Mob Mentality Pt. II

Houston, We Have Their Attention!!!

Guess which prosecutors going to review Megan Meier’s case!!!!

 …and apparently some vigilante’s are acting a fool…
Curt and Lori Drew got quite an evil prank played on them.


12 thoughts on “Mob Mentality Pt. II

  1. Normally I wouldn’t condone bad behavior in order to punish bad behavior… But this is the one case I’ll break with my sensibilities.

    Child predators lured this girl in…and the law says it’s mere misconduct.

    What is misconduct about doing the same things child predators do to lure in other child victims?

    Misconduct? Give me a break.

    Weeks and weeks of predatory grooming, stalking, manipulating and exploiting a 13 year old child is so far beyond simple misconduct.

    Child predators are convicted long before they get their hands on a child.

    All it takes is and adult who grooms a child for intimacy over the internet…and this follows the same path.

    The only difference is that this person took a more cruel direction with her online grooming… She intended to destroy the child mentally….

    It was more than flirting…. like a child predator does.

    It was a full relationship this adult imposed on this child…

    and authorities call this mere misconduct?

    sick… I hope these so called authorities come under intense crutiny…

  2. Why is it that the family that was on top of the world are broken up now and the parent’s have restraining orders against one another?? My opinion would be that things were bad before and now they are worse b/c neither parent could prevent what happened to their little girl. I think it is very sad and if the parents were monitoring all correspondence why did they allow conversations with a sexual nature to continue, much less happen, to begin with? I feel so bad for this family who did not deserve what happened. Poor Megan, she did not deserve to be terrorized in her own home and by someone that she knew. What is sad is that an adult did the harassing, not another student.

  3. As details about Lori Drew’s 6 week cyber-voyeur techniques emerge, I am more convinced that outing this kind of behavior is not only right, but essential. Essential? Really?

    It is becoming clearer everyday that Lori Drew employed many of the same grooming techniques that child predators utilize to charm their way into gaining a child’s trust. The most significant key here is that Lori Drew spent approximately 6 full weeks baiting Megan into this trust by posing as a “cute” boy that Megan would be attracted to.

    Right here, Drew utilizes the sexual stimulation that exists in male/female pair bonding in order to manipulate the 13 year old girl.

    Lori Drew groomed her victim like many child predators do, enticing her with flirtation, mild sexual conversation and playing on Megan’s weakness. Lori knew that Megan had a low self esteem and was treated for depression.

    There are uncanny parallels between the typical Child Predator MOA and those utilized by Lori Drew to control and manipulate Megan in the relationship Lori developed with her.

    Outing Child Predators has been public policy in most states and is usually upheld under the premise that the public has a right to reasonably protect itself from criminal behavior where it exists. Families with children have a right to know when those who might prey upon their child, live nearby. Public policy dictates that if a child is exposed to potential harm from predatory activity, then parents should at least have the opportunity to be aware such harm may exist.

    But what if a child predator confesses to a crime, but is never convicted? Does the potential for risk exist despite the legal process?

    Thus far, details in the case have been heavily supported by Lori Drew’s own admissions, police records and interviews. The amount of speculation in this case has been minimal, and the majority of public outrage has largely focused on the facts presented.

    The Missouri Public Records Act of 1961 was enacted partially to inform the public of persons, events, proceedings and reports that may effect the public directly. The records (such as the charges Lori Drew filed against the Meier family), were the principal documents used to tie Lori Drew to her abhorrent acts. By filing this police report, Lori in effect put herself into the spot light. The Blogging community simply connected the dots and reported the results.

    The Vice enjoys the sharp irony that Lori Drew’s own actions, activities and zeal to hurt someone eventually lead to her own uncovering. As I see it, public policy laws and Lori Drew’s own manipulations of those laws worked to her undoing. The Vice is appreciative for Lori Drew’s assistance in these efforts.

    Danny Vice

  4. As the trainer of impressionable teen and preteen girls, we do our best to encourage the young ladies to look for their strengths and to minimize their attention to their faults. I work every day at trying to find gentle ways to encourage the girls to push themselves harder and when criticism is necessary, to make sure it is constructive and includes positives BEFORE point out negatives. This is something all parents, teachers, coaches, and any one else who works with this age bracket of minors SHOULD do.

    I am horrified that a mother (I’m a mom of 2 girls ages 17 and 12) would engage in an activity designed to gain the trust of an already vulnerable girl (simply by her age alone….made worse by her mental health issues.) and for what??? To find out what this girl was saying about her child….COME ON?!?!?!?!? That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard and certainly isn’t a strong parenting technique. As a member of the community, I am additionally horrified that our county prosecutor cannot see the parallels between what this woman did and a child predator. If this woman had been male and had done this for the purpose of engaging this young girl in sexual contact, there would be no question as to there being a crime committed.

    A discussion concerning HOW we could HELP….not just talk about it or get angry….but what could we do to make a difference. We are in the process of organizing a charity horse show and ALL proceeds will be donated to the Meier family in hopes of helping them find justice for their daughter.

    If any one on here would like to find out more information, please check out and email us directly.


  5. On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials enacted an ordinance designed to address the public outcry for justice in the Megan Meier tragedy. The six member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.

    Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim or actually weaken the current law?

    I reject the premise of this new law and believe it completely misses the mark. The reasoning behind this opinion is that city officials have consistently treated this case as an Internet harassment case instead of a child welfare/exploitation case.

    Classifying this case a harassment issue completely fails to address the most serious aspects of the methods Lori Drew employed to lead this youth to her demise. The Vice disagrees that harassment was even a factor in this case until just a couple of days before Megan’s death.

    Considering this case a harassment issue is incorrect because during the 5 weeks Lori Drew baited and groomed her victim, the attention was NOT unwanted attention. It was not harassment at all. It was invited attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.

    This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators can use to reclassify their cases to harassment issues. In effect, the law enacted to give Megan justice, may make her even more vulnerable. So long as the child victim doesn’t tell the predator to stop, even a harassment charge may not stick with the right circumstances and a good defender.

    Every aspect of this case follows the same procedural requirement used to convict a Child Predator. A child was manipulated by an adult. A child was engaged in sexually explicit conversation (as acknowledged by Lori Drew herself). An adult imposed her will on a child by misleading her, using a profile designed to sexually or intimately attract the 13 year old Megan.

    Lori then utilized the power she had gained over this child to cause significant distress and endangerment to that child. She even stipulated to many of these activities in the police report she filed shortly after Megan’s death.

    We can go on and on here, but the parallels between this case and many other child predator cases that are successfully prosecuted bear striking similarities.

    Child Predator laws do not require much more than simply proving that an adult has engaged a minor in sexually explicit conversation. Lori Drew has already stipulated that her conversations with Megan were sometimes sexual for a child Megan’s age.

    City officials who continue to ignore this viable, documented admission and continue to address this issue as harassment are intentionally burying their heads in the sand, when the solution is staring them right in the face. Why?

    On June 5th, 2006, Governor Matt Blunt signed into law stiff penalties for convicted sex offenders. The Vice believes that officials continually reject a child predator classification of this case in order to keep the penalty of this offense out of this harsher realm.

    Opponents of this law are active in defeating this law not by changing it, but by disqualifying cases like Megan’s from ever being heard.

    There are several other child exploitation laws on the books. To date, none of them have even been considered by City, State and Federal officials in this case. I’m outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.

    Those satisfied with this response out of Missouri officials need to think through the effect this law will truly have. It quite honestly has the potential to directly undermine Jessica’s law. It quiet easily gives prosecutors a way out of prosecuting child endangerment and child predator cases in the future.

    Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing here.

    Danny Vice

  6. The naming of Lori Drew has sparked quite a debate indeed. Some major news outlets have chosen to name the perpetrator(s) behind this story such as the New York Times. Some have chosen not to. The mainstream media however has concluded that the blogging community should shoulder the responsibility of first naming the perpetrator behind this story.

    The first question I have in this debate is simple. What is new here? Since before the French Revolution, the media has been used to ‘out’ individuals who’s actions seem to bear public relevancy in some way.

    Although Lori Drew has not yet been charged in the case of Megan Meier, the media has never required formal charges to be made before running a story. In the case of some journalist like Dan Rather, some media outlets run with stories before even confirming that they’re true.

    In this particular case, media outlets that have chosen to withhold Lori Drew’s identity have done so in consideration of other Drew family members.

    I’m wondering if by doing this, the media plans to always withhold the names of interesting persons who outrage the community, if those persons have children. This would certainly be quite a ground-breaking event

    Right at this moment, there is a story of a cop who is under investigation in the strange death of one wife and the disappearance of another. The cop in the story has a family, yet the media huddles outside his home relentlessly.

    I could go back and list thousands of stories where the media wasted no time in delivering the names and occupations of individuals that were later cleared of any wrong-doing. I’ve never heard of another instance where the media apologized for naming names.

    Don Henley’s ‘Dirty Laundry’ certainly applies well to conduct of most major news outlets.

    Lori Drew is a primary subject of the story, she is not a rape victim, and is not a minor. Identifying her breaks no new ground, nor does it deviate from what news outlets do on a daily basis.

    I also remind readers that her name and her role in the Megan Meier tragedy were documented as public record. A public record that Lori filed on her own accord. This is a critically important fact in this debate.

    News outlets, bloggers and the general public were handed Lori’s name and Lori’s own self admissions when she herself filed that police report and sought to elevate the entire situation into the public domain.

    Had Lori Drew simply acknowledged what she did was wrong, and apologized – the police report that identified her may have never been filed, and the entire situation may have well been kept at the lowest profile.

    Will we see the media write about this? Not likely.

    Danny Vice

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s