|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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..” |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
creating more laws isn't always the answer is all i'm saying |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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? Last edited by vintagetoppsguy; 07-09-2011 at 04:50 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
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 Last edited by tiger8mush; 07-09-2011 at 11:44 PM. Reason: learning how to spell and write english |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I know that you can't profit from a crime. And the big gripe is that Casey will potentially get rich out of all this. Does anyone else think the laws should be ammended to include not profiting from any crime in which you've been tried for, even if found not guilty, unless a true guilty party is actually found?
Also technically, she WAS found guilty of lying to investigators. That right there is a crime that should disallow her from profiting in any way pertaining to this case.. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
http://news.yahoo.com/child-dies-cho...000233059.html
I think we need a new law banning electrical cords!!! Or something to give the parents some jail time!! (i'm just poking the beehive here cuz i have nothing productive to add to the main board and the Bruces have been banned so there is a lull ) |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Roger Hooper - Guilty | Dalkiel | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 35 | 09-27-2011 08:58 PM |
Help w/Hugh Casey signed ball | cubsguy1969 | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 5 | 08-16-2010 11:52 AM |
Casey at the Bat | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 07-07-2007 12:29 PM |
OT Casey Stengel's final game? (Call this "Casey's Last Stand") | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 02-11-2007 04:18 AM |
1923 Maple Crispette (#15 Casey Stengel) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 08-05-2005 12:27 PM |