Anonymous wrote:I agree with a pP that a public performance is not as good a set up for grooming as something like a karate coach, where there is more one on one without parents, or a teacher.
But the opportunity exists. Many people go to those shows regularly and the kids feel like they “know” the performer. Generally, parents who take their kids are attentive parents is the kids are not good targets. But I’m sure there are some caregivers that go because it gives them some time to surf their phone. It starts with a “sure, I can watch larla while you run to the bathroom for a sec” and progresses to “larla can stay after the show for a few if you need to run to pick up her older sister from school” to “larla is such a gifted musician—would she like to come with me to my show next week to play backup tambourine and teach dance moves to the kids in the audience?” There are some caregivers that are susceptible to this, and the crafty pedophiles know how to spot them. I’m not saying that happened with Mr Knick Knack, as no one has reported anything like that. But it’s naive to conclude that just because it’s a public performance it is not a possible vehicle for grooming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if he gets his jollies by touching kids, he only needs proximity to kids however brief. No grooming necessary, just touch when the opportunity presents itself. And please don't act like you watch your kid like a hawk at these things and no one is watching out for someone else's kids. You're at a kids' show, your guard is down.

So far, they have only reported that he had photos in his possession. We don't know anything about touching at this time.

I assume this is the same person who keeps making assumptions about both the show and how parents acted and should feel, etc. Is there not enough drama inherent in the actual charges against this guy?

Investigators have massive evidence of the kiddie porn. We may never know how many children he actually molested. This isn’t something that’s typically easy for families to bring forward to investigators. It takes enormous strength.

Oops, sorry, wrong thread!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if he gets his jollies by touching kids, he only needs proximity to kids however brief. No grooming necessary, just touch when the opportunity presents itself. And please don't act like you watch your kid like a hawk at these things and no one is watching out for someone else's kids. You're at a kids' show, your guard is down.

So far, they have only reported that he had photos in his possession. We don't know anything about touching at this time.

I assume this is the same person who keeps making assumptions about both the show and how parents acted and should feel, etc. Is there not enough drama inherent in the actual charges against this guy?

Investigators have massive evidence of the kiddie porn. We may never know how many children he actually molested. This isn’t something that’s typically easy for families to bring forward to investigators. It takes enormous strength.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if he gets his jollies by touching kids, he only needs proximity to kids however brief. No grooming necessary, just touch when the opportunity presents itself. And please don't act like you watch your kid like a hawk at these things and no one is watching out for someone else's kids. You're at a kids' show, your guard is down.

So far, they have only reported that he had photos in his possession. We don't know anything about touching at this time.

I assume this is the same person who keeps making assumptions about both the show and how parents acted and should feel, etc. Is there not enough drama inherent in the actual charges against this guy?

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misandry and broad assumptions about men being always guilty.

Imagine if you said it about (insert race here) instead of men. Would you still feel comfortable saying it?

One can point to statistics that those of a certain race are more likely to commit crime X or crime Y (just like more men than women are charged with pedophilia and related crimes), so should be treat them all with suspicion then?

Anonymous wrote:Pedos usually gravitate towards jobs with kids. Still it's disappointing because he seemed nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But if he gets his jollies by touching kids, he only needs proximity to kids however brief. No grooming necessary, just touch when the opportunity presents itself. And please don't act like you watch your kid like a hawk at these things and no one is watching out for someone else's kids. You're at a kids' show, your guard is down.

So far, they have only reported that he had photos in his possession. We don't know anything about touching at this time.

I assume this is the same person who keeps making assumptions about both the show and how parents acted and should feel, etc. Is there not enough drama inherent in the actual charges against this guy?

Anonymous wrote:

But if he gets his jollies by touching kids, he only needs proximity to kids however brief. No grooming necessary, just touch when the opportunity presents itself. And please don't act like you watch your kid like a hawk at these things and no one is watching out for someone else's kids. You're at a kids' show, your guard is down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. You're making no sense. in order for a performer to groom a child he would have to have constant access. In your own statement you say overtime... First, how many times is a Child going to see the performance and how many times is that child going to be alone at the performance? Furthermore, after the performance what is he grooming them for? When would he get a chance to be alone with these kids?

This isn't cognitive dissonance. This is common f****** sense

I hate irrational stupid people like you who make it seem like others like me are trying to defend a bad guy but man. Use some common sense

Exactly. I’m not sure how they think that this person can be grooming a kid, when they are never going to be alone in the future or ever with that child. Grooming happens with relative or close friend, not in this situation. Unbelievable

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard he was giving the moms a paddy whack, AND THEY LOVED IT.

At least he didn't give the dog a bone

Anonymous wrote:I heard he was giving the moms a paddy whack, AND THEY LOVED IT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of misandry and broad assumptions about men being always guilty.

Imagine if you said it about (insert race here) instead of men. Would you still feel comfortable saying it?

One can point to statistics that those of a certain race are more likely to commit crime X or crime Y (just like more men than women are charged with pedophilia and related crimes), so should be treat them all with suspicion then?

There are no meaningful biological differences between races. It’s a social construct. There are biological differences between men and women, most notably that men are inherently more violent.