Free-Range Kids

Dad and Daughter Hauled Off Plane Because Passenger Assumed He Was Sex Trafficking Her

The kicker: it was a United flight.



Long story short: A dad returning from Mexico with his 3-year-old daughter was briefly detained on suspicion that he was engaged in sex trafficking. (And not to pile on, but it was a United flight.) Despite papa having her passport, his passport, and a notarized letter from the mom saying that she gave them her permission to travel, the authorities felt compelled to act upon a "tip"—a tip that was nothing more than a passenger's hysteria-fueled hunch that 3-year-olds are being trafficked right and left in the USA.

As the mom, high school teacher Maura Furfey, wrote for The Huffington Post:

After our 3-year-old snoozed on her father's lap for most of the flight, the plane landed. He texted me to tell me they had arrived. When the plane taxied to the gate, however, a number of officers from the Port Authority and Customs and Border Patrol boarded the plane, approached my husband and instructed him to grab his carry-ons and follow them. He and our daughter were escorted out of the plane before anyone else could get off.

Once out of the plane, four officers from Port Authority and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) surrounded them. They fired so many questions at him that he didn't know who was asking what. He had no idea what was going on. Our daughter started to cry in all of the commotion.

After asking about where our daughter was born, who was there, and where her birth certificate had been issued, they asked for my phone number; that was when they called me, asking me the same questions in order to verify the story. At that point they seemed satisfied that my husband was not, in fact, trafficking our daughter. They then told me that this accusation was not coming from the CBP, who were trained to identify these kind of situations, but from a passenger on the plane. They were following protocol to act on reported suspicions such as this.

So, some questions to mull.

When and how can we stop granting credibility to any and all calls to the authorities? Just because someone "sees something" and "says something" doesn't mean they are seeing anything truly of note. Let's not act as if every easily terrified citizen is Sherlock Holmes.

How can we dial back the obsession with sex trafficking? I was at a discussion of trafficking the other night and the number bandied about was "150,000 children a year in the US are trafficked." But that's a wild over-estimation. Here is Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown on the subject. She notes that while lawmakers used to cite 300,000 sex trafficking victims, that number was:

based on 1990s data published in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the primary researcher, Richard Estes, no longer endorses. The authors of that study came up with their number by speculating that certain situations—i.e., living in public housing, being a runaway, having foreign parents—place minors at risk of potential exploitation by sex traffickers. They then simply counted up the number of kids in those situations. To make a bad measure worse, anyone who fell into more than one category was counted multiple times.

Now they just fudge the numbers. Wrote Brown, "These days, federal agencies tend to stick to the vague 'thousands' when discussing numbers of incoming victims."

Obviously, any trafficked young person is a scandal, but as Sandi Rozek, communications director for NARSOL, the National Association for Rational Sex Offense Laws, points out: "The saddest thing is that we finally reached the point where fathers are as connected to their children as mothers are. There are even diaper changing tables in some men's restrooms!" Just watch out for all the onlookers who assume they are living in an action movie, constantly witnessing nefarious crimes being played out in public right in front of them.

Isn't flying United enough of an adrenaline rush all by itself?

NEXT: Calif. Lawmaker Thinks Police Aren't Protected Enough from Misconduct Claims

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. a notarized letter from the mom saying that she gave them her permission to travel

    Weird. What a world we live in.

    1. Mothers aren’t allowed to ever be more than 2 feet from their children at all times, but fathers apparently need a permission slip to be within 2 feet of their children unless the mother is also present. Many of the same people who push this state of affairs are often times the same people who lament the diminished involvement of many fathers in their kid’s lives.

      1. I don’t have the link to the story but a mother was recently prosecuted for allowing her children to walk to a local park to play. Ridiculous.

    2. I have to get letters notarized just so my boys can visit Canada. How much hassle they get seems to depend on the agent.

      1. Huh. First I’ve heard of anything like this. Is that some kind of requirement now for crossing the border with minors?

        1. when its just one parent crossing the border with a child it is standard procedure now. My sister had to wait till her daughter was 18 to take her to Italy because her ex was being a dick about giving her a permission slip.

          1. It’s been standard procedure for a while now. When my sister took her then eight-year-old daughter from the U.S. to Canada about 16 years ago, she had to carry a notarized letter from Daddy.

            1. So children with only one living parent… Are they not allowed to travel?

              1. One spouse dying tends to give the other full custody.

              2. If one parent is deceased, the other is supposed to travel with a copy of the death certificate.

          2. Actually, the funny thing is this is more vigorously applied when flying back and forth to Canada than it is flying back and forth to Europe (provided at least one parent is present and the kid has their own passport). Of course, for kids travelling on school trips and crossing a border, we’ve had to get something notarized every time.

        2. Yes. When our 16 year old went to Canada for a ski trip, we have have a notarized letter saying the we gave permission for the friend’s parents to take her. When I was young and living near Niagara Falls, we would cross the border all the time with all kinds of people for all kinds of reason. We’d have guys from Canada come pick us up, take us across the border for (what was then) a regular teen date- movie, concert, hanging out- and bring us back home at the end of the evening. No one cared.

        3. The respondents here are forgetting to mention children of divorced or otherwise unmarried parents.

          This is an outgrowth of the “Have you seen this child” milk carton scam.

          We’ve become obsessed and children pay the price in so many ways.

        4. It’s been that way at least since the late 90’s. When my sister came to visit me in Germany she had to have a notarized letter from her husband to get the kids their passports, and to book the flight. Unfortunately she left the letter at home, when her husband drove her to the airport, so he had to run home and get the letter. His word, standing right there was not good enough. When we went to enter Hungary, my sister panicked as she had forgotten the letter at my home. I told her to relax and enjoy being in the free world.

          The law came about because of people coming to the US, marrying some one, having children with them, and then abducting the children back to their home country. The Parent left in the US had almost no way to get their child back. Usually, they had to hire mercenaries to go into the country and re-abduct their children.

    3. I think this is fairly common for international travel to avoid one parent trying to run off with the kid, such as a contentious divorce.

      1. Yeah, I suppose there is some sense to it. I just have a great aversion to things that force lots of innocent people to jump through stupid hoops or be treated like criminal suspects, just to make it slightly easier to catch the occasional person who is up to no good.

        1. I guess you just love having your basket checked before departing COSTCO then? 😉

      2. He was returning from overseas trip to Mexico.

        1. Which sea did he fly over?

          1. Since they were flying from Mexico to Newark, it flew over the Caribbean, the Gulf, and the Atlantic at some point.

            But thanks for playing.

    4. That struck me as interesting as well. The fact a parent would go through that much trouble ‘just in case’ says a lot about how far things have progressed.

      Not to mention that actual official position of the government of ‘see something, say something’ in the first place. Disgusting.

      1. I provided my ex-wife with the same letter when she took our kids to Mexico as part of a church group. I also had to provide notarized consent when she had passports issued for the kids. This is standard, and has been for many, many years. The reason it’s more obvious now is that since 9/11, you need a passport to get in/out of our neighbors (Mexico and Canada,) whereas before 9/11 you could get in/out with just a US driver’s license, if you weren’t staying more than a week or so.

    5. This is common practice for international flights. No airline–especially not United–wants to be named an accessory to kidnapping by a disgruntled spouse circumventing a custody order. Consulates order translations of these permission slips to cut down on the internationalization of family law squabbles.

  2. Argh. Seriously? Everyone’s guilty until proven innocent, apparently.

    1. Accusation implies guilt. See Title IX. There is no proving you are innocent.

      1. In this case, it appears that he did prove his innocence to their satisfaction.

        But it’s bad enough that just being a man with a child is enough to arouse suspicion.

      2. Noooo body expects the Spanish Inquisition!

    2. You’ve just arrived at that conclusion?

      We don’t need trials anymore. We just play it out in the press.

      O.J. was innocent.

      O’Reilly is guilty.

      So is Cosby.

      Case closed (pounds gavel on table.)

  3. Just watch out for all the onlookers who assume they are living in an action movie, constantly witnessing nefarious crimes being played out in public right in front of them.

    Are you saying that these people don’t have “a particular set of skills”?

    I joke, but it probably is only a matter of time until some Liam Neeson wannabe jumps into action and bravely attempts to beat the hell out some poor schlub who turns out to be a father out somewhere with their daughter. I only hope that when that does happen the faux action hero picks the wrong person and ends up getting the shit kicked out of him.

    1. Father daughter school dance night when the girl is dressed like a hoe and dad is dressed like a pimp. clearly trafficking.

    2. Known of this to have been done. By a friend of mine actually.

      She too, years ago, had become obsessed with the child predator on every corner mantra. And, she had two small children.

      At the park one day, she sees unsavory looking man, likely homeless, bend down to face level of her four year old daughter who has lagged ten or twelve feet behind her. She flys back, body slams him onto the grass and goes berserk on him.

      Onlookers know him, pull her off of him and vouch for him.

      Luckily this turned her around 180 degrees. She became the mom who, in the face of fear, let her kids free range. She said, to the chagrin of many other parents. she’d rather teach them how to deal with something up front in the world rather than hide them from it. She knew she couldn’t be there to protect them forever.

      Her kids are post college and doing pretty well by today’s standards.

  4. When the War on Drugs fails, switch to a War Human Trafficking – the imaginary crime wave.

    1. I’ve felt human trafficking was being groomed as the Next Big Thing for a while now. We can’t just go around not having Wars on random concepts, obviously.

      1. The Next Big Thing was my nickname in college.

        1. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Even the imagined ones.

    2. It’s been going on for a long time. The Mann Act became law in 1910.

      1. It’s not a new worry for sure. And I’d guess that like most dangers to children that people like to worry about, it’s probably less of a problem now than it every has been.

      2. A friend of mine had custody of his grandchild (his wife is black, he’s white, and his grandchild looked black). When he flew with his grandson he had to justify himself all the time. And this was fifteen-twenty years ago.

        1. A college roomate of mine was from Norway. He told me that the first black he ever saw, was a U.S. GI walking down the street in his little town. Everyone was lining up on the sidewalk and staring. The mother’s were grabbing their kids and hauling them away quickly. The word was, “They’ll eat your babies!”.

          This was in the 1970s mind you. Not some throwback to WWII Europe.

          But hey, those Europeans are so much more sophisticated than us Philistine Americans. Or, so I was taught from high school on through college.

    3. If you imagine something, say something.

    4. THAT is an observable trend. It is still the same puritan prohibitionism that once banned condoms, diaphragms, birth control, abortion, beer, wine and weed. But the law says minors are not competent to enter into contracts, and that loophole will be unfreely tugged at until it envelops all of society in a totalitarian Klein bottle of mysticism gone maniacal.

  5. “Despite papa having her passport, his passport, and a notarized letter from the mom saying that she gave them her permission to travel”

    Uh, so you just breezed past that last part with nothing more than an italicized “and”? Did you just take it for granted that there was nothing particularly wrong with the entire concept that a father has a notarized letter from the mom giving him permission to travel with his daughter?

    Why on earth does he have such a letter? “Notarized”? Who the hell suggested the idea? Mom? United? DHS? Does the originator of the concept realize that it still didn’t work? If that wasn’t enough to allow safe passage, what’s next? Dad needs to get an official court order from a judge in order to travel with his daughter?

    Speaking of judges, why do I feel like the Judge right now?

    1. This is SOP for one-parent border crossings.

      1. This is SOP for one-parent border crossings.

        And only slightly askance from field trips and joining local/regional childrens’ sports teams.

      2. If the man has full custody of his kid does he have to bring court documents showing that?

        1. He still has to have a notarized letter from his ex-wife. If she is deceased, he needs a copy of her death certificate. And if he adopted them, he better carry the adoption papers. In fact, if he adopted kids of a different race, he better have those papers on him at ALL times, although that’s not YET law… just makes things easier.

      3. But, you all forgot, this only becomes an issue when the one-parent in charge at the moment, is a male. Females get a free pass. Assumption of mother’s love and all that. You know?

        When are just frick’in going to kill off all the males in society and be done with all evil?

        1. This is because of muslim men taking children back to the middle east. There was a movie about it in the early 90s i think.

          I have signed such papers for my wife when she took our children to her family in Canada, eh?

          It’s not unreasonable given that you give up all rights while crossing the border… Think about how. You have less rights at the check point than anywhere in the US or Canada. It’s a telling sign of police state to come.

        2. It’s not only an issue if the parent in charge is male. I can’t renew my children’s passports without my husband present to sign the application in front of the post office official or a notarized affidavit authorizing me to submit the application without his signature. And if you check the State Department’s website, as well as that of any major airline, you’ll see that they require a “permission slip” anytime one parent travels with the kids but not the other parent. A single parent may be required to provide proof that s/he is the sole legal guardian.

          It wouldn’t surprise me if a dad is more likely than a mom to actually be asked to provide the documentation, however.

    2. Uh, so you just breezed past that last part with nothing more than an italicized “and”? Did you just take it for granted that there was nothing particularly wrong with the entire concept that a father has a notarized letter from the mom giving him permission to travel with his daughter?

      I’m not sure of Mom or Dad’s immigrant status. I don’t see a native mother/father notarizing a ‘permission slip’ for a 3-yr.-old to travel with the other parent internationally as absurd. Especially if Mexico, or wherever, doesn’t recognize an American Visa.

      Especially given that more than half of the amber alerts that I get on my phone involve high-end automobiles registered out of state and, barring subsequent murders and federal investigations, turn out to be misunderstandings and/or custody battles across *state* lines.

      1. You can block the amber alerts on your phone.

        1. You can block the amber alerts on your phone.

          I know. I haven’t gotten one in a while. My issue is/was that every new phone I got seems to have them on by default.

      2. Dad is from Mexico, Mom is American and they are married and together, according to the mom’s account.

        1. Dad is from Mexico, Mom is American

          Ohhhhhhhh this was just racism.

          1. Well, nationalism anyway…

      3. Like I said, outgrowth of kidnapped children on milk cartons. The majority of them were in fact, custody disputes being acted out. Not stranger kidnappings.

        But, don’t tell the dumb, accepting neophytes that. It only went to prove that the bogey man was hiding behind every tree in every park, just waiting to snatch a child.

        I should mention in full disclosure, I live virtually blocks away from the home that was used to keep Jaycee Dugard.

    3. I was assuming the couple was divorced, and the dad needed permission to fly the kid out of state. Or summthing like that. It’s 2017 after all. Actual families living together in the same house is damned unusual.

  6. I note that the tipster is never identified as anonymous.

    I don’t think it would be unfair to point out that people like this are just as much one or two slim social graces away from having their parade absolutely shat upon because of someone else’s personal tastes, opinions, or grudges.

    At the same time, AFAICT, the father/daughter left the plane early, with their belongings and were “detained” for a time period not inconsistent with the duration of a phone call. I’ll leap for joy at the day when minutes-long stern and confusing interrogations at the hands of authorities are at the top of the libertarian concern heap.

    1. The father had plenty of time after the detention to head down to baggage claim and start an impromptu investigation to ferret out whose ass to kick.

  7. Well when can we stop giving credibility to lefty lunatics who claim to be “offended” over everything. That’s when we can stop giving credibility to the other lunatics who fake their moral fucking outrage

  8. I think some people took the wrong lesson from South Park’s “Wacky Molestation Adventure” episode.

  9. Don’t wanna be a thug, don’t be havin’ no babies.

  10. The kicker: it was a United flight.

    Of course it was. We are all United now, in kicking United while they are down. And it is fun. But most people miss the point, that United would not be doing this shit without the backing and encouragement of the government.

    1. We are all United now, in kicking United while they are down. And it is fun.


    2. Why is that the kicker? I’m pretty sure if someone reports trafficking, they are required to send the report to the authorities and let them deal with it, which is what they did – and fairly certain every other airline, including Last American Hero Airlines, would do the same for fear of the consequences if the allegation proved true and they ignored it.

      1. If I hosted a party at Mad.Casual’s bar and grill and discovered we were ‘at capacity’ but that my wait staff was 4 people short, $800 and a hotel stay is far more generous than I’d be before telling random patron X that they had to sod off and, if they didn’t like it, take it up with the cops or my door men. Moreover and more precisely to what I believe Scarecrow was saying, funny how even at Reason of all places, the local cops show up, punch a guy in the face repeatedly, and we find the nearest evil corporation to hang the albatross on isn’t it? Slut-shaming is idiotic because women have agency but corporations and ‘unrelated’ issues with passengers and onerous regulations? Fuck ’em.

        1. Thank you.

    3. It’s true. Parents sue the crap out of everything and everyone, and demand that the entire world stop spinning and be wrapped in bubblewrap for their precious li’l replicants, then go OMG ZERO TOLERANCE IZ SO INCONVENIENT!!1!!

  11. How can we dial back the obsession with sex trafficking?

    Three words: Clowns redux.

  12. This is not just an American problem. Some of my in-laws were travelling in Germany last summer and three different people tried to intervene between my 16 year old niece and both parents.

    1. The intervenors were looking for fresh sex slaves and 16 years old is prime.

    2. When teenagers travel through Europe they are at great risk to be kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery by gangs of swarthy, dark-skinned men.

      1. It’s really odd what an impact that movie had on people.

        1. I mean, it is great when he shoots the frog’s wife.

      2. Ugh, it’s like some people have never even seen that documentary, Taken.

        1. now there is a Taken TV series, no one is safe anymore.

        2. I’ve never even taken that documentary, Seen.

    3. Is your niece of German decent? Germany takes special pride in making sure that no person of German heritage is not looked out for (in a good way). This came to light when a kid I knew whose parents were both deceased was travelling in Germany with his (German born) grandparents. Basically, even though they were now his legal guardians, the German cops claimed the kid was a distressed individual and it took a some while to get the kid back to his grandparents home in the US.

      But we in the US have taken the “stranger danger” / sextrafficing paranoia to new heights that most Europeans roll their eyes at.

      1. She looks more Mediterranean, an olive complexion. The parents are somewhat mismatched though so I wonder if people didn’t perceive them as a couple.

        I was going to say this has never happened to me but I only have boys. F-ing sexists.

      2. Germany also doesn’t allow home schooling since they may not teach the official indoctrination courses of the fatherland.

        1. Or…maybe they will. Wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more. Godwin.

    4. Don’t share cabs!

  13. A few more questions:
    “They then told me that this accusation was not coming from the CBP, who were trained to identify these kind of situations, but from a passenger on the plane. They were following protocol to act on reported suspicions such as this.”
    So did the CBP agents use their training to determine the accusation was bogus?
    Does the alleged protocol even require (or allow) the agents to use their training, or common sense?
    So was the accused allowed to confront their accuser? (see US constitution, amendment 6)
    Was the actual accuser ever identified? You know, as in this the one you get to sue?
    Does this mean a widower can never travel with their child, because of the difficulty in getting a notarized letter?
    When is the madness going to stop?

    1. 1) Apparently they did. By calling and verifying the documentation.
      2) They are not allowed to use common sense. Procedures must be followed.
      3) Unfortunately #6 only applies if they were to be prosecuted. They were investigated, but no prosecuted. Yes, the process is the punishment.
      4) No, but I’m torn on whether it was a MAGA hat wearing guy that hates Mexicans or an overprotective soccer mom.
      5) Yes.
      6) About a week after the wrong sort of people get fingered by the TSA. See Witch Trials, Salem for more info.

    2. When did Judge Napolitano hack your account?

      1. Three weeks ago.
        But he pays me $25.00 a day.
        Free enterprise.

        1. Ah, so he didn’t hack it so much as rented it from you in a mutually beneficial voluntary transaction. Carry on.

  14. The ghostly cross of criminality freighted about by a most unlucky male breed. Somedays being a simple fucking tiger would suffice. Coincidentally, add another ‘g’ and this is one of those god-awful fucking nicknames I freight about in certain circles- since the topic of crosses entered the box. Well, it was a box until ‘submit’. Afterwards it all floats between narrow gray horizons layered like multifaceted expressions.

  15. The world is full of evil and YOU are the only thing that stands in its way! YOU can make a difference!

    1. Would you like to know more?

      1. There should be a hot new poster campaign only replace Rosie the Riveter with Sarah the Soccer Mom.

  16. Someone saw something and said something. Of course, that the something they saw was innocent is irrelevant to the authorities.

    1. that the something they saw was innocent is irrelevant to the authorities.

      No one is innocent, we’re all guilty of something. /3 felonies a day

    2. Accusation implies guilt. Title IX.

  17. I think stocks or public caning would do for the accuser.

    1. Make all accusations the equivalent of bets: a false accusation dumps on you the nuisance, pain, etc that was caused by your false accusation.

      I’d extend this to warrants. Let every party to a case author and execute any warrant they want, as long as it is relevant, proportionate, consistent, etc; and of course the target gets to appeal it on those grounds before execution. But if you screw up the execution, or if you lose the case, then all your warrants rebound on you. Most people would waive reasonable warrants executed politely with a minimum of fuss. But if you executed a warrant as publicly as possible, with maximum humiliation, then the price would undoubtedly go up if you wanted to avoid having done to you what you did to them.

      And if you appeal a warrant so you can destroy the evidence, that’s tampering with evidence, perjury, something of the sort, and automatically punishes you as if found guilty.

      Can you imagine the fun you’d have with overzealous traffic cops, or with TSA agents? It would sure dampen their enthusiasm for harassing people just for grins. Wrong address, shot a dog, firebombed a baby? You’d be losing yoru house, car, boat, pension, everything.

      1. Most people would waive reasonable warrants executed politely with a minimum of fuss.

        Uh, no. Most people will pursue any chance for financial recompense. So somehow you need to safe-harbor reasonableness. But that gets us back to the original problem which is that the legal system cannot effectively draw distinctions between probable cause and obvious subterfuge.

        1. That is what I meant (1500 char limit). Most people would take payment in lieu of replaying the warrant. Probably some small actions would be forgiven in small cases; someone bumps into you, you can’t find your wallet, you yell at him, and seconds later find your wallet. I would suppose that technically, your accusation would constitute a legal action, since you no doubt intended to stop him from getting away with your wallet, but how many people would actually want to pursue payment for such a small matter?

          But if a cop pulls you over for 40 in a 30 zone and it turns out it’s really a 40 zone, then no way, pay me or suffer humiliation in return. Even $10 would be enough if the error was discovered on the spot, but if you have to go to traffic court several times to finally prove it to the judge? Sorry, surrender your overtime pay and another $100 on top of it, unless you want me to pull you over a month from now and still bill you for all the expenses (because loser pays).

        2. I also see a “safe harbor for reasonableness” as the same kind of crap that happens with eminent domain. If the government wants my land, they can negotiate as equals, not with a police-backed low bid. If cops want to be treated as human beings, they can treat the public as human beings. There was that eviction report the other day — six cops to evict somebody. How is that necessary as a base assumption? If someone accuses me of something not likely to lead to flight, like parking in front of a driveway, the cop better call to discuss the matter instead of showing up at home or work with handcuffs. If a 5 minute phone call can’t resolve the matter, if I have to get some documents to prove something, I will probably still not be too upset if the cop is polite. But if a cop is an asshole, he or his bosses can pay through the nose, and maybe find another line of work.

          No legal safe harbor excuses. Be a nice guy, you will be treated like a nice guy. Be an asshole, pay for the privilege.

  18. Of course, the real takeaway lesson is that you should report everyone you see while in the airport. Y’know, just to ‘be safe’. It’s obviously not to slow down their response time or overwhelm them with mundane bullshit.

    Or is the government given the latitude to prosecute someone who reports things that turn out to be bogus? I mean, they have encouraged this behavior from the sheep. What happens when the sheep obey en masse?


    1. They would just use the number of reports as “proof” that they need a bigger budget.

    2. The sheep dog gets fired?

    3. You want to report someone? Report a TSA agent!

  19. God bless Ameri — ah fuck it.

  20. Take notes Crusty. If you call in an anonymous report on some adult and child it will result in law enforcement responding to them. Thus distracting LE from you. And, worst case, if someone also reports your actions there’s now multiple reports from one plane which will make them think it’s some sort of crank.

  21. Its horrible policies like this that are unfairly driving up orphan-prices. Soon i be forced to ‘buy domestic’.

  22. They were following protocol to act on reported suspicions such as this.

    hard to imagine what one part of the problem might be.

  23. Isn’t flying United enough of an adrenaline rush all by itself?

    And this is why I come to Reason.

    For skeezy, irrelevant meme pile-on in unrelated stories.

    You’d think Reason, of all the news outlets would remember that it was airport police who roughed up the passenger, not United’s employees, and that it’s not like United asked them to “rough him up a little”.

    (I’d expect Reason to pile on about that, because government use of force.)

  24. Where is the recent child-trafficking hysteria coming from? I’ll give myself one guess.

    The “con” side of the “should I have a child?” list just grew by one item, though.

    1. Tony|4.19.17 @ 4:20PM|#
      “Where is the recent child-trafficking hysteria coming from? I’ll give myself one guess.”

      You needed more, twit.

  25. The father however seemed extra ordinarily prepared with a letter from wife that she gave permission to travel 😛

    1. If you travel internationally, it’s a good idea. I used to get assraped by Canadian Border Agents when I’d drive north to Vancouver with my daughter.

    2. A ready cover story is another sign of guilt. He should have had to hunt for the letter.

  26. Something, something, face your accuser…
    How wrote the note to the teacher? Stand up and get insulted.

  27. I am so sick of this anti male behavior.

  28. How can we dial back the obsession with sex trafficking?

    You can’t. The damage is done. It’ll have to burn itself out. There are educated people who immediately assume sex trafficking when something really truly horrible happens. Like murder. Sure, they haven’t found the body yet, but while they’re looking! Let’s spend time wondering if they’re sitting in a brothel in Sri Lanka after being put into a wooden crate and shipped across the ocean! Hey, two crack heads are telling me to put my head down on the bed… Gee, I hope they don’t sell me into a prostitution ring!

    That’s how fucking dumb people have become.

  29. Oh, I just clicked the Huffpo link. It’s racism. Carry on.

    1. You actually clicked a HuffPo link? Brave you are.

  30. The passenger who shared her “concern” with the flight attendants had been sitting next to my husband. According to him, she had been friendly throughout the flight, but my husband noticed her strange obsession with our daughter, sometimes throwing her body over his to try to engage my daughter.

    Pro tip, this is what happens when people attend “conferences”.

    1. The husband probably should openly have carried a Koran with him. It would lessen the odds of a twit saying anything to the authorities.

  31. I would love to see the right to face your accuser upheld in these instances.

    You want to make accusations? Okay. You get to wait here and be questioned as well.

    I’d guess just adding a little bit of inconvenience would stop a lot of this nonsense.

  32. Here’s how you can fill up your bank account with additional cash each week? Read more by visiting this page
    follow this link


  33. Thank God for “Do Gooders”. Where would we be without them? (sarc)

  34. As a libertarian I know that sex trafficking, like campus rape, is totally made-up.

  35. Isn’t it slander to accuse someone of a crime that wasn’t committed? It seems to me that the victim of this slander should have been given the name of the accuser/slanderer in order to bring suit or file criminal slander charges.

  36. OK, I’m a grouch. What I wanna know is, if so goddamned many young women are boing held in sexual slavery, where do I go to buy one? And do I need to provide the collar and leash myself?

    Seriously, how do the hysterics not see what crap this is?

  37. Police CANT be picky about which tips to follow up on. Imagine the shitstorm when someone calls in a tip on a real cri!me and the police don’t do anything. This, for once, actually isn’t the police’s fault at all. The issue is people being hysterical and calling the cops about their baseless neuroses, and then its kind of a dispersed cost thing (nobody is going to cause anywhere near that kind of fuss about the police wasting some of their time). This is a pretty good example, I think, of how basing society on violence creates all these fucked up incentives rippling out into said society, which can then be used to justify more government, and then, before you know it, you’re America in 2017.

  38. United is really gonna have to step up if they want to dominate next week’s headlines. Maybe they’ll shoot someone’s dog in front of passengers.

  39. Google pay’s us monthly… Everybody can earn now from home 10000+ USD monthly… I am just working 3 to 4 hours in a day and generate extra cash… You also can earn… you can join or check more information by below site…………


  40. So long as any goon with a government gun can assert he acted “in good faith” on an anonymous tip, that minion can freely gun people down with no consequences or at best a mock trial. No way will unions of tax-fed employees sit still for deniers casting aspersions to interfere with buddies helping buddies by calling in anonymous tips to cover their lard and buns.


    Seriously people need to calm down. preventing sex trafficking no matter how rare (which does occur despite the authors attempt to downplay it), is worth asking a few bloody questions and doing some due diligence See something Say something is meant to counter the bystander effect, which is when multiple people fail to do something about a problem because they assume someone else will. People need to look the hell out for each other, minor inconveniences at the hands of people looking out for you are much better than the major inconvenience of being the victim of a major crime.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.