Woman Could Have Died of Feminism
Trudy W. Schuett
She’s probably not the first, nor will she be the last. Tanya Rider suffered needlessly due to the skewed—and potentially deadly—teachings of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
As my dear and trusted friend Harry Crouch, pointed out in the Seattle Times today:
For a variety of excuses from the King County Sheriff's Office, Tanya Rider may have died while incapacitated in her vehicle for more than a week. The most galling excuse is clearly suspecting her husband of foul play before initiating a search.
Tom Rider was required to pass a polygraph test to eliminate suspicions about his role in her disappearance before a search was launched, which leaves me incredulous for at least two reasons. First, it presupposes that Mr. Rider might have been involved in her disappearance, and second, had roles been reversed, it's questionable whether a polygraph would have been required of Mrs. Rider.
Most galling is that Mrs. Rider's suffering was prolonged until the King County Sheriff's Office could determine that her husband was not some sort of abuser, which is gender-profiling and otherwise just plain stupid.
These demonstrably dangerous agencies, which operate in every state, and in any case under questionable legal circumstances, need to be shut down as soon as possible.
If nothing else, they are bigotry in motion. Forcing law enforcement agencies who, left to their own devices, operate on the basis of facts and evidence, to skew their procedures to satisfy the needs of a political cause, is nothing short of insane.
Does anyone really think that some self-involved, over-educated girl who has never held a real job in her life is qualified to advise your local cops on how to do their work?
Hey, people, this stuff happens every single day. All over the country.
By law, (VAWA 1994) law enforcement professionals at every level are now expected to add misandry to their SOP folio. It is such horse hockey, such nonsense that now women are at risk because a handful of bigoted, vengeful girls decided 20 years ago they could make a few bucks off the misery of their claimed “sisters.”
Look at the history of the issue of so-called “battered women” and you will find lots of divorce lawyers, highly-paid directors of services which do little or nothing, and plenty of professional victims.
The result has been that while thousands of women are handed your tax dollars every day under false pretenses, the actual women in need go without any help at all because their dear benefactors – those feminists who somebody is always insisting I thank – didn’t consider their problem.
They couldn’t get their heads far enough out of their asses to do that.
To me, it also points out the fact that the police are not your friends, and are really not interested in protecting you, me, or other ordinary citizens. They work for themselves, for their policies, for their benefit. If there's too much work, they just don't do it. If it doesn't gain them revenue, it's not a priority. And if they do get interested in something, they go after the easiest explanation possible.
I've known some great guys who happen to be policemen. But taken as an entity, the police do not project an image of helpful people working to protect individual citizens. Meanwhile, they far more frequently DO project an image of power-hungry thugs who don't care about individuals.
There is something wrong with the law-enforcement establishment in this country, and it really needs to be fixed before it gets too far out of hand.
I think I'm with P Mike on this one. I certainly don't see anything untoward about treating Mr. Rider as a suspect. In fact, if anything the crime isn't that he was treated as one but that Mrs. Rider wouldn't be. The only travesty I see is that according to Crouch they waited to launch a search until Mr. Rider could be eliminated as a suspect. But, as P Mike points out, this seems preposterous. But, if true, I would say it is wholly unrelated to VAWA (which I still agree with you that it is flawed), and more closely related to standard police (or human) incompetence.
The point is that police couldn't be bothered to FIND this woman because they were too busy trying to pin her disappearance on her husband.
He reported her missing, to get some help finding her. The police didn't want to find her, they wanted to blame him.
no, i got the point. i think the problem isn't that they wanted to blame him, the problem is that they didn't want to find her.
Clearly, that's Trudy's point. I'm just not sure it's supported by the article:
It does sound like they were a little blase about the case (perhaps with some reason) until they had reasons to look deeper; but nowhere in that story does it say they were too busy investigating him to search for her.
The problem with your analysis is that it means that the cops figure the best way to find a missing woman is to get their husband to tell them where he put the body. It doesn't matter if profiling works or not. If they're going to profile that way, it means that many more women will be found severely injured or dead, because they assumed the husband did it. The major point to this case is as zach said: The cops didn't want to find her. They didn't want to put out the effort to even try. They threw up roadblocks at every opportunity to Mr. Rider even filing a missing person's report. And then they had the temerity to ask why he didn't report her missing earlier, when he had been told by the police when he had tried to report her that they wouldn't take a missing person's report.
In other words, they profiled first, and that profiling got in the way of someone's health.
(1) I don't believe that the "profiling" interferred with seeking the woman (although miscues on the other part of the investigation re bank activity apparently did)
(2) I don't believe the writer of the article as access to know the detiasl of the investigation as it is an open case, and
(3) Investigating the husband as a suspect is the right thing to do.
There are plenty of details about the case, because the husband has not been quiet about it. At this point, I'm not particularly interested in what the cops have to say, because it's gonna be the same pass-the-buck bullshit that they always say. "It was against policy." "We followed standard procedures." "Well, we found her anyway, didn't we?" And yes, I have a bias against the cops. But they certainly don't do anything to disprove it, do they?
So, was it as Harry Crouch paints it:
Tom Rider was required to pass a polygraph test to eliminate suspicions about his role in her disappearance before a search was launched,
...OR was it just a matter of which slant you take? As in:
While police weighed the evidence, deciding whether or not to launch a search, the husband, Tom Rider, requested he be given a polygraph test to eliminate suspicions about his role in her disappearance.
I wonder if he was actually REQUIRED to take a polygraph test, or did the husband himself actually REQUEST it? It certainly makes things look different, doesn't it?
I'm glad they found her, and there is a happy(ier) ending to what could have been a tragedy.
Now you're profiling cops. I thought profiling was wrong?
Ah, cops are guilty until proven innocent. I see.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.