CreepCatchers

[Thai]

You are saying that you prefer children be put at risk of being molested than the risk to the public of these people being confronted by ordinary citizens?

Oh nevermind. Like I said earlier, keep that shit in Canada.

 

[ThorInc]

You need to have kids to truly understand the importance of being a good parent and teaching them right. Being a good parent is the most important thing a person will ever do. Ever.

What I'm saying is that you teach parents to be better parents. That will save a lot more kids than going after the bad guys but it's not flashy doing it that way.

Why you see a different response here than elsewhere is conservative bias and education. Most of us believe in teaching to take care of family instead of just taking care of them. This is a fundamental difference between the left and right. It might not help immediately but it will help the future.

Now, this is idealistic.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[hikenbike]

I'm talking about the legal disclaimer displayed prominently on their homepage as well as the 'rules' given to the guys I know locally.

As I've said. I'm not denying the risk involved.

Creepcatchers has rules.
Creepcatchers has rules.
Creepcatchers has rules.

Exactly how many times do you need to say this to yourself before you start believing it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[-JD-]

Now, this is idealistic.

I'm not saying I disagree either, but that its not entirely realistic. Relying on EVERYONE to do the right thing ALL OF THE TIME is never a realistic solution.

Creepcatchers has rules.
Creepcatchers has rules.
Creepcatchers has rules.

Exactly how many times do you need to say this to yourself before you start believing it?

I guess its about as believable as any rules applied anywhere, no? Whether someone chooses to follow the rules comes down to personal responsibility and I wouldn't have to look hard to find examples of people choosing to break the rules everywhere. Whether it be work place, safety, the law, etc.

 

[-JD-]

Oh nevermind. Like I said earlier, keep that shit in Canada.

I'm just curious as to where you draw the line? I mean, if a guy was actively abducting a child, then could you intervene? Or would there still be too much risk to the public nearby?


I understand that they are engaging these guys BEFORE they've commited the crime, and at this point they only know of their intent to do so. But at the same time I feel like waiting until they've commited the crime is a sick approach for this particular crime.

I find it ironic that someone who is so pro concealed carry has a problem with citizens engaging criminals in public. Its very much the same argument anti-gun people make. That untrained civilians engaging criminals puts the general public at risk.

 

[Crazysnowbdr]

I didn't want to comment on this post but I read all the replies. This group is skirting a very thin line of legality and opening themselves up to soooooooooo many lawsuits. Lets say one of these predators are killed by someone that saw the video of them online. They are then open to a lawsuit or even possible criminal prosecution. Yes doing this to children is terrible, but at the point that they are outed to the public they have not committed a crime. Intent is not criminal thoughts are not criminal, if they were half of us would be in prison for thinking about killing our bosses.

As for the statement of just standing by while a child is being abducted is completely absurd. Nobody in their right mind would watch a child be abducted.

Side note yes I do have a kid.

 

[-JD-]

I didn't want to comment on this post but I read all the replies. This group is skirting a very thin line of legality and opening themselves up to soooooooooo many lawsuits. Lets say one of these predators are killed by someone that saw the video of them online. They are then open to a lawsuit or even possible criminal prosecution. Yes doing this to children is terrible, but at the point that they are outed to the public they have not committed a crime. Intent is not criminal thoughts are not criminal, if they were half of us would be in prison for thinking about killing our bosses.

As for the statement of just standing by while a child is being abducted is completely absurd. Nobody in their right mind would watch a child be abducted.

Side note yes I do have a kid.

Thoughts are not criminal, no. If you had written transcripts detailing your plans to do so that may be another story though.


I completely agree from a legality stand point. From a moral stand point I'm not so certain though.

 

[TotalAutomotiveLV]

We came here excited to see a new product to eliminate turbo boost creep.

We have no idea what we walked into :whipping2:hiding::shrug:

 

[Thai]

I'm just curious as to where you draw the line? I mean, if a guy was actively abducting a child, then could you intervene? Or would there still be too much risk to the public nearby?


I understand that they are engaging these guys BEFORE they've commited the crime, and at this point they only know of their intent to do so. But at the same time I feel like waiting until they've commited the crime is a sick approach for this particular crime.

I find it ironic that someone who is so pro concealed carry has a problem with citizens engaging criminals in public. Its very much the same argument anti-gun people make. That untrained civilians engaging criminals puts the general public at risk.

I already answered your first and last set of questions...see quote:

I practice and have conceal carry because police are not usually timely in protecting my family in times of (extreme) need. However, i do not conceal carry to protect others outside my family circle unless extraordinary series of events somehow occurring right before my eyes leaving me no choice but to intervene on someone else behalf.

Your second paragraph pretty much sums up what is wrong about vigilante justice. Somehow your writing reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report.

I practice and carry to protect me and my family...nothing more, nothing less.

I do NOT engage criminals that are walking around UNLESS they are an immediate deadly threat to me or my family...and i will only use deadly force if it is the last resort in saving me or my family.

Your way of thinking is what pollutes the public perception of what conceal carry stands for. I have no idea about gun laws in Canada, but you have no clue about the role of conceal carry here in the USA.

 

[wallytoo]

I practice and carry to protect me and my family...nothing more, nothing less.

I do NOT engage criminals that are walking around UNLESS they are an immediate deadly threat to me or my family...and i will only use deadly force if it is the last resort in saving me or my family.

Your way of thinking is what pollutes the public perception of what conceal carry stands for. I have no idea about gun laws in Canada, but you have no clue about the role of conceal carry here in the USA.

exactly. succinct and to the point. maybe that particular canadian will get it, but i wouldn't hold my breath. my cc is for my protection, period. i'm not out to be a hero/savior to anyone else, nor am i out scouting for criminals or criminal activity. however, i feel no sadness nor sorrow for pedophiles/predators who meet bad results, either. reap what you sow.

i said earlier, canada is utopia; the US is a pit. but i'll take my pit all day, every day, to any other place on earth.

wally

 

[-JD-]

I already answered your first and last set of questions...see quote:



Your second paragraph pretty much sums up what is wrong about vigilante justice. Somehow your writing reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report.

I practice and carry to protect me and my family...nothing more, nothing less.

I do NOT engage criminals that are walking around UNLESS they are an immediate deadly threat to me or my family...and i will only use deadly force if it is the last resort in saving me or my family.

Your way of thinking is what pollutes the public perception of what conceal carry stands for. I have no idea about gun laws in Canada, but you have no clue about the role of conceal carry here in the USA.

and I agree with most of what you've said. For me though the issue gets a bit more morally cloudy when it comes to child sexual predators. Is it a 'deadly' threat? Not exactly, but it is a constant one. Knowing that these predators could be out there in school parking lots, ball fields, community centers, beaches, malls, etc. It's not always an apparent immediate threat, but it could turn into one without much warning or notice, and I find it hard to argue in favour of waiting until that happens to do something about these sexual predators.

My question about where to draw the line was based on the fact that you know these guys are online engaing young girls, you know they had intent to meet up and engage in sexual acts. If that is not enough than what is?

 

[Bigshankhank]

My question about where to draw the line was based on the fact that you know these guys are online engaing young girls, you know they had intent to meet up and engage in sexual acts. If that is not enough than what is?

Here is exactly where that whole "parenting" thing comes in to play. Its not always about being right next to your kid to at all times watching over their shoulder/keeping them from climbing into a gorilla cage, its about teaching them lessons about life from early childhood so that when they are faced with the early stages of a potentially dangerous threat/person they know how to handle it when you are not around. Remember the old PSAs about asking who is at the door when Mommy and Daddy aren't home, rather than just opening the door when someone knocks? It was aired in the 70's you may not be old enough. Same basic principle. We taught our children that, should they ever find themselves in the grip of someone who they were not familiar or comfortable with, to just keep fighting & biting and screaming because whatever that person was going to do to them was worse than getting a twisted arm or punch in the face. Shit, when they were old enough to really understand it, we told them to fight even when facing down a barrel, because again they'd be better off dead that molested.
Its a harsh world, its on you to teach your kids how to deal with it.

As to your question of "If that's not enough, what is?" That kind of thinking leads to all sorts of civil rights violations. Suddenly every little boy on a playground is a sexual predator because he looked at my little princess and he had an erection, every bro driving a sweet-ass van is a perv (which is actually kind of true :hello and on and on. Slippery slope and all that.

Teach yo kids to deal with their shit!

 

[techno]

I'm torn on this subject. On one hand I'm a generally pro law enforcement and think their job should be left up to them to decide the best way it needs to be done. However, in reality they are often highly restricted in what they can and cannot do and are often greatly under resourced to perform their function effectively and efficiently. That means that bad dudes often get away doing bad stuff, so when any other sort of reaction/justice/revenge/karma happens, I admit it makes me smile.
I would prefer to see these kinds of groups fall under some sort of law enforcement oversight. Maybe something like a volunteer police force or similar with training requirements and professional management.

Regarding the role of parents, unfortunately this world is packed full of people who should never be allowed to breed. All though my family lives in a 'nice' part of town, my wife works in a school in a 'bad' area and the stuff she sees and deals with first hand seriously makes you want to cry. These kids have no way to choose what parents they have. Some of them need an intervention of some kind to help them out, regardless of who it comes from, LEOs or wanna-be-LEOs.

 

[Thai]

My question about where to draw the line was based on the fact that you know these guys are online engaing young girls, you know they had intent to meet up and engage in sexual acts. If that is not enough than what is?

I am NOT trained to confront mentally unstable individuals nor do i have the appropriate tools to prepare for such confrontation. I do NOT have the backing of the law to confront these individuals. I do NOT have a leg to stand on in a court of law if injury or death happens to creeper or surrounding public.

Again, please refer back to my previous post regarding my position.

 

[-JD-]

As to your question of "If that's not enough, what is?" That kind of thinking leads to all sorts of civil rights violations. Suddenly every little boy on a playground is a sexual predator because he looked at my little princess and he had an erection, every bro driving a sweet-ass van is a perv (which is actually kind of true :hello and on and on. Slippery slope and all that.

Teach yo kids to deal with their shit!

Except you are forgetting one key piece of information. These aren't kids on the playground or random passers by, these catchers have detailed chat transcripts describing the sexual things these guys intend to do, along with pictures (often nude) that they believed they were sending to children. Big difference.

I'm torn on this subject. On one hand I'm a generally pro law enforcement and think their job should be left up to them to decide the best way it needs to be done. However, in reality they are often highly restricted in what they can and cannot do and are often greatly under resourced to perform their function effectively and efficiently. That means that bad dudes often get away doing bad stuff, so when any other sort of reaction/justice/revenge/karma happens, I admit it makes me smile.
I would prefer to see these kinds of groups fall under some sort of law enforcement oversight. Maybe something like a volunteer police force or similar with training requirements and professional management.

Regarding the role of parents, unfortunately this world is packed full of people who should never be allowed to breed. All though my family lives in a 'nice' part of town, my wife works in a school in a 'bad' area and the stuff she sees and deals with first hand seriously makes you want to cry. These kids have no way to choose what parents they have. Some of them need an intervention of some kind to help them out, regardless of who it comes from, LEOs or wanna-be-LEOs.

BINGO. Sums up how I feel, both about the issue of these creeps, and the subject of parenting.

I am NOT trained to confront mentally unstable individuals nor do i have the appropriate tools to prepare for such confrontation. I do NOT have the backing of the law to confront these individuals. I do NOT have a leg to stand on in a court of law if injury or death happens to creeper or surrounding public.

Again, please refer back to my previous post regarding my position.

Got it. Your position is that one should wait until a child is being abducted before acting. Nothing wrong with that opinion, you just seem to be unwilling to own it in plain language. Always vague references to other things you said that infer it.

 

[00Sebby]

Protecting children from predators is the job of attentive parents, law enforcement, parents, a community, and parents.

Parents are responsible for their children.
Police are responsible for enforcing the laws for everyone.
Community is not responsible for anything.

- Parents are responsible for protecting children from predators.
- Law enforcement is responsible for protecting children by removing predators from society, and while it ultimately fails at that, is therefore responsible for making society aware of where the pervs are now living.
- Back in the day (yeah, I'm getting old), the community was also responsible for protecting children. Kids were always running around and playing at various neighbor's houses. If kids were doing something stupid, any parent could intervene. If there was a bad element in the neighborhood, all parents would pay attention. I think that kind of community is lost on today's society.

Though I'm not a fan of vigilantism, these CreepCatcher guys are part of their communities and kind of doing what the community used to do but in a more risky, overt manner.

 

[Bigshankhank]

Except you are forgetting one key piece of information. These aren't kids on the playground or random passers by, these catchers have detailed chat transcripts describing the sexual things these guys intend to do, along with pictures (often nude) that they believed they were sending to children. Big difference.

Please read what I wrote. Teach your children how NOT to find themselves in a situation where they are sending nude photos of themselves. I know, its more fun to pull a trigger than to make a better smarter child. That shit takes some work!

Got it. Your position is that one should wait until a child is being abducted before acting. Nothing wrong with that opinion, you just seem to be unwilling to own it in plain language. Always vague references to other things you said that infer it.

Wow, I know a guy who developed a "Jump to Conclusions" mat, he was gonna get rich but I think he got pretty badly hurt in a car accident and it never made it to market. Shame.
Seriously, I don't know Thai but I am smart enough to extrapolate from what he wrote that he is merely unwilling to engage in vigilantism against suspected criminals, not that he would meekly stand by and allow a child to get kidnapped. But even so, if I were standing alongside a playground, up until the moment that someone puts an unwelcome hand on a child I would not approach someone who merely "looks shifty" and attempt to accost them. Hell, I wear my working-on-the-cars clothes and don't shave on the weekends and end up looking pretty rough around the edges come Sunday afternoon, doesn't mean I'm looking to roll over a little girl and pretend its a little boy for some variety.

 

[-JD-]

Please read what I wrote. Teach your children how NOT to find themselves in a situation where they are sending nude photos of themselves. I know, its more fun to pull a trigger than to make a better smarter child. That shit takes some work!

Please read what I wrote. One, children are not sending nude pics, creeps are sending them to children. Two, the issue of parenting has been discussed ad nauseam already.

Wow, I know a guy who developed a "Jump to Conclusions" mat, he was gonna get rich but I think he got pretty badly hurt in a car accident and it never made it to market. Shame.
Seriously, I don't know Thai but I am smart enough to extrapolate from what he wrote that he is merely unwilling to intervene in vigilantism against suspected criminals, not that he would meekly stand by and allow a child to get kidnapped. But even so, if I were standing alongside a playground, up until the moment that someone puts an unwelcome hand on a child I would not approach someone who merely "looks shifty" and attempt to accost them. Hell, I wear my working-on-the-cars clothes and don't shave on the weekends and end up looking pretty rough around the edges come Sunday afternoon, doesn't mean I'm looking to roll over a little girl and pretend its a little boy for some variety.

Again, no one is advocating going after someone for merely "looking shifty", I don't think I, or anyone else, has said anything of the sort. You are jumping to conclusions.

Thai has stated he is unwilling to intervene in vigilantism until someone threatens his children or his family. He never directly answered the question about the abduction of someone else's child but I'll assume he would also intervene in that situation. Therefore I came to my conclusion above: "Your position is that one should wait until a child is being abducted before acting."

 

[Thai]

Got it. Your position is that one should wait until a child is being abducted before acting. Nothing wrong with that opinion, you just seem to be unwilling to own it in plain language. Always vague references to other things you said that infer it.

WTF?! Huh?? Wow. I think that you have left me speechless for the first time on this forum with your ignorance. :wow:

Good luck with your little vigilante group.

 

[-JD-]

WTF?! Huh?? Wow. I think that you have left me speechless for the first time on this forum with your ignorance. :wow:

Good luck with your little vigilante group.

Would you please state in clear language what you are trying to say then. I'm not sure why its so difficult for you to clearly state your opinion as it applies to this issue without relying on hypothetical scenario's, vague conjecture or nationalism.

My understanding of your opinion is this: Catching sexual predators should be left up to police. Regular citizens should not engage them in any way until they are directly threatening them or their children.

Is this correct?


PS-Your snarky sarcasm is never helpful. Nor is this "my" vigilante group. You've really become a master of agitating without QUITE crossing the line.

PSS- I'd also be interested in hearing your summation of MY position. It might help clarify things if I know what you are thinking I'm saying...