As long as we're discussing politics and law...

Stuart Jansen sjansen at buscaluz.org
Tue Aug 4 16:28:17 MDT 2009


On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 16:09 -0600, Daniel C. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Thad Van Ry<tvanry at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How was the aunt criminally negligent? The article that you reference states
> > that she looked around because she was very aware of kids playing in the
> > area. I don't believe she was negligent, let alone criminally negligent.
> > Could she have been maybe more careful? Hind sight is always 20/20.
> 
> She knew there were children playing nearby.  I don't know if this
> article stated it or not, but there were towels spread all over the
> driveway for kids to lay on.  She was negligent by not checking
> carefully enough to see the child.  Maybe not criminally negligent,
> but if you know there are kids nearby and you're less careful than you
> could be (which is obviously the case or the kid would still be
> alive), that's negligent.
> 
> "Could have been more careful" is just another way of saying "negligent".

Children leave crap everywhere, that doesn't mean I should have to do a
complete sweep of my driveway, the neighbor's back yard, and the local
park before I back up my car. Looking behind my car should be enough.

Do you know something we don't? Perhaps she stole something from the
house and was making a quick getaway? Were you doing tequila shots with
her in the living room before she decided to drive down to the local
liquor store to buy more? Maybe you have proof that the police were
bribed to hide the fact she has a fetish for bloody concrete and this is
the fifth child she has murdered?

Your suggestion is just as offensive as mine. A child has died
tragically. The police looked into it. They decided that showing mercy
was appropriate. Lets not assume we know more than the people actually
involved.

-- 
"XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't
using enough of it." - Chris Maden




More information about the PLUG mailing list