Update, Monday morning: Amber Alert canceled, not because Reigh has been found, but because police believe she and her father are now in New York.
[img]http://www.bostoncrimewatch.com/Reigh%20Rockefelle...
At approximately 12:44PM this afternoon, officers from District D-4 responded to the intersection of Arlington and Marlborough Streets for a custodial kidnapping.
On arrival, officers spoke to a social worker who reported to officers that the victim had been kidnapped by her father. The caller reported that the father is supposed to have supervised visits with the victim. However today just shortly before officers arrived, the social worker reported that the suspect/father grabbed the child, put her in a car and fled the scene making a right turn onto Berkeley St. apparently going towards Storrow Drive.
Victim Description:
Name: Reigh Rockefeller
Age: 7 years of age
Height: 4 feet tall
Weight: 50 lbs.
Eyes: Blue
Hair: Blonde
The victim was last seen wearing a pink and white sundress and red shoes. The victim also wears prescription glasses.
Suspect Description:
Name: Clark Rockefeller
Age: 50’s
Height: 5’6”
Weight: 170 lbs. (stocky build)
Hair: Blonde (balding/thinning)
Eyes: Blue
The suspect, when last seen, was wearing a blue Lacoste shirt, and khaki pants.
Car Description:
Possible Black Chevy Tahoe or Suburban or GMC Yukon or Denali with Red Sox sticker on the right rear passenger side including possible Red Sox license plate.
Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to contact the Boston Police by calling 911 or District D-4 detectives at (617) 343-4683. Individuals wishing to report information anonymously may do so by calling CrimeStoppers at 1-800-494-TIPS or texting ‘TIPS’ to CRIME (27463).
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
"supervised visits"?
By Marc
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 9:59pm
Does anyone know why a father would be allowed only "supervised visits" with a social worker? Does that imply that the main is a convicted sex offender or insane or something?
I was also wondering, do we always issue Amber alerts for these "custodial" kidnappings?
This may just mean that he
By anon
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:51pm
This may just mean that he is in the early stages of working towards some form of legal custody of his daughter. There was likely some bad blood between him and the child's mom, but not necessarily criminal behavior or a mental health issue.
because he's a flight risk?
By sheenaspleena
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:54am
or, hasn't supervised her properly
or, he has a history of violence
or, has a history of drug abuse
or, hasn't provided for her properly
or, forgot to pick her up from day care....
Flight risk?
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 5:13am
No way!
No way
By anon
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:12am
No way? Really? No way he's skipping out of Massachusetts. No way he was spotted in Manhattan. No way the NY police are looking for his large boat. No way you had your coffee yet at 5:13 AM.
Sarcasm doesn't convey well
By Gareth
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 9:03am
This was obviously a very planned and premeditated thing, and it's easy to imagine that part of the reason supervision was required by the mother as a condition of this visit was because she thought he would do something like this.
And, yes, I was drinking coffee at 5:13 AM. I wake up at 4:40, and the first thing I do is make a pot of coffee.
No way sarcasm conveys well
By anon
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 10:18am
NO way? No way sarcasm doesn't convey well? I think you got the point. You were so wrong and yet so committed to your position.
Everyone can be wrong now and then; even me, even you. Don't be ashamed.
Goodbye Garth. I've decided to depart when the new policy is in effect, which is tonight. You won't have an old anon to kick around anymore, to vent your anger at, to call his dear old mother a cr_ck wh_re (she loves you by the way and I wish you'd apologize for those cruel words - i was lying about her not caring to spare her feelings). I'll mis out little talks. Fare well, well fare well after tonight.
Is this proper use of the Amber Alert System
By Gregg
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:05pm
Seems like an expensive and excessive resource for resolving custody battles. The danger is that we will all become desensitize to the Alert system and cause a mitigated response to true life threatening emergencies.
Not A Custody Battle
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:09pm
This is a kidnapping. Somebody who is NOT supposed to have this child has taken her and there is apparently some reason to believe she is in danger (perhaps that reason has to do with the fact that a social worker was required to be present in the first place).
This isn't an "overdue to get kid to other parent" situation, nor a "parents fighting in the courts over kids" custody battle. This is an abduction, pure and simple.
oops
By Gregg
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:23pm
I missed the part about supervised visits.
And he didn't just leave with her
By adamg
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:30pm
Channel 5 reports:
Accomplice
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 5:20am
There's an accomplice involved, says the Glob.
So this was set up previously, not a spur of the moment thing. Looks like dad is a heck of a moneybags. He's in the middle of a divorce with the mom, who lives with the girl in London, and she was visiting (and staying at the Four Seasons) when he ran off with her. I'd bet he's already got most of his money where the mom can't get it, and wanted his daughter too.
I'd say check the Turks and Caicos.
custodial kidnapping or not?
By Anonymous
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 6:01am
If this is a custodial kidnapping, and there no indication of past abuse, how is Reigh in danger?
What if this is not a custodial kidnapping but a kidnapping for ransom, then Reigh would be in danger.
Either way, poor Reigh is a pawn in her parents divorce battle.
Turks and Caicos?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 10:02am
Not bloody likely, unless they plan a sailing adventure. Ever try to travel out of the country solo with your kids? Amber alert or no, you need their passport and you need a notarized letter from the other parent, a death certificate for the other parent, or a court letter saying you have sole say so.
My brother's fiance, a Canadian, has to do the single-parent two-step when taking her kids out of Canada AND when bringing them back to Canada from the US. She gets pulled aside in both countries, asked for ID, and has to present the court order that terminated her ex-husband's custody and visitation rights (long story).
Even when we traveled by train and bus, customs people in both countries asked our kids to point out their parents and our passports were checked against theirs.
They take this stuff much more seriously than they used to.
That's strange
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 10:33am
My wife took our son to Aruba in April by herself, and no such letter was present, given, or required. Of course, neither was a passport until recently.
Perhaps owing to the concentration of Dunkin Donuts, Aruba isn't considered sufficiently foreign.
I imagine Clark Rockefeller is trying to pull a Stephen Fagan, and if he is sheltering money from a divorce, he might want to live nearer the shelter.
That said, it sounds like Mr. Rockefeller has plenty of dough to support a sailing adventure.
travel.state.gov is your friend
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 11:00am
State Department Everything About Travelling to Wherever Website.
The kids need passports to return to the US thing went into effect very recently - I believe it was late April. It had already been delayed for over a year because the passport issuing system collapsed under the load in early 2007.
State Department on prevention of international abduction
I'm surprised that she wasn't hassled about travelling solo - maybe Aruba isn't a common destination for abducted children? I know that every time I have left the US with kids or seen families travelling, they check.
Ayup
By adamg
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 11:05am
Even if minimally. Coming back from Montreal last week, the border guy asked me to roll down the back window and then pointed at me and asked the kidlet, "Who is this man?" Fortunately, she chose not to emulate her smartass father at that moment and replied "He's my dad!" (with a look of amazement that somebody could ask such a dumb question, Nancy reported).
The Border Drill
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 11:08am
Our kids know this as "the border drill". You keep quiet, answer questions with yes or no or simple answers, and don't interrupt or tell stories.
It used to be so much easier when the Canadians would get so flattered by being handed passports they would just wave us on through.
Oh, this was on the American side
By adamg
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 11:12am
Going into Canada, I presented our passports, the guy asked me where we were headed and for how long and waved us through with a smile. He didn't even have to get out of his little air-conditioned booth.
Good question, Gregg.
By independentmind...
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:28pm
This:
is a good question, Gregg. Your post says it all...in a nutshell.
Thanks (not verified) (not
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 7:37am
Thanks (not verified) (not verified) Miki!
myspace had this message
By sheenaspleena
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:49am
ATTENTION: There is an Amber Alert in your area.
Please CLICK HERE to find out more information
I was at Logan airport today, and they searched everyone's car, and looked in everyone's trunk.
I've heard the announcement on the radio on 5 different stations today. I hope they make Rockrfeller pay back the cost of all these resources.
Other Amber Alerts haven't gotten this much attention.
There was an article last week in the newspaper talking about how Amber alerts really weren't giving the type of attention they hoped, but rather tabloid-ish attention, instead of contructive attention.
boston.com.../abducted/
I was at Logan airport
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 1:04am
I was at Logan airport today, and they searched everyone's car, and looked in everyone's trunk.
Of course they did. They'll use any excuse they possibly can to do searches and get you used to further violation of your rights.
Search warrants? What are those? We got us a missin' blond/blue-eyed white girl!
I hate that they can do searches on everyone
By sheenaspleena
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 1:32am
but to get it challenged, I'd probably have to be arrested for noncompliance and go to court and have the ACLU help me, and I was picking someone up at the airport.
I agree though, it's not right.
And I wish they'd do this for every Amber Alert, not just the little rich girls on Marlboro Street.
Not equal at all.
Doesn't make sense to do it for all Amber Alerts
By Jeremy
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:38am
This guy is rich and therefore has the means to flee the country with his daughter. Not a practical option for most other abductors.
no useful info provided on the signboards
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:55am
Driving up from the Cape, all I saw on the signboards was a message saying there was a black SUV with red sox plates/stickers. I mean, Jesus H Christ. How many black SUVs are there with red sox plates and stickers in the state of Massachusetts?
Then the radio announcer comes on, and says he's driving a GM SUV, and it MIGHT have red sox stickers and plates. Do we get a description of the guy? Noooooo. Do we get plate numbers? NOOOOO.
See, that would make SENSE, and this is the DSS we're talking about here. They're so lazy and incompetent, it doesn't occur to them to provide just the SLIGHTEST amount of useful information. I bet the State Police 911 switchboard operators had a LOVELY evening fielding wild goose chase calls about black SUVs with red sox stickers and plates...
not DSS
By sheenaspleena
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 1:10am
all social workers don't work for DSS!
This was probably a private social workers, and not one who works for DSS. Families frequently hire outside social workers for visitation, it eliminates the she said he said stuff, and provides supervision for the child. If it was a DSS worker, they would have included that and would have contacted the supervisor or state representative to make a statement.
Agree
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 7:18am
There was no published photo of Clark til later in the evening and still there is no mention that "Reigh" is called "Snooks". Many people who know them didn't even realize it was Snooks who was missing as they know her given name was Reigh.
I do have a very, very, very hard time believing Snooks is in danger. From all I've seen (and heard in our social circle) Clark loves Snooks more than anything.
your social circle
By sheenaspleena
Sat, 08/02/2008 - 1:24pm
isn't as aristocratic as he claimed:
boston.com...accused_rockefeller_of_being_fraud_sources_say
is your social circle
By sheenaspleena
Sat, 08/16/2008 - 11:44am
still embracing the lying, fraudulent, kidnapper-perhaps-murderer?
picking a nit
By Mollynotloggedin
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 7:39am
It's DCF now, not DSS, just FYI.
still DSS in
By sheenaspleena
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:21pm
still DSS in Massachusetts:
www.Mass.gov/dss
It's DCF in CT, FLA, NJ...:
http://www.dir.ct.gov/dcf/Licensed_Facilities/list...
Click the link again
By eeka
Sat, 08/16/2008 - 1:41pm
It became DCF on July 1. They just were late in updating the website.
(I work in human services; we all got memos from them on the new stationery and everything. Same with DMR, which became Department of Developmental Services).
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Come home safely Snooks.
By anon
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:19pm
Come home safely Snooks.
I rethought that message
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 8:46am
Be safe and be well Snooks.
"Peter" Clark Rockefeller?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:27pm
Okay, I had to do some online checking given the prominent surname and location of the abduction.
One-time Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and his first wife Mary Clark Rockefeller had several kids prior to their 1962 divorce ... the wife of one of their sons gave birth to a "Peter Clark Rockefeller" in 1957 - the right age for this guy.
Here's what Rockefeller looks like
By adamg
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:47pm
Beacon Hill Times photo from April, 2007. The paper IDed him as just Clark Rockefeller, though.
amazon wish list
By sheenaspleena
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 1:45am
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A32J4WJNX2O2Q...
That's a different guy. He
By anon
Sun, 07/27/2008 - 11:49pm
That's a different guy. He apparently lives in New York with his wife of many years and his three kids.
(Yes, I did some googling and had the same thought.)
Amber Alert canceled
By adamg
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 8:59am
Still missing, but now believed to be in New York.
in danger
By Anonymous
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 9:16am
I wish the press would ask the BPD to explain why they think the girl is "in danger":
And I wish they'd do this
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 9:55am
This totally rubs me the wrong way.
to clarify
By o_brien
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:11pm
Actually, the little rich girl lives in London with her mother.
PWM
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 9:58am
Isn't it obvious? She might be subjected to Parenting While Male.
Not on the bus
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 10:08am
If they were working-class folk on the bus and she said she was hungry when 5 minutes from home and he shushed her, that would be grave danger.
It's that hard to figure out?
By adamg
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 10:05am
Social worker is pushed out of the way, then dad and pal drive off with the social worker still attached to the black SUV (somebody's been reading too much Tom Clancy, perhaps, although the Sox stickers were a nice local touch). Sounds like a reason to suspect dad might just be a bit dangerous.
Perhaps ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 10:07am
It has something to do with some premeditated violence against the social worker?
Even if her dad loves her very much, this isn't acceptable behavior. Grabbing a kid and jumping in a car can endanger. High speed evasive driving can endanger.
that's it
By Anonymous
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 10:25am
Yes, I agree. He is dangerous to people who try to come between himself and his daughter. I read it as an indication that the police had reason to believe he would try to harm his daughter.
Exactly
By bigdumptruck
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 10:25am
How is anyone even remotely questioning whether or not this should be a valid Amber Alert. If a stranger had made the exact same movements (shoving grabbing running) they would be treated the same way.
Supervised visits are designated by the court during custody, and not even questioning whether right or wrong (he could be a addict of some kind, he could have left her alone at home while he ran to the store, who the hell KNOWS) he had SUPERVISED visitation per the court system, and rules is rules. If he felt he should have unsupervised, I don't think snatching and running with the kid is going to work in his favor.
===========================
From the brains behind http://www.bigdumptruck.com
knee jerk versus, well no knee
By Gregg
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 6:54pm
Here is the issue I tried to raise:
The Amber Alert System depends on cooperation from the public, otherwise it is just another billboard message on the highway. Looking at this statistically, the probability of harm to a child from a parental abduction is relatively low. We all can come up with anecdotes to the contrary, but the statistics tell much of the story.
The probability of harm to the child from a abduction by a stranger is very high.
Therefore, Amber Alerts for stranger abductions have immediacy, because the life of the child is in danger.
In answer to your question, the people who will question the use of the Amber System for less critical cases are the ones who want to see it succeed when it is most necessary.
gregg yup
By anon
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:20am
I think you are exactly on the money. That is why the police decided to say she was in danger, even though there was no history of abuse... because by law requires that the abducted is in danger before the Amber Alert can be activated.
Perhaps a law information official made the determination because the situation has all the elements of an international incident of they wanted to do everything they could to reacquire her.
You may have noticed, the New York authorities would not declare the Amber Alert.
Premeditated violence?
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:35pm
Rockefeller pushed the social worker, that's all, didn't hit him, didn't knock him down, just pushed him out of the way. Any injuries the social worker had were not caused by a push, but by his own actions. Who told the social worker he was Indiana Jones or something and should try to jump on a moving car?
I'll be interested to know more about this social worker. Was he instructed to be on the lookout for a getaway car and physically intercede, throwing himself at moving vehicles, etc? Was he a social worker or a bodyguard? Did the mother suspect that the father would try to get his daughter back, and is this why she sent a social worker / bodyguard with her?
Because He Had a Job to Do?
By bigdumptruck
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 2:06pm
I'm assuming that the social worker felt that the whole situation was his responsibility to monitor, and that his job was to project a little girl.
Are you saying it's perfectly okay for the father to do what he did? I'm confused by your take on this.
The way this guy reacted (i.e. taking off with the child) is precisely the thing someone was afraid would happen when they gave him supervised visitation. They called this one perfectly. So what's really bothering you about this, that this guy is giving divorced fathers everywhere a bad name? Cause that's how I would feel.
===========================
From the brains behind http://www.bigdumptruck.com
to protect?
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 2:24pm
I have not seen anybody present any evidence that the girl's father poses any danger to his daughter. To the contrary, I have seen someone above who claims to know the father state there is nothing he loves more in the world. Do you have some evidence or knowledge that the father poses any danger to his daughter?
Do you know which court gave the father supervised visitation? Do you even know whether that was set by a court? Or are you just assuming? Rockefeller's ex-wife went to London with his daughter. Perhaps the mother stipulated the social worker / bodyguard as a condition of letting the girl see her father, based only on her position of physical control of the girl. Perhaps the mother was holding the daughter hostage for money in the settlement. Perhaps the mother is (as has variously been suggested of the father above) a neglectful, abusive drug addict. I don't know. Do you?
What's bothering me about this is that people are alleging that the father poses some danger to his daughter, based on no evidence whatsoever. Sure, he might pose a threat to anybody who gets in between him and his daughter. If anybody got between me and my son, I'd pose a threat to them too. I expect you would too.
I don't know what their situation is (except that there's an ugly divorce with a lot of money involved). I don't know why the mother appeared to have physical custody of the child and why she appeared able to prevent the girl from seeing her father unmonitored. I do know that divorce law is generally unfair towards fathers, especially in England. And I sympathize with a father who loves his child.
Taking her back?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 2:50pm
You make it sound like his daughter was being held hostage by evil forces and he was rescuing her from the mafia or something.
We don't know why the arrangement was as it was, but I would hesitate to paint a desperate person who organized an extrajudicial event with force involved as somehow "taking his child back". It more sounds like he was "taking his child", illegally at that.
As for danger, hiding out and illegal abduction pose a danger to a child in and of themselves. My mom tipped off the cops to some wierd acting neighbors because the kid was kept in the house all the time, shades/windows drawn, told to be quiet and away from the windows, etc. The kid was school age, but not in school. She really didn't want to interfere, but then I asked her what would happen if the kid got seriously sick? Would they take him/her to the doctor?
She heard the kid hacking and coughing and getting worse over several days and she made the call. Sure enough, the kid had been taken by a non-custodial parent, stashed with a relative, and was reported missing from Colorado.
The kid was taken straight to the hospital by ambulance. One data point, sure - but an illustration of the hazards to children being hidden from the law.
Taking back
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 2:59pm
Certainly, a child who is sick should be brought to a doctor. But that is really neither here nor there. It's a red herring (your favorite kind?) Rockefeller could afford all the doctors he wants.
I say "taking back" because the father raised his daughter, and then she was taken away from him by the mother - to a foreign country, no less - and then he took her... what's the best word? back. It's really quite a prosaic use of the English language, no mafia fantasy necessary.
It's a tragedy all around. It's a tragedy that the father was the primary caregiver, while the mother worked, but that counts for shit. It's a tragedy that a mother can legally take a child away from her father, cross an ocean with her, change her name, refuse to let the father see him without a trusty present, but this isn't kidnapping. It's normal.
The difference in what the mother did here and what the father did here is not moral but legal. Just because our country's sexist laws are on her side, making her able to legally abduct the child, whereas he had to do it illegally, doesn't make it right.
More info here, btw.
by "taking back" do you mean "kidapping"
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:05pm
Here's a Red Herring for ya
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:11pm
What if he kills a cop who is trying to take the girl back according to the law? Do you explode in a puff of conflicting drivel?
It isn't a matter of being able to afford a school or a doctor for the child ... it is a matter of keeping a kid hidden taking precidence over their wellbeing.
Oh, but you just know that the father is stable and perfect by just looking at him with your "common sense" that seems to fail you at times like these.
SwirlyHypocrite
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:12pm
Now we know that you love institutionalized sexism as long as it benefits women.
What a hypocrite you are.
Uh huh
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:14pm
Institutionalized sexism that benefits women.
Ohhhhkayyy.
Spoken like a true male privilege paranoid ... it isn't a zero sum game, you know.
If you were honest
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:17pm
You'd be able to look at a custody award system that presumes women should get sole custody of children even when men are the primary caregivers and notice that this is based on sexist assumptions and is unfair.
But you're not, are you? You'd rather throw stones about male paranoia, wouldn't you?
I feel bad for you.
Gareth, the "benefits women" part is pure funny
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:24pm
Institutionalized sexism? You bet. Mom = housefrau, dad=wallet is stupid.
Benefits women? I guess you don't know too many single moms, now do ya. Think about what someone who has been given 24/7 care of kids and has to hold a job and pay for childcare goes through. Not a benefit.
You should know better than to assume that anything that screws over men is apriori great for women - that is YOUR BIAS, not mine.
Then again, your brain did a funny explosion over the "what if he killed a cop that came between him and his daughter" question. Do tell.
Do you even read?
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:32pm
Do you even read? Did you even notice the part where the dad in this case was the primary caregiver, while the mom worked, and yet custody was given to the mother because the courts in this country always presume against fathers?
There were two abductions here. One was legal, by the mother, which you seem to applaud. One was illegal, by the father, which you compare to murder.
But you've got to stick tight to your ideology, huh?
As far as paying for childcare, that's another red herring. Both dad and mum are rich as sin. Paying a nanny poses no problem for either.
Who is sticking with idologies here?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:35pm
Gee, funny how mr Law and Order and All That suddenly becomes Mr. "it isn't faiiirrrr" when it comes to his internalized sacred cows.
Always? Every time? Really? Show.
Then, show how this "always benefits women". From what I've seen, amicably divorcing friends have resisted this arrangement because it is shitty for both partners INCLUDING the female partner.
Sorry if that bucks your ideology that all things gendered are a "WOMEN VERSUS MEN SMACKDOWN" rather than "sexism is shitty and stupid for everybody".
It isn't a zero sum game, deary. Institutionalized sexism doesn't help women - maybe a specific wealthy woman worked the system with it (a BIG maybe based on what little we know) - but that isn't the general reality.
I'm not your dad
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:36pm
It seems obvious you've got some hatred towards fathers to work out... maybe you could do it on a couch instead of here?
Amicably divorcing friends... red herring number three. They aren't your friends, and they aren't amicable. They went to legal battle, and the primary caregiver (the dad) lost his custody of his daughter, which he clearly wanted, to the mother, who took her away, left the country, changed her name, and refused to let her dad see her without a screw present.
If you don't think having custody of your children would be a benefit to you, then you obviously feel differently about your children than this father feels about his.
Deep Breath Time
By KellyJMF
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:48pm
Can we all just agree that we make guesses about what is going on based on scant evidence and our own personal experiences and biases and that any of the previously mentioned scenarios is at least theoretically possible?
The custody case is sealed and until they find the guy, we won't know why he did it.
Oooo, look, Haley's Comet!
Go read it again, Gareth
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:53pm
Sorry, but if you actually pay some attention here, you are the one with the comprehension problem. Nowhere have I supported the current sexist system in any way, and you seem to be unable to understand that. Let me spell this out for you:
I agree that the system is screwed up.
I disagree that it benefits women in any real way.
I further maintain that the current custody system screws women and men - in different ways, yes, but screw it does. I have seen it when people have had to work to get equitable arrangements past "old school" judges.
And I baffle at how quickly you defend police actions, yet are also defending someone who has just violated the law in a big way. Somehow, using free speech is cause for a smackdown by nine cops and you support that, but you would be happy to see this guy kill a cop if said cop got between him and his daughter? You would throw fits if a guy who will be charged with kidnapping and assaulting a social worker was pigpiled and cuffed, yet applaud when the cops attack law-abiding citizens?
You are inconsistent, wed to your extreme views here, and totally attempting to avoid the concept that SEXISM IS SHITTY FOR EVERYBODY.
How that is my problem with my father is laughable. My dad agrees with me here, actually.
Huh?
By Gareth
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 3:59pm
There you go projecting again. You really should get that under control.
I never said anybody should go kill a cop. That's something you made up in your fevered haste to condemn this unfortunate father.
The hatred you express here and elsewhere, usually directed against cops, fathers, or any male authority figures, is so extreme, and you are seemingly so unaware of it that it's truly astounding.
Sexism is shitty for everybody, but it benefits some people some of the time. In corporate promotions, sexism benefits men. In divorce court, sexism benefits women.
a fresh thread
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 4:11pm
here to continue
"There you go..." I think
By anon
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 4:14pm
I think you ought to give props to Reagan here Garth. By the way, it's not as useful a rhetorical device as it once was... twenty-five years ago.
Pages