Who's rights prevail?

Thunder Rider

Search for Missing Kids Turns Up Nothing
Trenton, MO - A search using dogs and a scuba team turned up no new leads in the disappearance of two Independence children. Law enforcement has been looking for 7-year-old Lindsay Porter and 6-year-old Samuel Porter since June sixth. Their father, Daniel Porter, has been arrested because he did not return the children to their mother.

The search was conducted Thursday near Trenton in Grundy County. Porter was arrested June tenth at an abandoned farm southeast of the search area. Porter is charged in Jackson County with two counts of parental kidnapping, and is being held with no bail.

Police say he has not cooperated with their efforts to find the children.

This article was taken from a local news station website. Porter failed to return his children after a visitation. The kids have been missing since and he won't tell the police where they are.

Why are they not beating the $#!^ out of him? Do his civil rights outweigh the childrens needs or the mothers needs?
I think this reflects on a larger problem in this country. In our pursuit of civil rights for all we have lost all sense of justice, right and wrong. Its time to re-evaluate where we are going as a society.

Thunder ==}>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

freedom96

I get sick when I hear of criminals having rights, to the extent of blocking real justice. Confessions being thrown out on a technicality, etc.

When law enforcement people know that the one they are holding has the information they critically need, then I am in favor of doing whatever they have to in order to get the information out.

If a person is a criminal, terrorist, etc, then you have no rights, as far as I am concerned.

talesin

After reading all the reports I can find about this case, I can see why this angers you.

A bitter divorce, reports of the husband waving a gun around in January, threatening suicide.

This is either a deranged abusive husband who has lost it.

Or there is information we are not privy to about the wife, and perhaps he is rescuing his children from an abusive situation.

If he is so dangerous (previous acts, ie. pointing gun at wife & suicide threats), then why did he have unsupervised visitation?

Lots of questions here, and few answers.

Where are the children's rights in these bitter divorces? That's my question.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

TrailBlazer04

In parental visitation cases, the courts usually presume that anything negative said about either parent is the product of "hostility". My X is a nut...and even with psychologist's reports that unsupervised visitation is NOT in my son's best interests, the courts would not restrict his visitation.

This guy should be "interrogated"...and I don't mean that in a nice way, to find out where his children are. There are too many cases of a non-custodial parent (who may be rather unhinged) who harms the children with the thought "If I can't have them, neither can she/he". The system is a mess...innocent parents getting the shaft, and guilty parents being let free to hurt their children again.

TB

Thunder Rider

"Or there is information we are not privy to about the wife, and perhaps he is rescuing his children from an abusive situation."
Good point Talesin. But if the children were all right I would think he would at least have stressed that to the authorities.

Thunder

Simon

If it is 100% known that he has them, that they are in danger and that he is refusing to give the information needed to save them then I think the minimum action necessary to save them should be employed. Surely there are some drugs that can be used to loosen his tongue (or is this just in films?)

The danger is though that this sort of thing quickly slides into use for suspected crimes and, well ... before you know it you can be dragged off, tortured to confess and found guilty.

Great for crime clear-up rates, lousy for justice.

Simon

Interesting that this is a similar argument to allow turture and suspension of rights for terrorst cases. The argument goes:

A terrorist knows there is a bomb set to go off in 1 hours time in a populated area. Only he knows where it is and won't tell. Surely, it is better to torture him than allow innocent people to die?

Yes, of course ... I think it is.

The danger is though that this sort of thinking starts being twisted ever so slightly to become:

Someone we think is a terrorist may know something about potential attacks. Surely it is better to torture him than possibly allow innocent people to die?

In this case, the answer is no, it isn't.

What bomb? What threat? Does he know anything? Have we got the right guy? Too many "if's" and "maybe's" and ultimately we don't even know if he is telling us truth or lies when and if he says anything. We could be torturing someone who has cooperated 100% for all we know.

See the difference and the danger? Unfortunately, I think this kind of thinking has already spread and is being employed.

SixofNine

:In our pursuit of civil rights for all we have lost all sense of justice, right and wrong.

I think YOU have lost all sense of justice, right and wrong. If you have no respect for the rule of law, go live in a country that has a similar lack of respect.

Now quit trying to "outbad" the bad guys.

Thunder Rider

Simon,

You're right this reasoning like any other can and probably would be twisted and abused. I would though err on the safe side and do what was necessary to prevent tragedies of any kind be they child endangerment or terrorism.

It has been my experience that "innocent" people seldom find themselves in situations like this. Most times there is evidence of past crimes and or behavior that lend credence to suspicions and therefor to me would allow for the "intensive interrogations" needed to preserve life and peace.

Sixy,

Inspite of yourself one day you will have to agree that there are black and white issues, right and wrong, good and evil, and someone has to take a stand against the corruption in the legal system. How you can so off handedly dismiss the need to limit the srtict adherance to civil rights laws when circumstances like that are going on does not speak well for your level of human kindness and compassion.

I had not wanted this to turn into a political thread but for some all roads lead there.

As far as "out badding the bad guys" I'm not going there. I think everybody that knows me knows what I would do.

Thunder ==}>>>>>>>>>>>>

SixofNine

:How you can so off handedly dismiss the need to limit the srtict adherance to civil rights laws when circumstances like that are going on does not speak well for your level of human kindness and compassion.

And this:

"It has been my experience that "innocent" people seldom find themselves in situations like this. Most times there is evidence of past crimes and or behavior that lend credence to suspicions and therefor to me would allow for the "intensive interrogations" needed to preserve life and peace."

You verge on being insane Thunder. You not only trust a myriad of people, who you don't know from adam, with this power, but you trust yourself far more than you should. Civil rights laws are necessary precisely because of people with your attitude, just absolutely sure that they have god's eye views of every situation.

Who's rights prevail?

Share this