ok..so let me get this straight..because some Wal-Mart developer, who is probably a pedophile sees a picture of naked babies (which is very common for people to take pictures of their children in the tub), and freaks out, and makes people spend $75,000 on legal bills, and they want to sue Wal-Mart, and we agree, that makes us pussies. Listen..just because you're a creepy little bas who probably lives in mommy's basement and has no social life, that doesn't mean that we're pussies because we're normal people. Here's a hint. If you get into a conversation, and everyone disagrees with you, you're normally wrong...either that or an idiot. With you, I'd say it's both.
then cry havoc = pussy
you = pussy +10000000
so were the pics just of the 18 month old, or also of the 4 and 5 year old? 4 and 5 is NOT a "baby", and naked pics at that age is kind of weird at least in my opinion.ok..so let me get this straight..because some Wal-Mart developer, who is probably a pedophile sees a picture of naked babies...
However, I agree with everyone that nothing should have been reported.
It was poor discretion on the parent's part.
Don't 4 and 5 years olds take baths on their own anyway
no, ya'll are pussies because noone in this thread agrees with the walmart employee (except for ploto, who is dumb) yet you still give your pussy opinion as if you're saying something new and insightful. cry havoc is NOTORIOUS for this. he thinks he's reeeeeaaaaal smart, and you're just like him, pussy.
i mean read this and till me this kid isn't a little
I'm far more concerned about the person that sees a picture of a naked four-year-old in a bathtub and thinks it's inherently sexual than I am about the person who takes a picture of their young child in the bathtub.
As someone said earlier in the thread, nudity =/= pornography.
=/=
You remind me of the neighbor on American Beauty. Everyone's a pussy...I'm a pussy, he's a pussy..when deep down...you're just really ing gay, dude, and you're trying to hide your sexual tendencies with what you think makes you sound more like a man, when really, it makes you sound like a sexual bag.
no just you and him are pussys.
dude from american beauty? wtf? what an obscure comparison. i would expect that from some pussy who just got back from a creed concert (and LOVED it)
I think most parents take baby photos in the bath (there's actually one of me posted by timvp somewhere on SpursTalk).
And it's probably store policy that they have to report these kind of things.
However since the couple had their home searched, their kids taken from them, and the case actually went to court (before the judge threw it out), then the prosecution thought there was enough evidence to charge them. So for all we know, there might have been a lot more found than the initial Walmart photos for the case to go this far.
and there also might not have been.
Prosecutors and policemen are 'gung-ho' sometimes and may have an agenda. They sometimes push a case through that should never have been pursued in the first place.
Remember the Duke university rape case?
Fighting child pornography sounds pretty damn good when you are asking for votes or a job promotion.
Of course. When someone says "might have been", that means that there also might not have been.
I'm just saying that we don't know much from this news article.
alls we know now is that lots of spurstalkers are pro baby bath time photos
I have a picture of me naked in the kitchen sink from when I was a baby. Not only was it indecent, but somebody needs to let the authorities know that my naked butt was probably sitting on some soggy food from dinner that night. Blah!
so, if we have nothing to prove that it might have or might not have been, what's the point in saying it?
your post was making assumptions about a 'might have been' as if to say that you believed there might have been some solid evidence or else they wouldn't have taken the case very far.
so, I made a post explaining why 'it might not have been'
but your response to me is "oh well, i was just saying it COULD happen"
well, ok? duh ;p
you are such an idiot. Do you have anything knowledgeable to say or is it all just running your mouth?
you sure it's his mouth running?
cause he stinks up the threads he posts in
Because it looked like everyone in this thread that was outraged by it had assumed the only thing the police/prosecutors were going on were the Walmart photos. So I was bringing up the possibility of more evidence.so, if we have nothing to prove that it might have or might not have been, what's the point in saying it?
Judge wouldn't have dropped it if there was any solid evidence to give it merit.
Seems to me like an overzealous cop and prosecutor who took this too far.
Americans nowadays suspect the worst in each other.
judges are people too. what one might consider inappropriate, another might not. prolly could have gone either way
everything i say is knowledgeable. i'm just here to help you out. why are you attacking me when i'm just trying to make you a better poster and person?
if you can smell your threads you might have a problem with your computer
The person who reported the photos is a woman, and she was following store policy, as I stated. As Kori alluded to, the police did confiscate 20 more photos from the home.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...lmart0919.htmlPeoria is defending its investigation of a couple who temporarily lost custody of their daughters after taking nude photographs of the girls.
Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree are now suing Walmart, the city and the state over the incident, which began when a Walmart photo clerk found eight photos with nude images of the children among a group of 144 family photographs dropped off for developing.
Peoria police were called, and, after viewing the photos, launched an investigation.
"The fact is: When we are contacted about children who may be at risk, we investigate," said a statement issued Friday by the city. "This is what we should do."
The parents' three young daughters were taken from their home for more than a month while the state investigated the couple for possible child sexual exploitation.
The Demarees, who held a news conference on Friday, insist that the photographs were simply innocent bath- and playtime snapshots of the girls, who ranged in age from 1 1/2 to 5. A judge agreed with their description, and the couple regained legal custody of their kids in May.
A redacted copy of a Peoria police report released Friday describes the images in graphic detail.
The 57-page incident report describes the Walmart photos and about 20 others taken during a police search of the Demarees' home.
According to one of the investigating officers, "The photographs depicted three young girls in various states of nudity, and several of the pictures depicted close-up views of the girls' genitalia."
The report also quoted the Walmart photo clerk as saying the photos went beyond what she considered "normal" child bath-time photography.
The police report, which was distributed to media outlets, was released with a statement from City Attorney Steven Kemp defending the Peoria police.
"The city stands behind the appropriate actions of our officers," Kemp said. "The city will vigorously defend against these accusations."
Richard Treon, the Demarees' attorney, challenged the police officers' evaluation of the photos, saying, "that's in the eye of the beholder."
He referenced the ruling from Superior Court Judge J. Richard Gama that sided with the Demarees.
"There aren't any close-ups (of genitalia)," he said, dismissing the police report.
During the news conference Friday, the Demarees lashed out at state Child Protective Services investigators, who they said ripped their crying and screaming children out of their arms.
"It was awful," recalled a tearful Lisa Demaree. "I couldn't tell them where they were going."
Neither parent was charged with a crime. The Demarees are suing over the economic and emotional damage they say the incident caused.
In a lawsuit that also named the state Attorney General's Office as a defendant, the Demarees claim that employees from each party defamed them by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had "sexually abused" their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.
The Attorney General's Office and the state Department of Economic Security, which oversees Child Protective Services, have yet to comment on the suit.
Treon said the couple spent more than $75,000 fighting the state to regain custody and Lisa Demaree could not work as an educator in the Peoria Unified School District for a year while the investigation was being conducted.
In a separate suit, the Demarees claim Walmart is also at fault for not divulging that it had an "unsuitable print policy" and could decide to turn any photos over to law enforcement. The lawsuit claims Walmart committed consumer fraud.
A spokeswoman for Walmart released a brief statement Friday, saying, "These are sensitive allegations, and we're taking them very seriously."
Not a good month for MiamiHeat . . .
Tell that to the Judge who dropped the case. Unless you think it was me. I could be a judge I guess
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
