Not GuiltyFollow

That's pretty much where I was going with it.

Wouldn't need a six pack but damn sure would be gone before she woke up the next morning.

Quote from an outraged housewife-straight-out-of-high-school:

I have followed very, very little of this case. I bought a People magazine because it was on the cover, then it gathered dust on my end table as I never read it. I'm not even sure where it is now... I know a kid died, and the mother was out partying instead of worrying about her kid. I know (may have read it in this thread, actually) that the cause of death was uncertain, she either drowned in a pool or suffocated in the trunk of a car? Something like that.

All in all, sounds to me like the kid's death was an accident, probably due to some negligence on the mother's part. I think she acted like an idiot, but probably doesn't deserve to be maligned any more than she already has been.

Of course, it's not like she's going to have a normal life now. She will most likely get a book or movie (or both) deal and make some money off this. I would be outraged by that, except I don't expect that she'll exactly be flooded with job offers or have a way to make any money now.

I did see that she was quoted as saying that after this, she'd like to think about adopting. That sort of struck me the wrong way, but I don't see how any adoption agency would give her a kid.

Someone around here was saying that Playboy had but they might be using "Playboy" as a stand-in term for "some adult entertainment outfit".

Also, I assume that 90% of the "offers" Playboy makes to "celebrities" (however you define it) are just designed to get the Playboy name some free media time on CNN and FOX rather than serious offers.

Meh, I could manage to rub one out to that.

Its really hard to consider it smut when its like 200 pages, and only 10 of 'em have anything to do with naked people.

This happened during a local Amber Alert (some father ran off with his 4 month old daughter, and gave the daughter to someone, won't tell anyone who).

This event and the Casey Anthony trial has all the usual people freaking out on facebook. One of the stupider ones I saw is someone say "Why don't they make it illegal for someone to take a child and not tell where they are taking them!" Everyone seemed to think it was a great idea. But what the hell will that achieve? People who are killing and/or kidnapping children are not following the law, how will a law about having to report a child's whereabouts before 24 hours change anything? So they can tack on another misdemeanor crime when they prosecute a suspected killer/napper? I'm sure that extra 200-500 dollar fine will be a huge difference in whether or not someone kills/kidnaps...

Oh, and apparently truth serum should be used when interrogating, cause it works, just like in the movies. And the police should have the power to search any and every house in the city, without warrant, because it's a missing child.

There are three reasons why people's eyes glaze over.

Caylee's Law is one of the less stupid ways that people have been venting their frustrations.

Basically it seeks to make it a felony for a parent to not report a missing child for X amount of time (30 hours I've seen) or to not report a dead child (within an hour after discovery).

It's reactionary, obviously, but I feel like it has some merit. I was surprised that Anthony didn't get charged with Child Neglect, which I thought something like this might already fall under. I'm not up-and-up on child neglect laws, but apparently they're a bit under powered in some places. Old article, but it's surprising that as recently as 2010 it was a crime to neglect an animal, but not your child.

I feel like the laws could use some beefing up. Not sure if this is the way to go about it, but perhaps it's something.

Edited, Jul 9th 2011 12:58pm by Eske

There's no way in which that makes sense.