British man arrested for ‘killing’ German man filming his young daughter

[smokedog]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/crime/british-man-arrested-for-%E2%80%98killing%E2%80%99-german-man-filming-his-young-daughter/ar-AA9aG7V?ocid=mailsignoutmd

[Darell_n]

Can't say I wouldn't react the same way.

[Kloubek]

One down.

Really, I'd do the same. I'd just do it in a less obvious place.

Nobody touches my kid.

[shakalaka]

Killed him with his bare hands sounds like. Now that's something.

[englishbob]

Should get a medal , saved thousands in court costs.

[FixedGear]

I'd say you've got some serious emotional problems if you'd kill someone for filming on an ipad in a restaurant.

[m10-power]

Originally posted by FixedGear
I'd say you've got some serious emotional problems if you'd kill someone for filming on an ipad in a restaurant.

said someone who has no kids, obviously more then simply filming.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by FixedGear
I'd say you've got some serious emotional problems if you'd kill someone for filming on an ipad in a restaurant.

:werd:

I mean, I've got no problem with one less pedo in the world, but he just killed a man with his bare hands in front of his daughter, for reasons she probably doesn't even understand. And now he likely won't be there to watch her grow up.

[heavyfuel]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


:werd:

I mean, I've got no problem with one less pedo in the world, but he just killed a man with his bare hands in front of his daughter, for reasons she probably doesn't even understand. And now he likely won't be there to watch her grow up.

For sure. Not much good for his daughter now that he's going to be locked up for some time. To me that's just as fucked up as what the victim was doing. One less creep on Earth and one less violent fuck running free, one more little girl without a dad. I couldn't imagine not being there for my daughter.

[ZenOps]

What makes anyone think that the people who programmed the Ipad and phones aren't doing the exact same thing - just anonymously.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31296188

Got a Samsung HDTV with a "voice activated" remote control? Guess what? If your TV is hooked up to the internet, there is a good chance your every word is being recorded and stored somewhere. Not only that, but Samsung states that they share the information with "third parties" and does not hide the fact that they listen in.

NSA does have the right to hijack a phone camera as well as tap your conversation.

HDMI ethernet return channel? Yup, you guess it, someone can actually watch what you are surfing for or watching on TV as you use it or type it.

[englishbob]

Hard to say how you'd react in the same situation unless you're a Dad.

[Thales of Miletus]

You can't treat pedophiles. It sounds like the guy got what he deserved and that the dad should walk,......... after taking anger management classes.

[Feruk]

I don't think the German deserved to die over it... As much as I'd like to see these pedos vanish, we still have a system of law which tells us we can't just randomly go around killing people. Did he "prevent some kid from being attacked?" We have absolutely no clue, never will, and therefore there is no way to justify this murder. British guy deserves what he gets.

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by Feruk
I don't think the German deserved to die over it... As much as I'd like to see these pedos vanish, we still have a system of law which tells us we can't just randomly go around killing people. Did he "prevent some kid from being attacked?" We have absolutely no clue, never will, and therefore there is no way to justify this murder. British guy deserves what he gets.

Yeah, but it's Beyond where you have people who like to flex their nuts when it comes to commenting about how they'd defend their family.

Anyone who responds with anything less than seriously maiming / killing perp / being in a room with them with a 2x4 is less of a man :rolleyes:

Remember, anything less makes you not worthy.

#Beyond2015

[clem24]

Originally posted by englishbob
Hard to say how you'd react in the same situation unless you're a Dad.

I WOULD NEVER. The victim was filming his fully clothed daughter in a public space; at no point was she being physically harmed or even knew what the fuck was going on. All he had to do was call the cops. Now he gets to sit in jail because he's a hot headed violent idiot who can't control himself.

I mean vigilante/mob justice taken to the extreme.

[lasimmon]

First I read this thread and thought "Yah I would hurt a guy who was molesting my daughter"..

Then I read the news story :nut: Clem24 is right. Just call the cops.

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


:werd:

I mean, I've got no problem with one less pedo in the world, but he just killed a man with his bare hands in front of his daughter, for reasons she probably doesn't even understand. And now he likely won't be there to watch her grow up.

Yeah exactly, that's going to stay with her now for the rest of her life. I would have just grabbed his ipad and thrown it on the ground and busted it up and then punch him in the head a couple of times, call it a day.

[FixedGear]

glad to see it only took 12 hours for beyond to come to its senses :rofl:

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by clem24


I WOULD NEVER. The victim was filming his fully clothed daughter in a public space; at no point was she being physically harmed or even knew what the fuck was going on. All he had to do was call the cops. Now he gets to sit in jail because he's a hot headed violent idiot who can't control himself.

I mean vigilante/mob justice taken to the extreme.

Agreed, filming in public is legal, although pretty uncouth and dickish especially with children. However, if you literally beat a man to death over it, jail is probably a place you need to be.

[ZenOps]

I'll admit to being pretty voyeuristic.

There is that one channel "The Frame" I like to watch, it has beaches full of people, flowers, ocean waves, forests, and cities bustling with people.

All high res, 99% of the time without the awareness of the people being watched.

When they get to the subway station, its like holy ^&*% thats a lot of people.

The last time I heard someone got killed for taking a picture was an aboriginal tribe that had barely met "civilized" society. And xenophobes, I hear Rob Anders might take a swipe at you if you take a picture without asking first. Middle eastern religions, also a little sticky on the privacy.

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by FixedGear
glad to see it only took 12 hours for beyond to come to its senses :rofl:

:rofl::rofl: Careful treading there or people will think you're not cut out to be a Beyond dad.

[Kloubek]

So I was thinking... what's with all these pussies who wouldn't do something drastic in this case? Then I re-read the article and realized I misunderstood it entirely.

My original understanding in scanning the article is that the guy had PREVIOUSLY filmed his daughter in some sexual manner in the past, and he only confronted the guy in the restaurant.

In fact, the guy was filming her only IN the restaurant, fully clothed. Creepy and unacceptable, but not kill-worthy.

I'm changing my stance. Not due to public opinion, but rather a better understanding of the scenario. I'd certainly confront the guy and smash up the ipad - and it would be really hard for me not to lay a hand on him - even with my son watching. But at this point, it's a pretty hypothetical situation and I really don't know if I'd resort to blows or not. Probably not, unless he started beaking off....

He'd certainly deserve it though, and I wouldn't look down on someone for beating the crap out of him under those circumstances.

[A790]

The world is a fucked up place.

[01RedDX]

.

[syscal]

They do make it sound like he just took the tablet and then started the beatdown, but I wonder if the situation escalated. I can't imagine mr. pedo just allowing this guy to grab his ipad and standing still while he looks at pictures and then being surprised by a punch...

Every time I see the word "victim" in this article or thread, it takes me a second to realize it's in reference to the pedophile. I have a problem with calling him a victim.

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by Kloubek
So I was thinking... what's with all these pussies who wouldn't do something drastic in this case? Then I re-read the article and realized I misunderstood it entirely.

My original understanding in scanning the article is that the guy had PREVIOUSLY filmed his daughter in some sexual manner in the past, and he only confronted the guy in the restaurant.

In fact, the guy was filming her only IN the restaurant, fully clothed. Creepy and unacceptable, but not kill-worthy.

I'm changing my stance. Not due to public opinion, but rather a better understanding of the scenario. I'd certainly confront the guy and smash up the ipad - and it would be really hard for me not to lay a hand on him - even with my son watching. But at this point, it's a pretty hypothetical situation and I really don't know if I'd resort to blows or not. Probably not, unless he started beaking off....

He'd certainly deserve it though, and I wouldn't look down on someone for beating the crap out of him under those circumstances.

Wow calm down Clint Eastwood. Good thing we have macho men like you who can discern the oh-so-clear difference between being beatdown-worthy and kill-worthy.

I guess that's par for the course on Beyond, where people open their mouths without actually fully reading and comprehending articles.

FYI for anyone who read more, other articles say he was asked several times to stop but didn't. After the British guy took the iPad, he cycled through some pictures and found other misc. kiddie porn along with the restaurant pics of his kids and flew off the hook.

As for the people who say they would do the same, I guess there's consolation in knowing that 90% of Beyond is shittalking, otherwise we'd be up to our necks in hothead vigilantes who are itching for the opportunity to play hero.

So, who here would go nuts if their kids were photographed and they inadvertently found kiddie porn when confronting said photographer?

Discuss.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by rx7boi
Wow calm down Clint Eastwood.

Umm... yeah. About that reading comprehension thing: I'm not sure if you noticed, but I said I probably WOULDN'T do any physical harm.

Not very Clint Eastwood-like.

I know you're trying to be funny and the anti-keyboard warrior and all. So please... carry on if that works for you.

[J.M.]

Originally posted by rx7boi


Wow calm down Clint Eastwood. Good thing we have macho men like you who can discern the oh-so-clear difference between being beatdown-worthy and kill-worthy.

I guess that's par for the course on Beyond, where people open their mouths without actually fully reading and comprehending articles.

FYI for anyone who read more, other articles say he was asked several times to stop but didn't. After the British guy took the iPad, he cycled through some pictures and found other misc. kiddie porn along with the restaurant pics of his kids and flew off the hook.

As for the people who say they would do the same, I guess there's consolation in knowing that 90% of Beyond is shittalking, otherwise we'd be up to our necks in hothead vigilantes who are itching for the opportunity to play hero.

So, who here would go nuts if their kids were photographed and they inadvertently found kiddie porn when confronting said photographer?

Discuss.

Not sure if death was needed, but a strong beatdown would have probably sufficed.

Example:

http://media2.abc15.com/photo/2014/07/18/KNXVRaymondFrolander_1405708142967_6902769_ver1.0_640_480.jpg

Police: Fla. father beats accused child abuser (http://news.yahoo.com/police-fla-father-beats-accused-child-abuser-193806138.html)

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Umm... yeah. About that reading comprehension thing: I'm not sure if you noticed, but I said I probably WOULDN'T do any physical harm.

Not very Clint Eastwood-like.

I know you're trying to be funny and the anti-keyboard warrior and all. So please... carry on if that works for you.

Yeah, you probably wouldn't....unless he started beaking off like you said. :rolleyes: You exercise that crazy willpower, good sir.

Anti-keyboard warrior? LOL. I guess that's the term for people who don't know whether or not you're a hothead or just someone who likes talking. If you are the latter, at least have the dignity of being someone who follows it up or are otherwise careful with they words they choose to say.

FixedGear was right. It's hilarious when Beyond comes to its senses.

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by J.M.


Not sure if death was needed, but a strong beatdown would have probably sufficed.

Example:

http://media2.abc15.com/photo/2014/07/18/KNXVRaymondFrolander_1405708142967_6902769_ver1.0_640_480.jpg

Police: Fla. father beats accused child abuser (http://news.yahoo.com/police-fla-father-beats-accused-child-abuser-193806138.html)

From what I understand, it doesn't take a lot to accidentally kill someone.

The culmination of the British guy's daughter being photographed and the inadvertent finding of child porn on the guy's iPad would reasonably send him into a rage.

You just have to decide whether or not it was appropriate. The article said he was being investigated for possessing child porn, not that he was a pedophile per se but was suspected.

If people are going to comment about something, at least stay within the facts instead of concocting a scenario in your mind where a beatdown is justified.

In Kloubek's case, not only did he fail to read the article the first time around which is hilarious and too common on Beyond, but he re-reads it and comes back still feeling like that combination of events justifies a beatdown, whether it's him or someone else who administers it.

Now that the guy's dead, was the punch justified? What if the guy didn't die? Pretty easy to endorse someone's death when you don't have to lift a finger.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by rx7boi
In Kloubek's case, not only did he fail to read the article the first time around which is hilarious and too common on Beyond, but he re-reads it and comes back still feeling like that combination of events justifies a beatdown, whether it's him or someone else who administers it.


Originally posted by rx7boi
The culmination of the British guy's daughter being photographed and the inadvertent finding of child porn on the guy's iPad would reasonably send him into a rage.


So you understand why the guy might have been enraged, but fail to see how that rage might make him inclined to beat up the guy. To me, that doesn't really make sense.

I hate to burst your holier-than-thou attitude slick, but I think the majority of the public wouldn't be too worried to see the guy beat down under such circumstances. This thread should have a poll - and I bet the feelings would be almost unanimous that nobody would really mind if he got beat up over this. The only question in most people's mind is whether or not he should have been killed... which may or may not have been the guy's intention.

Instead of being concerned about my attitude towards vigilante justice, could one not be equally concerned regarding your seemingly UNconcerned attitude about some guy fantasizing over children and taking unauthorized pictures of them to do exactly that?

Why is it that you feel pedos should NOT be subject to punishments? Or is it just that you feel that this guy could never possibly take these fantasies and go that step further and harm a child? (Possible) Perhaps you feel that once he does he will be discovered (often not), and punished appropriately by the courts? (Almost never)

The fact is: When one has a child, they can and SHOULD do whatever it takes to protect him/her; whether you can relate, agree, or even care isn't really going to keep me up at night.

[rx7boi]

I guess we can at least agree that despite all your talk, that's all it is. Talk.

To a keyboard warrior, no wonder you can't see the difference between understanding why someone can be mad and endorsing the assault of someone who took photos but just happens to have child pornography ex post facto.

Your kind of ignorance is always baffling because all you see is red and the pitchforks come out. Don't bother with your pedophile comments or assumptions about how I think pedophiles should be handled because that wasn't even the point of the article. You're an idiot for even asking those questions. This isn't a discussion about pedophiles and how they ought to be treated, not that you would care even if I said pedos deserve to rot in hell.

Your transition from "oh I thought he was doing something to his kid, yeah he deserves it" to "oh he's just filming her but that's still creepy...oh what the hell, he still deserves it" is pathetically laughable.

It's funny that you originally thought everyone was a pussy for not being as gung ho as you but I guess in the end you had to tuck tail and take that back, hey? Mr. Probably-wouldn't-have-hit-him-unless-he-beaked-off?

[Kloubek]

So many holes in what you just posted.

I'm trying to have a reasonable debate, and all you want to do is throw insults instead of backing your own position or answering my questions. It's really not dissimilar to the overly-emotional-but-backed-by-nothing-while-being-painfully-contradictory rhetoric we expect from Modelexis or Arash.

That's fine - but it's not worth my time constructing a thoughtful response to you. Good day, sir.

[CompletelyNumb]

Threads like this always make me wonder how many people on beyond have been in a physical confrontation. And not the receiving end of a beating lol. Not calling anyone out specifically.

Personally I would have called the cops to try and set an example for my children. Rather they see police protecting them than arresting daddy for assault.

I am however not a real parent. So grain of salt and all that jazz.

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by Kloubek
So many holes in what you just posted.

I'm trying to have a reasonable debate, and all you want to do is throw insults instead of backing your own position or answering my questions. It's really not dissimilar to the overly-emotional-but-backed-by-nothing-while-being-painfully-contradictory rhetoric we expect from Modelexis or Arash.

That's fine - but it's not worth my time constructing a thoughtful response to you. Good day, sir.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Right, because this discussion needs to become a defense about what pedophiles deserve. Why would I even want to consider jumping into that discussion when your rhetoric is as stupid as your assumptions about how I feel about pedos?

Fact is, you blew the article context out of proportion, brought out the pitchforks thinking this dude was some big-time molester, realized that you didn't even read the article and just started talking shit, and still endorsed an assault resulting in death based on how you feel about protecting kids without looking at the whole picture.

People like you get spoonfed the word "child pornography" and lose sight of the context and start rambling about pedophilia and everything else that makes your blood boil.

Your questions are not worth answering because 1. they assume and aim to put me on the defensive for something I don't endorse (no punishment for pedos) and 2. they are out of context given that nothing happened beyond the phototaking, however creepy or inappropriate that may have been.

I agree, this is a good time for you to step off under the guise of not wanting to construct a "thoughtful response" as if everything you've said so far makes complete sense.

Good day :rolleyes:

[Moonracer]

Originally posted by Kloubek
So many holes in what you just posted.

I'm trying to have a reasonable debate, and all you want to do is throw insults instead of backing your own position or answering my questions. It's really not dissimilar to the overly-emotional-but-backed-by-nothing-while-being-painfully-contradictory rhetoric we expect from Modelexis or Arash.

That's fine - but it's not worth my time constructing a thoughtful response to you. Good day, sir.

:werd:

[clem24]

Sorry have to agree with rx7boi... Kloubek feels everything can be solved with violence; he's a man's man with a big soft spot for dogs and his own kids. How does assaulting the guy do any good (and in any instance other than self defense), through the eyes of the law? We have a justice system in place for this sort of thing, yet all you can think about is resorting to fisticuffs to resolve issues. It's not like if gets a beat down he'll stop looking at kiddie porn.

[G]

I beg to differ...he knows when "not" to use violence

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/306700/my-quest-for-wd40/

[Kloubek]

I blocked rx"boi" so I'm not going to read his post. But I'm sure it's something along the lines of blah blah blah, I win, you lose, you're an idiot, I'm right, you're wrong, not going to listen to any point you made, blah blah blah.

G: Not sure what that post has anything to do with this? That was just some ridiculous stoned post I made 4 years ago anyway as a time waster. A lighthearted nothing about nothing, really.

Clem: Well, at least you're partially right in your assessment. I'm not inherently violent; I've been in one physical altercation in the last ten years, and that was a self-defense situation. I challenge you to find anything in my nearly 4000 posts that indicates I'm violent... not really sure where you're getting that. With one exception. Here's the thing: In "real life", I'll usually let the little things go, and will speak my mind on the moderate to bigger things. But where I will entirely stand nose-to-nose to someone is when they threaten my family or I. I take that personally.

You say "let the courts handle it", which is a perfectly valid and reasonable stance, to which many would agree with you. But then I ask you: What are the courts going to do in a situation like this? It isn't illegal to film someone. It might be illegal to possess kiddle porn but there's a good chance the cops will never get their hands on it. And even if they did, do you honestly believe our justice system will impose a penalty which will make him think twice about doing it again? I truly believe a beat-down at least has the potential to make someone thing twice; whether people believe it would be justified is irrelevant to that point.

As I mentioned earlier, I probably *wouldn't* do anything physical in this case. But when it comes to protecting our children, I believe almost all options are on the table. And if that belief makes people view me as violent, a hothead, a talker, a keyboard warrior, or whatever - I don't really care. Because at the end of the day, anything I can reasonably do to ensure my son (or possibly even someone else's child) doesn't have to endure the horrible consequences and lifelong memories of sexual abuse, I will do.

Edit: This is the last post I'll make in this thread; not interested in derailing it any further with my own views of what constitutes justice. But Clem: My challenge still stands. I'd be happy to discuss with you further in PM why it is I gave you such an impression, and to see the proof of such.

[rx7boi]

*chuckle* typical.

He didn't appreciate being called out as a hotheaded shit talker by taking context further than it needed to be. Guys like him think that their values are applicable in every situation.

This article wasn't about beating on a pedophile who sexually abused someone's daughter in the past. It was beating on someone taking photos who turned out to possess CP, and not of that particular girl either.

Sure, it's a fine line in this case, but being able to discern that is the difference between someone who has critical thinking skills or an idiot like Kloubek.

Basically, if I were to take what Kloubek said, he's basically endorsing a beat down for every man or woman out there who possesses child porn because he needs to protect his kid.

Best part is, I always enjoy seeing someone who talks big but gets wishy washy and says that he probably wouldn't do the same thing yet believes he should be a man's man who will do anything for his kid.

That's pretty much Kloubek in a nutshell.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This reminds me of a court ruling I just read about in Arizona. A guy was taking up-skirt photos of young girls at a store. Because the girl was in a public place, and wearing underwear, the judge ruled that although he was personally disgusted, no crime had taken place despite the accused's clearly appalling intentions of obtaining such images.

Again, strongly disagree with anything like that, but I would also bet 0% of people in this thread claiming to do the same thing would actually kill a man for filming their fully clothed daughter in a public environment on an iPad. The problem, I realize, is when does said individual decide videos aren't enough, and what does he do when that happens.

Given the circumstances and the fact that they were in public, I can't see the judge having too much sympathy for the father in the eyes of the law, even though many of us may agree with what he did on some level. Now that daughter will grow up fatherless for likely a very long time, so he probably made the situation a lot worse than it had to be.

[Arash Boodagh]

I believe cutting off the scrotum of child molesters should fix their erection to children problems.


- Semi related, a whistleblower has just spoken out on police coverups of pedophilia... this just a month after "Former Scotland Yard detectives say young boys were murdered by Westminster paedophile ring"
I wouldve bumped one of my past threads or started a new one but know that members dont care much about it and are more about making LOLs in my threads and what they had for dinner last night.

Rotherham abuse whistleblower was threatened by police & given "race awareness training"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMzH8_x_MfQ

[codetrap]

Originally posted by rx7boi
*chuckle* typical.
Basically, if I were to take what Kloubek said, he's basically endorsing a beat down for every man or woman out there who possesses child porn So, you don't think that anyone that possess child porn doesn't deserve a beat down?

I thought about this a lot, and I think beating the guy to death was excessive. However, we don't know the details of the exchange between the two men. In fact, we don't know a lot of details. I DO know that if I caught someone filming my young daughters in a public place I would most certainly find out why. What happened from there would be dictated by the circumstance especially how the guy taking the pictures reacted. One of the possibilities that I could see driving the german guy over the edge very quickly would be the pedo guy simply telling him something along the lines that he wants to fuck his daughter until she splits in two, or something even worse. I know for certain that if someone stated something like that to me, I'd most certainly not react well. We simply don't know what was said or done, other than the most general of facts.

I think you're out of line calling Kloubek an idiot. I'm not sure what your exact motivation behind your posts are, but you're really coming across like you're looking to pick a fight with Kloubek because you perceive he's just being an e-thug and is a pussy in real life. It reads to me like you're mad at people talking big on forums in general and just want to try and make an example of someone, disregarding the topic at hand. Either that, or you feel pretty strongly that the guy taking the pictures should be able to do whatever he wants without consequences. Either way, I think your rage is slightly misplaced.

I'm pretty certain that Koubek, like myself, is imagining this situation as a worst case scenario, and how he or I would react in that situation, while you're probably looking at it in a different fashion. Also, being a parent in this case vastly alters our thought processes. I'm not sure if you're a Dad or not, but I know that before I became a father I didn't have this protective instinct to the level that I do now. Honestly, even the though of someone taking pictures of my girls for that purpose makes my blood boil a bit even now. I can only imagine how I'd react in real life. I totally understand it's not a reasonable reaction, but the emotional reaction is there nonetheless. Pretty much every father I know would probably react exactly the same way.

Just my 2 bits on this convo. Take it for what it's worth.

[Kg810]

Originally posted by codetrap
I think you're out of line calling Kloubek an idiot. I'm not sure what your exact motivation behind your posts are, but you're really coming across like you're looking to pick a fight with Kloubek because you perceive he's just being an e-thug and is a pussy in real life. It reads to me like you're mad at people talking big on forums in general and just want to try and make an example of someone, disregarding the topic at hand. Either that, or you feel pretty strongly that the guy taking the pictures should be able to do whatever he wants without consequences. Either way, I think your rage is slightly misplaced.


:werd:

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by codetrap
So, you don't think that anyone that possess child porn doesn't deserve a beat down?


To be perfectly honest, I see where you're coming from and I'll address that again.

There's no shortage of people who jump in to give their 2 cents about what they'll do and such on Beyond.

Everyone here, including me, knows that pedophilia is unacceptable but I try to stay within the context of what the article presents and what they say happened, so I have a problem when people try to make pedophilia a central theme and ask rhetorical questions as if I think pedophiles deserve no consequences.

Am I singling out Kloubek? Maybe, but at the very minimum I'm not the only one who thinks that in this particular case he likes to stand on his soapbox with his Dad cap on and be a man's man.

If your certainty about Kloubek taking this as a worst case scenario, then who's the one that's actually disregarding the actual topic?

- This isn't an article about finding a pedo in bed with your kid.
- This isn't an article about finding and beating a pedo who raped your kid 10 years ago.
- The article isn't about any worst case scenario other than the one you make up in your head when you read the article.

Don't get sucked into the emotional broiler just because the article is trying to imply that this guy is some big-time molester. Pitchforks don't always need to come out right away. You don't need to catastrophize the article either.

Like you said, there's alot you don't know and and that's exactly why I'm giving him a hard time, because he needs to save it for a case where it actually matters, like the one J.M posted. Whether or not Kloubek is a pussy in real life and would actually do the things he says is another story.

You don't have to flex your e-nuts every chance there is just to show how much your kids mean to you. We get it and you're not the only dad out there.

Best part is, at least half the people posting here don't necessarily see it his way, yet he's the first one to bust out the "you're pretty much like Modelexis and Arash" and tuck tail out of this thread by blocking me.

EL OH EL.

[theken]

I am sure he didn't mean to kill the guy, accidental death. Nobody should be filming minors unless it is for a real movie (non pornographic) in public places. pedophiles are scum and should be removed from the earth, fucking kids is worse than a murder IMO. I am glad the guy is dead.

[FraserB]

Was the guy a pedophile? Probably, no real proof though

Was he breaking the law? Probably not (depending on Spain's laws about filming in public. Would be 100% legal in Canada/USA)

Were the actions taken justifiable? Not even close


Second degree murder or whatever the equivalent is in Spain. Sucks that Dad will now get to explain to his kid that he won't be there to see her grow up.

[codetrap]

rx7boi, I can see where you're coming from as well, but you have to remember that we ARE Dad's, and we ARE fiercely protective of our offspring. That's going to color our perception of the article. I also agree that this isn't an article about the 3 things you stated, however the emotional flavor of the article is such that it's going to incite vastly different responses. To someone who's not a parent, I can easily see that the simple act of having someone film a kid is a "meh, that's creepy" event. To myself, I see that as much more of a threat. Yes, I realize that the guy isn't physically touching my child, but the knowledge will immediately come to mind of what that guy is going to do with those recordings, or where they'll end up, or what happens if he releases them to the wild. Honestly, the thought of an innocent video of my child in the hands of a pedo turns my stomach. I know that no matter how innocent she's being, that some sick fuck is going to be taking that as an invitation to try and do unspeakable things. So, instantly for me there's a huge emotional stage set that's going to deeply affect how I react. Someone else looks at it as something that can't really harm my child, but in my mind this is a predator about to spring like a hunting cat from an overhanging limb in the woods, just taking time to study it's prey.

As for Kloubek specifically flexing his e-nuts? So what? I'm not sure why that so deeply offended you. Why should it? There's no reason that you have to respond. Ultimately, he's posting his views for the exact same reason you're posting yours, something really resonated and prompted you to respond. I can guess at his motivation, but I don't get yours. I also understand why he chose to leave the thread and block you. It appears to me that you weren't interested in actually having a dialogue, you appear to be just angry at him. I'm not trying to rag on you man, I'm just sharing my thoughts on what I got from the tone of your posts. My motivation is I'm curious about what's bugging you so much about this specifically. It's not as if we don't have a lot of tough talk on beyond, so it's not really a new thing. *shrug*

[clem24]

Originally posted by codetrap
To someone who's not a parent, I can easily see that the simple act of having someone film a kid is a "meh, that's creepy" event. To myself, I see that as much more of a threat. Yes, I realize that the guy isn't physically touching my child, but the knowledge will immediately come to mind of what that guy is going to do with those recordings, or where they'll end up, or what happens if he releases them to the wild. Honestly, the thought of an innocent video of my child in the hands of a pedo turns my stomach. I know that no matter how innocent she's being, that some sick fuck is going to be taking that as an invitation to try and do unspeakable things. So, instantly for me there's a huge emotional stage set that's going to deeply affect how I react. Someone else looks at it as something that can't really harm my child, but in my mind this is a predator about to spring like a hunting cat from an overhanging limb in the woods, just taking time to study it's prey.

This is exactly what rx7boi was eluding to.. There's simply NO evidence the guy was a pedophile OR a predator; he had CP on his iPad but that doesn't make him an actual threat to society. And also why there are rules in place regarding illegal search and seizure; because then people will jump to conclusions just like people are doing in this thread.

I am a dad of 3 - 2 girls, and I've probably posted more pictures myself of my kids on FB (and even some here). So the thought of someone posting full clothed pics of my kid.. Doesn't get me in a tizzy. And as I've stated, you need to approach this with a level head. Had the dad just walked away and called police, he wouldn't be going to jail (and likely for a long time I might add).

There are a lot of sick fucks, but imagine if we could do this to say, all drivers who change lanes without signalling. I mean ONE DAY they MIGHT hit someone but that mean they deserve a beat down?

Now having said all that, although I don't agree death should've been the outcome but I can't say I feel bad for him either. On that same note, I don't feel bad for the dad either because very clearly, he's the much bigger menace to society than the so-called victim. I do feel bad for his daughter though.

[theken]

cp and bad drivers are different, but in theory if you removed the bad drivers from the road, the roads are safer for people who are decent. Remove the potential threat, remove the problem.

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by codetrap
rx7boi, I can see where you're coming from as well, but you have to remember that we ARE Dad's, and we ARE fiercely protective of our offspring. That's going to color our perception of the article. I also agree that this isn't an article about the 3 things you stated, however the emotional flavor of the article is such that it's going to incite vastly different responses. To someone who's not a parent, I can easily see that the simple act of having someone film a kid is a "meh, that's creepy" event. To myself, I see that as much more of a threat. Yes, I realize that the guy isn't physically touching my child, but the knowledge will immediately come to mind of what that guy is going to do with those recordings, or where they'll end up, or what happens if he releases them to the wild. Honestly, the thought of an innocent video of my child in the hands of a pedo turns my stomach. I know that no matter how innocent she's being, that some sick fuck is going to be taking that as an invitation to try and do unspeakable things. So, instantly for me there's a huge emotional stage set that's going to deeply affect how I react. Someone else looks at it as something that can't really harm my child, but in my mind this is a predator about to spring like a hunting cat from an overhanging limb in the woods, just taking time to study it's prey.

As for Kloubek specifically flexing his e-nuts? So what? I'm not sure why that so deeply offended you. Why should it? There's no reason that you have to respond. Ultimately, he's posting his views for the exact same reason you're posting yours, something really resonated and prompted you to respond. I can guess at his motivation, but I don't get yours. I also understand why he chose to leave the thread and block you. It appears to me that you weren't interested in actually having a dialogue, you appear to be just angry at him. I'm not trying to rag on you man, I'm just sharing my thoughts on what I got from the tone of your posts. My motivation is I'm curious about what's bugging you so much about this specifically. It's not as if we don't have a lot of tough talk on beyond, so it's not really a new thing. *shrug*

codetrap, regardless of my callously unremorseful use of words in describing Kloubek, it's really not about my tone or what I choose to say about him.

Kloubek's been around for a long time. This isn't the first thread he's talked about his protective instinct or all of the things he say he'd do in pursuit of protecting his own family.

I've always read those with an understanding because those other discussions revolve around what actually did happen but I'm calling him out in this thread now because he thinks this it is still relevant. Keeping his family safe is always on his mind, but that's not a lens you keep on, jump into every single thread where context and facts can be different and expect to have a dialogue where you can say you're unbiased. You're certainly not the only one here who is a father.

To answer your question, I could have just as easily not responded since there is no shortage of tough talk on Beyond, but are you here to tell me who I can call out and who I can't?

You question my motivation, but the motivation is pretty clear when other people know the point I'm trying to make. Why is it that the people who agree don't think that I'm simply here to bash? As far as rhetoric goes, that's one for the books.

If you don't think this article is any of those 3 scenarios I talked about, then really the thing is to think about why you'd endorse what you did, other than the fact that it's an easy answer. After all, who would find it hard to rally behind protecting your family? Other people place just as much importance on family as you, but took the time and consideration that since the guy died from getting his ass whooped, that maybe that action was a bit too much. Even if he didn't die, that's too much but some people feel uncomfortable having to step down to that and it's not as punitively fulfilling.

I'm not even grasping at straws. I'm also saying that just because you're a dad it doesn't mean all options are on the table. That guy was a dad, look what he did and look where it landed him. At least you have the luxury of examining everything from your computer desk. You get to indulge in 20/20 vision but yet you'll still say that you'll endorse violence in this case. Or not, because people also backpeddle and say they won't, but that someone else can and probably should use violence.

Wow. Talk about wishy washy.

That said, I actually did enjoy talking to you a hell of a lot more.

[max_boost]

Originally posted by theken
cp and bad drivers are different, but in theory if you removed the bad drivers from the road, the roads are safer for people who are decent. Remove the potential threat, remove the problem. slippery slope

[italianstylez]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
You can't treat pedophiles. It sounds like the guy got what he deserved and that the dad should walk,......... after taking anger management classes. :werd:

[codetrap]

rx7boi, I'd like to point out that I did say for myself that my response would seriously depend on how the situation played out for me. It has been an good convo. Thanks.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
You can't treat pedophiles. It sounds like the guy got what he deserved and that the dad should walk,......... after taking anger management classes.

Where did it say that he was a pedophile? It certainly wasn't in the article.

In what other situations would you consider second degree murder to be an acceptable response?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by FraserB


Where did it say that he was a pedophile? It certainly wasn't in the article.



He was charged with possession of child pornography... I don't think it takes a leap to call him a pedo.

[revelations]

Some more details:

Mr. Devinder KAINTH asked Mr. Sandro ROTTMAN to stop filming his daughter at the restaurant they were at. Mr. ROTTMAN refused and kept on filming. Mr. KAINTH then grabbed the iPad from the victim and quickly found numerous other photos of his daughter (perhaps other child porn in the mix as well??) and, after asking his family to leave the restaurant, yelled at the victim and then proceeded to ONCE strike Mr KAINTH, causing the victim to fall and hit his head on the floor.

This wasnt a beatdown LA-style, just a one punch, accidental death by a bad fall. Nobody wins in this case - except for the lawyers.

[FixedGear]

People that go around punching other people when they don't get their way belong in prison.

[rx7boi]

Originally posted by codetrap
rx7boi, I'd like to point out that I did say for myself that my response would seriously depend on how the situation played out for me. It has been an good convo. Thanks.

Same here. I read what you wrote and understood that your response would depend on how it played out.

If I said "your options" or "you endorse violence" I was referring to what Kloubek had said since he seemed to be our person of discussion so I was kind of bouncing back and forth between you and him so that kind of got lost in translation a little bit.

Hopefully it didn't come off as me thinking that you're exactly like him, cause that's not what I meant at all :)

[codetrap]

Nah, it's all good. :)

[C_Dave45]

Just gonna throw this out there:


Gary Plauche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche)

_PUE8fYxjq8

[Robin Goodfellow]

For those who say he was "He was just taking pictures":

Any parent will take exception at strangers photographing their children. It's a parent-reflex. I know of instances where parents have confronted strangers - Never had it happen myself... if I want to photograph my kids playing with other kids, I always make sure I ask the other parent first. They never mind, and the courtesy is appreciated.

The article seems a bit shy on details, but it's clear this wasn't simply innocent photography, and that the father knew it. The father looked at photographers IPAD, and it appears he lost his shit over what he found. I'll wager it wasn't simple restaurant photography.


For those who say they "would have killed him myself":

I've been in a similar situation. Violence took a backseat to safety.

I won't post any specifics here, as the matter is buried to be forgotten.

Inappropriate physical contact happened between a stranger and my child. I unleashed verbally on the man. Was alone at the time, without backup. First concern was the safety of my child - And if I got in a scuffle and lost, my child would be at their mercy. A few minutes later, I found female front desk clerk, described the situation briefly, and put my child in her care for a few minutes while I looked for the man. Couldn't find him.

I asked the clerk walk us to our vehicle for "protection". If we came across the man, she was immediately to take my child back inside the facility and call my wife, and I'd engage the man.

The underlying idea here is that while the child was in my care, my options were *VERY* limited. Ensuring the safety of my child was 90% of my thoughts, and punishing the man was 10% of my thoughts.

I expect the man in the restaurant was with family, which freed up his hands to administer a beatdown, but such may not always be the case.

[Moonracer]

^^^good call in your case :thumbsup:

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
For those who say he was "He was just taking pictures":

Any parent will take exception at strangers photographing their children. It's a parent-reflex. I know of instances where parents have confronted strangers - Never had it happen myself... if I want to photograph my kids playing with other kids, I always make sure I ask the other parent first. They never mind, and the courtesy is appreciated.

The article seems a bit shy on details, but it's clear this wasn't simply innocent photography, and that the father knew it. The father looked at photographers IPAD, and it appears he lost his shit over what he found. I'll wager it wasn't simple restaurant photography.


For those who say they "would have killed him myself":

I've been in a similar situation. Violence took a backseat to safety.

I won't post any specifics here, as the matter is buried to be forgotten.

Inappropriate physical contact happened between a stranger and my child. I unleashed verbally on the man. Was alone at the time, without backup. First concern was the safety of my child - And if I got in a scuffle and lost, my child would be at their mercy. A few minutes later, I found female front desk clerk, described the situation briefly, and put my child in her care for a few minutes while I looked for the man. Couldn't find him.

I asked the clerk walk us to our vehicle for "protection". If we came across the man, she was immediately to take my child back inside the facility and call my wife, and I'd engage the man.

The underlying idea here is that while the child was in my care, my options were *VERY* limited. Ensuring the safety of my child was 90% of my thoughts, and punishing the man was 10% of my thoughts.

I expect the man in the restaurant was with family, which freed up his hands to administer a beatdown, but such may not always be the case.

I think these are two very different situations.

In case being discussed, there was no threat at all since he had sent his family away. He then chose to take matters into his own hands, decided to take revenge and should be dealt with for that.

I think it is fair to argue that in your case, there was an immediate danger which you removed your child from. Then when you were leaving, if you had encountered the person again, it would be easily construed as a situation where a threat was imminent and physical intervention would be needed.

It's the basic laws surrounding self-defense or defense of others. Reasonable force is allowed while a threat exists, but if none does, then you can't just beat the crap out of someone.

[ZenOps]

Public filming has always been a grey area.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/27/technoviking

Technoviking lawsuit is still ongoing. Of course, technoviking can sue, but it does beg the question - you are doing this in the middle of the street for everyone to see, if someone else takes a video of it and posts it up - is it really that much of an invasion of rights if at all?

What about the woman who texted into the fountain?

bGpVpsaItpU

Now, the only reason people aren't up in arms about it is because the video resolution is low enough not to be able to determine who the person is with certainty. But what about a 4K camera.. Maybe she was 15? What if she was wearing a tshirt instead of an overcoat?

Why is it that society always assumes that if someone is photographing someone under the age of 18, then its some sort of perv reflex?

I can imagine in many if not all restaurants, bars, and nightclubs every square inch is covered by a camera of some sort nowadays, and multiple cameras at all entrances and exits. Heck, I'd bet there are a dozen permanent cameras at 7-11 (three on the ATM, two at the front entrance, one watching the till, at least two looking into the merchandise.)

Why would a perv even need to bring out a personal recording device like a phone? Laziness?

I mean really, photographers take pictures of baby animals all the time - and noone seems to accuse them of being an animal pedo... Not right away anyhow. Every Telus commercial with the computer generated baby animals frolicking, I always wondered if people got the wrong idea. Could never get away with that on humans.

The only difference between an overhead security cam and a person taking out a phone recorder is that one is anonymous and the other is not.

[ZenOps]

Side note: Sonys perv glasses will be available next month.

Bx7O_h09HKA

Microsofts perv glasses Hololens (AKA augmented reality) will be out later in the year. I'm pretty sure, full motion videocap at HD res, instantly uploadable to internet live.

QRQv74J7oSk

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Public filming has always been a grey area.


Your statement is true, but not applicable here.

This wasn't as simple as public filming.

[Arash Boodagh]

Semi related, ROTHERHAM scandal.
BRITAIN FIRST ACTIVISTS INVADE ROTHERHAM COUNCIL OFFICES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70_15bVjygk&feature=player_embedded

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
Your statement is true, but not applicable here.

This wasn't as simple as public filming.

Seems to be 90% of the issue for me. The only other thing was actionable retribution. The instigator is still instigating.

If Technoviking had punched the guy taking the video and broke his neck.. Pretty much the same thing.

In that case, both parties were probably wrong but the wronger person is the one who killed. Non-naked Pedo paparazzi is reprehensible, but murder is what they throw people in jail for life for.

Off topic: CBC has got the DocZone documentary tonight on drones, I'm pretty sure they are going to get heavily into the idea of people unaware that they are being filmed, in some of the most private places on earth. You can be a billionaire with a yacht in the middle of the ocean, and they can still see you and your kids nekkid, as well as watch the family cat lick his own balls.

Heck, its argued that nearly every minor head of state or lowly suspected terrorist to the US nowadays has a no refuel needed probably not armed (but thats never agiven) drone following him/her 24/7 at a height of 10,000 to 40,000 feet *cough* Rob Anders *cough*

And by my count Rob Anders is just half a step away from being like Khadafi or Mubarak in relation to the current US administration. Like the head of the Greek Nazi party.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by ZenOps


Seems to be 90% of the issue for me. The only other thing was actionable retribution. The instigator is still instigating.

If Technoviking had punched the guy taking the video and broke his neck.. Pretty much the same thing.

In that case, both parties were probably wrong but the wronger person is the one who killed. Non-naked Pedo paparazzi is reprehensible, but murder is what they throw people in jail for life for.

Off topic: CBC has got the DocZone documentary tonight on drones, I'm pretty sure they are going to get heavily into the idea of people unaware that they are being filmed, in some of the most private places on earth. You can be a billionaire with a yacht in the middle of the ocean, and they can still see you nekkid.

This wasn't a drone filming a crowd.

This wasn't a Transit cam filming human sardines going to work.

This wasn't a journalist invading the privacy of a public persona.

This was a specific man filming a specific kid so he could fap to it later.

Why the insistence on misrepresenting this incident?

[cancer man]

History of German inventors in the field of toys.
http://matetip.com/2012/03/16/10-strangest-vintage-sex-toys-nax-the-first-male-sex-doll/