Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: john in springfield
The government intervention is in contravening the authority of the father, which we've already stipulated is correct if child abuse is established or even reasonably suspected.

I do see your larger point, which is if a child runs away and lies to manipulate the law against you, you blame the child, not the law. OK, that makes sense.

I am not saying this girl is lying. She could still believe her life is in danger when in fact it is not. These two things are not contradictory. If you point an unloaded gun at me that I think is loaded, I could feel my life is in danger even though it is not.

At this point, if child abuse is alleged, all else is moot anyway.

My larger point is that you must treat law abiding citizens from suspect ethnic or religious groups just as you would anyone else. "Because they're Muslim" is not an excuse, regardless how sick some Muslims have acted in this country. That is the system we have.

57 posted on 08/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PDT by foutsc (Nietzsche is Dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: foutsc
The government intervention is in contravening the authority of the father, which we've already stipulated is correct if child abuse is established or even reasonably suspected.

Okay, we certainly sound in agreement on that point, then.

I am not saying this girl is lying. She could still believe her life is in danger when in fact it is not. These two things are not contradictory.

This is true. However, I personally believe her fear is rational and reasonable.

If you point an unloaded gun at me that I think is loaded, I could feel my life is in danger even though it is not.

If I deliberately point an unloaded gun at you and you have reason to believe my intent is to do you harm, then you are justified in promptly blowing my fool head off.

My larger point is that you must treat law abiding citizens from suspect ethnic or religious groups just as you would anyone else.

Certainly, in the general principle. However, if a person is from an ethnic, religious, social, cultural or business group or affiliation that has a known and confirmed history of commiting a certain kind of crime in disproportionate numbers, particularly if that crime is a serious one such as murder, then I would argue that this particular rational suspicion is a relevant bit of information that can and should be considered in making the appropriate determination. I'm not necessarily saying that it should be considered a basis for making a decision, or that it can be justified as a basis for final decision, but it should certainly be considered a basis for careful further investigation as to whether there may be a problem in that particular area.

Put another way: If employees of ACORN have a history of voter fraud in disproportionate numbers, and I am an ACORN employee engaged in voter registration actitivies, then the law is justified in taking a closer investigative look at me than might be justified for an employee of Wal-Mart.

Similarly, if we have dozens of case files of child abuse involving members of Bob's Church of Fun (when Bob's Church of Fun only has a total of 1,100 members), then if a case involving a child comes before the court, and an allegation of child abuse is raised, the court is justified in taking a closer look at the issue of possible child abuse in this particular instance than they might be if the couple were members of First Baptist Church.

64 posted on 08/24/2009 6:00:48 PM PDT by john in springfield (One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe such things.No ordinary man could be such a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson