Posted on 08/19/2009 7:16:49 AM PDT by tlb
The Sacramento Police Department says that Christopher Guzman went to Garcia Bend Park on Monday night, believing that he was meeting up with a 14-year-old girl he had met on a social networking website.
"This would've been the first physical contact between the suspect and the victim," said Sacramento Police Department Sgt. Norm Leong.
As Guzman waited in his car, police say five or six of the girl's family members walked up and began attacking him and his vehicle. Guzman tried to drive away, but the family members chased him, forced him out of his car and held him for police, who arrested Guzman but did not detain the relatives.
"[Guzman] was bloody from that," Sgt. Leong said. "We'll review it and see if what they did was reasonable given the circumstances in that they were trying to detain him."
Police said that Guzman was planning to videotape the young girl in a sex act.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs13.com ...
if she was on a "social networking" (dating site) where she signed a disclaimer that she was at least 18 years of age, and led him to believe she was 18, or even 16, then nope, she's NOT innocent.
And if 18, then he's not guilty of anything, her family is.
Of course vigilante justice is illegal. I didn’t dispute that. I don’t believe the family was seeking justice of any kind. They went to intercept their daughter and believed that she was already in the car with the pervert. They acted in defense of their daughter’s life.
You claim that by taking issue with Joe, it’s clear that we have poor reading comprehension, a faulty education, or are bone-headed. And you have no idea what you’re talking about in that respect. That’s my issue with your comment.
I’m sorry. My face is red.
You’ll get pounded, but I got a good giggle out of your comment. :)
Lets not forget, we haven’t heard HIS side of the story yet.
One way or another, every word they typed to each other is on a server somewhere, and well be subpoena’d if it can prove his innocence.
She’s not 18, she’s 15. Below the age of CONSENT.
Any document she signs, any agreement she enters into, automatically null and void as it pertains to her. As it pertains to her parents? Different story.
Recall the elements of statutory rape:
1. Carnal knowledge with the victim
2. Victim being below the age of legal consent
Done. Nothing there about whether it was consensual, forced, coerced, etc.
Victim couldn’t consent. It’s why the laws regarding abortion are so MASSIVELY screwed up. A minor in some states can go in and get an abortion without the parents knowledge or consent.
Same minor gets an aspirin without consent from a school nurse and has some complication? Nurse, school, district - toast.
It’s true. He may have assumed she was 18 because she was on that site, if that site had a rule about ‘no minors’.
On that basis, he may have thought he was meeting an adult.
And that's their story and they are sticking to it.
'cause DAYUM if things just happen to get turned around on them, right?
The nasty thing about taking matters into your own hands is you better be darned sure you know ALL the facts, or you can the ones going to jail.
For their sake, I hope they had all the facts.
Why is it wrong? There is no chance of mistaken identity or mistaken intent. Only a pedophile would have been there and such a one certainly needs deterring of future pedophilic activity. It surely did not end his activities but it has likely made him far more cautious and therefore has reduced the number of his future victims.
That would certainly change the game, wouldn't it...
Why does this make the news?
Nope. someone thinking they were meeting someone of legal age thinking they were going to get lucky would be there too. It's called "internet dating" in this day and age.
LOL...the dude tried to hook up with a 14 year-old and the lynch mob comes after me ;-)
As far as the parents actions are concerned, does it really matter if they had all of the facts or not? Their daughter is underage and they have the right to physically prevent her from filming a movie (porn or otherwise) without their consent.
It is not clear how this 14 year old girl communicated with this pervert. It is not clear that she knew he was filming a porn movie. The mother says the pervert offered the girl a role in a movie he was filming and that he offered up to $200 to be in the movie.
You seem to think she may have misrepresented her age or that she knew he was filming porn. What makes you think that is the case?
If the pervert believed the girl was of age and wanted to consent to filming porn is irrelevant with regard to the parents’ actions. It may get him off the hook for the charges he faces, but it doesn’t change the circumstances of the parents actions.
Even if the parents knew that their daughter lied about her age and intended to star in a porn movie, it doesn’t change their responsibility to protect her physical safety. They were within their legal right to attempt to remove her physically from that pervert’s car. When the pervert assaulted the girl’s father with his car, the parents then were within their legal right to detain him until the police arrived, whether or not there was any physical threat to their daughter at that point.
Case closed. Perverts like him ought to be surgically castrated.
Why is it wrong? There is no chance of mistaken identity or mistaken intent. Only a pedophile would have been there and such a one certainly needs deterring of future pedophilic activity. It surely did not end his activities but it has likely made him far more cautious and therefore has reduced the number of his future victims.
Yes it does, at least in the eyes of the law.
And no, I DON'T know all the facts of the case, and neither do you. We don't know if this guy honestly thought he was meeting someone he thought was of legal age.
If he can prove that, then these parents and family members turn into the bad guys, from he point of view, and HIS rights to protect HIM self from harm, which includes bashing into their car trying to get away from what looked to him as a deranged mob of people who he didn't have a clue who they were.
Then the courts have to give him justice.
That's just the world we live in. We have to be darn sure are on the right side of the law before taking it into our own hands.
It seems to be in the category with not prosecuting a guy who shoots a rapist or mugger on the street with the gun he has hauled out of his pocket but has no carry permit.
and I hope for their sake they were on the right side, cause from what facts we do have, they thought they were.
But if they weren’t, I really don’t think the courts take “oops” as a defense.
He is legally a pedophile. So is the 19 year old who has sex with a 17 year old. He is physiologically a normal man overstepping legal boundaries. Those boundaries are there in order to have civilization. Punishment due is whatever the society has determined to be the penalty for such overstepping, formally or not so formally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.