Posted on 03/12/2008 10:51:51 AM PDT by LibWhacker
I'd say that the circumstances of a particular incident should be taken into consideration by a LEO. Inherent danger would be a very important consideration. In cases where a child is not being attended to in a busy store? I ask you this question, "how many children are abducted in the U.S. who would not have been were the parent acting responsibly? Perhaps placing a person under arrest, issuing a citation for a court appearance, and then releasing them would be prudent. Or should arrests be limited to cases where your child was put in inherent danger, rather than danger of other people’s criminal behavior?
So, a parent who is not properly attending to their child, and that child is abducted, abuse, and murdered should not be held accountable for their responsibility for placing their child in that vulnerable position? Who should have been watching out for the child then? The child? No, sorry, I'm not biting on that one. People who are purposefully not attending to their child bears responsibilty for placing them in that situation, whether anything bad happens or not. Yes, there are situations where a parent is doing their best to watch their child, but the child gets out of sight (which can happen in a split second). Each case should be weighted on it's own merits, and a blanket policy should never be implemented (zero tolerance is not always realistic). But, bottom line for me is parents who knowingly place their child in a potentially dangerous situation should be held accountable for their behavior. If you are going to have children, then be responsible for them.
I don’t think a person should be arrested because someone else committed a crime.
Parents make innumerable judgment calls every day. Lord knows, I haven't always gotten mine right. But it's scary to see the government criminalize this kind of thing.
I do the same thing with my youngest!!! He loves it, gets a smug attitude with his older brothers..."You guys can't even push a cart right!"
Thank goodness they're still young enough to be manipulated now and then!
In discussing whether there SHOULD be a law, we need to look at what our philosophy would dictate as a legitimate government interest.
In your example, driving without insurance would be “wrong” because it is illegal to drive without insurance.
But SHOULD you be required to have insurance is a different question. My answer: You should not have to have insurance that would pay for someone else’s injury if the injury was caused by that OTHER person.
So if someone hits your car, and in doing so sustains injuries to themselves, and it was their fault, no law should hold you liable.
As to the child example, I was discussing legal ramifications. In my opinion, Government does not have the authority to require people to behave responsibly. While you SHOULD feel personally responsible if your neglect allowed a criminal to steal your child, Government doesn’t have the right to FORCE me to protect my child from a criminal act by making it a criminal act not to do so.
In the absense of criminals, there would be no danger in allowing my child to roam a bit away from me.
I do not like laws which make nominally benign things into CRIMES simply because those benign things have been linked to crimes. For example, I oppose laws banning 18-year-old drinking. There is no reason an 18-year-old cannot drink resonsibly, except that some don’t. But people who ARE responsible should not be punished because others are irresponsible. So throw the book at drunk drivers. Throw the book at drunks. But to make it a crime for a parent to allow a 16-year-old to drink a glass of champaigne? That’s Government illegally interfering in our liberty.
In my world, there would be many things you should NEVER do that nonetheless would be legal. But that isn’t so strange — you should never have unprotected sex with a person with AIDS, but it isn’t illegal so long as you are informed.
I believe she should have gone right through the “community service officer” to get back to her car and her child.
To convict someone of a misdemeanor, the state has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To arrest someone, I would think a cop should need probable cause to believe not only that the person committed a crime, but also that it will be possible to prove it. And for that, a cop would need enough evidence to make at least a prima facie case.
No offense intended, but your babbling post makes zero sense. The answer to the question of whether you should be insured as a driver has been asked and answered. The answer is yes. You do not have a “right” to drive. Driving is a privilege. Whether or not a particular person chooses to include in their vehicle insurance no-fault insurance that covers the eventuality of being hit by a non-insured driver is up to them. If I, as a licensed driver, choose to not insure my vehicle, and I am in an auto accident, whether I caused the accident or not, I will be cited for not carrying coverage. If someone is seriously injured or killed, I will be arrested and charged, period. That is the law, and it has been upheld. Your argument there has zero merit.
With respect to your other comment regarding the governments ability to pass laws which are aimed at controlling human behavior, you also have no merit. government bodies have and continue to pass such laws all the time. The government does have the ability to hold a parent accountable for their neglect of a child that is injured or killed due to that negligence. I know of people who have faced that issue, and payed dearly for their lack of proper supervision. Whether you like this fact or not, it is a fact. People all across this country have been, and will be held accountable for not providing proper safeguards against injury or accident to their children, and that can include leaving a child in such a situation as to place them in danger of being abducted. There are plenty of cases that have been reported in the media of parents who have been prosecuted, including one of a little girl who was left to wonder around a casino and was taken into a bathroom, raped, and murdered while their parent was gambling. They placed their child in that vulnerable situation, and they paid a penalty for it. Simply because you are of the opinion that the government is wrong for that is inconsequential to the argument.
If you truly believe that a question has been "answered" when the government passes a law, then I'm not sure why you are here discussing anything. Just let the government pass any law they want, and you can rest easy knowing that all the difficult questions in our lives have been taken care of.
There are actually states where you do not have to have insurance on your OWN car, only insurance to cover YOUR liability in case you cause an accident which injures someone else. The fact that different states have different laws puts to rest your argument that a law defines what is "right", or "settles" anything, or "answers" the question. Unless you believe there are multiple correct answers.
But MY point was that YOUR use of "insurance" (yes, you introduced that argument, not me) was not germaine to our discussion because that was a law, and therefore it was illegal to not follow that law.
And in fact there IS no reason why you should have to have insurance to cover someone else's injuries if THEY cause those injuries. That should be self-evident, and I only pointed it out to show that your argument about insurance was not germaine to this discussion.
But do you really think that you should be required to carry insurance that would pay for the injury other people get when THEY cause an accident? Do you think your homeowner's insurance should have to pay a burglar if he trips in the dark and breaks his leg? I don't personally believe that is a conservative position -- and if I lived in a liberal state where the legislature passed such a law, that would not make it "right", or "settled".
,i>With respect to your other comment regarding the governments ability to pass laws which are aimed at controlling human behavior, you also have no merit. government bodies have and continue to pass such laws all the time.
Again, it seems you are arguing that if the government passes a law, it must be "right". But since you have been here a long time, I know you are well familiar with the concept that government passes a LOT of laws that they have NO BUSINESS passing, and it is our mission to STOP them from doing so.
But lets see how far you think parents have to go to protect their children from illegal actions of others in order not to be charged with a crime. I'll use examples:
Three kids are playing ball in the front yard. The ball rolls into the street, and the child not thinking runs after it, where he is hit because a driver speeding runs a stop sign. Should the mother be put in jail because she allowed the child to play where there was a chance he might run in the street? Should the father be charged with a crime because he didn't build a fence so the child couldn't run out there?
A child is going to school, and a sniper shoots him when he gets off the bus. Should we charge the parents with negligence because they didn't buy the child a bullet-proof vest to wear? They are shown to save lives, and it certainly is within the realm of possibility that a person could shoot them -- after all, a sniper did just that here in DC not too long ago.
A school has several people arrested for dealing drugs. A week later, a child is knifed by a drug dealer after saying no. Should the parents be arrested for allowing their child to continue to attend a school where there was an obvious drug problem, and where it could be expected that there might be more trouble coming?
Two parents are having trouble with their 12-year-old son. Frustrated because he simply doesn't seem to understand the seriousness of his actions, the turn to their priest for help. It seems to work, and the boy spends a lot of time in counselling over the next six months. But then it is discovered that the priest is a pedophile and has been sexually molesting their son. Do we throw them in jail? After all, we are well aware of the problem with pedophile priests.
These are of course all extreme examples. Is a parent negligent if they leave a child wandering around a casino while they gamble? Certainly. Young children can get into a lot of trouble, whether or not it is caused by someone committing a crime.
but what if a parent decides their 4-year-old is responsible enough to play in the stream by themselves. Should they be thrown in jail?
I ask because when I was 4 years old, I was either allowed, or at least not monitored enough to stop, me from going to the stream and playing all I wanted. In fact, my parents were very permissive, and I see NOTHING wrong with that. You can live your life in fear, or not. I let my children play outside, and wander around in the woods, and do all those things children should be allowed to do.
I wouldn't let a baby stay in a car. But I'm certain I've trusted my children with responsibility that could have gotten me arrested in our modern nanny-state environment. In the good old days before the government decided they should be our parents, kids were working with dangerous farm equipment before they turned 10.
Yes, my kids might have gotten hurt, or died, or even gotten kidnapped (I wasn't very worried about that, but then again when we were in stores I kept them very close because I knew the risks, not because I was afraid of the nanny-state police). Kids die. It's part of living. The government has NO RIGHT to force people to live "safe" lives simply to decrease imperceptably the risk of that life.
The Government is trying to be God. It does a lousy job of it. If I want to jump off a rock with a parachute, it's my business. If I want my children to understand responsibility, and I think that involves allowing them some freedom, that's my business as a parent. The government may disapprove, and you might disapprove. You have every right to lecture me on the stupidity of my actions. But don't tell me that the Constitution of the United States allows our federal government to take over my parental responsibilities simply because they think I put my children in too much "risk".
We are in a tough area of discussion because there are clearly things that are "too risky" for children, and it's hard to draw the line where government has a right to get involved to protect a child.
But realise that there is a movement out there who thinks that Church-going is emotionally scarring to children. They work every day for the time when government will make it illegal for parents to "abuse" their children by forcing them into a religious faith that teaches right and wrong, heaven and hell.
And if they win, it will be because so many people who otherwise knew better stood in conservative forums and argued that the government "HAD" to step in, because it was "for the children".
Even in this story the police officer would have cause to believe it would be POSSIBLE to prove the charge. All they need is a security tape that shows the woman was away more than 10 minutes.
They don’t NEED that evidence in order to make the arrest.
I will say this is a lousy example, because as we now know the security guard SAYS she watched the woman the whole time, and therefore already has CONFESSED that the woman did not shop and was out less than 10 minutes.
I'll tell you what. You cancel your vehicle insurance and drive around until someone hits you and see what happens. Your arguments are ridicules on their face. Your going to bring in something as stupid as:
Do you think your homeowner's insurance should have to pay a burglar if he trips in the dark and breaks his leg?
Are you paying any attention to what your writing? Your comments stretch way beyond the breaking point with respect to this discussion. The government has laws which protect children from parents who by their actions or inactions place those children in potential for harm. You don't like that fact, go complain to the government. Good luck, because I doubt anyone will take you seriously. Three kids are playing ball in the front yard. The ball rolls into the street, and the child not thinking runs after it, where he is hit because a driver speeding runs a stop sign. Should the mother be put in jail because she allowed the child to play where there was a chance he might run in the street? Should the father be charged with a crime because he didn't build a fence so the child couldn't run out there?
Again, you use a complete generalization to try and have a rational discussion. Again, I answer with it depends upon the circumstance involved in any particular case. If these children are of a certain age, say 10 years old or so, the parents will probably not be held accountable for an accident resulting from the carlessness of the child. However, if these children are, say three or four years of age, and are out near a street without supervision, your damned right the parent should be held accountable. There is a huge difference in the cognitive development of a 10 year old when compared to that of a three or four year old. Sorry, try again. Next time use a more specific example as it is easy to formulate an argument using only generalities when your simply trying to make a point that is not valid.
A child is going to school, and a sniper shoots him when he gets off the bus. Should we charge the parents with negligence because they didn't buy the child a bullet-proof vest to wear?
Another example of you just being plain stupid with your comments. Nothing more to say regarding this one. A school has several people arrested for dealing drugs. A week later, a child is knifed by a drug dealer after saying no. Should the parents be arrested for allowing their child to continue to attend a school where there was an obvious drug problem, and where it could be expected that there might be more trouble coming?
You seem to be decompensatiog here. Please get back onto your meds. I can't believe a rational person would even contemplate making such a ridicules argument.
Two parents are having trouble with their 12-year-old son. Frustrated because he simply doesn't seem to understand the seriousness of his actions, the turn to their priest for help. It seems to work, and the boy spends a lot of time in counselling over the next six months. But then it is discovered that the priest is a pedophile and has been sexually molesting their son. Do we throw them in jail? After all, we are well aware of the problem with pedophile priests.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Streeeeeeeetching yet again. Where is the culpability on the part of a parent who does not know about the perversion of the priest? To the best of their knowledge they have placed the child's welfare into the hands of a responsible adult, not left the child unattended (the original issue with this thread).
but what if a parent decides their 4-year-old is responsible enough to play in the stream by themselves. Should they be thrown in jail?
If the 4 year old drowns or nearly drowns, yes the parents should be arrested and charged with neglect.
I ask because when I was 4 years old, I was either allowed, or at least not monitored enough to stop, me from going to the stream and playing all I wanted. In fact, my parents were very permissive, and I see NOTHING wrong with that. You can live your life in fear, or not. I let my children play outside, and wander around in the woods, and do all those things children should be allowed to do.
I did not raise my children in an atmosphere of fear. I used common sense and made sure I did not place them in a potentially harmful environment without due supervision. They played no less than you did, and their safety was always maintained. Accidents do happen. But, when it is neglegence on the part of the parent which set up the scenerio, the parent will be held accountable for the outcome. That is a fact borne out by case after case after case.
Oh, in case it has not dawned on you, the government doesn't pass laws that require people to engage in "Safe" behavior at all times under penalty of being arrested and placed in prison. Laws are written to provide for 1) accountability for after the fact situations, and 2) to provide for negative reinforcement by way of letting people know there are penalties for behaving contrary to the law. In most cases there is no government "official" looking over peoples shoulders making sure they are being "safe". My comments are directed at the fact that when a parent has failed to properly discharge their responsibilities to provide for their children, they can, will, and have been held accountable. Now, you can disagree the government has this ability, but I believe that there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I've exhausted all the time I will spend with you on this issue. I'm moving on to other things. Have a nice day.
In the "original issue" in this thread, the parent was within visual contact of the car in which her child was sleeping at all times, so the child was not unattended.
Our particular thread started when you commented in a way that sounded like if the parent could not actually observe the child WITHIN the car, they were at fault and should be punished.
I responded based on that belief, and then you after explaining that's not what you meant, brought in a series of other topics, which I am expanding on here.
I'm trying to determine exactly what your position is, by asking questions about situations of varying levels of absurdity -- to see where you draw the line. It's usually impossible to have a discussion about a topic like this unless you know exactly what the other person thinks is OK or is not OK.
It is clear from your responses that you give the government a LOT MORE POWER over people's children than I do. I'm not sure if you would criminalize ignorance or stupidity, but it is clear you believe in some cases a parent SHOULD be held criminally liable for acts perpetrated against their child by criminals -- depending on how much the parent "asked for" the criminal action against their child.
For example, if a thug walks up to the child while the parent stands there, and snatches the kid, that's OK, but if the child has wandered into the next aisle for a minute and the thug snatches him, you may want to arrest the parent for not watching the kid -- even though in both cases a CRIMINAL has acted illegally in taking the kid.
One thing is clear from this story. The Government is nowhere NEAR capable of being as concerned about children than their parents. In this story, even though they were ARRESTING the mother for leaving a child unattended, the government agents LEFT TWO OTHER CHILDREN unattended for a much longer time period. Who was in more danger? The 2-year-old locked in the van, or the two older children stuck in the mall with no parents for an hour?
As to the specifics, you chose the car insurance analogy, and continue to discuss it based on what government LAWS say, rather than what is the CORRECT action of government. It's a simple question -- do you think you should HAVE to have insurance that would pay for someone else's injuries if they cause those injuries -- I ask because you essentially said that in your earlier post, and it seems absurd. But your response simply says "that's what the government says". I don't want to know what the law says, I wanted to know if you believed that I am responsible for insuring other people against their OWN actions.
That's why I asked the question about a burglar. Believe it or not, in some cases burglars HAVE sued successfully. I figured by changing the venue you might answer the question, but instead you suggested the question was stupid. So what i get is that you said my insurance should have to pay for a driver in another car that hits my car, but it's stupid that my homeowners insurance should have to pay a burglar who gets injured in my house. But THEY ARE THE SAME THING -- someone else committing a crime, getting injured, and expecting me to pay.
I'll say no more about that, since it has nothing to do with the question of holding parents liable for acts against their children. I just discussed it because you brought it into the discussion.
Towards the end, you suggest that a parent's culpability should be based on what happens to the child, rather than what they do. So if a parent allows the 4-year-old to get out of the yard, and the child plays for a couple of hours and comes home safely, that's fine, but if the child gets abducted by some sick criminal, you would throw the parents in jail for not keeping the kid under supervision.
I understand the compelling nature of your argument. some people say "we trust parents to raise children in a safe environment, and when they don't we need to punish them". But the Government does not "trust parents to raise children". Raising children is the natural RIGHT of parents, and that includes raising them in ways that seem unsafe to others.
And frankly, while I have little trouble with legislating some level of care based on obvious hazards (for example, it would be absurd for a parent to ALLOW a 4-year-old to play by themselves in a stream), I draw the line at arresting parents for the act of "putting their child in danger" of having CRIMINALS take CRIMINAL ACTION against them.
As a parent, it is my responsibility to raise my children and keep them safe from harm. I would feel responsible if my actions made it easier for some criminal to harm my child. But Government has no right to make it a crime not to protect AGAINST criminal acts.
To try to illustrate this, and see where you draw this line, which of these do YOU think government should require in order for a parent to meet what YOU think is their "legal obligation" to protect against CRIMINAL activity against them. For these, assume a 5-year-old boy:
Note this is a bit afield from the circumstance here. I support laws against leaving infants unattended in cars, but because the cars themselves are dangerous, as is leaving an infant strapped in a car seat. NOT because someone could steal the car, or snatch the child.
If you disagree, that's fine -- I'd love to hear your argument for your side. My argument is based on the foundational conservative principle that Government is only empowered by the people to do certain specific things, and being our child's "super-parents" is not one of those things. Our country is rather unique in that it reserves most rights to the people themselves, and only grants Government limited power. Most countries the government gives "rights" to their people.
I don't discount all negligence claims. But in general my rule is -- do something to harm your child, go to jail. Child gets harmed by being a child, or harmed by others that parents had no control over? We don't need laws to replace the love of parents for children.
When I was four I ran into the street without looking both ways...my Mother swiftly followed and I got an ass-whoopin’! I never did it again though...:-)
I've already stated this time and time and time again. You are just putting forth arguments (invalid arguments) for the sake of arguing. I'm done with you. Go bother someone else and stop pinging me on this issue.
If the parent is not able to view the child in the car they are placing that child in jeapardy, even if nothing bad happens. That IMHO is irresponsible. But, I don’t draw the line at just leaving a child unattended in a car. Young children left unattended anywhere shows poor judgement on the part of the parent.
To which I asked if you never left your kids unattended anywhere. It was a reasonable question, since you explicitly said that young children left unattended "anywhere" showed poor judgment.
After that we went off on tangents as you brought up additional points. I'm sorry that you are bored with the discussion now, as I hoped I could at least figure out why you thought it was so important that parents be arrested because their child wandered into the next aisle at the grocery store.
At least the DA’s office came to some sense and dropped all the charges against this poor woman. The POS Police Chief said he disagreed with their decision. The guy needs a mud puddle stomped up his a$$.
So the officer's supposed to arrest the woman on the basis of evidence that might exist, rather than checking to see what evidence does exist. I don't buy that notion.
Besides, I don't think the real problem is with parents who leave their children unattended for 10.1 minutes. The real problem is with parents who leave their children unattended for much longer. If a parent leaves a child unattended for 20 minutes and a cop shows up at some random time during that interval, there's a 50% chance that the cop will see the child unattended for ten straight minutes. If the parent leaves the child unattended for 60 minutes, there's an 83% chance the cop will see it unattended for ten straight. While requiring that a cop actually observe the child for ten straight minutes would mean that 66% of the parents who left their children unattended for 15 minutes would be let off the hook, I see that as far less of a problem than the wrongful arrests of parents who didn't leave their child alone for ten minutes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.