"Caylee's Law"

[awake]

Here come's the mob to save the day, pitchforks, torches and boundless stupidity... (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-crime-anthony-idUSTRE7620Y720110708)

[aGameOfThrones]

"We must provide steeper penalties where a caretaker ... intentionally misleads or impedes law enforcement during an investigation involving his or her child," Plakon said.


Never talk to the police?

[Anti Federalist]

Never talk to the police?

Now, more than ever.

That's the only thing this woman is being charged with.

Why is more law needed?

[roho76]

You must inform them immediately so you can wait 24 hours for the police to declare the child missing?

[tropicangela]

If Casey said that she knew Caylee had drowned, then this law would be meaningless in her case. Caylee had never gone missing according to Casey's version.

[Brian4Liberty]

(Reuters) - Following the highly publicized Casey Anthony verdict, a handful of Florida state lawmakers have proposed that it be a felony if parents do not inform law enforcement of a missing

Gee, what would happen to those parents in the "Home Alone" movies?

[Brian4Liberty]

Now, more than ever.

That's the only thing this woman is being charged with.

Why is more law needed?

Well, it's the only thing they convicted her of...

Kind of like going after Al Capone for tax evasion? ;)

[Anti Federalist]

Gee, what would happen to those parents in the "Home Alone" movies?

They did call the cops, remember?

The cops ignored the mother and gave her the runaround.

[Brian4Liberty]

They did call the cops, remember?

The cops ignored the mother and gave her the runaround.

Of course. Hopefully she made the deadline. What is the penalty if she misses it by an hour? 10 years in prison?

[RCA]

Ironically, one of the "liberty-minded" Florida House reps is the one who is taking up Caylee's Law. This is why a State shouldn't exist. Not even liberty assholes can be trusted.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/07/2304162/lawmakers-push-for-caylees-law.html

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4430

[Feeding the Abscess]

Goons. The lot of them.

[GunnyFreedom]

this isn't coming from the legislators. My inbox is getting overwhelmed by people asking for this law. It's coming from some big advocacy group change.org that regularly blows up our inbox telling their members to write legislators and demand the law.


Create Caylee's Law, Not Reporting Child's Death Should Be a Felony

Rep. Glen Bradley
Legislative Office Building, Room 536
300 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh NC 27603

Greetings,

On July 5, 2011, at 1:15 pm CST, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first degree murder in the death of her daughter Caylee Anthony. The only charges she now faces are four counts of falsifying police reports, each of which only carries a 1 year prison term. Since she has been in jail since August 2008, she will be out of jail ENTIRELY too soon.

I'm writing to propose that a new law be put into effect making it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the death of their child, accidental or otherwise, within 1 hour of said death being discovered. This way there will be no more cases like Casey Anthony's in the courts, and no more innocent children will have to go without justice.

Also, make it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within 24 hours, so proper steps can be taken to find that child before it's too late.

The case of Caylee Anthony was tragic, and there is no reason for another case like this one to hit the courts. Let's do what is necessary to prevent another case like this from happening.


Note: this email was sent as part of a petition started on Change.org, viewable at www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law.
To respond, email responses@change.org and include a link to this petition.

(Constituent name & address redacted)

[RCA]

I said he "is the one who is taking up Caylee's Law" in Florida. What difference does it make where it comes from? I knew some other people were pushing it.

[GunnyFreedom]

I said he "is the one who is taking up Caylee's Law" in Florida. What difference does it make where it comes from? I knew some other people were pushing it.

Sorry. I'll stop explaining where ths crap is coming from if it's so offensive for me to do so.

[RCA]

Sorry. I'll stop explaining where ths crap is coming from if it's so offensive for me to do so.

Not a big deal. I thought you were trying to take blame off of the representative by doing so.

[tropicangela]

Ironically, one of the "liberty-minded" Florida House reps is the one who is taking up Caylee's Law. This is why a State shouldn't exist. Not even liberty assholes can be trusted.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/07/2304162/lawmakers-push-for-caylees-law.html

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4430

punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) For a felony of the second degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years;

[GunnyFreedom]

Not a big deal. I thought you were trying to take blame off of the representative by doing so.

Um, no. If anything it's even worse that he's getting led around by the nose by some special interest group, I posted mostly so you'd know that you should expect to see ths law getting introduced all over the country. It's coming from the masses as directed by a special interest, and reflects a kneejerk reaction.

[RCA]

Here's what I don't understand. What makes this case any more important than any other similar case that happens every year? I understand why the O.J. trial received the coverage it did because he was a celebrity.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Attractive white woman with a nice rack, attractive toddler girl.

That's your answer.

[GunnyFreedom]

Attractive white woman with a nice rack, attractive toddler girl.

That's your answer.

Same reason why emotional appeals work in politics and logic doesn't

[ProIndividual]

hundreds of people die a day from a violent death in the U.S.

We have to realize...this was never news, it was entertainment (like gladiators during Roman times; sick entertainment).

Not every tragedy is news. Thousands of murders happened over the time this case wore on...why focus on it?

Why aren't we having impeachment hearings for Obama because of Libya? That's news.


Tragedies, no matter how disturbing, are not news. They're distractions.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's what I don't understand. What makes this case any more important than any other similar case that happens every year? I understand why the O.J. trial received the coverage it did because he was a celebrity.

When it involves mundanes and no political agenda, it's probably random chance. Depends on how unusual and emotional the story is. Once it hits critical mass with the media, they keep it rolling.

[SimpleName]

The "Caylees law" petition I saw was about only about informing the police of a missing child, but didn't state a time period or any details. 24 hours is absolutely not a reasonable amount whatsoever. Any number of things could force someone to not report within 24 hours. But if you are to go 2 weeks, perfectly out in the open, free of coercion, I don't see why this wouldn't make sense. The idea of it being a federal law is unconstitutional no matter what, but a state level law is reasonable in my opinion. This does not force any searches or seizures. Nobody is barging in on your privacy. Nobody is stopping you from looking for the child yourself. And nobody is forcing you to look for the kid. You simply have to inform somebody.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The "Caylees law" petition I saw was about only about informing the police of a missing child, but didn't state a time period or any details. 24 hours is absolutely not a reasonable amount whatsoever. Any number of things could force someone to not report within 24 hours. But if you are to go 2 weeks, perfectly out in the open, free of coercion, I don't see why this wouldn't make sense. The idea of it being a federal law is unconstitutional no matter what, but a state level law is reasonable in my opinion. This does not force any searches or seizures. Nobody is barging in on your privacy. Nobody is stopping you from looking for the child yourself. And nobody is forcing you to look for the kid. You simply have to inform somebody.

Kidnapper to parents: We want 50K or we kill the kid, if you tell the cops - we kill the kid. Yeah, really reasonable....

I'm amazed people are backing this law. What does it really say? THE GOVERNMENT OWNS YOUR BODY! It used to be common for kids and other family members to pass away for various reasons and you would just bury them on your property in the family plot. There was no reason for the government to get involved. Now it's illegal to bury family members (and sometimes even pets) on your own property, sometimes the state seizes the body and chops it up to determine cause of death, then you are forced to halve it embalmed - even if you are cremated, and charged out the nose for the privilege of having a "legal" burial.

This should be a private matter and if you want the cops involved, that's your choice - not a felony.

-t

[tropicangela]

The text of the proposed Florida bill (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0037__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0037&Session=2012) says "in certain circumstances" a few times. What are the circumstances?


An act relating to offenses by caregivers of minor
3 children; providing a short title; creating s. 827.10,
4 F.S.; penalizing the failure of a caregiver, willfully
5 or by culpable negligence, to make contact with a
6 child under a specified age in his or her care for a
7 certain period and to immediately report the child as
8 missing to law enforcement after that period expires
9 without contact in certain circumstances; providing
10 criminal penalties; providing enhanced criminal
11 penalties in certain circumstances; creating s.
12 827.11, F.S.; requiring the caregiver of a minor child
13 to report the child's death to a law enforcement
14 agency within a specified period in certain
15 circumstances

[tropicangela]

I've seen people argue that the State of FL could have charged her for being negligent using existing laws, but it chose to go after capital murder instead. Anyone knowledgeable on that?

[AbVag]

The media sets them up, the government knocks them down. And you thought corporatism was strictly an economic thing.

[acptulsa]

I think the quote needs to be expanded a bit.

Totalitarianism will come wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross, and wearing the name of a dead little girl.

[HOLLYWOOD]

this isn't coming from the legislators. My inbox is getting overwhelmed by people asking for this law. It's coming from some big advocacy group change.org that regularly blows up our inbox telling their members to write legislators and demand the law.Yeah... 40 year old kids with hammers.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yep, as predicted, here we go:

http://www.gastongazette.com/news/caylee-58923-local-anthony.html

The comments at least are encouraging.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Now, more than ever.

That's the only thing this woman is being charged with.

It wasn't the only thing she was charged with, it was the only things she was convicted of.

The four counts of lying to police Anthony was convicted of:


Count four - Casey Anthony told law enforcement officials that during 2008 she was employed at Universal Studios. This information was given during an investigation of a missing persons report.

Count five - Ms Anthony informed authorities that she had left Caylee at the Sawgrass Apts with a babysitter causing law enforcement to pursue the missing babysitter.

Count Six - Ms Anthony told law enforcement that she informed two associate employees, Jeff Hopkins and Juliet Lewis of the disappearace of Caylee.

Count Seven - Ms Anthony told law enforcement that she had received a call actually spoke to Caylee on July 15, 2008 at approximately 12 p.m., causing law enforcement to expend resources on this lie.

That babysitter in count five is now suing Anthony for slander. I would too if police came after me for some lie told by a desperate murderer.

As for "Caylee's Law": it's a bill to try and force parents of missing children to report it sooner. It's knee-jerk, but Anthony set around for frickin' 31 days while her 2-year-old child was missing and said nothing to anyone. That's not acceptable.

[GunnyFreedom]

It wasn't the only thing she was charged with, it was the only things she was convicted of.

The four counts of lying to police Anthony was convicted of:



That babysitter in count five is now suing Anthony for slander. I would too if police came after me for some lie told by a desperate murderer.

As for "Caylee's Law": it's a bill to try and force parents of missing children to report it sooner. It's knee-jerk, but Anthony set around for frickin' 31 days while her 2-year-old child was missing and said nothing to anyone. That's not acceptable.

But would this law have changed that?

[acptulsa]

But would this law have changed that?

Fair question. I suppose it would have ensured that she got convicted of something even if she had stood on the Fifth Amendment. But to put it simply, competent investigation and competent prosecution would be needed to enforce this law as well.

Seems to me this law is just clogging up the books with silliness.

[tropicangela]

But would this law have changed that?

Susan Smith drove her kids into a lake and called to report them missing right away. Didn't change the outcome.

[tropicangela]

The official charges against her were:

First-degree murder
Aggravated child abuse
Aggravated manslaughter of a child
4 counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer

The state could have gotten her on neglect but chose aggravated child abuse per FL statute:

827.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.

(1) “Child abuse” means:

(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;

(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or

(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.

A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) “Aggravated child abuse” occurs when a person:

(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;

(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or

(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.

A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3)(a) “Neglect of a child” means:

1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or

2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) For purposes of this section, “maliciously” means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse. Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury.

History. s. 1, ch. 4721, 1899; s. 1, ch. 4971, 1901; GS 3236, 3238; RGS 5069, 5071; s. 1, ch. 9331, 1923; CGL 7171, 7173; s. 1, ch. 65-113; s. 1, ch. 70-8; s. 940, ch. 71-136; s. 49, ch. 74-383; s. 30, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 84-238; s. 8, ch. 96-322; s. 16, ch. 99-168; s. 1, ch. 2003-130.

Note. Former s. 828.04.

http://statutes.laws.com/florida/TitleXLVI/chapter827/827_03

[RonPaulFanInGA]

But would this law have changed that?

Changed what she did? Almost certainly not. But at least if it already existed in Florida, Anthony wouldn't be getting out of jail next week.

[acptulsa]

Nice find, Angela. Clearly she wouldn't have escaped that charge. But, thanks to the negligence of the prosecution team, she has escaped under the prohibition against double jeapordy.

With this law on the books, this so-called 'Caylee's Law' is purely redundant. No law can save us from a D.A. who can't figure out which crime to charge a person with.

[affa]

Changed what she did? Almost certainly not. But at least if it already existed in Florida, Anthony wouldn't be getting out of jail next week.

she was found not guilty for the severest of the crimes she was accused of. that's why she's getting out of jail after several -years- of being in jail for being accused of something.

stop trying to make up new reasons to keep someone in jail that was found not guilty. That kind of thinking, taken to it's conclusion, requires thousands upon thousands of laws that are enforceable in any situation that can be used to 'guarantee' a media-friendly amount of jail time... just in case you're, you know, found not guilty of the actual crime you're accused of.

[acptulsa]

stop trying to make up new reasons to keep someone in jail that was found not guilty. That kind of thinking, taken to it's conclusion, requires thousands upon thousands of laws that are enforceable in any situation that can be used to 'guarantee' a media-friendly amount of jail time... just in case you're, you know, found not guilty of the actual crime you're accused of.

This law is trying to fix an incompetent prosecution team with a band-aid. It's some opportunistic politicians saying, hey, look at me, I'm going to fix this. It's one more bit of string in a tangle so oppressive that it soon really will be impossible to walk down the street without violating a law or two.

If I were more conspiracy minded, I'd say the D.A. was told to overreach in this case just so they'd have an excuse to pass a few more goofy assed laws.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

that's why she's getting out of jail after several -years- of being in jail for being accused of something.

She got sentenced to four years in prison and is getting out early for good behavior. So don't pretend she was acquitted of all charges and she's lost years of her life for nothing. That BS ain't going to fly.

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems to me this law is just clogging up the books with silliness.

Yep.

New law proposal: You are required to tell Police within 24 hours after you commit a crime. :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

Changed what she did? Almost certainly not. But at least if it already existed in Florida, Anthony wouldn't be getting out of jail next week.

And if the prosecution had done their job, she wouldn't be getting out of jail next decade. The problem is not that we don't have enough laws, the problem is prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves and land on the front page above the fold.

[Brett85]

This certainly sounds like a great law. Hopefully the government will once again start protecting innocent human life.

[AGRP]

Lets make it mandatory to hand all of our babies directly to the state upon their birth.

[Brett85]

Lets make it mandatory to hand all of our babies directly to the state upon their birth.

Judging from this thread, it seems as though most here would like to abolish the state all together.

[affa]

She got sentenced to four years in prison and is getting out early for good behavior. So don't pretend she was acquitted of all charges and she's lost years of her life for nothing. That BS ain't going to fly.

i'm not pretending anything. she's done the time for the charges she was found guilty of. you are suggesting laws that would theoretically add time to her sentence because she's not doing time for charges she was found not guilty of. that's an extremely dangerous way of thinking, for the reasons you didn't quote/address in my last message.

to reiterate -- with that line of reasoning, whenever we don't like the fact that someone is found innocent, we simply add more laws/charges until we get the prison sentence we want. it's an absurd way to go about it. she'd be doing more time if she was found guilty of murder. she wasn't. she was found not guilty. therefore, she's doing (done) time for the charges she actually was found guilty of.

[Contumacious]

Here come's the mob to save the day, pitchforks, torches and boundless stupidity... (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-crime-anthony-idUSTRE7620Y720110708)

And don't you forget that the children are property of the state.

.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Lets make it mandatory to hand all of our babies directly to the state upon their birth.

What a great idea! - think of how much easier that would be than having CPS kidnap children and stealing them via the legal system!


with that line of reasoning, whenever we don't like the fact that someone is found innocent, we simply add more laws/charges until we get the prison sentence we want. it's an absurd way to go about it. she'd be doing more time if she was found guilty of murder. she wasn't. she was found not guilty. therefore, she's doing (done) time for the charges she actually was found guilty of.

You know - I think you are rally onto something here. Hell, why don't we just rendition people and toss them in corporate private prisons to work as sweat shop workers for arbitrary amounts of times. Think of all the money we would save just on the legal system! We could get the Federal debt payed off in no time!

BRILLIANT!

:rolleyes:

-t

[GunnyFreedom]

This certainly sounds like a great law. Hopefully the government will once again start protecting innocent human life.

My God, all we need are a few more unexpected but well planned 'not guilty' verdicts, and hitlarian totalitarianism will be within our grasp...

[Brett85]

My God, all we need are a few more unexpected but well planned 'not guilty' verdicts, and hitlarian totalitarianism will be within our grasp...

Can you explain your position that parents should be allowed to abandon their children?

[GunnyFreedom]

Can you explain your position that parents should be allowed to abandon their children?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[GunnyFreedom]

Can you explain your position that parents should be allowed to abandon their children?

Assuming that you will be either unwilling or unable to address the blatant fallacy in your accusation, which fallacy I demonstrated in the prior post, I will take a different tact.

Can you name a single state in America in which child abandonment is not already a crime?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Can you name a single state in America in which child abandonment is not already a crime?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html


Nebraska's "Safe Haven" Law Allows Parents To Abandon Unwanted Children

OMAHA, Neb. — Nebraska's new "safe-haven" law allowing parents to abandon unwanted children at hospitals with no questions asked is unique in a significant way: It goes beyond babies and potentially permits the abandonment of anyone under 19.

While lawmakers may not have intended it, the month-old law raises the possibility that frustrated parents could drop off misbehaving teens or even severely disabled older children with impunity.

"Whether the kid is disabled or unruly or just being a hormonal teenager, the state is saying: 'Hey, we have a really easy option for you,'" said Adam Pertman, executive director of a New York adoption institute and a frequent critic of safe-haven laws.

Nebraska's approach is surprising because it is the last state in the nation to adopt a safe-haven law.

But instead of following the lead of other states, which focus on the abandonment of newborns, lawmakers here wanted to extend the protection to all minors. And in Nebraska, that goes all the way up to age 19.

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html


Nebraska's "Safe Haven" Law Allows Parents To Abandon Unwanted Children

OMAHA, Neb. — Nebraska's new "safe-haven" law allowing parents to abandon unwanted children at hospitals with no questions asked is unique in a significant way: It goes beyond babies and potentially permits the abandonment of anyone under 19.

While lawmakers may not have intended it, the month-old law raises the possibility that frustrated parents could drop off misbehaving teens or even severely disabled older children with impunity.

"Whether the kid is disabled or unruly or just being a hormonal teenager, the state is saying: 'Hey, we have a really easy option for you,'" said Adam Pertman, executive director of a New York adoption institute and a frequent critic of safe-haven laws.

Nebraska's approach is surprising because it is the last state in the nation to adopt a safe-haven law.

But instead of following the lead of other states, which focus on the abandonment of newborns, lawmakers here wanted to extend the protection to all minors. And in Nebraska, that goes all the way up to age 19.

OK so there is one state tht lets you give children other than newborns to the state, but leaving them in a 'safe haven' does not really qualify as abandonment according to the usage implied by TraditionalConservative. I am sure that even in Nebraska with this law in place, simple abandonment WITHOUT leaving them at the 'safe haven' (ie in the care of a responsible adult) is still illegal.

[Brett85]

Can you name a single state in America in which child abandonment is not already a crime?

Florida. Can you name a single reason why parents shouldn't have to report their child's disappearance to the police within 48 hours? Also, can you explain why protecting the lives and liberty of children isn't an essential function of government?

[GunnyFreedom]

Florida. Can you name a single reason why parents shouldn't have to report their child's disappearance to the police within 48 hours? Also, can you explain why protecting the lives and liberty of children isn't an essential function of government?

Title V Chapter 39 Florida Statutes. Try again. Try showing a little integrity this time and maybe I'll answer your question.

[Brett85]

Title V Chapter 39 Florida Statutes. Try again. Try showing a little integrity this time and maybe I'll answer your question.

That statute didn't provide any protection for Caylee.

[GunnyFreedom]

That statute didn't provide any protection for Caylee. What you and others are now advocating is anarchy, not libertarianism.

Again, the prosecutor failed to do their job. If they had, Casey would be in prison for 25 to life. Every time a prosecutor fails to do their job we need a new law?

[GunnyFreedom]

That statute didn't provide any protection for Caylee. I asked you a simple question that you can't answer. Have fun being the only state legislator in the country to vote against this common sense law.

And I haven't answered your question because I don't reward demonstrations of emotion devoid of integrity.

What Casey did is already illegal. Had the prosecution done their job, Casey would be in prison for a long, long time. I will always do what it right even when overly-emotional nanny staters insist on doing what is wrong.

[Brett85]

Again, the prosecutor failed to do their job. If they had, Casey would be in prison for 25 to life. Every time a prosecutor fails to do their job we need a new law?

The prosecuter didn't present the case as well as they should've, but I still think there was more than enough evidence to convict her. But why in the world should it not be a crime to wait 31 days to inform the police that your child was missing? That's a form of child abuse that should be punishable by law. I will concede that the 48 hour timeline is debatable. It should perhaps be pushed back to 72 hours or possibly a week. But the general idea of the law is still a great idea. Parents shouldn't be allowed to not report their missing child after a certain amount of time has passed.

[Brett85]

And I haven't answered your question because I don't reward demonstrations of emotion devoid of integrity.

What Casey did is already illegal. Had the prosecution done their job, Casey would be in prison for a long, long time. I will always do what it right even when overly-emotional nanny staters insist on doing what is wrong.

Wow. I'm now a nanny stater because I think that protecting children is a legitimate role for the state government to take.

[GunnyFreedom]

The prosecuter didn't present the case as well as they should've, but I still think there was more than enough evidence to convict her. But why in the world should it not be a crime to wait 31 days to inform the police that your child was missing? That's a form of child abuse that should be punishable by law. I will concede that the 48 hour timeline is debatable. It should perhaps be pushed back to 72 hours or possibly a week. But the general idea of the law is still a great idea. Parents shouldn't be allowed to not report their missing child after a certain amount of time has passed.

What about wealthy parents with far more resources who are convinced that they are better equipped to find their child than the police, and who believe that police involvement will make it less likely their child will be recovered safely?

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow. I'm now a nanny stater because I think that protecting children is a legitimate role for the state government to take.

No, you are a nanny stater because you are allowing an overly emotional kneejerk reaction to lead to demands to creat new and redundant laws "for the children." That's pretty much the dictionary definition of a nanny stater.

[Brett85]

What about wealthy parents with far more resources who are convinced that they are better equipped to find their child than the police, and who believe that police involvement will make it less likely their child will be recovered safely?

If the parents and the police attempted to find their child, there would be double the chance that the child would be found. There's never a scenario when parents shouldn't contact the police if their child has disappeared.

[Brett85]

No, you are a nanny stater because you are allowing an overly emotional kneejerk reaction to lead to demands to creat new and redundant laws "for the children." That's pretty much the dictionary definition of a nanny stater.

It's not a knee jerk reaction. It's just the fact that I believe the government has a legitimate role to play in protecting the lives and liberties of children. You believe that the government's role should be to simply disappear.

[GunnyFreedom]

If the parents and the police attempted to find their child, there would be double the chance that the child would be found. There's never a scenario when parents shouldn't contact the police if their child has disappeared.

Police are growing more incompetant by the month, and once they are involved, nobody else is allowed to try.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not a knee jerk reaction. It's just the fact that I believe the government has a legitimate role to play in protecting the lives and liberties of children. You believe that the government's role should be to simply disappear.

I really hate dishonest people. Stop telling me what I believe. You should go to God and seek forgiveness for lying about me.

[Brett85]

I really hate dishonest people. Stop telling me what I believe. You should go to God and seek forgiveness for lying about me.

Fine. If you say you're not an anarchist, then I have to believe you. I apologize for making an incorrect claim. But I wish you would reconsider your position on this issue. There's no reason why parents should be allowed to go 31 days without telling the police that their child is missing. This shouldn't really even be a controversial issue.

[GunnyFreedom]

Fine. If you say you're not an anarchist, then I have to believe you. I apologize for making an incorrect claim. But I wish you would reconsider your position on this issue. There's no reason why parents should be allowed to go 31 days without telling the police that their child is missing. This shouldn't really even be a controversial issue.

The question boils down to whether people are sovereign, or whether we are subjects. If we are sovereign, then we are free to use our own abilities and resources to vouchsafe our families. If we are subjects, then we can go to prison for trying to protect our children in the manner we believe best.

I personally believe that calling the police about a missing child is the best way to ensure the child's death. Therefore, if I want the child to survive, I will move heaven and earth to find them myself without the police.

Given my experience, calling the police to find a missing child is akin to murder. Therefore this law is like making it illegal to not murder a child.

I don't trust the police. Too often a concerned parent calls the police and their child ends up dead by a police bullet. You would throw a parent in jail because they want their child to live and not to die?

You are in a distinct minority here. Look at the commenters on the news article I posted in this thread. Even 'ordinary' people think this law is a massive overreach.

[affa]

If the parents and the police attempted to find their child, there would be double the chance that the child would be found. There's never a scenario when parents shouldn't contact the police if their child has disappeared.

How about the classic "do not contact the police or we will kill your child"? You're saying YOU (as in, the state) should decide that terrible, terrible question for all others, in all circumstances?

And your time limit of 48, or 72 hours is arbitrary. What about 40 days... wouldn't have mattered in Caylee's case. And what about the next Jane Doe in which it was 47 hours... people will be saying 48/72 is far too long, and it needs to be 24.

What if your kid goes camping for a long weekend? Does the timer begin when they go missing? Or when you realize they go missing?

Murdering your child, abandoning your child, these things are already illegal.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The question boils down to whether people are sovereign, or whether we are subjects. If we are sovereign, then we are free to use our own abilities and resources to vouchsafe our families. If we are subjects, then we can go to prison for trying to protect our children in the manner we believe best.

I personally believe that calling the police about a missing child is the best way to ensure the child's death. Therefore, if I want the child to survive, I will move heaven and earth to find them myself without the police.

Given my experience, calling the police to find a missing child is akin to murder. Therefore this law is like making it illegal to not murder a child.

I don't trust the police. Too often a concerned parent calls the police and their child ends up dead by a police bullet. You would throw a parent in jail because they want their child to live and not to die?

You are in a distinct minority here. Look at the commenters on the news article I posted in this thread. Even 'ordinary' people think this law is a massive overreach.

Great reply!
+rep

[tangent4ronpaul]

How about the classic "do not contact the police or we will kill your child"? You're saying YOU (as in, the state) should decide that terrible, terrible question for all others, in all circumstances?

And your time limit of 48, or 72 hours is arbitrary. What about 40 days... wouldn't have mattered in Caylee's case. And what about the next Jane Doe in which it was 47 hours... people will be saying 48/72 is far too long, and it needs to be 24.

What if your kid goes camping for a long weekend? Does the timer begin when they go missing? Or when you realize they go missing?

Murdering your child, abandoning your child, these things are already illegal.

Great reply!
+rep!

[mrsat_98]

Florida. Can you name a single reason why parents shouldn't have to report their child's disappearance to the police within 48 hours? Also, can you explain why protecting the lives and liberty of children isn't an essential function of government?

Maybe she killed the little girl and had the right to remain silent. just sayin'

[angelatc]

Florida. Can you name a single reason why parents shouldn't have to report their child's disappearance to the police within 48 hours? Also, can you explain why protecting the lives and liberty of children isn't an essential function of government?

Because American citizens should not be required to check in with the government. Children do not belong to the state.

[Brett85]

Because American citizens should not be required to check in with the government. Children do not belong to the state.

You and many others here are anti government rather than simply anti big government. I'm opposed to the tyrannical federal government that we have now, but our police officers do a great job of serving the public and providing law and order. Now, do they go overboard at times? Yes. Do they wrongly concentrate on going after non violent drug offenders rather than actual criminals? Yes, but that's the fault of our politicians rather than our police officers. Most police officers are still good people who want to protect the American people. It's sad that they get denigrated so often on these forums. There's no reason why a parent shouldn't be required to notify the police if their child has gone missing. This is just common sense.

[BarryDonegan]

The politician who tries to craft a law, just so long as its any law, named after a recent hot issue from the news is the one most dangerous to Liberty.

[GunnyFreedom]

You and many others here are anti government rather than simply anti big government. I'm opposed to the tyrannical federal government that we have now, but our police officers do a great job of serving the public and providing law and order. Now, do they go overboard at times? Yes. Do they wrongly concentrate on going after non violent drug offenders rather than actual criminals? Yes, but that's the fault of our politicians rather than our police officers. Most police officers are still good people who want to protect the American people. It's sad that they get denigrated so often on these forums. There's no reason why a parent shouldn't be required to notify the police if their child has gone missing. This is just common sense.

I really do not comprehend how you connect opposing government ownership of our lives and persons with anarchy. Are there any new laws we are allowed to oppose without being anarchists, or is it only the ones that you, personally like?

[GunnyFreedom]

You and many others here are anti government rather than simply anti big government. I'm opposed to the tyrannical federal government that we have now, but our police officers do a great job of serving the public and providing law and order. Now, do they go overboard at times? Yes. Do they wrongly concentrate on going after non violent drug offenders rather than actual criminals? Yes, but that's the fault of our politicians rather than our police officers. Most police officers are still good people who want to protect the American people. It's sad that they get denigrated so often on these forums. There's no reason why a parent shouldn't be required to notify the police if their child has gone missing. This is just common sense.

It is NOT common sense to assume that government owns the family. If someone wants to recover their child without introducing the deadly danger of police, that should be their right as free and sovereign citizens.

[Brett85]

It is NOT common sense to assume that government owns the family. If someone wants to recover their child without introducing the deadly danger of police, that should be their right as free and sovereign citizens.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you feel that it's necessary to denigrate our police officers? The police are essential to protecting the lives, liberties, and private property rights of the American people.

[Brett85]

I really do not comprehend how you connect opposing government ownership of our lives and persons with anarchy. Are there any new laws we are allowed to oppose without being anarchists, or is it only the ones that you, personally like?

I'm opposed to laws against things like drug use and prostitution, because these are victimless crimes. But allowing your child to go missing without contacting the authorities is not a "victimless crime." It's a crime that endangerours innocent children.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you feel that it's necessary to denigrate our police officers? The police are essential to protecting the lives, liberties, and private property rights of the American people.

This is AMERICA, and we aren't owned by the government. We are supposed to be FREE and SOVEREIGN. I see story after story of people calling the police to help their loved ones, and their loved ones end up dead in a hail of bullets. You are far more likely to die from an encounter with police than from tobacco, vehicular travel, and cancer combined.

When the police arrive on scene, they don't care about you or your child, they care about going home to their wives and kids. If that means they have to kill you if they percieve a threat (no matter how unwarranted) they will.

I myself have been held by police with a gun to the back of m head and an itchy trigger finger for the sole reason that I was in the back seat of my friends Toyota, and somehow got mistaken for a tall bald black teenager on foot. I myself was the victim of a hot and run where someone tried to run me into an abutment at 55mph, and the police didn't care. It's not just stories it's personal experience -- and all tha before I became politically involved.

What is it going to take before you realize that the police are more dangerous than the criminals? And even if you never realize that, why would you force the rest of us at gunpoint to risk our lives by calling them?

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm opposed to laws against things like drug use and prostitution, because these are victimless crimes. But allowing your child to go missing without contacting the authorities is not a "victimless crime." It's a crime that endangerours innocent children.

It's not the government's damn child! What the hell part of 'sovereign and free' do you not comprehend? I would refuse to involve the police because I know that I have a BETTER chance of recovering the child safe and sound by myself without the police, and that the police make it more likely they end up dead. In my mind, the crime is contacting the 'authorities' and thus putting the child at unnecessary risk.

Why should I be forced to place my child in danger of death by gunfire because YOU think the police own my children?

If we care at all about the safety and wellbeing of our children, we will leave the police straight out of it.

[Brett85]

What is it going to take before you realize that the police are more dangerous than the criminals?

That's where I strongly disagree with you, and that's where the anarchist label comes from. I don't disrespect our police officers who are doing their best to serve the American people. That line that you just used is far more dangerous than your opposition to this actual law. I believe that protecting the lives and liberties of children is an essential function of government, which is why I support this law. But judging from your comment above, you essentially support a lawless society.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's where I strongly disagree with you, and that's where the anarchist label comes from. I don't disrespect our police officers who are doing their best to serve the American people. That line that you just used is far more dangerous than your opposition to this actual law. I believe that protecting the lives and liberties of children is an essential function of government, which is why I support this law. But judging from your comment above, you essentially support a lawless society.

Nobody, not the Police or the President of the United States are supposed to be 'masters' over American citizens, and you still need to go to God and seek forgiveness for continuing to try and label me an anarchist. That's pure propaganda and you know it. Because I believe in the Constitution I'm an anarchist? The Constitution doesn't GIVE the government authority to make slaves out of the citizens!

[Brett85]

Nobody, not the Police or the President of the United States are supposed to be 'masters' over American citizens, and you still need to go to God and seek forgiveness for continuing to try and label me an anarchist. That's pure propaganda and you know it. Because I believe in the Constitution I'm an anarchist? The Constitution doesn't GIVE the government authority to make slaves out of the citizens!

When did I ever say that the federal government should be involved in this issue? I was just saying that it would be a good law for the states to pass, and there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids the states from protecting children. Also, how can you not be labeled an anarchist when you don't even support having a police force?

[GunnyFreedom]

That's where I strongly disagree with you, and that's where the anarchist label comes from. I don't disrespect our police officers who are doing their best to serve the American people. That line that you just used is far more dangerous than your opposition to this actual law. I believe that protecting the lives and liberties of children is an essential function of government, which is why I support this law. But judging from your comment above, you essentially support a lawless society.

I despise propagandists, and you sir would do Joeseph Goebbels proud.

I would support a 'lawless society' because I support the Constitution? WTF kinda BS is that?

The Constitution, also known as the supreme law of the land, doesn't give government the authority to treat citizens as slaves, cattle, or property. If ANYBODY is advocating lawlessness, sir, it is YOU.

[GunnyFreedom]

When did I ever say that the federal government should be involved in this issue? I was just saying that it would be a good law for the states to pass, and there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids the states from protecting children. Also, how can you not be labeled an anarchist when you don't even support having a police force?

Slavery is not 'protecting children.'

[GunnyFreedom]

When did I ever say that the federal government should be involved in this issue? I was just saying that it would be a good law for the states to pass, and there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids the states from protecting children. Also, how can you not be labeled an anarchist when you don't even support having a police force?

And where have I ever advocated the position of abolishing the police?

Are you just incapable of telling the truth, or what?

Very little pisses me off more than people lying about what I believe.

[Brett85]

Slavery is not 'protecting children.'

That's ridiculous, and the term "slavery" would be very offensive to those who actually had descendants who were slaves. There probably are valid reasons why some might oppose this law. The main reason may be that it would be hard to enforce, and that would need to be cleared up. But saying that those who support this law support "slavery" is utterly ridiculous. There were other people on this thread who supported the general idea of this law as well. I guess these liberty activists would be very surprised to learn that they support "slavery."

[Anti Federalist]

You and many others here are anti government rather than simply anti big government. I'm opposed to the tyrannical federal government that we have now, but our police officers do a great job of serving the public and providing law and order. Now, do they go overboard at times? Yes. Do they wrongly concentrate on going after non violent drug offenders rather than actual criminals? Yes, but that's the fault of our politicians rather than our police officers. Most police officers are still good people who want to protect the American people. It's sad that they get denigrated so often on these forums. There's no reason why a parent shouldn't be required to notify the police if their child has gone missing. This is just common sense.

Yet another case, from last week, that I missed.

And I miss a lot of them.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302634-FL-Mom-calls-cops-for-help-with-depressed-18-y-o-son-cops-show-up-and-shoot-him-dead.

[Brett85]

And where have I ever advocated the position of abolishing the police?

Are you just incapable of telling the truth, or what?

Very little pisses me off more than people lying about what I believe.

This was your exact quote:

"What is it going to take before you realize that the police are more dangerous than the criminals?"

So you're saying that the police are actually more dangerous than people who murder another human being in cold blood, but yet you don't want to abolish this dangerous institution? How much sense does that make?

[Anti Federalist]

You and many others here are anti government rather than simply anti big government. I'm opposed to the tyrannical federal government that we have now, but our police officers do a great job of serving the public and providing law and order. Now, do they go overboard at times? Yes. Do they wrongly concentrate on going after non violent drug offenders rather than actual criminals? Yes, but that's the fault of our politicians rather than our police officers. Most police officers are still good people who want to protect the American people. It's sad that they get denigrated so often on these forums. There's no reason why a parent shouldn't be required to notify the police if their child has gone missing. This is just common sense.

You and many others here are anti cancer rather than simply anti big tumorous cancer.

[Brett85]

Yet another case, from last week, that I missed.

And I miss a lot of them.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302634-FL-Mom-calls-cops-for-help-with-depressed-18-y-o-son-cops-show-up-and-shoot-him-dead.

What were they supposed to do when the kid assaulted them with a knife? The best they could've done in that situation would've been to try to shoot him in the arm or foot or some other non vital organ.

[GunnyFreedom]

TC, you have done nothing in this thread but constantly lie about what I believe, making crap up whole cloth, and smearing me with your own half-baked fantasies. You should be ashamed of yourself. This is the same crap that they do to Ron Paul when they call him an 'isolationist.'

How dare you apply those same tactics here while claiming to support Ron Paul?

Everything ypu have posted in this thread is pure emotion driven propaganda. Because I think it's wromg to hold a gun to someone's head and force them to endanger their children, you claim that I want to see children endangered? Because I do not believe in forcing people at threat of death to give up their own rights, you claim that I want to abolish the police? Because I support the Constitutional prohibition against slavery, you claim I am an anarchist?

In this thread, you have exhibited the very characteristics of bad government that the vast majority of us here have dedicated our lives to fighting against. You have demonstrated yourself as far as I am comcerned, as having zero integrity, and completely willing to lie, propagadize, and smear anybody who does not robotically believe in locksrep with you.

Are you not aware that we will all one day face the judgement to answer for our works?

There is no excuse for lies, even if you thought you were doing God's work by lying, it is still a lie and you will have to answer for that before the Throne of God.

My advice to you would be to repent.

[Anti Federalist]

What were they supposed to do when the kid assaulted them with a knife? The best they could've done in that situation would've been to try to shoot him in the arm or foot or some other non vital organ.

Already answered:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302634-FL-Mom-calls-cops-for-help-with-depressed-18-y-o-son-cops-show-up-and-shoot-him-dead.&p=3389702&viewfull=1#post3389702

[GunnyFreedom]

This was your exact quote:

"What is it going to take before you realize that the police are more dangerous than the criminals?"

So you're saying that the police are actually more dangerous than people who murder another human being in cold blood, but yet you don't want to abolish this dangerous institution? How much sense does that make?

What does that have to do with 'abolishing the police'? You are just making crap up. If our government were constrained to it's Constitutionally imposed limits, the police would not be a danger and a threat. Even as recently as the 50's police mostly served and protected, and by the 50's we had already gone way way beyomd the Constitution.

[Brett85]

TC, you have done nothing in this thread but constantly lie about what I believe, making crap up whole cloth, and smearing me with your own half-baked fantasies. You should be ashamed of yourself. This is the same crap that they do to Ron Paul when they call him an 'isolationist.'

How dare you apply those same tactics here while claiming to support Ron Paul?

Everything ypu have posted in this thread is pure emotion driven propaganda. Because I think it's wromg to hold a gun to someone's head and force them to endanger their children, you claim that I want to see children endangered? Because I do not believe in forcing people at threat of death to give up their own rights, you claim that I want to abolish the police? Because I support the Constitutional prohibition against slavery, you claim I am an anarchist?

In this thread, you have exhibited the very characteristics of bad government that the vast majority of us here have dedicated our lives to fighting against. You have demonstrated yourself as far as I am comcerned, as having zero integrity, and completely willing to lie, propagadize, and smear anybody who does not robotically believe in locksrep with you.

Are you not aware that we will all one day face the judgement to answer for our works?

There is no excuse for lies, even if you thought you were doing God's work by lying, it is still a lie and you will have to answer for that before the Throne of God.

My advice to you would be to repent.

Quit whining like a little girl. You were every bit as bad by claiming that I support "slavery" simply because I support a law that's designed to protect children. Do you really not think that you're lying about what I believe in when you claim that I support "slavery?" Get off your high horse.

[Brett85]

What does that have to do with 'abolishing the police'? You are just making crap up. If our government were constrained to it's Constitutionally imposed limits, the police would not be a danger and a threat. Even as recently as the 50's police mostly served and protected, and by the 50's we had already gone way way beyomd the Constitution.

There's nothing unconstitutional about this law. But the version of the Constitution that you believe in infringes on the 10th amendment. The states have the right to protect children.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's ridiculous, and the term "slavery" would be very offensive to those who actually had descendants who were slaves. There probably are valid reasons why some might oppose this law. The main reason may be that it would be hard to enforce, and that would need to be cleared up. But saying that those who support this law support "slavery" is utterly ridiculous. There were other people on this thread who supported the general idea of this law as well. I guess these liberty activists would be very surprised to learn that they support "slavery."

And I am offended by being treated like a slave instead of a sovereign and free human being with rights granted by God.

Telling you that you MUST go to the police for whatever reason when you have not broken any law, is slavery.

I am 100% convinced that a parent has a better chance of recovering their child safe and sound by doi g it themselves without the police. Ypu want to pass a law that does not allow me that option. Once the police are involved, they will prevent the parents from finding and protecting their own children, with deadly force if need be. How is that not slavery?

Passing a law saying we are not allowed to protect our own kids? That's abhorrent!

[GunnyFreedom]

There's nothing unconstitutional about this law. But the version of the Constitution that you believe in infringes on the 10th amendment. The states have the right to protect children.

The 13th Amendment banning slavery.

[Carehn]

You and many others here are anti cancer rather than simply anti big tumorous cancer.

lol. You know, when confined and tied down by the constitution, a republican form of cancer really isn't all that bad. Me and my cancer have a contract that it will only invade certain aspects of my body. Thus the wonderful parasitic relationship. Im almost ready to become apathetic about it. Its not like i need to watch it. we have an agreement and it would never spread outside of the approved borders set for it.

[GunnyFreedom]

Quit whining like a little girl. You were every bit as bad by claiming that I support "slavery" simply because I support a law that's designed to protect children. Do you really not think that you're lying about what I believe in when you claim that I support "slavery?" Get off your high horse.

if you insist that the government owns our children, that's slavery.

[Brett85]

Look, we've both probably said things that are inaccurate. If you say that you're not an anarchist and don't support abolishing the police, then I have to believe you. At the same time, please acknowledge that I don't support "slavery" simply because I like the general idea of this law. We both support Ron Paul and other liberty candidates like Rand Paul and Justin Amash. We just disagree with each other on this issue. I'm sorry that this got so heated. Peace and good night.

[GunnyFreedom]

Look, we've both probably said things that are inaccurate. If you say that you're not an anarchist and don't support abolishing the police, then I have to believe you. At the same time, please acknowledge that I don't support "slavery" simply because I like the general idea of this law. We both support Ron Paul and other liberty candidates like Rand Paul and Justin Amash. We just disagree with each other on this issue. I'm sorry that this got so heated. Peace and good night.

There's where you are wrong, I never once claimed that you support slavery, I said that this law is a form of slavery. It is my fervent hope and belief that you do NOT support slavery, which is why I am telling you that supporting this law is a bad idea. My argument is based on the fact that I trust and believe you do not support slavery.

You, on the other hand, have directly accused me of being an anarchist, and worse, several times over.

The difference here should be clear.

And this is the second time you conceeded that you have to believe me if I say I am not an anarchist. Maybe third times a charm?

This law is a kind of slavery. I trust that you do NOT support slavery, which is why I believe that you should not support this law. I have never once accused you of supporting slavery. I don't make those kinds of judgements, my God forbids me from them, and I take that prohibition to heart.

[Anti Federalist]

I think police should be abolished.

There is only one true form of constitutional law enforcement: duly elected sheriffs, sworn deputies and sworn citizen deputies or a "posse".

[Carehn]

Sheriff July and his deputie.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjeHmO1pUEV-NR8R0RO94lMauAL6e5D9dbyIsj3Y82muHux0ih4g

[angelatc]

There's nothing unconstitutional about this law. But the version of the Constitution that you believe in infringes on the 10th amendment. The states have the right to protect children.

The law doesn't protect children. It only provides a mechanism for the police to label even more of us criminals for a behavior that doesn't hurt anybody, even though it offends common sense. You think the police do a good job protecting you, but I live in the country with the world's highest incarceration rate.

And besides, it is a violation of the First Amendment and possibly the Fifth Amendment.

[angelatc]

You and many others here are anti government rather than simply anti big government. .

Nice straw man. I stand by my contention - children do not belong to the state. And in a free country, people don't have to check in with their government. As Ron Paul says, freedom means accepting that occasionally other people are going to offend you somehow. This seems to be one of those cases.

[JustinTime]

My sigline says it all.

[Kylie]

When did I ever say that the federal government should be involved in this issue? I was just saying that it would be a good law for the states to pass, and there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids the states from protecting children. Also, how can you not be labeled an anarchist when you don't even support having a police force?




You do realize that police departments have not always been around, right?

We didn't have them until the 1830's. Before then, it was WE, the people, who did our own security work.

[Johncjackson]

I would challenge anyone who supports this law to give any example either of the following has ever been a good idea and been effective:

1. Any Law that is "for the children."

2. Any law named after a victim.

That's a double whammy. Having both those traits and being a decent law? Impossible.

[Brett85]

You do realize that police departments have not always been around, right?

We didn't have them until the 1830's. Before then, it was WE, the people, who did our own security work.

I'm afraid I'm a bit too busy to be a police officer.

[Brett85]

I would challenge anyone who supports this law to give any example either of the following has ever been a good idea and been effective:

1. Any Law that is "for the children."

2. Any law named after a victim.

That's a double whammy. Having both those traits and being a decent law? Impossible.

Jessica's Law. It was a law that was passed by most states which required a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison for anybody who raped a child.

[pcosmar]

Jessica's Law. It was a law that was passed by most states which required a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison for anybody who raped a child.

And it is another notable failure.

http://web1.lawofficer.com/article/news/jessicas-law-has-proven-itself

[Brett85]

And it is another notable failure.

http://web1.lawofficer.com/article/news/jessicas-law-has-proven-itself

I guess since all laws are flawed to some extent, we should just oppose all laws.

[pcosmar]

I guess since all laws are flawed to some extent, we should just oppose all laws.
Nope, just stupid ones, Un-Constitutional ones, and obviously abusive ones.


I would challenge anyone who supports this law to give any example either of the following has ever been a good idea and been effective:

1. Any Law that is "for the children."

2. Any law named after a victim.

That's a double whammy. Having both those traits and being a decent law? Impossible.

This is correct. All of these are based on rabid emotionalism rather than logic.

[GunnyFreedom]

I guess since all laws are flawed to some extent, we should just oppose all laws.

Wow, why is it that anybody who opposes laws you like is automatically an anarchist?

[Brett85]

Wow, why is it that anybody who opposes laws you like is automatically an anarchist?

I didn't call anybody an anarchist in that post. I have no idea what you're actually reading.

[Anti Federalist]

I didn't call anybody an anarchist in that post. I have no idea what you're actually reading.

Opposition of all laws and government = anarchy (in the common parlance)

[Kylie]

I'm afraid I'm a bit too busy to be a police officer.



Too busy to bust in and shoot people up?

Say it isn't so!!


/sarcasm.


But really, why do you think that some dude with a badge and a gun automatically has better judgment than any one of us?

Would you give up your own authority over your child to a person who has the ability to kill your child? If so, why?


Does this mean that you are too busy to discipline your children or bring the misbehavior of others around you to their attention?

[GunnyFreedom]

"...the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

[Brett85]

Opposition of all laws and government = anarchy (in the common parlance)

I was just trying to find out what laws people here actually support.

[Brett85]

Too busy to bust in and shoot people up?

Say it isn't so!!


/sarcasm.


But really, why do you think that some dude with a badge and a gun automatically has better judgment than any one of us?

Would you give up your own authority over your child to a person who has the ability to kill your child? If so, why?


Does this mean that you are too busy to discipline your children or bring the misbehavior of others around you to their attention?

Because police officers have actually been trained to do their jobs. I haven't gone through any such training, and I wouldn't want to. I don't see how reporting missing children has anything to do with "giving up authority" of your child. It simply has to do with trying to save your child's life. There's no reason why Casey Anthony shouldn't be serving time in jail for not reporting her child's disappearance. She should receive a minimum of 20 years in prison for such recklessness.

[pcosmar]

Because police officers have actually been trained to do their jobs.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm


She should receive a minimum of 20 years in prison for such recklessness.

So you support Authoritarianism rather than Liberty.

[self redacted]
There is no way to say what I am thinking "nicely"

[Brett85]

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm



So you support Authoritarianism rather than Liberty.

[self redacted]
There is no way to say what I am thinking "nicely"

I don't think that people should have the "liberty" to abuse their children. Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy. I support laws that protect the lives, liberty, and private property rights of the American people. "People" would include children as well.

[Dr.3D]

If Casey Anthony had wanted to kill her child, all she would have to have to have done is call the police and tell them the child was doing something dangerous to the lives of those around her and the police would have done the job for her.

[Brett85]

When you look at my overall views, I'm pretty far away from being an "authoritarian." I support abolishing about 80% of the federal government, which would include the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, EPA, FDA, DEA, Federal Reserve, and the list goes on and on. I support phasing out Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. I'm opposed to warrentless wiretapping and the Patriot Act. I support closing down ALL of our foreign military bases and bringing our troops home from around the world. At the state level, I support legalizing private drug use as well as prostitution. But despite all this, I'm still an "authoritarian" because I support a common sense law that's designed to protect children. Simply unreal.

[amyre]

For me, this issue isn't about whether or not I should call the cops, but whether or not I should be FORCED to call the cops or not. Who gets to decide the best course of action for my child in any situation--who gets to decide what is the best way to educate my child, or what medical treatment they should receive if they get sick, etc.? NO ONE loves my kids more than me, and therefore NO ONE besides ME should get to make decisions regarding their well being.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this law would do anything to protect kids in families with parents who would intentionally harm them. Criminals and sociopaths and sick people who would kill their own children don't follow laws.

This law would however, take away choices and options from parents who would move heaven and earth to find their kids and ensure their safety.

[pcosmar]

I don't think that people should have the "liberty" to abuse their children. Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy. I support laws that protect the lives, liberty, and private property rights of the American people. "People" would include children as well.
There are already laws against murder, as well as laws regarding negligence. As there should be.
More laws are not needed. The fact that both police and prosecutors screwed the pooch is not justification for more laws that will assuredly be abused.
As have others passed for the same illegitimate reasons.

[Brett85]

For me, this issue isn't about whether or not I should call the cops, but whether or not I should be FORCED to call the cops or not. Who gets to decide the best course of action for my child in any situation--who gets to decide what is the best way to educate my child, or what medical treatment they should receive if they get sick, etc.? NO ONE loves my kids more than me, and therefore NO ONE besides ME should get to make decisions regarding their well being.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this law would do anything to protect kids in families with parents who would intentionally harm them. Criminals and sociopaths and sick people who would kill their own children don't follow laws.

This law would however, take away choices and options from parents who would move heaven and earth to find their kids and ensure their safety.

That was at least a very thoughtful and well written post. Thanks for offering your opinion.

[angelatc]

Because police officers have actually been trained to do their jobs. I haven't gone through any such training, and I wouldn't want to. I don't see how reporting missing children has anything to do with "giving up authority" of your child. It simply has to do with trying to save your child's life. There's no reason why Casey Anthony shouldn't be serving time in jail for not reporting her child's disappearance. She should receive a minimum of 20 years in prison for such recklessness.

Wow. How pathetic we freedom lovin' Americans have become. Your children belong to the state. It takes a village to raise a child. Failure to report to the proper authorities = reckless.

This is how bad laws get passed. Those people that wanted to see the Mom die for the crime are now going to take it out on the rest of us in some misguided attempt to emotionally replace punishing her. Emotional appeals over logic and freedom? And it works. We're doomed.

Does it occur to anybody that if we needed this law it would already be on the books?

[angelatc]

When you look at my overall views, I'm pretty far away from being an "authoritarian." I support abolishing about 80% of the federal government, which would include the Department of Education, Energy, Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, EPA, FDA, DEA, Federal Reserve, and the list goes on and on. I support phasing out Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. I'm opposed to warrentless wiretapping and the Patriot Act. I support closing down ALL of our foreign military bases and bringing our troops home from around the world. At the state level, I support legalizing private drug use as well as prostitution. But despite all this, I'm still an "authoritarian" because I support a common sense law that's designed to protect children. Simply unreal.

It is certainly not a common sense law. It is a law that tries to legislate common sense, which is not possible. How does it actually protect a child?

[angelatc]

I was just trying to find out what laws people here actually support.

I support laws that punish people who harm other people. Failing to report a missing person does not directly harm anybody. It only harms the sensibilities of people who would make a different choice.

And let me clarify - I'm not a fan of laws that exist to keep people from getting hurt.

[Contumacious]

I don't think that people should have the "liberty" to abuse their children. Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy. I support laws that protect the lives, liberty, and private property rights of the American people. "People" would include children as well.

And who would you designate to "protect" the children?

1- the same government which incinerated alive 22 children in Waco, TX?

2- the same government which sent Elian Gonzalez to a slave state?

3- the same government which "protected" by removing close to 500 children - without due process of Law - in San Angelo, TX?

.

[Kylie]

For me, this issue isn't about whether or not I should call the cops, but whether or not I should be FORCED to call the cops or not. Who gets to decide the best course of action for my child in any situation--who gets to decide what is the best way to educate my child, or what medical treatment they should receive if they get sick, etc.? NO ONE loves my kids more than me, and therefore NO ONE besides ME should get to make decisions regarding their well being.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this law would do anything to protect kids in families with parents who would intentionally harm them. Criminals and sociopaths and sick people who would kill their own children don't follow laws.

This law would however, take away choices and options from parents who would move heaven and earth to find their kids and ensure their safety.


+ rep!

You said, in a very clear way, what i was thinking. Thank you!!!!!

[GunnyFreedom]

For me, this issue isn't about whether or not I should call the cops, but whether or not I should be FORCED to call the cops or not. Who gets to decide the best course of action for my child in any situation--who gets to decide what is the best way to educate my child, or what medical treatment they should receive if they get sick, etc.? NO ONE loves my kids more than me, and therefore NO ONE besides ME should get to make decisions regarding their well being.

Unfortunately, I don't believe this law would do anything to protect kids in families with parents who would intentionally harm them. Criminals and sociopaths and sick people who would kill their own children don't follow laws.

This law would however, take away choices and options from parents who would move heaven and earth to find their kids and ensure their safety.

+rep You have put into words far more eloquent than I, exactly what I have been trying to say his whole thread.

ETA "you have given out too much rep in 24 hours" :(

[affa]

Because police officers have actually been trained to do their jobs. I haven't gone through any such training, and I wouldn't want to. I don't see how reporting missing children has anything to do with "giving up authority" of your child. It simply has to do with trying to save your child's life. There's no reason why Casey Anthony shouldn't be serving time in jail for not reporting her child's disappearance. She should receive a minimum of 20 years in prison for such recklessness.

You are missing an obvious point here.
If you give her 20 years for "not reporting her child's disappearance' within, say, 72 hours, that means JANE DOE in some other case where the child wasn't ever murdered would also get 20 years. 20 years!!!! for not telling the cops something. That's absurd.

Here's an example: a husband and wife separate. the husband takes the kids without telling the mother where they are going. the wife waits 4 days, then reports them missing. she has now notified the police that SHE broke the law for not reporting them missing within 72 hours. On the 5th day, the father returns with the kids. They were his kids too, so it was not kidnapping, so he's innocent of any crime.

She goes to jail for 20 years for not notifying the police right away.

But wait, you say... no child was murdered! Exactly. And that's why murdering a child is against the law already, and that's why if you want someone to serve 20 years for murdering a child you need to convict them of that, and not some trumped up nonsense that is not the actual crime.

This particular example is simplified to explain the point, I expect you can extrapolate other scenarios where a person can be convicted of not reporting a child missing, and serving years in jail, when nothing actually sinister occurred.

[tropicangela]

Florida neglect law:

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/CH0775/Section_0775.082.HTM), s. 775.083 (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/CH0775/Section_0775.083.HTM), or s. 775.084. (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/CH0775/Section_0775.084.HTM)

(c) For a felony of the second degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years.
(b) $10,000, when the conviction is of a felony of the first or second degree.

[aGameOfThrones]

Florida neglect law:

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/CH0775/Section_0775.082.HTM), s. 775.083 (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/CH0775/Section_0775.083.HTM), or s. 775.084. (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/CH0775/Section_0775.084.HTM)

(c) For a felony of the second degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years.
(b) $10,000, when the conviction is of a felony of the first or second degree.


Just pointing out other parts of that statute.

[Kylie]

Because police officers have actually been trained to do their jobs. I haven't gone through any such training, and I wouldn't want to. I don't see how reporting missing children has anything to do with "giving up authority" of your child. It simply has to do with trying to save your child's life. There's no reason why Casey Anthony shouldn't be serving time in jail for not reporting her child's disappearance. She should receive a minimum of 20 years in prison for such recklessness.

I can understand your point of view. But what you propose is a slippery slope that will have unintended consequences.

Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You feel that Casey Anthony just got away with murder, and I can see why you would want her to pay, in some way, for that crime. Unfortunately, a jury wasn't given enough evidence to convict her of murder. I blame the prosecution, not the jury or Casey Anthony for this.

Making it illegal to NOT call the cops when a minor is missing will not change the fact that you feel bad for Kaylee Anthony. We all do. It's sad that this had to happen at all, but I am not ready to give up the option to seek my 15 year old daughter myself when she decides that she is grown enough to walk out of my house.

[Brett85]

Here's an example: a husband and wife separate. the husband takes the kids without telling the mother where they are going. the wife waits 4 days, then reports them missing. she has now notified the police that SHE broke the law for not reporting them missing within 72 hours. On the 5th day, the father returns with the kids. They were his kids too, so it was not kidnapping, so he's innocent of any crime.

She goes to jail for 20 years for not notifying the police right away.

The law would have to be written very narrowly to avoid the situation that you described. It would have to be a situation where the parents, grandparents, etc don't know where the child is at. That's what it means to be "missing." Nobody actually knows where the child is.

All I've said is that I support the general idea of this law. If I was a state legislator, I would have to review the actual law and actual wording before I could decide whether to support it or not.

[Brett85]

It's sad that this had to happen at all, but I am not ready to give up the option to seek my 15 year old daughter myself when she decides that she is grown enough to walk out of my house.

The laws being proposed only apply to children 12 and under.

[pcosmar]

The law would have to be written very narrowly to avoid the situation that you described. It would have to be a situation where the parents, grandparents, etc don't know where the child is at. That's what it means to be "missing." Nobody actually knows where the child is.

So, if the child is kidnapped with the express demand that no police be called, the parents can not make other arrangements. (Such as paying the ransom, or hiring their own investigator/rescue).

It puts the parents in a no win situation.
Call the police and the child dies.
Don't call the police and be charged with a crime.

[pcosmar]

The laws being proposed only apply to children 12 and under.

That was said about Jessica's Law.
But now it applies to people that took a piss in an alley. or had very questionable rape cases. (not with a child)

it is yet another BAD LAW based on rabid emotionalism.

[Brett85]

So, if the child is kidnapped with the express demand that no police be called, the parents can not make other arrangements. (Such as paying the ransom, or hiring their own investigator/rescue).

It puts the parents in a no win situation.
Call the police and the child dies.
Don't call the police and be charged with a crime.

I think a jury would take those extraordinary circumstances into consideration when hearing the case.

[Brett85]

That was said about Jessica's Law.
But now it applies to people that took a piss in an alley. or had very questionable rape cases. (not with a child)

it is yet another BAD LAW based on rabid emotionalism.

Then Jessica's law should be reformed to only apply to cases of actual child rape.

[pcosmar]

I think a jury would take those extraordinary circumstances into consideration when hearing the case.

And how much is it going to cost innocent parents to fight the system?

[pcosmar]

Then Jessica's law should be reformed to only apply to cases of actual child rape.

That never happens. it needs to be stricken from the books, but that is unlikely as well.

Along with the Lautenberg Amendment and a thousand other worthless and unconstitutional laws on the books.

[Anti Federalist]

I think a jury would take those extraordinary circumstances into consideration when hearing the case.

We just had a jury take the facts of a case into consideration and render a decision.

And they found, rightly, that the state had not proved it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And you're screaming blue murder about it.

But you say a jury could, should, take into account extraordinary circumstances?

So what "XXXXX's Law" can we expect when that happens?

[Anti Federalist]

Then Jessica's law should be reformed to only apply to cases of actual child rape.

Maybe the better course of action would have been: not enacting a bad law based on emotionalism, in the first place?

[Kylie]

The laws being proposed only apply to children 12 and under.

An arbitrary number.

What about my son? He's a 13 year old 60 lb kid?

I don't have to give a shit about him since he's not 12 anymore? Now do you see what we mean?

There are laws on the books. Use them. There is no need for more laws with arbitrary numbers that do nothing but put children in more danger, and set a precedent with law enforcement that anyone over the age of 12 is not worth finding.

Slippery slope, brother. I know you want to do something, but this is not the something. You know what you do? Pay attention to the people around you. Look for the inconsistencies in peoples' lives and call them on it. Be that policeman, do the friggin work. You remember, the work that you said you were too "busy" to do? Well, since you've decided to give your authority over to some dude with a badge and a gun(and training on how to use both), you also think that I should. This is where we disagree.

I pay attention to the people around me. I call them out on bullshit when I see it going down. I try to keep people honest. If you are too "busy" or too scared to do it, then that's your problem. But don't think you can use force against me to comply with giving up that authority. Doesn't make me superior to anyone either, since they call me on it when I fuck it up(which happens often:)).

[Anti Federalist]

Making it illegal to NOT call the cops when a minor is missing will not change the fact that you feel bad for Kaylee Anthony. We all do. It's sad that this had to happen at all, but I am not ready to give up the option to seek my 15 year old daughter myself when she decides that she is grown enough to walk out of my house.

Felon.

Child Abuser.

Terrorist.

Probably a witch too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

[affa]

The law would have to be written very narrowly to avoid the situation that you described. It would have to be a situation where the parents, grandparents, etc don't know where the child is at. That's what it means to be "missing." Nobody actually knows where the child is.

All I've said is that I support the general idea of this law. If I was a state legislator, I would have to review the actual law and actual wording before I could decide whether to support it or not.

But... a murderer knows where the child is at, so the child isn't missing, by the definition you just gave. And, forgetting that for a second, so it's okay if the grandparents don't know, but the mother knows? Or okay if the father knows, but not the mother? So, in other words, in order to 'get out of jail free' all you need is for one person to say 'oh, i knew where they were' and then it's no longer a crime?

And you're trusting our gov't to get this law right (were that even possible, which it isn't)? The same people that often pass laws without even reading them?

Give me a break.

[Kylie]

Felon.

Child Abuser.

Terrorist.

Probably a witch too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

My sister now loves you. She is visiting while she gets her next house in order. She's a convert, and her husband is coming along nicely too.

And she loves Monty Python.

;):D

[Anti Federalist]

My sister now loves you. She is visiting while she gets her next house in order. She's a convert, and her husband is coming along nicely too.

And she loves Monty Python.

;):D

Hopefully she loves Simpsons as well.

"My unlimited love to ya'll".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmw-F52kjjo

[tropicangela]

Why Caylee's Law is a Bad Idea

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/caylees-law-casey-anthony-_n_893953.html

[aGameOfThrones]

Why Caylee's Law is a Bad Idea

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/caylees-law-casey-anthony-_n_893953.html


A comment from the site:



KSadyLady
16 Fans
This article was nothing more than the opportunit y to get printed in connection with the Casey Anthony trial. The idea that a law is being created, or possibly a law is being created, that will be so absurd as to be used against a parent or guardian that tried to do the right thing but was hindered by trauma, or extreme situations .
This is a law that would prevent a parent or guardian from spending the next 30 days partying, avoiding responsibi lity, or fully abandoning their responsibi lity after a child is KNOWINGLY missing or injured. This is common sense, we don’t need an “expert” to tell us that the window of time is unreasonab le, if a child is missing and a parent is knocked out for two, three, seven days they won’t be prosecuted by this law. This is for parents that abuse a time frame so obviously as to go about their normal activities as if all is well in the world while hindering all appropriat e methods of finding the missing child.

Don’t be so oblivious, as in this article, to have absolutely NO common sense. This is how laws are created in the world, we don’t know a law is needed until we learn that there is an issue that can cause the death of an innocent human life.


Hmm...

[affa]

excellent article, thanks for linking it.