Missing Bride To Be Found Alive

[dilloduck]

Get a life.

dang---moderator --moderator----I've been zinged !!


WTF--no one can discuss this rationally with me or what?

 

[Annie]

dang---moderator --moderator----I've been zinged !!


WTF--no one can discuss this rationally with me or what?

moderator, moderator, stalker! J/k he still needs to get a life.

 

[dilloduck]

moderator, moderator, stalker! J/k he still needs to get a life.

Your one tough cookie there, K.

 

[Merlin1047]

As emperor of Georgia would you require EVERY CRIMINAL to financially pay for every crime that was committed? I'm not just referring to the fine on the statutes--I'm talking about total restitution?

Hell yes. I'd rather squeeze them like the proverbial turnip than spend more taxpayer money putting their butts in jail. Can you think of a better way to balance the budget than making miscreants pay through the nose for their stupidity? Matter of fact - call it a dumbass tax.

I have never said nor implied that the woman should get a total pass for her crimes. She should recieve the statutory punishment for every law that she broke should the DA see that the appropriate way to go. The difference that I see is that the American community wants the MAX for this case in particular but are we willing to ask the MAX for all cases that cost us this much or more? I'm not implying tthat you are a sexist either. I just happen to think that Martha Stewart is "being made an example of" also and she wears an GPS monitor while violent sex offenders don't. Nonsense laws cause people to have disrespect for the rest.

Regarding Martha Stewart - I would apply the same criteria. Since money was the motive for her crime, then money should be the punishment. I would have fined her an amount at least ten times the amount of the profit she made on the illegal trades. I think prison time for Martha was nothing short of ludicrous and punished the taxpayer far more than Martha.

But in regard to the other dingaling under discussion, I do believe that just as there are mitigating circumstances to a crime, there are also exacerbating factors. In this case the woman caused hundreds of people to expend time, effort and money in a vain search for her. She caused police assets to be wasted. These factors, in combination with her false police report are, in my view, sufficient to warrant a rather hefty fine to compensate her community and the taxpayers for all the crap she put them through.

 

[Yurt]

What is interesting to me though, is the "pay" is not a statutory fine, rather, it appears to be based on civil law, in that, the state would sue her for the expense of looking for her. Maybe Georgia is different than CA, but I don't believe there is a statute that entitles the state to compensation for looking for a missing person simply because they leave.

Where I think a statute might exist is: where someone has phoned the cops on the first day of vanishing and told them she was kidnapped. As far as I know, her fib to the police resulted in no expenditures of resources. As she very soon after said she lied. Therefore, this is why I view this case different than that girl in minnesota who "faked" her kidnapping from the beginning.

IMHO.

 

[Yurt]

But in regard to the other dingaling under discussion, I do believe that just as there are mitigating circumstances to a crime, there are also exacerbating factors. In this case the woman caused hundreds of people to expend time, effort and money in a vain search for her. She caused police assets to be wasted. These factors, in combination with her false police report are, in my view, sufficient to warrant a rather hefty fine to compensate her community and the taxpayers for all the crap she put them through.

Very good point.

Here is my question:

Do you also believe that any of who take risks, such as, surfing, rock climbing, mountain climbing... should have to pay back to the community when we are rescued? A step further, if I smoke in bed ( a deliberate act ) then fall asleep (closely tied to deliberate since I should have known if I was tired I might fall asleep with the cig in my hand) and burn my house down, should I reimburse the community? What if I have old wiring in my house, and this causes a fire because I could not afford the upgraded insulated wiring?

Fine lines to cross.

In my opinion, community rescue efforts (and yes I see those blokes on impossible cliffs who are stuck create the most extensive rescue efforts and think, I paid for their rescue, however, I also paid for their freedom to do such amazing feats. The people who get hurt in such events are few, thus the cost is minimally distributed.

I would hate to think that if I got stuck at 10,000 feet no one would rescue me because I could not affort it.

 

[dilloduck]

Hell yes. I'd rather squeeze them like the proverbial turnip than spend more taxpayer money putting their butts in jail. Can you think of a better way to balance the budget than making miscreants pay through the nose for their stupidity? Matter of fact - call it a dumbass tax.



Regarding Martha Stewart - I would apply the same criteria. Since money was the motive for her crime, then money should be the punishment. I would have fined her an amount at least ten times the amount of the profit she made on the illegal trades. I think prison time for Martha was nothing short of ludicrous and punished the taxpayer far more than Martha.

But in regard to the other dingaling under discussion, I do believe that just as there are mitigating circumstances to a crime, there are also exacerbating factors. In this case the woman caused hundreds of people to expend time, effort and money in a vain search for her. She caused police assets to be wasted. These factors, in combination with her false police report are, in my view, sufficient to warrant a rather hefty fine to compensate her community and the taxpayers for all the crap she put them through.

Im sure they all felt betrayed stupid and angry upon discovering what happened. Hell the whole country is. Hopefully a humongous fine will help them all get over it and show the world that we don't put up with THAT kind of shit. IF you get cold feet and run without telling anyone YOUR ASS WILL BE GRASS MO FO !!!!

 

[Annie]

What is interesting to me though, is the "pay" is not a statutory fine, rather, it appears to be based on civil law, in that, the state would sue her for the expense of looking for her. Maybe Georgia is different than CA, but I don't believe there is a statute that entitles the state to compensation for looking for a missing person simply because they leave.

Where I think a statute might exist is: where someone has phoned the cops on the first day of vanishing and told them she was kidnapped. As far as I know, her fib to the police resulted in no expenditures of resources. As she very soon after said she lied. Therefore, this is why I view this case different than that girl in minnesota who "faked" her kidnapping from the beginning.

IMHO.

Ok, maybe I am misunderstanding something that you are trying to explain. I'll use myself.

I want to escape. My bills, my kids, my dad. I take off, with some cash.

So far, nothing illegal, maybe I put a plane ticket on credit card. From that point on I pay cash. My father/kids report me missing-I live in pretty affluent area, they search, they can afford to-find the paper trail, then loose me. Last they know, I'm in Mexico, but do not speak Spanish.

I change my name in Mexico, which I entered on visa. Unless someone goes to expense of 'finding' me, I'm gone.

Now, I've been living in Mexico for 5 years. I want to come back, I make up story. Should I be held blameless?

 

[Shattered]

Example---If I just wanna disappear and have people leave me the hell alone, there is no law telling me I have to leave a note. Why in the hell should i pay for people who DECIDED BY THEMSELVES to look for me?

Had she *said* she didn't want to be found, that would be one thing.. However, she stated she'd been kidnapped, which is an outright lie.

 

[dilloduck]

Had she *said* she didn't want to be found, that would be one thing.. However, she stated she'd been kidnapped, which is an outright lie.

you have some catch up reading to do.

 

[Shattered]

you have some catch up reading to do.

Apparently. Did you log off for anything today?

 

[Yurt]

Ok, maybe I am misunderstanding something that you are trying to explain. I'll use myself.

I want to escape. My bills, my kids, my dad. I take off, with some cash.

So far, nothing illegal, maybe I put a plane ticket on credit card. From that point on I pay cash. My father/kids report me missing-I live in pretty affluent area, they search, they can afford to-find the paper trail, then loose me. Last they know, I'm in Mexico, but do not speak Spanish.

I change my name in Mexico, which I entered on visa. Unless someone goes to expense of 'finding' me, I'm gone.

Now, I've been living in Mexico for 5 years. I want to come back, I make up story. Should I be held blameless?

So you are saying, she knew, immediatly, that there were people looking for her? I assume she found out at some point close to the end, hence she was at greyhound for awhile deciding what to do. Imagine, a nation wide story about you. You never imagined that your leaving would create such a sensation. Well, thank you very much Scott Peterson and that guy in Idaho, for filling the news channels with this type of disappearance. Now that I decide to leave I should consider this?

I see where you are coming from. However, 10 years ago, this would not have even made the news outside of the local city, thus, keeping the search mostly to family and a few community officers who should be looking for missing people.

Her lie came at the end. Most likely after she realized the national story this had become. If it was me and I wanted space and did not feel like telling anyone and spent days on a bus with virtually no news and then I heard this, I would probably make up some stupid story like she did. Is it right? No. However, her lie came after the search. She may not have even known about the massive manhunts. Now, if she did, that is entirely different and she deserves to pay, for she had knowledge. Unless that, she should only pay for what she had knowledge of, her lying. Which my understanding is, caused very little expense. Unless you want her to pay for her escort.

 

[dilloduck]

So you are saying, she knew, immediatly, that there were people looking for her? I assume she found out at some point close to the end, hence she was at greyhound for awhile deciding what to do. Imagine, a nation wide story about you. You never imagined that your leaving would create such a sensation. Well, thank you very much Scott Peterson and that guy in Idaho, for filling the news channels with this type of disappearance. Now that I decide to leave I should consider this?

I see where you are coming from. However, 10 years ago, this would not have even made the news outside of the local city, thus, keeping the search mostly to family and a few community officers who should be looking for missing people.

Her lie came at the end. Most likely after she realized the national story this had become. If it was me and I wanted space and did not feel like telling anyone and spent days on a bus with virtually no news and then I heard this, I would probably make up some stupid story like she did. Is it right? No. However, her lie came after the search. She may not have even known about the massive manhunts. Now, if she did, that is entirely different and she deserves to pay, for she had knowledge. Unless that, she should only pay for what she had knowledge of, her lying. Which my understanding is, caused very little expense. Unless you want her to pay for her escort.

I'm sorta with ya and along the same lines of reasoning. I'm still curious as to why the public wants a piece of her flesh so badly. Criminals break the law DAILY and I have yet to hear ANYONE scream that they should have to pay for all the police work surrounding thier apprehension. If scaring people or making people worry were a crime we could all suck the politicians dry. Public reaction to this crime is what interests me--both volumn and intensity and you simply can't tell me that everyone screaming for her head is worried about the money. There are other dynamics in play here.

 

[dmp]

I'm sorta with ya and along the same lines of reasoning. I'm still curious as to why the public wants a piece of her flesh so badly. Criminals break the law DAILY and I have yet to hear ANYONE scream that they should have to pay for all the police work surrounding thier apprehension. If scaring people or making people worry were a crime we could all suck the politicians dry. Public reaction to this crime is what interests me--both volumn and intensity and you simply can't tell me that everyone screaming for her head is worried about the money. There are other dynamics in play here.

It's not about paying for her apprehension...it's about paying for her COVERING UP her dissapearance at the cost of big-bux to taxpayers. It's about her learning, maybe as the example, that people need to be responsible.

 

[dilloduck]

A bit of reading regarding the run away bride.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/03/earlyshow/main692595.shtml

A nice and civil disagreement I think.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently. Did you log off for anything today?

try to stick with the topic at hand----personal dislikes and attacks make the board look tacky IMHO---This happens to be a subject that I have some interest in--I can play the "wreck someone elses thread" game too if you like. If you have no interest in this one or think it is silly , go play elsewhere.

 

[manu1959]

I'm sorta with ya and along the same lines of reasoning. I'm still curious as to why the public wants a piece of her flesh so badly. Criminals break the law DAILY and I have yet to hear ANYONE scream that they should have to pay for all the police work surrounding thier apprehension. If scaring people or making people worry were a crime we could all suck the politicians dry. Public reaction to this crime is what interests me--both volumn and intensity and you simply can't tell me that everyone screaming for her head is worried about the money. There are other dynamics in play here.

well scott peterson's trial is over.....michael jacksons thing is boring......she is the latest victim in the modern version of the roman games

 

[dilloduck]

Ok, maybe I am misunderstanding something that you are trying to explain. I'll use myself.

I want to escape. My bills, my kids, my dad. I take off, with some cash.

So far, nothing illegal, maybe I put a plane ticket on credit card. From that point on I pay cash. My father/kids report me missing-I live in pretty affluent area, they search, they can afford to-find the paper trail, then loose me. Last they know, I'm in Mexico, but do not speak Spanish.

I change my name in Mexico, which I entered on visa. Unless someone goes to expense of 'finding' me, I'm gone.

Now, I've been living in Mexico for 5 years. I want to come back, I make up story. Should I be held blameless?

I have never suggested that this woman be held "blameless" so I'm not sure who you are talking to here however your above scenario would depend on if you did anything illegal and there would be a fixed punishmnet if you were convicted of that crime. Should the legal system go FURTHER and try to recoup every dime it spent looking into your disappearing act?
If it becomes a precendent to charge every alleged criminal for expenses incurred it would border on cruel and unusual punishment IMHO and nearly logistically impossible.

 

[Merlin1047]

Very good point.

Here is my question:

Do you also believe that any of who take risks, such as, surfing, rock climbing, mountain climbing... should have to pay back to the community when we are rescued? A step further, if I smoke in bed ( a deliberate act ) then fall asleep (closely tied to deliberate since I should have known if I was tired I might fall asleep with the cig in my hand) and burn my house down, should I reimburse the community? What if I have old wiring in my house, and this causes a fire because I could not afford the upgraded insulated wiring?

Fine lines to cross.

In my opinion, community rescue efforts (and yes I see those blokes on impossible cliffs who are stuck create the most extensive rescue efforts and think, I paid for their rescue, however, I also paid for their freedom to do such amazing feats. The people who get hurt in such events are few, thus the cost is minimally distributed.

I would hate to think that if I got stuck at 10,000 feet no one would rescue me because I could not affort it.

Hmmm - basically I'd have to say yes, I do believe that people who engage in risky behavior and require taxpayer funded services to extricate them from their own foibles should have to help defray those costs. However, I would not suggest that we check your credit history and your bank statement before those services are rendered.

How many times have you watched news footage of some idiot who drove his/her car into high water and now other people come along and risk their own lives to undo the stupidity? Those people should pay as should anyone who engages in an activity which has a high likelikhood of ending in a rescue effort. Here's a thought - for those who want to go rock climbing up some 5,000 foot cliff. Make them post a bond. If they don't require rescue, they get their money back.

 

[GotZoom]

Hmmm - basically I'd have to say yes, I do believe that people who engage in risky behavior and require taxpayer funded services to extricate them from their own foibles should have to help defray those costs. However, I would not suggest that we check your credit history and your bank statement before those services are rendered.

How many times have you watched news footage of some idiot who drove his/her car into high water and now other people come along and risk their own lives to undo the stupidity? Those people should pay as should anyone who engages in an activity which has a high likelikhood of ending in a rescue effort. Here's a thought - for those who want to go rock climbing up some 5,000 foot cliff. Make them post a bond. If they don't require rescue, they get their money back.

Maricopa County (Phoenix/Scottsdale/Mesa, etc) in Arizona already does that. If they make an announcement on TV (or any other warning, signs, etc) about their flash floods, and someone drives through a wash, then has to be rescued - they pay for the rescue.