O'Reilly: Abducted child "liked ... his circumstances," had "a lot more fun" than usual
On the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said of Shawn Hornbeck -- who was abducted at the age of 11, held for four years, and recently found in Missouri -- that "there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances" and that he "do[esn't] buy" "the Stockholm syndrome thing." O'Reilly also said: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted." When fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren pointed out that "[s]ome kids like school," O'Reilly replied: "Well, I don't believe this kid did."
The following day, during his "Talking Points Memo" segment, O'Reilly responded to viewer mail criticizing his comments about Hornbeck. O'Reilly concluded: "I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because" his kidnapper "made things easy for him. No school, play all day long."
O'Reilly frequently casts himself as a champion of children. He has also suggested that he is "looking out for the kids" and attacked "the print press" for not "car[ing] about the children."
From the January 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The kidnapping of those two boys should be front-page news in your house if you have kids. I actually hope I'm wrong about Shawn Hornbeck. I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because Devlin made things easy for him. No school, play all day long.
But to just chalk this up to brainwashing and walk away is turning away from the true danger of child molesters and abductors. All American children must be taught survival skills, must be prepared to face crisis situations. That is the lesson of the Shawn Hornbeck story. And that's the "Memo."
From the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight, the disturbing case of the two kidnapped boys in Missouri. As you know, police found 15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck in an apartment of 41-year-old Michael Devlin last week, along with 13-year-old Ben Ownby. Both boys allegedly had been kidnapped by Devlin, who ran a pizza place in the town of Kirkwood. Shawn had been missing for four years.
And the question is, why didn't he escape when he could have? There are all kinds of theories about that. Joining us now from Washington, Greta Van Susteren, who has been out to Missouri reporting on the case.
All right, you know, the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it. I've never bought it. I didn't think it happened in the Patty Hearst case. I don't think it happened here.
[...]
O'REILLY: I'm not buying this. If you're 11 years old or 12 years old, 13, and you have a strong bond with your family, OK, even if the guy threatens you, this and that, you're riding your bike around, you got friends. The kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff. If you can get away, you get away. All right? If you're 11.
[...]
O'REILLY: This is what I believe happened in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life. She was a child of privilege. All of a sudden, she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs, and she enjoyed it. The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted.
VAN SUSTEREN: Some kids like school.
O'REILLY: What?
VAN SUSTEREN: Some kids like school.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances.
[...]
VAN SUSTEREN: So you're playing that same sort of thinking to this 11-year-old to 15-year-old. You're thinking logically. You think to yourself, "Why didn't he leave?" That's what most people think. Frankly, I had that thought as well.
But I think you've got to remember that this is a child. He doesn't -- you know, for whatever reason, he may have, you know, wanted to be with his kidnapper. Maybe his kidnapper turned out to be, quote, "a nice guy" or whatever. But this is a kid, Bill. And I think we've got to wait till we get all the facts.
O'REILLY: All right.
VAN SUSTEREN: It may turn out -- you may turn out to be right. I don't know.
O'REILLY: I usually do. I usually -- that usually is what happens.
VAN SUSTEREN: Especially when you're the jury.
O'REILLY: If I'm wrong, Greta, I'll -- you know, we'll play this tape and you'll get your points.
VAN SUSTEREN: At this point, I simply don't know. But I'll wait for the facts.
O'REILLY: All right. Greta will have more, On the Record, 10 Eastern. Thanks, Greta, as always.
he...he should go on the Dr. Phil show and become the new 'tough love' guiding adult, like Sgt. Kick-butt..or was that on Sally....or, that other great day time talk host...
I cheated here........ I'll say my peace on this thread later....
But I wanted to have this link (its on O'Really) as close to the begining here......
[link to rage.cf.huffingtonpost.com]
It about sums up this charactor....with a Colbert twist throughout
Bill O’Reilly complains about media critics leaning left. He claims that even though Fox News has the largest cable audience that 90 percent of the press is negative. What does Fox News expect? With Sean (Enemy Of The State) Hannity, Bill (Often-wrong) O’Reilly and their cohorts Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Weiner Savage, a host of religious radicals and Bushco helping to define the right, you would have to be an idiot not to LEAN left. Even true conservatives are leaning left. Sure the vociferous Fox News has its audience but most of us in America and the rest of the world have a different view.
What 11 year-old kid wouldn't love to be kidnapped and kept from his family by a sex predator and held captive for 4 years? I know when I was 11, I fantasized about growing up to be a rock star, living in England and of course, being abducted by a predator because I didn't like school.
Yeah BIll and Andrea Mackris liked being harranssed by you as you talked about how good you at operating Sexual implements and how you could show her a good time. She really was "diggin' it" even though you paid her $2 million not to release those embarrassing audio tapes of you bragging about your daliances with those "brown" Indonesian women. You stud you. SPlotchy Face punk.
This is a situation that really helped Michael Jackson get acquitted. The family that he was alleged to have kidnapped were buying things on Jackson's dime, his assisstants brought them to various appointments, and they rode around his park all day, and there was proof as well as witnesses for Michael Jackson who said so. Sounded like fun to be kidnapped by Michael Jackson.
However, with all this knowledge, Bill O'Reilly was still very anti-Jackson during the case. We don't know what these two boys have gone through. How does he know that the kid "liked" being kidnapped? He is already making assumptions.
I know you all may not think Michael Jackson was innocent, but I sure as hell do. I also think Bill O'Reilly NEVER knows what he's talking about.
"The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents.
His old parents? Waitaminutehere... nobody told me the kidnapper adopted the boy.
Reading many of the items here on MMFA one has to wonder how low television standards have sunk and will continue to sink. What is Bill O'Reilly anyway? A newsman? A political commentator? A TV personality? What qualifies him to opine about Shawn Hornbeck's reasons for staying with his abductor? Who knows what the kid's motives were until he says what they were. This is nothing but peep-hole sensationalism. I'm really surprised that FOX didn't have a viewer poll so viewers could vote on what Hornbeck's motives were. If this is what O'Reilly's show is about then how can anyone take seriously what he might say about important issues.
... who's convinced people he's somehow important, interesting, intelligent, or entertaining, despite all evidence to the contrary.
O'REILLY: If I'm wrong, Greta, I'll -- you know, we'll play this tape and you'll get your points.
I've got ten bucks says this'll never happen. And not cuz Bill-oh was right, either.
Bill NEVER admits he is wrong. And this site shows he HAS been wrong.
Shoot, I'll bet a million he doesn't play it. OK, I can't afford a million...how about 1k?
Since when does an 11 year old boy have the ability to make this kind of decision?
And what the hell is wrong with Van Susteren, "It may turn out -- you may turn out to be right. I don't know." She's supposed to be an educated woman. In whose nightmare world would this ever turn out that O'Reilly was right about this?
This whole event has much more of the earmarks of a 'runaway' situation than a kidnapping.
It's the only explanation that explains everything, unless people want to attribute the answer to "pure evil," or whatever other silliness has been going around the media the last week.
Of course, the 'runaway' syndrome doesn't have all the sentimental baggage of the pure evil explanation, which is why the media won't even consider it. Sorry, BOR's right on this one-- I think a healthy dose of scepticism is in order here.
Anyone who thinks this way is sick. To think that an 11 year old child that was abducted at gun point was making a decision to stay with their abductor? What is the major malfunction that is going on inside of your brain and heart to think that it could be anywhere close to what the reality is? How is it that we have come to this as humanity, to deny the basics of compassion and empathy to others? I think Bill O'Reilly and people that agree with him on this particular issue are sick. You are depraved, you are criminal, and basically you are no different than the criminal that committed these horrific acts.
At this point there's no evidence that anyone was "kidnapped." They may have been, but it's all speculation. The people making this statement are also the same ones who claimed that the "first thing" Shawn Hornbeck asked for was "a haircut."
Right.
For heaven's sake, the kid was 15 years old! Are you THAT naive about gamer-punk kids with unhappy home lives? It was a clearly dysfunctional family he came from.
No one's justifying kidnapping or harboring, but lay off the inane sentimentality. You all sound like Nancy Grace.
is morons who speculate about people's motives, beliefs, thoughts etc.... with absolutely NO basis for that speculation. BOR goes off on another rant about what he believes and doesn't believe while once again proving that he knows NOTHING about the issues at hand. He dismisses the theory of Stockholm syndrome without knowing anything about it - where's his degree in clinical psychology huh? He claims that because he was a teacher so many years ago he has some insight into the minds of teens - what a load of garbage. This cretin simply cannot acknowledge that there are things beyond his understanding - what's worse is that he is so incredibly intellectualy lazy, that he won't even bother to learn! Part of the great appeal that Bill has to his viewers is that that too are intellectually lazy and would prefer to delude themselves that serious education is something that only "loony left" academics engage in. The message is if you can't see things in black and white the way that the morons at Fox do, well there's simply something wrong with you. O'Reilly is an ignorant fool who paid handsomely for the Post-Grad degree he bought from Harvard. He is constantly making huge factual errors on his "show" and doesn't have the courage to admit it. I refer you to his disgraceful attempt to suggest that dead U.S artillerymen in WWII were murderers who killed unarmed Nazis at Malmedy. In fact it was the Nazis that murdered the U.S soldiers - of course O'Reilly didn't have the guts to apologise to the families of those long-dead, now smeared heroes. His ego is enormous, his intellect miniscule. This moronic verbal thug is only admired by those who are similarly terrified at the idea of sophisticated thought. God forbid we might defer to someone with some psychological expertise for their view on this.....nah better to fall back into the old "kids these days" kind of thinking. The only people who deserve to be subjected to prejudice and vilification are the unique possesors of that modern quality i call "ign-arrogance" - Fox news members and fans rank high on the list.
The typical theme of BO. He always claim he had some experience in past, therefore he is better qualified to talk about it (or he understands it better).
- He was a teacher, therefore he understands teen's mind.
- He was in a combat zone, therefore he understands combat situations better.
We all know how much he was in combat zone. AWOL.
He was 15 when found. He was 11 when kidnapped. At gunpoint.
"Shawn was abducted against his will," Washington County, Mo., prosecutor John Rupp said. "Period. End of story."
AP Story
The CHILD was 11 years old when he was taken. What part of that part of the REALITY did you not understand, or is it that you are choosing to just not take that into consideration?
This is about an 11 year old child. That was how old he was when he was taken. He is now 15.
Get a clue. Get a grip on what reality is. Read up on what happens to children that are abducted and kept for hours or days let alone years. Why don't you ask your local police force to explain to you what happens to these children? Or are you too afraid and horrified to even think of it?
May they grab you when the pick up Bill
Or just a threat? Not one person has actually rebutted O'Reilly on this, just accused him of being ignorant.
That's because nobody knows what really happened. All O'Reilly is doing is being sceptical. A lot of people are. People shouldn't be so gullible about trite MSM explanations-- life is much more interesting and ambiguous than that.
By the way, the 'Stockholm Syndrome' is not a pathological diagnosis. It is merely a description of the empathy that some victims have for their kidnappers. At no time does it levy judgement on the legitimacy of the feelings.
Are you aware of the original incident in Sweden that gave rise to this pop diagnosis? The victims ended up agreeing with the political and social complaints of their captors, to the point where they actually defended them much later in court. They might have been right to do so: the SS "diagnosis" does not discredit their beliefs, it merely describes the mechanism by which they arrive at them.
I feel like I'm watching a really bad Nancy Grace show here. Not one poster here has stuck to the original issue.
...but the prosecutors in the case have rebutted Bill-oh quite strongly.
The issue in any child abduction case is NOT whether the child enjoyed himself. It is whether we, as a society, condone strangers taking children away from their families.
Bill O says he doesn't buy the Stockholm Syndrome thing. Rather, he thinks that the captive child grew to like his captor better than his parents. WTF? Isn't that the same thing?
"That's because nobody knows what really happened. All O'Reilly is doing is being sceptical." --Carlileb
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
O'Reilly is providing harmful speculation before many facts are known.
I know there is an urge to talk about stuff like this on talk shows in order to be current. Sticking to scant facts can be quite boring. However, I think O'Reilly demonstrates just how worthless his analysis is when he resorts to ruthless speculation about this kid, his motives or what happened to him.
Van Sust. was more fair. She said to wait until the facts of the case were known. That is what O'Reilly should do in most cases where he often ends up making a fool of himself in the end.
Bill-oh doesn't wait till the end of anything to make a fool of himself.
the fact that O'Reilly is prepared to suggest that an abducted 11 year old child liked his circumstances. The pathetic excuse for logic that is employed in justifying such an OFFENSIVE suggestion is simply that the child had opportunities to escape. This is not scepticism - O'Reilly has openly suggested it!! Does anyone here think for one minute that O'Reilly would have said any such thing about Elizabeth Smart? Elizabeth was 14 years old, held for months and had ample opportunity to escape. Elizabeth was also repeatedly RAPED and had the lives of her family members threatened - do you think she "liked her circumstances"? O'Reilly, like others dismisses Stockholm Syndrome out of hand, because his understanding of it is entirley one-dimensional. Stockholm Syndrome, in its popular understanding is about people in a captive situation identifying with their captors - in psychology it is a far more sophisticated collection of theories - the more appropriate term would be "Traumatic Bonding" which is similar to Stockholm Syndrome. Traumatic Bonding involves efforts by the victim to identifiy with their captor or abuser in order to appease them and lessen the immediate threat of assault to themselves or their loved ones. It usually takes place over a length of time and in a situatation where some assault or believable threat of assault has occured or is clearly imminent. It is a COPING mechanism and not necessarily a means by which the victim and attacker are truly bonded. The main aim is generally to try to minimise further violence - it is often seen amongst victims of incest and domestic violence. Then again, perhaps those people like their circumstances too!!!! Again, I make the point that the problem here is people who think that 2 minutes on Wikipedia is all it takes to be informed and then shoot off their ignorant mouths through sheer intellectual laziness. The least that O'Reilly could do would be to get a qualified guest on to talk in an informed manner about these things - and by informed I don't mean some two-bit hack who got their PHD out of a cereal box and I certainly don't mean Greta "oh goody another white woman murdered" Van Susteren. Now that you have something to go on, try reading a psych journal one of these days. Oh, and thanks for telling me that Stockholm is in Sweden.
It's entirely possible that Stockholm Syndrome isn't the "answer" everyone wants in this case. It is possible that the child developed some sort of learned helplessness through continued psychological and physical abuse. It could possibly be something similar to what some battered women suffer from: a absolute belief that there is no viable way out. It doesn't really matter that there was a viable way out for the child. He might have honestly believed that he had no way out, and because of this, eventually became cooperative with his abductor.
But like you said, no one knows all the facts of the case yet. I will say that Bill was incredibly insensitive and irresponsible in making those statements. The things he said were potentially hurtful to the child and his family, and others, and absolutely unnecessary. He should leave the diagnosis of the kid's motivations to the people who actually know what they're talking about
Let me preface this with the fact that I am not condoning the behavior of "alleged kidnapper" Devlin, but one has to look upon the this generation of children and how alot of them are morally bankrupt and do not understand that giving part of you body (assuming there was abuse with the kidnapper) is not a price to pay to be able to have "freedom" from your parents or an unhappy home life.
If there were problems at home before the kidnapping, they would offer some explaination as to why this child did not try to return home. After 4 years. Not months, years.....
This child may not have known at first, but I am sure within the last year, he could have done or said something to get back home. Put a banana in the tailpipe of the truck, scribble a message and give it to someone....something.
You may think I am harsh, but it is these exact things that we tell our children to do if they are kidnapped and are being hurt.
Greta is a media whore. She's an embarrasment me as an attorney and to the legal profession as a whole. If it weren't for O.J., she's defending DUI offenders and engaging in p---ing contests with other lawyer in divorce cases. She makes me sick.
The final days of this buffoon.
...that would be nice. I'm stunned by what I just read up there.
"I really believe we could be witnessing the final days of this buffoon."
I wouldn't bet on it considering that he still has the #1 rated cable news show and several #1 bestselling books. You may wish he was about done, but that wouldn't be realistic. O'Reilly is here to stay, and that's a good thing. Someone needs to hold the left wing media responsible for their propaganda.
Right. The left wing media made Gore a buffoon. The left wing media convicted Dan Rather and gave a presidential candidate a free pass on shirking military service. The left wing media cheered a brutal war of choice and the creation of an American Gulag.
Is it that, in your analysis, there is a left wing media if there is any voice with whom you do not agree. Hmm?
"The left wing media made Gore a buffoon"
Wrong. Al Gore made Al Gore a buffoon. The media didn't have to do anything. Also, are you saying that the media doesn't tilt left at all? After all, about 80% of journalists are registered Democrats. There have been studies that show this. Do you really think all these journalists can just be completely objective? I don't. Pretty much all the major newspapers except the Wall Street Journal are solidly liberal. Even newspapers in red states like The Kansas City Star are incredibly liberal. The left wing media is out of touch with the average American.
The recent election doesn't quite jive with your assessment.
Man, whatever you're adding to your cheetos, one would hope you'd be willing to pass it around.
"Al Gore made Al Gore a buffoon."
George Bush said more patently stupid, clueless and just plain wrong things on one week on the campaign trail than Gore did in his entire life. "Reading is the basics for all learning." Journalists have already 'fessed up to the fact that they just didn't like him.
[link to www.dailyhowler.com]
Say what you want to about the media, but "left-wing" is just ridiculous. If I was reading in the media all the time about universal healthcare, environmental protection, education and peaceful conflict resolution, I might agree. It just really seems that you use the term "left-wing" to mean "stuff I don't like." Which is fine, as far as it goes... just so long as we know what you're talking about.
Exactly how are you defining "liberal" in your accusations regarding liberal media bias? Do you mean anyone who is to the left of the type of right wing, illogical, reactionary, lunatic fringe-leaning, biased "journalism" (hah!) demonstrated by your Mr. O'Reilly, whom you hold in such high regard? If you are serious in your esteem for O'Reilly (and not merely yanking our collective chain) I honestly feel sorry for you because you are indeed clueless. Rational, intelligent people don't honor Bill O'Reilly.
backed it up with any sources-
"After all, about 80% of journalists are registered Democrats"(The truth detector)
But if true, probably has something to do with journalists READING and BEING INFORMED about current affairs- tends to hurt conservatism.
Says nothing about their reporting being biased, only about their common sense and intelligence, traits that would tend to influence those hiring journalists.
Good to see you back, TD. We've had several Republo-Zombies cut & run and disappear in hissy fits lately.
After all, about 80% of journalists are registered Democrats. There have been studies that show this.
In the first place, this is wrong, and in the second place, it's irrelevant. Let me expound on both.
The studies you're referring to never are taken from a truly representative cross-section of journalists. One study, made to 'prove' the left-leaning outlook of journalists everywhere, took as its sampling only low-level employees from PBS stations in Boston, New York, and Washington. This may very well be the one, after endless repeating in right-wing circles, that's the source of your "80%".
Second, the ability to actually form opinions does not lie with the journalists themselves, it lies with the editors, the publishers, the directors, and the owners. And no one--not even you--would seriously expect that the higher you go in the journalism business, that you wouldn't find more conservative viewpoints. If an editor has complete control of the opinion page of his paper, he could have two dozen liberal journalists working for him, and it would still be a conservative paper.
The real way to judge liberal or conservative bias--at least regarding newspapers--is extremely easy, provided we take a simple, logical step: that there is a direct, positive corollary between the position of a newspaper and the candidates it supports. After all, a newspaper isn't going to trash a politician for years and then turn around and endorse him.
So, to see where the biases are, you need to get the complete picture of their endorsements. And, my dear "Truth" Detector, you need to know that, since such statistics were first being kept back in the 1930's, Republicans have garnered the majority of newspaper endorsements in every election except 1964, sometimes getting as much as 90% of them.
And, since the newspaper endorsement figures are always (including 1964) to the right of the actual electorate, then you're right about one thing: they are clearly out of the mainstream. The problem for your argument is, they're on the right bank.
I have no idea what criterion you used to declare the Kansas City paper to be liberal, other than your own opinion, but I rather doubt it, or anything else you wrote, would stand up to the facts of history.
Jeter said "I really believe we could be witnessing the final days of this buffoon.", because of what O'Reilly said concerning a young boy who was kidnapped. And your response was to defend O'Reilly. Should we assume that you're on O'Reilly's side on this one? Do you also think that the boy made an informed decision to stay with his kidnapper?
Truth Detector: Someone needs to hold the left wing media responsible for their propaganda.
For that, you need credibility. And O'Reilly's has crumbled like chick peas into falafel.
is a very sad truth about our country....
when a hotair filled bloviator like Bill O has a #1 rated show on cable (Olbermann by the the way is moving up fast every day, so there is still hope yet for this country!), but for now, things aren't so good!
Those books of his...HA!..... I barely got past page 2 at the book store of his latest (Culture Warrior) before I put it back down and laughed out loud (which was better than my first reaction - which was to bend over the closest trash can and give it my lunch) at his pathetic attempts at making sense..... Who reads or even believes in that garbage?
for the right wing ratings fetish. Never gets old.
MMFA: "Here's Bill O'Reilly saying something really stoopid/lying/denying/crying"
GOPoster: "Oh Yeah, well me and a buncha other people believe him and think he's smart".
Clueless in a class of their own. I mean, when there's a news story about those scammers who send emails from the nigerian guy who wants 5 grand so he can send you a million, you don't see the suckers who sent him money coming on saying "Oh Yeah? well he made 10 million dollars, so he must be doing something right"
"O'Reilly is here to stay, and that's a good thing. Someone needs to hold the left wing media responsible for their propaganda."
BO only make himself laughable with his intellectually lazy commentaries. And there are intellictually lazy viewers who are making him #1. BO is holding left-wing media responsible for propaganda? You got to be kidding! First, there is no left-wing propaganda. Secondly, BO is not that smart to hold someone responsible for something.
All American children must be taught survival skills, must be prepared to face crisis situations. That is the lesson of the Shawn Hornbeck story.
But if Bill's assertion - that Hornbeck willingly chose to "play all day" - what kind of "survival skills" would have changed that? Bill makes no sense.
When has he ever?
Ms. Hearst found it "exciting" to be raped in a closet?
This guy is one sick puppy...
Does Bull O'Really? think Ms. Hearst found it "exciting" to be raped in a closet?
Yeah, he probably does.
Bull O'Reilly found it exciting that Miss Hearst was raped in a closet.
Did Andrea Mackris have "Stockholm Syndrome" too?
VAN SUSTEREN: It may turn out -- you may turn out to be right. I don't know.
O'REILLY: I usually do. I usually -- that usually is what happens.
Actually, that is hardly ever what happens, but you just go on believing that, you pathetic lunatic...
the Savage Little Weiner more or less called Elizabeth Samrt a "little whore".
Can't wait to hear him say Shawn Hornbeck was a little gay runaway or something to that effect...
it wasn't "more or less." Is was "did."
The Silly Savage said it was all that poor little girl's fault. I believe the word he used was "sluut."
That's one of his favorites (boy is his wife one lucky woman! Same for his Mother).
Just curious - what is the male equivalent of "sluut." And if one accepts the idea there is such a thing - how come the guy never gets the blame? "It wasn't God who made Honkey Tonk Women."
Geraldo.
Any talk of sexual misconduct about the Missouri case is pure speculation. It may have happened, but nobody knows right now except the people involved.
These kids were internet gamers who don't seem too upset at the whole thing. In fact, they've both said they want their stuff back.
Sorry guys-- this time O'Reilly has a point. He may be ultimately wrong, but he's not obviously so right now. The whole story is VERY fishy. It sounds more like a runaway/harboring case than a kidnapping.
Some of the folks around here sound like Mark Fuhrman!
I'm curious about one thing that you imply......
While there is no denying that those boys could have left at any time they wanted........
Who was the adult here? By what Bill O and seemingly you are implying</> is that at no time is the adult in this case to be blamed, except an initial crime of kiddnapping. A federal crime regardless of what the childrens motives for staying turn out to be!
In time we will hear it out of the kids mouths what they were thinking....... but regardless of what they say.....
The adult in this case is to blame completely! At any time he could have told the boys to leave and go back home, could have called the cops and had them taken home...... unless Bill O and you are saying that he is guilty of kiddnapping, I don't see how this is the kids faults at all!
Of course the blame goes to the adult. But the kids' behavior seems more like a runaway scenario than a classic kidnapping, especially when you factor in the online gaming/bulletin board aspect of the case.
What's happened in this story is that speculation has led to conclusion. The guy's already been convicted. This is classic for American TV, and it's the Right that's been the main perpetrator of this nonsense. For once O'Reilly is being sceptical of 'the Man,' and people freak out about it.
Let me tell you what I've learned so far in life: don't always believe authority figures, and don't always believe what you see on TV.
Maybe
...if the yellow puss that you find in spiders would ooze out or if thousands of cockroaches would scurry out. Some might assert that he's filled with bones and muscle, but I'll never believe it.
I can only assume Bill is upset to be finding out on the airwaves that his partner was holding out on him.
O'Reilly is here to stay, and that's a good thing. Someone needs to hold the left wing media responsible for their propaganda.
- The truth detector / Wednesday January 17, 2007 06:55:46 PM EST
I seriously pulled a LOL and I rarely do that reading comments. Truth, I suggest you take yourself in for a tune up if you think O'Reilly is a watchdog for anything other than his self interests and Middle Eastern food-related sexual fantasies.
Rational, intelligent people don't think so.
I guess this means that O'Reilly went to the Billy Frist school of remote diagnosis.
And "Truth Detector"... Falafel-boy's high ratings just means he taps a large market of paranoid, basement dwelling cheeto-huffers who would believe that the sky was falling if he told them so, it's doesn't mean that he's all that honest or credible.
Bill O'Reilly is to journalism what boy-bands and Britney Spears were to pop-music... well marketed proof that in some cases you actually CAN polish a turd to someone's liking. However, unlike O'Reilly's audience, at least the kids tend to eventually outgrow the mindlessness of it.
Bill O' was kidnapped as a child. After two(2) hectic minutes of searching, his family gave up. Much to the family's chagrin, he return within three(3) minutes. From this, Bill O' has gained the knowledge and insight as to how this thought and felt. Bill, the MOTHERSHIP IS CALLING....please board it soon and fly away.
"Also, are you saying that the media doesn't tilt left at all? After all, about 80% of journalists are registered Democrats."
As Media Matters has extensively documented, the main-stream-media has a right-wing bias.
The claim about the 80% is a misrepresentation, the majority of newspersons are moderates.
But even if the 80% were true, it would be irrelevant because the relevant question is who controls the media and makes the policy decisions.
Virtually all of the MSM are owned by a small number of corporate conglomorates whose executives are Republicans and who have a strong economic interest in keeping the Republicans in power because their economic policies greatly enrich them.
Virtully all the talking heads on cable, except Olberman, are right-wing screamers.
Can someone, anyone kidnap Bill and please, please keep him for the next 30 years. By then I know for sure that my sight and hearing will be gone.
Wow. Just Wow. Ok, Let's just say Bill's sons get kidnapped and they don't escape. They just listen to this strange man say to them, "If you leave or try to escape, I will go kill your parents, your siblings and your pets." Bill will blame the kids for not trying to escape, for wanting to slack from school. This is one sick creep, this Bill-O. Creepy, man.
We gotta make room for the well-researched, highly analyzed, flawless theory of the O'Reilly Syndrome.
O'Lielly believes he's an expert on everything, so he believes he has expertise on this subject and, being the pervert he is, he, like Devlin, would justify themselves by claiming the victim "enjoyed it". It's sickening that this repugnant maniac is permitted to broadcast his b.s. and those who agree with him are equally sick. Same goes with his employers who get rich off him. Sick, sick, sick.
The reason that Bill-O is so skeptical over this kidnapping is that the victim isn't a blonde white girl. He's probably disappointed.
I'm looking forward to seeing O'Reilly on Colbert tonight. I hope Stephen really "nails" him, which shouldn't be too hard.
His whole body of evidence that "this kid didn't like school"? The kid has piercings in his face.
That's all you need to know about Bill O.
so he can not beleive that the child in this case wouldn't enjoy being with this man instead of his family, and that it was all fun and games. This isn't about being skeptical at all. Bill O'Reilly lies daily for "the man" and has no problem doing so. And he is in fact paid handsomely to do so. In this case he has the mentality of the sexual predator in fantasizing that the boy preferred being in this situation. This is sick, twisted thinking and the small shreds of evidence that we know so far are too small to draw any conclusion except the rational one - that this CHILD was abducted and a large adult MAN was in control of the situation. The CHILD was not nor is ever in control of this type of situation. And any so called adult on this board who wants to say otherwise needs a good calling out for you are sick and twisted as well.
He's just looking out for YOU. He stalks and haunts, and terrorizes activist judges who let sex offenders off with light sentences.
Of course he NEVER goes after a judge who unfairly throws the book at people for something like Marijuana possession, but that's beside the point...he's looking out for YOU.
Awful and horrible. O Reilly has re-victimized a victimzed child. As Keith Olbermann said, it "reeks of perversity and a lack of humanity." Child rape is apparently looked upon as a small price to pay for not going to school in the No Spin Zone. The fact that he opines the child had fun is evidence of O's unfitness for his position. Consummate cruelty from a great hypocrite.
The assertion that a child would prefer being sexually assaulted and not going to school over living with his family and going to school is ridiculous. O'Reilly has to be in full Olbermann panic mode to blast some poor kid who's been traumatized more than any of us will probably ever know. Anyone who would entertain such angry and mean-spirited thoughts should seek professional help.
It's a sad that we devote so much attention to such an arrogant blowhard. O'Reilly speaks volumes about how intellectually challenged people are these days, and how easy it is for a pompous buffoon to steer us away from what we know is acceptable discourse. As a whole, Americans are not extremely intelligent and that's O'Reilly's demographic right there. Since his ratings are shrinking, it seems even fools can only take so much.
Okay, Bill, I was raised in a home where my Stepfather molested me every day for over 10 years. He threatened to kill my Mom every other time he touched me for years. He would strangle and smother me to the point that I would black out, so of course I believed he would kill me as well. My Mom worked full time and went to college full time to make better lives for us, so she was gone constantly, but it was for the family and I understood. My Stepfather hid things well as did I because I wanted my Mom to be happy above everything else in this world. My way out of the situation alive was to be a normal kid, make straight A's so I had options when I graduated high school. The thing that kept me going was hope all those years, and faith that it was going to get better, and it did. I graduated in 3 years with a 4.0 and got a degree, served in the Marine Corps, and though it has taken years of counselling, I am doing just fine. But for those years of hell, I did whatever it took to keep my Mom and Brother happy, and to keep them from harm, you have no right to judge what a kid will do in that situation, you cannot put yourself there, so shut up., stop judging this kid when you have not been there, and for anyone that has not been sexually abused, you cannot even guess what it feels like, so do not judge. This kid was just doing what it took to survive just as I did.
Bill,
There is widespread coverage of "stranger danger" regarding sexual abuse but little coverage of sexual abuse in the home by a male authority figure.
The majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by a male authority figure, i.e. a father, step-father, boy friend, uncle, rather than by an abduction by a stranger who then will commit sexual abuse against the victim.
It seems if we are to protect our children, parents should not only carefully teach "stranger danger" but also respect for their bodies and no one including family members are to breach that respect and if one attempts to do so how can the child disrupt the event. More importantly how can a child not only disrupt, but also avoid and obtain assistance from other adults when one who is loved and trusted tries to abuse them.
Also, why does the public rarely hear about the fact that many child abusers were abused as children? This seems to be cyclical. How is the cycle broken?
"All right, you know, the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it."
Right. Because Bill is a licensed psychologist who has dealt extensively with this issue.
It is tremendously irresponsible of him to make hurtful statements like this about the VICTIM of a crime. I don't care if you don't understand how someone could be in this situation and not leave or try to get help. The fact is that learned helplessness is a legitimate psychological condition. He can say that he doesn't believe it but that doesn't make it any less valid. Bill should learn not to make judgmental statements about things which he obviously knows nothing about.