Good Samaritan Law 1 Seven-year-old Sherrice Iverson was sexually assaulted and strangled in a Las Vegas casino in 1997. The perpetrator, a high school senior named Jeremy Strohmeyer, was arrested shortly after the crime. He pleaded guilty to first degree murder in early September. Sounds like an open and shut case. But it's not. The problem? Jeremy Strohmeyer was not at the casino by himself on the night of Sherrice's murder. His friend, David Cash, had gone to Las Vegas to gamble with his friend. Cash, unaware that his friend found little girls alluring, had no way of knowing what his friend's intentions were with the girl. He soon found out when he walked in on Strohmeyer restraining the girl in a bathroom stall. He left right after that. He did not witness the sexual assault. He did not witness the murder. Above all else, he did not break any laws in the state of Nevada. Yolanda Manuel, mother of Sherrice Iverson, wants to change that. She is pushing for a Good Samaritan law that would require witnesses of crimes against children to notify the police. Aside from the fact this is constitutionally shakey, it overlooks an important aspect of the crime -- David Cash may have been able to prevent the crime, but Sherrice's father had the same opportunity and a greater responsibility. Sherrice's father, LeRoy Iverson, had brought her and her brother to the casino for a night of gambling. He ignored the children while they wandered around the casino, fair game for any pervert on the prowl. Casino security notified the father several times that he needed to round up his children. He did not listen to them. As a result, Strohmeyer was able to satisfy his sick fantasies. Yolanda Manuel has conveniently downplayed the fact neither she nor LeRoy Iverson were responsible parents. She is not bringing up that Sherrice's father asked the casino for $100, a hotel room, a plane ticket from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, a six-pack of beer and money for his daughter's funeral to settle the score. Instead of blaming themselves for handing their daughter over to a pedophile, they are going after a legally innocent person -- David Cash. Some, perhaps even most, people would argue that David Cash had a moral obligation to report what he had witnessed. Those people are disgusted by comments that Cash has made about the crime. He has not displayed remorse for his inaction or sadness for a young girl's death. Good Samaritan Law 2 Society deplores what he has said and done, but no one should be obligated to help his fellow man. I would not stop a crime in progress. I would not report a crime I had witnessed. I would not snitch on a friend. Unless the scumbag committed a crime that directly affected me. Cash's main defense is that, legalities aside, Sherrice meant nothing to him. He cannot mourn for a person he did not know. He cannot feel rage over a crime that was committed by a close friend against a person fate had brought him together with for only one night. I understand Cash's position. Watching the nightly news, people are often horrified by stories of children being murdered. I feel nothing. Perhaps it is because people densensitized to children are desensitized to violence against children. But, more than likely, it is because I know the children who are murdered are probably better off dead. Given the people who spawned Sherrice Iverson, her life would have been full of misery. Her mother claimed she wanted to be a "nurse, policewoman or dancer." Sure, she was going to be a success and next week, I am joining Habitat For Humanity. The girl had no future. Her dad is an irresponsible, money-hungry fool. Her mom is an uneducated, ignorant, money-hungry fool. She, more than likely, would have grown up to be a teen parent, as apathetic and oblivious to her children's upbringing and surroundings as her own parents. While Strohmeyer could have refrained from sexually assaulting Sherrice, he probably did the world a favor by killing her. Not that child murder is inherently right because it gets rid of future dead weight. People do not murder for such a self-righteous cause. I have yet to hear a child murderer proclaim, "Well, shit, she was going to be an idiot, so who cares?" I may be grateful, after the fact, that they have killed, but their motives generally range from the bizarre to the perverse, and it may not be to our benefit to let them walk amongst us. If you want to kill a child because the world is overrun with morons and little Snotleigh's genes are flawed beyond hope, fine. If you want to kill a child because it has always been your deepest, darkest fantasy to see blood ooze out of the holes where her nipples once were, well, I'd rather you didn't. But if you do, I won't tell.