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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Thats a major difference.

Well, it is in the minds of bigots and prejudiced people everywhere.

''If we let the government search every single house and personal computer, we're bound to catch all child porn peddlers. You wouldn't want to defend child porn peddlers, now would you? So you won't have a problem with this major violation of your rights!'' = everyone ITT defending the cops.

 Formosa wrote:
Wait.. America isn't racist anymore?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Post segregated America would have been a better title.

The title is tongue-in-cheek and based on a recent RNC tweet...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Although... why anyone would go to a "Dance Class" in Houston (or anywhere for that matter) is beyond ridiculous.

Houston is was the coolest place on Earth.

But I moved away 4 months ago...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Thats a major difference.

Well, it is in the minds of bigots and prejudiced people everywhere.

''If we let the government search every single house and personal computer, we're bound to catch all child porn peddlers. You wouldn't want to defend child porn peddlers, now would you? So you won't have a problem with this major violation of your rights!'' = everyone ITT defending the cops.

Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Although... why anyone would go to a "Dance Class" in Houston (or anywhere for that matter) is beyond ridiculous.

Houston is was the coolest place on Earth.

But I moved away 4 months ago...

Hey we're still the second flatest though!

Flattest or fattest? Because I dated some girls that collectively would have kept Houston out of the first one...

 Frazzled wrote:
Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.

Hey! They call it 'agave' down there

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.

Hey! They call it 'agave' down there

Yes the sacred agave plant, almost as sacred as the plant that brings us the sacred chocolate and the sacred sugar. mmmm

 Frazzled wrote:

Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.

Yes, the difference being that in one case, two of the adults are male. That's the difference in its entirety. 25% of stereotypical kidnappings (strangers and non-family acquaintances) are committed and planned by females, so the presence of a woman does not provide any good indication toward the situation.

And I'm not going to apologize for noticing and mentionning your flaws of character. If you think that there being two men with a minor is probable cause for detaining them, when they have all the proper documentation, when the kid corroborates the story, when there's always the possibility of calling the hotel to check if they had reservations and under which names, and how many rooms were booked, etc... then yes, you are a bigot and prejudiced.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.

Yes, the difference being that in one case, two of the adults are male. That's the difference in its entirety. 25% of stereotypical kidnappings (strangers and non-family acquaintances) are committed and planned by females, so the presence of a woman does not provide any good indication toward the situation.

And I'm not going to apologize for noticing and mentionning your flaws of character. If you think that there being two men with a minor is probable cause for detaining them, when they have all the proper documentation, when the kid corroborates the story, when there's always the possibility of calling the hotel to check if they had reservations and under which names, and how many rooms were booked, etc... then yes, you are a bigot and prejudiced.

Reported again.

two adults with an obvious minor
asleep at night in a gas station
out of state plates
Seriously?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.

Yes, the difference being that in one case, two of the adults are male. That's the difference in its entirety. 25% of stereotypical kidnappings (strangers and non-family acquaintances) are committed and planned by females, so the presence of a woman does not provide any good indication toward the situation.

And I'm not going to apologize for noticing and mentionning your flaws of character. If you think that there being two men with a minor is probable cause for detaining them, when they have all the proper documentation, when the kid corroborates the story, when there's always the possibility of calling the hotel to check if they had reservations and under which names, and how many rooms were booked, etc... then yes, you are a bigot and prejudiced.

Reported again.

two adults with an obvious minor
asleep at night in a gas station
out of state plates
Seriously?

Which is fine for the initial knock on the window and the "what's going on" questions.

After documents are produced and everybody is on the same page it's nothing but police overreach.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.

Yes, the difference being that in one case, two of the adults are male. That's the difference in its entirety. 25% of stereotypical kidnappings (strangers and non-family acquaintances) are committed and planned by females, so the presence of a woman does not provide any good indication toward the situation.

And I'm not going to apologize for noticing and mentionning your flaws of character. If you think that there being two men with a minor is probable cause for detaining them, when they have all the proper documentation, when the kid corroborates the story, when there's always the possibility of calling the hotel to check if they had reservations and under which names, and how many rooms were booked, etc... then yes, you are a bigot and prejudiced.

Reported again.

two adults with an obvious minor
asleep at night in a gas station
out of state plates
Seriously?

Which is fine for the initial knock on the window and the "what's going on" questions.

After documents are produced and everybody is on the same page it's nothing but police overreach.

I'm not disagreeing. Its the "everybody is on the same page" timeline part thats the difficulty. When is everybody on the same page? We don't have the police siude of this. They may have been trying to reach the parents (it was at night) and didn't get a ahold of the parents and sent the kid to somewhere else until then, then it reached byzantine cps levels. 11 hours sounds bad until you think about when the initial incident occurred. That could be next morning.

I'm back on the "is it reasonable to stop them in the first place" point, and trying not to be called a bigot by someone who clearly doesn't understand why New Mexican maple syrup is superior, Canada inferior.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.

Yes, the difference being that in one case, two of the adults are male. That's the difference in its entirety. 25% of stereotypical kidnappings (strangers and non-family acquaintances) are committed and planned by females, so the presence of a woman does not provide any good indication toward the situation.

And I'm not going to apologize for noticing and mentionning your flaws of character. If you think that there being two men with a minor is probable cause for detaining them, when they have all the proper documentation, when the kid corroborates the story, when there's always the possibility of calling the hotel to check if they had reservations and under which names, and how many rooms were booked, etc... then yes, you are a bigot and prejudiced.

Reported again.

two adults with an obvious minor
asleep at night in a gas station
out of state plates
Seriously?

So. Suppose it was a married couple & their daughter in a car. What sort of documentation should they be carrying with them to prove it's their kid?

A married couple and their daughter are not out of the ordinary.

TWO ADULT MALES AND A MINOR WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THEM is out the ordinary. Combined with the location, time, and out of state plate, its more than sufficient for an investigatory stop.

 Frazzled wrote:
A married couple and their daughter are not out of the ordinary.

TWO ADULT MALES AND A MINOR WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THEM is out the ordinary. Combined with the location, time, and out of state plate, its more than sufficient for an investigatory stop.

To clarify. The married couple is two adult males.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Reported for the nice attack.
If you don't think there's a difference between a man/woman and child ina vehicle and two adult males in a vehicle with a minor child I have some New Mexico maple syrup to sell you.

Yes, the difference being that in one case, two of the adults are male. That's the difference in its entirety. 25% of stereotypical kidnappings (strangers and non-family acquaintances) are committed and planned by females, so the presence of a woman does not provide any good indication toward the situation.

And I'm not going to apologize for noticing and mentionning your flaws of character. If you think that there being two men with a minor is probable cause for detaining them, when they have all the proper documentation, when the kid corroborates the story, when there's always the possibility of calling the hotel to check if they had reservations and under which names, and how many rooms were booked, etc... then yes, you are a bigot and prejudiced.

Reported again.

two adults with an obvious minor
asleep at night in a gas station
out of state plates
Seriously?

So. Suppose it was a married couple & their daughter in a car. What sort of documentation should they be carrying with them to prove it's their kid?

Look... I'm a single dad with two boyz...

When I picked up my boarding pass at the airport, I had to show the birth certificates for both boyz. Even then, the attendents/TSA security folks went out of their way to talk to the boys to gadge their reactions. To ensure that they are indeed my spawn.

Having said that... I'd still like to hear/read the police side of the story.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A married couple and their daughter are not out of the ordinary.

TWO ADULT MALES AND A MINOR WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THEM is out the ordinary. Combined with the location, time, and out of state plate, its more than sufficient for an investigatory stop.

To clarify. The married couple is two adult males.

Not in Texas they aren't.

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A married couple and their daughter are not out of the ordinary.

TWO ADULT MALES AND A MINOR WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THEM is out the ordinary. Combined with the location, time, and out of state plate, its more than sufficient for an investigatory stop.

To clarify. The married couple is two adult males.

Not in Texas they aren't.

Out of state plates, remember? Let's say... Massachusetts or Delaware, or Minnesota or... take your pick I guess.

So anyway, let's not dodge the line of inquiry. Married couple their daughter, both Men. How do you advocate proceeding Frazzled?

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A married couple and their daughter are not out of the ordinary.

TWO ADULT MALES AND A MINOR WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THEM is out the ordinary. Combined with the location, time, and out of state plate, its more than sufficient for an investigatory stop.

To clarify. The married couple is two adult males.

Not in Texas they aren't.

Out of state plates, remember? Let's say... Massachusetts or Delaware, or Minnesota or... take your pick I guess.

So anyway, let's not dodge the line of inquiry. Married couple their daughter. How do you advocate proceeding Frazzled?

Still illegal. Further, no homosexual couple has been married for 13 years. You're stretching like a stretchman action figure. Time to come back to reality.

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A married couple and their daughter are not out of the ordinary.

TWO ADULT MALES AND A MINOR WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THEM is out the ordinary. Combined with the location, time, and out of state plate, its more than sufficient for an investigatory stop.

To clarify. The married couple is two adult males.

Not in Texas they aren't.

Out of state plates, remember? Let's say... Massachusetts or Delaware, or Minnesota or... take your pick I guess.

So anyway, let's not dodge the line of inquiry. Married couple their daughter. How do you advocate proceeding Frazzled?

Still illegal. Further, no homosexual couple has been married for 13 years. You're stretching like a stretchman action figure. Time to come back to reality.

Time to answer the question Frazzled. Let's say they miraculously found somebody to be a surrogate before they got married. Or let's just say the kid's nine, if that really makes you feel better.

How do you advocate the police go forward?

Stop them and investigate. Once the investigation is complete move on.

Your example is actually easier as they are the legal parents.

 Frazzled wrote:

Your example is actually easier as they are the legal parents.

How do you know?

Don't you have to verify the birth certificate that they should be carrying?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Your example is actually easier as they are the legal parents.

How do you know?

Don't you have to verify the birth certificate that they should be carrying?

I was thinking more they check ids, listen to story, take kid aside and ask kid if they are the parents. Kid says yes they're free to go.
in the original issue its more difficult because she could be a runaway type situation, hence the need to contact the parents first. If you're really paranoid you get them to fax a pic of their id and a pic of the kid to verify. Everything beyond that is a different deal.

Now if the minor was old enough to have an ID herself that also would have greatly helped matters.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Your example is actually easier as they are the legal parents.

How do you know?

Don't you have to verify the birth certificate that they should be carrying?

I was thinking more they check ids, listen to story, take kid aside and ask kid if they are the parents. Kid says yes they're free to go.
in the original issue its more difficult because she could be a runaway type situation, hence the need to contact the parents first. If you're really paranoid you get them to fax a pic of their id and a pic of the kid to verify. Everything beyond that is a different deal.

Now if the minor was old enough to have an ID herself that also would have greatly helped matters.

Would you advocate these same steps as the default course of action in the case of heterosexual couple?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Your example is actually easier as they are the legal parents.

How do you know?

Don't you have to verify the birth certificate that they should be carrying?

I was thinking more they check ids, listen to story, take kid aside and ask kid if they are the parents. Kid says yes they're free to go.

So you are relying 100% on what the people say, and you will believe them if they fit your standard of what a family should look like.

Because you can have three people giving the exact same story and provide a legal document that states that she is with her guardians but that doesn't mean anything according to you.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Your example is actually easier as they are the legal parents.

How do you know?

Don't you have to verify the birth certificate that they should be carrying?

I was thinking more they check ids, listen to story, take kid aside and ask kid if they are the parents. Kid says yes they're free to go.
in the original issue its more difficult because she could be a runaway type situation, hence the need to contact the parents first. If you're really paranoid you get them to fax a pic of their id and a pic of the kid to verify. Everything beyond that is a different deal.

Now if the minor was old enough to have an ID herself that also would have greatly helped matters.

Would you advocate these same steps as the default course of action in the case of heterosexual couple?

Why not? If they have suspicion to stop the vehicle based on that then cool. Hell I've been pulled over on the pretense that they said they thought I was passing a beer to a child when I was passing a water bottle back. Did the IG check handed them the bottle to check and boom out in five. It doesn't have to be a major deal. Its the fact it was in this case that is troublesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Your example is actually easier as they are the legal parents.

How do you know?

Don't you have to verify the birth certificate that they should be carrying?

I was thinking more they check ids, listen to story, take kid aside and ask kid if they are the parents. Kid says yes they're free to go.

So you are relying 100% on what the people say, and you will believe them if they fit your standard of what a family should look like.

no, you've stepped over that. I'm relying on them querying the child separately. In the original instance they can't say they are her parents, therefor there is a potential issue of her being a runaway. 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.

The problem with the OP is that it sounds like the no one called the parents initially and everything went coockoo.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
No crime was commited. No duty to care were omitted. You're grasping at straws.

And you're talking out your hat.
Duty of care can also be a civil standard (commonly used in tort law). Saying that the adults who had temporary custody of the minor, and therefore had a duty of care towards her is not inaccurate. Also does sleeping rough in a car at a petrol station constitute vagrancy, or a related criminal offence?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Really? You've never ever evar been taken by surprise by fatigue after a day of driving and intense physical activity? Never evar? Misgauging how much energy you have left isn't a crime, and it sure as hell isn't failure to care about those under your responsibility. The failure would've been to disregard your fatigue and continue driving despite being in no condition to, endangering the minor, the other passenger, and everyone else using the same roads. But please, keep on defending cops that clearly acted out of racism.

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.
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.
The reason given for their sleeping in the car was not that they felt sleepy and decided to pull over, or find alternate accommodation. Their excuse was, in their own words, that they spontaneously and simultaneously fell asleep while getting directions.

And I am not defending anyone acting out of racism, as much as you may want to sling mud. What I have said, and consistently said, is that the police had reason to investigate further. That is it. The delays and the alleged conversation with the parents is not something that I have defended. So trying to say that I am defending racists is nothing but an unwarranted act of bad faith.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And I'll let you work on your reading comprehension skills.

I have read and responded to each of your points, you have managed to misinterpret my posts and distorted them to suit your own ends.
- Their reason for being found sleeping in a car was that they just all fell asleep at the same time while looking for directions. Not once did they say that they were too tired to continue the journey, nor did they attempt to find alternate accommodation - which is what a reasonable adult would have done when being given charge of a minor, and travelling to another state that they are not familiar with
- "[C]all Social Services everytime you catch parents with their children sleeping it off during a long trip". Do you mean if they child is sleeping in the back as the parent drives, or have the parents decided that they are best served sleeping it off with the child in the parking lot of a gas station they have probably never been to before
- "You realize your not much safer in a hotel room than in a parked car, in most situations, right?". I really want to see a source for this outlandish claim

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Your example is actually easier as they are the legal parents.

How do you know?

Don't you have to verify the birth certificate that they should be carrying?

I was thinking more they check ids, listen to story, take kid aside and ask kid if they are the parents. Kid says yes they're free to go.
in the original issue its more difficult because she could be a runaway type situation, hence the need to contact the parents first. If you're really paranoid you get them to fax a pic of their id and a pic of the kid to verify. Everything beyond that is a different deal.

Now if the minor was old enough to have an ID herself that also would have greatly helped matters.

Would you advocate these same steps as the default course of action in the case of heterosexual couple?

Why not? If they have suspicion to stop the vehicle based on that then cool. Hell I've been pulled over on the pretense that they said they thought I was passing a beer to a child when I was passing a water bottle back. Did the IG check handed them the bottle to check and boom out in five. It doesn't have to be a major deal. Its the fact it was in this case that is troublesome.

Nobody disagrees that the initial stop was not troublesome.

It's the actions after, which you appear to justify. Even more so if you are okay with a scenario where a man & woman don't warrant further questioning if all three give the same story, but two men and a child giving the same story while in the presence of a legal document justifying her being with these two adults should require further questioning and police work simply because to you "it's not normal".

Edit:

The problem with the OP is that it sounds like the no one called the parents initially and everything went coockoo.

Her guardians were standing right there, right next to her, the cops were already talking to her legal guardians. There was zero reason to call her parents because her guardians were already there.

It's the actions after, which you appear to justify.
Thats not correct. I am not. I noted some scenarios where that could be the case. That however is trumped if the report that when they got in touch with the parent they berated her.

Even more so if you are okay with a scenario where a man & woman don't warrant further questioning if all three give the same story, but two men and a child giving the same story while in the presence of a legal document justifying her being with these two adults should require further questioning and police work simply because to you "it's not normal".

No again you completely missed it. IN the one instance they are parents. In the second instance they are not.

Do I trust a notarized instrument? Nah, because I wouldn;'t know what an Okie notarized one looks like. Would you? As a cop going CYA I wouldn't rely on it solely.
I'm just saying a call to the parents would have taken care of it. COmplications with that could have presented a problem but if no complications then everything else after the quick stop are suspect. Jeez

*whats your parent's birthdays? Whats the rugrat's birthday?

Good thing I was never asked that as a kid to prove my parents hadn't kidnapped me, I relied on one parent telling me when it was the other's birthday...still do. Ditto the phone number, in high school I once gave a girl my neighbours phone number instead of my own...that was awkward.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Well, it is in the minds of bigots and prejudiced people everywhere.

''If we let the government search every single house and personal computer, we're bound to catch all child porn peddlers. You wouldn't want to defend child porn peddlers, now would you? So you won't have a problem with this major violation of your rights!'' = everyone ITT defending the cops.

Beautiful..... agree with me or you're a bigot? And before I was an apologist for racists? Are you trying to have an actual discussion here, or are you just happy to throw personal abuse at others in this thread?

And police investigating people asleep in a car at a gas station, with a minor child who they have temporary custody of =/= allowing the government unfettered access to your personal records. To say that the two things are a little different is grossly understating the fact.