Missing Georgia...

HomeLAN said:
I don't want her buried, but I think some community service is in order. Call it an object lesson, and for God's sake, hold her responsible for the costs to the community.
Click to expand...
:headbang:
 
Then most likely they'll get at least part of the cost of looking for her dizzy ass back via court costs. Hope they sock it to her on that front.
 
The county isn't going after her for the costs civilly, but the city of Duluth wants some of the 40k they had to spend back. They're in negotiations, but they haven't ruled out a suit.
 
She did what many others have done & becaue her daddy is some kind of big deal of, she's getting punished.
 
Apparently not. If this was a groundbreaking case or an unusual situation, it'd be different. This woman is nuts & ran away from a wedding. Hardly criminal.
 
But lying to police, refusing to come forward when you know people are spending resources looking for you, when all of it could've been avoided with a note or quick call in the first day or two is unusual.

Sorry, you don't selfishly cause over $50,000 just in local costs - never mind the FBI and NM cops and expect to walk away without penalty.

And sadly, no, you still don't get it.
 
Gonz said:
Apparently not. If this was a groundbreaking case or an unusual situation, it'd be different. This woman is nuts & ran away from a wedding. Hardly criminal.
Click to expand...
This sounds just like the Clinton hearings.

You can't prosecute someone for having a blowjob.

It's not about a blowjob. It's about lying under oath.

The charges have nothing to do with running away. It's about false statements to the police and filing a false report.
 
And she's being charged with just what she should be charged with. Make her pay for the effort involved in finding her and that would be unjust. If you do that, then the next time a child is kidnapped, the child (child's parents) is responsible for the costs involved in finding said child. Would you like to know you're going to be getting a bill every time you call the police for assistance?
 
No, if she'd actually been kidnapped there'd be no mention of her paying the costs. She faked it. If I fake a kidnapping, then I oughtta be on the hook.
 
HomeLAN said:
No, if she'd actually been kidnapped there'd be no mention of her paying the costs. She faked it. If I fake a kidnapping, then I oughtta be on the hook.
Click to expand...

Amen and amen. Now congregation, please rise and turn to hymn number 226, "Bringing In The Sheaves"...
 
Ok, so your nine year old gets pissed off that you won't let him play pokemon anymore and decides to run away. You call the cops for help in finding him. Are you responsible for the costs of that, or is that their job?
 
PT said:
And she's being charged with just what she should be charged with. Make her pay for the effort involved in finding her and that would be unjust. If you do that, then the next time a child is kidnapped, the child (child's parents) is responsible for the costs involved in finding said child. Would you like to know you're going to be getting a bill every time you call the police for assistance?
Click to expand...

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more interesting this statement becomes. The way it stands now, the taxpayers of Gwinnett County and Duluth ARE toting the bill for this, and every other, call to the police. Now, when it's a valid emergency, that's OK, because you may need that yourself one day, and even if you don't, that's what good neighbors do for each other.

In this case, someone abused that system. They faked an emergency to cover their tracks and then failed to come forward for four (expensive) days. When I suggest that the taxpayers should be allowed to skip the bill for this one, I'm accused of the opposite - that I'm trying to make the burden higher on actual victims.

Twisted thinking.
 
PT said:
Ok, so your nine year old gets pissed off that you won't let him play pokemon anymore and decides to run away. You call the cops for help in finding him. Are you responsible for the costs of that, or is that their job?
Click to expand...

Valid emergency. Which part of this rather simple concept are you missing?

A nine YO who takes off is a valid emergency, whatever the cause. If, later, it's found that he split because I was beating him, then I ought to face charges, but that's another issue, isn't it?

Besides, a 9 YO is a lot less likely to consider repurcusions than a 35 YO. Common sense should be telling you that.
 
But again, SHE did not call the cops and say she was missing. She did run away, but that's perfectly legal. Her family on the other hand called the cops and every newspaper in town. Her family made a great big deal of it when they had an idea that she had just run away. Now, if you want to charge her family for the expense, go for it, but to charge her for it is ludicrous.
 
Never heard of, nor can understand, the term "foreseeable consequence" either, huh?

How did she think people were gonna react when she did this?

Look, the responsibility for this shenanigans is all hers. As an adult, she failed to do what she should've. There have been costs. They should be her problem.

Why, exactly, is that unreasonable, or setting a wrong precendent, unless you belong to the perpetual "it's not my fault" club?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top