What would you do if your children were kidnapped?

I'd call the police. Is that strange?

And if the police were unable to locate them?

Then I'm pretty damn sure AT&T won't have the data either.

That is a substantial assumption.

Isn't it pretty straightforward for the police to get a warrant to get information from the phone company in a case like this?

Police do on occasion fail to do things that seem pretty straightforward.

It definitely sounds like the father wanted to kidnap them, so sue AT&T, I guess?

It's a matter of perspective.

If my wife took off with my kid, I'd use any means at my disposal to find them - in spite of the fact that I'd never dream of doing that in any other circumstance.

The repeated use of "his kids" and "my kids" (in cases where the poster is imagining being in his situation) in this thread is quite fascinating.

They're her kids (as far as we know) at least as much as they are his.

Also, the story used the word "girlfriend", not "wife". They're not married, so he has no legal claim to them.

> They're not married, so he has no legal claim to them.

What? Where do you live? Third world country? Does your country still allow children to have less than 2 parents on their birth certificate?

>> The repeated use of "his kids" and "my kids" (in cases where the poster is imagining being in his situation) in this thread is quite fascinating.

I think you read too much into it. Consider the context. I am talking about the what-if "me". When I talk about myself and branch off to talking about my kid, it's usually going to be "my kid" or "my son" (as here).

If I'm in a discussion where I'm talking about the unit "us" as parents, it is "our kid" or "our son", and it's the same if my wife and I are discussing our son. (Seriously - that 'our son' wasn't contrived, it's all about the context. I'm talking here about both of us, so I automatically wrote "our son")

And when the kid in question pisses me off, it's definitely "do you know what your son did?" ;)

Let's rephrase this, using only the same information from the original comment:

> The father being the kind of person to overreach his authority at work in order to locate his own kidnapped children sounds like good enough reason to leave

LaGrange is right about one thing: your description of the children as "his own" is unwarranted.

Let's assume, though it's not stated outright, that the kids are biologically theirs. The story uses the word "girlfriend". So they weren't married. So legally, the kids were actually hers; he has no leg to stand on.

If you'd said "their kids" I wouldn't have objected -- maybe LaGrange wouldn't either -- but there's no way it's right to refer to these kids as "his".

That's because the only way they're not jumping to conclusions is in word - assumption that it's the guy's kid (sure, possible) is one, but I really don't believe there's no ill will in the entire "desperate father whose evil partner took his children, and couldn't get the police to do anything about it. Also probably starving, cold, and he got stung by bees a lot. And the coffee was awful." narrative. The abuse of position (there, have a word other than privilege, are you people allergic or something?), the slurs , the suggestion they weren't actually married and the rather proud attitude all suggest that the guy wasn't exactly a nice person caught in an awful situation.

EDIT: Sure, it's possible it was just his way of dealing with stress, he might have had parental rights, police ignored the "OMG my wife went crazy" narrative for the first time in recorded history (go look hyperbole on wikipedia before you nitpick), the coffee was really awful and the bees really stung him, but it's definitely less likely, and it's hard to believe someone brings that up in this thread for any reason other than the one they ascribe to SJWs.

> The father being the kind of person to overreach his authority at work in order to locate and kidnap children sounds like good enough reason to leave

FTFY. Seriously, there are legal mechanisms for such situations, if you seriously think he was not the abuser there. Though I suspect you're just an MRA troll.

Quote from the post we're talking about: "His girlfriend left, took the kids, and didn't tell him where they had gone."

We simply have no information to make the sorts of conclusions you are making. You are making assumptions based on what appears to be your views on the matter. As further evidenced by you bringing in Mens Rights Activism with your comment about the parent poster being an "MRA troll", for no reason. Or perhaps you're just trying to taint the discussion by making it about womens/mens rights. When it could just simply be either an abusive stalker boyfriend or a crazy girlfriend that kidnapped kids.

I think that abusing privilege from his job instead of going to the police is evidence enough.

You're still making big assumptions based on your opinion of a person or specific action. We still don't know if the guy was abusive or not. And until we do, it's just as reasonable to think that he used other means to solve his problem because he was desperate/determined or maybe he was in fear of his children's lives, etc.

Even the wording you chose to use now, "abusing privilege", is loaded with negative connotations.

Worse. I bet this wording was on purpose, but the important word is not "abusing", it's "privilege". The SJW flamebait word.

@LaGrange, I don't know why you assume the man here was the evil actor. There wasn't enough information in this story that would justify this inference, and re-iterating this stupid meme that it's always men that are at fault is not helping anyone.

Describing the girlfriend as "the bitch" and proudly remembering the look on her face when he tracked her down, as opposed to e.g. talking about how happy he was to see his kids and describing the happy look on their faces is an indicator that it's more about a power struggle with the woman and not about finding his children.

And just an FYI: privilege is still a word, and it still gets used in conversations? Do you jump on sysadmins when they talk about "privileged processes" and complain that they're using "SJW flamebait" language?

> And just an FYI: privilege is still a word, and it still gets used in conversations? Do you jump on sysadmins when they talk about "privileged processes" and complain that they're using "SJW flamebait" language?

Like every other word, this one has to be understood in context in which it is placed. Within the context of this thread, world "privileged" stood out as something placed there to invoke associations with the wider SJW narrative. If I "jump on" someone for something, I do it for ideas presented, not for words used.

The idea presented is exactly the sort of idea where "privilege" is appropriate, though.

Yes, I'm the SJW. And I think that flame bait was a dude going off with "hey, maybe the abuse was totally justified". Pretending that there isn't enough information where the dude straight out admitted he abused his privileged situation (literally, in this case) is completely ridiculous, but hey, not surprising from someone who thinks "social justice warrior" is an insult.

Let me go out and just say this, because it needs to be said. If my son (and yes I do have one) was in some sort of trouble, or danger, or perhaps taken from me for whatever reason, and by someone I don't trust to take care of him... Then you can bet your bones I'll "abuse" my "privileged position" in order to rectify the situation and bring him home safely.

Not because I'm some sort of abusive father, or asshole that wants to stalk people. But because I want to protect my son. There you go, a perfectly valid and simple reason for a normal, non-abusive person to break rules in order to do good.

Evidence of what? A father wanting to know where his kids were taken to? Or an abuser stalking his girlfriend. From the 'evidence' presented, it could be either one.

For all you know he did this in cooperation with police and HR. You leap to conclusions with zero supporting information.

Well, I have never dealt with this situation in my life, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that when you go to the police, they don't say "well, since you work at AT&T, you snooping is probably the best solution we have".

I think we're pretty fucking sure he didn't do this with the police and HR.