Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lets flip this. Suppose she was a runaway. Supposed they did only a cursory stop and let them go. Now suppose she ends up dead shortly after?

Think that doesn't happen? It did with Jeffrey Dahmer.

A little more investigation can reduce this risk without unue burden. What actually occurred appears to have gone beyond that.

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets flip this. Suppose she was a runaway. Supposed they did only a cursory stop and let them go. Now suppose she ends up dead shortly after?

Think that doesn't happen? It did with Jeffrey Dahmer.

A little more investigation can reduce this risk without unue burden. What actually occurred appears to have gone beyond that.

I think that the stop was fine, and that once the notarized letter was validated, and/or contact made with the parents that the three should have been sent on their merry way.

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets flip this. Suppose she was a runaway. Supposed they did only a cursory stop and let them go. Now suppose she ends up dead shortly after?

Think that doesn't happen? It did with Jeffrey Dahmer.

Did Jeffrey Dahmer have notarized legal documents granting him temporary legal guardianship of the girl and produced said documents to the police?

Did the boy that was with Dahmer collaborate his story?

Where there witnesses at the gas station that tried to give the police a different story than the two guys and the girl?

I think that the stop was fine, and that once the notarized letter was validated, and/or contact made with the parents that the three should have been sent on their merry way.

Exactly. I'm not arguing for anything more then that. I could see how they could have fallen into the bureaucracy which caused a lot the delay, but it all appears troubling after the initial stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Did Jeffrey Dahmer have notarized legal documents granting him temporary legal guardianship of the girl and produced said documents to the police?
***They said they were couple. A "document" doesn't mean anything if she's a runaway as she could have faked it, hence the need to call the parents if there are still suspsicions. Once thats checked out it shouldn't have been an issue. Again that could have been handled right there with a phone call and asking those Qs UI submitted earlier.
Did the boy that was with Dahmer collaborate his story?
***he was drunk
Where there witnesses at the gas station that tried to give the police a different story than the two guys and the girl?
***Facts not in evidence.

 Frazzled wrote:

I think that the stop was fine, and that once the notarized letter was validated, and/or contact made with the parents that the three should have been sent on their merry way.

Exactly. I'm not arguing for anything more then that. I could see how they could have fallen into the bureaucracy which caused a lot the delay, but it all appears troubling after the initial stop.

And how would you validate the exact same scenario if the people involved were a woman and a man, with a child without an ID?

Because your average family will have less legal documentation in their possession verifying that the child is with them legally than these guys had.

Maybe they have their Oklahoma birth certificate with them. But the cops won't know what an Oklahoma birth certificate looks like, so better take the child away and place her in protective custody until some Oklahoma offices open in the morning...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Did Jeffrey Dahmer have notarized legal documents granting him temporary legal guardianship of the girl and produced said documents to the police?
***They said they were couple. A "document" doesn't mean anything if she's a runaway as she could have faked it, hence the need to call the parents if there are still suspsicions. Once thats checked out it shouldn't have been an issue. Again that could have been handled right there with a phone call and asking those Qs UI submitted earlier.
Did the boy that was with Dahmer collaborate his story?
***he was drunk
Where there witnesses at the gas station that tried to give the police a different story than the two guys and the girl?
***Facts not in evidence.

So it's nothing like what happened here? Glad we got that straightened out.

 Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. I'm not arguing for anything more then that. I could see how they could have fallen into the bureaucracy which caused a lot the delay, but it all appears troubling after the initial stop.

Likewise. The bureaucracy thing is why I asked back on Page 1 how long it takes to get a minor back from CPS. Anything social services wise always seems to take an absurd amount of time, and whether other factors may have slowed down the process (more urgent matters needing the police's attention for example). Is 11 hours overnight atypical to retrieve a child from CPS?

And how would you validate the exact same scenario if the people involved were a woman and a man, with a child without an ID?

We just went through this. I'll quote.
“You can separately quiz the parents and the child for common items and confirm the munchkin is their child. Come on people seriously?

Here's some questions for those tryig to bait me that they could separately ask the parents and the kids:
*whats your parent's birthdays? Whats the rugrat's birthday?
*where do you live at?
*what is your phone number (to all three)?
*what school does the rugrat go to?

If these match, well you're on your way. if not then further investigation is needed, and it takes that long.”

Its like you people have never been pulled over before speeding, gun running, or anything fun...

Is 11 hours overnight atypical to retrieve a child from CPS?

On a weekend, with the clock starting at night, I'd bet thats not unusual. Maybe even quick.

I know if arrested for something, you're likely not out intil the next day or even that Monday.

 Frazzled wrote:

And how would you validate the exact same scenario if the people involved were a woman and a man, with a child without an ID?

We just went through this. I'll quote.
“You can separately quiz the parents and the child for common items and confirm the munchkin is their child. Come on people seriously?

Here's some questions for those tryig to bait me that they could separately ask the parents and the kids:
*whats your parent's birthdays? Whats the rugrat's birthday?
*where do you live at?
*what is your phone number (to all three)?
*what school does the rugrat go to?

If these match, well you're on your way. if not then further investigation is needed, and it takes that long.”

Its like you people have never been pulled over before speeding, gun running, or anything fun...

And they asked lots of questions to these three people. Questions that all three of them were able to answer the same.

But they are not "normal" to you.

So normal people get away by giving the same answers and are not even required to provide any kind of legal proof that they have a legal relationship to the child.

But not-normal people giving the same answer and having a legal document are not good enough for you.

I mean, it's not like a runaway with a man and a woman couldn't rehearse these questions and answers...

 Frazzled wrote:
On a weekend, with the clock starting at night, I'd bet thats not unusual. Maybe even quick.

I know if arrested for something, you're likely not out intil the next day or even that Monday.

That's what I'd thought myself, most posts like that have on call staff. But the resources can very easily be stretched thin which may have been the case on the night in question. I wasn't sure if anyone who works in the field (or has experience in similar situations) could also shed some light on it.

You're right. You're some completely correct no person should ever be stopped for any reason. In fact the cops should be executed in the public square for their evil.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're right. You're some completely correct no person should ever be stopped for any reason. In fact the cops should be executed in the public square for their evil.

If you want to pretend that this is what I am saying, then go ahead and play with T-Bone and crown yourself as the king of winning internet debates.

Or you can admit to your double standard:

It's okay for the police to not detain a minor child with two adults as long as they can answer a magical set of questions even if they don't have any legal paperwork in their possession proving that they have custody or guardianship of that child as long as the two adults fit your preconceived notion of "normal".

And

It's okay for the police to detain a minor child with two adult even after they answered a magical set of questions and they have legal paperwork in their possession proving that they have guardianship as long as the two adults fit your preconceived notion of "not normal".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And you're talking out your hat.

No.

[

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Duty of care can also be a civil standard (commonly used in tort law).

This is also to what I was refering to.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Saying that the adults who had temporary custody of the minor, and therefore had a duty of care towards her is not inaccurate.

Indeed it isn't. That is not what I contest.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Also does sleeping rough in a car at a petrol station constitute vagrancy,

No :

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vagrancy wrote:vagrancy n. moving about without a means to support oneself, without a permanent home, and relying on begging. Until recently it was a considered a minor crime (misdemeanor) in many states. Constitutionally it is evident that being poor is not a crime. The same is true of "loitering."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
or a related criminal offence?

If it did, why weren't they charged with it?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Have I been sleepy before? Yes. If I have to get someone from Point A to Point B do I ensure that I am in a fit state to do so? Yes. Do I believe that three people suddenly fall asleep at the same time in a car, with no warning, as they try to find a hotel on GPS? Absolutely not.

You realize this is one sentence that was communicated to us by a secondary source? That the story told to the cops was probably longer, in more details that simply didn't have to be reproduced in the news? You are grasping at straws, and are ridiculously trying to justify your doubts. Evidently, since this entire story was corroborated by the parents and no one was charged with anything, it just happened that they were all really tired and just decided to doze off.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Again, not budgeting enough time to get from the event to the hotel and thus having a minor sleep in car, at a gas station, in a city that they are not familiar with is leaving them open to all sorts of potential problems with endangering the welfare of the child.

Not if they remain in presence of the child at all times. Seriously, what the hell is up with this insane level of paranoia? She has two guardians less than a feet away from her. I don't know if the gas station was 24h, but if it was, they were a few seconds away from a phone.

And this is hilariously sad, since the only trouble they had was being arrested without motive.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I really want to see a source for this outlandish claim

It's not really a question of statistical studies, just logic. The average door takes less than 45 seconds to break through, for an average sized man. If they had been in an hotel, it's a fair bet to say that the two instructors would've slept in different rooms than the girl. So, if anything happens, they are further away, and possibly won't even realize something is going down. And I very much doubt that the likelyhood of a crime of opportunity taking place against 3 people sleeping in a car is higher then the likelyhood of someone committing a crime of opportunity against a single teenage girl sleeping in a hotel room.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You're right. You're some completely correct no person should ever be stopped for any reason. In fact the cops should be executed in the public square for their evil.

If you want to pretend that this is what I am saying, then go ahead and play with T-Bone and crown yourself as the king of winning internet debates.

Or you can admit to your double standard:

It's okay for the police to not detain a minor child with two adults as long as they can answer a magical set of questions even if they don't have any legal paperwork in their possession proving that they have custody or guardianship of that child as long as the two adults fit your preconceived notion of "normal".

And

It's okay for the police to detain a minor child with two adult even after they answered a magical set of questions and they have legal paperwork in their possession proving that they have guardianship as long as the two adults fit your preconceived notion of "not normal".

Personally, it MUST be a case by case basis... Use that "gut instinct"... Generally speaking, I can tell at a glance while walking through a shopping center who the couples are, and of those couples, which are happy at the time, and which are in the middle of or just had a fight, etc.


Also, for instance, unless we're travelling through the Airport, or moving across country/multiple countries we dont carry ID for our kids, but ANYBODY who is not Stevie Wonder can see that if I'm with my kids theyre definitely mine, and if they are with the wife, they are definitely hers, and if we're together, well... there aint no denying who the kids belong to.


Ultimately, since no crime was being committed at the time (even though they suspected it), They should have let them go. Taken a note down, made some kind of report, so that, just in case something happens to one of the 3, they can get back to the other 2 and investigate that much quicker.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's not really a question of statistical studies, just logic. The average door takes less than 45 seconds to break through, for an average sized man. If they had been in an hotel, it's a fair bet to say that the two instructors would've slept in different rooms than the girl. So, if anything happens, they are further away, and possibly won't even realize something is going down. And I very much doubt that the likelyhood of a crime of opportunity taking place against 3 people sleeping in a car is higher then the likelyhood of someone committing a crime of opportunity against a single teenage girl sleeping in a hotel room.

So you don't have anything to back up your claim that a car is more secure than a brick and mortar room? And how long does it take to smash through a glass window on a car with a group?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ultimately, since no crime was being committed at the time (even though they suspected it), They should have let them go. Taken a note down, made some kind of report, so that, just in case something happens to one of the 3, they can get back to the other 2 and investigate that much quicker.

Exactly. See, a zealous-but-professionnal cop could've asked which hotel they had reservations in, and under which name. Then the cop 'offers' to escort them to this hotel, then checks if there was indeed a reservation, and how many rooms. If any of this doesn't fit the story told, you ask the instructors to remain put until you've contacted the parents. If you feel like they might bolt, put a surveillance on them. If this is a kidnapping-in-progress, clearly it'll be worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you don't have anything to back up your claim that a car is more secure than a brick and mortar room? And how long does it take to smash through a glass window on a car with a group?

What post-apocalyptic world/third-world country do you live in where ''Getting assaulted by a random passing mob of vicious madmen'' is a legitimate concern for a guardian?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What post-apocalyptic world/third-world country do you live in where ''Getting assaulted by a random passing mob of vicious madmen'' is a legitimate concern for a guardian?

Do I need to, again, ask you to read what I said rather than what you want to take offense at? As I recall you are the one stated that they were safer in a car than a hotel. I certainly did not mention ''Getting assaulted by a random passing mob of vicious madmen'', much less it being a legitimate concern for a guardian?" so I don't know why you felt the need for the quotation marks.
It should go without saying that a legitimate concern for a guardian is finding an appropriate place to spend the night. Staying in a car, in a gas station parking lot, with out of state plates, in an area that you are unfamiliar with is not exactly a sensible choice.

So far you've managed to act in bad faith, slung names, and now making up quotes. Lets see what your next exchange brings.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So far you've managed to act in bad faith, slung names, and now making up quotes. Lets see what your next exchange brings.

Quotation marks can also be used, such as in this case, to designate a proposition. Of course, the proposition was itself hyperbolical, but nevertheless, again, where do you live where, for 3 people sleeping in a car, in a parking lot, being assaulted by a group of people, is something that should be considered a risk? Because in most civilized land, it really isn't. It just isn't.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It should go without saying that a legitimate concern for a guardian is finding an appropriate place to spend the night. Staying in a car, in a gas station parking lot, with out of state plates, in an area that you are unfamiliar with is not exactly a sensible choice.

It's far from a great choice, but this wasn't their first either. And no, it simply doesn't count as a failure to care. Again, the failure to care would've been to endanger the child by driving while in no shape to.

Anyway, the parents themselves were fine with it, or at least certainly didn't mention taking offense to it. Your outrage is entirely superfluous, and beside the point.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
No, an adult female with a minor child.

Thats a major difference.

Which means, as I already said, that some people simply for not fitting the mould of man, woman & children all of the same race... will be under greater scrutiny. Now, whether that's inevitable or necessary is a hard conversation, but it shouldn't be hard for people to realise that the situation fething sucks for people who don't do anything wrong, but end up falling under greater scrutiny simply because the colour of their skin or the circumstances of their life don't fit the mould.

 Frazzled wrote:
Pfft this is nothing for Houston PD. They don't get punished for shooting of unarmed BGs. This is cake to that...
At least it wasn't Harris County Deputies. They'd still be in jail with the paperwork of the arrest lost...
On the positive they have cool horses downtown.

What is a BG? O.o

 Marine_With_Heart wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Pfft this is nothing for Houston PD. They don't get punished for shooting of unarmed BGs. This is cake to that...
At least it wasn't Harris County Deputies. They'd still be in jail with the paperwork of the arrest lost...
On the positive they have cool horses downtown.

What is a BG? O.o

Bad guys (I'm assuming)

Xenophobia...xenophobia everywhere!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

No crime was commited.

If that gas station has a no loitering sign there was.


If there is proof that the cops chastised the parents for leaving their kid 'with black guys' that is pretty f'd in this day and age. But unless the minor had a photo ID to match with the name on the notarized letter I have no real issue with the cops taking extra steps to verify the story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marine_With_Heart wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Pfft this is nothing for Houston PD. They don't get punished for shooting of unarmed BGs. This is cake to that...
At least it wasn't Harris County Deputies. They'd still be in jail with the paperwork of the arrest lost...
On the positive they have cool horses downtown.

What is a BG? O.o

African American Fellow.

 Marine_With_Heart wrote:
What is a BG? O.o

It is a big guy....

 Ahtman wrote:

 Marine_With_Heart wrote:
What is a BG? O.o

It is a big guy....

Spoiler:

For you

You might want to watch out posting pictures like that. Could get a fella baned.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Marine_With_Heart wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Pfft this is nothing for Houston PD. They don't get punished for shooting of unarmed BGs. This is cake to that...
At least it wasn't Harris County Deputies. They'd still be in jail with the paperwork of the arrest lost...
On the positive they have cool horses downtown.

What is a BG? O.o

Bad guys (I'm assuming)

Sorry, yes Bad Guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Marine_With_Heart wrote:
What is a BG? O.o

It is a big guy....

Spoiler:

For you

I saw the Cartman version of Bain before I saw Batman. I like the Cartman version better.
"You did not respect my authority"

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
it just happened that they were all really tired and just decided to doze off.

Really? Because that is not what the minor said happened.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Quotation marks can also be used, such as in this case, to designate a proposition. Of course, the proposition was itself hyperbolical, but nevertheless, again, where do you live where, for 3 people sleeping in a car, in a parking lot, being assaulted by a group of people, is something that should be considered a risk? Because in most civilized land, it really isn't. It just isn't.

A proposition is a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. What you did was try to attribute an argument to me (or at the very least distort my position) so you could tilt at a strawman.
In no civil country would criminal ever look for an easy mark. Like three people sleeping in a car with out of state plates? Then again you believe that you're at less risk sleeping in your car by the side of the road than in a hotel room, so your ability to assess what is a risk, and what is not may leave a little to be desired.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's far from a great choice, but this wasn't their first either. And no, it simply doesn't count as a failure to care. Again, the failure to care would've been to endanger the child by driving while in no shape to.

Anyway, the parents themselves were fine with it, or at least certainly didn't mention taking offense to it. Your outrage is entirely superfluous, and beside the point.

No outrage here, hence the lack of emotive language (unlike your good self), just an examination of the facts available to us. Just because the parents haven't said anything in public does not mean that no one else is allowed an opinion. Its nice to see though that you say a direct quote from the minor in a secondary source is not to be trusted, but the omission by the secondary source of any statement by the parents about the sleeping in a car can be trusted.....

You seem to keep pushing this point about them driving while unfit. I never stated that they should have. Their first choice should have been to know where the hotel was, how to get to it, and to leave enough time to make it to the hotel even if that meant leaving the event early. Sleeping in your car, at a gas station, with a minor that you have temporary custody of, in a different state, in an area that you don't know, at the end of November/start of December when the weather is not likely to be in your favour, is not a responsible choice by the adults involved. It falls short of the duty of care expected.
This is not the binary choice that you are trying to make it (drive while unfit, or park up), the adults had more than enough options - leave early, take a taxi, stay with trusted friends, seek alternate accommodation, or many other prudent choices.

But if you want to look at the actual facts, the adults never claimed that they had pulled in to sleep for the night. The direct quote stated that all three of them fell asleep unexpectedly while checking their GPS for directions. They were not making a conscious decision based on the best interests of the child. In fact, if you pass out without warning while checking your GPS you were probably very lucky to make it to the gas station to begin with.



It is interesting to see though that your comments calling others bigots, or claiming that they are apologists for racists, or saying that you are pointing out their defects in character have all been allowed to stand.

I would be curious to hear what the people who called the police said. That might explain the overreaction.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I would be curious to hear what the people who called the police said. That might explain the overreaction.

Good point.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I would be curious to hear what the people who called the police said. That might explain the overreaction.

I didnt think anyone called... but that the police were on their normal patrol, saw a car with people sat in it, by a gas station, car not running, etc. checked it out further, blah blah blah

Well, from them saying they were "surrounded" it sounded like a coordinated group of police dispatched to the scene instead of a single car investigating something they'd seen.