Sheriff: Rescued girls were minutes from death

CNN ^ | August 2, 2002

[TopQuark]

'He was hunting for a place to kill them and bury them'

Authorities remove the body of Roy Ratliff near Lake Isabella, California, on Thursday.

LANCASTER, California (CNN) -- The man who abducted two teenage girls at gunpoint early Thursday was "hunting for a place to kill them" in a remote desert spot about 100 miles away when two deputies located him and fatally shot him, authorities said.

[Momma Lou]

I agree with you. Watching Fox last night, Ann Coulter made a comment that she thought it was OK for a teen to be out drinking beer and making out. My opinion of her dropped.

[Amore]

My god man are you a self-righteous ignorant prig

When I read this comment, I thought someone had typed it as a perfect response to you. Alas, no. I can see now, with your further explanation of at least where you were going with your Scarpia analogy, but I’m sorry, it is still inapt. It just doesn’t really work.

Did you read what I wrote? (At 72 & 142). What I said really doesn’t call for the response you gave to me at all.

Even were your comment directed at others who have been critical of the parents, this is a discussion forum. Given the facts of this case, this thread seems to me like a reasonable place to discuss parental responsibility.

[AndyJackson]

The positions you have taken in 72 and 142 are reasonable, and I am not opposed to a discussion about parental responsibility. What I am opposed to is the kind of moral ambivalence that I see in too many comments. These girls were not raped because they were smooching in lovers lane. They were raped because society turned loose a predator. Tosca is allegory for the essence of evil resulting from moral ambivalence.

[Under the Radar]

The parents were negligent. But for the girls being out at 2 am in a secluded area known to attract horny teens, they would not have been hurt. The parents were not the cause of their ordeal, but they contributed to it.

[Nov3]

My 17 year-olds acted very responsibly.

Good for you. However most kids actually act like they are 17 or 18 when they are 17 or 18. Some of them wait until they are 28, married, and have a few kids, but it usually happens.

[bvw]

Actually, we don't yet and may never know if the reason Mr. Ratliff went to that particular location was on account of his thinking it was easy pickings to be had. He may have stumbled on it perchance, he may have visited it in his past and thus been drawn back under what he had allowed to become a compulsive influence, or he may have hunted out such a place for the very reason that sexually-hot young women were to be found there.

Has there been discussion that he picked not one flower, but two? That they are of different races? That, I believe, suggests some planning, that Mr. Ratliff was looking beyond just mere rape, towards a more involved scenario.

That he hunted out the place for the type of girls he needed to feed his fantasy. He did kill the boyfriends he took the time to tape them up. He didn't stop at one girl, he picked up a second ... that all goes to some level of strategy and planning.

Being there at that hour, in that particular place for the extremely likely purpose of engaging in illicit sex, the girls were already at risk, whether the direct fault of the parents is unknown, yet some parents actaully would permit and even encourage their daughters to follow their "spirits" in this matter -- and that is reckless parenting.

That such a vile predator as Ratliff would happen to show up, take them, rape them and nearly kill them is seems new twist, but it is really not the first time such things have happened in such places. Many rapes in such places, I suspect, go unreported.

[bvw]

tells us don't argue with a gun - you will lose

If some one has brought a gun to bear on you at close range you are as good as dead. You must run. Without hesitation.

[bvw]

If you run you have about a one in eight chance, if you fight -- less than half a chance. I do not know what the odds are for standing in front of a gun and waiting for the man who points it to kill you but it is much less than one in eight. Better than fighting, but significantly worse than running.

[bvw]

If you run you have about a one in eight chance, [of getting killed/critically injured].

[bvw]

This case is an example. Of the four -- the two boyfriends and the two girls -- two were killed -- saved at the last minute thank G-d -- but otherwise they were dead. If the girls had run they had a better chance -- even into desert or even if the perp was faster. Against a gun -- run.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

At the risk of a little pop-psych thinking, I strongly suspect that the "blame the parents" crowd, on this and similar threads, make their comments as a way of assuring themselves that THEIR kids (grandkids, nieces, nephews, whatever) would never find themselves in this situation. It's in large part a defensive reaction to horrific news -- a way to reassure yourself that you and yours are not in danger.

You know the problem with pop-psychology? It's a two-edged sword. Someone could say (with just as much evidence and legitimacy as your original "analysis") that the "let teenagers be teenagers" crowd are making their statements to unconsciously reassure themselves that whatever bad actions or experiences their own children engaged in does not reflect on their parenting or moral duties. They could be attempting to rationalize their own feelings of parental failure and their secret, guilty feelings that they did not do "enough" to prevent their own children from straying.

Which is why pop-psychology is garbage. Do everyone a favor, and avoid that kind of psuedo-scientific BS. Analyzing and arguing from someone else's motives (rather than their arguments) is a logical fallacy, and not productive. If you think the linking of these childrens' situation and the parents' responsibilities is in error, then attack that (and there's a lot to attack). But attacking the "motive" of the arguers (ad hominem) is a sign of intellectual weakness, not strength.

If I wanted emotional reaction and fallacious argument, I'd read DU. We all expect better from Free Republic...

[Amore]

Please don't try speaking for "everone" here. I, and others appreciated his response. If you look at what pettifogger said, you'd see that he was not "attacking the 'motive' of the arguers (ad hominem)" He was stating his perception of where their analysis of the situation might be were coming from. I agreed with him because I knew it was a large part of my own reaction to the situation.

[Amore]

Sorry, I responded too quickly. I meant to say, of course:

Please don't try speaking for "everyone"

And I meant to explain more clearly that pettifogger wasn't attacking anyone -- on either side. I don't see why you thought he was.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Do you "appreciate" where my analysis of where the other side is coming from? If not, why? You can't reject my analysis without rejecting his, because both have an equal basis in fact (...none). The important thing is whether or not they are CORRECT, not whether or not they are aguing for the "right" reasons.

Sorry, but divining the motives of others is an ad hominem attack at worst and a straw man fallacy (inventing an argument, imputing your opponent's support or agreement with it, then arguing against the position you just invented) at best. Why is the reason that the posters here hold their opinions of any importance? Only the evidence for the argument matters, not the "motive."

[Amore]

Sorry, I just don't agree with your underlying premise. As I said before, this is a discussion forum, not a debating society. I don't view the requirements of acceptable discussion as being as limited as you obviously do. You of course have every right to your view, as do I.

I just thought it was presumptuous of you to try and speak for "everyone."

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Just as I thought it was presumptuous of the original poster to psychoanalyze and assign motives to the other members of this thread (in order to discredit their argument). But we can overlook the presumptuousness that we agree with, can't we...?

[Amore]

Well, maybe there's something else pettifogger said in another post that I missed which made you think he was attempting to "discredit their argument." I didn't see what he said as an attempt to discredit their argument or to cast aspersions upon what they said in any way. I asked you last time -- what makes you think he was doing that?

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Why else would he mention it?

[Amore]

for the purpose of "discussion"?

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

And my original point was that it doesn't add anything to the discussion, except, of course, if the purpose of the analysis was to provide another method of minimizing or discrediting the objects of the others on this thread.

So either it is worthless, or an attack on the others' interpretation of events.

Of course, there is an easy way to resolve this. Simple address a message to him/her and ask him why he brought up the point. You won't do that, because you know the purpose of it as well as I do...