View Single Post
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:04 AM   #275
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350

Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Dave - not that I'm arguing the pedophile angle per se. But you've shown a couple times in this thread that you'll act as though you know criminal justice (smell and probable cause) now the criminology of pedophile behavior. I'm very interested - what is the source of your absolute certainty on the behavior of pedohiles (note I'm not accusing you so don't misread - but you're statement is a fact of how they behave or don't behave and I'm questioning as I did with your probable cause statement the basis on which you can make the claim. This, in my opinion, is one of the problems with debate -when one party introduces their opinion as fact. So, please enlighten us as to how you are certain that people who want to abduct a child never take photos of them first and how you know for certain that pedophiles never take photos of live children.

In other words, just like in a debate - I'd like you to cite your source for this information.
you make a good point, John G (about providing the source of your facts)...
But Tcav, my question is even if an abducter did take a photo first, does that change anything? Would they not abduct had they not taken a photo? How is the photo assisting in the crime? That's what I don't get...and again, I'll allow for my ignorance.
Furthermore, to say "someone somewhere might possibly take a photo before committing a crime" isn't a good enough answer to call the police. Someone somewhere might possibly draw a map before committing a crime, also--but just because you see someone drawing a map doesn't mean it's worth calling the police and the police following up.
I just don't see where taking the photo (specifically) can lead to harm, that's all. Therefore, I don't see where taking a photo would be suspicious. Meaning, if there aren't additional reasons to be suspicious (such as driving slowly around the neighborhood, talking to small children).
I agree that in this case we do not know what caused the father to be suspicious. I just don't see why the police would need to investigate if that's all the father told them ("someone took a photo of my daughter in the back seat of the car"). But, of course, we don't know what the father told the police, either...
javacleve is offline