Posted on 05/09/2005 1:06:18 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The "runaway bride" is the perfect story for our time, a tale made in cable-TV heaven, with something for everybody, including me. Jennifer Wilbanks, who took a bus to Las Vegas on the eve of her wedding and called her fiancé from Albuquerque with a tall tale of kidnapping, is a triumph of radical feminism: she escaped the conventional trappings of marriage. Or maybe she reflects the failure of feminism: the dithering poor thing who couldn't make up her mind. Absolute moralists call for retribution, insisting that she pay her debt to society, literally, reimbursing several states for all the money the cops spent trying to find her. The psychological softies diagnose a narcissistic personality disorder and demand that she suffer only therapy. Lefties rant over the excessive materialism of her wedding gifts. Does anyone really need a $250 ice bucket?
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
And what about the SOP for missing persons? If the Duluth Police Department has waited the standard 48 to 72 hours before launching a nationwide missing persons investigation, then there never would have been a need for an investigation in the first place.
You're talking about expectations. I was talking about legal liability. The Police would simply not be liable if they "failed" to start an investigation. As it turns out, in this case, if they had followed procedure, none of this would have happened.
Frankly, to my mind the fact that this woman was to be married in a few days time with 600 guests and 14 bridesmaids makes her much more rather than less likely to flee. For the Police to look at that fact pattern and immediately conclude "kidnapping" seems like a serious misjudgement. If you ask me (and I know that nobody did), Daddy pulled strings and twisted arms to make this into a huge brough-ha-ha. If you are looking for somebody to blame, blame him.
LEO may have a moral duty to investigate, but they do not have a legal duty and they can't be held liable for exercising their discretion not to investigate.
She incurred expense; why should the community pay for it?
There are lots of expenses that a community incurs because of the stupidity and poor judgment of its members. Think of the number of police officers that we employ because a selfish minority of the population believes that speed limits and parking regulations are intended for everyone else. And what about the cost of running our court systems that are clogged with matrimonial and family law cases because members of the community exercise poor judgment in deciding who to marry and how to end the marriage in a mature and responsible manner. Perhaps we should require judges and court personnel to keep track of the time they spend on each traffic and matrimonial case so that community can charge a pro rata share of the cost of running the judicial system back to the people who are only in the judicial system because of their own selfishness and stupidity.
This would not be her first criminal conviction. Wilbanks should now do HARD TIME. We are talking about 1 year in a hungry beaver colony.
Nonsense. If a man had skipped a wedding and filed a false kidnapping report, the nation would be demanding his head. But "SHE'S JUST A GIRL" is all we hear. No way, this theiving slut now needs to go to jail.
Anyone who believed Ms Nutso was abducted was a fool. It was immediately obvious that she was not then the slightest investigation would have confirmed she was not.
Disagree.
Honestly, I don't see why people are so upset at this woman. Her family, obviously, has reason to be miffed. But don't you think they'll all get together at some family reunion ten years from now and have a big laugh over it? The taxpayers are left on the hook, but taxpayers are left on the hook every day of the week by thousands of people who do stupid and selfish things.
I think what really upsets people about Jennifer Wilbanks is that she is alive. We were all ready for her to be the next Laci Peterson, and for altar-boy to be the next Scott Peterson. We heard those thrilling words... "Person of Interest"... and the Pavlovian response went off. The water cooler talk once again turned to the fascinating subjects of lie detectors and forensic pathology. We were hungry for drama, for the Next Big Thing, and for blood.
Scott Peterson is awaiting his date with the Death Chair and the Jackson case is winding down. Something has to come along and fill the gap. And then Jennifer Wilbanks came along. Sweet, innocent Jennifer, so bright and beautiful, so looking forward to her blessed nuptials, torn so violently from the loving grasp of her perfect, wholesome, family. Brutally murdered (we all knew, of course) by her knuckle-dragging, brutal, oppressive husband-to-be. It was too good to be true.
And then the "thieving slut", as you so charmingly call her, had the temerity to show up alive, and ruined everything.
Hey, but we got two dead little girls in Indiana this morning, so things are looking up!
Stopped here at this comment. No point discussing an issue with someone who utters such absurdities.
Oh no! It's the dreaded, impenetrable Daffy Duck Defense!
A question for those who think there should be no consquences. How do you justify a punishment for the prank of pulling a fire alarm for kicks if you rationalize that what Jennifer did should be okay?
Well my initial reaction was 100% correct whether you disagree or not.
Pulling a fire alarm summons the Fire Department, so it is akin to dialing 911. Jennifer Wilbanks did not do that when she disappeared, so it is not really analagous.
She did dial 911 in New Mexico, and if the authorities there chose to prosecute her for that, she would probably be convicted. But that is not what we are talking about here. New Mexico has already stated that they are going to let her skate.
Are you saying that so long as someone doesn't pull the fire alarm in their own home town then its okay? Do I teach my children that its okay to ask for emergency assistance if their is no emergency?
If her family were not rich, this wouldn't even be up for discussion. She's a jerk, yes, but this is a witch hunt against rich people.
Let me try to understand. I'm at the fire station in the winter. For some reason everyone thinks I have fallen through the ice. I watch as everyone runs to rescue me. I assume the belief is I am under no obligation to stop the false alarm? I have no duty to warn?
If the New Mexico authorities choose to prosecute her, I don't think she has much of a defense. But I don't think they are going to, so that issue is moot.
As for a duty to warn, to explore your metaphor, you might have a duty to warn the people going out on the ice if you knew they were putting themselves in danger and you had some responsibility for the condition of the ice or ownership of the property. But you have no duty to tell them that they are making fools of themselves.
Look at it this way, for a duty to fall on somebody, they have to be in a position of responsibility and be required to maintain awareness of something. So I have all sorts of duties with regards to my property, so I am required to inspect my property from time to time to be reasonably sure that I am performing my duties. I have all sorts of duties with regard to my minor children, so I am required to know, pretty much, where they are at any given time.
I am in no way required to keep tabs on a police investigation happening thousands of miles away, so how can I have any legal duty in that regard?
FWIW, your rationalize that its okay to yell FIRE in a crowded theater as long as no one gets hurt and as long as their are no injuries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.