Couple Sues Wal-Mart for Calling Cops Over Bath Time Photos

[Catbert]

You can't tell the difference between an innocent photo of a child's bath time and child pornography? Would any nude photos of a child constitute child porn?

I possess bath time photos of my kids when they were around 3 and 4 years old, does that make me a pedophile?

Like I said sometimes common sense has to prevail, you obviously possess none.

So, have you seen enough child porn to know the difference yourself?

Answer to your first question mark. "There's plenty of child porn "bathtime." Sometimes the child's confidence is gained slowly. (I didn't see the photos.)

To answer the text connected with your second question mark. "No."

Answer to third question mark. "Would have to see content of the photos."

You seem a little touchy via "common sense" comment. Guilt feelings, perhaps?

Yes I have seen enough child porn to know the difference. I was a juror on a case that convicted a man of child porn and I had to see literally hundreds of images (none were "bathtime" photos) that was used as evidence in the case. The photo below in one of the eight photos in question and I'd argue that most families have pictures simliar to the one provided. A rational person would look at all the photos, 144 of them, and use their common sense.

As I stated before, "bathtime" is often the innocuous springboard for more graphic photos. Sadly, you chose to post one of the photos, which further exploits these children. Have you also seen the photos of them naked together lying on a bed? And, apparently the WalMart personnel were the "rational" ones who viewed all 144 photos and came to their conclusion to call the authorities.

I stand by my original comment: WalMart did the right thing, the legal defense failed.

 

[RodISHI]

I stand by my original comment: WalMart did the right thing, the legal defense failed.

That is another problem in this society. Running up of legal bills. It happens. Instead of ending cases that are known to be erroneous charges, many times prosecutors will continue with a prosecution for varying reasons. The ethics in some courthouses are totally bankrupt.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, have you seen enough child porn to know the difference yourself?

Answer to your first question mark. "There's plenty of child porn "bathtime." Sometimes the child's confidence is gained slowly. (I didn't see the photos.)

To answer the text connected with your second question mark. "No."

Answer to third question mark. "Would have to see content of the photos."

You seem a little touchy via "common sense" comment. Guilt feelings, perhaps?

Yes I have seen enough child porn to know the difference. I was a juror on a case that convicted a man of child porn and I had to see literally hundreds of images (none were "bathtime" photos) that was used as evidence in the case. The photo below in one of the eight photos in question and I'd argue that most families have pictures simliar to the one provided. A rational person would look at all the photos, 144 of them, and use their common sense.

As I stated before, "bathtime" is often the innocuous springboard for more graphic photos. Sadly, you chose to post one of the photos, which further exploits these children. Have you also seen the photos of them naked together lying on a bed? And, apparently the WalMart personnel were the "rational" ones who viewed all 144 photos and came to their conclusion to call the authorities.

I stand by my original comment: WalMart did the right thing, the legal defense failed.

And you can provide evidence that supports your theory?

The childrens identity is hidden so there is no exploitation, how could you possibly argue whether a photo was pornagraphic in nature without seeing the photo?

Yes I have seen those photos as well. Yes Walmart officials got it wrong. And I'm guessing they will settle this out of court and the parents will be vindicated.

"A medical exam of the children revealed no signs of sexual abuse, and a judge ruled that the photos were in fact harmless. "

"In cases of child pornography authorities need to prove sexual intent on the part of the parents, and that after the judge reviewed the case and the Demarees underwent psychological evaluation, it was determined that there was no such intent."

Police and prosecutors insist they did what they thought was appropriate. And they thought wrong.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So, have you seen enough child porn to know the difference yourself?

Answer to your first question mark. "There's plenty of child porn "bathtime." Sometimes the child's confidence is gained slowly. (I didn't see the photos.)

To answer the text connected with your second question mark. "No."

Answer to third question mark. "Would have to see content of the photos."

You seem a little touchy via "common sense" comment. Guilt feelings, perhaps?

Yes I have seen enough child porn to know the difference. I was a juror on a case that convicted a man of child porn and I had to see literally hundreds of images (none were "bathtime" photos) that was used as evidence in the case. The photo below in one of the eight photos in question and I'd argue that most families have pictures simliar to the one provided. A rational person would look at all the photos, 144 of them, and use their common sense.

As I stated before, "bathtime" is often the innocuous springboard for more graphic photos. Sadly, you chose to post one of the photos, which further exploits these children. Have you also seen the photos of them naked together lying on a bed? And, apparently the WalMart personnel were the "rational" ones who viewed all 144 photos and came to their conclusion to call the authorities.

I stand by my original comment: WalMart did the right thing, the legal defense failed.

You seem to know an awful lot about the way pedophiles operate. Is there something you would like to disclose to the group?

On a slightly different point, there seem to be quite a few of you that are missing the larger point about allowing the government an "oversight" right into personal actions. None of us want children exploited or abused, but what price are you willing to pay to reduce its incidence? You will never completely prevent it, so don't pretend you are defending the actions of the government in the name of preventing the exploitation of children. The best you can possibly do is reduce it.

The cost in this case is that a (probably) perfectly average and normal family is ripped apart doing (probably) irrepairable harm to the children because some underpaid (and doubtless) unfeeling bureaucrats decided that it was best to take the children away (no doubt) because if the parents did turn out to be pedophiles then they would be to blame for not removing them from the home. So you see the safe bureaucratic decision is to rip apart the family.

Is this really the correct balance for society?

 

[Catbert]

Lonestar, we can go rounds and rounds if you continue such erroneous statements such as:

"...how could you possibly argue whether a photo was pornagraphic in nature without seeing the photo?"

I never argued that the photos were pornographic, I haven't seen them. My posts clearly state that WalMart personnel, based on what they'd seen, did the right thing to report it so that the proper authorities could handle it.

And, tech_esq, your statement:

"You seem to know an awful lot about the way pedophiles operate. Is there something you would like to disclose to the group?"

could apply to the majority of posters in this thread. My "disclosure" that you seek comes through higher education in a related field.

 

[xsited1]

i'm pretty certain the Pedophiles are using Digital cameras and their own computer to download, vs getting their film developed at a walmart....

These people did use a digital camera.

ahhh, but they had walmart develop/print? Do pedophiles really take that risk, now a days?

I wouldn't doubt it. Why else would there be laws on the books requiring retailers like Walmart to report such incidents?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar, we can go rounds and rounds if you continue such erroneous statements such as:

"...how could you possibly argue whether a photo was pornagraphic in nature without seeing the photo?"

I never argued that the photos were pornographic, I haven't seen them. My posts clearly state that WalMart personnel, based on what they'd seen, did the right thing to report it so that the proper authorities could handle it.

And, tech_esq, your statement:

"You seem to know an awful lot about the way pedophiles operate. Is there something you would like to disclose to the group?"

could apply to the majority of posters in this thread. My "disclosure" that you seek comes through higher education in a related field.

Well dinglebert you accused me of exploiting the children by posting a photo, so I offered my reason for posting said photo. Do you even know what erroneous means?

How in the hell can you even argue any part of this topic without knowing all the facts, and part of the facts includes the photos. You must be one of those idiot liberals that makes a judgement without seeing all the facts. With the type of logic you display if Walmart employess reported a martian shopping on aisle nine you'd believe them "based on what they'd seen".

 

[Catbert]

Well dinglebert you accused me of exploiting the children by posting a photo, so I offered my reason for posting said photo. Do you even know what erroneous means?

How in the hell can you even argue any part of this topic without knowing all the facts, and part of the facts includes the photos. You must be one of those idiot liberals that makes a judgement without seeing all the facts. With the type of logic you display if Walmart employess reported a martian shopping on aisle nine you'd believe them "based on what they'd seen".

Ahh yes, predictably, Lonestar has reached that part of defeat that hides behind name calling, cursing, and attempted belittlement. it always surfaces as a last resort for those lacking the ability to intelligently discuss a matter. Time to give your old amygdala a rest, Lonestar.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well dinglebert you accused me of exploiting the children by posting a photo, so I offered my reason for posting said photo. Do you even know what erroneous means?

How in the hell can you even argue any part of this topic without knowing all the facts, and part of the facts includes the photos. You must be one of those idiot liberals that makes a judgement without seeing all the facts. With the type of logic you display if Walmart employess reported a martian shopping on aisle nine you'd believe them "based on what they'd seen".

Ahh yes, predictably, Lonestar has reached that part of defeat that hides behind name calling, cursing, and attempted belittlement. it always surfaces as a last resort for those lacking the ability to intelligently discuss a matter. Time to give your old amygdala a rest, Lonestar.

Defeat? You admitted to not reviewing all the facts but yet claimed Walmart employees were right. How the fuck can you know they were right when you, yourself haven't seen the photos in question? That's akin to Obama saying the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" after admitting he didn't know all the facts. I did call you a name "dinglebert" but I am not nor will ever hide. But hey that's a good way to dodge the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Catbert]

Ahh yes, predictably, Lonestar has reached that part of defeat that hides behind name calling, cursing, and attempted belittlement. it always surfaces as a last resort for those lacking the ability to intelligently discuss a matter. Time to give your old amygdala a rest, Lonestar.

Defeat? You admitted to not reviewing all the facts but yet claimed Walmart employees were right. How the fuck can you know they were right when you, yourself haven't seen the photos in question? That's akin to Obama saying the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" after admitting he didn't know all the facts. I did call you a name "dinglebert" but I am not nor will ever hide. But hey that's a good way to dodge the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Your concession is duly noted.

Relax, Lonestar. I read the descriptions of the photos in question and realized, from those descriptions, that I would have done what the WalMart employees did, i.e., act on my employer's tenets.

I do hope that one day you'll realize that profanity does not make you look big, bad, and tough, but it does make for impotent arguements.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Defeat? You admitted to not reviewing all the facts but yet claimed Walmart employees were right. How the fuck can you know they were right when you, yourself haven't seen the photos in question? That's akin to Obama saying the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" after admitting he didn't know all the facts. I did call you a name "dinglebert" but I am not nor will ever hide. But hey that's a good way to dodge the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Your concession is duly noted.

Relax, Lonestar. I read the descriptions of the photos in question and realized, from those descriptions, that I would have done what the WalMart employees did, i.e., act on my employer's tenets.

I do hope that one day you'll realize that profanity does not make you look big, bad, and tough, but it does make for impotent arguements.

What makes you think I'm not relaxed? Does profanity offend your sensibilities? Too fucking bad!! You've shown yourself to be a typical leftwing idiot and I'm perfectly comfortable with that. Your argument was weakened by your own admission of not knowing all the facts. If a verbal or in this case written description is all that is needed to form an intelligent decision then lawyerss would not rely on images to support their argument in the court of law.

The fact that a judge after reviewing the photos found nothing wrong is evident that the Walmart employees were wrong in their assessment. To their credit they thought they were doing the right thing, however the facts reveal that they were indeed wrong, no matter how much you wish the opposite. Now the question is how much money should the parents receive for their pain and suffering?

 

[HUGGY]

Parents Sue Wal-Mart After Children Taken Away Over Bath Time Photos - ABC News

Wal-Mart isn't to blame. It's the legislators who write the laws that require companies like Wal-Mart to report such photos.

The parents will come to thier senses if they are not just trying to steal money from a bogus law suit and eventually thank the police and walmart. After all they obviously have children. Some people are just stupid.

 

[Catbert]

[

QUOTE=Lonestar_logic;1539989]You've shown yourself to be a typical leftwing idiot and I'm perfectly comfortable with that

Well now that just made my day. Lonestar is wrong! But I'm glad you're comfortable in the error of your ways. Just shows how much you don't know when you don't take time to research a person or situation. How will you weasel out of this one?

And, while we're at it, tick mark another name call and profanity to your tally.

 

[HUGGY]

Relax, Lonestar. I read the descriptions of the photos in question and realized, from those descriptions, that I would have done what the WalMart employees did, i.e., act on my employer's tenets.

I do hope that one day you'll realize that profanity does not make you look big, bad, and tough, but it does make for impotent arguements.

What makes you think I'm not relaxed? Does profanity offend your sensibilities? Too fucking bad!! You've shown yourself to be a typical leftwing idiot and I'm perfectly comfortable with that. Your argument was weakened by your own admission of not knowing all the facts. If a verbal or in this case written description is all that is needed to form an intelligent decision then lawyerss would not rely on images to support their argument in the court of law.

The fact that a judge after reviewing the photos found nothing wrong is evident that the Walmart employees were wrong in their assessment. To their credit they thought they were doing the right thing, however the facts reveal that they were indeed wrong, no matter how much you wish the opposite. Now the question is how much money should the parents receive for their pain and suffering?

Nothing

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[

QUOTE=Lonestar_logic;1539989]You've shown yourself to be a typical leftwing idiot and I'm perfectly comfortable with that

Well now that just made my day. Lonestar is wrong! But I'm glad you're comfortable in the error of your ways. Just shows how much you don't know when you don't take time to research a person or situation. How will you weasel out of this one?

And, while we're at it, tick mark another name call and profanity to your tally.

I'm wrong? About what you not being leftwing or you not being an idiot? I got a fifty-fifty chance and hitting one of those right. You keeping track at my name-caliing and use of profanity? How cute. May as well add a few more to my fucking tally catfart!

 

[manifold]

You know you're dealing with a real cripple fight when both retards can't figure out the quote function.

 

[Graybeard]

Wal-mart was doing their duty to alert the authorities. I would not want an hourly Walmart associate try to use their judgment and be the final arbitor as to whether or not something is porn.

I don't know if the authorities made the right decision or not...I haven't seen the pics.

There were 4 pictures made public and from what I saw the children were wrapped in towels. The other pictures could not be made public because the attorney would have broken the same laws the parents were accused of breaking. I don't see how Wal Mart has any responsibility in this case. The law enforcement agency over reacted, the pictures were later deemed innocent.

 

[Catbert]

You know you're dealing with a real cripple fight when both retards can't figure out the quote function.

There's more than one way to use the quote function. If you prefer to continually drag all those incorporated posts down page after page of discussion, then be sure to click the "quote" button at the bottom of someone's post.

If you'd rather only copy the sentence or paragraph that you plan to discuss, just copy it and paste it in your reply, then click on the little icon at the top of the advanced posting box that looks like a speech balloon, and it will put the quote box around the text you selected.

That what it's there for. That's how it works. Gives new life to the "retards" comment, however.

 

[manifold]

Wow. You took the time to understand it and still couldn't get it right.


That takes a really special breed of retard!



but I still love the username

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You know you're dealing with a real cripple fight when both retards can't figure out the quote function.

There's more than one way to use the quote function. If you prefer to continually drag all those incorporated posts down page after page of discussion, then be sure to click the "quote" button at the bottom of someone's post.

If you'd rather only copy the sentence or paragraph that you plan to discuss, just copy it and paste it in your reply, then click on the little icon at the top of the advanced posting box that looks like a speech balloon, and it will put the quote box around the text you selected.

That what it's there for. That's how it works. Gives new life to the "retards" comment, however.

Did you just call yourself a retard!?!?!?!?

How quickly the self righteous falls!!