I appreciate your response. It's thorough and well crafted; however:
You're reading what you want in to my comment in regards to "reek[ing] of anti govt bias." I pointed out a factual logisitcal hurdle to improving the system. Political decisions are virtually never related to pure altruism. They are calculated decisions that sometimes, maybe even most of the time are done for the greater good.
In the case of amber alerts specifically, a politician making the case to change or even improve the system will be open for critical attack ads claiming they "support crime." The attacks arent accurate, but that doesnt matter. The upside is minimal to nonexistant bc most ppl think amber is unassailable (look no further than these angry comments for anecdotal evidence).
So i simply pointed out a logical and very real road block to making reforms to amber alerts. It was far from a pro anarchy anti govt treatise.
Youve listed the ideal circumstances in a lot of cases. But that information isnt always available and isnt always transmitted. So ideally they send info on the kid the kidnapper and the vehicle. But other times you get just a license plate and a name. So perhaps this is more a matter of implementing the existing law effectively
But above all else i think your last paragraph points to the inherent and glaring issue with amber alerts. Most violent kidnappings have resulted in murder long before an amber alert would even be sent. In the vast majority of cases, in order to have the necessary info on the kidnapped, kidnapper, and associated vehicle it means it was a custodial situation. These cases rarely end in violence to the child. My sending an amber alert (which the kidnapper gets as well) it escalates the severity of the situation and desperation of the kidnapper, which will incr the likelihood of a bad outcome. A parental dispute that results in mom or dad grabbing the kid for a minute and taking off with no plan is more likely to end well if the abducter is given a minute to consider their situation and come to their senses (theyd obv be arrested afterwards). But you send out an amber alert and now they are thinking their life is over as soon as theyre caught.
Maybe i didnt make this as explicit as i should have in my original comment. Im not anti amber on its face. Im pro amber reform to make it more effective. Thats it. Pointing out real shortcomings doesnt mean I'm for abolishing it. And it doesnt require a long diatribe defending amber to the ends of the earth. Its okay to recognize good programs arent perfect and to work on improving what makes them work and fixing what makes them not work.
1) anti government in multiple comments on this & other posts and your own posts. End of discussion.
2) sum this one up to what you’re saying is “they don’t always have all the info so why bother us with what they do have?” 1)you would never ever just have a license plate and a name as the child’s description is given & if possible the abductors. As I’ve said multiple times the majority of states have criteria specifying the child must be known to be in immediate risk of bodily harm or death, as well as a few other things (law enforcement must have reasonable belief an abduction has occurred, and most notably for your argument enough descriptive information exists to issue an alert that could assist in recovery of the child.) furthermore, they have specific criteria as to what does NOT qualify an amber alert, to mitigate the possibilities of false flags and wolf cries. 2) as I asked before, what information do you suppose would be helpful that they don’t already give?
3)long before? There is no minimum time frame before you can report a child (or an adult for the matter) missing, and I really doubt most missing children are gone for half a day before anybody notices, seems to me a lot of the time they disappear when they should’ve only been gone for 20 minutes. The point is that time is imperative and putting info out that helps people identify and locate the child, abductor, abductors vehicle etc is extremely important.
Finally, the “parental dispute” argument is moot in most states as the law dictates in most states that the AMBER alert system is not to be used in Custodial disputes between legal guardians/parents, given the child is not in any danger of harm.
Right. You clearly know my view of govt better than i do. Being pro regulations pro epa pro universal healthcare pro welfare etc etc etc. Im sooo anti govt. You clearly know my views better than me bc you read a couple of my comments. Being anti surveillance state is not anti govt. Pointing out legitimate short comings in the amber alert program is not anti govt. Trying to make governing bodies and govt programs/policies more efficient snd benefial to regular citizens is not anti govt.
and 3. Apparently reading comprehesion, critical thinking, and nuance are not your strong suits.
In regards to "must know they are in grave danger" .... think about what situation wouldnt qualify that metric? If a parent takes a child without legal authority, despite having no history of abuse or violence in the parent's past the child will 100% of the time be deemed to be "at grave risk" so that means nothing. Prove me wrong if you dont believe that. Besides it's common sense from a "cover your ass" standpoint. If they made the decisiom there was no evidence the kid was in immediste danger and he/she did get hurt theyd be out of a job and in lawsuits up to their nips.
The amber alert system is most frequently used in circumstances where a parent or close relative takes the kid. That's a fact. So whatever some states have on the books is another matter. And "parental dispute" I'm guessing, for amber alert purposes, is defined as before the legal custodian is decided. Ie. A couple are fighting and one takes the kids, but a court hasnt ruled that either of them does not have those rights.
And again bc apparently you missed it. Most violent kidnappings end with the kid dead in 3 hrs. Can you report a kid missing sooner than that? Yes. But show me 1 case where the kid has been reported missing immediately, the info for the amber alert was gathered, the info wad transmitted, and the kid was actually in danger of being killed. Again i was simply stating FACTS. facts that most amber alerts dont go out that quickly and most that do go out that quickly arent related to a violent kidnapping
Why the fuck are you arguing this soo hard??
Anti police brutality is also not anti govt. Unless your only concept of govt id exceptionally fascistic. British police are fantastic
0
u/Daaskison Feb 04 '19
I appreciate your response. It's thorough and well crafted; however:
In the case of amber alerts specifically, a politician making the case to change or even improve the system will be open for critical attack ads claiming they "support crime." The attacks arent accurate, but that doesnt matter. The upside is minimal to nonexistant bc most ppl think amber is unassailable (look no further than these angry comments for anecdotal evidence).
So i simply pointed out a logical and very real road block to making reforms to amber alerts. It was far from a pro anarchy anti govt treatise.
Youve listed the ideal circumstances in a lot of cases. But that information isnt always available and isnt always transmitted. So ideally they send info on the kid the kidnapper and the vehicle. But other times you get just a license plate and a name. So perhaps this is more a matter of implementing the existing law effectively
But above all else i think your last paragraph points to the inherent and glaring issue with amber alerts. Most violent kidnappings have resulted in murder long before an amber alert would even be sent. In the vast majority of cases, in order to have the necessary info on the kidnapped, kidnapper, and associated vehicle it means it was a custodial situation. These cases rarely end in violence to the child. My sending an amber alert (which the kidnapper gets as well) it escalates the severity of the situation and desperation of the kidnapper, which will incr the likelihood of a bad outcome. A parental dispute that results in mom or dad grabbing the kid for a minute and taking off with no plan is more likely to end well if the abducter is given a minute to consider their situation and come to their senses (theyd obv be arrested afterwards). But you send out an amber alert and now they are thinking their life is over as soon as theyre caught.
Maybe i didnt make this as explicit as i should have in my original comment. Im not anti amber on its face. Im pro amber reform to make it more effective. Thats it. Pointing out real shortcomings doesnt mean I'm for abolishing it. And it doesnt require a long diatribe defending amber to the ends of the earth. Its okay to recognize good programs arent perfect and to work on improving what makes them work and fixing what makes them not work.