Casey Anthony trial- Not guilty

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

Isn't it 1 hour and 24 hours?

I never said that it was to punish good people.

My whole view on this is that there are already laws preventing cover ups. Another law is not needed.

I'd rather just keep my full name off the forum, so I won't be continuing this argument.

Everything is just proposed legislation at this point. I've heard 1 hour and 24 hours, but I've also heard 2 hours and 48 hours. It would also depend on the child's age. Sure, there are details to work out. Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Everything is just proposed legislation at this point. I've heard 1 hour and 24 hours, but I've also heard 2 hours and 48 hours. It would also depend on the child's age. Sure, there are details to work out. Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

Please refer back to my original post. I didn't say the law was ignorant. Who knows, maybe the law will be passed. With just about anything, there will be people that agree and people who disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Another part of the proposal would make it so that no parent (or family member) of a missing or murdered child can profit in any form - no tv interviews, movie deals, book deals, etc. - but I guess that part is ignorant too, huh?

What if a missing/murdered child came from a poor family and had a sibling and because of the book deal the sibling was able to go to college or something?

I agree, I don't want to see the Caylee's mother profit. But non-fictional tragedies are often written about and profited from; and sometimes the profit is put to good use. While the other part of the proposal is well-intended, I'm just not sure how the law would be written to state what is good vs bad use of profit.

Rob

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if the child died at night after being put to bed and wasn't discovered till the next day?

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if the parent/caregiver said she went in to check on the kid in the middle of night and thought the kid was sleeping even though it was determined the child died several hours before?

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

What if a missing/murdered child came from a poor family and had a sibling and because of the book deal the sibling was able to go to college or something?

Rob,

This is your third “What if…” example regarding this law. We can “What if…” any law till we’re blue in the face. The bottom line is, the law is intended to protect children that are victims of neglect, abuse or death by a family member or caregiver, and to keep family members or caregivers from profiting from it. If you dislike or don’t agree with laws that are intended to protect children, so be it. I really don’t know why you continue to push it with “What ifs..”

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Rob,

This is your third “What if…” example regarding this law. We can “What if…” any law till we’re blue in the face. The bottom line is, the law is intended to protect children that are victims of neglect, abuse or death by a family member or caregiver, and to keep family members or caregivers from profiting from it. If you dislike or don’t agree with laws that are intended to protect children, so be it. I really don’t know why you continue to push it with “What ifs..”

Just because a law is created for a reason 1) doesn't mean it will actually stop something from happening (like protecting the kid) and 2) doesn't mean it won't be used against someone for another reason.

creating more laws isn't always the answer is all i'm saying

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Just because a law is created for a reason 1) doesn't mean it will actually stop something from happening

Now you're just spitballing, but nothing is sticking. Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? You just lost your argument. Please tell me what law DOES prevent things from actually happening?

There are laws against murder. Do they prevent murders? There are laws agains rape. Do they prevent rapes? There are laws agains theft. Do they prevent thefts? Get the idea? So, since we have these laws and they don't stop these things from happening, do we repeal the laws? C'mon! You're missing the point of the law. The law is not to prevent things from happening, it's to punish people when they do happen.

Edited to address your second point: Sometimes innocent people are the victims of well intended laws. Just recently we (Texas) had a guy that was in prison for nearly 30 years for rape and robbery before new DNA testing exonerated him. These kind of things happen all the time. Can you imagine spending 30 years in prison for something you didn't do? But again, does that mean we repeal the laws just because there are a few innocent victims that are convicted?

[tiger8mush]

I don't know what spitballing means, but you can't take 1/2 of a sentence and say its my statement cuz it was only half of my statement. The entire sentence was my statement.

Anyway, I still don't like the law, though I see its merits. Apparently you (and most of the country) do like it, so I'm fine with being in the minority. Perhaps we can agree to disagree? Hopefully I'm not spitballing still

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

I don't know what spitballing means, but you can't take 1/2 of a sentence and say its my statement cuz it was only half of my statement. The entire sentence was my statement.

Anyway, I still don't like the law, though I see its merits. Apparently you (and most of the country) do like it, so I'm fine with being in the minority. Perhaps we can agree to disagree? Hopefully I'm not spitballing still

Rob,

You didn't read my entire post. I edited my post to address the second half of your statment. In short, yes, sometimes there are innocent vicitims (wrongful convictions) of well intended laws. Does that mean we abolish the laws?

Yes, we can agree to disagree. Take care!