A law dealing with child abduction

[Goat Whisperer]

negative. i would kill someone for destroying MY car. it is as much of our family as our dogs and cats. you could not replace my car if you tried.

Still a bad example to say "hey, as long as we will make people immune for returning kidnapped children, then we might as well make people immune for stealing a car"

That's a dumb point, you can replace a car, you can't replace a child.

 

[dt3]

Good so you would be put into prison for attacking someone and leave your child parentless, brilliant really.

If your child got abducted then you would do anything to get your child back--not get back at the person who took them.

:eek You could not be more wrong! :24:

 

[justmee]

No you wouldn't, because he'd be in protective custody for life

thats right, how stupid of me. he abducts....i mean barrows my kid and turns my whole life upside down looking for and worrying about my kid (not to mention the tax dallors spent looking for my kid) and nice little ole abducter gets protective custody so no one harms the nice thoughtful man. what was i thinking

 

[Goat Whisperer]

there are too many open doors and 'what ifs' in your arguements. her story is a story of being kidnapped...you want him to go free according to your law if he would have just handed her over.

Like a said before, Jaycee was kidnapped but she was also kept for years AND sexually abused AND returned against the kidnappers will--not even handed over.

Totally has nothing to do with this law or thread.

Still the same thing as me saying:

"We should legalize Marijuana"

You: "Meth kills people"

Me: "That has nothing to do with this thread"

You: "But, but they are both drugs"

 

[Goat Whisperer]

:eek You could not be more wrong! :24:

So you would choose attacking the kidnapper over saving your child.

Your such a great parent :clap

 

[Abcinthia]

Like a said before, Jaycee was kidnapped but she was also kept for years AND sexually abused AND returned against the kidnappers will--not even handed over.

Totally has nothing to do with this law or thread.

What if someone kidnaps a child, keeps them for years and really looks after them and then get bored of the child and gives them back. Should they be punished for the years of worry and sadness the parents have been put through or shoudl the kidnapper just be let off the hook because they didn't hurt the child and eventually gave the child back?

 

[Sneakiecat]

So you would choose attacking the kidnapper over saving your child.

Your such a great parent :clap

Nope, but once I know where my child is (dead or alive), that person will pay. You don't have to choose one over the other.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Again...right now, if you kidnap a child there's no second chance. But people still do it. So how would not having a second chance with your law stop anything?

It would be more incentive to kill the second child, because if they turn themselves in they know they're going to jail!

Your law essentially makes the second time they kidnap the child the same as it is for the first time now. And you say there's no incentive to let the child live right now, therefore under your law there's no incentive to let the child live the second time.

They most likely wouldn't abduct a second child.

 

[Zorak]

Your such a great parent :clap

The signs of sarcasm are a good sign that your debate died face down in the water.

 

[dt3]

So you would choose attacking the kidnapper over saving your child.

Your such a great parent :clap

No, I'm saying even if they bring my kid back without a scratch on him, and they walk out without going to jail I would hunt them to the end of this earth. Nobody is fucking with my family and not being punished. If the criminal justice system won't do it, then I will.

 

[dt3]

They most likely wouldn't abduct a second child.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Nope, but once I know where my child is (dead or alive), that person will pay. You don't have to choose one over the other.

You are choosing one over the other.

By not allowing this law into place you are allowing the possibility of your child being murdered over returned just because you wanted to press charges. You are choosing revenge over the safety of your kids.

 

[Abcinthia]

So you would choose attacking the kidnapper over saving your child.

Your such a great parent :clap

I'm sorry do you have children? Do you know how protective parents feel about their children?

If someone kidnapped my daughter, even if they gave her back "unharmed", I would want to see that person suffer as much as me and my daughter have.

 

[Sneakiecat]

They most likely wouldn't abduct a second child.

That's like saying just because a child molester is on a sex offender registry, they're not going to touch another child. They MIGHT not abduct another child but would you want to risk that?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

What reasons do you have for saying they would be more likely to abduct a second child then they would to not to?

My reasons for them being less likely include: They are on probation and monitored. The community is aware of them because they are on the sex offenders list. They know there is no second chance this time and don't want to attempt it because of that.

Yes they might be just as likely as they would have been without this law to kill a child a second time, but more likely too abduct them? No. The opposite is true.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

That's like saying just because a child molester is on a sex offender registry, they're not going to touch another child. They MIGHT not abduct another child but would you want to risk that?

Yes, because they wouldn't have killed the first child, and if they somehow managed to abduct a second child, and killed or returned that child, they would be put into prison that time. But that negative only exists if they abduct the second child.

 

[dt3]

What reasons do you have for saying they would be more likely to abduct a second child then they would to not to?

My reasons for them being less likely include: They are on probation and monitored. The community is aware of them because they are on the sex offenders list. They know there is no second chance this time and don't want to attempt it because of that.

Yes they might be just as likely as they would have been without this law to kill a child a second time, but more likely too abduct them? No. The opposite is true.

Criminals are not rational, and you can't think like them. If a dad steals his child back from the mom who has custody, and is willing to risk severe jail time to do it, why would they hesitate to do it again?

The sex offender list is a joke. It's already been pointed out that there have been HUNDREDS of cases of sex offenders moving and NOT reporting to the local police.

 

[Abcinthia]

What reasons do you have for saying they would be more likely to abduct a second child then they would to not to?

My reasons for them being less likely include: They are on probation and monitored. The community is aware of them because they are on the sex offenders list. They know there is no second chance this time and don't want to attempt it because of that.

Yes they might be just as likely as they would have been without this law to kill a child a second time, but more likely too abduct them? No. The opposite is true.

I'm just curious how you know the opposite is true.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

No, I'm saying even if they bring my kid back without a scratch on him, and they walk out without going to jail I would hunt them to the end of this earth. Nobody is fucking with my family and not being punished. If the criminal justice system won't do it, then I will.

Good for you. You would kill the guy who returned your child. You would also probably end up in prison for the rest of your life and leave your kid alone, but hey, that's your choice I guess

 

[Sneakiecat]

You are choosing one over the other.

By not allowing this law into place you are allowing the possibility of your child being murdered over returned just because you wanted to press charges. You are choosing revenge over the safety of your kids.

Nothing is more important to me than my child. Your scenario is so far-fetched that it wouldn't apply to 99% of the kidnappings that happen. So, no, I'm not putting the safety of my child over revenge.