View Full Version : Run and make them shoot you?
so.cal.fan
08-01-2002, 01:32 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/news/788577.asp?pne=msn#BODY
Two teenage girls abducted at gunpoint.
I always told my kids and any kids I know that if anyone ever pulls a gun or knife on you and wants you to get in a car or go with them......RUN as fast as you can, and take your chances on them shooting you.
Does anyone agree or disagree with this advice?
I agree.
Most abducted kids don't survive, it seems.
Run, yell, holler, kick em in the 'nads..., anything. Just don't surrender.
socal,
I agree with you, especially when there is more than one person there. The shooter can't control all of them if they split up. In this case there were four people including the boyfriends, and apparently nobody tried anything to stop him. I hope the two girls don't wind up dead because of it.
so.cal.fan
08-01-2002, 06:21 PM
Thank God, the girls have been rescued alive and well!
Yeah, the old guys in Las Vegas resisted more than the young ones in California though. They were lucky.
PaceAdvantage
08-01-2002, 06:55 PM
The real question here is either....
a) Why all these sudden abductions and/or killings of young girls???
or
b) If these abductions were going on all along at this pace, why are they being given such high priority in the media at this time??
My instinct tells me option B is the one to focus on.....any opinions??
==PA
sq764
08-01-2002, 07:41 PM
I think this society is just chocked full of sick bitches anymore.. And shootings, abductions, rape, murder, its all normal anymore..
I live about 30 minutes from South Philadelphia and if you dare go in the city after dark, you will be lucky to get out alive.
I think that a good measure of where society is can be seen by looking at the same city capitol that the president lives in is the murder capital of the world.. (Last time I checked)
JustRalph
08-01-2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by smf
I agree.
Most abducted kids don't survive, it seems.
Run, yell, holler, kick em in the 'nads..., anything. Just don't surrender.
Instruct them to never travel to the secondary location. The killings always occur at the secondary location
andicap
08-01-2002, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
The real question here is either....
a) Why all these sudden abductions and/or killings of young girls???
or
b) If these abductions were going on all along at this pace, why are they being given such high priority in the media at this time??
My instinct tells me option B is the one to focus on.....any opinions??
==PA
As someone in the media, and who covers the news media, I can tell you without any hesitation, the answer is B.
Experts say the number of abductions has remained relatively stable this year, but the media focus has scared half the country -- or more. There's a fine line between being careful and being paranoid and unduly fearful.
If all started with Elizabeth Smart and snowballed from there. Once that case got a ton of media attention, then every case did -- unless of course the victims lived in a poor neighborhood. (white or black).
The Smarts live next door to a friend of Jake Garn, ex-Utah senator and had a ton of media savvy. The media knows a salacious story -- 14-yr old kidnaped from own bedroom while horrified younger sister looks on -- and it was off to the races. BTW, the Smart story was largely a TV phenomenom, that of the early morning news shows and the cable news networks who thrive on trashy stories.
Years ago, when kidnapings got lots of space in the press, it pretty much had to big a prominent kidnapping -- Frank Sinatra Jr., or the daughter of a multi-millioniare, that type of thing.
andi, PA-
I agree-it is B. The media is profit motivated, not news oriented.
They are jumping on the current "in" story, and in a few weeks, they will all be reporting the "next big thing" and I don't mean Brock Lessnor.
The upside to this is that maybe people will get some education in raisng kids safely.
As to what to do, run-scream-yell Fire (everyone will come out to se a fire, but yeel rape and peopl ewill not watn to get involved).
Hopefully, the monster will panic and not shoot, and try to run, and maybe someone will get his plate number, or better yet, a shot at him. We have had a lot of this kind of thing in my area over the years-little Kali Poulten was abducted and murdered in nearby East Rochester, we had the double-initial murders back in the 1960's, we had Auther Shawcross, We have connections to the Hillside Stanglers, and Hell, they even Think Jack the Ripper
was a doctor from Rochester! Must be something in our water.
Maybe we should all wake up a liitle and stop being afraid to speak up to parents when we see they are not protecting their kids. I said something to my next door neighbor the other day because his little blond girl, with a hauntingly similar appearance to the Smart girl, has a habit a of sitting on the curb at the end of her driveway, where the view is somewhat obscured by bushes.
His reaction was somewhat "Mind your own business, idiot!" at first, but the next day, his wife hollered over the fence that they were trimming the shrubs and asking Jenny not to sit out there alone any more. She even asked me to let her know if I saw her doing it again.
When I was a kid, people were not shy about sticking their noses
into other people's business and I always hated it. Maybe there was something to it after all.
so.cal.fan
08-02-2002, 12:40 AM
You were right to speak up about the little girl, Tom.
You never know, you may have saved her life.
JustRalph
08-02-2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by andicap
As someone in the media, and who covers the news media, I can tell you without any hesitation, the answer is B.
Remember last years Shark Attacks? I read that shark attacks were actually down last year........who do you believe?
PaceAdvantage
08-02-2002, 01:43 PM
Hmmmmm, you know that implanted microchip everyone has been talking about for years now?? The one people use for their pets in case they get lost. The one they've developed for human use, and have tested on military personel?? The one they will want to eventually use on everyone?? Yeah, that chip....
What better way to introduce the concept of implanting these chips in humans than to 'educate' parents as to the benefits of having a tracking device on their children (who seem to be getting abducted left and right these days, if you watch CNN).
I wonder if all this media attention on abducted children has anything to do with furthering this agenda.....nahhhhhh
Guess I'll have to keep watching CNN and see what happens when they next report on the "Lo-jack" of the future.....
==PA
I had a job for a several years that required carrying a pager and being on call all the time. That convinced me that I don't want anyone to know where I am any more. I won't carry a cell phone and I might even unplug the phone at home if I don't want people bugging me. "Don't call me, I'll call you" is my motto.
By the way, I'll pass along a tip I learned about telemarketers. If they say "on behalf of" your credit card company, bank, etc. you can guarantee that they're trying to sell you something. They can't actually say they're representing the business that sold your name, so they use the "behalf of" thing and give themselves away. As soon as I hear those words, I hang up. Of course, once in a while, if I'm in the mood, I might try to waste their time and mess with their head. But that's another story.
andicap
08-02-2002, 04:25 PM
Yeah, Rick, I do that when I'm in the mood too. Although i feel bad for the people actually making the call. They're just trying to put food on the table like you and I.
In college once, I had to call people for market research (no sales), and although i hated calling people at home, I needed the money.
Tom, I see your point. When I'm at Belmont I see little kids playing all the time in the playground without their parents watching. When we talk to the security guard, he just shrugs like hey, "I'm getting minimum wage - don't bother me."
Originally posted by Rick
I had a job for a several years that required carrying a pager and being on call all the time. That convinced me that I don't want anyone to know where I am any more. I won't carry a cell phone and I might even unplug the phone at home if I don't want people bugging me. "Don't call me, I'll call you" is my motto.
By the way, I'll pass along a tip I learned about telemarketers. If they say "on behalf of" your credit card company, bank, etc. you can guarantee that they're trying to sell you something. They can't actually say they're representing the business that sold your name, so they use the "behalf of" thing and give themselves away. As soon as I hear those words, I hang up. Of course, once in a while, if I'm in the mood, I might try to waste their time and mess with their head. But that's another story.
If a female telemarketer calls nowdays, I always ask her for her bra size. If she doesn't hang up, I get a bit more personal in my questions. That usually gets em to hang up quickly. Hey, it's all in fun and it works.
Btw, here in TX we have a 'no call' option where you pay a few bucks to get off these seller's lists. Doesn't stop them from calling, so I figure I can have a lil fun w/ em since they're not in compliance.
andicap,
Yeah you're right, it is kind of mean. But I can't help myself sometimes.
smf,
I once asked a female telemarketer if she'd think it was OK if I called her at home. To my surprise, she answered "yeah, sure, call me any time"!
ranchwest
08-02-2002, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by smf
If a female telemarketer calls nowdays, I always ask her for her bra size. If she doesn't hang up, I get a bit more personal in my questions. That usually gets em to hang up quickly. Hey, it's all in fun and it works.
Btw, here in TX we have a 'no call' option where you pay a few bucks to get off these seller's lists. Doesn't stop them from calling, so I figure I can have a lil fun w/ em since they're not in compliance.
My favorite was the guy who called me on Super Bowl Sunday. He was clueless as to what the Super Bowl was, so I told him to just go home since he wasn't going to sell anything anyway.
andicap
08-02-2002, 08:46 PM
A few years ago, someone -- I could tell they were from the Midwest or South -- called me on Yom Kippur (the holiest day of the Jewish year).
I screamed at him, "Do you know what day this is??!!!"
He replied, "Saturday?"
click
boxcar
08-02-2002, 08:52 PM
To refresh everyone's memories, here is the "real" question PA posed:
>>
The real question here is either....
a) WHY all these sudden abductions and/or killings of young girls??? (emphasis mine)
>>
Then PA went on to propose a possible answer and by so doing clarified somewhat what he meant by "sudden". It appears, he meant sudden media attention. He also assumes that all these "abductions" were going on "at this pace" -- whatever pace it was that he had in mind. He wrote:
>>
If these abductions were going on all along at this pace, why are they being given such high priority in the media at this time??
>>
Later on in another post PA went as far as to suggest that there may be some kind of conspiracy among the media, or possibly even between the media and the government (I suppose) in pre-marketing and promoting all the good benefits that could be derived from those little microchip transplants down the road (a conspiracy theory I personally find to be over the top).
But Tom and Andi, while pointing their fingers at the media, never really nailed down solidly the reasons behind their finger-pointing. The closest Tom came was to theorize that the media are more interested in their bottom line than in reporting the [real] news.
Andi, in basic agreement with Tom, pretty much put cable news networks in the same category as the tabloids since supposedly they both "thrive on trashy stories."
But are kidnappings and sex crimes really "trashy stories"? Why has the media (especially the cable news networks) devoted so much time to these stories? Could it be that the Elizabeth Smart story had some newsworthy merits of its own, which could have also accounted for all the media attention? It's not exactly an everyday occurrence when a young, attractive girl gets kidnapped or abducted from her own bedroom - and with the added element of a young eyewitness to boot. Moreover, the story for awhile didn't lack several newsworthy developments, which has helped to keep this particular story alive.
Then shortly afterwards, we had the van Dam case - a very young girl who was abducted from her bedroom, sexually assaulted and killed.
Next, we had little Samantha abducted in broad daylight in the sight of another young eyewitness. She, too, lost her innocence and was brutually murdered afterwards.
After that we had the spectacular kidnapping of the little black girl in the Philly area in broad daylight, and an equally spectacular escape shortly thereafter.
Finally, most recently we had the two teens on the Left Coast who were kidnapped after their abductor tied up their two boyfriends. The kidnapper sexually assaulted the girls and apparently was on his way out to the desert to dispose of them for good when an animal control officer spotted his van.
All in all, we had five abductions in a short period of time - almost in rapid fire succession, as it were. Could the sheer number of these abductions/sex crimes/murders in such a short period of time have anything to do with the "sudden" interest of the media?
And when we talk about those cable news networks, we must remember to consider that these are 24/7 operations. They never shut down; and the news (for better or for worse) is their only product. Being around-the-clock operations means they have about 18 hours of commercial-free air time to fill every day. Therefore, by virtue of this fact, there is going to be a lot of repetitiveness in reporting. When we consider this in conjunction with the short time line for five similar stories, it's easy to understand how people could mistakenly perceive that the cable news companies are milking stories like these for all their worth -- that they're in the "trashy" tabloid biz for all practical intent and purpoes.
But now I would like to pursue a question, coming from a perspective that, for the most part has been glossed over by everyone, save for one. Are these kinds of crimes really happening at "this pace" - which I suppose could mean at some more or less constant rate over a period of time? Andi has claimed to know from his sources that the crime rates for these kinds of criminal activities are on par with last year's numbers, thus far. (I'd like to know how his sources know this, though, since I can't even find 2001 crime stats, let alone numbers for this year, since the 2001 numbers are still being compiled and collated by the FBI.) Asking the question a bit differently: I'd like to know if anyone thinks these last twenty years we witnessed were generally more evil than the previous twenty, and were those twenty years even more wicked than the twenty just prior to that period, etc.? Does SQ's perception of society today have any ring of truth to it?
Boxcar
andicap
08-03-2002, 10:04 AM
Murder rates in NYC are at levels not seen in many years. Down, down, down. I'm not going to walk in Harlem or Central Park at certain hours, but by and large, NYC is pretty safe.
I'll try to find my source on the kidnapings question. It was not just last year but over a period of years that kidnapings have been stable. It was some academic type who knows all these stats.
boxcar
08-03-2002, 11:09 AM
andicap wrote:
>>
Murder rates in NYC are at levels not seen in many years. Down, down, down. I'm not going to walk in Harlem or Central Park at certain hours, but by and large, NYC is pretty safe.
>>
I'm aware of this fact. Was just wondering how you knew (or your source knew) that sex crimes or kidnappings this year were running at the same rate as last year's stats, when last year's statistics haven't been published yet.
>>
I'll try to find my source on the kidnapings question. It was not just last year but over a period of years that kidnapings have been stable. It was some academic type who knows all these stats.
>>
Perhaps I can save you some time. Here a site that gives a decent birds eye view of all major crimes looking through the prism of the Crime Index.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
There is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the four-year period, which essentially starts (with a few exceptions) from '96 through '99, saw small but steady decreases in most if not all major crimes.
The bad news, though, outweighs the good. For one thing, crime was slightly on the upswing again in 2000. For another, if you look at the big picture, i.e. the last 40 years or so, the Disaster Center states that the overall crime rate (for all major crimes) is now roughly 300% of what it was back in 1960 (the fig is 313% if you make the cutoff year '96). So, if anyone ever asks you if the quality of life (in terms of safety of limb, life or property) was better back in the '80s, the '70s or the '60s , you can bet your bottom dollar that it was. The farther back one goes, the fewer crimes were committed.
Furthermore, some specific crimes are way up over my approximated aggregate fig of 300%. The forcible rape numbers, for instance, tell us that in 2000 the crime index is nearly a whopping 525% of what it was back in 1960 - in other words the occurrences of this particular crime have more than quadrupled in the last 40 years.
Another category that differs significantly from the 300% overall stat is Violent Crimes. In 2000 the statistics are nearly 494% of what it was back in 1960.
So, yeah, if you live and NYC and get the irresistable urge to walk through Central Park on a balmy Fall night, make darn sure you're packing heat - or at least surrounded by 300 lb. gorillas who can double as your personal bodyguards.
Boxcar
boxcar
08-03-2002, 11:36 AM
Now that I'm more or less awake, working on my second cup of mud, it just occurred to me that there was a sixth abduction incident I overlooked. I'm not sure of the sequence, but I think it happened shortly after the incident in Philly with the black girl, but I stand to be corrected.
I'm thinking of another from-the-house snatch, yet, that took place somewhere in Ohio with a little five-year old girl. She was taken from this guy's house by a homeless person, who the homeowner (a friend of the little girl's dad) allowed to spend the night. The little girl was sexually assaulted then murdered in some old abandoned glass factory, I think it was.
This brings the number of similar incidents to six over a short period of time. It's no wonder at all the cable news networks have given so much air time to these incidents.
And to further set the record straight, only two of theses incidents involved parent "neglect", if you want to call it that. Three of the kids were snatched from within their homes. And the two older teens were out on dates with their boyfriends.
Boxcar
Something that needs to be pointed out when interpreting crime rates is that they also vary according to the extent to which they are reported. Homicides are about the only statistic you can really depend on. Pretty much all of those are reported, although they could possibly be classified differently.
Lefty
08-03-2002, 12:32 PM
I think Rush said it best over a yr ago: with the competition to the networks from every angle, i.e. Cable, Talk Radio and the internet a news story is no longer a story it's a news event.
Aso, after the Smart kisnapping I heard the "harping" mostly from liberals, "that they gave this little white girl tons of coverage but hardly any for the little black girl in Fla and others, so I think the media, decided to go full "bore" on every kidnapping that happens from now on.
boxcar
08-03-2002, 01:12 PM
Rick wrote:
>>
Something that needs to be pointed out when interpreting crime rates is that they also vary according to the extent to which they are reported. Homicides are about the only statistic you can really depend on. Pretty much all of those are reported, although they could possibly be classified differently.
>>
Even homocide stats aren't all that accurate. How many "missing persons", for example, stay missing precisely because they're dead? A corpse is required before someone can officially be pronounced dead. Every once in a while, you'll read or hear about some decomposed body being discovered somwhere. There are probably a lot of those out there still undiscovered.
Boxcar
PaceAdvantage
08-03-2002, 02:45 PM
Should we then conclude that no crime statistic is to be trusted? One could make a case either way to warp the meaning and accuracy of any statistic, especially crime statistics....
And who collects and reports these statistics?? The very agencies that are supposed to be keeping these statistics low with their effective law enforcement???
Guess I'm just way too paranoid. That still doesn't mean they aren't after still after you.....LOL
==PA
freeneasy
08-03-2002, 02:53 PM
I dont know about implants, that might be a little scary, but fi it can be developed to a degree of absolute safety without having to be concerned about some kind of laser radiation infection, a little chip in the bottom of the foot or the buttock, or thigh might work, but I see something a little more viable with a tracking device in the form of a slim wrist type bracelet. made with something that cant be cut off with aknife or a sharp object, something that can only be removed with a special cutter or laser of somesort. something visable and plainly seen that when spotted by a would be kidnapper will discourage and squelch any further attempts at a kidnapping. I think visable discouragement would be a key, key factor. aka the freeway signs will probably play a heavy roll in discourageing wouldbe kidnappers. technollogy will definately have to play a part in all of this I would have to think. it probably wont be the stop to these kidnappings as not all kids will have a chip or a bracelet or some form or deturent. it might force down the act of random kidnapping but for the rapist who cries tears at the thought of being caught, convicted, going to prison and paying for his crime, I believe it will just force them to carry out a more elaborate and thought out plan of escape and evasetion.
Crime statistics can be used by politicians and law enforcement in many ways. If the crime rate goes up, they can ask for a bigger budget. If it goes down, they can say what a great job they're doing. Does this sound similar to economic statistics to you?
I'd be more likely to trust a well designed poll with unambiguous questions. But those are pretty rare these days too, because the poll taker usually has an agenda.
boxcar
08-03-2002, 03:55 PM
Lefty wrote:
>>
I think Rush said it best over a yr ago: with the competition to the networks from every angle, i.e. Cable, Talk Radio and the internet a news story is no longer a story it's a news event. Also, after the Smart kisnapping I heard the "harping" mostly from liberals, "that they gave this little white girl tons of coverage but hardly any for the little black girl in Fla and others, so I think the media, decided to go full "bore" on every kidnapping that happens from now on.
>>
I'm not so sure, Lefty. First off, the six stories were found to be newsworthy "events" because all the kidnappings (presumably even in the Smart case until we learn otherwise) were committed by strangers. (The lone exception here was in the Van Dam case since she was snatched from her home allegedly by a neighbor.) This is an important fact since a very large percentage (I think around 48% or so) of abductions are committed by immediate family members due to custody squabbles, etc., so the vast majority of these kinds of kidnappings never get reported to begin with, regardless of the race of the victim involved.
Secondly, Blacks comprise only about 13% or so of the population, so it stands to reason that most kidnapped victims would be non-Blacks - a little fact the bleeding hearts forgot to consider. Naturally, there would be far fewer kindnapping of blacks, right?
Also, the little girl down in Florida has been given a lot of attention by Bill O'Reilly, who has a genuine passion and concern for kids of all races. But that situation with that little kid differs significantly from the other "more spectacular" cases. This poor kid somehow very quietly slipped through the cracks of the bureaucracy of the Child Protection Agency (or whatever they call it down in the Swamplands). I don't think they have even pinpointed when she disappeared! Some Bumblehead (probably accidently!) awoke one morning to discover the kid was no longer on the agency's radar screen. The only thing that amazes me about this case is that arrests haven't been made for negligence! Someone is ultimately responsible; yet, whoever that person is, s/he hasn't been held accountable, and I'd sure like to know why. I believe the caseworker for that kid was a black woman. I wonder if her race has been serving as her protective shield? Ditto for the foster parent in whose home the little girl was staying? That woman, too, was black, and hasn't answered to anyone for that kid's disappearance. I guess that little girl was just a victim of someone's Black Magic (bad pun intended)?
And while I'm on a roll with this rant (as I'm angered about this case, also), it's funny how the Liberals never question the absence and quietness of the Jesse JackAsses or Rev(olving) Al Opportunistic Sharptons in these kinds of cases. See, there is NO opportunity for political gain here, is there? These guys only want to come into the picture whenever they can play the race card -- only when they can stir up trouble, divisiveness and dissention between the races. They could care less about the welfare of blacks, or promoting good character or morality among them. (Another great example of this lack of genuine leadership can be seen with the recent killings of two blacks by a mob of blacks in Chicago - right in Jackson's backyard, yet! But where is he? Why isn't he calling for the community to come clean and turn in the vigilantes who brutally stoned to death these two guys? I find his silence to be deafening!)
If anyone wants to get the straight skinny on the real news anymore, assiduous avoidance of the mainstream media will be necessary. The mainstream media are in the Propaganda Biz - Period. They invent news by twisting and distorting it and by omitting important facts so as to manipulate and influence public opinion. Is it any wonder Fox News Channel is the Number One news network? Thinking people, who don't want to be spoon-fed high caloric propaganda, know where to go to get all sides to a story. They also know the Internet is another superior source for news because it is here that one will be able to unearth many reliable and reputable non-mainstream sources.
We saw, for example, how the NY Times distorted the School Choice story by cleverly omitting important facts. Then the NY News allowed its Bias to hang out by calling a guy, who shot a thief caught in the process of stealing his car, a "vigilante". (Funny how this term has disappeared from the mainstream press' vocab with respect to that stoning mob in Chicago.)
Boxcar
Rumor has it that Governor Gray Davis originally opposed the system used to catch the kidnapper and finally reluctantly implemented it last Friday!
boxcar
08-03-2002, 04:12 PM
PaceAdvantage wrote:
>>
Should we then conclude that no crime statistic is to be trusted? One could make a case either way to warp the meaning and accuracy of any statistic, especially crime statistics....
>>
I think it's prudent to take all such stastics with a little grain of salt. I certainly wouldn't want to hang my hat on their "accuracy". By the same token, I don't think the FBI or the various local law enforcement agencies are consipiring to conceal the facts, either.
>>
And who collects and reports these statistics?? The very agencies that are supposed to be keeping these statistics low with their effective law enforcement???
>>
Everything gets reported, ultimately, to the FBI, who in turn organizes the data and submits the final product to the DOJ, I believe.
>>
Guess I'm just way too paranoid. That still doesn't mean they aren't after still after you.....LOL
>>
Paranoia in moderation is healthy. Just don't look over your shoulder so much of the time that you do yourself harm by inviting objects to walk into you.
Boxcar
JustRalph
08-04-2002, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Rick
Crime statistics can be used by politicians and law enforcement in many ways. If the crime rate goes up, they can ask for a bigger budget. If it goes down, they can say what a great job they're doing. Does this sound similar to economic statistics to you?
Most of these so called stats come from FBI Uniform Crime reports. They are prepared monthly or quarterly depending on the jurisdiction etc. (at least they used to be)
As someone who was responsible for filing these reports at one time, I can tell you that they are wrought with error and most of the error comes from the goofy formula that the FBI requires departments to use. The Formula also changes from time to time throughout the years. This makes tracking the previous stats irrelevant to any new stats and vice versa. Its a damn joke!
The point about using the stats to get more money is valid. I have seen police departments that received Fed. Grants to pay overtime to police a stretch of Freeway that has had some bad wrecks in the last year or so. The same department writes about 10 tickets a month in this area, and 20 warnings maybe. But when using the federal money, everybody stopped gets a ticket. No warnings are issued. (maybe two hundred tickets during federal money time) It wouldn't look good for next year....if we wrote warnings? Of course the real cause of the accidents fall on the contstruction zone that was clogging up that stretch of freeway. Next year when the Wigs apply for Fed. Money they note that since "their" Federal money was awarded last year, there were only two accidents in a year. (of course, the construction ended) and they need the money again to maintain enforcement at the current level. The Feds never even know about the construction zone, sometimes.
Don't believe everything you read about the volume of incidents. The numbers are skewed. The race, religion, motive etc. numbers are usually pretty accurate (percentage wise anyway, but if you over-report you can throw those numbers too, but normally they are under reported to make a jurisdiction look better) Its the reported amount that may be way off. Just my 2 cents
If you set up a system that can be exploited, you can't really blame people for exploiting it. If you make it in their best self interest to report accurately, then you can count on them doing so. Good luck.
boxcar
08-04-2002, 08:15 PM
Another little girl today was snatched off her bike in broad daylight in the Sacremento area, I believe. Don't have the full story yet, but I hear she showed up okay about 90 minutes later.
Boxcar
superfecta
08-05-2002, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Thank God, the girls have been rescued alive and well! Is after these girls were rescued,how they became a media event,appearing on TV.If I was kidnapped and raped,I don't think I would want face time on the tube,except maybe once to say-Don't be like me girls,get home at a decent hour,and be careful where you go.I am starting to get the feeling they are enjoying the limelight....which if true is sad.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.