TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Local town's Twitter feed of their police log - Don't own a camera, and certainly don't try to do your job when you're near kids

omnimon_X

October 29, 2017
972 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://imgur.com/Qhndy0s
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Local town's Twitter feed of their police log - Don't own a camera, and certainly don't try to do your job when you're near kids
Author

omnimon_X

Upvotes 972
Comments 77
Date October 29, 2017 1:12 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/79gemt/local_towns_twitter_feed_of_their_police_log_dont/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/local-towns-twitter-feed-of-their-police-log-dont.912181
https://theredarchive.com/post/912181

Comments

[–]TheWardylan 125 points126 points127 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Funny story time. I live in a small town so this is relevant.

A friend of mine works for the county government in the roads and civil engineering department. So obviously he has to go out to sites and document things.

We recently had a hurricane and so a lot of infrastructure was damaged. It was near a park in a newer development so think lots of stay at home mom types out a few days after the storm is gone. Well that combined with the calls about dangerous conditions meant that this road fix was a high priority. Additionally it was off of an intersection so it had to be fixed to alleviate traffic which had to be diverted.

So this county employee is in full vest, hard hat, with his uniform on of a button down and work pants and work boots. He's taking pics and radioing in things. He clears the crew to start the project and they get to work.

Well a few minutes later a county sheriffs deputy shows up and approaches my friend who he recognizes both personally and as the supervisor. They are small talking all the while the deputy is looking around. The deputy sheriff tells my friend that there had been calls about a man taking pictures. Well there was no immediate emergency and my friend was headed back toward his truck so the two of them walk together. The deputy had parked his patrol car next to the other county vehicle. At least then he would know it was safe and/or would be able to handle it if it was damaged.

As the duo are walking a few moms stroll up to the deputy saying "that's the guy" and "how did you find him?" The deputy is confused and asks the ladies a few questions. They stated they had seen my friend taking pictures of the children. The deputy responds "well ma'am he's with the county they are out here fixing the road and collecting debris from the storm." One of the moms responds "at least they didn't take as long this time." Referencing the hurricane the year before.

At this point both my friend and the responding officer try and clear things up that my friend is doing his job and the moms just are not buying it. They insist by now saying that my friend had walked up to the children at the park and taken pictures too.

At this point my friend and the deputy are both shocked by what these moms are saying. My friend offers to show his county issued camera to the deputy which he accepts. He inspects the photos and dismisses the call. But he doesn't say anything.

Instead the deputy takes the women to their vehicles , parked on the other side of the park, and takes their affidavits.

Then he returns to my friend and tells him what's up. The deputy shows the women all the photos on the camera. None of them have any pictures with the kids as the focus. None of them are close at all. My friend fills out his sworn statement and the deputy returns to his vehicle. All the while the crews keep working. None of this has stopped them from working as the confrontation occurs away from the immediate work site.

The deputy returns with a few pieces of paper. Both moms had out of date tags, one had a window that was suspiciously dark. When the tinted window mom goes to open her door to roll the window down so the device can be attached to check it, a couple pills fall out.

Now in Florida we now take pills very seriously. The lady didn't have a prescription. Turns out she was using some of her daughters pain pills from a soccer injury a few months before. Apparently the daughter hasn't used them all and mommy couldn't just drink more wine, so she takes pills too.

Pill mom gets hits with filing a false report, expired registration, 2 counts possession of a controlled substance, and a citation for the dark windows. She gets booked.

The other mom just gets the false report citation, and the kids all get home safe.

TL;DR noisy nosey paranoid moms try to cause trouble and get popped for lies and drugs.

[–]Sklushi 37 points38 points39 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Before you mentioned it i was like "This sounds alot like Florida "

[–]TheWardylan 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'll take that as a complement to my writing that without outright saying it's Florida, you get the feeling it is.

[–]BurstSwag 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The multiple hurricanes was a pretty big hint.

[–]topsecreteltee 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It takes LEOs with the integrity to do the paperwork and live the hassle of doing something about this BS to stop it.

[–]PowerPCNet 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not at all surprising. This kind of thing happens all the time.

[–]WillMeatLover 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, shame on me for continuing to be surprised by human stupidity. It's not even close to the first time, but I still just can't believe how fucking retarded these dumb bitches were.

[–]omnimon_X[S] 134 points135 points136 points 8 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Obviously a tweet doesn't explain the whole situation but Legion Field is the name of the Little League fields in this town. Not really sure what the town employee was supposed to do about there being kids in the area.

[–]mwobuddy 169 points170 points171 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention it is totally and completely legal to photograph, men, women, and children anywhere in public. Harassment of people performing legal actions by calling the police is essentially social forced ideologies of people to not do things that they don't like, regardless of the law.

[–]AbsoluteChill 77 points78 points79 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

yea but he has a penis which can be used to masturbate to the pictures of clothed children /s

[–]fuckyoubanhappymods 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah seems like pedopanic. I mean there isn't a victim in this scenario, but feels are more important.

[–]Revoran 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention it is totally and completely legal to photograph, men, women, and children anywhere in public.

This actually depends on your jurisdiction/country.

Though since OP said little league I guess he is probably in the US.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The police can harass whomever they like. That’s why people become police officers.

[–]mwobuddy 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, that is why, but its not what police should be capable of doing.

[+]maybejakkinit -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

If they just went and spoke with him, that's not necessarily harassment.

[–]mwobuddy 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If he's not doing anything illegal, then there's no grounds for 'having talk'.

[–]maybejakkinit 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just get the impression that this was conversation that ended with "have a nice day sir". I can't stir up outrage over that.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But what would've happened if he had been photographing children? Even though its legal.

[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Agreed, I think the safety of the children should be first priority here. Talk with the dude, if it turns out he's a photographer, great no issue; and everyone can move on without wondering why a guy has a camera around their kids.

[–]KingRobotPrince 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

So say he's an amateur photographer who's practicing his sports photography by taking photos of the kids playing baseball; how does he prove he's doing that and not a paedophile taking pictures of the kids to pleasure himself to?

Or, how do the cops know which he is?

Supposing he wasn't a city employee? What would have happened?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You can't do anything, as he would be legally allowed to do that.

From the parents perspective, they probably feel a lot better to have the cops come and ask a couple questions just to be sure. If he seems really off, and potentially pedophile-ish they have a suspect if kids start going missing from the neighborhood.

I think you should give someone the benefit of the doubt, and the parents should have talked with him first as well. But it's better to be safe than sorry.

If he's taking pictures in a public place, he is allowed to be approached by people, especially if they are curious as to why he is taking pictures.

You're being a little hypocritical. The guy is allowed to take pictures, and he wasn't stopped from taking pictures. If he's taking pictures of kids in an age where crazy shit like that is common in the media, he should be prepared to be asked questions. After all, it is a public place.

Parents are allowed to look after the well being of their children, just as much as this guy is entitled to take pictures

[–]KingRobotPrince 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

really off, and potentially pedophile-ish

What does that look like exactly?

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think there is a one profile fits all, it's more based on actions/social behavior than 'looks'. Even then you can never be 100% just based on that, but odd behavior around children is definitely red flag.

You seem to disagree with my points, but what exactly do you disagree with?

If you are taking pictures of kids, don't be surprised if the parents want to know why you are photographing their kids. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[–]Bascome 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It is reasonable of them to wonder, anything more is a problem.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And in what way is it a problem.

If someone is taking a picture of my child, it's 100% reasonable for me to ask them why.

It's not harassment, and it's not causing a problem. Not to mention it's completely legal and does not infringe on anyone's rights. So please explain to me how it is a problem.

[–]Onion_Guy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eh, sorry you’re being downvoted. Nothing you’re saying is unreasonable. This sub will go from (yes, weak analogy) “don’t wear low cut shirts and expect not to he stared at!!” to “don’t take pictures of kids in public (or look like you are) without being prepared to explain that it’s your job? That’s terrible! Sexist!” In a heartbeat.

[–]Qapiojg 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Here, lets put it this way.

What possibly could he have responded to them with for them do have done something? If he was a pedophile, do you ACTUALLY think he would have said "Oh yeah, I'm taking pictures of these kids to abduct them." or anything else that would show an actual crime being committed?

If your answer is yes, you're absolutely retarded. Otherwise, the police are just harassing the guy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

One of the stipulations for something to be harassment is continued behavior. Asking someone once why they are taking pictures of kids is not legally harassment.

You can't incriminate a dude for taking pictures, but if something did happen and there was a weird photographer taking pictures of the children prior to the incident they now have a suspect.

think things through before calling people retarded. Obviously you can't break the law over suspicion. It's perfectly reasonable behavior

[–]Qapiojg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One of the stipulations for something to be harassment is continued behavior. Asking someone once why they are taking pictures of kids is not legally harassment.

Hey dumbass, was anybody talking about taking them to jail for calling the police? Did anyone say those cops should be in jail for talking to him. No, nobody is talking about legality we're using the common fucking usage of the word harassment. Which is "aggressive pressure or intimidation." And calling a guy with a gun to talk to someone is, by definition, intimidation.

You can't incriminate a dude for taking pictures, but if something did happen and there was a weird photographer taking pictures of the children prior to the incident they now have a suspect.

And they'd have that suspect regardless of whether the police were called or not. Because those dumb old bitches are watching him do his job like a hawk.

think things through before calling people retarded. Obviously you can't break the law over suspicion. It's perfectly reasonable behavior.

I didn't call anyone retarded, I said you're retarded IF you believe calling the police does anything here. And you are, because it does absolutely nothing. You call them, they talk to him, they don't get his identity because he doesn't have to give it, if he was going to abduct a kid he's still going to, and if he wasn't you just inconvenienced someone because you're a complete moron.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow you're a pleasant motherfucker huh?

Harassment is literally continued behavior. If it's just aggressive and pushy behavior, it is not harassment. It has to be continued to be called harassment.

I'm only going to address your last part, because, honestly the rest of what you said is just said is bullshit, and everyone is now dumber for having listened.

They might not get his identity, but they would have a description, and in a small neighborhood people will remember seeing said photographer (in this hypothetical situation). A description can go a long way, to people seeing him at a gas station, getting his card details etc etc.

Wow so what a guy was inconvenienced for 30 seconds, at the cost of potentially stopping a pedophile. What a horrible thing to inconvenience someone taking pictures. Truly life ending. Grow the fuck up.

And you shouldn't call people retarded, when you are probably the dumbest person in this fucking sub. ("But I only said they're retarded if they think that!!" That's still a fucking stupid thing to say either way.)

You're an idiot, and a rude one at that

[–]Qapiojg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Harassment is literally continued behavior. If it's just aggressive and pushy behavior, it is not harassment. It has to be continued to be called harassment.

No, it doesn't. The definition of harassment is:

Harassment - Aggressive pressure or intimidation.

It's funny, Webster has a great example of this in definition B2:

to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct * was being harassed by her classmates * claims that the police were unfairly harassing him

Repetition is not required for harassment, only that it's unwanted and unpleasant or hostile.

I'm only going to address your last part, because, honestly the rest of what you said is just said is bullshit, and everyone is now dumber for having listened.

Everything I listed is factual and grounded in reality, unlike your inane babbling. They'd have a suspect regardless of whether the police came down, the only thing that would change is you now have 1 more eye witness. The police couldn't get his name or any identifying information, as he has no obligation to provide it.

They might not get his identity, but they would have a description, and in a small neighborhood people will remember seeing said photographer (in this hypothetical situation). A description can go a long way, to people seeing him at a gas station, getting his card details etc etc.

And they'd have that description regardless. It's not like you or the old bitty squad forget what the guy looks like. Your defense here amounts to "but then one other person knows what he looks like, so it's worth wasting police time."

Wow so what a guy was inconvenienced for 30 seconds, at the cost of potentially stopping a pedophile. What a horrible thing to inconvenience someone taking pictures. Truly life ending. Grow the fuck up.

You're the kind of dumbass who thinks police checkpoints are a good thing. Again, if you want to prevent crimes then don't breed. Stupid kids come from stupid parents, and stupid kids commit lots of crime.

[–]andalldaytodoit17 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3073095/Mother-mistakenly-shames-dad-thought-taking-photos-kids-Facebook-post-shared-hundreds-actually-taking-selfie-Star-Wars-display-children.html

[–]DarthCerebroX 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This kind of stuff happens all the time but most people refuse to admit it. They claim these are random exceptional cases but yet there are countless stories like this popping up all the time.

[–]ItGonBeK 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Detective Acting Inspector Allan Price from the Knox Police Service Area said the mother was acting with the best intentions

Lying = acting with the best intentions apparently.

[–]64Olds 114 points115 points116 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I had this happen to me: was in a hard hat and safety vest taking photos of trees which happened to be near a playground (ie doing my friggin' job) and got hassled by some overprotective she-beast. Like, calm the fuck down, lady - not everyone looking in your precious snowflake's general direction is a diddler.

[–]Diesel-66 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some lady called the manager because I happened to walk past her 3 times at Walmart. I was using a scanning app

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

when they get a lot of women to say "teach men not to rape" what they're really saying is that they want all women to believe that all men are rapists and to lose all control to their emotions around men... when in reality it's a fraction of 1%.

mother's infanticide is roughly on par with rape, and abortions are 100x higher. teach women not to murder babies.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://youtu.be/qhIznazqHRE

[–]skallyd 43 points44 points45 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Male taking pictures Dun Dun Dun :0

Oh, turns out it's Ansel Adams.

[–]fessus_intellectiva 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but all his pictures were in black and white. Racist! /s

[–]thinkdeep 42 points43 points44 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

This happened more than a few times while I was a journalist in a small town. Parents would accuse me of the worst shit imaginable even after I proved them who I was. They never cared and threatened to call the cops.

My answer was always the same, "Please do, I'll wait."

The thing was I knew all the cops. The usual thing that happend was they would pull up, see me, and proceed to talk to me for about five minutes about nothing while I gave the person (typically a lady) the biggest shit-eating grin I could muster.

[–]brontide21 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

And now you've just convinced the busybody that the cops are in on it too.

[–]Waizujin8 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

As if dumbasses need convincing?

[–]bakedpotato486 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As if dumbasses need convincing could be convinced?

Trust me, they need it.

[–]fuckyoubanhappymods 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean even if you were a pedophile who jacked to the kiddie pictures at home.. would it even matter? It's not child abuse, there is no victim. And they can't restrict you from being near kids just because they think you are dangerous, that's thought crime.

[–]DO_YOU_EVEN_BEND 39 points40 points41 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A rapist in mind is a rapist in kind.

If your first conclusion is that that man is there to fuck those children then you probably got children-fucking on the mind...

[–]BluNautilus 22 points23 points24 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It just pisses me off that
Man + camera = OK
Man + kids = Sometimes OK
Man + camera + kids = Not OK

There's literally hundreds of reasons for someone to take pictures while kids happen to be in the vicinity. If he was from the town I doubt he was even getting the kids in the frame to begin with. People are just looking to criminalize men for anything.

[–]Danabler42 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Someone tried to give me shit for driving an rc car around with a GoPro in it at a park until I proved that it wasn't turned on, didn't even have a battery in it, and I had left it in the roll cage and forgotten about it, because "the children!"

[–]BluNautilus 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To which I respond, when the f*ck did public photography become illegal? They have no justification for hounding you but they do it anyway.

[–]Danabler42 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, no, because people who have nothing better to do than watch the news and soap operas/reality shows and imagine how exciting their life would be if it was like a soap opera/reality show tend to try and create their own drama

[–]Diesel-66 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And even if he was taking pictures of the kid, so what?

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And if he was taking pics of kids for whatever reason, would anyone give a shit if he were a woman? Of course not.

[–]PaulMurrayCbr4 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

As Maggie McNeil pointed out - moral panics don't flame out until they start to affect middle-class white women.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mods and rockers would be a pretty solid counter example.

[–]SilentKiller96 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Omg did they just assume his gender??!

[–]weezel365 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this Legion Field in Birmingham?

[–]somefinfishy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This happens all over, i used to belong to a photographic society, every man there had stories of being called paedophiles whilst trying to take pictures of town scenes and kids happening to be around. A friend has had his picture posted on facebook twice as a warning as he was taking pictures of kids, his photos are of coastal scenes for a book he was making, some amazing pictures that he will no longer bother with as he is now demonised, I was even asked to do some photo shoots at a gymnastics club and could hear the comments. I don't bother any more.

[+]Dad365 -69 points-68 points-67 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Thats right ... lets shame the public into not calling. That way a few more kids could be kidnapped. Send the cops. Let them check it out. City workers have done bad stuff before. Its ok to call it in. This is a good thing.

[–]dysfunctional_vet 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No.

There's nothing good about wasting resources for frivolous bullocks.

[–]Dad365 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Assumes ALL OF THESE CALLS ARE NOT WARRANTED. Which is wrong. I can tell you right in this area in the last month we had a call of the same ... guess what. Hes a sex offender. Was watching a bus stop. They also changed a night time walk race awareness whatever since it was going to go thru the woods where hes homelessly living. So yes. Please call. Better than having our daughters kidnapped.

[–]dysfunctional_vet 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or we could, you know, be parents and be responsible for our kids.

But hey, why go to all that effort when you can just assume everyone is trying to touch your snowflake? Easier to just assume everyone and his dog is guilty without due process, right?

[–]stinkysmurf74 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a huge leap from taking picture and kidnapping children. Call about the illegal activity and lt the law abiding people be in peace

[–]DrBrownPhd 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You need to tone down that paranoia. When did cameras become magical teleportation devices?

[–]KingRobotPrince 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Absolutely. "Paedophile until proven otherwise!" Sounds awesome.

Do you not understand that you're basically saying that every man near children should be questioned in case he is a paedophile? As in, we think you are a paedophile so we need to check that you're not?

[–]Dad365 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. Im saying that at all. If some busybody calls the cops its not the end of the world. And yes sometimes it does actually do good. I have 3 kids. Ive been going to the playground for 18 years old. But ya know what ... i didnt get the cops called on me. Why ... maybe because what i was doing wasnt suspicious. Maybe what this guy did was. STFW ... called ... check out ... on our way. But if it was something. Well ... better to be safe than sorry.

[+]superspiffy 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Call the cops on every guy taking pictures of their kids in a park? If you see a dude in the bushes or something, sure, otherwise, kindly fuck off.

[–]Qapiojg 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

What does calling the police solve in this situation?

They'll never take him away BECAUSE HE'S NOT BREAKING THE LAW, so what does calling them accomplish other than wasting our tax dollars and giving you a big "justice" chubby thinking about stopping a potential kiddy fiddler, even though an actual chomo wouldn't have been deterred in any way by it.

[–]Dad365 -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Did you know some sex offenders have cant be near children in their probation parole restrictions. So for some guy to be taking pictures of kids ... might actually be breaking a restriction. So yes. Call the cops ... because if the guy is legit taking pictures nothing bad happens. But if the guy isnt legit and u dont call the cops ... well ... let just hope nothing bad happens. If the cops been called ... they know who it is ... something bad happens. They have something to go on. You wanna be the guy who stood tall on the mens rights morals and didnt call the cops. Then u find out a little girl was grabbed n killed. When ask u say .. well i saw him ... he looked creepy ... but he wasnt doing anything illegal. Cops say .. well he could be near kids. Thanks for doing ur part. This little girl is dead ... u saw it and did NOTHING.

Way to go !! U sure showed the man hating public didnt ya

[–]somefinfishy 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cameras aren't evil.. cameras don't rape kids, cameras don't kidnap kids. Funny that in your country there's more paranoia over cameras than guns. Someone stood in plain sight using a camera for a job where kids happen to be is not suspicious.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

because if the guy is legit taking pictures nothing bad happens.

Actually, something bad does happen. An innocent person gets harassed.

[–]Dad365 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its only harrasment if the cop is a dick. Which you assume he or she is.

[–]Qapiojg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Did you know some sex offenders have cant be near children in their probation parole restrictions. So for some guy to be taking pictures of kids ... might actually be breaking a restriction.

And being within a certain distance of a school would constitute such restrictions as well ** guess we should stop and harass every person walking within spitting distance of a school**.

And, by the way, he has no obligation to present any identifying information to the cop in this situation. You don't have to give ID to a cop asking you questions. So even in your moronic scenario calling the cops does nothing.

So yes. Call the cops ... because if the guy is legit taking pictures nothing bad happens. But if the guy isnt legit and u dont call the cops ... well ... let just hope nothing bad happens.

Nothing happens either way. If he's not legit and he's a pedo casing kids and you call the cops. They won't get ID because the pedo will flex his right to not present ID, they won't have any information because the dude wouldn't incriminate himself obviously, and he wouldn't be deterred in the slightest. You accomplish nothing, you most likely have harassed some guy who is trying to do his fucking job, and you're wasting police time and resources.

If the cops been called ... they know who it is ... something bad happens. They have something to go on.

They know who it is regardless of whether they dispatch someone, because the dumbass mom-squad is itchin to find them kiddy fiddlers and are keeping an eye on any men around.

I don't give a fuck about your appeal to emotion. If you want to prevent crime, you can start by not breeding.

[–]Dad365 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well. My appeal to emotion is better than your cop facts. And oh by the way ... that doesnt mean the facts i presented were wrong. Its just a convienient way to not have to answer them. Nice open discussion. Depending on the call ... he very well could be made to identify. Yep. Yep he could. Feel free to google terry stop. NM ... i did it for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop So the cop rolls up. Says hey how are u. Which kid is yours ? Dude says thats my daughter. Oh shes a cutie. You been taking pictures too ? (If he says yes ok if he says no the cop now has a reason for more questioning) yes ... i send them to my fb. Some other busy body moms were worried because they thought u were taking pics of their kids. Didnt know who u you were. Have a nice day. Says no to pictures. Hmm ... cops talk to other moms there. They say yes he was taking pictures. They even heard the camera click sound. Perhaps this is enough for a terry stop and identify. Id have to be in the moment to say for sure. Oh guess what ... hes a sex offender and cant be near kids. Guess who just got arrested. But you are all acting like feminists being super offended at everything.

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Terry stop

In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous."

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable police officer that the person stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity, as opposed to past conduct. Reasonable suspicion depends on the "totality of the circumstances," and it can result from a combination of facts, each of which by itself innocuous.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

[–]Qapiojg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My appeal to emotion is better than your cop facts.

Not at all, your appeal to emotion is nothing but fear mongering. It's the same logic that idiots used to justify lynching gays because they might touch their kids.

And oh by the way ... that doesnt mean the facts i presented were wrong. Its just a convienient way to not have to answer them. Nice open discussion.

The "facts" presented were wrong, I pointed out out exactly how they were wrong separately. Quit being retarded.

Depending on the call ... he very well could be made to identify. Yep. Yep he could. Feel free to google terry stop. NM ... i did it for you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion and even in your link it states:

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable police officer that the person stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity, as opposed to past conduct.

Taking pictures at a park does not constitute reasonable suspicion. They need evidence that a crime is or will be committed in order to do so. In addition most states do not require you to identify yourself or answer any questions during a terry stop.

So the cop rolls up. Says hey how are u. Which kid is yours ? Dude says thats my daughter. Oh shes a cutie. You been taking pictures too ? (If he says yes ok if he says no the cop now has a reason for more questioning) yes ... i send them to my fb. Some other busy body moms were worried because they thought u were taking pics of their kids. Didnt know who u you were. Have a nice day.

He's not required to answer any of the cops questioning, at all. And if he chooses to start answering, he can stop at any point. For reasonable suspicion in this case he'd have to blatantly admit to planning to do the crime.

Says no to pictures. Hmm ... cops talk to other moms there. They say yes he was taking pictures. They even heard the camera click sound. Perhaps this is enough for a terry stop and identify. Id have to be in the moment to say for sure. Oh guess what ... hes a sex offender and cant be near kids. Guess who just got arrested.

No, even that wouldn't be enough for a terry stop. But even if it did constitute reasonable suspicion even in stop and identify States you're not required to show ID. Stop and identify laws give police the ability to ask for ID, but the suspect has no obligation to provide it. The only thing they're required to give is a name, and an actual criminal wouldn't care about giving a false name.

But since you love hypothetical and emotional bullshit let's throw you one. You support Trump it seems based on a two second search through your history.

How do you feel about Obama's administration abusing FISA warrants to monitor Trump? I mean using your own logic it's fine to take away some of his rights to privacy in order to prevent a possible crime, right? How would you feel if it has turned out Trump really was a Kremlin agent and you'd decided not to spy on him with a FISA warrant?

If if if if if if if if if if if if a child is abducted because you didn't harass this guy in a park. Okie doke

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Terry stop

In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect's outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous."

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable police officer that the person stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity, as opposed to past conduct. Reasonable suspicion depends on the "totality of the circumstances," and it can result from a combination of facts, each of which by itself innocuous.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

[–]Dad365 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is absurd. You are nothing more than an internet tough guy picking and choosing what supports your case ... but ignoring stuff from the very same page that doesnt. Why dont you go just a little farther in the very same link i provided. Ya know where it says ... did you see where i said he lied about taking pictures. See there little boy. That in of itself IS grounds for a terry stop. "Police may question a person detained in a Terry stop, but in general, the detainee is not required to answer.[10] However, many states have "stop and identify" laws that explicitly require a person detained under the conditions of Terry to identify himself to police, and in some cases, provide additional information." So yes. In a terry stop ypu will be required to give your name in some places. Ive proven you wrong again .... with your own information. Quite acting like feminist and thinking the whole world is out to get you. Ive had the system crush me for being a man a whole lot more than you i bet. But that doesnt mean you have to act like a feminist and get huffy puffy about it. Ps ... remember those san berdino terroists ... husband n wife. Yeah ... the neigjbor wpuld have called because of their actions but didnt want to since he'd be branded a racist. You are demanding the very same thing from the public. Mens rights mens rights mens rights ... some little kid is gonna be snatched because of this nonsense over reaction by you and your kind. See ... u think they called the cops because he was a man. But step back away from ypur hurt vagina and say hey. Maybe they called because the person was acting suspicious. But whatever right. If a few kids get snatched because you are paranoid ... its ok right ... dont want to offend you. You ... long walk short plank ... go

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter