Originally posted by Creshosk
So its best to not discover if a crime has been commited rather than potentially catching a criminal and preventing that person from comminig further crimes?
strawman
Originally posted by Creshosk
Other than reckless endangerment? Or concpiracy to commit crimes?
both reckless endangerment and conspiracy require that someone be charged for an act before their freedoms are removed
pressing charges requires evidence...
Originally posted by Creshosk
Other than the fact that they aren't doing everything in their power to stop it because its too costly?
strawman. There is no evidence that a) they aren't doing everything or b) that there is a financial reason for their behaviour.
Originally posted by Creshosk
So its better to risk the saftey of the child?
I made no statements of worth
better is a statement of worth
"So its better to let terrorists attack" by your argument would be justification to lock up all muslims.
Originally posted by Creshosk
How does one go about collecting this evidence?
standard police and investigative work
ie. getting more than just the child to say "X happened". The reason for this is that, from past experience with identical situations, a child saying "X happened" is not very good evidence
lol, this is the exact same with any crime. As terrible and rewarding to criminals as it may be, if one is able to commit a crime in a way that is undetectable to authorities, one is above the law.
Originally posted by inimalistIt's not an exageration, and I never said that you said that. So please don't avoid the question.
strawman
Originally posted by inimalistBut in either case has anyone gotten hurt?
both reckless endangerment and conspiracy require that someone be charged for an act before their freedoms are removed
Originally posted by inimalistAnd what's the assumption that there is none? Is this based off of the belief that she's lying? Or is it because you missed where she said they had evidence?
pressing charges requires evidence...
Originally posted by inimalistOther than the fact that they aren't. Nice thing about absolute quantifiers.
strawman. There is no evidence that a) they aren't doing everything
Originally posted by inimalistDidn't you previously state that
or b) that there is a financial reason for their behaviour.
And I was refering to more than just a financial cost.
Originally posted by inimalistYou don't need to. You're already arguing against an investigation.
I made no statements of worthbetter is a statement of worth
So which would be better? To investigate the accusation, or to not investigate the accusation?
Originally posted by inimalistIf you buy into the eequivocation that "Muslims=terrorists"
"So its better to let terrorists attack" by your argument would be justification to lock up all muslims.
But since that has to be true for you to have validly applied my logic... I 'm afraid this counter is a strawman.
Originally posted by inimalistBy that reasoning, from past experience with other crimes having had flase reports, then anyone saying that a crime happened isn't ver ygood evidence to investigate to find out if it was true.
standard police and investigative workie. getting more than just the child to say "X happened". The reason for this is that, from past experience with identical situations, a child saying "X happened" is not very good evidence
So why do they send police out to a location on every phone call made to them concerning suspicious activity?
Originally posted by inimalistAnd everything would be undetectable if the authorities never looked. No looking, no detecting, everyone gets away with everything.
lol, this is the exact same with any crime. As terrible and rewarding to criminals as it may be, if one is able to commit a crime in a way that is undetectable to authorities, one is above the law.
Originally posted by Creshosk
ok, maybe it's me who is missing something
outside of the words of the children, what evidence is there?
oh, and just to let you know, because I know WHY something doesn't happen (notice how knowing the cause of something isn't a moral statement) doesn't mean I am in support of it. The unfortunate truth is that sometimes our basic freedoms get in the way of investigations.
Originally posted by inimalistDunno. But assuming she's telling the truth:
ok, maybe it's me who is missing somethingoutside of the words of the children, what evidence is there?
Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
They found evidence to support the girls claim!
There IS evidence.
Originally posted by inimalistI'm not saying, go out arrest him and lockk him up for 50 years or anything, I'm saying investigate the matter.
oh, and just to let you know, because I know [b]WHY something doesn't happen (notice how knowing the cause of something isn't a moral statement) doesn't mean I am in support of it. The unfortunate truth is that sometimes our basic freedoms get in the way of investigations. [/B]
Assuming she's telling the truth, she found evidence, and reported in and they still did nothing, is it not the natural reaction to assume that by doing nothing (not even an investigation based on the evidence and the girl's testimonies) they were allowing it to happen?
Assuming she's telling the truth the facts are:
They have evidence.
They were told.
They only asked for it in wriing (ignoring the evidence?)
They did not so much as investigate the matter.
They have no plausible deniability. They are permitting it to happen,even willingly. The two things that would be against them the strongest are the evidence, and the lack of any actual action other than what might simply be busy work.
Is the assumption not that they were willingly permiting it to happen?
Is not willingly permitting it to happen condoning it? A sort of tacit approval where by the say nothing , but also don't act on it.
Can then the reason for the original thread title not be understood?
Originally posted by BackFireNo doubt. I have such expectations of people to do what they're paid to do.
That's just ridiculous.
Maybe its just the stories of my friends hiring hookers and then getting rejected by them that really makes me mad. What if I should want a hooker? Should I worry about paying for servies and not getting serviced?
Originally posted by inimalist
Some hard evidence would be good. Sperm in the child's underwear, the father's skin under the nails of the girl, anything. Just because we all get really hot and bothered by child rape doesn't mean that standards of evidence and due dilligence get thrown out the window.
backfire, how could you look over this? read it damnit!!!