Re: Ray attempts Biblical justification: was Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Hanson) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > She probably wasn't even aware of
> > how terrified she was, consciously.
> 
> Apparently CPS didn't think this was
> the case or, as the psychologist asked,
> why didn't they get her to a psychologist?
> 
> Do you think CPS screwed up in that regard?  :)
> 
> 
> Regarding pedophile CPS caseworker Geoff Rantz:
> 
> > Colorado knew he was a pedophile?
> > How would they know that before he offended again <snip>
> 
> I said that he was a known pedophile.
> I did not say that they knew.  They never looked.
> 
> There's that legal phrase again:  "knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN".
> 
> Both states had a "FAILURE TO PROTECT" but they won't
> get criminally charged for that as a parent would.

I got this wonderful surprize for you, Greegor the Whore. 

I'm doing street work today. Today my job is to educate whores who are
thinking they are jail house lawyers.

Look up Sovereign Immunity. Really study it. It's not about letting
enforcement folks off the hook...they do go to jail and they do get
sued successfully.

It's about them being able to do their job. 

Now here's the proof. 

Ask a cop if he is on the scene and someone shoots you if he can be
criminally or civilly charged for not protecting you.

There is a cop ng here on USENET. I want to make sure you are learning
something.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.law-enforcement

The classic question was answered a long time ago in caselaw. Someone
tried to sue the police department for not responding quickly enough
to a call from a citizen for help.

It seems the judge ruled that the police cannot be responsible for the
safety of the population or any particular individual therein.

And police cannot protect you by jailing someone that is a mugger if
he isn't wanted for mugging or hasn't mugged you, or attempted to mug
you.

In time the laws that require sex abusers to register are very likely
to fall to the Supremes. They would avoid ruling as long as possible,
but it's going to be beat on constitutionality.

The sex offender, convicted, can be detected and not hired, but if he
is NOT detected and hired, that SHOULD HAVE KNOWN falls to SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN IF THEY HAD THE INFORMATION BEFOREHAND.

Colorado didn't. Simple as that. Simpler than you. 

The only bitch you ever come up with is the improbable or the
impossible, claiming malfeasance when there is not legally or
practically.

Go piss up a rope, will yah?

Kane