So called 'paedophile hunters'

[motherofdragons33]

Apologies for sensitive subject but am I the only person who finds these so called hunters problematic?

There is a video currently circulating my social media of a 'sting' on a young man from a town not far from where I live. He has allegedly been talking sexually to who he believed was a 13 year old girl but was actually a decoy. The video shows the sting and is 45 minutes long. During the video he faints and his parents are involved, presumably this is a huge shock to them and they seemed confused and were defending their son.

The comments were terrible. Lots of people saying the parents must have known and should be arrested too. Comments about them looking like 'nonces' themselves. This is where I have the issue - people who have no involvement get dragged into the public lynching and have their lives ruined when it's probably come as a horrible shock to them too.

I'm not sympathising with this person of course, if he's done what he's accused of then it's sickening and he should be punished. But is this the right way to go about things? I can't help but feel like this type of Facebook vigilante justice is a bit of a glory hunt and is quite irresponsible. There are many cases where genuine police investigations have been hampered by them. And do the immediate family whether it's parents, spouses, children deserve to be dragged into something they know nothing about?

I had a change of heart about this a few years ago.
after seeing To Catch a Predator type programmes I thought it was a needs must situation and even if it wasn't palatable the benefit of having someone do it outweighed the cons.
as it's evolved, Facebook live streams and mob justice etc I've realised it's not only unproductive with removing real paedophiles it's a very sinister vehicle for paedophiles to exploit as well as the potential for errors being devastating.
Better policing and justice goes without saying and I'd support a civilian task force with the correct training and scrutiny but these latest vigilante types, at best are glory hunters and at worst the fox is in the hen house. What better defence to a murky hard drive than public, well documented crime fighting?

I kind of agree. I think to catch a predator was good, some of them really needed to be caught.

These people don't need to be on the streets. Of course we need police officers doing stings for CSA, that can't be debated. Vigilantes aren't doing stings for CSA, I was talking about officers.

I meant CSA images, whoops. Vigilantes aren't looking for images, there's no real children involved. I've confused myself now.

Low hanging fruit really , catching a learning disabled person - ok good but that's not really sorting the global problem.

There's that TV show Criminal, this is an episode - the paedophile didn't give the correct name / details so they falsely accused someone else who committed suicide when 'exposed'

I've heard it prevents justice because of the way in which it has been done. There's an episode documentary on C4 about it - the police also do what paedophile hunters do but are far more careful with it to ensure prosecution.

Again, “stings” aren’t needed for any sort of crime.

Police can go through proper legal channels to identify the owner of an online account, whether it’s chatting to children, sharing images, whatever. Then they make conventional arrest enquiries.

at no point is it necessary to “sting” anyone. The only reason hunters need to arrange a meet is because they cannot correctly identify an online account so the way they do it is arranging a meet and assume the person who turns up is the offender.

We seem to think own judgement is what matters, not a judge or jury, it's a dangerous road to mob rule and unfounded oppression.

These "hunters" aren't just hunting they are acting as self-appointed judge and juries.

Innocent until proven guilty, doesn't matter if you're Jimmy Saville, Price Andrew or the Yorkshire ripper.

I'm ambivalent on the subject. On the one hand paedophiles who act on their desires are monsters who can do lasting damage. And if the only way to stop these people is to be a vigilante, so be it.

On the other hand, I suspect the vast majority of these stings would never have got to this stage IRL. It's only because there's a '13 year old' eager and 'gagging for it' that the conversation continues to where it does and they even think of meeting up. So the vigilantes aren't so much exposing the problem as causing it.

I agree with you OP, but only because these so called 'paedophile hunters' only do it for the live feeds. From first hand experience, they are then very reluctant to actually work witht he police to provide evidence that can actually be admissable in court.

Majority of the time doctoring their own evidence, only providing parts and thats if they even bother to return calls and give statements. Half the time they then refuse contact with the police and nothing can actually be done.

Of course you're not the only one 🙄 and they're more than 'problematic' -
they're a bloody menace: self-proclaimed 'heroes' who are invariably just thick as fuck inadequates. They act illegally and they make prosecution impossible, usually. I detest them.

And if the only way to stop these people is to be a vigilante, so be it

it isn’t. And in fact these vigilantes actions means more offenders go unpunished because they can’t be fairly prosecuted once they’re all over the internet and there’s no proper evidence.

although friend of mine is a police officer and apparently they have some bloke who does this. However he pitches up every so often with a complete case folder all on the correct legal forms, documented properly, and leaves it with them. That’s actually stuff they can use, no need for these elaborate live streamed “stings”.

This.

I think it would be a very easy defence for a paedophile caught in this way to simply say:

'I knew it was really a 40 year old man, but I enjoy that kind of role-play' in order to explain themselves.

The police do undertake similar sting operations, the difference being that they will have been trained, the conversations will be monitored, moderated and conducted often in tandem, and, they will have taken legal advice and protocols on how to conduct the sting without prejudicing any subsequent prosecution.

I used to be all for it then saw innocent people like that doctor get targeted-its jsut not the way to go even if the intention is good

Just watched it then. I too think the parents should also be arrested for defending him. I have zero zilch nada problem with saying that.
I thought the female hunter was very polite when she said "Can we have a chat". To which the mother then replied "No you can't give him a rest."
Give him a rest!!!!! Give him a fucking rest!!!!!!!How about kids getting a rest from predators and groomers. To say she's also a Social Worker. !!!!
Is she going to use the give him a rest chestnut to the Police and The Judge.
Also I've never saw anyone faint like that in my life.

What, even if they are wrong and wreck an innocent person's life in the process?

What is the most problematic, is when real creeps get caught, the court releases them, because some bloody idiots tampered with evidence, making it inadmissible.

What if they met a real child and destroyed their whole lives.!!
What if works both ways.

Perhaps putting the 'sting' on Facebook is meant to make child abusers think twice about what they do online and what they talk about.

I've heard sentencing remarks on cases where the defendant was caught by a police officer posing as a 14 year old. The police and courts do take it seriously even when there was no victim. The problem with vigilantes is they don't necessarily know the law and may compromise a case by broadcasting information, and by doing the "posing" wrong. For example the police officer never said anything sexual, and an important part of the case was how the "kid" would be talking about football or movies and the perp would bring the conversation round to sex. Rather than the "kid" bringing sex into it.

Obviously it's better if paedos are caught through the use of fake kids than actually doing harm to real ones but non-professionals getting involved is probably a bad thing on the whole.

I agree.

What crime should their parents be arrested for exactly?

Is she going to use the give him a rest chestnut to the Police and The Judge.
Also I've never saw anyone faint like that in my life.

It might not get as far as a judge because of these vigilantes.

Agree with this

I agree with others who have said it compromises the perpetrator getting a fair trial, which therefore means they won’t be convicted and locked up. From what I’ve seen a lot of people who are part of these vigilantes are dodgy themselves- perhaps not child sex offenders but still deeply unpleasant all the same.

The whole “sting” including whoever it is pretending to be a child, is very fucking dodgy.

Well for defending the Paedophillic son for a start.

What if they met a real child and destroyed their whole lives.!!

and what if they got “stung” by vigilantes and then got away with it because their handling meant there was no legal case?

so off they go back into the community, only this time they’ve learned and don’t get caught.

I thought the female hunter was very polite when she said "Can we have a chat". To which the mother then replied "No you can't give him a rest

and the mum is right to not let them talk to him. If she’s a social worker she may be aware of the correct legal process. If he’s “interviewed” on camera, without his rights being read, without being offered legal representation, and not by a warranted officer, then if he’s guilty he’s going to get away with it, if he’s innocent his face will be plastered all over and he’ll never live a normal life.

if it was your son or husband what would you do? Let vigilantes turn up and accuse him with no evidence? Or tell them to fuck off and take him down the police station so it can be investigated properly?