Is This the New Face of Vigilantism?
A video captured a startling scene in Trumann, Arkansas: a woman, identified as Tracy Washburn, was seen approaching two children — a five-year-old girl and an eight-year-old boy — and attempting to persuade them to go to the home of a registered sex offender. According to the children’s mother, Washburn told them the man was “a nice guy,” claimed “he wouldn’t hurt them,” and even said their mother wanted him to come out.
The Trumann incident raises uncomfortable, urgent concerns. What happens when citizens attempt to get registrants in trouble by tricking children into provoking contact with registered offenders? When individuals manufacture scenarios to get registrants out of their neighborhoods, is this not a troubling, dangerous form of vigilantism? If this is not isolated, such tactics could spread: neighbors, activists, or vigilantes baiting registrants via children or scripted scenarios to provoke violations. That is deeply troubling, especially in communities already hostile to registrants.
Thankfully in this case the incident was caught on video and the children didn’t take the vigilante’s bait, but what if cameras didn’t catch the incident, the children would have knocked on the registrants door and the vigilante would have captured that? The unsuspecting registrant would have been arrested.
Copycat crimes are real, and there are countless documented cases of NIMBY (“Not in My Backyard”) neighbors who have falsely accused registrants of violations simply to get them out of their neighborhoods. These kinds of schemes are another way people weaponize the registry against individuals.
Because of this, it is critical that everyone on the registry take steps to protect themselves. One of the most effective tools available is investing in doorbell cameras and exterior security cameras, ideally with coverage of all sides of the home. These systems should be connected to a cloud-based service that saves recordings automatically so that evidence cannot be tampered with or lost. This way, if a false accusation arises — whether from a neighbor, a vigilante, or a setup attempt — there is clear, objective proof of what actually happened.
Of course, many registrants do not have internet access due to probation restrictions. In those cases, it may be necessary to seek probation or court approval specifically for internet use tied to security systems. Advocates and attorneys should emphasize that such use is for safety and legal protection, not entertainment or social purposes.
The registry already exposes individuals to stigma, housing barriers, and constant scrutiny. The last thing anyone needs is to be targeted by vigilantes trying to provoke or invent violations. Protecting ourselves with evidence and preparation is no longer optional — it is essential.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And this is yet another example about how this is not about trying to protect children at all.
I think we’re overlooking a glaring contradiction here.
1. The woman trying to entice those children into going to the PFRs’ residence must not think of the PFR as much of a threat at all. I mean she wouldn’t knowingly risk the safety of those 2 children if she thought the PFR might actually molest them or god-knows what. right? (Making her guilty after the fact *smh)
or 2. The woman trying to entice those children into going to the PFRs’ residence simply didn’t care about the well-being of those children. Making her more of a threat to those children than the PFR minding his own business trying to live in peace.
Either way, it sounds like she’s the one who should be on the registry.
It’s like when cops have a particular crime, they are really over-the-top about getting arrests on. Most of the time they do, have done, or know they are guilty in some way associated with said crime. So they have to keep their cover with over-the-top arrests and bending the rules to “make the bad guy pay” *smh pathetic
Very interesting, yet another sad story from AR. The media took the opp to reintroduce the gent to the public while introducing her to the public for her crazy ways. Gonna be interesting to follow this one to see how the story plays out.
No idea what the laws are in Arkansas, but I can’t really see how him opening the door and a photo taken would get him into any trouble. Both his and the kids’ story would match, I would assume. But the person trying to orchestrate the setup would be in hot water. So this whole thing makes no sense at all.
I have a doorbell cam and security cameras around my house. Although I have Internet access they don’t need them since they record onto SD cards in the cameras themselves.
I noticed they made sure to include the registrant’s name and past convictions so as to add more ‘shock value’ to the story.
The media industry disgusts me and makes me want to puke!!
Many of them are ravenous wolves looking for someone to devour!
The Lord rebuke them!!
The original story is implying that somehow the registry is involved somehow. Can we get confirmation there is no connection between them?
I’m guessing this lady’s plan was to get the registrant to open his door, get a still shot of those kids on his porch, “come to their rescue” and get him arrested for attempting to lure. I’d bet the registry’s only involvement was providing the name and address of her target. Don’t be surprised if her story changes to being involved with the registrant and he coerced her into finding victims for him.
If I were that registrant, I’d be looking into civil and criminal action against her. Most courts would probably blow it off, but damn if I’d just brush it off as “no harm, no foul.” Letting it ride only invites future similar attempts against other registrants.