minorkeys

To further that point, it's guaranteed that what was normal, isn't, anymore. Some things are, much isn't. For example, few men, relatively, know how to hunt anymore or would be willing or able to kill an animal. Becoming able to do that has wide ranging impacts on who they are. This used to be normal. If we accept that the environment shapes us then when it changes, so do we, and with that, what is considered normal, shifts.

Respect the self control.

There are plenty of missing children, of all kinds of ages that went missing at all kind of times. So yes, they could have been. What was known of the situation more than justified taking some kind of action on behalf of the children, incase they were not hers.

One incident does not prove another.

We can't know whether the prevalence rates have changed or by how much an dita foolish to assume it's only because of better awareness. The world we exist tin has changed immensely and we are subject to to the affects of those changes.

Do you think the children of the killed people would have moved on anymore than those descendants have today?

If the state has good reason to believe someone had abducted children, I would want them to intervene, would you not?

Nobody knows the limit of their tools until those limits are known. Where did you decide they thought they were infallible? They followed the law they have, as is their job. Justice is not perfect, we don't have all the answers, jumping to such vicious conclusions speaks more about you than them. The entire incident, and her successful appeal after further investigation, was like a year. Nobody threw the woman into prison for a decade or something. Seriously, people are so reactionary.

If modern cars weren't filled with tracking and surveillance equipment that empowers a foreign, not so friendly, state, then it wouldn't be such a concern.

It not a about the money, it's about the power.

I've been sincere in my questions so you seeing bad faith is a you thing, maybe reflect on that.