Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010
COMMENTARY We, the public, aren’t owed all the answers of the Schnackenberg case
By MIKE HENDRICKS
The Kansas City Star
By MIKE HENDRICKS
The Kansas City Star
Print
E-Mail
AIM
ReprintJust like you, I’m dying to know the whole story of how Larry Schnackenberg survived these last three weeks.
Did he eat roots and berries? How many ticks were attached to him?
But are you and I owed the juicy details, as well as an explanation of why he wandered off in the first place?
No, I don’t think so.
You’re free in this country to simply disappear.
As long as we can be sure that no crime was committed, that it wasn’t some hoax — and the cops seem pretty relaxed about that — then the backstory of Schnackenberg’s disappearance and homecoming is none of our business.
Judging by the comments appended to the stories posted on the Web by various news organizations, a chunk of the Kansas City public disagrees.
Once inside, none of us enjoys being cut out of the information loop. After all, weren’t we asked to help find the 58-year-old Lenexa man who — poof — vanished only days before his daughter’s wedding?
I live in JoCo. You couldn’t visit a supermarket, gas station or hardware store in Johnson County this July without seeing one of the missing-person fliers, Schnackenberg’s smiling face staring out at you.
How is it that some regular family guy disappears for 20 days, is feared dead and suddenly reappears without any explanation?
A good question. But what purpose does the answer serve other than to satisfy curiosity? It’s nothing we need to know.
Oh, how we love to judge. It’s become something of a sport in this age of reality shows and cable news network crime dramas.
Someone crashes his car into a tree at 1 in the morning, and an army of anonymous commenters quickly pass judgment based on sketchy evidence.
Or based on a snippet of videotape, a USDA worker is condemned as a racist, when in fact the full facts proved otherwise.
With only sketchy information, people already are judging Larry Schnackenberg. Why should the family provide more to have it used against them?
I do think, however, that authorities owe the rest us an explanation after reviewing their own procedures. And I’d like an answer from those search dogs. Why were they unable to locate a middle-aged man who never was more than a few miles away from where his SUV was found on July 8?
There’s probably an acceptable answer. But being a middle-aged man myself, I’d like to think missing-person procedures are up to snuff should I turn up missing one day, not saying I’m thinking about it.
In time, the Schnackenbergs may choose to tell their story. If not, let’s respect that.
After all, we all have private lives and stories we’d like to keep to ourselves.