The age of the kids is important here. I didn’t see that info. If the kids were 3 to 5 years old, they need to be supervised. If they are 6 it’s debatable, but any “normal” kid should be able to play outside in a cul-de-sac by themselves by age 7.
Just my opinion.
When I was 4 I use to ride my tricycle down the neighbors driveway right out into the middle of the road! My mom would have a hissy fit, but no one ever called the cops and the neighbors just chalked it up to there goes that silly kid.
Come to think of it, I probably had 4 or 5 near misses!
When I was three years old, I would ride my tricycle clear around the block and play with neighboring kids who were also out and about. When I was nine, I was riding my bicycle to destinations more than a mile away, and I frequently went on errands to pick up items at a store a half mile away.
The old neighborhood still looks about the same, but the cultural changes since I lived there have been so vast that I sometimes wonder if I didn't live in another galaxy.
According to the article the mother said she was sitting in a lawn chair in the front yard keeping an eye on them and the neighbor that called the police isn’t talking. Lots of finger pointing in this situation.
They were 6 and 9 y.o.
Cul-De-Sacs are streets. Where cars drive. Yes, slowly. But they are not parking lots. 6-year-olds riding motorized scooters are not a good mix with 3000-pound cars.
Should kids be allowed to play outside without supervision? Why can’t a 9-year-old supervise a 6-year-old? Shouldn’t they be allowed to ride bikes together — that is done in the street.
So you can see, I’m arguing that it is dangerous to allow your 6-year-old to drive a scooter in the street, if you aren’t there to warn him/her if there is a car coming. But it should be OK in general for a kid that age to be in the street, doing street-appropriate things, without supervision.
There is virtually no information provided to us to let us know what really happened. We have the word of the mother to the news outlet, who is suing.
Maybe a neighbor is being a busy-body if the neighbor sees a 6-year-old unsupervised in the middle of the street riding a scooter and almost getting run over by a car, and calls the police.
But do you think the neighbor should be sued for what happens? If someone did something wrong, it was the police, in conjunction with the district attorney they called before making the arrest. If we start holding civilians responsible for reporting suspicious activity, we will lose an important part of law enforcement.
For example, we had a kid die at a day care — probably the kid’s death was not the fault of the day care, but there were 23 kids in a house being supervised by 2 people, with no permits or inspections. The neighbors said they didn’t think it was their business to report the number of kids playing unsupervised. Maybe if they did, those kids wouldn’t have been at risk.
Imagine this — a neighbor sees a guy they don’t recognize, taking a kid into a car. The kid is screaming, the neighbor calls the police. The police interrogate the guy, maybe take him in. Turns out he is the kids dad, just got supervision, was supposed to take the kid to the doctor, the kid didn’t want to go because a show was on, and was being obstinate.
Should the father be allowed to sue the neighbor for calling the police?
So my opinion — the woman should not have been arrested, people shouldn’t be so glib about 6-year-olds driving small motorized scooters in the street without any supervision, neighbors shouldn’t be sued if all they do is call the police for suspicious activity, and there is much more to this story than what we actually are told in this article.
“If the kids were 3 to 5 years old, they need to be supervised.”
bull crap!!
By the time I was 3 I would take off up the street on my trike visiting neighbors with the only restriction being that I was home for lunch!!!