[FredZarguna]

Your examples are almost as silly as the author of this blog. The fact of being named Casey or the state of being a brunette does not place a child in proximate danger. The act of not reporting her disappearance does.

Posters claiming that this law is unnecessary are apparently immune to the fact that in the past no one believed such a law was necessary, because no one ever believed that an idiot jury would find that failure to report a toddler missing for a month is evidence of felony neglect, per se.

It is.

Since a whole new generation of FReepers, defending the morons on this jury, apparently believe that jurists are permitted to be nothing but automatons, we must now spell out the meaning of each and every law in excruciating detail. [And apparently also instruct supposed "conservatives" on the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt.]

[yuleeyahoo]

You're right, such laws are necessary since obviously the masses can't be trusted to do what the anointed believe they should.

However, I don't think the law goes far enough.

Everyone should have their own personal commissar that they would report everything they did or witnessed each day. If they report everything truthfully; they would receive the appropriate fines and be allowed to sleep in their own homes. If not, the local gestapo will arrive to take them off to reeducation camp.

Only by following our leaders blindly and doing everything they say can we truly be free.

[Figment]

Wow. Someone gets it. Putting on my illegal asbestos flame retardant suit and you should too. What’s not to understand about this? You don’t report your child missing , you are NEGLIGENT and should be held accountable