Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Police investigate Craigslist posting

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Don_1967 Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 05:42 PM
Original message
Police investigate Craigslist posting
San Diego police yesterday started an investigation into a case of possible child endangerment after receiving tips from two concerned people regarding a posting on Craigslist, the online classified-ad service, that purported to offer a free baby to a good home.
Full Story:http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20061124-9999-1m24baby.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CueST Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've always thought
Edited on Sat Nov-25-06 05:51 PM by CueST
Craigslist was a little seedy. The amount of spam and bogus listings, etc, is just a bit much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. The question is, is there a de facto law on the books regarding this?
I'm thinking about a Michigan case a few years back where a mother or father sold their kid for drugs, and the state was a bit stymied because there was no actual law that prohibited this action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CueST Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. While there may or may not be a law
specifically prohibiting "selling one's child for drugs," i'm sure it'd fall under child endangerment, kids go to DFACS, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. By contrast with de jure laws? roflmao!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. OK, so I'm not one of them there lawer guys
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. All good. No worse than Microsoft NT Technology. =)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC