Posted on 03/05/2002 8:04:09 PM PST by FresnoDA
To: Mrs.Liberty
Pssstt..come closer. Here's a secret. Tell Luis you see the Virgin Mary in your bedroom dresser mirror, and he will believe you. No joke.
sw
102 posted on 3/6/02 3:40 PM Pacific by spectre
"Never mind" </emily latella off>
Pot...kettle...black.
"You fail to see that a person is "culpable" when his car gets stolen under the circumstances you describe? That is WHY the insurance company doesn't pay. Because you were dumb and dumber leaving your keys in the ignition."
I'm not the one failing to see the obvious here. You are confusing criminal law (murder, car theft) with civil law. We're not talking about Danielle's insurance policy here sw...do try to keep up.
The fact that you may have left your keys in your car may excuse the insurance company from paying you, primarily because it's spelled out in the agreement that you signed, but it has zero bearing on the criminal law aspect of the case. Your keys in the ignition does not equal to an open invitation to steal it, anymore than the fact that your front door is unlocked an invitation to rob your house.
If you don't believe me, next time that you see a car running unattended someplace, take it.
During your trial, plead not guilty and explain to the Judge and Jury that the car's keys were in the ignition, so it's not really your fault that the car was stolen.
Send me an e-mail with an address and your inmate number so that I can send you some smokes after the trial.
"The van Dams could possibly be culpable if they contributed to the negligence of their home and the safety of their children that evening."
I know that you and the rest of the gang here really wish this to be the case, but I don't think that this will hold water in a court of law.
Sure, the van Dams may have been "entertaining" in their garage with the door closed, whether the door was locked or not is quite irrelevant to the case, a locked door does not impede someone from hearing a noise, a close door does.
Still, all in all, regardless of they may have been doing in the garage, they were home, and from all accounts that I've read, there was at least one parent home all night.
Now, if the rumors of "swinging" turn out to be true, and even if they had been doing that on that particular night, it doesn't matter in the scheme of things; while swinging is immoral, it isn't illegal and in the eyes of the law, it is no different than if they had been playing cards in the garage.
"We seem to have different standards. I take care of my property and family and would never leave the keys in the ignition of my car or front door. Why not just post a sign "STEAL ME"."
You seem to think yourself infallible, and by extension your whole family, even if you did, and someone did steal your property, they are still guilty of a crime.
"They have told so many different versions of what happened that evening that it all goes to their credibility, and you can bet the farm, the defense will bring it up. "
They're not on trial here, the only thing that matters here is what happened to Danielle...that's the case...murder. And unless the defense sets out to somehow suggest that Damon or Brenda killed Danielle (BTW, you can't just throw that out there w/out any sort of evidence to obliterate the fact that Danielle's blood was found on Westerfield's clothes, and his vehicle) there's no way that simply saying "these people were negligent that night, so the defendant is somehow less culpable of killing the child", will save Westerfield's ass.
Matthew 24:12
John 12:36
Something similar happened here in Oklahoma. Two children died in a fire in the family's trailer while the mother was grocery shopping--leaving the tots alone. She was charged with negligence, too. Another case involved a woman who left a tot in the car (doors were unlocked and keys left in ignition) while she picked up a couple of grocery items, and the car was stolen with the wee one inside--she, too, was charged with negligence. (Note: the car and the unharmed child were found later, not far from where they were taken.) This latter case especially seems comparable to the van Dam case.
It's not that the perp should not be charged, it's just that in these cases the parents shared part of the blame. No one would suggest the parents get the same penalty, but they should not get a walk, either, if what we're reading is true.
OR, we could continue to call 'em as we see 'em. It's hard to cover the "aromatherapy" of bull feces essence with a pink cloud. It could be that while I might support the same political candidates as some members on Free Republic, I would not sit down at the same table with many of them. Nor should I be required to.
"For all the time you spend being snotty with one and other, you are spending less time educating, sharing and learning. What better way to stifle the truth, than to conquer and divide from within.."
Here's what you can do to avoid articles like these. It's really easy.
You go to the top of the main page where you'll find "Topics/Post." Click on that. You'll receive a menu of various topics. For the kind of news you seem to prefer, you are offered several good choices--maybe you'd like Activism/Chapters, Constitution/Conservatism, Foreign Affairs, Government, or Politics/Elections. I'd avoid Crime/Corruption, Miscellaneous, News/Current Events and/or Your Opinions/Questions, as these are often catch-all categories and might have more of those articles that you find so disturbing. Once John Robinson gets done with the software, you can actually adjust your "preferences" so you only see the topics you want to see. Or, you can be inventive, and fix your browser's bookmarks, and achieve the same goal.
But the question that keeps coming to my mind is, if you find these articles and this one in particular so offensive, WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? Are you one of those people who just likes to make themselves miserable, or what? Personally, I don't click on articles I know won't interest me.
Spoken like a true liberal. And probably in the same spirit--every time the liberals talk about "bipartisan cooperation" they mean, vote the way I do. In your case, your notion of "coming together" is for us to quit asking all those pesky questions about the discrepancies in the van Dam stories. (Plural on purpose--there have been so many...)
On a serious note, my post was focused on one issue. You've brought into it a lot more than I intended. not fair, but when is life fair when there are no rules. Gotta go...
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.