Walmart sued over childrens' nude bathtub photo

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: waggy
when you hear of stories like this one and others* you need to protect yourelf. places are nto looking out for you but for themselves. if someone put these pictures on the internet there would be a shit storm.



* this story is facinating. the women takes pictures of herself BREASTFEEDING. she gets teh cops called on her and arrested.

That story is unbelievable. The police and whoever prosecuted should be SHOT for being so goddamned stupid. It's like people have completely forgotten the purpose in nature for why women have breasts, and take them to be entirely sexual. A baby eating dinner becomes child porn. That's just fucking ridiculous.

that story goes back to 2003 ive tried to find follow up stories but failed. im very curious if the family got their kids back.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/...-hour-arrest/#Comments

 

[tk149]

WalMart did the right thing. They turned over possible criminal evidence to the authorities. It is not up to Walmart to decide what constitutes child porn. What if they guess wrong?

The Child Protective Services/DA did the wrong thing - but it's somewhat understandable. How many stories have we heard about Protective Services failing to remove a child from an abusive home, and the child ending up dead? The DA, though, never should have issued a public statement without personally looking at the pictures.

Unfortunately, WalMart has the deeper pocket.

Lawyers need to DIAF.

If you overly penalize the Child Protective Services for overresponding, you will reduce their chance of actually doing something in a future case. You really want dead kids on your conscience?

Many posters here don't even try to think about the consequences of their actions.

 

[Patranus]

Why is Walmart even looking at the content of photos.

There should be consumer protections in place to prevent this from happening.

The employees of Walmart are not trained law enforcement agents and should not be in a position to try and enforce laws.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...0.html?test=latestnews

Phoenix -

An Arizona couple accused of sexual abuse after taking bath-time photos of their children and then trying to have them developed at Walmart are suing the state and the retail giant.

Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree's three young daughters were taken away by Arizona Child Protective Services last fall when a Walmart employee found partially nude pictures of the girls on a camera memory stick taken to the store for processing, according to the suit.

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: waggy
thats crazy. but i understand WHY walmart did it (can't wait for the walmart bashing!).

anymore you are a idiot if you take such photos and have them devoloped at such places and NO walmart shouldnt pay for it.

I don't understand. Someone should have looked at the pics and realized this was basic family 101 vacation stuff. No big deal whatsoever, and they caused these people great harm by not using common sense.

I think the parents could have been wiser. Damn, they should have a digital cam so they can avoid this, but they didnt.

my old canon uses film, it has no memory stick...

i think its pathetic this ever happened. sure, i can almost understand walmart bringing it up to authorities for verification, but the pics were obviously not porn. at that point it should have been dropped.

 

[waggy]

hmm


http://www.azcentral.com/

Peoria is defending its investigation of a couple who temporarily lost custody of their daughters after taking nude photographs of the girls.

Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree are now suing Walmart, the city and the state over the incident, which began when a Walmart photo clerk found eight photos with nude images of the children among a group of 144 family photographs dropped off for developing

A redacted copy of a Peoria police report released Friday describes the images in graphic detail.

The 57-page incident report describes the Walmart photos and about 20 others taken during a police search of the Demarees' home.

According to one of the investigating officers, "The photographs depicted three young girls in various states of nudity, and several of the pictures depicted close-up views of the girls' genitalia."




ok..that part bugs me..


also link eyah ok i know its more of a opionion piece.

Ninety, 95 percent of the families out there in America have these exact same photos," AJ Demaree told "Good Morning America." "There's nothing to them."

Given that there's nothing to them, I figured it'd be easy to get a look at them, to judge for myself whether police and CPS went off the deep end. I was turned down flat

The parents' position has been from the beginning that they were adamantly opposed to releasing the photos because these were private personal photos that they took for their family use and they only got in the prominent position they're in because of Walmart and the state and the cops and they don't want the children's privacy invaded any further, nor do they want to have the world looking at pictures of their children naked," Treon told me.

"In addition to which I, as their lawyer, have told them as far as the naked pictures are concerned, the city of Peoria where you live has stated that they believe these are sexually exploitive of your children and therefore you have committed a crime and, in fact, they presented the photos to the county attorney trying to get them indicted over these photos. I told them, although the county attorney turned them down, that doesn't mean a new county attorney might not come along and have a different point of view."

In other words, the parents who summoned reporters and went on national TV to talk about the photos of their children don't want us to invade their privacy by actually seeing the photos of their children. Meanwhile, their attorney who says the photos are perfectly innocent won't release them because doing so might be a crime.




"Meanwhile, the police report describes the nine photos we haven't seen in graphic detail, with several taken from the rear, the report says, showing explicit detail of the girls' genitals. Some, the detective describes as "posed," with the girls on their elbows and knees. One is taken from about 3 feet away"


man. ok..it does not sound like innocent snapshots everyone is talking about..

 

[Ackmed]

Sure it does. Who wants their naked kids plastered all over the internet, with all the attention on them? Ive got pictures of my kids in the tub, oh no, arrest me too. Walmart and their employees are idiots in this case. And I hope them lose a bajillion dollars over this.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: waggy
hmm


http://www.azcentral.com/

Peoria is defending its investigation of a couple who temporarily lost custody of their daughters after taking nude photographs of the girls.

Lisa and Anthony "A.J." Demaree are now suing Walmart, the city and the state over the incident, which began when a Walmart photo clerk found eight photos with nude images of the children among a group of 144 family photographs dropped off for developing

A redacted copy of a Peoria police report released Friday describes the images in graphic detail.

The 57-page incident report describes the Walmart photos and about 20 others taken during a police search of the Demarees' home.

According to one of the investigating officers, "The photographs depicted three young girls in various states of nudity, and several of the pictures depicted close-up views of the girls' genitalia."




ok..that part bugs me..


also link eyah ok i know its more of a opionion piece.

Ninety, 95 percent of the families out there in America have these exact same photos," AJ Demaree told "Good Morning America." "There's nothing to them."

Given that there's nothing to them, I figured it'd be easy to get a look at them, to judge for myself whether police and CPS went off the deep end. I was turned down flat

The parents' position has been from the beginning that they were adamantly opposed to releasing the photos because these were private personal photos that they took for their family use and they only got in the prominent position they're in because of Walmart and the state and the cops and they don't want the children's privacy invaded any further, nor do they want to have the world looking at pictures of their children naked," Treon told me.

"In addition to which I, as their lawyer, have told them as far as the naked pictures are concerned, the city of Peoria where you live has stated that they believe these are sexually exploitive of your children and therefore you have committed a crime and, in fact, they presented the photos to the county attorney trying to get them indicted over these photos. I told them, although the county attorney turned them down, that doesn't mean a new county attorney might not come along and have a different point of view."

In other words, the parents who summoned reporters and went on national TV to talk about the photos of their children don't want us to invade their privacy by actually seeing the photos of their children. Meanwhile, their attorney who says the photos are perfectly innocent won't release them because doing so might be a crime.




"Meanwhile, the police report describes the nine photos we haven't seen in graphic detail, with several taken from the rear, the report says, showing explicit detail of the girls' genitals. Some, the detective describes as "posed," with the girls on their elbows and knees. One is taken from about 3 feet away"


man. ok..it does not sound like innocent snapshots everyone is talking about..

And the plot thickens. Thanks for the follow up waggy, does make the situation sound a lot less innocent than I had originally thought.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: frostedflakesAnd the plot thickens. Thanks for the follow up waggy, does make the situation sound a lot less innocent than I had originally thought.

yeah once i read those i kinda changed my mind. IF what the report says is true then yeah i understand why the police and cps did what they did.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: waggy
The 57-page incident report describes the Walmart photos and about 20 others taken during a police search of the Demarees' home.

According to one of the investigating officers, "The photographs depicted three young girls in various states of nudity, and several of the pictures depicted close-up views of the girls' genitalia."

Ok... now it's not a simple case of family bathtime photos or anything.

this could easily be seen as child pornography, and if that's the case.. the family should fry.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: waggy
The 57-page incident report describes the Walmart photos and about 20 others taken during a police search of the Demarees' home.

According to one of the investigating officers, "The photographs depicted three young girls in various states of nudity, and several of the pictures depicted close-up views of the girls' genitalia."

Ok... now it's not a simple case of family bathtime photos or anything.

this could easily be seen as child pornography, and if that's the case.. the family should fry.

the one that gets me is the "Meanwhile, the police report describes the nine photos we haven't seen in graphic detail, with several taken from the rear, the report says, showing explicit detail of the girls' genitals. Some, the detective describes as "posed," with the girls on their elbows and knees. One is taken from about 3 feet away"


ok get a girlfriend naked..on her knees and elbows. now take a picture of her from behind from 3 ft away....

yeah thats NOT a innocent family photo!

 

[curious67]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: waggy

"Meanwhile, the police report describes the nine photos we haven't seen in graphic detail, with several taken from the rear, the report says, showing explicit detail of the girls' genitals. Some, the detective describes as "posed," with the girls on their elbows and knees. One is taken from about 3 feet away"


man. ok..it does not sound like innocent snapshots everyone is talking about..

And the plot thickens. Thanks for the follow up waggy, does make the situation sound a lot less innocent than I had originally thought.

amazing!

Some police with some perverted mind see child pornography in some nude kiddie family photos. Taken by mom and dad!

The typical diaper change position, for example, clearly exposes the genitals. How shocking!

Imagine if daddy were photographed changing diapers and put some ointment on the sore genitals of the girl. Now THAT would be more then kiddie porn, it would be proof of child abuse!

Now the perverted cops with their dirty fantasy put up some perverted descriptions that finally convince you guys here on this site that there must be something to this story:

A normal middle class family putting 140 cute family photos to Walmart, some 9 of them happen to be about a baby bath. Do they expect baby to wear muslim bathing suit and burka during bathing?

Here you can find a sample of the kiddie porn photos:
Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution :shocked:

Now taking the little babies away from their parents for months on end (a few hours away from mom are an eternity for a baby), and doing detailed examinations of their genitals to check for abuse, that is the real child abuse and child trauma!! And having mom and dad losing 75000 dollars in legal cost. That could have paid the kids' college education!

Imagine if a single dad or a single uncle took these photos. He would be in a real fix!! Might spend 20 years in jail for that!

Now I think Walmart is innocent. They obey (stupid and overly broad) laws and regulations. Nobody should be subject to harrassment for informing suspicious things to police, even more so if this might be a legal requirement for them to do so. Who is Walmart to ignore the law? And there is no need to inform people of certain legal requirements. Psychologists, for example, are required to report clients that are a danger to others and might commit violent crimes. In spite of their secrecy requirements. And I don't think they need to warn clients.

The guilt lies in the general child porn hysteria, especially in the US. And in police and district attorney totally overreacting, but that seems to be fashionable too.

Of course, a prudent person, knowing about the kiddie porn witch hunt hysteria might be wise enough not to take such photos, and not to take them to Walmart. Or have legal cousel present when they take photos, so they make sure no pose can be interpreted as sensual or seductive. That is how far our law has gotten!

A few more examples of this insanity:

Sexting: Teens face child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos

Girl 13, charged as sex offender and victim at the same time

talian arrested in Fortaleza (Brazil) for kissing (2 pecks) his 8 year old daughter

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: curious67

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: waggy

"Meanwhile, the police report describes the nine photos we haven't seen in graphic detail, with several taken from the rear, the report says, showing explicit detail of the girls' genitals. Some, the detective describes as "posed," with the girls on their elbows and knees. One is taken from about 3 feet away"


man. ok..it does not sound like innocent snapshots everyone is talking about..

And the plot thickens. Thanks for the follow up waggy, does make the situation sound a lot less innocent than I had originally thought.

amazing!

Some police with some perverted mind see child pornography in some nude kiddie family photos. Taken by mom and dad!

The typical diaper change position, for example, clearly exposes the genitals. How shocking!

Imagine if daddy were photographed changing diapers and put some ointment on the sore genitals of the girl. Now THAT would be more then kiddie porn, it would be proof of child abuse!

Now the perverted cops with their dirty fantasy put up some perverted descriptions that finally convince you guys here on this site that there must be something to this story:

are you retarded? these were nto typical diaper change position, bath time photos or such. some had close up pictures of the young girls privates. One was of the child on hands and knees from 3 ft behind.

if these are typical to you then you have issues.

 

[shadow9d9]

I think it is gross to take naked pictures of children. Good for walmart.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JS80
My wife just posted a picture of my 15 month old in the bath with his wiener in clear sight on facebook.......should we expect the police at our doors anytime soon?

I think it is incredibly gross, and yes, I wouldn't mind them knocking on your door.

If you want to be sick in private, we can't stop you.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: JS80
My wife just posted a picture of my 15 month old in the bath with his wiener in clear sight on facebook.......should we expect the police at our doors anytime soon?

I think it is incredibly gross, and yes, I wouldn't mind them knocking on your door.

If you want to be sick in private, we can't stop you.

OMG teh 15 month old BABY Penis!!1! I'm thinking people who share your attitude are either overzealous puritanicals or have some perverted hang-up. I won't ask which you are...

My personal belief is modesty is a virtue and people should probably be a bit more sensitive about taking naked pics after 1-2 years of age. That doesn't mean I think "it is incredibly gross" or people are sick for doing so, but parents should be mindful about what they're doing.

The more I learn about this couple and their nudie pics, the more I think they are either deviant or just plain stupid.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I think it is incredibly gross, and yes, I wouldn't mind them knocking on your door.

If you want to be sick in private, we can't stop you.

You have some serious issues. Have you thought about consulting a psychologist? Many medical insurance policies now have mental care included. My apologies if you were abused as a child or grew up in a strict puritan family where any nudity was considered from the devil and your mother had to cover her ankles.

 

[curious67]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: curious67

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: waggy

"Meanwhile, the police report describes the nine photos we haven't seen in graphic detail, with several taken from the rear, the report says, showing explicit detail of the girls' genitals. Some, the detective describes as "posed," with the girls on their elbows and knees. One is taken from about 3 feet away"


man. ok..it does not sound like innocent snapshots everyone is talking about..

And the plot thickens. Thanks for the follow up waggy, does make the situation sound a lot less innocent than I had originally thought.

amazing!

Some police with some perverted mind see child pornography in some nude kiddie family photos. Taken by mom and dad!

The typical diaper change position, for example, clearly exposes the genitals. How shocking!

Imagine if daddy were photographed changing diapers and put some ointment on the sore genitals of the girl. Now THAT would be more then kiddie porn, it would be proof of child abuse!

Now the perverted cops with their dirty fantasy put up some perverted descriptions that finally convince you guys here on this site that there must be something to this story:

are you retarded? these were nto typical diaper change position, bath time photos or such. some had close up pictures of the young girls privates. One was of the child on hands and knees from 3 ft behind.

if these are typical to you then you have issues.

In some other report there were reports about diaper position. Must be other photos. Now ok, in this description baby is lying on her belly. Or actually, baby is crawling. Something really unusual and pornographic.

Damn, diaper position is pornographic, baby crawling or on her belly is pornographic too. How many more baby positions are left then? Ok, you need to analyze the situation having the mind of a perverted cop and photograph baby only from front when crawling.

The entire problem is that you need to have a US$ 500 per hour lawyer next to you to advise you which positions you may photograph your baby in to avoid having your kids traumatized, taken away from you, get indecent medical exams done on them and you getting ruined with legal cost.

Baby is moving around and you shoot photos. Without thinking about sex. That is too dangerous. Normal moms and dads do not think any sexual thoughts when looking at their kids private parts. They just don't have the mind set of a perverted district attorney.

As I said, you change the diapers, put ointment on your baby's private parts and sex does not come into your mind. But actually, parents MUST think about sex, put themselves into the mindset of a perverted district attorney, in order to avoid compromising poses. Ridiculous. This IS sick!

So even if dad had seen some Playboy Magazine photos and thought it was cute to photograph little daughter in that position (very unlikely, but let us be devil's advocate). What damage would be done?


Let us presume even worse: daddy took these pictures to sell them to some child porn sicko who uses the photos to get excited. Bad taste. But as long as he does not get his hands on a baby, I don't see a big problem. I see more problem in violent people shooting games and driving-cars-over-people-to-kill-them games.

Let us say, someone takes a baby photo off the site
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/child-porn-baby-bath-pictures
and gets all excited about it.

Bad taste. But still, what damage would be done to the kid? If daddy had put the photo on myspace? Actually, in Europe naked kids are common not only on nude beaches but even on regular beaches. Imagine seeing the "boobs" of a 3 year old girl "topless" on the beach. Americans just have perverted thoughts, it seems. Normal people don't think "boobs" when seeing a 3 year old.

But so what if some pervert gets turned on by photos of mufflers, dogs, horses, or babies, in the privacy of his home? that is his private problem! Of course, if he has a baby in his home or is the daddy himself, that would be a serious reason for concern.

But I would be more concerned about a violent car game player driving a real car and maybe being pissed or having drunk too much.

But the only concern is if he ACTS in funny ways, sticks things into baby. But probably, the only person that stuck something into baby must have been the police examiner who checked for sexual abuse.

Now daddy getting turned on by looking at such photos, that would be a problem as it might lead to future abuse. But again, imagine him sticking a fever thermometer in baby's behind, should a dad be arrested? They stuck fever thermometers into me all the time and I don't think my parents were perverts.

And if dad is really were a child abuser, and if mom participated in that (extremely rare, especially in functioning middle class families. Maybe in drug addict sicko families), then he probably would not be stupid enough to develop at WalMart. Now, in the age of digital photography.

Maybe to be on the safe side, all babies should be taken away from parents. Afte all they all change diapers and handle the baby's private parts. Better to err on the side of caution!

So again, a blanket suspicion on all good decent people, this is insane.

Next time you take street photos of a banking institution you should be arrested. You might plan a bank robbery. Or you photograph the Pentagon: you might plan a terrorist attack.

Fine, let them check you if they are suspicious. For terrorism, bank robbery, or child abuse.

But in ancient times there was a rule: you are innocent until provem guilty. If someone checks me for terrorist or bank robbery suspicion, I should not need a lawyer. A good citizen should remain unconcerned if he has nothing to hide.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I think it is incredibly gross, and yes, I wouldn't mind them knocking on your door.

If you want to be sick in private, we can't stop you.

You have some serious issues. Have you thought about consulting a psychologist? Many medical insurance policies now have mental care included. My apologies if you were abused as a child or grew up in a strict puritan family where any nudity was considered from the devil and your mother had to cover her ankles.

Did my opinion upset you? Looks like your the one who needs some help.

 

[ericlp]

Weird part about this is..... Sometimes you just take a bunch of photo's and sometimes the photo's you take are not the ones your going to cherish for the rest of your life. IE, it's not the photo that get's framed or put in the family album.

I take thousands of shots with digital cam, and I'm lucky to get a few good ones the majority go into the trash, IE, bad position, bad pose, bad lighting, bad focus ... you get the point. It's really hard to make a valid opinion on any of this as I haven't and doubt we will see these "questionable" photo's to make up are own minds. But where do we draw the line on this?

Maybe these people were just steps away from getting the photo's cropped up and start up the presses? Riiiiggghhhht..... Sheesh, these are film photo's and I would think anyone seriously with the intent to make money on them or do what ever child porn people do with them would have probably wanted to use a really high quality digital camera and then the "save the children from porn" would have never known to begin with.

Child porn happens all the time... It's happening right now no doubt and to make it clear I don't agree with it.

But a snapshot of your own kids... Whatever they were doing... Posing, goofing off, I think we can all agree there weren't any sex toys, or lubes in the back ground. Now that is where I'd be drawing the line.

I believe you guys are making mountains out of mole hills.

 

[FaaR]

Originally posted by: waggy
are you retarded? these were nto typical diaper change position, bath time photos or such. some had close up pictures of the young girls privates. One was of the child on hands and knees from 3 ft behind.

if these are typical to you then you have issues.

Yeah, you tell 'em, Waggy! Sling those perverts in jail, lock 'em up and toss away the key, you obviously know exactly what's going on despite not having seen any of the pictures yourself and only basing your opinions on second or third hand information. You, Sir, must be a genius, AND a mindreader!