By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
In another example of bizarre and horrific treatments of children by relatives the Lincoln County Missouri Sheriff’s Office accuses a family of staging a frightening kidnapping of their six year old son because they believed he was being too friendly with strangers and needed to be taught a lesson.
Several felony charges later, the family is now being taught that lesson in the county jail.
Deputies say that the child’s aunt, Denise Kroutil, made arrangements for a colleague, Nathan Firoved, to scare the boy by agreeing to stage a mock kidnapping.
Firoved is accused by the sheriff’s office of luring the boy into a car just after he left a school bus. He then took the boy to his residence’s basement where he then told the boy he would “never see his mommy again,” and that he would be “nailed to the wall of a shed.”
The threats continued with allegedly showing the boy a firearm, covering the boy’s head with a jacket, binding his hands and feet, and threatening him as he was crying in distress. And to further add to the horror in the child he pulled down the boy’s pants and proclaimed the boy would be sold into sex slavery.
After this terrible experience the child was eventually released from his restraints and lectured about the dangers of talking to strangers. One can only imagine how horrible strangers must be to this family if this is the sort of loving treatment they believe their son deserves.
The event came to light when the boy reported the incident to school officials who then contacted authorities.
“Family members told investigators their primary intent was to educate the victim and felt they did nothing wrong,” a statement from the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office said.
News reports state that Firoved, his grandmother, Rose Brewer, and Ms. Kroutil have been charged with kidnapping, restraint, as well as abuse and neglect of a child.
The boy’s mother, Elizabeth Hupp, has been charged with kidnapping and abuse and neglect.
By Darren Smith
Source: BBC News
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
I’m certain there are far more than two who could and would agree with Anarchist’s observation about you Oh Paul of the Huge Ego.
Anarchist, you may be rough around the edges, but it was very kind of you to let Happy Pappies know that despite her obvious ‘uniqueness’, she was interesting ( I can’t recall your exact wording) These misogynists around here could take a lesson. As for your rugged good looks, yes your new avatar has a certain je ne said quoi, in a scary kind of way, lol.
Inga-
“Anarchist, these people are here simply to be as abusive as they possibly can to anyone that disagrees with their worldview.”
Ya well, I can’t really complain about that too much, considering the way I kick them around gratuitously.
“It’s obvious you intimidate the bejesus out of them.”
It’s probably my rugged good looks. Nothing I can do about that.
Anarchist – I hope you will not be butt-hurt when I tell you that you do NOT intimidate me. You do amuse me though. 😀
Anarchist, these people are here simply to be as abusive as they possibly can to anyone that disagrees with their worldview. I don’t bother debating anymore because they are so afflicted with epistemic closure that it’s an effort in futility (for me). I’ll leave it up to you to continue to make valid arguments against the regressive and ignorant ideologies they spew forth. You do an excellent job and I find your arguments fascinating. Keep up the good work. It’s obvious you intimidate the bejesus out of them. I don’t think Paul is capable of ever apologizing to anyone, because he would have to admit he was wrong and that would crush his mighty (yet fragile) ego.
Inga – good ad hominem attack plus the back patting for Anarchist. Have you invited him to Flowers for Algernon, or did he come from there to begin with?
Paul-
” you miss a lot by only giving us the statute. We need the case law as well. ”
Riiight.
The statute and the general definition of kidnapping under common law provides compelling evidence that would cause a reasonable person to assume case law would follow. However, reading the actual statute and then declaring “Well, that doesn’t matter because my opinion is different” provides me with zero incentive to waste my time finding case law when I know full well that your response will be the same. You’ve latched onto some loony theory that is attractive to you because of your political leanings, and those political leanings carry far more weight with you than any facts or evidence possibly could.
” I suggest a watching of Arrested Development ”
This is what’s wrong with your argument Paul, I give you the relevant criminal statutes and you give me a sitcom.
And why the hostility towards Inga? It’s like an innocent standing around getting shot in a drive by. Have you no sense of humanity? I know I can’t sway you with reason, but the least you could do is apologize to Inga for your cruelty.
Anarchist – unless the case law proves your case for part three of the law, I stand my ground.
BTW, Inga is hardly a virgin in all this. 😉
Paul, it has absolutely nothing to do with making an original observation. It has to do with recognizing the truth of another’s observation and being gratified that they too see what one has seen so often. It’s consensus . But of course with all the rugged individualism among glibertarians, they most often are too busy trying to be the one who knows more, knows best and knows all. They want to be the most uniquely unique of the oh so very very very unique. But Paul, you aren’t any different than your counterparts, sorry to break it to you.
Inga – two people on a blog like this do not make a consensus. You need to look up the definition.
“You’re a good example of what is wrong with modern conservatism. Reality means nothing to you.”
As are most of the conservatives who comment here. It’s good to see others noting what is so obvious to non conservatives.
**********************
Hi Max!
Inga – unable to be original yourself, you have to quote someone else’s ad hominem attack.
Anarchist 2.0,
Floggers will argue whatever get’s them across the field fastest… maybe a whip with nails attached will get that horse to it’s feet?
Paul C.
The boy is lucky they didn’t pimp him out being that he was under the age of consent and all… NO?
Paul-
You’re a good example of what is wrong with modern conservatism. Reality means nothing to you.
“children are not considered people in this situation, they are the chattel of the parents.”
Complete hogwash that carries zero validity. But before you spew nonsense like that, did you even consider for a moment that, “Hey, principle I’m going to propose that children only have the status of slaves, maybe I ought to find a credible source to back up this assertion”? No you didn’t. As a modern conservative, you feel free to believe any sort of nonsense, credible sources and informed opinions be damned!
Considering the fact that I have backed my argument with the actual applicable statues from Missouri, do you feel the need that maybe you might want to bolster your own argument by offering at least one opinion by a credible expert? No, you don’t. Whatever fantasy flits through your head is assumed to be the eternal truth of the lord God almighty simply because you choose to believe it.
Honestly Paul, you could print up your argument here at attach it to your CV if you really want to get ahead of the pack in your application to clown college. Your standpoint can only be considered to be sheer nonsense if I’m being charitable. Otherwise it’s just plain insanity.
Anarchist 2.0 – I have to admit that your ad hominem attacks are more creative then most, but you miss a lot by only giving us the statute. We need the case law as well.
As I said, two out of three are cold and the third I think I could argue successfully. I suggest a watching of Arrested Development to see this type of parental discipline in action. It is used several times (at least once a season).
Paul-
“As I said, children cannot give permission, but their parents can and do give permission for their children.”
And as I said- consent is not a license to commit a crime, even though that’s how you construe it. Parental consent is not above the law. Parents are not allowed to commit crimes against their children if the parent consents to that crime.
This is a really simple question. Now you’re just arguing because you don’t have the spine to admit you were wrong, even though you know it as well as I do.
Dust Bunny-
Here’s some more for you-
“What Constitutes Parental Kidnapping?
Whether or not the taking of a child by a parent will constitute parental kidnapping is determined by three main factors, including (1) the legal status of the offending parent, (2) the existence of any court orders regarding custody, and (3) the intent of the offending parent. ”
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/what-is-parental-kidnapping.htm
Here is yet another easy to understand explanation that intent is a determining factor in determining whether a parent has kidnapped their own child. For it to not qualify as kidnapping, three things need to be met-
1. The parent must have legal custody of the child
The parent that consented did have legal custody, so they’re in the clear on this point (though the man that actually kidnapped the child didn’t, but we’ll ignore that for the moment).
2. Were there court orders preventing the parent from taking the child?
As far as we know, there were no court orders, so they are in the clear on this point, so we’ll proceed to the last determinantion.
3. was their intent in taking the child a legal intent?
No. Their intent was to terrorize the child, which Missouri Statutes make clear provides the basis for a kidnapping charge.
Do you get it yet, or do I have to keep flogging this dead horse for another dozen comments?
Anarchist 2.0 – you are flogging a dead horse, the same one you rode in on. Even I could beat the kidnapping charge.
Dust Bunny-
“As stated before. Minor children do not have the capacity to consent”
Guess what? That’s still just as irrelevant as the first time you said it. You people are applying the age of consent in regard to sex with consent in general, and you are completely ignoring the more relevant aspect of intent.
You have a completely erroneous understanding of the idea of consent so you accordingly fail to understand that no person can license another to commit a crime.
“Intent does not matter one iota”
I don’t know what to say to you. The Missouri statues squarely contradict you, but you apparently just don’t understand simple concepts spoken in plain language. That being the case, you’re deluding yourself if you believe you are even competent to debate anyone on this subject.
“if there is a kidnapping or unauthorized taking of the minor child FROM the parent(s)”
Why do you insist on inventing nonsense that is so plainly nonsensical that a child of average intelligence could easily dismiss it? Kidnapping is-
” unlawfully removes another person without his or her consent from the place where he or she is found”
Does it say anything about parents in that sentence? No, it doesn’t. Which is more valid, your ignorant assumption or the actual statutes?
Here, read this once more (maybe it will sink in this time)-
A person commits the offense of kidnapping in the first degree if he or she unlawfully removes another person without his or her consent. . .for the purpose of:
“(5) Inflicting physical injury on or terrorizing the victim or another. ”
The guardians, who had the INTENT of doing exactly what the above statue described, have themselves committed the act of kidnapping and their consent is irrelevant. Their consent does not carry more weight than the law.
The statute makes it clear that they kidnapped the child, the police give further evidence of that fact by arresting all those involved, and yet you still make the nonsensical argument that your fictional view of the world carries more weight than actual facts and evidence. You just won’t be swayed by reality, will you?
“This issue is one that is interesting now. . .”
Is how you could clearly be completely wrong and yet still keep arguing your nonsensical viewpoint.
Anarchist 2.0 – children are not considered people in this situation, they are the chattel of the parents. And what we are talking about is the age of majority, the age at which you can legally sign a contract (anywhere from 18-21), not the age of consent for sex (which I do not think this kid reached either).
Maybe the parents had just watched Scared Straight 1 and 2 and were over-motivated to stop the behavior.
“That’s a redneck jail. I bet they get cornbread and greens with their steak and hot biscuits and gravy and TV.”
happypappies
And all the freedom and liberty this blog claims it wants for people! Seems fitting.
For some reason, you seem to be under the bizarre assumption that it is fine and dandy to take a child without that child’s consent, tie him up and then terrorize him for hours if the child’s custodian agrees to it.
For some reason, you seem to be lacking the ability to read with clarity or understanding.
I indicated that the people involved are guilty of child abuse and should be punished and probably the child should be removed for his own safety. However, the crime of kidnapping is not necessarily on the table in this case since the mother knew and approved of this abuse.
As stated before. Minor children do not have the capacity to consent, to enter into contracts and a whole lot of other legal actions. Their parents do this in their stead.
The concepts of in loco parentis “refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent.” applies to things like schools and teachers. Parens patriae: “refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection. This last one is what gives the state the power to punish these people and to stand in as a parental authority for the child
The people engaged in this kidnapping, if their point had been to take the kid to a doctors appointment, would not have committed the crime of kidnapping because their INTENT would not qualify as one necessary to establish the crime of kidnapping.
Intent does not matter one iota if there is a kidnapping or unauthorized taking of the minor child FROM the parent(s). Good intent or bad intent. If the taking is without consent by the parent, since the child does not have the capacity to consent, it is a kidnapping.
They can kidnap the child to have him/her vaccinated for measles without the knowledge or consent of the parent(s). While their INTENT may be good, they have broken the law and kidnapped the child.
This issue is one that is interesting now, under the law, in those situations where you have two custodial parents and one is against vaccinations and one is for it. Would that be considered a kidnapping if one parent consents and the other doesn’t? Can one parent sue the other for damages if something bad happens? Interesting legal questions.
Sorry thanks for the clarification.
Auto correct is not your friend.
I guess that is why you want to return the favor and gnaw our ears off.
It sort of makes sense now. Thanks for the calcification buddy.
trooperyork-
“I mean even the Pope who seems to be the darling of the progressives thinks it is ok to smack your kids.”
And I agree. Maybe that’s wrong, but if so, then the majority of the parents on the planet are wrong.
When I was a kid at school, the principle took a paddle to me like it was going out of style, and he was my favorite authority figure at the school. The paddle I was beaten with even had holes drilled in it to cut down on wind resistance. However, I liked the guy (mostly because every time he did, I deserved it) and I’ve never felt that I was abused. Among all the instances I experienced as a child which I can look back on and understand was traumatic, not one was an instance of corporal discipline. . . except the time my mother strapped a cage full of rats over my head and they gnawed my ear off.
Dust Bunny
“However, since this is a legal blog, to be able to convict the custodial parent(s) of kidnapping is going to be pretty difficult to do.”
No it’s not. I cited the Missouri statute. It’s clearly kidnapping. There is no grey area here because some of the kidnappers were related to the kid.
You’re getting hung up on the point of consent and missing the fact that the relevant point is INTENT. Was the child taken against his will with the INTENT of terrorizing him? Obviously he was. That was the clearly stated intent of the kidnappers.
The people engaged in this kidnapping, if their point had been to take the kid to a doctors appointment, would not have committed the crime of kidnapping because their INTENT would not qualify as one necessary to establish the crime of kidnapping.
For some reason, you seem to be under the bizarre assumption that it is fine and dandy to take a child without that child’s consent, tie him up and then terrorize him for hours if the child’s custodian agrees to it. That’s nonsensical.
The consent of the parent does not carry greater weight than the law. Using the logic you’re using, it would be fine to rape and kill a child as long as you obtained parental consent.
Jesus H. Christ- with the “logic” you people are applying here, it’s like I hopped onto a bullet train to crazy town without realizing it. It’s insanity.
How do we know this isn’t a “Ransom of Red Chief” situation?
NoZamboni – I tried to make the point earlier that we do not know just how friendly the young man was.