Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

diiejso t1_iyuasvz wrote

Reply to comment by MadRollinS in 11 missing children found in CO by MadRollinS

Examples in those linked articles for the numbers you mention include things like finding children with their mother and other civil non-criminal matters. I’m not saying this is bad that they save children being trafficked I’m saying they’re lumping non-nefarious cases in with the total count to pad the numbers and in this story they won’t say what the number is. Maybe they saved all 11 from trafficking. Maybe 1. Maybe all 11 were just with a parent or staying with a friend.

E: I’d reply about your confusion but you’ve blocked me lol.

28

MadRollinS OP t1_iyubenm wrote

  1. There's only one article that I posted. Not "articles".
  2. I read the article and I am aware of your repeated point.
  3. Even if they only saved 1, it's worth reporting
  4. This Unit has a 53% recovery rate across the country, which is outstanding.
  5. How many children have you saved? Let me guess: Zero.
−34

LazyMoniker t1_iyueeb2 wrote

The linked articles they’re talking about are the articles that your article is linking to.

Nobody’s saying saving kids isn’t worth reporting. Everyone is pro-saving kids.

The weird part is when they save one kid, then point to three others that were maybe just with their other parent, or with family, or were 16years old and wanted on narcotics related charges (as is the case in one of the articles linked to in your article), and they’re implying “We saved these four kids”, what’s the deal with that? Why try to imply that all of these kids were saved from dangerous situations?

Again, saving kids is a good thing. 100% pro saving kids. 100% thankful it’s being done. Still don’t get the weird way they’re choosing to report the numbers.

34

atridir t1_iyufbmp wrote

Nailed it! Excellent articulation!

15

Atomhed t1_iyuhubv wrote

>These 11 cases of missing children, aged 12 to 17, were considered some of the area’s most sensitive and difficult, and involved sex trafficking, abuse and exploitation, the release stated.

It looks like the headline points at 11 saved kids, and the article goes on to corroborate that.

Who is implying all the kids were in dangerous situations?

And why do you need an article about 11 kids saved from abuse to go into details about kids are aren't in abusive situations?

−10

Ok-Development8745 t1_iyxjkxc wrote

Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article lol

1

Atomhed t1_iyy7wjs wrote

I read the article, and it's title is accurate, 11 children were saved - other children were left in domestic situations the courts will deal with.

1