Leaves kid in car - Arrested and released on $100,000 bail

Seems kind of too-too to me. The sunroof was left open and the kid
was unharmed but he was still booked on willful cruelty to a child.
If he'd been caught doing something really dangerous like drunk
driving or doing 100 mph with a kid in the car, nobody would have
batted an eye.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...ts/8149629.htm

(Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message . com>...
> Seems kind of too-too to me. The sunroof was left open and the kid
> was unharmed but he was still booked on willful cruelty to a child.
> If he'd been caught doing something really dangerous like drunk
> driving or doing 100 mph with a kid in the car, nobody would have
> batted an eye.
>
> http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...ts/8149629.htm

He left the child in the car for 45 minutes [if that is correct] to meet with
an agent in a Starbucks --- and the mother was AT HOME???!!!!! He deserves
what he's been charged with. Mommie probably wanted a break and daddy was
too consumed with 'other priorities' to be concerned with what SHOULD BE his
first a foremost priority -- his child.

"Richard" > writes:

> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>
> > Seems kind of too-too to me. The sunroof was left open and the kid
> > was unharmed but he was still booked on willful cruelty to a child.
> > If he'd been caught doing something really dangerous like drunk
> > driving or doing 100 mph with a kid in the car, nobody would have
> > batted an eye.
>
> > http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...e_courts/81496
> > 29.htm
>
>
> $100,000 bail? That's cruel and unusual punishment.

No, it's not. Not punishment at all. Perhaps excessive bail, which is
also unconstitutional.

<snip>

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

On 10 Mar 2004 17:17:25 -0800, (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote:

>Seems kind of too-too to me. The sunroof was left open and the kid
>was unharmed but he was still booked on willful cruelty to a child.
>If he'd been caught doing something really dangerous like drunk
>driving or doing 100 mph with a kid in the car, nobody would have
>batted an eye.
>
>http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...ts/8149629.htm

Oh, you mean the way no one complains about school and workplace drug
testing despite a plethora of evidence otherwise?

Depending on the jurisdiction doing 100 mph while under the influence
with a child in the car would be treated as felony child endangerment.
Hardly not batting an eye . . . .

Andy Katz
************************************************** *************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.

Paghat, the Rat Girl

(debi) wrote in message . com>...
> (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message . com>...
> > Seems kind of too-too to me. The sunroof was left open and the kid
> > was unharmed but he was still booked on willful cruelty to a child.
> > If he'd been caught doing something really dangerous like drunk
> > driving or doing 100 mph with a kid in the car, nobody would have
> > batted an eye.
> >
> > http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...ts/8149629.htm
>
> He left the child in the car for 45 minutes [if that is correct] to meet with
> an agent in a Starbucks --- and the mother was AT HOME???!!!!! He deserves
> what he's been charged with. Mommie probably wanted a break and daddy was
> too consumed with 'other priorities' to be concerned with what SHOULD BE his
> first a foremost priority -- his child.

Dad sound like an idiot - but I agree bail seems set too high, and I
question how the facts, as reported in the article, lead one to call
this "willful cruelty".

It may have been an issue of endagerment - but if there was no pain,
injury, etc inflicted on the child, I can't agree with calling it
cruel.

Putting it in the context presented by the newspaper, it sounds like
police cheif is a hysteric. A young baby needs constant attention,
yes. But that does not mean that a parent must be constantly
observing the child to prevent "choking on its clothing," etc. My 2
month old daughter is asleep in her crib, in her room, alone, at this
moment. She could be choking on her clothing. She could be getting
abducted as I type this. These things could happen in her room when
my wife and I are asleep at night. Am I guilty of child cruelty?

The cheif did not seem to dwell on the child being left in a
dangerously hot environment - which is the real danger posed to a
child left in a car for even a few minutes. It appears that this
child was not in danger of cooking to death. And it seems the alarm
worked - when the cops entered the car, the alarm sounded and dad
appeared. I don't have an alarm on my house --- is my daughter in
unreasonable peril?

I think this guy will walk (if he hasn't already) if all of the fact
have been reported in this article.

I wouldn't leave my daughter in a car in this situation, but I don't
think doing so is cruel.

debi > writes:

> He left the child in the car for 45 minutes [if that is correct]
> to meet with an agent in a Starbucks --- and the mother was AT
> HOME???!!!!! He deserves what he's been charged with. Mommie
> probably wanted a break and daddy was too consumed with 'other
> priorities' to be concerned with what SHOULD BE his first a
> foremost priority -- his child.


That just goes to show that women are better suited to taking
care of babies and small children than men are. Ever noticed
that women have breasts and men don't? Perhaps there's a
message in there someplace, y'think?

As for moomie needing a break, she should've come to terms with
what she was getting into before she spread her hams. Maybe
she even "oopsed" her husband by going off the Pill without
telling him.

What about the father? He was meeting with a business associate,
which tells us that *he* obviously wasn't getting a break from
*his* primary responsibility: bringing home the bacon. So he's
supposed to do his job and moomie's too, while moomie malingers
at home on her cellulite-puckered marshmallow butt and watches
soap operas or yaks on the telephone? What's wrong with this
picture?

Jesus wept...



Geoff

--
"But I'm not gonna buy any microbrews that glorify trail-raping
mountain bicyclists." -- Steve Pope,

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
> That just goes to show that women are better suited to taking
> care of babies and small children than men are. Ever noticed
> that women have breasts and men don't?

Didja ever notice that they sell breast pumps and formula at the store?

> What about the father? He was meeting with a business associate,
> which tells us that *he* obviously wasn't getting a break from
> *his* primary responsibility: bringing home the bacon. So he's
> supposed to do his job and moomie's too, while moomie malingers
> at home on her cellulite-puckered marshmallow butt and watches
> soap operas or yaks on the telephone? What's wrong with this
> picture?
>
> Jesus wept...


So does your momma.

(Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote in message . com>...
> Seems kind of too-too to me. The sunroof was left open and the kid
> was unharmed but he was still booked on willful cruelty to a child.
> If he'd been caught doing something really dangerous like drunk
> driving or doing 100 mph with a kid in the car, nobody would have
> batted an eye.
>
> http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...ts/8149629.htm

This is not extraordinary for California.

PC 273a(a): "having the care or custody of any child... willfully
causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or
her person or health is endangered".

Presumptive bail for a violation of 273a(a) is $100,000. A minimum
sentence would be a likely outcome: 4 years probation, 1 year child
abuse counseling, and a court order against doing anything like that
again.

For this to rise to felony child endangerment is still a stretch: it
is long established in California that "criminal negligence" is
required for a felony conviction on child endangerment: roughly, this
means that the father would have to know (or should have known) that
leaving the child there could have led to great harm and he was
indifferent to that. The "criminal negligence" element is often
successfully proved when a defendant has kept a child in a house used
as a meth lab or has left a child with a known child abuser.

Contrary to your assertion, there have been successful prosecutions in
California, upheld on appeal, for child endangerment from reckless
driving.

--
Chris Green

Andy Katz > wrote in message >. ..
> On 10 Mar 2004 17:17:25 -0800, (Laura Bush
> murdered her boy friend) wrote:
>
> >Seems kind of too-too to me. The sunroof was left open and the kid
> >was unharmed but he was still booked on willful cruelty to a child.
> >If he'd been caught doing something really dangerous like drunk
> >driving or doing 100 mph with a kid in the car, nobody would have
> >batted an eye.
> >
> >http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...ts/8149629.htm
>
> Oh, you mean the way no one complains about school and workplace drug
> testing despite a plethora of evidence otherwise?
>
> Depending on the jurisdiction doing 100 mph while under the influence
> with a child in the car would be treated as felony child endangerment.
> Hardly not batting an eye . . . .
>

Like hell. Sure if there was a crash because the parent was doing 100
mph and the kid was injured, then there might be a child endangerment
charge. But if a cop just pulls you over for doing 100, he won't give
two ****s about kids in the car. He should but he won't.

Earlier I wrote:

: That just goes to show that women are better suited to taking
: care of babies and small children than men are. Ever noticed
: that women have breasts and men don't?


BethF > responds:

> Didja ever notice that they sell breast pumps and formula at
> the store?

The existence of workarounds for nursing isn't the point, my
not-terribly-astute friend. The point is as follows: the fact
that females come equipped with built-in nursing apparatus while
men do not offers some insight as to their relative suitability
for child care duties in general -- not simply those having to
do with feeding.

Women are the first to admit that they're more nurturing by
nature than men are, and anyone who's observed the female
urge to reproduce will confirm that it's a force to be
reckoned with (preferably with a vasectomy).

Moreover, anyone who's been around the block a time or two,
and who's intellectually honest, will tell you that females
are characteristically much shallower than men from an
intellectual standpoint, as you've demonstrated.

They're also much better able to tolerate noise, which shouldn't
come as any surprise given the well-known inverse relationship
between intelligence and the ability to tolerate distractions.
(Ever noticed that the workers at Jamba Juice are overwhelmingly
female, for example? That's no accident; that sort of din would
drive most guys over the edge in pretty short order.)

Thanks to these factors, one can conclude that taking care of
babies and small children came to be a traditional female
"gender role" for valid and articulable evolutionary reasons,
while men were, and are, better suited to procuring food and
doing battle -- of which business matters such as those being
conducted by the man in our story are the modern manifestation.
There's no sense in arguing about it or fighting it.


> So does your momma.

Er, why the hostility? You may not like the truth, but then,
it has no particular obligation to conform to your tender
sensibilities, does it? Like the man said, sometimes truth
bites you on the ass. And your ample posterior, undoubtedly
squeezed into a pair of pastel K-mart stretch pants that have
a tendency to bunch up in your sweaty gluteal cleft, probably
makes a pretty damned tempting target.



Geoff

--
"But I'm not gonna buy any microbrews that glorify trail-raping
mountain bicyclists." -- Steve Pope,