Amber alerts go political

American

Unregistered
A
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Messages
3,831
I won't even link to the story, because it deserves no attention. Amber alerts were designed for missing children, presumed kidnapped by strangers to be raped and killed. Instead they are being used to enforce custody battles, often in cases where the child is taken by non-threatening biological parents. It's not like the kid disappeared without a trace. A parent who would break the law to be with their child is probably a better parent than those who wouldn't anyway.

If you married a scuz and he or she stole your child, that's your problem. You two can fight it out however you like, and please don't ask me to get involved by scoping for "kidnappers". There are real missing children out there, and those cases deserve all the attention of the Amber system.

If not, then I'll just demand access the next time I lose my car keys or my electric potato peeler. Because unless they are really in danger, then that's what your children are worth to me.
 
I have to say that in the case you are pointedly not giving details for, it is more than a simple custody case being fought out in domestic court. It involves the abduction of children at gun point. What's more, the parents abandoned their car and took off into the wilderness with their kids in tow in extremely cold weather conditions.

There is obviously a very real danger to which these kids are exposed. I agree Amber Alerts should not be used to enforce custody issues but this case goes somewhat beyond that.
The reckless abandon employed by these parents intuitively gave law enforcement the "premonition" that this was some sort of suicide mission. Using the public as its eyes and ears in recovering these kids is not, in this case, a mistake by law enforcement.
 
I wonder at how anybody can claim amber alerts should not be used to enforce the law, to include cases of non custodial parents kidnapping their children. Yes, there are cases where the courts get it wrong. But where do you draw the line, where do you say it is okay to break the law based on your judgment and when it is not.

Clearly, kidnappers of children must be pursued and amber alerts are a good tool to recover kidnapped children. Agendas with regard to custody are emotional arguments and also should not be enforced by the amber alert system, as it is just as much using the system to not put out an amber alert for custody battles. The law is the law and must be enforced.
 
Shinytop said:
The law is the law and must be enforced.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, more than you want me too I'd bet, probably. It's just that 9 times out of ten, the little twerp turns out to be fine. Bad parents shouldn't be allowed to have kids anyway.
 
American said:
Bad parents shouldn't be allowed to have kids anyway.
Click to expand...

But you don't know they will be bad parents until they have kids.
 
Shinytop said:
I wonder at how anybody can claim amber alerts should not be used to enforce the law, to include cases of non custodial parents kidnapping their children.
Click to expand...

It isn't an issue of thinking custodial kidnappings shouldn't be tracked -- they should.

It's an issue that custodial battles vastly outnumber rape-and-murder kidnappings. As such, it will numb and dull the public to the point they don't care. Which won't help the kids who are being raped and murdered one bit. Which was the point of the Amber alert to begin with.

As bad as a custodial kidnapping is, it almost never will result in a rape and murder. I vote to not clog the system with this lesser crime.

Do you have no problems with the government using anti-terrorist laws to investigate drug and other crimes even thought the government swore on a stack of Bibles that it wouldn't be misused like this?
 
I suppose it depends on whether it is kidnapping. The US code specifically excludes parents from the kidnapping statutes unless parental rights were terminated by court order, in which case the biological parent has no more standing than anyone else. Custody battles would not appear to be "kidnapping". Contempt of court maybe, or some other arcane law, but not kidnapping.

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 7, 2003]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 7, 2003 and February 12, 2003]
[CITE: 18USC1201]


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 55--KIDNAPPING

Sec. 1201. Kidnapping

(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps,
abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any
person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when--
(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign
commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when
transported across a State boundary if the person was alive when the
transportation began;
(2) any such act against the person is done within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
(3) any such act against the person is done within the special
aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section
46501 of title 49;
(4) the person is a foreign official, an internationally
protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in
section 1116(b) of this title; or
(5) the person is among those officers and employees described
in section 1114 of this title and any such act against the person is
done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the
performance of official duties,

shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and,
if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life
imprisonment.
(b) With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release
the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully
seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried
away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been
transported to interstate or foreign commerce. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, the fact that the presumption under this section has
not yet taken effect does not preclude a Federal investigation of a
possible violation of this section before the 24-hour period has ended.
(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one
or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the
conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years
or for life.
(d) Whoever attempts to violate subsection (a) shall be punished by
imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
(e) If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an
internationally protected person outside the United States, the United
States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense if (1) the victim is a
representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States, (2) an
offender is a national of the United States, or (3) an offender is
afterwards found in the United States. As used in this subsection, the
United States includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United
States including any of the places within the provisions of sections 5
and 7 of this title and section 46501(2) of title 49. For purposes of
this subsection, the term ``national of the United States'' has the
meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).
(f) In the course of enforcement of subsection (a)(4) and any other
sections prohibiting a conspiracy or attempt to violate subsection
(a)(4), the Attorney General may request assistance from any Federal,
State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any
statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.
(g) Special Rule for Certain Offenses Involving Children.--
(1) To whom applicable.--If--
(A) the victim of an offense under this section has not
attained the age of eighteen years; and
(B) the offender--
(i) has attained such age; and
(ii) is not--
(I) a parent;
(II) a grandparent;
(III) a brother;
(IV) a sister;
(V) an aunt;
(VI) an uncle; or
(VII) an individual having legal custody of the
victim;

the sentence under this section for such offense shall be subject to
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) Guidelines.--The United States Sentencing Commission is
directed to amend the existing guidelines for the offense of
``kidnapping, abduction, or unlawful restraint,'' by including the
following additional specific offense characteristics: If the victim
was intentionally maltreated (i.e., denied either food or medical
care) to a life-threatening degree, increase by 4 levels; if the
victim was sexually exploited (i.e., abused, used involuntarily for
pornographic purposes) increase by 3 levels; if the victim was
placed in the care or custody of another person who does not have a
legal right to such care or custody of the child either in exchange
for money or other consideration, increase by 3 levels; if the
defendant allowed the child to be subjected to any of the conduct
specified in this section by another person, then increase by 2
levels.

(h) As used in this section, the term ``parent'' does not include a
person whose parental rights with respect to the victim of an offense
under this section have been terminated by a final court order.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1201
Click to expand...
 
Again, though, I don't care if it's technically a "kidnapping". If it's a bio parent, it almost certainly is not to rape and murder the child. Those kidnappings will numb the public to Amber alerts, making them almost worthless for the "real" kidnappings -- rape and murder kidnappings.

Politicians who use the weasley "well, it's technically the same legal kidnapping" should be slapped. And if this clogging of the Amber system results in a real kidnapped child being raped and murdered when they otherwise would not be, that official should probably, ethically, be planted 6 feet under. I'm sick of ******* politicians misusing laws the way they were not intended.
 
Beerina said:
It isn't an issue of thinking custodial kidnappings shouldn't be tracked -- they should.

It's an issue that custodial battles vastly outnumber rape-and-murder kidnappings. As such, it will numb and dull the public to the point they don't care. Which won't help the kids who are being raped and murdered one bit. Which was the point of the Amber alert to begin with.

As bad as a custodial kidnapping is, it almost never will result in a rape and murder. I vote to not clog the system with this lesser crime.

Do you have no problems with the government using anti-terrorist laws to investigate drug and other crimes even thought the government swore on a stack of Bibles that it wouldn't be misused like this?
Click to expand...


I think it a serious mistake to tell law enforcement that they should not pursue so called custodial kidnappings any differently than any other. We do not know until the end of the case whether or not we have a rape and murder kidnapping. To prejudge based on stats is to accept deaths along the way that may have been stopped by amber alerts. I do not seriously believe that individuals who have information to capture somebody released through an amber alert will stop and not give it to LE because there have been too many this year.

Limiting amber alerts to those that are properly defined as rape and murder opens up the can of worms of misdirection and mislabeling or just plain mistakes. A nation of laws has no business pre judging these cases and giving up on "custodial". It's a label and often misapplied. Custodail issues do not mean the child is in no danger. And when the child is in no danger it does not mean that justice should be ignored.

And yes I disagree with laws being passed and getting our support for one issue and being used for another. The Patriot Act is but one example of the government lying and misdirecting the citizenry in order to get a law passed and then using it other than advertised. Nobody has ever explained to me how eliminating some of the checks and balances enhances our liberties.
 
Shinytop said:
I think it a serious mistake to tell law enforcement that they should not pursue so called custodial kidnappings any differently than any other. We do not know until the end of the case whether or not we have a rape and murder kidnapping. To prejudge based on stats is to accept deaths along the way that may have been stopped by amber alerts. I do not seriously believe that individuals who have information to capture somebody released through an amber alert will stop and not give it to LE because there have been too many this year.

Limiting amber alerts to those that are properly defined as rape and murder opens up the can of worms of misdirection and mislabeling or just plain mistakes. A nation of laws has no business pre judging these cases and giving up on "custodial". It's a label and often misapplied. Custodail issues do not mean the child is in no danger. And when the child is in no danger it does not mean that justice should be ignored.
Click to expand...

All emergency calls are prioritized with somewhat arbirtary judgement.

And yes I disagree with laws being passed and getting our support for one issue and being used for another. The Patriot Act is but one example of the government lying and misdirecting the citizenry in order to get a law passed and then using it other than advertised. Nobody has ever explained to me how eliminating some of the checks and balances enhances our liberties.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? You're moaning because this was inauguration day and the nation finally woke up to how badly the left sucks.
 
American said:
All emergency calls are prioritized with somewhat arbirtary judgement.



What does that have to do with anything? You're moaning because this was inauguration day and the nation finally woke up to how badly the left sucks.
Click to expand...


If you had looked to the post I was responding to you would have seen this question:

"Do you have no problems with the government using anti-terrorist laws to investigate drug and other crimes even thought the government swore on a stack of Bibles that it wouldn't be misused like this?"

Moaning is what you consider it when one complains about being misled or lied to by the administration and Congress when they are asking support for passing laws. You need to get out more. What makes you think they only are lying when you are in agreement with what they are lying about. Why did judges get their right to say no dice on warrants taken away? Why are they not necessary any more? Because of more protection for you or because of convenience for law enforcement. The checks and balances were not just frills, were not roadblocks designed only to frustrate LE. They were put in to protect the citizens of the country.
 
Shinytop said:
If you had looked to the post I was responding to you would have seen this question:

"Do you have no problems with the government using anti-terrorist laws to investigate drug and other crimes even thought the government swore on a stack of Bibles that it wouldn't be misused like this?"

Moaning is what you consider it when one complains about being misled or lied to by the administration and Congress when they are asking support for passing laws. You need to get out more. What makes you think they only are lying when you are in agreement with what they are lying about. Why did judges get their right to say no dice on warrants taken away? Why are they not necessary any more? Because of more protection for you or because of convenience for law enforcement. The checks and balances were not just frills, were not roadblocks designed only to frustrate LE. They were put in to protect the citizens of the country.
Click to expand...


Teen's Body Found

The reason this happened is because of people like you who think that Amber alerts should be used for petty domestic problems. People would have paid more attention in this case and maybe saved the girl if they didn't all assume it was something going on between a putz and his dumb wife.

If you support Amber alerts for kids who aren't not abducted by non-strangers (ie- we all know parents ain't gonna hurt the little tyke), then you are an enabler of murder. You support killing kids by having such views, in my opinion.
 
Is anyone really surprised by this?

Before you know it, it'll be used for commercial advertising.
 
American said:
Teen's Body Found

The reason this happened is because of people like you who think that Amber alerts should be used for petty domestic problems. People would have paid more attention in this case and maybe saved the girl if they didn't all assume it was something going on between a putz and his dumb wife.

If you support Amber alerts for kids who aren't not abducted by non-strangers (ie- we all know parents ain't gonna hurt the little tyke), then you are an enabler of murder. You support killing kids by having such views, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, you did say it was your opinion. I guess you can ignore what I posted and not post anything to back it. Would it do any good to post about the number of parents who kill or abuse their children every year? No, I thought not.

But regardless of your opinion to accuse me of enabling murder is totally uncalled for and only defines you as one without logic. You should have a bit more evidence and fact before you make such a wild ass accusation. Your particular ax to grind over custody battles is not at issue, the fact remains that many parents harm and kill children annually in this country. You can ignore it or not. I don't give a damn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom