuting such vigilantes and have warned other such groups to desist from their activities immediately and that their actions may be criminal.
Flippyfloppy wrote: » Regarding vigilantes, dont such groups resort to violence? I haven't seen any 'paedophile hunters' resort to violence, just stand there and pass time usually >45mins) until the Gardai arrive.
pilly wrote: » I wouldn't call what they do pass time. They usually verbally abuse the person constantly for that 45 minutes. Not that the paedos don't deserve it but I'm not sure of the merits of live broadcasting it all.
Flippyfloppy wrote: » That's true, I have heard verbal abuse from some of them. I find it irritating that in places like the U.S. you can enter in any postcode to their sex offender website and instantly see if there is (and there always is) sex offenders in your area. I know what the groups are doing isn't 100% right but in the absence of a public sex offenders register, and as I personally know of young teenagers exploited via the internet who received SFA help from the Gardai in the matters, I'm glad of these groups presence in a way. Hoping it will lead to some changes down the line!
pilly wrote: » So if there are sex offenders in every single area what's the point in knowing?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » would you not like to know that some person down the road is a sex offender so you can make sure your kids are kept away from them?
pilly wrote: » I'm not actually sure tbh, if what the poster says is true and they're in every area then I think it's then more about keeping your kids safe from strangers in general which I think most mums do. I wouldn't like the paranoia that goes with constantly watching one person. It's about watching your kids.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you are assuming that they are all strangers. You wouldn't like to know if somebody that you were acquainted with was a sex offender?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » grooming a child is an offence in itself.
Feisar wrote: » In this instance there was no child though. So may I ask, what did is the actual offence here? I'm in no way trying to defend this lad or say he shouldn't be locked up. I'm just trying to understand the actual crime committed.
splinter65 wrote: There’s no point. For every identified sex offender in your area there’s loads more that are operating under the radar hoping not to get caught. If everyone just made sure that they knew where their kids are and who they are with and didn’t leave them unattended in the company of adults they don’t know then paedophiles couldn’t act.
pilly wrote: » Agree but as was pointed out above it could easily be someone you do know.
