[ARRL-OK] OT: Amber Alert: Baby Taken By Mother In Oklahoma City

Tue Nov 8 22:44:18 EST 2005

The bottom line is #2.  In most "custody cases" neither interested party has
any intention of injuring the child - they want to KEEP the child, not hurt
her.  Only in certain extreme cases (psychotic abusers, serious drug users
that have been declared unfit parents, etc.) or certain cases involving
post-divorce custody where there is a serious out of country flight risk
(debatably) would Amber Alert apply.

The issue here is 3-fold.

1.  If this was just a custody dispute, and not one of the exceptions listed
above (or others that could be construed from the guidelines below) then
this was NOT a valid AA.

2.  None of US are in a position to know that - presumably local law
enforcement was.  If it was valid, though, I'd like to see a press release
(or an arrest!) for the mother on something other than violating a custody
order.  I realize that she was arrested for the snatch, but the original AA
would carry a lot more weight with the general public if they cited a
violation of a protective order or some such.  Too many people have seen too
many times that one party picks the kids up for visitation and the other
calls the cops when their 5 minutes late returning them.

3.  The "cry wolf" factor is a serious issue.  If we (not us specifically,
we care - but rather "we" the general public) hear an AA every day, and 3/4
of them are custody disputes, then even those of us who care are more likely
to hit the delete key without reading it.  And this is especially true if it
is far from "your" location and the AA gives no indication of a suspected
direction of travel towards you.

73,

Jay
AD5PE 

-----Original Message-----
From: arrl-ok-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:arrl-ok-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of M. Schneider
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 00:22
To: ARRL Oklahoma Section List
Subject: Re: [ARRL-OK] OT: Amber Alert: Baby Taken By Mother In Oklahoma
City

Here are the Dept. Of Justice recommended criteria for issuing an Amber
Alert.  The entire document can be found at:
http://www.amberalert.gov/docs/AMBERCriteria.pdf

Summary of Department of Justice Recommended Criteria:

! There is reasonable belief by law enforcement that an abduction has
occurred.

! The law enforcement agency believes that the child is in imminent danger
of serious bodily injury or death.

! There is enough descriptive information about the victim and the abduction
for law enforcement to issue an AMBER Alert to assist in the recovery of the
child.

! The abduction is of a child aged 17 years or younger.

! The Child's name and other critical data elements, including the Child
Abduction flag, have been entered into the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) system.

Regarding the first item, it says this:

It is recommended that AMBER plans require confirmation by law enforcement
of an abduction prior to issuing an alert.

This component is essential when determining the level of risk to the child.
Clearly, stranger abductions are the most dangerous for children and thus
are primary to the mission of an AMBER Alert. To allow activations in the
absence of significant information that an abduction has occurred could lead
to abuse of the system and ultimately weaken its effectiveness. At the same
time, each case must be appraised on its own merits and a judgment call made
quickly. Law enforcement must understand that a "best judgment" approach,
based on the evidence, is appropriate and necessary.

So, while "stranger abductions are the most dangerous for children and thus
are primary to the mission of an AMBER Alert", the DOJ doesn't preclude
abductions by friends or family members, including parents.  As stated in
the guidelines, law enforcement should use a "best approach".  The key
factor would seem to me to be this one:  "The law enforcement agency
believes that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or
death".

While the alert that was issued might have been inappropriate, who are we to
say?  Are you, or somebody else, planning on prescreening an alert issued by
a valid issuing agency, and deciding which ones should be passed on?  The
Amber Alert was issued by the Cleveland County SO, a valid law enforcement
agency.  It stated that the child was "abducted by her mother", which
doesn't sound like a child custody dispute, it sounds like the mother had no
legal right to take the child.  Why, we don't know, nor do we need to.  The
SO apparently had good reason to believe the child was in danger.  Again, we
don't need to know why.

If this sort of thing bothers you, feel free to delete the email.  I delete
dozens of emails each week whose topics are not of interest to me, it's
really quite easy to do.

Oh, BTW, I'm former LEO myself (dispatcher).  This is the sort of thing I
used to see issued as BOLOs on OLETS all the time.  This time, they decided
to get the citizens involved also.  A good idea, IMHO.

Mark - K5MAR

----- Original Message -----
From: "KE5EXY" <ke5exy at olp.net>
To: "ARRL Oklahoma Section List" <arrl-ok at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: <k2gkk at hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ARRL-OK] OT: Amber Alert: Baby Taken By Mother In Oklahoma
City

> Hey, you know what Mac? I agree with you 100%...IF IT WAS A VALID 
> AMBER ALERT that was issued! It was NOT. It was a child custody 
> dispute. Do you know how many of these disputes go on every day? The 
> agency that issued the alert screwed up and made a mistake and no one 
> outside of probably those of us that are current or former law enforcement
know that.
>
> I don't wear panties, and if I did, they weren't in a wad. I was 
> merely stating how this was a misuse of the Amber Alert system. The 
> media reported earlier today that the situation was resolved anyway.
>
> So based on what you are saying below, you don't care how valid the 
> Alert is, we should flood every outlet we can with invalid alerts 
> anyway. Real smart idea Mac. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried 
> wolf? If invalid Amber Alerts go out constantly, then people get numb 
> to them and don't really perk up to them. This is why there is 
> CRITERIA that an agency is SUPPOSED to follow before issuing an alert. 
> It's not just for every runaway or child custody dispute.
>
> I'm going to leave it at that. I'm only trying to educate folks a 
> little bit better as to what an Amber Alert really is.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D C *Mac* Macdonald" <k2gkk at hotmail.com>
> To: <arrl-ok at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 7:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-OK] OT: Amber Alert: Baby Taken By Mother In 
> Oklahoma City
>
>
>> Regardless of any supposed validity or lack thereof about the 
>> propriety of the actual alert, I would state that Amber Alerts should 
>> be given the widest possible distribution.
>>
>> Contrary to what some people "think" there are many people who pay 
>> absolutely no attention to mass media.
>>
>> If what somebody says or writes gets your panties in a wad, perhaps 
>> practice with the DELETE key is in order.
>>
>> Mac, K2GKK
>> Oklahoma City
>
> ______________________________________________________
> ___________________ Information __________________________ ARRL 
> Oklahoma Section Manager - John Thomason, WB5SYT wb5syt at arrl.org 
> Oklahoma Section Web page http://www.qsl.net/wb5syt/index.html
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> ARRL-OK mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARRL-OK at mailman.qth.net
>
> 

______________________________________________________
___________________ Information __________________________ ARRL Oklahoma
Section Manager - John Thomason, WB5SYT wb5syt at arrl.org Oklahoma Section Web
page http://www.qsl.net/wb5syt/index.html

______________________________________________________

ARRL-OK mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arrl-ok
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
Post: mailto:ARRL-OK at mailman.qth.net