Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Government The Courts News

Accused Molester Hunted On Xbox Live 112

Posted by Zonk from the please-keep-the-lawsuits-to-a-minimum dept.
GamePolitics has the unfortunate task of reporting that an accused child molester evidently found his victim via Xbox Live. From the piece: "Watts made contact with the boy on Xbox Live in October or November. Their contacts ultimately included e-mails and pornographic videos sent by Watts. The boy eventually gave the suspect his contact information, leading to a meeting in a Santa Rosa park where the alleged molestation took place. After learning of the complaint, investigators searched Watts' home, seizing his Xbox and a laptop PC, along with a variety of cameras. Watts is currently free on bail."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Accused Molester Hunted On Xbox Live More

Accused Molester Hunted On Xbox Live

Comments Filter:

  • At least... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday January 05, 2006 @11:01AM (#14400630) Journal
    Well, at least, it's not the fault of the Internet...
  • Someone should figure out his gamertag and post it here, so that if the bastard is allowed to play xbox live while waiting for his court date, kids can steer clear, and everyone else can gang up on the guy and keep rockets firing at his head 24x7.
    • From TFA: After learning of the complaint, investigators searched Watts' home, seizing his Xbox and a laptop PC, along with a variety of cameras

      Tough to play your xbox when you don't have it.

      • After learning of the complaint, investigators searched Watts' home

        Whoa, there, Barney Fife. Aren't we forgetting a step, like obtaining a warrant first?
        • The President doesn't need one.
        • I find your user name very amusing when viewed in light of your paranoia. If I said "After I turned into my drive-way, I got out of my car." would you jump to the conclusion that I did not stop the car, put it in park, and take the keys out of the ignition? Because I can do all those things in between, and still have the statement be completely true. Just like the police can get a warrant after learning of the complaint, but before searching the home, and the statement you quoted is still valid.
    • "...keep rockets firing at his head 24x7."

      Feet. You fire rockets at the feet, so if you miss, it still hurts. Duh.
      • So THAT'S why I've always sucked at first person shooters! I always aim for the fingertips to try and hurt them where it counts: the trigger finger.
        • So THAT'S why I've always sucked at first person shooters! I always aim for the fingertips to try and hurt them where it counts: the trigger finger.

          I suck at FPS too. I always aim for the tip of the gun barrel hoping that I could deform the opening so they can't shoot back at me.
    • I'm pretty sure that as a condition of his bail he was given the standard conditions of "stay away from kids, stay off the Internet, etc."
    • If the kid got home made porno from the guy and still went to see him either the kid was dumb as dirt or was looking for what was offered. The guy should get some minor punishment (Being a frag target should be good enough.) for messing around with a minor but that should be enough. A 14 year old should be old enough to understand sexual concepts and know if they want to respond or not. Probably the parents should ground the kid from playing XBox for a while and learn to pay a bit more attention to what the
  • Jack Thompson when you need him? Can a new crusade be far off?
  • .. has the guy's Live account been cancelled? If not, that'd be a story in itself.
    • Perhaps the account should not be cancelled, but it would be interesting to see a flag system in place. After all, neighbors are notified when a sexual predator moves into town. Perhaps Microsoft should consider branding convicted offenders with specific icons so that they can still sign onto the network while alerting anyone to their criminal status.
    • Problem: he hasn't been convicted yet. Of course, private enterprises are allowed to discriminate against customers in this country (as long as it's not based on religion, sex, race, or handicap), but it's still not a good thing.

      Let's take a slide down the slippery slope! What if Nintendo decided smokers couldn't play Mario Kart online because it was against their image as a child-friendly system? Don't think it can't happen -- employers are already doing this.
      • That's not exactly the same comparison. Employers might not allow employees to smoke at work. That would be like Nintendo not allowing you to smoke while your GameCube was turned on.
      • Slide down a slippery slope? its called banning, and all online games do it for violating ToS, and now all of them (that I've seen) include using the service to transmit or do illegal things, for example arrange drug sales, over the service. The company does their own investigation, and bans based on this. I wouldn't be surprized if they just banned based on this arrest (enough evidence to get you arrested is probably more than enough to get you banned)
        • See, that's what confuses me. What happened to the unrelenting lust for profit that presides over all other aspects of business?

          Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #57 - Customers are as rare as latinum -- treasure them

          • Well he can't pay for Xbox Live while in jail, can he?

            Rule of Acquisition #125: You can't make a deal if you're dead. (Or in this case, jail.)
            • Well he can't pay for Xbox Live while in jail, can he? Rule of Acquisition #125: You can't make a deal if you're dead. (Or in this case, jail.)

              What do you have against reading the summary? I understand no one reads the articles... but not even the summary?
          • Banning probably makes them more money... besides most misbehavior bans are temporary and try to just enforce a good community environment, perm bans result in new subscriptions (think bot farms, or people who still want to play etc.)

  • Jack Thompson (Score:4, Funny)

    by Morinaga ( 857587 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @11:06AM (#14400686)
    This is certainly a rallying cry for Mr. Thompson to crusade against digital photography and parks in Santa Rosa.

  • As I was telling my friend... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @11:06AM (#14400688) Journal
    ...This is a very good example of why I find the Nintendo WFC to be very well designed in terms of child safety. There are no WFC chat programs (currently) available, and the only way to seek a friend through Mario Kart or Animal Crossing is to already have their ID# (and vice-versa). I specifically stated possible sexual predators seeking out children to my friend when he was complaining of the lack of free chat and messaging services.

    But nor do I blame XBox live. Ultimately the fault and blame is on the assailant. I simply think Nintendo was wise to structure such a limited network, especially with games targeted at younger audiences.
    • I agree. I was mentioning the same thing to my wife the other day, how I would let my daughter play the Mario Kart on line. Animal Crossing at least means she has to "know" the other person first - which I can still monitor at a young age.

      I'm curious to see if something similar happens on the upcoming Pokemon DS games. Matches can easily be done without exchanging a word - you find an opponent (either random or you enter their 16 digit code a la "Animal Crossing" for someone you know). But you don't hav
      • You should bring an invisibility cloak to your child's school and see what she's really exposed to at that venerable institution. Betcha it'd be alot more appaling to you than "penisbreath."
        • It's all about the devil you know.
          If you have kids you control what you can with the idea that you are doing it for their own good.
          These controls are based on your personal beliefs, fears and prejudices.

          Some people go overboard, some people don't do enough.

          If you go to the kitchen of your favorite restaraunt you may be appalled by the conditions there and decide to never go back.

          If a person did this with everything in their lives they wouldn't have a life.

          • Restricting your child's opportunity to have fun arbitrarily to satisfy your own desire to "do something, anything!" is not good parenting.

            When she grows up and realizes her daddy prevented her from playing Mario Kart for an asinine reason, what do you reckon she'll think of the real, important rules you set down? Like "no drugs" and "no getting pregnant?"
            • Um yeah
              I don't think the OP or I was talking about setting arbitrary limits.
              I have no clue how you read my stance as a desire to "do something, anything".
              These limits are set based on things i described above. Nothing wrong with setting guidelines.
              There is something wrong with not guiding a child (either for good or bad)

              Hopefully when the kid grows up you have trained them to decide if a limiting decision a parent has mad was asinine or not. If they can't determine it you've failed.

        • Re:As I was telling my friend... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:51PM (#14401788) Homepage
          Actually, already been there.

          And this is a discussion that I've had with my sister in law. The idea isn't to keep her from seeing anything. I know she hears worse at school. She can see things already, and the goal is twofold:

          1. To explain what it is so she doesn't get wrong ideas. (For example, if she asks me about gay people getting married, it's not "OMG! THEY'RE GOING TO HELL!", nor is it "Oh, well, you'll find out later." It's a discussion about what it means, why they do it, why some people don't like it, ect.)

          At a young age, it's my job as a father to make sure the information sources she runs into as a 6 year old are controlled, so that people don't go "Hey, little girl - getting naked with a 40 year old man is fun!" For now, she knows that strangers can be bad for her, as she grows up and becomes more discerning through meeting people she'll gain her own ability to gauge for herself. How will she know what's "good" and "bad" for her, then? Which leads us to #2.

          2. Let her know what her father expects standards of behavior to be.

          Right now, my daughter knows that outfits that show off her belly are not allowed, neither are spagetti strings, anything that shows her chest, or skirts that go too high. (And before some dumb ass pipes in, no, we're not talking victorian age clothing. We're talking about T-shirts and jeans and normal skirts, while keeping my daughter from looking like a kinderslut.) She knows that certain words are not to be used unless she wants to get in trouble, and that we don't call people (even her little brother) names. And the younger is learning the same lessons (though at 3, he's still too young for some things.)

          My sister in law told me that my daughter, when she becomes a teenager, will probably change into clothes I won't find appropriate and swear and who knows what. I know. I expect it. But - she will know what I expect of her, and she will know that I know she knows.

          So when she's a teenager, she probably won't go "Oh, that mean Daddy wouldn't let me play Mario Kart with that guy I met on the Internet with I was six." She probably won't care. But she will know the kinds of people that her father wanted her to associate with, and will know what his standards of her friends are (aka - do they do drugs, are they child molesters, etc). At that point, if she wants to be stupid, there's little I can do.

          But she will know the difference. If she learns bad words at school or pictures, she knows these are things that her parents don't find "good". Later, when she can judge for herself, she can learn that subtle difference between "art" and "smut", and decide what she wants.

          Hope that clears it up a bit. Because I don't need an invisibility cloak to know what happens at my daughter's school. I just need to let her know what's appropriate.
          • +5 Good Parenting :) The best you can do is influence them at a young age to be good critical thinkers, and then let them go into the world on their own. They may need a push in the right direction once in a while, but hopefully you gave them a good set of tools to use.
          • At that point, if she wants to be stupid, there's little I can do.

            You never mentioned telling her why your rules are in place -- which I consider even more important than ensuring they are followed.

            "Don't call your little brother names because it makes him feel bad."
            "Don't wear revealing clothes because people (men) will treat you like an object"
            "Don't start drugs because you will have less money and might die."

            Teaching children why to make decisions instead of just making them is like teaching
          • As a 24 year old male student, I often see young girls teenage girls wearing clothing that I can only describe as slutty. While I do enjoy looking when I know they are within the legal age (and even more fun, teasing my gf about it), I don't know what to think when they are younger, even more so when I'm not even sure if they _are_ teenagers :/

            I do wonder about the motivation. I know that from 13 or so girls do become sexually aware (or whatever the term is for when their bodies are ready), so is that rea
            • From watching my daughter and her friends, I think they just want to wear the grown up clothing. And when you watch the cartoons, like "Totally Spies", which for the most part is all right save the belly baring outfits, and "Winx Club" which has the girls looking like their about to ask for $50 for "services", it's hard to tell your 6 year old daughter it's just not right.

              Odds are, most of the animators/etc who draw teenage heroines in shows don't think about that. They look at the styles and put them in
          • ... for a dark paladin.

            You may save your kids, but you're gonna burrrrnnn...

            In all seriousness, I cheer you on, sir.

    • Nintendo's decision isn't just good for kids - it's also good for adults as well. I wish Microsoft had similar options for Live, so I could play popular games without the endless stream of racist and homophobic perjoratives spewed out by the players.
      • I believe there's an option to turn off voice output entirely.

        If not, you can always direct it to your headset, then not wear the headset. Presto, no having to listen to people!

        BTW, make sure to use the feedback system - it actually does make a difference. You'd be surprised how many people get voice banned for some period of time for their behavior - it's quite opposite from the impression people get that there are no consequences to getting negative feedback.
    • Ultimately the fault and blame is on the assailant.

      I agree whole heartedly although, as a parent, I would add that part of the blame rests on the parents for letting it get that far in the first place. My daughter has access to two compters in our house, one in plain site in our living room where if she is using it my wife or I are watching and one in her room that is *not* capable of connecting to the internet.
      • The reason I do not place blame squarely on the parent is that some (not all, some) are still amazed, bewildered and uninformed as to what online video games involve. Do not misunderstand me that there should have been a watchful eye. However if the parent had believed it was simply a game and did not know the amount of communication possible, I would give them some slack. Some parents still do not comprehend what a "nintendo" is capable of these days, and frankly, they probably feel horrible about not moni
    • Very true, the worst I've encountered on the Nintendo WFC service are crudely drawn hairy erect penises used as people's logos on their karts and people sending dirty letters to their animals in Animal Crossing. I'm not surprised some of the animals decided to escape to my village...

  • Nintendo (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FriedTurkey ( 761642 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @11:11AM (#14400749)
    I think Nintendo has the right idea of not allowing open chat on the DS Wi-Fi. The worse someone can do is repeatitily slam thier kart into someone. I think chat is more annoying in a lot of games than helpful. BF2 has the canned voice chat thing down that voice isn't really needed. Counterstrike seems to have less annoying kids on it these days but for a while Counterstrike really sucked because of screamers. (Thank you X-box live). Even playinng PS2 Madden online can suck sometimes because I have to wait 30 seconds for some tool to accuse me of cheating? (No, I am not cheating, there are no cheats, you just suck.) I can see you need it on MMORPG but I don't play those. Get rid of all chat/voice in games and I won't miss it one bit.

  • Just like in the rat-hat from Seinfeld, this just isn't good for anybody :(

  • o_O (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @11:23AM (#14400858) Journal
    I wouldn't have thought the x-box was the easiest way to pick up little kids. I doesn't have text chat after all and with voice communication it should be a lot harder to disguise youreselve. Bit hard to pretend your HotLisa16F when your voice only comes in over the subwoofer.

    Then again this kid doesn't sound like he is a major loss to the gene pool. Meeting a total stranger in a park after exchanging porn. Oh yeah. That is something nobody has ever warned kids about.

    I suppose I should feel sorry to sound nice but frankly I hate stupid people. Perhaps it is harder then when I was a kid but geez, has never ever had a talk with this kid before? Do not accept candy from strangers? Oh well, cue new laws designed to dumb down the world because of one pervert and a dumb kid.

    • Then again this kid doesn't sound like he is a major loss to the gene pool. Meeting a total stranger in a park after exchanging porn. Oh yeah. That is something nobody has ever warned kids about.

      It is obvious that you posted this only to incite anger in the rational members of the slashdot community. The fact that your post was modded insightful is evidence that few actually read comments before rating them.

      In case you were serious: Kids are naive. They're KIDS. They don't always heed warnings by ot

      • Oh grow up. The parent had a valid point, and was certainly not posting in support of pedophilia. Frankly if I had kids and one of mine did something stupid like that I'd feel ashamed at not having taught them better, or teaching them that some warnings kids are given are VERY serious.

        This one obviously thought "Don't meet with strangers" was as important as "don't leave your videogame cartridge on a windowsill or other place where it will get direct sunlight".

        Oh, and I think pedophiles are weird sickos w
        • The original post has a valid point, inasmuch as defense attorneys always state that rape victims were "asking for it". It is an odious arguement, and that is why I called it trolling.
          • Yes that is a bad argument and yes any type of abuse is tragic BUT acting stupidly can and often times will get you into trouble.
            If you decide to visit the tigers up close in the zoo cage you may just get bit or eaten. They are predators. So is the pedophile sending porn to a kid he found on the Internet. Play with predators and you just might get bit.
          • Oh come on. That's a totally illogical comparison. This is more like a girl going out on a date to a seculded area with a well-known rapist. In the aforementioned case, I would say yes, she asked for it. In a similiar vein, this boy was asking for it.
      • Santa Rosa police arrested Watts on Dec. 15 after the 14-year-old boy revealed details of the alleged relationship to his mother.

        I don't remember being such a dumbass at 14. I remember logging into an online chat room once just to laugh at all of the people pm'ing me about "cybersex" and such shit. I can't comprehend how anyone could actually go along with anything like that and expect the outcome to be positive, just as I can't comprehend what the pedophile himself was thinking.
        • > I can't comprehend how anyone could actually go along with anything like that and expect the outcome to be positive

          Perhaps he is a gay 14 year old who was thinking he could get sex and did. Perhaps the outcome was positive from his point of view, even though it was immoral and illegal from the adults point of view.

          I remember being 14. If I could have gotten a woman in her early 20s to have sex with me I would have in a heart-beat! Actually I did try a few times to "hit on" college age girls, only to be
          • Right...

            When the suspect was with the victim the suspect touched the victim in a sexual manner. The victim refused the suspect's advances and the suspect stopped. (From here [santa-rosa.ca.us])

            Santa Rosa police arrested Watts on Dec. 15 after the 14-year-old boy revealed details of the alleged relationship to his mother. (From here [mercurynews.com])

            ^ Indicating that the molestation was unwanted. As well, if he didn't "understand the power difference", it's unlikely that he would report it to his mother.

            Besides that, even if he was a gay 14 y
      • And I am not in favor of pedo's. The guy is a sicko and hopefully will get a proper sentence and not the joke sentence I just read about of 2 months for repeated rape of a real kid http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605&na v =4QcT%C2%A0%C2%A0 [wcax.com] like this case.

        At the age of 13-14 you should be smart enough to figure out basic things. Like say do not meet a stranger who has send you naked movies of himself (this is from the police press release) in a park.

        If the kid had been asaulted while just pla

    • Then again this kid doesn't sound like he is a major loss to the gene pool. Meeting a total stranger in a park after exchanging porn. Oh yeah. That is something nobody has ever warned kids about.

      Way to blame the victim. The only way your post could get more ludicrous and insulting is if you said "Hey, now the molester can be anally raped in prison!"

      Having sex with ANYBODY AGAINST THEIR WILL is illegal.
      Having sex with ANYBODY UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT is illegal.
      • What? You don't think a 14-year-old bears some responsibility when they go to meet a stranger from the Internet in a park? A stranger who has been sending pornography? There's no doubt that the molester should be put into a hole and left there eating scraps and drinking only water for the rest of his life, but there is something deeply wrong with a 14-year-old kid who acts this way. Even more important, there is something deeply wrong with the way a kid was raised when he acts this way.

        I would thus con
        • What? You don't think a 14-year-old bears some responsibility when they go to meet a stranger from the Internet in a park?

          Look at it another way - If a woman goes on a date with a guy she "knows," puts on provocative clothing, says "no" to any physical contact, and then gets sexually assaulted by her date, does that mean she's responsible for getting herself raped? Of course not. The guy in this fictional scenario took advantage of a woman who made some poor choices, but ultimately, he took action again
          • I don't know if the child is mentally retarded, but clearly you're pretty damned slow. I (and the commenter before me) never said anything about the adult being right (and I thought I made that crystal clear in my post).

            The adult who assaulted the kid is still responsible for their own behavior.

            Yes, the adult is entirely responsible for his actions and, again, should be held so by a court and imprisoned. That said, the adult could not have created this specific situation by himself. The boy had to
            • I think I see where we differ in one respect - I'm talking about the law, and criminal responsibility. You're talking about common sense. And rarely does the law have anything to do with common sense. :P

              Now, if that same woman wears provocative clothing, invites a guy to her place, blows in a guy's ear and handles his junk before the rape, then she would have to own some responsibility for the situation

              Well, this hypothetical woman could be lying naked on top of her equally naked, bound by marriage, p
              • Now, if I punched you in the mouth for insulting me, and we went to court, would I be responsible for hitting you, or would you be responsible for provoking me?

                You'd be responsible for the act, while I'd be responsible for being an ass. That's a burden I've learned to accept, and you wouldn't find yourself in court for that particular act in any case. :)

                Peace out.
    • Bit hard to pretend your [sic] HotLisa16F when your voice only comes in over the subwoofer.

      But if it comes in over the tweeter...
  • I read this as "Mole-ster", when I first saw the headline. I laughed. Like 'Napster'. I thought it was some kind of hack for Xbox Live, or whatever. Then I read the blurb and got sad.

    I can't believe people are now resorting to the Xbox live online community for their sexual deviancy, like they didn't have enough innocent kids to prey on with the Internet itself. Creepy B******. I hope they nail that perv to the wall.

    Games are supposed to be FUN. You shouldn't have to worry about someone stalking your kids w
  • But what game did they meet on? My guess is Spongebob Squarepants! These games are not safe for kids!

  • Let me bring up a controversial note in this: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Regardless of the fact that the teen was lured to a park by a dirty old man, you have to recognize that the teen went after receiving pornographic materials from the D.O.M. So, while he legally could not consent to anything, as a matter of reality, he had some idea of what he was getting into.

    We don't know the nature of the porn, but it seems quite possible that it was of the D.O.M. Is it possible that the teen was curious, went, decided he didn't like the encounter, and turned the D.O.M. in?

    I'm not trying
    • http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?PageId=12 0 &NewsId=660/ [santa-rosa.ca.us] this shows almost exactly what you say. It seems this 26 yr old male showed movies of himself to this 13yr old boy after meeting on x-box live. it does not become clear how the video is exchanged perhaps via e-mail.

      The kid and adult then meet up, adult touches the kid, kid objects, adult leaves him alone, kid cries to mom, police gets involved and a media hype is born.

      Frankly this sounds an awfull lot less nasty then the headlines make it

      • The kid and adult then meet up, adult touches the kid, kid objects, adult leaves him alone, kid cries to mom, police gets involved and a media hype is born.

        Frankly this sounds an awfull lot less nasty then the headlines make it out to be.

        Exactly. I mean, this all reads like a creepy fag and a horny gay teenage boy. Which, duh, doesn't make it alright, but it's not in the same league as a guy hunting down, abducting and raping a 5 year old.

  • Let me guess what the media would do... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AzraelKans ( 697974 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @11:33AM (#14400972) Homepage
    Let me take a wild guess: the media will make a huge unproportioned campaign about the lurking horrors of xbox live, warning that each kid playing is in danger of being a victim of some psycho completely disregarding the fact that a caught red handed child molester got a "get out of jail" card and is happily lurking around as we speak?

    Who the fuck cares if it was on live or messenger or whatever? the guy walked!

    Im seeing it right now Jack Thompson and "My husband cheated on me while being president" Clinton bragging about the danger of videogames, calling for banning of xbox live (maybe wifi nintendo) "due to the dangers within" completely missing the fact that our fucking law system is unable to keep a pedophile asshole in the place it belongs? heres a note conservatives: don't you think we could do more for "our children" if we could keep the people who actually commited the crime in jail? what about if he had used a phone? whats the solution then? ban phones?

    • the guy walked!

      You are wrong because:
      _x_ Failure to read article

      There has been no trial yet. He didn't "walk", he posted bail. From my lengthy experience watching Law and Order, bail is usually not denied unless you're dealing with a Capital Crime (murder, rape, terrorism). I can't imagine California would be vastly different than New York.
    • a caught red handed child molester got a "get out of jail" card and is happily lurking around as we speak? ... the guy walked!...
      don't you think we could do more for "our children" if we could keep the people who actually commited the crime in jail?

      I think there's something about having to be proven guilty in a court of law or some other principle at work. Take a few deep breaths and realize the outside world is not a candy coated padded playground daycare, there are probably more than a few accus

    • Re:Let me guess what the media would do... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Friday January 06, 2006 @03:39PM (#14411680) Homepage
      Why does half the population have their IQ abruptly fall below their shoe size whenever children and sex appear in the same paragraph?

      Lets say your next door neighbor is schizophrenic, and has two kids. Those kids happen to be Seriously Screwed Up.

      Now lets run through two scenarios:
      (A) One of the two kids accuses you of sexually abusing him.
      (B) One of the two kids accuses you of mudering his bother, and that brother is missing.

      Now for some reason you appear to lose all capability at rational thought and assume that you should be locked up in prison without trial in case (A). However I presume that you are an otherwise normal perfectly rational and intelligent educated person who knows full well that in case (B) you would be arrested and released on bail for the next months while the police further investigated and the District Attorney put together a case to take to court and a random and impartial jury would then evalute the evidence to see if you were Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt before you were either imprisoned or found Not Guilty.

      Just because someone is accused of child abuse does not mean they they actually did it. Just because your schizophrenic neighbor's kid accuses you of child abuse does not mean that you actually did it.

      Here in America you are innocent until proven guilty and you get out on bail until we have an actual trial to figure out if you are guilty, or if maybe you were the victim. The victim of a fradulent/unsustantiated charge and prosecution.

      Why do perfectly rational people who understand this in a case where a child has their heart sliced and diced suddenly turn into dysfunctional raving lunatics when the same child has their dinky diddled instead? Why do people start demanding longer and more severe prison sentences and all sorts of violations of the normal judical and penal process when someone some kid gets his dinky is diddled, rather than when the kid's heart is sliced and diced?

      They are both certainly crimes, and they should both certainly be prosecuted and jailed. However one of those crimes is certainly more severe than the other. Having your heart sliced open and being murdered really is more severe than someone diddling your dinky.

      And guess what? We already have laws against both of those things. Perfectly good laws against both of those things. However ever evry time there's a news story about a kid's dinky being diddled, there's always an inevitable outcry that Something Must Be Done. A constant outcry that the laws must be changed and always cranked up higher - even when that means turning the law upside down and leaving murder as the lesser offence.

      And of course anyone who opposes such changes in the law - anyone who wants to keep the perfectly good law we already have - gets attacked and villified as defending pedophiles, or better yet attacked as being pedophiles. Yes, that's right, yesterdays' legislature who wrote today's existing laws were all pedophiles and they were all defending pedophiles. Every congress and every president from George Washington right up to George W. Bush were all pedophiles and none of them ever passed any apropriate law against it. It is just today that we suddenly noticed, and that tomorrow's legislature and tomorrow's president should be the first in history to actually oppose child abuse and be the first in history to actually pass reasonable laws in the area.

      The big flavor of the day is the Sex Crimes Registry and tracking sex offenders. Well I want to know where the hell is the Murder Crimes Registry and tracking all of the murderers? Don't I have just as much right to know that there is a murderer living next door? Don't I get to protect myself and my children against murderers?

      I once read an interesting quote:
      "The definition of a stable society is when there's a school shooting and the laws don't change."

      Unfurtuantly that author apparently failed to realize just how irrational and unstable people (and society) can actually be. Forget school shootings, the real quote needs to read:
      "The definition of a stable society is when some kid gets in the news for having his dinky diddled and the laws don't change."

      -

  • In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by booch ( 4157 ) <slashdot2010@cr[ ... m ['aig' in gap]> on Thursday January 05, 2006 @11:56AM (#14401217) Homepage
    A child predator was caught using a car to lure his victims. Parents and politicians are outraged that cars can be used for such nefarious purposes, and have promised to enact legislation to limit the use of cars. Some are calling for an out-right ban on cars.

  • At least it wasn't in a church... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stone Rhino ( 532581 ) <mparke@@@gmail...com> on Thursday January 05, 2006 @11:57AM (#14401230) Homepage Journal
    ...because, you know, molestors never meet their victims through such wholesome, all-american activities.

    Seriously, anyone with a grain of sense should be able to see that this is not a valid complaint against Xbox Live. Anywhere adults and minors can congregate and talk, adults who wish to take advantage of minors can find them. Crippling Xbox for the sake of those who fear pedos is no more sensible than the airline policy of not seating men next to children. [nzherald.co.nz] Watch your kids, raise them well, and talk to them yourself to make sure they're not going to see some strange old man. Paranoia is no substitute for parenting.

    • The thing I found most entertaining in your linked article was this statement:

      The incident, which happened a year ago, irked Mr Worsley so much that he recently contacted National Party political correctness eradicator Wayne Mapp.

      I want to be the National Part political correctness eradicator when I grow up.

  • The omni-present question.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by billn ( 5184 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:00PM (#14401263) Homepage Journal
    Where were the parents at?

    It's this simple:
    Put your kids' computers and internet connected devices in a family room, not in bedrooms.
    Apply some discipline and supervision with usage.

    Like the television, the Xbox and the Internet in general are the new babysitters, and that's bad.
    • Like the television, the Xbox and the Internet in general are the new babysitters, and that's bad.

      Um, totally stupid as well. I can let my TV be a babysitter because the only way to view shows on my TVs is through the VCR or DVD. We've already done our censoring by choicing what shows and seasons to buy. I have an old N64 with Zelda that they can play for video games. If they want more choices... they can emulate GBA , N64, or Super Nintendo on the PC if they can get daddy off the family PC. We have dailup
      • Very nice trick with the television. Probably cheaper than cable to boot. :)

        Just wait for one of them to figure out they can get broadcast television by sticking a wire into one of the jacks on the VCR though.

        When it comes to getting into things, never underestimate the craftiness of a kid.

        A friend had her nine year old shoulder-surf her password so she could watch Mommy's collection of anime. I don't think the daughter ever got caught for it, fessed up on her own when she asked for a copy of something on D
        • Very nice trick with the television. Probably cheaper than cable to boot. :)

          Just wait for one of them to figure out they can get broadcast television by sticking a wire into one of the jacks on the VCR though...

          They'll shoulder surf you. They'll crack the machine. They'll buy a $20 WiFi dongle with their saved lunch money so they can use the neighbors internet connection.

          Well, My biggest trick is that I do all my mass downloads at work and only have dailup at home. I wouldn't actually mind hooking my rabbi
  • I live in Santa Rosa. Firstly I'd like to say I have no idea how they did anything illegal in any of the parks here with all the homeless people milling about. Secondly, why the hell wasn't think in our local newspapers?

  • Not a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Thursday January 05, 2006 @12:55PM (#14401822) Journal
    Sorry to burst your bubbles slashdotters, but there are few teenage homosexual boys that don't wind up having sex with 20-somethings at some point.
    • Doesn't matter whether they're gay or not, if they're under the age of consent it's still illegal.

      • Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ClioCJS ( 264898 )
        Interracial marriage was illegal too. Law does not equal morality was his point, not that this was somehow legal.

        Life is not 0s and 1s.

        What about that teacher who 'raped' her student? Now he is 18 and married to her. Should she still be in jail after he is age 18, if, as an adult, he can retroactively say he was not victimized?

        Not that I want to defend pedophiles. I actually work at an organization which catches them.

        • Should she still be in jail after he is age 18, if, as an adult, he can retroactively say he was not victimized?

          Reminds me of a case in Illinois. 16 yr old male dates 14 yr old female. They fall in love, Two years later she's pregnant, but now he's 18 and she's 16. Even tho they have plans to get married, the girls parents like the guy, etc, the state comes in, like the spanish inquisition, stating that the pregnancy was due to sex between an adult and a minor. Despite the protesting of everyone involv

    • Exactly. If a high school freshman girl does it with some frat boy, does that make her a "little kid" who's been "molested" and the guy a "dirty old man" and a "deviant"? This teenager met an older guy online, looked at naked pictures of him, and then met him in a park for sex. That's a pretty broad definition of "got molested".
  • I wish they wouldn't give people's names out if they are only accused. I could accuse Pat Robertson (say) of molesting children, but it wouldn't make it true. Tell us after there's a conviction.

    And yes, that way some people who did wrong but were not convicted go unreported, but better that than destroy someone's life in error. We have no idea if the person mentioned actually did anything to the boy or not.
  • Not the kind of "wattage" many people would find ENDearing...

    I wonder if he'd like "a thousand watts up, around, down, across, over, through, alongside, between, betwixt, before, behind, above, below, beside, beneath, abaft, and all the other perp, umm, prePOsitions his own ass.

    No, I didn't need a lot of perp, ummm PREparation time to pull those perp, ummm PREPOsitions out of my own ass.

    I guess this means the xbox truly CAN lead to being a HEXED box. Hopefully the hexbox never becomes a "perpetration H" of

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close