Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
KichigaiKitsune

Are you serious, creep?

Apparently, a sick, twisted little scumbag approached a nine-year-old girl and tried to get her to follow him to his van - which, according to him, had puppies in it. Yeah, whatever, I'm sure.

Now, for some reason, the girl screamed and ran straight out of grabbing range to an adult, and the shady figure dashed off. No doubt because he remembered he had just left his puppies unattended.

.... I mean, seriously? Not only are we talking about a fucking stupid, malicious pervert of a moron, but did he actually think that tactic would work?

Naturally and quite understandably, people are concerned about this whacko being on the run. However it's important to remember that this is the infamous boogeyman we're all conditioned to fear.

While stranger-danger is an ironically dangerous fad, most children are taught about the cliched "I have candy in my van!" technique, at least, but this fucking Darwin Award nominee seriously thought he could walk up to a nine year old and pull it on her.

That's what we're afraid of. A drooling moron whose best, most carefully laid out abduction plan has almost zero chance of success with a child over five. Far from the dangerous, Hannibal Lecter-esque, "intelligent child molester" stereotype portrayed by Law and Order, this genius simply has no idea about kids, he doesn't understand them or know any; how fucking disconnected is this guy? Or is that a redundant question, since we are talking about someone who tried to abduct a child?*
Meanwhile, the kid he attempted to abduct was way ahead of him. That sounds about right: parents, your kids are smart enough to go out into the wide, wide world and not be abducted by idiots like this, and said idiots are a rare, overstated danger.

I hate to say it, but every single time I hear of someone trying to snatch a kid off the street, they always seem to be complete idiots who never succeed. Thankfully.

Not saying I don't think this man is a serious threat. He could just try to grab the next one, or learn from his mistake and try the same trick on a younger child. I'm hoping they catch him soon. No, wait, I don't want my tax dollars going towards feeding this devolved simian. I hope he has a change of heart or trips and dies getting out of bed tomorrow. You know what, Idiot McMoron, just fuck off, I hate you. Stop existing. Abducting a child. Fucking disgusting.

One thing though, Mister Newspaper: you called him a "sex pervert." I don't know why, but for some reason that bugs me.

At no point in the article did you explain that. There was nothing to say he was intent on molesting as opposed to murdering, torturing, or extorting (the parents of) that kid. Isn't that a bit presumptuous? I know what you're doing, actually, and that's what pisses me off: not-so-subtly slipping in "paedophile" into the article to whip up some delicious, newspaper-selling panic. We have no idea. Maybe he was a lonely, mentally-retarded lunatic who really wanted a child of his own?
This kind of naked, yet ineffectual, manipulation pisses me off. Only thing worse is that I know it works.

Pepperspray is legal in this state, parents. In certain European countries, older kids can carry it for defence against persons and animals. Hint hint. Maybe we should be doing that. If it works fine, and it does, in these countries, all arguments about kids being 'irresponsible' or whatnot are already negated, so don't even try. Let your nine-year-old run around and play in the neighborhood. She's old enough to be out of your sight, she's old enough to carry something to protect her from much larger adults and loose animals.

The drooling sub-human that tries to hurt her should cop a face-full of this beautiful stuff. One pervert deterred and clearly marked. Bwahaha!


* - mind you, I can't help but wonder if he actually had puppies. Did he go out of his way to buy any to complete the ruse?

NB: Always remember that the principal perpetrators of abuse will always be someone known to a child. Parents, primarily. "Street snatching" is almost unheard of and almost never succeeds. Once more, I ask that people bring their focus to the children being abused, physically and emotionally, in their own homes by their own parents and family, rather than ineffectual boogeymen like "Online Predators" and would-be kidnappers.
Stop those screwed up individuals whenever possible, but we can't allow a great, sensationalist crusade for their blood to blind us from the bigger issues.
Viewed: 92 times
Added: 6 years, 4 months ago
 
DestructiveImpulse
6 years, 4 months ago
Fucking freak
Not you kichi but the sex pervert.
KichigaiKitsune
6 years, 4 months ago
" DestructiveImpulse wrote:
Fucking freak
Not you kichi but the sex pervert.


Glad you clarified that! :D
DestructiveImpulse
6 years, 4 months ago
No problem buddy
FuzzFace
6 years, 4 months ago
The scary thing is, less than a zero chance is...better than non at all. if it succeeds, then it is true; an idiot is born every minute. that less than zero chance can skyrocket, I'm sure.
KevinSnowpaw
6 years, 4 months ago
sounds like this could be serius... allso sounds like he could just be a smart ass with a epicly BAD sense of humer but better safe then sorry i supose.

I to am pissed off about the assumption that he intended to lure her away for sex.

most real pedophiles that are of the mindset and disposition to actual harm a child fit into a very spasific sterotype. not all mind you but an impressive majority and they ARE hannible lecter. Smart, smooth, calculateing, in control of the situation.

this guys situation was allmost laughable, I seriusly doubt he was anything more then a massive retard.
Manafox
6 years, 4 months ago
I wouldn't say an impressive majority of paedophiles strive to abduct children to use as sex toys. Paedophilia in itself is not a criminal act, though acting upon impulses given is and should be highly illegal. Children are especially susceptible to permanent scarring as compared to adults. Most paedophiles wouldn't even dream of hurting a child - they love and care about them. Which is the main reason there's such an enormous estimated number of unknown cases, because only the ones actively hurting what they supposedly love get the spotlight. Thus the "pedo scare". It's taboo to speak of it and you'll be branded a criminal even though you haven't committed any criminal act in your entire life by just short of anyone if  you openly speak of personal paedophiliac tendencies or interests. :C
KevinSnowpaw
6 years, 4 months ago
I was less then very clear, allow me to restate that. I ment to say that only a minority of pedophiles strive to do something that would potentially harm a child, and of that sub group the majority (of that subgroup) tend to be very brilliant when it comes to avoiding detection and can be very heartless, but not ALL of them are, some are just dumb criminals. So I stated a majority of a minority of a group was like that so i can see the confusion XD
KichigaiKitsune
6 years, 4 months ago
I have to concur with Manafox. It's 100% incorrect to say a majority of paedophiles are of the inclination to harm a child* - speaking as someone with studies in the realm of criminology, no, only a very small minority are. As for the "Hannibal Lecter" child abusers and abductors, they're usually "opportunistic offenders", not paedophiles: i.e., they're not so much attracted to children sexually and emotionally as they are attracted to vulnerable, easy targets to sexually assault.  

Frankly, it's exactly the same as claiming a gay person is inclined to rape other men, or a straight man is inclined to rape women.

Trust me, "pedophiles" are not as scary as the media wants you to believe. There's a reason you only hear about the ones who molest kids: they're dumbasses who get caught all the time. Truuust me, way more abusive fuckwit ignorant uneducated fathers rape their daughters than there are cruel, Hannibal Lecter-like, pedo masterminds.

* - though I don't think that's exactly what you were saying, but see the above paragraph.
KevinSnowpaw
6 years, 4 months ago
I was not clear enough XD See above, I apologize.
thekzx
6 years, 4 months ago
lol idiot doesn't know how to properly kidnap children
vulPN
6 years, 4 months ago
Criminals are stupid. Mindlessly stupid. This guy appears to be no exception.

I don't like the idea that they're just assuming the guy was trying to lure the kid away to do something sexual.
Manafox
6 years, 4 months ago
Neither do I. Assumptions can be dangerous, especially when an unfounded one is spread among the masses. This particular instance is feeding the still-going moneymaker of a pedo scare through that unfounded assumption, damaging both the idiot in question (yet I feel he deserves it), but also society itself.
Manafox
6 years, 4 months ago
What the...! Darwin Award nominee, alright! :X

Who, in their right mind, expect kids to fall for the very crap they're taught are big fucking warning signs? And who, in their right mind, would attempt to abduct a child for any purpose anyway? (At least I didn't immediately conclude he wanted to stick his dick in the poor gal - most abductors aren't sex offenders, whether their target is 9, 18 or 36 - it's just the scarier scenarios the media like to use. I could rant a bit about it, but I'll spare you. X3;;;
aldreyachan
6 years, 4 months ago
Some interesting food for thought. As Kichi said, the kid he tried to abduct was way ahead of him, so I wonder what the guy himself was like at her age? Paradoxically stupid enough to fall for his future self's trick?
Manafox
6 years, 4 months ago
Perhaps, I have no idea how old the perp was so I can't really link him to any specific time period. X3;

But the theory still stands, perhaps he's stupid enough to have fallen for the same trick he tried to pull.
KichigaiKitsune
6 years, 4 months ago
We need a time machine to test this. Hmm.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.