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

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’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.