Jump to content

German nabbed for travelling with minor not related to him


Recommended Posts

oztony

 

 

Here is the additional charge he was facing:

 

You conveniently forgot to mention how he made bail ? Now how do you do that with all these charges ? his bail was 320,000PHP

 

Did ever get convicted ? Come on now , you have just presented a charge of child rape against the guy , what happened ?

 

It looks like it turned into a witch hunt to justify it all. Regardless of that the girl told social workers that he never touched her,

 

And another thing Tullioz ,  in the expat community we are guilty right? You have no perspective whatever.

 

http://www.caringforourchildrenfoundation.org/swedish-national-faces-charge-of-child-abuse/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Tullioz

    33

  • oztony

    26

  • contraman

    18

  • SkyMan

    16

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My wife, when reading this said, " Somebody that was jealous of the family just turned them in, because if there was no complaint, nobody would do anything, the same thing could happen to us"    And

i clicked on the article and to be fair, even if the family is meeting them at the pier the german wasn't riding the bike with the mother or father, he was riding it with the minor girl and showed up

I think you guys should all settle down and read this bit from Senior Supt. Noel Gillamac, Cebu provincial police director.   “There have been parents who, because of poverty, allowed their children

Posted Images

oztony

 

 

Lagstrem was not able to show proper documents proving his relationship with the child, thus he was charged with child abuse...

 

You are a dreamboat , read your own post , he was charged with abuse because he could not prove his relationship with child ,

 

Now does that make sense to you ? he must be an abuser because he is not related , you must be an abuser too at that rate of mentality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tullioz

You are a dreamboat , read your own post , he was charged with abuse because he could not prove his relationship with child ,

 

Now does that make sense to you ? he must be an abuser because he is not related , you must be an abuser too at that rate of mentality.

 

In the context of the article that is not referring to his blood or legal relationship to the child, but rather his reason for being with the child at that time.

 

relationship: noun 1. a connection, association, or involvement.

Edited by Tullioz
Link to post
Share on other sites
oztony

Bottom line here , not everybody is guilty , no doubt some are , but I seriously doubt that you believe or are aware of some of the diabolical things that actually happen in this country.

I hate child molesters and all those type of filth , but revenge and vengeful actions by some people have no bounds and if you don't think innocent people get labelled with this stuff , I don't know what more to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tullioz

Bottom line here , not everybody is guilty , no doubt some are , but I seriously doubt that you believe or are aware of some of the diabolical things that actually happen in this country.

I hate child molesters and all those type of filth , but revenge and vengeful actions by some people have no bounds and if you don't think innocent people get labelled with this stuff , I don't know what more to say.

 

I am willing to bet that 90% of the time that the clause we are discussing here is used the individual is guilty. It would take some serious research to find out for sure, but it could be done. Those who are innocently picked up because of false information can usually prove their innocence in a short period of time. Of course people get accused of things they are not guilty of, but I have yet to see a case where this particular clause has been abused. Every single case I have read about, the person is doing something that makes them look like they have bad intentions. This German guy is no exception. 

 

Not sure how this past case became the topic of debate, but the point I am trying to make is that it is not illegal to be in the company of minors in the Philippines. It is illegal however, to be in the company of a child if there is good reason to believe you intend to harm them.  

Edited by Tullioz
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill H

 

 

in my own experience, i have hit (or been hit by, let's say) both motorcycles and buses.  the buses almost always fare better than the motorcycles.

 

Almost????

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin (Retired)
broden

Almost????

depends on the motorcycle

 

Tnbq4XU.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

 

The problem is that no matter what the family says in his defense, it could well be that they are merely defending him to prevent their gravy train from getting locked away in prison.  No real good way to determine the validity of their story.  It is a bit suspicious him riding her on the scooter and not the bus but there may be possible explanations for that.  Perhaps the parents left from Lapux2 while he picked her up from school. Maybe her school was well north of the NBT like in Lacion or something.  It's very difficult to get a bus north, north of the NBT.  Some in Liloan fr examaple, take a jeep to the NBT to get a bus north to Bogo, Hagnaya, or wherever. 

 

Or maybe, like a lot of kids her age, she likes to ride on scooters. Could really be that simple. 

I am willing to bet that 90% of the time that the clause we are discussing here is used the individual is guilty.

 

90% isn't nearly good enough for this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tullioz

 

90% isn't nearly good enough for this. 

 

That's about as close as you are going to get when it comes to the law in any country. There are always going to be innocent people being accused or caught up in things they are not guilty of. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee

Too many people seem to think that just because they have done things and never been charged, then it must be okay and none of us would ever get arrested for doing the same thing. Those same people no doubt drive faster than the speed limit and say see, I have done it for years and never gotten a ticket. The Philippines does not want anyone to be in the Philippines who might be a bad guy. Just look at the BI home page HERE to see their thoughts related to how they feel about us, how bad does it have to be to even put such a thing on their home page if they do not think there are a lot of us who are bad.

 

resized2.jpg

Edited by Lee
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul

It is not against the law to be in the company of minors in the Philippines.

 

Please argue your point against the quoted text below:

(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty. - Taken from this page.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul

 

 

There are always going to be innocent people being accused or caught up in things they are not guilty of. 

 

This, I can agree with. Considering how things are in the Philippines, and other countries, that can certainly happen - especially to foreigners.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro

This, I can agree with. Considering how things are in the Philippines, and other countries, that can certainly happen - especially to foreigners.

 

Accused is one thing, arrested is another. For this law (there being very little defense for people who are actually not doing anything wrong) 1 in 10 is way too high. If "the family is following closely" or "my wife is shopping elsewhere in the mall" were valid defenses then the police asking questions 1/10 of the time that were off base would be acceptable. 

 

But this is not the case. 

 

If her nieces or cousins or whatever who are eating pizza with you are minors, you're potentially screwed, blued, and tattooed. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tullioz

Please argue your point against the quoted text below:

 

I did the best i could in this post here:

 

http://www.livingincebuforums.com/topic/83196-german-nabbed-for-travelling-with-minor-not-related-to-him/?p=1041033

 

It really comes down to common sense. How in the world could a country enforce a law where it is illegal for an adult to be in the company of a minor who is not related to them? This is just a tool to immediately rescue a child from potentially dangerous situation without having to build a case first. It has never been used in any other way and it apparently works well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
colemanlee

 

 

It really comes down to common sense. How in the world could a country enforce a law where it is illegal for an adult to be in the company of a minor who is not related to them? This is just a tool to immediately rescue a child from potentially dangerous situation without having to build a case first. It has never been used in any other way and it apparently works well.

 

Lets hope you never have to find out....

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...