So, Manoj Govindbalunikam saw a 9-year-old boy fishing at the river and asked if he wanted a ride home and offered him a fidget spinner to play with. He told him to go ahead and leave his fishing tackle and bike behind because it wouldn't fit in his car.
Then he took the boy out for ice cream. Then he asked the boy for his home address. He drove to the home address, but apparently didn't come to a complete stop. He slowed down to like two miles an hour and started accelerating again.
The boy's father saw his son in the car with a stranger, and came out screaming to get the fuck away from his son, which Govindbalunikam did.
Nothing sexual or violent happened, and he doesn't have any other history suggestive of being a pedo, but it's a huge what the fuck was that. In any culture, I'd think. I don't think there's any culture where it's cool to just pick up other people's kids and drive them around town.
He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, and I don't believe there's been a deportation hearing yet.
Of course all of that shit matters. If someone walks up to a 9-year-old and says "Hey, little man!" and offers a high-five, we don't call for death by firing squad. It may not be a perfectly appropriate thing to do, but it's not monstrous, either.
Yeah but he told the kid to leave his stuff, and put him in a car. So he should be shot to death in public or hanged in public. Put to death in someway in public to deter people from doing what he did.
You are correct. Just talking to kids in public isn't a crime. Whet this guy did after that should be though!
It's a big difference: "Hey lil dude! Catch anything? Nice day eh? Good luck!"
vs:
"Leave your gear behind & come get ice cream with me, I'll drive you home for reals!"
Boku no Pico starts with a car ride to get ice cream, ...or so I've been told!
Yeah. I agree. Taking a kid of the streets and driving them around for a day should definitely be a crime.
It shouldn't be the same crime as diddling a kid, though.
Which is why it matters whether this was attempted diddling or just a crazy person thinking it would be fun to pretend to be this kid's big brother for the day.
What he did wasn't "kidnapping" ... until he started driving away. Then it 100% was.
However? While what he did was HIGHLY "sus" it wasn't a crime. Giving a kid a ride home, grabbing a snack? Because they're (I presume) the same "community" that's not unheard of. Maybe it looked like rain? BUT if the kid wasn't also a jeet? That's highly suspicious. Plus the "leave your gear here" is a huge red flag.
So the act of talking to the kid, giving the kid a ride & even getting a treat aren't criminal. The gear is huge & the driving away IS a crime.
18 months is a HUGE sentence in Canada, slaps on the wrist for non-Whites is SO commonplace.
Good point, especially if they're under 12 & might not understand such things well enough.
Coupled with "don't take candy from strangers" which this boy's parents omitted :/
I don't know what his motive was. I don't know if he's simply a pedophile, or if he had some emotionally-fucked-up reason to want to play Big Brother for a few hours, or if there are voices in his head telling him to protect the kid from the Terminator, or just what the fuck that was all about.
Obviously it's wrong to take a kid for a drive while his parents panic. And obviously it's a lot more wrong if he was about to molest the kid than if the kid was never in any real danger. Those two crimes are quite different, and the penalty for them should be very different.
Motive is everything in a case like this. It's all I'd want to know if I were somehow in charge of sentencing him.
If he wanted to molest this kid, I want him locked away for life. If he just wanted to push the kid on a swing and drive him back home, I want him locked up for maybe like two months and then put under supervision for a few years, just as a very strong "Don't do that shit, you might think it's harmless but it terrifies parents. It's downright fucking traumatic. Never do anything like that again."
It is relevant if there's some ambiguity. When he started driving away? THAT left no ambiguity at all: straight-up kidnapping.
But before that he was highly "sus" but not criminal.
Without the drive-off, would I let this guy within 10 meters of any kid? Hell no! What a creep. Boku no Pico Material eh?
It's not irrelevant. Legal definitions of "abduction" frequently require the intent. For example, intent to deprive of liberty or to conceal then from an entity lawfully entrusted with them (parents, school, etc.).
The problem is you are defaulting to the white person mentality of being impartial in an attempt to operate in a high trust society. The problem is, that is no longer a thing and whites must adopt the in-group preference that all other races have. This was a jeet doing it, then who cares what happens. No one would be coming to save you or rationalize it the same way you are doing it if he were white.
We give other Whites the benefit of the doubt because we have a high trust culture of helping each other, even if we're strangers. We take intent into consideration because White people know what it feels like not to have had breakfast, so to speak. It's actually plausible that a person raised in a White Western culture would give a strange kid a ride without nefarious intent. Not so with any other culture (maybe Japanese, although they would likely expect the kid to take care of themselves).
I think of high trust societies as a high performance race car; it can do incredible things that other cars simply can't, but it needs high performance components and has a very low tolerance for error.
Allowing infinite immigration is like filling the gas tank with grain alcohol or fixing components with duct tape. There are cars that are built like tanks that will run (like crap) on grain alcohol, but the high trust race car will explode.
If we can't stop immigration, we can't have a high trust society and we need to go backwards 1500 years to clanism.
The guy went over the line on what's considered absolutely nopetastic in a modern and aware society, at multiple layers. And even if there's a sliver's chance in hell that he didn't have horrible intentions he still made some monumentally stupid choices, to the point to where at the very fucking least he doesn't belong and shouldn't deserve to stay in a Western country.
And that's separate from how I already think we need to stop inviting foreigners in such absurdly high numbers, tantamount to inviting invaders to take over.
Looked it up. Weird fucking story.
So, Manoj Govindbalunikam saw a 9-year-old boy fishing at the river and asked if he wanted a ride home and offered him a fidget spinner to play with. He told him to go ahead and leave his fishing tackle and bike behind because it wouldn't fit in his car.
Then he took the boy out for ice cream. Then he asked the boy for his home address. He drove to the home address, but apparently didn't come to a complete stop. He slowed down to like two miles an hour and started accelerating again.
The boy's father saw his son in the car with a stranger, and came out screaming to get the fuck away from his son, which Govindbalunikam did.
Nothing sexual or violent happened, and he doesn't have any other history suggestive of being a pedo, but it's a huge what the fuck was that. In any culture, I'd think. I don't think there's any culture where it's cool to just pick up other people's kids and drive them around town.
He was sentenced to 18 months in jail, and I don't believe there's been a deportation hearing yet.
None of that shit matters. YOU. DO. NOT. APPROACH. OTHER. PEOPLE'S. CHILDREN, EVER.
Of course all of that shit matters. If someone walks up to a 9-year-old and says "Hey, little man!" and offers a high-five, we don't call for death by firing squad. It may not be a perfectly appropriate thing to do, but it's not monstrous, either.
Ok , but it’s a jeet. So you can be sure he wanted to rape the kid
Yeah but he told the kid to leave his stuff, and put him in a car. So he should be shot to death in public or hanged in public. Put to death in someway in public to deter people from doing what he did.
Yea, that's called "grooming."
You are correct. Just talking to kids in public isn't a crime. Whet this guy did after that should be though!
It's a big difference: "Hey lil dude! Catch anything? Nice day eh? Good luck!"
vs:
"Leave your gear behind & come get ice cream with me, I'll drive you home for reals!"
Boku no Pico starts with a car ride to get ice cream, ...or so I've been told!
Yeah. I agree. Taking a kid of the streets and driving them around for a day should definitely be a crime.
It shouldn't be the same crime as diddling a kid, though.
Which is why it matters whether this was attempted diddling or just a crazy person thinking it would be fun to pretend to be this kid's big brother for the day.
Agreed, never seen this comment section be so off before.
Impale pajeets
So a child kidnapping in broad daylight isn't enough for you?
Since you got here you've refused to make a lot of very simple moral judgments but this just might take the cake.
What he did wasn't "kidnapping" ... until he started driving away. Then it 100% was.
However? While what he did was HIGHLY "sus" it wasn't a crime. Giving a kid a ride home, grabbing a snack? Because they're (I presume) the same "community" that's not unheard of. Maybe it looked like rain? BUT if the kid wasn't also a jeet? That's highly suspicious. Plus the "leave your gear here" is a huge red flag.
So the act of talking to the kid, giving the kid a ride & even getting a treat aren't criminal. The gear is huge & the driving away IS a crime.
18 months is a HUGE sentence in Canada, slaps on the wrist for non-Whites is SO commonplace.
You do not, EVER, feed someone else's kid without asking.
Is the kid lactose intolerant? Deadly allergic to peanuts? How do you know?
This is why it's simply never appropriate to interact with a strange child unless the very first thing you're doing is contacting their parents.
Good point, especially if they're under 12 & might not understand such things well enough.
Coupled with "don't take candy from strangers" which this boy's parents omitted :/
I don't know what his motive was. I don't know if he's simply a pedophile, or if he had some emotionally-fucked-up reason to want to play Big Brother for a few hours, or if there are voices in his head telling him to protect the kid from the Terminator, or just what the fuck that was all about.
Obviously it's wrong to take a kid for a drive while his parents panic. And obviously it's a lot more wrong if he was about to molest the kid than if the kid was never in any real danger. Those two crimes are quite different, and the penalty for them should be very different.
Motive is entirely irrelevant. So why you're trying for that besides an obvious attempt at a red herring, I'd have to speculate.
Personally I think you're feigning ignorance.
You even quoted a very important part as to this pajeet subhuman's intent yourself but you seem to have missed it.
Motive is everything in a case like this. It's all I'd want to know if I were somehow in charge of sentencing him.
If he wanted to molest this kid, I want him locked away for life. If he just wanted to push the kid on a swing and drive him back home, I want him locked up for maybe like two months and then put under supervision for a few years, just as a very strong "Don't do that shit, you might think it's harmless but it terrifies parents. It's downright fucking traumatic. Never do anything like that again."
It is relevant if there's some ambiguity. When he started driving away? THAT left no ambiguity at all: straight-up kidnapping.
But before that he was highly "sus" but not criminal.
Without the drive-off, would I let this guy within 10 meters of any kid? Hell no! What a creep. Boku no Pico Material eh?
It's not irrelevant. Legal definitions of "abduction" frequently require the intent. For example, intent to deprive of liberty or to conceal then from an entity lawfully entrusted with them (parents, school, etc.).
Motive is very relevant.
The problem is you are defaulting to the white person mentality of being impartial in an attempt to operate in a high trust society. The problem is, that is no longer a thing and whites must adopt the in-group preference that all other races have. This was a jeet doing it, then who cares what happens. No one would be coming to save you or rationalize it the same way you are doing it if he were white.
Exactly.
We give other Whites the benefit of the doubt because we have a high trust culture of helping each other, even if we're strangers. We take intent into consideration because White people know what it feels like not to have had breakfast, so to speak. It's actually plausible that a person raised in a White Western culture would give a strange kid a ride without nefarious intent. Not so with any other culture (maybe Japanese, although they would likely expect the kid to take care of themselves).
I think of high trust societies as a high performance race car; it can do incredible things that other cars simply can't, but it needs high performance components and has a very low tolerance for error.
Allowing infinite immigration is like filling the gas tank with grain alcohol or fixing components with duct tape. There are cars that are built like tanks that will run (like crap) on grain alcohol, but the high trust race car will explode.
If we can't stop immigration, we can't have a high trust society and we need to go backwards 1500 years to clanism.
The guy went over the line on what's considered absolutely nopetastic in a modern and aware society, at multiple layers. And even if there's a sliver's chance in hell that he didn't have horrible intentions he still made some monumentally stupid choices, to the point to where at the very fucking least he doesn't belong and shouldn't deserve to stay in a Western country.
And that's separate from how I already think we need to stop inviting foreigners in such absurdly high numbers, tantamount to inviting invaders to take over.
High-trust White small towns where people either know eachothers directly, or by proxy of their family.