Let's say this law didn't exist.

 

How would the abuse be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was at the hands of the babysitter? I think the law is just a distraction to the bigger issue - how do you prove anything here?

 

It's very simple, who was left in charge of the child? Did anyone else have access to the child? You interview witnesses and gather the evidence. It's not that complicated.

 

This is a completely idiotic law.

It's very simple, who was left in charge of the child? Did anyone else have access to the child? You interview witnesses and gather the evidence. It's not that complicated.

 

This is a completely idiotic law.

 

You still have to prove it.

 

Let's say the parents come home and see the bruised child and call the police to accuse babysitter.

 

Babysitter says " He was bruised when I got there. I assumed he fell or his parents did it. I've seen the father hit him previously."

 

How do you get to the "beyond reasonable doubt" level?

 

Now what? How does it get to the "beyond reasonable doubt" level?

The baby sitter should confess to the bullet as it ends their miserable life. These people along with child molesters and rapist deserve nothing less.

You still have to prove it.

 

Let's say the parents come home and see the bruised child and call the police to accuse babysitter.

 

Babysitter says " He was bruised when I got there. I assumed he fell or his parents did it. I've seen the father hit him previously."

 

How do you get to the "beyond reasonable doubt" level?

 

Now what? How does it get to the "beyond reasonable doubt" level?

 

You build your case. Like I said various witnesses, etc.

 

Most crimes are readily solvable with hard work.

 

You can "what if" situations to death.

You build your case. Like I said various witnesses' date=' etc. Most crimes are readily solvable with hard work. You can "what if" situations to death.[/quote']

 

What witnesses?

You build your case. Like I said various witnesses, etc.

 

Most crimes are readily solvable with hard work.

 

You can "what if" situations to death.

 

How man witnesses you going to have for something like this. Is elf on the shelf gonna talk?

 

Do they have an older sibling? what if he/she did it?

 

I get where @Clyde is going with this.

How man witnesses you going to have for something like this. Is elf on the shelf gonna talk?

 

Do they have an older sibling? what if he/she did it?

 

I get where @Clyde is going with this.

 

Yeah, I do to. What if, what if, what if. You can play that game all day.

What witnesses?

 

Just stop Clyde. I've answered the question. If you disagree with my answer, then so be it. We can "what if" a situation to death.

 

Witnesses as in who saw the child before this abuse occurred. Who saw the child after. Etc. You could nail down a time line fairly easily and work it back to who is the most likely suspect.

Just stop Clyde. I've answered the question. If you disagree with my answer, then so be it. We can "what if" a situation to death.

 

Witnesses as in who saw the child before this abuse occurred. Who saw the child after. Etc. You could nail down a time line fairly easily and work it back to who is the most likely suspect.

 

Say a neighbor saw the kid at 1 pm when the family got home from the store. They go inside and nobody sees them until 7pm when the babysitter arrives and parents leave. Parents return at 10 and find the kid bruised.

 

That "witness" at 1pm does not do anything to help the situation and what occurred in the 6 hours nobody saw the parents and the 9 hours nobody saw the kid.

 

Dad could've slapped the kid at 3pm and nobody knows but the parents. Or the babysitter could've slapped the kid at 8pm. There is no way of telling who did and when. No evidence at all. That's what Clyde is getting at.

Say a neighbor saw the kid at 1 pm when the family got home from the store. They go inside and nobody sees them until 7pm when the babysitter arrives and parents leave. Parents return at 10 and find the kid bruised.

 

That "witness" at 1pm does not do anything to help the situation and what occurred in the 6 hours nobody saw the parents and the 9 hours nobody saw the kid.

 

Dad could've slapped the kid at 3pm and nobody knows but the parents. Or the babysitter could've slapped the kid at 8pm. There is no way of telling who did and when. No evidence at all. That's what Clyde is getting at.

 

Again, what if, what if.

 

I'm out.

Just stop Clyde. I've answered the question. If you disagree with my answer' date=' then so be it. We can "what if" a situation to death. Witnesses as in who saw the child before this abuse occurred. Who saw the child after. Etc. You could nail down a time line fairly easily and work it back to who is the most likely suspect.[/quote']

 

All Im saying is this isn't a clear cut slam dunk. I get the emotion that says blame the law. The law is irrelevant because you still have to prove it in a trial. Its not a case of "most likely suspect." We know who that is.

All Im saying is this isn't a clear cut slam dunk. I get the emotion that says blame the law. The law is irrelevant because you still have to prove it in a trial. Its not a case of "most likely suspect." We know who that is.

 

Its not emotions about the law. The law is intellectually stupid.

Its not emotions about the law. The law is intellectually stupid.

 

Remove the law from the equation. Let's assume Oregon has the same law as every other state.

 

You charge him. You still have to prove it. It's not a slam dunk. That's my point.

Clyde brings up good points to think about. You have abusive parents and abusive sitters. Should a parent "lose it" and abuse their child, they can blame the sitter. Should a sitter "lose it" and abuse their charges, they can say that the child was in that condition when they arrived.

Tykes are not the only ones who cannot talk. Non-verbal children/teens/adults/elderly are all susceptible prey for abusers and bullies. Evil people out there. Watch out for your loved ones.