Posted on 03/01/2002 7:36:24 AM PST by FresnoDA
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:01 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
You know, maybe chokers are something the little girls wore in her class, girls are like that. They'll imitate the cutest girl and many will wear chokers or other fashion accessories to bond with each other.
I applaud emotion, but...I am failing to see the connection here.
Besides,how many people do you know who will say,"Yeah,I've been friends with that phychotic baby-murdering SOB for 20 years now. Nice guy!"?
No, but "contributory negligence" leaves them a portion of the blame, just as if you leave your 6 month old in the tub with your four year old for an hour, YOU are not guilty of drowning the 6 month old, but you DO catch some of the blame, and rightfully so. That's what "adults" are for: to be responsible for their children and protect them.
Pretty hard to do locked in the garage with strangers coming in and out, and not checking on your kids for 11 hours.
There are even people here saying they thing the father was selling the daughter to strangers,as well as being guilty of her murder.
Not me, don't include me with that crowd.
| SignOnSanDiego Forums > News > The Search for Danielle |
My brother-in-law is a CPA here in San Diego and attended a luncheon yesterday with the District Attorney who apparently spoke a little about the Van Dam case. I am told it was mentioned that Brenda and Damon have an agent and have already signed deals for a book and a movie. Is it just me, or does this seem unbelievable to anyone else that they could have already made these arrangements before their murdered daughter is even buried???
This was just found this post on the Union Trib forum. There are some wild comments flying, but this on was very interesting, with regards to the van Dam's demeanor, publicly and privately.
FDA
None?
The Klaas case --
I did read the whole thread,but I apologize if I misunderstood you.
There are risks regardless of what we do. Staying at home under the bed does not keep one safe from the ceiling falling in unexpectedly. However, some risks are just plain reckless. Here in Oklahoma, there is a saying: if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Essentially, if you hang out with lowlifes, you get lowlife kinds of problems. Do lowlifes sometimes masquerade as pious churchgoers? Of course. But your chances of finding a lowlife are really much higher if you go go places where lowlifes go. Bringing said lowlifes home is, to me at least, an uncceptable risk. It goes far beyond bringing a churchmember home for dinner--the expectation there is that this is a decent Christian person. The expectation with a barfly is considerably lower.
If they had no body, I can understand a plea, no body always leaves reasonable doubt... this case sadly has one. I don't see what leverage either party would have to agree to a plea...
Just don't mention his war record!! My oh my!! FDA LOL!
She just looks like a normal little girl posing for a school photo in the only one(s) of her that I have seen. I freely admit that I haven't really searched-out or paid much attention to the photos,though.
BINGO!!!!! I agree 100%.
But the "low crime area" part doesn't matter if you are bringing home new strangers you meet off the internet swingers' clubs every weekend. You may not agree, but I think there is risk bringing new different folks who like to screw strangers into your home every week. Let's face it, swingers who screw strangers an hour after meeting them are not "stable low risk moderate folks". They are volotile high risk personalities by definition.
Since you are not a swinger, yet you are defending the rights of swingers to swing in their homes with children. Yet, you say you are for freedom. I guess you missed the part that doing so can and does endanger your own children. I guess you are not really reading this particular case very well.
For you to say it's fine that they didn't check on their children for 11 hours, and that it's fine to bring strangers into the house (and not check on one's kids) shows you have a lack of any child rearing sense.
May I inquire if you have any children of your own? And if you had small children would you not be concerned about their safety if the door alarm had gone off twice, and, especially with a small blonde girl child, you wouldn't have made sure she was okay?
And if you reply that yes you would have made sure, you have blown your argument to bits. Because it shows that any normal parent would have made sure the kids were okay. And most, thank goodness, don't swing.
Anyways, you are just arguing for arguments sake alone. You don't even believe in what you are arguing. You have already admitted to not being a swinger, so you are just someone who feels the need to argue. You have no interest in this issue, except to further your argumentativeness.
If they had no body, I can understand a plea, no body always leaves reasonable doubt... this case sadly has one. I don't see what leverage either party would have to agree to a plea...
OK, this will send stinkypete into orbit, but here goes!!!
tin-foil hat/ON
POOR BABY! You come on here to imply the mother may be guilty in the murder of her daughter,and then get upset because somebody points out that logic ain't your strong point?
Like X42 at Ron Brown's funeral?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.