Sex Offender's Attacker: 'I Would Do It Again'

Cheri said:
It's not about the teaching, it's about how well can a child understands what you're really talking about. As I've said for the third time, It's not that simple.

If you have seen a clip on American Most Wanted where John Walsh had an expert who had proved those parents that children sees good in friendly people, even strangers can be friendly. They gave those children a test who were aware not to talk to strangers, some of those children went with the strangers, some of them did not. John Walsh had created a DVD for children to watch and get the understanding of how to keep themselves safe. It's called "The Safe Side". ;)
Click to expand...

If the child doesn't understand, then the parent has not done a good job of teaching. You have to teach the concepts in an developmentally appropriate manner. If that is not done, it is the fault of the one attempting to teach.
 
Maria said:
".....for children to WATCH and get the UNDERSTANDING of how to keep themselves safe ".

WATCH = the DVD teaches how to keep themselves safe.
UNDERSTANDING = learn

Same thing. It's STILL a parent's responsible to TEACH... not just DVD that John Walsh created for children.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is all about the teaching. And you can't just stick your kids in front of a TV and put a DVD in. You have to watch it with them, and discuss it afterward. I agree with you 100%. It is the parent's responsibility.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I believe Shel's point is, we don't know what we might do. All of us are capable of harming someone if they're harming our child, and I agree with her.

I believe it was pointed out that the sex offender did not harm this woman's child, and she had no reason to assault him. Well, OK. I don't really agree with taking the law into one's own hands, but can any of us say what we would do to someone if they are known to have harmed a child?

I don't know. Nobody likes to think of themselves as capable of doing harm to someone. I also think the woman is legally culpable for what she has done, but I don't know many people who want a sex offender around them.

Do you?

:gpost: GTM!
Click to expand...

I agree with both your statement,, but if what if the sex offenser attack the child again or even killed a child? would then you take the law into your hands? I have seen people take the law into their own hands when it to children being harmed or killed. It hard situation.
 
Cheri said:
Yea, Maria... Give a 4 years a cellular phone would be a bright idea. :lol: Think about it, the majority of people around us all out in public are strangers right? How can a child understands the differences between trustworthy and untrustworthy? It's hard to determinate who's trustworthy and who is not. That's why I said it isn't that simple, there's no simple way to get through a child. We don't want to paranoid them either.
Click to expand...

If a parent is leaving a 4 year old unsupervised, then that parent is neglectful, and needs to be referred to the local child protection agency. In that case, the parent leaving the child alone so they would even need to use a cell phone is more of a danger to the child than a stranger is.
 
GarnetTigerMom said:
I agree with both your statement,, but if what if the sex offenser attack the child again or even killed a child? would then you take the law into your hands? I have seen people take the law into their own hands when it to children being harmed or killed. It hard situation.
Click to expand...

It is a hard situation. The truth is I don't know what I would do. I dont think any of us can really say for certainty that we wouldn't take the law into our own hands until we're faced with a situation in which we react.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
It is a hard situation. The truth is I don't know what I would do. I dont think any of us can really say for certainty that we wouldn't take the law into our own hands until we're faced with a situation in which we react.
Click to expand...

Exactly..I know if a sex offender harmed my children, I would lose my mind and be capable of anything.
 
The sex offenders must have register every years for 10 years notification to lifetime. If not report when it move out of state or town. This person will get into trouble and will go back to prison for not report. Every Sex Offenders must be address at home, work, school, daycare and other show up on site. Some people do have alert for Sex Predator for lifetime. I know it's no fun for them. They have to learn their lessons not do harm the children. Also They have a Violence Offender Register.

If they are in the prison. It will show up on site and say "In Custody". When they are out of prison. It will show up "Active".
 
Oceanbreeze said:
It is a hard situation. The truth is I don't know what I would do. I dont think any of us can really say for certainty that we wouldn't take the law into our own hands until we're faced with a situation in which we react.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have to agree with that too.. it really hard to say for certin when we face with a hard situation. :aw:
 
jillio said:
If a parent is leaving a 4 year old unsupervised, then that parent is neglectful, and needs to be referred to the local child protection agency. In that case, the parent leaving the child alone so they would even need to use a cell phone is more of a danger to the child than a stranger is.
Click to expand...

Get a clue about children, Jillio. Children are very quick and they do wander off in shopping stores, this can happen in a split second. It doesn't mean the parents are negligent, so please do not tell me this doesn't happen to anyone, because it does happen.
 
Cheri said:
Get a clue about children, Jillio. Children are very quick and they do wander off in shopping stores, this can happen in a split second. It doesn't mean the parents are negligent, so please do not tell me this doesn't happen to anyone, because it does happen.
Click to expand...

A singlular incident is not the same as leaving a 4 year old unsupervised on a regular basis. The incidients you described would require that a young child be left unsupervised intentionally.

Likewise, a child wandering off in a store does not usually result in abduction or sexual assault. Yes, it does happen that a child will wander off when a parent is not paying attention. And those children are found and returned to their parents with no harm done.

Perhaps you should get a clue regarding the facts of abduction and sexual abuse as related to children.

Children can be taught what they need to know to protect themselves. Anyone who believes that they can't simply doesn't know how to teach them.
 
jillio said:
A singlular incident is not the same as leaving a 4 year old unsupervised on a regular basis. The incidients you described would require that a young child be left unsupervised intentionally.
Click to expand...
No, I have not, please ask if uncertain-- don't assume. :P

Likewise, a child wandering off in a store does not usually result in abduction or sexual assault. Yes, it does happen that a child will wander off when a parent is not paying attention. And those children are found and returned to their parents with no harm done.
Click to expand...
I never stated that all children do. There are some children who are lucky, some who aren't so lucky. John Walsh's 6 years old son Adam, was abducted from a Florida department store and he was murdered. It can happen any where, at any age and at any time, even at an amusement park, a department store, or at a food supermarket.
 
Cheri said:
No, I have not, please ask if uncertain-- don't assume. :P


I never stated that all children do. There are some children who are lucky, some who aren't so lucky. John Walsh's 6 years old son Adam, was abducted from a Florida department store and he was murdered. It can happen any where, at any age and at any time, even at an amusement park, a department store, or at a food supermarket.
Click to expand...

It can, but it rarely does. Look at the stats. The vast majority of abductions, murders, and sexual assault on children are by prepetrators known to both the child and the family. And John Walsh has been making money off of the incident ever since. Find me another example, please.

Well, you talked about a cell phone for a 4 year old, or teaching a 4 year old not to speak to a cashier in a store. If you teach a child not to speak to a cashier, and then that child does wander off while a parent is not paying attention, that child believes he cannot approach the cashier to ask for help in finding his parent. And why in the world would you give a 4 year old a cell phone on the off chance that they might wander away? The solution is to teach your child not to wander away from you. If someone can't shop and pay attention to the kid at the same time, then they need to get a babysitter while they do their shopping. And when they get that baby-sitter, they also need to understand that a trusted baby sitter is more likely to abuse their child than any stranger in a store.

At any rate, there is no justification for the mother's behavior in the OP.
 
jillio said:
Well, you talked about a cell phone for a 4 year old
Click to expand...
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figured that line of my post out, I was being sarcastic. :roll:

or teaching a 4 year old not to speak to a cashier in a store. If you teach a child not to speak to a cashier
Click to expand...
I was only giving an example of speaking to strangers, what parents are telling those children not to speak to strangers, when a stranger can be young or old, nice or not. :roll:

While you think helping children to understand is really pretty easy, while it is not because sometimes strangers might try to trick a child by telling them various things, and children are always curious that they cannot resist.
John Walsh has been making money off of the incident ever since.
Click to expand...
He does not, He only did that show because he wanted to help families get justice. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
 
wow it is hard situation...I know one deaf sex offenders.. he was in prison for 8 yrs.. then got out on parole.. he has to register as sex offender... the ID has his own pic on it.. then he moved to other state... then he had to register as sex offender.. i found out that state did not require his pix on his registered card as sex offender...I guess every state has different card for sex offenders...
 
Cheri said:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figured that line of my post out, I was being sarcastic. :roll:

Your sarcasm was not lost. That was the whole point.


I was only giving an example of speaking to strangers, what parents are telling those children not to speak to strangers, when a stranger can be young or old, nice or not. :roll:

And your example could well put children in danger of being afraid to ask for help.

While you think helping children to understand is really pretty easy, while it is not because sometimes strangers might try to trick a child by telling them various things, and children are always curious that they cannot resist.

I did not say helping children to understand was easy. I said it can be, and is done every day. And you keep concentrating on this stranger issue when you really need to be concentrating more on the issue of relatives and friends that trick children in these ways. They are far more numerous than the strangers. And you teach the children about those issues.
He does not, He only did that show because he wanted to help families get justice. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

John Walsh makes money fromthe sale of the video and he has capaitalized on his recognition factor from the abduction of his son to gain employment as the host of a T.V. show. He would never have been in a position to host the show otherwise, because no one knew or cared who the heck he was. He only became famous after the abduction of his son. And I am not the one without a clue.

Now,. would you like to get back to the topic at hand? Reread the OP. As I stated prior, this woman took the law into her own hands, and there is no justification for that in this situation.
 
How is my example put children at risk for seeking help? You seem to have a gasp of understanding my posts, You've done everything in your power to twisted my words around. It's getting tiresome, Jillio.

I was talking about parents in general and what they had taught their children "not to talk to strangers." When the "stranger-danger" message becomes even more confusing for children to understand. This is what I've been saying the entire time on this thread. Please learn to read more carefully next time. Thanks. :)
 
Cheri said:
How is my example put children at risk for seeking help? You seem to have a gasp of understanding my posts, You've done everything in your power to twisted my words around. It's getting tiresome, Jillio.

I was talking about parents in general and what they had taught their children "not to talk to strangers." When the "stranger-danger" message becomes even more confusing for children to understand. This is what I've been saying the entire time on this thread. Please learn to read more carefully next time. Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

If the stranger danger message is confusing for the child, it is not being taught in a developmentally appropriate way.

And tot each a child that it is dangerous to speak to a cashier in a store puts them at risk for being afraid to ask same said cashier for help should they become separated from a parent that is not paying attention.

Now, back on topic.
 
Back
Top