Okay lawyers, I wanna know who's right

[ConHog]

BUT - consider THIS:

CH's federal statute sets forth a crime when parents allow a child to engage in something that involves imminent danger of injury or death. We have seen that "imminent" means "immediate" or "just about to happen."

I had commented that there is no "imminent" danger when a presumably competent sailor sets out to sail solo around the world. There is danger that might come up along the way, but there is nothing "imminent" and, in fact, the sailor may make it safely around the world with no problems at all.

But what if the parental consent is for something that most certainly will result in serious injury or death - but at a later time, i.e., the danger is not "imminent" when the parental consent is given? Take this sailing example. There is certainly a great risk involved in what this young girl attempted to do. The parental consent was given at the start of the trip, when nothing was "imminent." But does the fact that the real danger won't come up until the girl is well into the actual voyage, remove the parents from the purview of this statute?

If life-threatening danger is a given, then what difference does it make when the parental consent is given relative to the time when the life-threatening danger occurs? Isn't parental consent for an activity that will be life-threatening for the child a violation of the statute, regardless of when the danger arises - just so long as it is foreseeable that it could arise?

Child wants to walk to the zoo, jump into the lion cage and feed the lions by hand. Parents give the child consent. It could be argued that it takes two hours to walk to the zoo and, therefore, the danger is not "imminent" when the consent is given. Think that would pass muster for avoiding prosecution under the statute? I don't.

If something terrible had in fact happened to the 16-year-old sailor in this case, I think the parents could have been prosecuted under the first part of the federal statute, which criminalizes serious injury or death when it has actually happened. ("Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation.")

The act also criminalizes parental consent where such consent might result in harm to the child. ("An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm")

Since no actual harm occurred, then the only possible proscution would be under the second part of the statute. I guess what I am very long windedly saying here is, that I don't think analyzing this type of situation on the basis of "imminence" of the potential harm is proper. Rather, I think it should be analyzed on the basis of degree of risk.

Analyzing it in this manner makes it a much closer call as to whether the parents could come under the purview of the second part of the statute. I'm not saying they would, but it becomes a much closer call.

Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

Am I wrong in my reading of the law because it seems to me that you are saying that the harm actually has to occur, but by my reading it doesn't , reasonable people just have to agree that it COULD ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Am I wrong in my reading of the law because it seems to me that you are saying that the harm actually has to occur, but by my reading it doesn't , reasonable people just have to agree that it COULD ?

Actually, they would have to agree that it is reasonable to believe that harm could reasonable occur.

 

[ConHog]

Am I wrong in my reading of the law because it seems to me that you are saying that the harm actually has to occur, but by my reading it doesn't , reasonable people just have to agree that it COULD ?

Actually, they would have to agree that it is reasonable to believe that harm could reasonable occur.

That definition would be reasonable.

 

[syrenn]

Just a few of conjobs loving quotes about this 16 year old girl

YAY, you finally get it and admit that these parents abused their skank.

in timing adds NOTHING to your argument. You can't neglect your child in certain areas or at certain times and say well thats ok.......... This little skank was abused by her fruitcake parents. She honestly would be better off if a horny Somali pirate grabbed her up and made her his bride, at least HE wouldn't send her out to into a sea of 50' swells in too small a ship that had mechanical issues.

She became a skank when she let that horny Somolian pirate have his way with her.

Please stop trying to say this is about trying to protect this girl or about any laws were broken.

This is ALL about you not having YOUR way and YOUR opinion being the only one out there.

 

[ConHog]

Just a few of conjobs loving quotes about this 16 year old girl

YAY, you finally get it and admit that these parents abused their skank.

in timing adds NOTHING to your argument. You can't neglect your child in certain areas or at certain times and say well thats ok.......... This little skank was abused by her fruitcake parents. She honestly would be better off if a horny Somali pirate grabbed her up and made her his bride, at least HE wouldn't send her out to into a sea of 50' swells in too small a ship that had mechanical issues.

She became a skank when she let that horny Somolian pirate have his way with her.

Please stop trying to say this is about trying to protect this girl or about any laws were broken.

This is ALL about you not having YOUR way and YOUR opinion being the only one out there.

RUH ROH, someone is getting angry because George has fully applied the law

 

[syrenn]

Just a few of conjobs loving quotes about this 16 year old girl

YAY, you finally get it and admit that these parents abused their skank.

She became a skank when she let that horny Somolian pirate have his way with her.

Please stop trying to say this is about trying to protect this girl or about any laws were broken.

This is ALL about you not having YOUR way and YOUR opinion being the only one out there.

RUH ROH, someone is getting angry because George has fully applied the law

.
Good pic! You need it.

LOL Angry your not worth the energy. I am just showing you for the hypocritical ass you are.

And I don't think George will appreciate you twisting his words again.

Analyzing it in this manner makes it a much closer call as to whether the parents could come under the purview of the second part of the statute. I'm not saying they would, but it becomes a much closer call.

Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

 

[ConHog]

Just a few of conjobs loving quotes about this 16 year old girl









Please stop trying to say this is about trying to protect this girl or about any laws were broken.

This is ALL about you not having YOUR way and YOUR opinion being the only one out there.

RUH ROH, someone is getting angry because George has fully applied the law

.
Good pic! You need it.

LOL Angry your not worth the energy. I am just showing you for the hypocritical ass you are.

And I don't think George will appreciate you twisting his words again.

Analyzing it in this manner makes it a much closer call as to whether the parents could come under the purview of the second part of the statute. I'm not saying they would, but it becomes a much closer call.

Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

You're so dishonest. But that's ok George is intelligent and will see through your bullshit, I didn't twist his words at all. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that he in fact did apply the law in post.

 

[syrenn]

[

You're so dishonest. But that's ok George is intelligent and will see through your bullshit, I didn't twist his words at all. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that he in fact did apply the law in post.

LMAO Yes George is VERY intelligent and we will see who thinks HE is dishonest.

 

[ConHog]

[

You're so dishonest. But that's ok George is intelligent and will see through your bullshit, I didn't twist his words at all. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that he in fact did apply the law in post.

LMAO Yes George is VERY intelligent and we will see who thinks HE is dishonest.

You can't even speak English. we will see who thinks he is dishonest? I don't think anyone has said George is dishonest?

Damn, take a reading class or something.

 

[syrenn]

[

You're so dishonest. But that's ok George is intelligent and will see through your bullshit, I didn't twist his words at all. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that he in fact did apply the law in post.

LMAO Yes George is VERY intelligent and we will see who thinks HE is dishonest.

You can't even speak English. we will see who thinks he is dishonest? I don't think anyone has said George is dishonest?

Damn, take a reading class or something.

Yep, hear that George I flamed ya! You lovable dishonest hunk of man.



Like it his way better conjob?




LMAO Yes George is VERY intelligent and we will see who HE is dishonest.

 

[ConHog]

LMAO Yes George is VERY intelligent and we will see who thinks HE is dishonest.

You can't even speak English. we will see who thinks he is dishonest? I don't think anyone has said George is dishonest?

Damn, take a reading class or something.

Yep, hear that George I flamed ya! You lovable dishonest hunk of man.



Like it his way better conjob?

Are you drunk? Do I like WHAT better HIS way?

LMAO Yes George is VERY intelligent and we will see who HE is dishonest.

That's not even a complete sentence so I have no clue what you are attempting to say

 

[syrenn]

How many times do I have to tell you conjob, its fun playing with your arrogance.

Its good making the monkey jump.

 

[ConHog]

How many times do I have to tell you conjob, its fun playing with your arrogance.

Its good making the monkey jump.

Well that certainly sounds better than saying "oh shit he made me look like an idiot again."

 

[syrenn]

Oh your doing a fine job of that all on your own. You don't need my help at all.

 

[ConHog]

Oh your doing a fine job of that all on your own. You don't need my help at all.

so you do admit that I am making you look like an idiot?


This is too easy. I'm going to stop now.

 

[syrenn]

Oh your doing a fine job of that all on your own. You don't need my help at all.

so you do admit that I am making you look like an idiot?


This is too easy. I'm going to stop now.

Keep trying. Lets see how long it takes you to jump again.

 

[gslack]

How many ways does it need to be explained to you Conho? How many people have to tell you? How many lawyers or such like have to explain it to you BEFORE you grow up and accept it?

Seriously, you tried every way you could to twist what we say, what others say, all in an ignorant attempt to appear right....

George told you flat out the more he looks at it the more he decides there is no cause for what you claim nor the statute you try and associate with it, and yet here you are pretending the opposite....

You gonna cry all night again?

 

[George Costanza]

BUT - consider THIS:

CH's federal statute sets forth a crime when parents allow a child to engage in something that involves imminent danger of injury or death. We have seen that "imminent" means "immediate" or "just about to happen."

I had commented that there is no "imminent" danger when a presumably competent sailor sets out to sail solo around the world. There is danger that might come up along the way, but there is nothing "imminent" and, in fact, the sailor may make it safely around the world with no problems at all.

But what if the parental consent is for something that most certainly will result in serious injury or death - but at a later time, i.e., the danger is not "imminent" when the parental consent is given? Take this sailing example. There is certainly a great risk involved in what this young girl attempted to do. The parental consent was given at the start of the trip, when nothing was "imminent." But does the fact that the real danger won't come up until the girl is well into the actual voyage, remove the parents from the purview of this statute?

If life-threatening danger is a given, then what difference does it make when the parental consent is given relative to the time when the life-threatening danger occurs? Isn't parental consent for an activity that will be life-threatening for the child a violation of the statute, regardless of when the danger arises - just so long as it is foreseeable that it could arise?

Child wants to walk to the zoo, jump into the lion cage and feed the lions by hand. Parents give the child consent. It could be argued that it takes two hours to walk to the zoo and, therefore, the danger is not "imminent" when the consent is given. Think that would pass muster for avoiding prosecution under the statute? I don't.

If something terrible had in fact happened to the 16-year-old sailor in this case, I think the parents could have been prosecuted under the first part of the federal statute, which criminalizes serious injury or death when it has actually happened. ("Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation.")

The act also criminalizes parental consent where such consent might result in harm to the child. ("An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm")

Since no actual harm occurred, then the only possible proscution would be under the second part of the statute. I guess what I am very long windedly saying here is, that I don't think analyzing this type of situation on the basis of "imminence" of the potential harm is proper. Rather, I think it should be analyzed on the basis of degree of risk.

Analyzing it in this manner makes it a much closer call as to whether the parents could come under the purview of the second part of the statute. I'm not saying they would, but it becomes a much closer call.

Wooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

Am I wrong in my reading of the law because it seems to me that you are saying that the harm actually has to occur, but by my reading it doesn't , reasonable people just have to agree that it COULD ?

The law sets up a crime in TWO situations: (1) If harm actually occurs (Part 1) OR (2) If harm might occur (the "imminent risk" portion of the law - Part 2).

 

[ConHog]

How many ways does it need to be explained to you Conho? How many people have to tell you? How many lawyers or such like have to explain it to you BEFORE you grow up and accept it?

Seriously, you tried every way you could to twist what we say, what others say, all in an ignorant attempt to appear right....

George told you flat out the more he looks at it the more he decides there is no cause for what you claim nor the statute you try and associate with it, and yet here you are pretending the opposite....

You gonna cry all night again?

Actually quite the opposite is true.

 

[gslack]

How many ways does it need to be explained to you Conho? How many people have to tell you? How many lawyers or such like have to explain it to you BEFORE you grow up and accept it?

Seriously, you tried every way you could to twist what we say, what others say, all in an ignorant attempt to appear right....

George told you flat out the more he looks at it the more he decides there is no cause for what you claim nor the statute you try and associate with it, and yet here you are pretending the opposite....

You gonna cry all night again?

Actually quite the opposite is true.

Lying again?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2445516-post89.html

The more I think about this, the more apparent it becomes to me that the parents in this case would NOT be in violation of ConHog's federal statute by allowing their daughter to go on this voyage.

Sorry, CH - but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

Stop lying already...

I negged your last post because you are lying again.... Enough is enough...