*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ...

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 3:31 pm

A male friend of the babies daddy did this to the child ...they've been friends for over 10 years and he offered to stay with the baby so they could go have a 'DATE NIGHT' and they return within 2 hours to find him battered and so horribly bruised the next morning and the dude has fled to California!
There's not a cave/rock/dive large enough to hide you - 'you're not meant to breathe my babies air' ...
I'd be coming for you DUDE and it won't be pretty *UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 2113235493

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 2113235493

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 1094176690

~~http://www.wlbz2.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=4909504329001~~
https://www.veooz.com/news/1KyiU4l.html
Outrage over Oregon loophole in baby assault
SHERWOOD, Ore. -- A Sherwood family is expressing frustration through social media at what they say is abuse to their 1-year-old child. And that movement has attracted thousands of supporters online.
In a extensive post to Facebook recently, Joshua Marbury shared pictures of his son, Jacob, that showed bruises on the child's face.
According to the parents, the abuse happened in March when they were out on a date. When they returned home after being away for two hours, they found their babysitter asleep on a couch and Jacob crying. In the morning, they noticed the boy had a black eye, as well as bruising and scratches on his face.
Marbury said that an Oregon court ruling is blocking the alleged abuser, the child's babysitter, from facing criminal charges.
According to court language, in order to prove felony abuse of a child, prosecutors must show that the child had "substantial pain" and incurred a "physical injury." An obstacle can arise for children who are too young to explain their injuries or even describe what happened, as would be the case with a 1-year-old.
In this case, because the child had bruises and not something as apparent as an open gash, it makes a felony abuse charge harder to prove, legal officials told KGW.
Jacob's father and his mother, Alicia Quinney, are lobbying to get the law changed to provide additional protection to young victims. The alleged abuser in their child's case has not been charged with a crime.
A Change.org petition seeking "justice for child abuse victims" had over 13,000 signatures by midday Monday. The petition is directed at Oregon's Supreme Court justices.
Washington County District Attorney's officials said that "they continue to evaluate the case based on the Oregon Court of Appeals ruling."

KGW reporter Nina Mehlhaf contributed to this report.

by eddie Tue May 24, 2016 5:03 pm

Oh my god that poor bubba!! What madness is this?
Im hoping quill can explain this to me as I don't get it!

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 5:16 pm

There's a SICK assed loop hole in the State of Oregon's law; where the victim has to be able to explain how they were injured by the perpetrator before any prosecuting attorney can press charges *UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 2396444674

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 2396444674

And that's the reason that the sick bastard fled to California and law enforcement had to allow him the ability to go~~~ the law has got to be changed ASAP. What if {as this young couple are saying} this could happen to an mentally impaired human - someone that couldn't speak; this is just so wrong on so many fronts and yet...it proves how so many laws have been written up and placed into our law books via state to state and they just DO NOT MAKE ANY SENSE! Evil or Very Mad

by eddie Tue May 24, 2016 5:18 pm

So in other words, unless a victim can speak for themselves, the 'attacker' cannot be prosecuted?
That rules out huge chunks of the population.....?!!

by Syl Tue May 24, 2016 5:24 pm

That poor little baby. Sad

We have some ridiculous laws....none as ridiculous as that one though.

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 5:43 pm

eddie wrote:So in other words, unless a victim can speak for themselves, the 'attacker' cannot be prosecuted?
That rules out huge chunks of the population.....?!!

According to court language, in order to prove felony abuse of a child, prosecutors must show that the child had "substantial pain" and incurred a "physical injury." An obstacle can arise for children who are too young to explain their injuries or even describe what happened, as would be the case with a 1-year-old.
In this case, because the child had bruises and not something as apparent as an open gash, it makes a felony abuse charge harder to prove, legal officials told KGW.

by Victorismyhero Tue May 24, 2016 6:53 pm

I'm afraid even america wouldnt be big enough for that bastard to hide in....

I would issue a little "justice" of my own..... Twisted Evil

I'll give "cruel and unusual"...

by eddie Tue May 24, 2016 8:29 pm

It's just ridiculous.

by Original Quill Tue May 24, 2016 8:46 pm

KGW.com wrote:According to court language, in order to prove felony abuse of a child, prosecutors must show that the child had "substantial pain" and incurred a "physical injury." An obstacle can arise for children who are too young to explain their injuries or even describe what happened, as would be the case with a 1-year-old.

Doesn't sound right. If the child was in the sole custody of the accused, it's like res ipsa loquitur.

I think what the court of appeals is saying is, the prosecution can't determine if it was negligence in a tort sense, or criminal. Was the child beaten, or did it fall down some stairs while the guy was sleeping?

Calling it "abuse" on social media, has caused this stir.

by Guest Tue May 24, 2016 9:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
KGW.com wrote:According to court language, in order to prove felony abuse of a child, prosecutors must show that the child had "substantial pain" and incurred a "physical injury." An obstacle can arise for children who are too young to explain their injuries or even describe what happened, as would be the case with a 1-year-old.
Doesn't sound right. If the child was in the sole custody of the accused, it's like res ipsa loquitur.

I think what the court of appeals is saying is, the prosecution can't determine if it was negligence in a tort sense, or criminal. Was the child beaten, or did it fall down some stairs while the guy was sleeping?

Calling it "abuse" on social media, has caused this stir.

The prosecution said 'they can't charge the friend that left that hand print on that babies face ...because of ---'.
The parents have pushed this forward to get the LAW changed NOW. That's why there's a petition, that's why they've gone public with this so WE are all better informed about the screwed laws left growing mold on our court system across this nation!

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 5:04 am

How do they know the baby didn't fall?

by Guest Wed May 25, 2016 11:35 am

Original Quill wrote:How do they know the baby didn't fall?

I would suppose {and the hospital & doctors did as well} that the hand printed that was so defined beside the baby's head was the shape of a man's sized hand - were not the only bruises found on the little guy.
Did you watch the video - read the article? *UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 2190311264

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 2190311264

Why, am I filling you in on what was posted up there in paragraph #1 and on the video too?

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 2:41 pm

4EVA wrote:Did you watch the video - read the article? Why, am I filling you in on what was posted up there in paragraph #1 and on the video too?

Because your link doesn't work. I get "Error 404 Page not found"

4EVA wrote:I would suppose {and the hospital & doctors did as well} that the hand printed that was so defined beside the baby's head was the shape of a man's sized hand - were not the only bruises found on the little guy.

So they are just guessing? I think I've found the flaw in the case: lack of definitive forensic evidence. The bruises are consistent with a fall.

by Guest Wed May 25, 2016 4:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
4EVA wrote:Did you watch the video - read the article? Why, am I filling you in on what was posted up there in paragraph #1 and on the video too?
Because your link doesn't work. I get "Error 404 Page not found"

4EVA wrote:I would suppose {and the hospital & doctors did as well} that the hand printed that was so defined beside the baby's head was the shape of a man's sized hand - were not the only bruises found on the little guy.

So they are just guessing? I think I've found the flaw in the case: lack of definitive forensic evidence. The bruises are consistent with a fall.

Well, for craps sake ...it did just yesterday;
https://www.veooz.com/news/1KyiU4l.html and there are numerous close up photo's and nearly 13 other links to media sights that have covered this story.
And 'NO' they aren't "JUST GUESSING" but if you're wanting to nit - pick about the hand imprint ...go right ahead; it's really irrelevant to the amount of total bruises all over that babies body and the reason that they started their petition and are using any and all media sources to get the word out.
We have some real archaic laws on our books here in AMERICA and this one specifically needs changed ASAP.

by eddie Wed May 25, 2016 5:01 pm

Quill you would argue black is white sometimes

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 6:32 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Because your link doesn't work. I get "Error 404 Page not found"

So they are just guessing? I think I've found the flaw in the case: lack of definitive forensic evidence. The bruises are consistent with a fall.
Well, for craps sake ...it did just yesterday;
https://www.veooz.com/news/1KyiU4l.html and there are numerous close up photo's and nearly 13 other links to media sights that have covered this story.
And 'NO' they aren't "JUST GUESSING" but if you're wanting to nit - pick about the hand imprint ...go right ahead; it's really irrelevant to the amount of total bruises all over that babies body and the reason that they started their petition and are using any and all media sources to get the word out.
We have some real archaic laws on our books here in AMERICA and this one specifically needs changed ASAP.

That link works. The former still doesn't.

What you call 'nit-picking', I call questioning the evidence. And it's no insubstantial 'nit' either. It happens to be the only real suggestion that this wasn't merely a tumble down some stairs.

Turning to that 'nit': a fingerprint leaves a distinct mark; a welt that looks like a hand print sounds an awful lot like seeing images in the clouds. I don't belittle the thesis that this child could have been abused, I just say the evidence is weak, at best. I think I'd like to read the appellate court opinion.

Reviewing the on-line website of these people, I find a lot of excited utterances, and little careful reasoning beneath all the shouting. I would discount a visit to their website entirely.

That leaves us with the substantial evidence, of which there is little mention. The article, with its focus on the human interest story, is sketchy at best on the legal details. What law needs to be changed? What evidence of abuse as opposed to a fall, is there? Why has the appellate court ruled as it did?

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 6:43 pm

eddie wrote:Quill you would argue black is white sometimes

No, but I do QUESTION AUTHORITY. Or more to the point, I don't run with the mob, but I find out for myself. Most posters do the usual: tsk-tsk, Oh, the horror and the ever-familiar, throw him in jail and cut off his nutz!! I don't find a great deal of personal satisfaction in running with the mob.

It's much more rewarding to ask questions and find out the facts for myself. Some people don't like that, but it's because once they've made up their mind the facts are too inconvenient. Wink

by Victorismyhero Wed May 25, 2016 6:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill you would argue black is white sometimes

No, but I do QUESTION AUTHORITY. Or more to the point, I don't run with the mob, but I find out for myself. Most posters do the usual: tsk-tsk, Oh, the horror and the ever-familiar, throw him in jail and cut off his nutz!! I don't find a great deal of personal satisfaction in running with the mob.

It's much more rewarding to ask questions and find out the facts for myself. Some people don't like that, but it's because once they've made up their mind the facts are too inconvenient.

I gotta ask Quill....what do you do when the facts YOU find out, fail to support YOUR hypothesis (which of course only exists within your own "script")?

by Syl Wed May 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Quill you would argue black is white sometimes

No, but I do QUESTION AUTHORITY. Or more to the point, I don't run with the mob, but I find out for myself. Most posters do the usual: tsk-tsk, Oh, the horror and the ever-familiar, throw him in jail and cut off his nutz!! I don't find a great deal of personal satisfaction in running with the mob.

It's much more rewarding to ask questions and find out the facts for myself. Some people don't like that, but it's because once they've made up their mind the facts are too inconvenient.

I think it's quite normal to 'tsk tsk' and show anger when we see pics of battered babies and the like.
You do ask questions Quill....problem is you never believe any of the answers even when they are quoted with facts and figures. tongue

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 7:05 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, but I do QUESTION AUTHORITY. Or more to the point, I don't run with the mob, but I find out for myself. Most posters do the usual: tsk-tsk, Oh, the horror and the ever-familiar, throw him in jail and cut off his nutz!! I don't find a great deal of personal satisfaction in running with the mob.

It's much more rewarding to ask questions and find out the facts for myself. Some people don't like that, but it's because once they've made up their mind the facts are too inconvenient.

I think it's quite normal to 'tsk tsk' and show anger when we see pics of battered babies and the like.

I'm not knocking it. I'm distinguishing it.

Syl wrote:You do ask questions Quill....problem is you never believe any of the answers even when they are quoted with facts and figures.

That means I'm not finished. Or it could mean I have prevailed. A lot of people I get into discussions with just keep coming back with the same, erroneous points, showing they haven't yet realized the light. In that case, I repeat the points in other ways and slowly try to walk them through it.

by Syl Wed May 25, 2016 7:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think it's quite normal to 'tsk tsk' and show anger when we see pics of battered babies and the like.

I'm not knocking it. I'm distinguishing it.

Syl wrote:You do ask questions Quill....problem is you never believe any of the answers even when they are quoted with facts and figures.

That means I'm not finished. Or it could mean I have prevailed. A lot of people I get into discussions with just keep coming back with the same, erroneous points, showing they haven't yet realized the light. In that case, I repeat the points in other ways and slowly try to walk them through it.

Maybe that's cos your light isn't their light?? Razz

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 7:18 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'm not knocking it. I'm distinguishing it.

That means I'm not finished. Or it could mean I have prevailed. A lot of people I get into discussions with just keep coming back with the same, erroneous points, showing they haven't yet realized the light. In that case, I repeat the points in other ways and slowly try to walk them through it.

Maybe that's cos your light isn't their light??

Ultimately that argument is the assertion that there can be no agreement, or indeed, communication.

I reject that thesis. I believe with good-faith discussion and open minds, there can be agreement.

by Syl Wed May 25, 2016 7:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Maybe that's cos your light isn't their light??

Ultimately that argument is the assertion that there can be no agreement, or indeed, communication.

I reject that thesis. I believe with good-faith discussion and open minds, there can be agreement.

Depends, if someone rejects facts and figures from reliable sources, preferring to stick to their own opinions ....not always backed up by alternative figures.....sometimes agreement can never be reached.

I agree communication is always beneficial though....preferably respectfully given and received.

by Guest Wed May 25, 2016 7:36 pm

You 'QUILL' seem to FAIL at looking at the known media links and assume that because this young family went FB/media to spread their word and use it to push their petition to shove this movement under the legal system of the state of Oregon --- that you and your digging/suspicions make all of those horrible bruises nothing more then hysteria driven/knee jerk/over reactive/witch hunters out of the rest of us!

My original 'LINK' was viable and it had several other links attached to it had you decided to take such a DEEP SEATED interest in this abused baby from the get go.

Now I'm just incensed that you seem to innuendo that the young couple has some HIDDEN agenda for this entire evident besides getting the LAW CHANGED?

Ya...I'm getting a serious case of BUTT-BURN by your 'Johny Come Lately' to the topic and failure to care when the story and the links have been there from DAY #1 and this isn't some trumpeted up 'what if' - National Enquirer gotcha story line for people to be suckered into for $$$. Rolling Eyes

Would be rather difficult to FAKE so many of those really gut wrenching photos of the Jacob; taken at home at the hospital with the measurement ruler on both sides of his small body ---

I'm putting a FORK in it before I get my 'MOTHER' dander up any higher; my angst isn't going to resolve this issue for your satisfaction!

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 7:42 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Ultimately that argument is the assertion that there can be no agreement, or indeed, communication.

I reject that thesis. I believe with good-faith discussion and open minds, there can be agreement.

Depends, if someone rejects facts and figures from reliable sources, preferring to stick to their own opinions ....not always backed up by alternative figures.....sometimes agreement can never be reached.

Now you are moving over into the other thread. Are you sure you have answered the problem? I think not. You are just ignoring the genuine criticism that the "facts and figures from reliable sources" you rely so heavily on, are not so reliable. You keep pounding on that word "reliable" when the figures have been shown to be most unreliable.

But that's what I meant about "good faith" discussion in my post above. It's really not in good faith to just ignore a point, and go back to repeating reliable, reliable, reliable. You have stopped communication when you simply ignore a point.

by eddie Wed May 25, 2016 7:43 pm

4EVER2 wrote:You 'QUILL' seem to FAIL at looking at the known media links and assume that because this young family went FB/media to spread their word and use it to push their petition to shove this movement under the legal system of the state of Oregon --- that you and your digging/suspicions make all of those horrible bruises nothing more then hysteria driven/knee jerk/over reactive/witch hunters out of the rest of us!

My original 'LINK' was viable and it had several other links attached to it had you decided to take such a DEEP SEATED interest in this abused baby from the get go.

Now I'm just incensed that you seem to innuendo that the young couple has some HIDDEN agenda for this entire evident besides getting the LAW CHANGED?

Ya...I'm getting a serious case of BUTT-BURN by your 'Johny Come Lately' to the topic and failure to care when the story and the links have been there from DAY #1 and this isn't some trumpeted up 'what if' - National Enquirer gotcha story line for people to be suckered into for $$$.

Would be rather difficult to FAKE so many of those really gut wrenching photos of the Jacob; taken at home at the hospital with the measurement ruler on both sides of his small body ---
I'm putting a FORK in it before I get my 'MOTHER' dander up any higher; my angst isn't going to resolve this issue for your satisfaction!

Good post.

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 7:49 pm

4EVER2 wrote:You 'QUILL' seem to FAIL at looking at the known media links and assume that because this young family went FB/media to spread their word and use it to push their petition to shove this movement under the legal system of the state of Oregon --- that you and your digging/suspicions make all of those horrible bruises nothing more then hysteria driven/knee jerk/over reactive/witch hunters out of the rest of us!

My original 'LINK' was viable and it had several other links attached to it had you decided to take such a DEEP SEATED interest in this abused baby from the get go.

Now I'm just incensed that you seem to innuendo that the young couple has some HIDDEN agenda for this entire evident besides getting the LAW CHANGED?

Ya...I'm getting a serious case of BUTT-BURN by your 'Johny Come Lately' to the topic and failure to care when the story and the links have been there from DAY #1 and this isn't some trumpeted up 'what if' - National Enquirer gotcha story line for people to be suckered into for $$$.

Would be rather difficult to FAKE so many of those really gut wrenching photos of the Jacob; taken at home at the hospital with the measurement ruler on both sides of his small body ---
I'm putting a FORK in it before I get my 'MOTHER' dander up any higher; my angst isn't going to resolve this issue for your satisfaction!

Well, you may respond or not respond. The evidence is right out on the table, regardless of all the adjectives and invective you put out there too.

My point has a life of it's own, until you or somebody else proves otherwise. Truth is not democratic...it is logical. No matter how many shouters there are, the fact remains that a serious question remains whether this was a fall. I don't see any convincing evidence...at least that survives 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

by eddie Wed May 25, 2016 8:40 pm

If the child fell why did the man leave/not tell the parents/not phone 911....?

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 8:56 pm

eddie wrote:If the child fell why did the man leave/not tell the parents/not phone 911....?

You should probably ask his accusers. I'd bet they started out with the accusations. I understand they found him asleep when they returned. I admit, as a babysitter he was one big fail.

Sometime with intemperate and irrational people--and I'm judging from their website--retreat is the best course.

by eddie Wed May 25, 2016 9:02 pm

I'd be suspicious if I found a handprint-type mark on a baby's head and the guy looking after him subsequently fucked off without even an explanation.

The fact he was asleep (unless he was passed out drunk) is irrelevant - I sleep when my kids are asleep!

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 9:04 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, but I do QUESTION AUTHORITY. Or more to the point, I don't run with the mob, but I find out for myself. Most posters do the usual: tsk-tsk, Oh, the horror and the ever-familiar, throw him in jail and cut off his nutz!! I don't find a great deal of personal satisfaction in running with the mob.

It's much more rewarding to ask questions and find out the facts for myself. Some people don't like that, but it's because once they've made up their mind the facts are too inconvenient.

I gotta ask Quill....what do you do when the facts YOU find out, fail to support YOUR hypothesis (which of course only exists within your own "script")?

It happens all the time. I just move on until all my questions have been answered. When all questions have been answered, it's time to move on to the next thread.

These people don't like the fact that I'm dogged. They seek inter-subjective consensus, not truth. I like getting to the bottom of things.

The same methodology is used in investigation all over the world. Persistence is the key. But it's also a pain in the ass.

by Original Quill Wed May 25, 2016 9:09 pm

eddie wrote:I'd be suspicious if I found a handprint-type mark on a baby's head and the guy looking after him subsequently fucked off without even an explanation.

The fact he was asleep (unless he was passed out drunk) is irrelevant - I sleep when my kids are asleep!

The handprint is definitely suspicious, true. But it's not enough to overcome 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In fact, there's a lot of doubt that it's even a handprint.

I raised the guy's sleeping because I was describing the confrontation that must have happened when the parents returned home. I wouldn't think this guy was the best babysitter. And a negligence suit would be appropriate. But the evidence isn't there yet, for a criminal conviction.

by eddie Wed May 25, 2016 9:23 pm

Fair enough, I see what you're saying but I still think the guy is guilty as sin. The fact he basically fled, looks oddly suspicious.

by Guest Wed May 25, 2016 9:45 pm

eddie wrote:If the child fell why did the man leave/not tell the parents/not phone 911....?

I've seen many a child 'FALL'; that baby would have been dropped kicked/used as a hockey puck/dribble around like a basketball to sustain such bruising in the places that he did...but it's all within REASONABLE DOUBT when there wasn't even any court case to 'nit-pick' over because of the lousy laws in Oregon that leave the VICTIM - further victimized by the f'd up system. Suspect

Had this heinous crime been able to move forward through the criminal court system then perhaps Quill would have a LEGAL LEG to stand on; right now it's just minutia and serves no purpose about the REAL ISSUE, and the article and the reason that I pulled it in here.

by eddie Thu May 26, 2016 11:57 am

I'm inclined to agree with you 4ever.

by Original Quill Thu May 26, 2016 4:23 pm

eddie wrote:I'm inclined to agree with you 4ever.

It certainly seems plausible as a theory of what happened. Unfortunately, "inclined to agree with you" is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Has anyone come up with the statute that the parents find objectionable? I'd like to get to the bottom of that. I mean, how can you change a law if you can't identify it?

by Guest Thu May 26, 2016 5:22 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Because your link doesn't work. I get "Error 404 Page not found"
Well, for craps sake ...it did just yesterday;
https://www.veooz.com/news/1KyiU4l.html and there are numerous close up photo's and nearly 13 other links to media sights that have covered this story.
And 'NO' they aren't "JUST GUESSING" but if you're wanting to nit - pick about the hand imprint ...go right ahead; it's really irrelevant to the amount of total bruises all over that babies body and the reason that they started their petition and are using any and all media sources to get the word out.
We have some real archaic laws on our books here in AMERICA and this one specifically needs changed ASAP.

Well, since I AM NOT YO MOMMA - and I've gone above and beyond to provide you with ample links and place to look and yet you still remain unable to utilize those links; I would venture a guess that you just enjoy having 'ME' supply you all of the information that you are quite able to find all on your very own.

Especially since the issues that are propelling YOU are not the same ones that stirred my soul about this ...so knock yourself out; but stop being a Tommykins about it! PLEASE Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Thu May 26, 2016 6:13 pm

4EVER2 wrote:
4EVER2 wrote:
Well, for craps sake ...it did just yesterday;
https://www.veooz.com/news/1KyiU4l.html and there are numerous close up photo's and nearly 13 other links to media sights that have covered this story.
And 'NO' they aren't "JUST GUESSING" but if you're wanting to nit - pick about the hand imprint ...go right ahead; it's really irrelevant to the amount of total bruises all over that babies body and the reason that they started their petition and are using any and all media sources to get the word out.
We have some real archaic laws on our books here in AMERICA and this one specifically needs changed ASAP.
Well, since I AM NOT YO MOMMA - and I've gone above and beyond to provide you with ample links and place to look and yet you still remain unable to utilize those links; I would venture a guess that you just enjoy having 'ME' supply you all of the information that you are quite able to find all on your very own.

Especially since the issues that are propelling YOU are not the same ones that stirred my soul about this ...so knock yourself out; but stop being a Tommykins about it! PLEASE

How many times did you direct yourself at me in that post? Need I remind you, it's not about me: the messenger is not responsible for the message.

Which law are you referring to when you say 'this one needs change'? Like, in the Zimmerman case there were zillions of articles about the Florida 'stand your ground' statute. But here, there's no disclosure of what Oregon statute they are talking about. I'm sure the appellate decision will have the law, if any. That's why I'd like to read it.

Or are the parents just equating the outcome to "the law", and claiming that the rules of evidence must be rewritten? Good luck with that one, if that's what this is.

I sympathize with your inclination to call the welt on the child a handprint. Unfortunately, the rules of evidence are stricter than that. The law requires a 'cause and effect' kind of proof. Even in fingerprint cases, the prosecutors must still bring in expert testimony to connect the print to a person, or even to a finger. Otherwise, it's just like the clouds in the sky: this one looks like a dog chasing a stick, that one looks like a little girl sipping from a teacup, and oh, and this one looks like a handprint. Judging by the outcome, there are apparently no experts willing to testify about skin welts and their making.

Without conclusive proof that the welt was the result of a strike by a hand, how do you distinguish the child's bruises from a fall down the stairs?

by Guest Thu May 26, 2016 7:52 pm

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 2787774761

OK...since you seem unable to use the LINK that I can't get you to use { even after I pulled it forward and put it in bold font} there are nearly twelve other links with LOADS of LEGAL information that would provide you what you crave!
Like > http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/when-couple-came-home-and-found-their-baby-black-eye-they-just-assumed-he-had-drawn

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 859118666

by Original Quill Thu May 26, 2016 7:59 pm

4EVER2 wrote: OK...since you seem unable to use the LINK that I can't get you to use { even after I pulled it forward and put it in bold font} there are nearly twelve other links with LOADS of LEGAL information that would provide you what you crave!
Like > http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/when-couple-came-home-and-found-their-baby-black-eye-they-just-assumed-he-had-drawn

Well, you seem to know the links quite well. Help us out.

What statute is it that needs changing...what are they talking about?

How does one determine that the welts of the child's body were not from a fall?

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... 2190311264

by Guest Thu May 26, 2016 8:32 pm

Hmmm, I'll pass on reading the link for you -
I'll pass on doing any more research for you -
you're a grown up; you've got access to a legal
web sight to go have a look see ~~~
Enjoy - have a riot.

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... Thats-10

*UPDATE* Ore. Babysitter Arrested That Beat This Little Boy So Badly ... Thats-10

by Original Quill Thu May 26, 2016 8:37 pm

4EVER2 wrote:Hmmm, I'll pass on reading the link for you -
I'll pass on doing any more research for you -
you're a grown up; you've got access to a legal
web sight to go have a look see ~~~
Enjoy - have a riot.

So the thread ends, for lack of progress.

I'll move on to the next.

by eddie Thu May 26, 2016 8:58 pm

Tbf Quill you only had to read the bloody links Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Fri May 27, 2016 5:09 am

eddie wrote:Tbf Quill you only had to read the bloody links

This thread isn't that significant anyway. It's only misdemeanor vs. felony. The parents want a law to be written, not really changed. But, meh...

Not to worry. There will be others. Off to bed...

by Guest Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:50 am

Ore. baby-sitter arrested for smacking 1-year-old, leaving bruise
BY Christopher Brennan
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Tuesday, June 7, 2016, 6:10 AM
Markell Hilaire pleaded not guilty Monday to accusations that he assaulted Jacob Marbury in March, leaving him with a black eye and a palm print on his face.
“I’m so extremely upset, it’s disturbing, on this little innocent baby,” the infant's mother, Alicia Quinney,told the Daily News last month.
Joshua Marbury said that the 27-year-old babysitter, formerly his best friend, had originally claimed that his son fell, but later confessed to the attack.

The father said that little Jacob now has a breakdown whenever his mother leaves, and became frustrated that authorities had not pressed charges two months after the injuries.
Prosecutors’ lack of action appeared to stem from the fact that the infant victim could not articulate that he was abused and suffered “substantial pain.”
“Something needs to be done. NOBODY can just hit a child and more to just get away with it because the child can’t verbally tell you,” Marbury said on Facebook.
His social media outrage was eventually shared more than 400,000 times and led to international disbelief over the incongruity between the baby’s brutal injuries and the official response.
Faced with mounting pressure, the Washington County District Attorney’s Office said in late May that child abuse laws in Oregon need to change, pointing out that bruises are not classified as “physical injury” for non-verbal children but are for dogs.
A Change.org petition asking for a 2012 law on child abuse to be amended has gathered more than 55,000 signatures.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/babysitter-arrested-smacking-1-year-old-leaving-bruise-article-1.2663844

Yes, I often fume about the ills of FB, and yet when the parents put that same media source to work and it force the ever sluggish state officials to move off of their sorry arses and make changes {long over due changes} in their child abuse laws ...then this is what our FB/twitter/Myspace ought to be used for!
I AM SOOOOO HAPPY~~~ relieved

by Guest Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:58 am

That's brilliant. Change.org has been instrumental in getting a lot of good things done.

by eddie Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:55 pm

Good. Glad he's been brought to task.

by Sponsored content