http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/tom-jackman/baby-for-sale-on-craigslist.html?hpid=newswell

"we had a kid but we just can't handle it right now in our lives. she is up to date on her vaccinations medical records will be provided. we have been calling her Juliet but you can rename her if you want. sorry if you think this is wrong but we think the best way of insuring a happy life for her is to give her to an affluent couple that wants to have kids enogh [sic] to pay for it. pics on request."



LOL, it was just some prank. The police didn't find any children at the house when they investigated.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> LOL, it was just some prank. The police didn't
> find any children at the house when they
> investigated.


Quite a prank that will, in the end, prove to be not worth it, considering it' s in violation of Virginia law and, since it involves even 'supposed' minor children, will most likely lead to felony charges.


"...the investigation is continuing because Virginia's adoption law prohibits anyone from accepting any money for the placement of a child, and 'No person shall advertise or solicit to perform any activity prohibited' by the law."


"On Friday night, police entered the Happy Heart residence and seized a number of computers, data storage devices and an Xbox game console, court records show."

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "we had a kid but we just can't handle it right
> now in our lives. she is up to date on her
> vaccinations medical records will be provided. we
> have been calling her Juliet but you can rename
> her if you want. sorry if you think this is wrong
> but we think the best way of insuring a happy life
> for her is to give her to an affluent couple that
> wants to have kids enogh to pay for it. pics on
> request."
>
>
>
> LOL, it was just some prank. The police didn't
> find any children at the house when they
> investigated.

That sounds like the type of stuff those people-who-think-animals-equate-to-people post in the Pets section.

When will idiots learn, if you're going to do something that you shouldn't online, use a public computer.

SNAFU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quite a prank that will, in the end, prove to be
> not worth it, considering it' s in violation of
> Virginia law and, since it involves even
> 'supposed' minor children, will most likely lead
> to felony charges.
>
>
> "...the investigation is continuing because
> Virginia's adoption law prohibits anyone from
> accepting any money for the placement of a child,
> and 'No person shall advertise or solicit to
> perform any activity prohibited' by the law."

The facts are (a) there was no baby and no illegal activity and (b) the "advertisement" was a very obvious joke, a parody on the pet-selling ads. Given the enforcement against those facts, the Constitutionality of the law itself is called into question.


> "On Friday night, police entered the Happy Heart
> residence and seized a number of computers, data
> storage devices and an Xbox game console, court
> records show."

This sounds like a strange case of government harassment. They already knew that there was no baby being sold and that it was obviously a joke.

It's hard to see how the police are going to look good coming out of this.

Spacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SNAFU Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Quite a prank that will, in the end, prove to
> be
> > not worth it, considering it' s in violation of
> > Virginia law and, since it involves even
> > 'supposed' minor children, will most likely
> lead
> > to felony charges.
> >
> >
> > "...the investigation is continuing because
> > Virginia's adoption law prohibits anyone from
> > accepting any money for the placement of a
> child,
> > and 'No person shall advertise or solicit to
> > perform any activity prohibited' by the law."
>
> The facts are (a) there was no baby and no illegal
> activity and (b) the "advertisement" was a very
> obvious joke, a parody on the pet-selling ads.
> Given the enforcement against those facts, the
> Constitutionality of the law itself is called into
> question.



From the craigslist ad:

"sorry if you think this is wrong but we think the best way of insuring a happy life for her is to give her to an affluent couple that wants to have kids enogh [sic] to pay for it. pics on request."


I am sorry, but how does offering a baby over the internet for money ( regardless if it is a 'joke') not constitute an illegal and criminal act? (see below)

"Virginia's adoption law prohibits anyone from accepting any money for the placement of a child, and 'No person shall ADVERTISE or SOLICIT to perform any activity prohibited' by the law." - The Washington Post

Also, how could any rational human being see this as being funny or a 'joke' ? If you use your rationale, then it should be o.k. for someone to threaten violence towards the President over the internet and not be held accountable as long as he or she were just 'joking', right? Are you serious?


>
> This sounds like a strange case of government
> harassment. They already knew that there was no
> baby being sold and that it was obviously a joke.
>
> It's hard to see how the police are going to look
> good coming out of this.



They were within the letter of the law and had probable cause to seize the computer, xbox, and any other conduit to the internet based on the attempted criminal solicitation of the sale of a minor child.

SNAFU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, how could any rational human being see this
> as being funny or a 'joke' ?


How could any rational human being NOT see this as being funny or a 'joke' ?

SNAFU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, how could any rational human being see this as being funny or a 'joke' ?


How could any rational human being NOT see this as being a joke?