Profiling/car seats/TSA...etc

MrClown · Jul 25, 2015

I don't get why putting a kid in the back of a hatchback would be more suspicious than putting a kid in the usual seats. If nobody is making a fuss and the driver doesn't seem to be trying to make a sneaky getaway, what makes it suspicious? It's not like you're putting them in the trunk of a sedan or in the back door of a windowless van. I do appreciate people being vigilant but some common sense would be prudent.

I also wonder if being male makes a difference here. It seems like there's a bit of a bias against men taking care of kids alone. My brother in law, who was a stay at home dad when their 3 kids were younger, always had issues when he took his kids to the playground or park. Mothers of other kids would ask his kids if everything was okay because it was so unusual for a man to be there (he doesn't look creepy or anything).

AmpedRealtor · Jul 25, 2015

MrClown said:
I also wonder if being male makes a difference here. It seems like there's a bit of a bias against men taking care of kids alone.

^^ this

I had my niece with me in Seattle for a day a couple of years ago. She was 9 at the time. We had breakfast in a coffee shop while I was having the alignment done on my dad's 10 year old Infinity. My niece is very fair skinned, her father is French, and I am darker skinned because my father is from India. Maybe it's a Seattle thing, I don't know, but I can't tell you how many dirty looks I got. My sister is also darker skinned, like me, and she told me that people - women especially - come up to her and ask her if her little girl is really her daughter.

Thankfully nobody said anything to me, because if they did I would have told them to go f* themselves. I mean, how rude and racist can people be!@@!!!

Canuck · Jul 25, 2015

Is this really that hard to understand? Men abduct children, women do not. (Please don't tell me about the rare exceptions.) So of course there's more suspicion with men. I'm Italian and it doesn't take me long in the sun to look like I could be Arab. When we came back from New Zealand not long after 911, I was taken aside, and all my belongings were gone through, with a fine tooth comb. I was very cooperative and thanked them for keeping me safe when it was over. I am all for racial profiling. Anything else makes no sense. Taking aside Grandma for a search makes no sense to me.

Any man putting a kid in a trunk ought to be suspicious. Better safe than sorry, especially when it come to children. And if you have to drive back and explain yourself, be cooperative and thankful.

We need John Walsh to weigh in on this issue and set people straight.

mikeash · Jul 25, 2015

No way am I going to be thankful for the police wasting my and their time because I happen to have a child seat in a slightly unusual location. Calmly placing a cooperative child into a factory-installed child safety seat is not what an abduction looks like. They're doing nobody any favors by responding to such a call.

As for racial profiling, searching grandma absolutely does make sense. Do you think there are no old white ladies who hate America? If you set the precedent that a certain segment of the population is never searched, then you simply invite criminals to recruit that segment of the population to carry bombs or guns.

The phrase "better safe than sorry" is a catastrophically stupid phrase. It's used as an excuse to avoid thought. There is no real-world situation where you are presented with a clear choice between "safe" and "sorry." One choice is better, one choice is worse, and if the "safe" option wastes resources that might have actually saved a life, then it's not actually safe.

So far I have had one incident where someone questioned my use of the rear-facing seats. Fortunately the lady in question was very kind about it and thought I was just being misguided and inadvertently putting my child in danger. We cleared it up quickly with an up-close look at the actual seats, and she thought it was hilarious in retrospect. Taking someone briefly aside and asking about what's going on might qualify as "better safe than sorry," but calling the police when it's absolutely not at all warranted is a different thing entirely.

Let's not encourage irrational fear.

jerry33 · Jul 25, 2015

mikeash said:
Let's not encourage irrational fear.

A nice sentiment, but until the news media and politicians stop making most of their money by creating irrational fear, it's a sentiment that's not likely to see fulfillment.

iKhalid · Jul 25, 2015

mikeash said:
No way am I going to be thankful for the police wasting my and their time because I happen to have a child seat in a slightly unusual location. Calmly placing a cooperative child into a factory-installed child safety seat is not what an abduction looks like. They're doing nobody any favors by responding to such a call.

As for racial profiling, searching grandma absolutely does make sense. Do you think there are no old white ladies who hate America? If you set the precedent that a certain segment of the population is never searched, then you simply invite criminals to recruit that segment of the population to carry bombs or guns.

The phrase "better safe than sorry" is a catastrophically stupid phrase. It's used as an excuse to avoid thought. There is no real-world situation where you are presented with a clear choice between "safe" and "sorry." One choice is better, one choice is worse, and if the "safe" option wastes resources that might have actually saved a life, then it's not actually safe.

So far I have had one incident where someone questioned my use of the rear-facing seats. Fortunately the lady in question was very kind about it and thought I was just being misguided and inadvertently putting my child in danger. We cleared it up quickly with an up-close look at the actual seats, and she thought it was hilarious in retrospect. Taking someone briefly aside and asking about what's going on might qualify as "better safe than sorry," but calling the police when it's absolutely not at all warranted is a different thing entirely.

Let's not encourage irrational fear.

+1 it's really frustrating to pay for an expensive option and not be able to use it freely.

And I disagree with @Canuck. Are you saying that it's OK to search Arabs and arabs-like people but leave the rest?
I'm an Arab and I can assure you that we come in different looks and colors! Unbelievable!

Canuck · Jul 25, 2015

mikeash said:
As for racial profiling, searching grandma absolutely does make sense. Do you think there are no old white ladies who hate America?

Right, there's a lot of them. Sorry, you got me there. We know recruiting Grandma to terrorism is easy because there's a ton of old while ladies who hate America. Even thought there's never been, in the history of the world, a white Islamic Grandma terrorist, we better be prepared! Take Grandma aside and search her. Don't racially profile. Let those other people through. We got Grandma!

Better safe than sorry is my motto for life and it's not irrational fear to see someone place a child in a trunk.

iKhalid said:
And I disagree with @Canuck. Are you saying that it's OK to search Arabs and arabs-like people but leave the rest?
I'm an Arab and I can assure you that we come in different looks and colors! Unbelievable!

No. It's not okay to leave the rest. But if you have 3 white Grandmas and 3 Arabs going on a plane, and if you have decide who to search, you take the Arabs aside and search them. What do you think the terrorists usually look like? They look like me and I get searched a lot and I welcome it. It makes me feel safe. Plus, I could tell you something about my name that makes me a real target. Do I get offended or upset even though I am a law abiding citizen? Not at all.

jerry33 · Jul 25, 2015

Canuck said:
What do you think the terrorists usually look like? They look like me and I get searched a lot and I welcome it. It makes me feel safe. Plus, I could tell you something about my name that makes me a real target. Do I get offended or upset even though I am a law abiding citizen? Not at all.

Number of TSA agents arrested for theft: 400
Number of terrorist caught: 0

Of course, you can't prove that they didn't prevented some attempts by making things more difficult, as that would be proving a negative, but they certainly don't make me feel safer.

dsm363 · Jul 25, 2015

Mod note: please stay out of politics on this.

Canuck · Jul 25, 2015

jerry33 said:
A nice sentiment, but until the news media and politicians stop making most of their money by creating irrational fear, it's a sentiment that's not likely to see fulfillment.

Irrational fear? 797,500 children younger than 18 were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/archive/documents/Statistics.pdf

Yes, let's not err on the side of caution for this irrational fear. Is anyone a parent? This is a parent's worse nightmare. And the alternative is simply clearing up a misunderstanding.

Teenage girl abducted then thrown in a car trunk by ex-boyfriend was able to call for help as kidnappers didn't take her phone | Daily Mail Online

Kidnapped children escape from trunk

Cops: Child escapes from car trunk after abduction in East Germantown

And I could go on and on.

iKhalid · Jul 25, 2015

Canuck said:
No. It's not okay to leave the rest. But if you have 3 white Grandmas and 3 Arabs going on a plane, and if you have decide who to search, you take the Arabs aside and search them. What do you think the terrorists usually look like? They look like me and I get searched a lot and I welcome it. It makes me feel safe. Plus, I could tell you something about my name that makes me a real target. Do I get offended or upset even though I am a law abiding citizen? Not at all.

I'm not talking about grandmas specifically.
You should see who ISIS is recruiting lately: EVERYONE! Mental illness is everywhere. They are spreading like a disease.
I personally don't get offended when I'm searched, and I'm not searched often given the way I look. They search all people regardless of their background. And I think it's fair since they don't profile people the way you suggested.

Ugliest1 · Jul 25, 2015

This is a hot button, I know. However IMHO I don't know that overreacting as a way of life is any solution. Just go to Free Range Kids for plenty of examples, along with thought leadership on raising street-wise children.

S'toon · Jul 25, 2015

Canuck said:
Irrational fear? 797,500 children younger than 18 were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/archive/documents/Statistics.pdf

Yes, let's not err on the side of caution for this irrational fear. Is anyone a parent? This is a parent's worse nightmare. And the alternative is simply clearing up a misunderstanding.

Teenage girl abducted then thrown in a car trunk by ex-boyfriend was able to call for help as kidnappers didn't take her phone | Daily Mail Online

Kidnapped children escape from trunk

Cops: Child escapes from car trunk after abduction in East Germantown

And I could go on and on.

Did you even read that document before you started scaremongering? Missing kids are not kidnappings.

The part you did not quote is

"203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.

58,200 children were the victims of nonfamily abductions.

115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. These crimes involve someone the child
does not know or a slight acquaintance who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or
more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently."

So, the part which you are fearmongering about only happens 115 times a year. This is not an epidemic.

Compare this to the 92 people killed per day in the US in car accidents.

Canuck · Jul 25, 2015

iKhalid said:
I'm not talking about grandmas specifically.
You should see who ISIS is recruiting lately: EVERYONE! Mental illness is everywhere. They are spreading like a disease.
I personally don't get offended when I'm searched, and I'm not searched often given the way I look. They search all people regardless of their background. And I think it's fair since they don't profile people the way you suggested.

If you think that's true, you don't cross the border much. I now have Nexus which make it much smoother for me. But before I had it, I crossed the border a lot in the regular lanes and I've been behind cars with ethnic looking people and cars with white females. Guess whose is usually waived through without question and who takes a lot more time?

- - - Updated - - -

S'toon said:
Did you even read that document before you started scaremongering? Missing kids are not kidnappings.

The part you did not quote is

203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.

58,200 children were the victims of nonfamily abductions.

115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. These crimes involve someone the child
does not know or a slight acquaintance who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or
more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.

So, the part which you are fearmongering about only happens 115 times a year.

What? You are not concerned about family or non-family abductions? Do you not have a heart? Don't you know that when the Court orders one parent as the custodial parent that is usually because the other parent is abusive (or it would be joint)? And then there's boyfriends, step parents, and other unrelated people who get to know the children and abduct them. Who cares what the relationship is when a child is abducted? Do you have a child? What if someone you knew (family or non-family) who you thought you trusted abducted your child. Would it be of any less concern to you? I must be in bizarro land. Read the first article I posted above. It wouldn't make your pared-down list.

jerry33 · Jul 25, 2015

Canuck said:
Don't you know that when the Court orders one parent as the custodial parent that is usually because the other parent is abusive (or it would be joint)?

Actually, the courts have a real predisposition to give custody to the mother unless the father can absolutely prove that the mother is unfit--and not even then sometimes. Joint custody has more to do with both parties agreeing rather than any fitness to be a parent.

Canuck · Jul 25, 2015

jerry33 said:
Actually, the courts have a real predisposition to give custody to the mother unless the father can absolutely prove that the mother is unfit--and not even then sometimes. Joint custody has more to do with both parties agreeing rather than any fitness to be a parent.

You're talking about legal custody. I'm referring to physical custody which is usually joint custody unless the father is abusive. Those are two separate things. It's very rare for a father to not have shared physical custody if he wants it.

Legal and Physical Custody of Children | DivorceNet.com

"Joint Custody
There’s a strong preference among judges to order joint physical custody, in order to guarantee that children have regular contact with both parents. Some states direct judges to assume that joint physical custody is better, and require any parent who disagrees to provide evidence about why it’s not a good idea in that particular case. Shared physical custody means that the kids get to have two engaged and involved parents and two real homes—not one home and one place they go to visit their other parent."

deonb · Jul 25, 2015

Canuck said:
You are not concerned about family or non-family abductions?
...
What if someone you knew (family or non-family) who you thought you trusted abducted your child.

Speaking as someeone who was kidnapped as a child by an "unfit" parent, it's not going to look like a kidnapping. My dad simply walked into school, told the teachers he is taking me to a doctor, and enrolled me in a different school. And I went willingly and happily with him, blissfully unaware of the custody battle.

No trunk involved, carseats or not. Nobody there to call the police. Parental abduction doesnt look like a kidnapping, which is the whole point of this thread.

The problem is when people conflate the two and get confused. They do hear about the 200000 family abductions and think of them all as "stranger-shoves-kid-in-trunk-and-go-kill-them" kidnappings. But it so is not the same thing.

In most of these "kidnapping" cases the child is in no danger. The parents are using kids as leverage in custody battles, or just want to hurt their ex. etc.

But it still justifies an Amber alert. Dont get me started on those.

dsm363 · Jul 25, 2015

mod note: Multiple posts about profiling/TSA...etc moved here
Profiling/car seats/TSA...etc

manis · Jul 25, 2015

iKhalid said:
+1 it's really frustrating to pay for an expensive option and not be able to use it freely.

Next time someone looks at you funny climb in the back of the car and hand the key to your kids and tell them to drive. See what happens!

mikeash · Jul 25, 2015

Canuck said:
Irrational fear? 797,500 children younger than 18 were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.

And how many of those were kidnapped by being tossed into a trunk, rather than, for example, going willingly with an adult they knew but who did not have legal custody (by far the most common form of child abduction)?

Of those, how many were kidnapped by being put into the trunk of a hatchback outfitted with child safety seats? I'm going to guess that number is "zero."

Simply quoting raw numbers tells us nothing. You need a way to distinguish kidnapping events from ordinary events with a success rate greater than chance. Sure, that fellow loading his child into a car could be kidnapping that child. The same is true of any adult and any child. You need to be able to get beyond "it is possible" and into "it is more likely than average." Unless you can establish that, you are peddling irrational fear.

Let me ask you this: do you think, if every person who saw a child being put into a car in a way that was somehow unusual called the police, do you think that net safety would go up, because it would catch kidnappers, or that it would go down, because it would waste police resources that could otherwise go towards preventing other crimes? I would heavily bet on the second one.

Profiling/car seats/TSA...etc

Autosteer Beta Tester

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

(S85-3/2/13 traded in) X LR: F2611##-3/27/20

Member

Well-Known Member

(S85-3/2/13 traded in) X LR: F2611##-3/27/20

Roadster + Sig Model S

Well-Known Member

Member

S85: "Sparky"

Knows where his towel is

Well-Known Member

(S85-3/2/13 traded in) X LR: F2611##-3/27/20

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Roadster + Sig Model S

Member

Active Member

Similar threads