It’s been found by the USSC that a law that is obviously ex post facto to anyone not wearing a black robe isn’t ex post facto if the intent by the lawmakers wasn’t to punish.

So all these new restrictions against people (REAL child molesters and REAL sexual offenders) who have already served their time and paid their debt to society which we “good” people don’t personally have to concern ourselves with, will eventually be used to persecute us as well.

Again, the question is whether what the parent is doing is actuall or is likely to (for reasons other than “Single parents who shack up with their latest fling also tend to be the sort of people who aren’t exactly good parents to their kids) harm the child.

You apparently don’t want to even make a value judgment against someone for their personal choices. The sort of women who run through boyfriends like toilet paper, and who are single mothers, tend to bring real shitheads home with them.

This sort of thing between you and I is why I am increasingly disillusioned with the libertarian movement. GOD FORBID that someone not only deny someone their precious validation of their lifestyle, but actually say that it is irresponsible and tends to result in harm to others.

Out of curiousity would you apply the same logic to drug use?

Pot use isn’t even remotely comparable to the other. Hard drug users may be shitty parents, but unless it is PCP, or the parents are having withdrawl, they’re unlikely to be creating a threatening environment for their kids in their own home.

The sort of people who pick up a new fling, bring them home to their kids without much thought are a different case. If you’ve known poor communities or certain types of career-driven people, you know what sort of person I’m talking about as I said there is a difference between them and the average person who meets someone, develops a relationship and carefully brings them into their home with their kids.

Folks, I’m am certain the world is full of bad characters and children are sometimes the victims of horrendous crimes, but during the 80s and 90s the U.S. went through an epidemic of child sex abuse accusations that were not only false, but so far outside the realm of credibility that the prosecutions themselves should have been considered a crime.

After that phase in our history, I will no longer take at face value any charge of sex abuse without wondering if the accusation is a fabrication by warring parents, ambitious prosecutors, some overly zealous CPS bureaucrat, rebellious children, or adults who have suddenly “recovered” memories of events that happened decades ago. We have Walmart photolab clerks turning parents in and we have laws that require doctors and shool administrators to report bruises. With that much machinery in place to churn out suspicion, you’re going to get a lot of accusations.

If history has taught us anything, its that a mere hint of sex abuse is all it takes to prejudice an entire community (if not the entire country) against someone. The mere accusation will suddenly alienate you from anyone who was ever a friend and people (including juries) will rush to condemn you because there’s no quicker way of proving their own enthusiasm for protecting children.

At the same time, what constitutes sex abuse is becoming ever broader until it now encompasses activities that in the past would have been considered nothing more than harmless mischief.

When it comes to child sex abuse, if there’s anything we don’t need more of it’s paranoia and guilt that common social activities put children at risk for devastating irreparable psychological and physical injury at the hands of child predators who are all around us cleverly disguised as ordinary people.

It’s getting to the point where the war against perverts is creating more victims than the perverts.

this kid’s had his freedom STOLEN from him for some bullshit technicality (consensual sex with your gf, who happens to be 2 yrs younger, is a bs technicality) and you feel this is justified because of some dumb petty-theft?

I’m guessing your initials stand for ‘ass whole’.

Equating shoplifting committed by a high-school dropout to being a dangerous criminal in need of harassment shows that you and logic are definitely drinking in different bars.

I am hearing a lot of assumptions in your argument. Yes clearly *some* single parents make bad choices of romantic involvements and this can be bad for children. But unless you are arguing that any and every single parent who has a set number of paramores over a given period of time should automatically be investigated or have their kids removed, then you are not disagreeing with me. Again, the question is whether what the parent is doing is actuall or is likely to (for reasons other than “Single parents who shack up with their latest fling also tend to be the sort of people who aren’t exactly good parents to their kids) harm the child.

Out of curiousity would you apply the same logic to drug use? “Parents who smoke pot on a regular basis for recreatonal purposes also tend to be the sort of people who aren’t exactly good parents to their kids.” If you are speaking generally enough, that statement can become completely accurate.

As a visitor of this sight I will assume you are a person who loves and values liberty and despises government intrusion into people’s private lives. As such, I would guess you would agree that CPS’s only legitimate role is to protect children from *actual* harm (either current or likely), and not from parents with questionable morals.

Unfortunately, it’s been established many time that there often is a direct correlation between unmarried mothers who sleep around and shack up with the boyfriend-du-jour and their kids getting beaten or molested. What is needed is to empower police and judges to overrule CPS whenever they think they’re out of line, but let’s not kid ourselves. Single parents who shack up with their latest fling also tend to be the sort of people who aren’t exactly good parents to their kids. They’re not you’re run of the mill adult who establishes a secure relationship and then moves in with them.

1. Philandering husband who sleeps with a dozen or more women outside his marriage: OK for the kids.
2. Wife who beat husband for cheating on her: dangerous for the kids and must be removed from the children.

I would agree, if CPS would actually investigate promiscuous mothers who have live-in boyfriends. It’s been established that such women really badly expose their kids to danger because of the men they bring home.

Of course, if Woods had been faithful to his wife, and found her getting banged by two pool boys at the same time, chased her with a club and whacked her car, the bipartisan lynch mob would have had his head.

Because, you know, it’s ok to harm a man for cheating, but don’t ****ever**** touch a woman, even if she is literally trying to kill you.

That sounds good but you may want to find out what it is they want to talk to you about. It can only help you to get information from the cops. But yeah, my motto is that if a cop has to ask then you have a right to say no, and you *should* say no, just on principle.

“Can we come inside?” – No
“Can we take a look in your trunk?” – No
“Can you tell us where you work/who else lives here/where you were at [time x]” – I will not

“Why not?” – I have a personal policy of always asserting my rights and not cooperating with government agents any more than I am required under laws consistent with the Bill of Rights.

You’re right that neither of the Woods’ conduct seriously merits much more than a check-in with child-protective services (CPS), but Stephen is also right that if eithe rof their conduct does merit more, it’s the wife’s.

As a visitor of this sight I will assume you are a person who loves and values liberty and despises government intrusion into people’s private lives. As such, I would guess you would agree that CPS’s only legitimate role is to protect children from *actual* harm (either current or likely), and not from parents with questionable morals. (That’s actually what CPS-related law says though it is hardly followed.) Only Elin’s conduct can be viewed as a potential threat to the wellfare of these children because violence between parents can be seriously traumatic.

Disclaimer: this of course says nothing as to whether I understand why she did that or whether or not I think Tiger is a giant douche ;)

Cop: “Mr. CRNewsom?”
Me: “Yes?”
Cop: “I/We would like to speak with you about something.”
Me: “Do you have a warrant?”
Cop: “No.”
Me: “Have a nice day.”

In the unlikely event they do have a *search* warrant:

Me: “You may search my car/residence once my attorney arrives. Until then, we can sit here and wait silently.”

In my book, this is the ONLY acceptable communication with police. I once had my wallet stolen at the gym. I knew it was one of the kids there. I wouldn’t have called the cops if I found out which one it was, either. There are some things that vigilante justice was meant for.

Probably would have executed him.