4 ms·
>I was getting alerts from many hundreds of miles away. Isn't part of the issue that when a child is taken, the assumption is that the kidnapper will immediate
by registeredcorn 4y ago
>I was getting alerts from many hundreds of miles away.
Isn't part of the issue that when a child is taken, the assumption is that the kidnapper will immediately flee the area? I think hundreds, plural, might be excessive, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to notify people within a certain distance based on high speed and how much time has passed; maybe 50-100 miles?
I can see getting annoyed at multiple messages, but it's also important to remember that working with time sensitive emergency services is a extraordinarily difficult thing. It's like, everything is important all at once, and your mind can only process it all so fast. It's extremely time sensitive, and if you mess up any of the details, you are directly delaying the proceedings.
I haven't had to issue anything like an Amber Alert, thank God, but I did have to relay some information from a victims family to a supporting organization, and basically screwed it up the first time around. I ended up having to end the call with the family, call the organization to see what they needed, call the family back, then call them again with the relevant details. It was an incredibly brutal thing. You can feel the rawness of the emotion through the phone for the people. In my own experience, like, I could hear people crying and screaming in the background. It's this insanely personal moment for them, but you kind of have to force your way in the middle of it to make something happen. The person who I started off with had to hand the phone over because they thought they were about to pass out. It's really a very difficult to communicate in the midst of a crisis.
Anyway, I'm not sure which area you're in, but from my own experience, the very few times I've gotten one, it was always very succinct and clear. Child's name, description of their clothes, make/model/license plate of car, which direction they were headed, and when it happened.
I certainly don't blame you for turning off the alerts, or for being annoyed at the emergency services. The point wasn't to finger wag or whatever, it was just to say that it's extremely difficult to do, let alone do well.
- bombcar 4y agoThe problem is that very few are actually "stranger danger" kidnappings; they're almost always custody disputes. And if you live anywhere near a major city, you will get them relatively often. If there was a way to turn off "parent kidnappings" and leave the rest on, I'm sure most people would take it.
- palmscenter 4y agoIt doesn't matter whether the cause is a custody dispute or something else. Custody disputes of themselves do not meet the criteria for AMBER alerts. Danger to the child and criminal activity are among the criteria that have to be met for the alert to be sent. States vary as to how effectively they run their alerting systems, and how well they follow best practices, but that is ultimately an issue for the voters.
- registeredcorn 4y agoAlthough I agree with the premise you are making, that many Amber Alerts are regularly caused because one of the parents takes the child without authorization, it is important to remember that sexual and physical violence, including murder, is more likely to be committed by someone known to the victim rather than a stranger. The perpetrator is largely immaterial. To suppose that a child is therefore somehow in less danger because they were taken by a parent does not appear to make much difference, based on my rudimentary understanding of things. A parent who is prone to stealing a child to "get revenge" on the spouse is one who is willing to harm and abuse their own flesh and blood as part of a revenge plot. In my own assessment, I classify that person to be dangerous. A stranger takes a child for an unknown reason. A parent takes a child, willingly harming the child physically or mentally in hopes of doing harm to a person they hate. I would assume they are willing to do far more than mere mental harm to the child, if it means "winning" the fight. I don't have any data to back that up, and it's entirely possible I'm wrong. I just don't see an Amber Alert being raised because a parent took the child to be any less serious than if a stranger took the child. I would imagine that some number of Amber Alerts are a kind of "false positive", something like failing to drop a child off on time (out of gas, severe traffic, etc.) and their phone dying, turning into a big ordeal, but I just wouldn't discount the situation just because the suspect is a parent. Maybe that shouldn't meet the threshold, but I just personally don't see it as being a big enough nuisance to be bothered by it. Again, it is easy for me to say that though, since I don't get those sorts of alerts very often, maybe 2 to 3 times per year, if that. I do also completely agree though, that as it relates to headphone usage it should be changed. I think that if you are listening on your headphones, it shouldn't come through your headphones at all. Just play the noise on the phone speaker - it'll probably still draw the users attention. I might be asking too much though, as there was that 911 bug [1][2] a while back. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29492884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29492884 [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/r4xz1f/pixel_prevented_me_from_calling_911/ https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/r4xz1f/pixel_p...