AGE IS NOT A FACTOR - there, I shouted it again. Did you get so caught up in the caps that you failed to notice what I said was a factor? The ability and intent to do harm.
And this is where - yes - the two cases are alike. People were making a big deal about Trayvon’s age, just like you are doing here. Trayvon’s age is immaterial to the facts - if he was the aggressor, his age doesn’t matter. If he was not the aggressor, his age still doesn’t matter.
In this case - if she was endangering property, herself and others, her age doesn’t matter. You have no clue what was going on, and since the mother was called repeatedly, without response, your whole rant about police and government holds no water. You have taken your position independent of any facts - no differently than the screaming mobs in the Trayvon case, or the current supporters of Obama.
Clue yourself in:
The girl was out of control
Mom did not answer the phone or respond to messages
Police were called
Police tried to calm the girl
She would not be calmed.
Police took her into custody.
You stupidly say the parents should handle it - but the parents were not available to handle it (Yet you still rant - parents, parents, parents), and as I said earlier, Mom wasn’t doing her job in the first place, so you expect her to do her job now? That is insane!
Back to the age thing - suppose you were killed by a 10 year old, would you be less dead than if you were killed by a 21 year old or a 1 year old?
Again - read carefully - what matters is ability and intent. The presumption is that the younger the child, the less able they are to inflict harm - but, as the story shows, a six year old is able to inflict injury, so she must be approached as a human being willing and able to inflict bodily harm —— NOT with the presumption that her age makes her harmless.
Suppose a 6 month old elephant was escaped, obviously agitated, and doing damage to property, headed to a playground where children were playing - would you rush out screaming that the elephant was only 6 months old, so nobody should call animal control or the cops?
The girl was out of control, her mom could not be contacted, the cops were called - what is your problem?
Finally - let me answer your question about where we draw the line. We draw the line where no damage is being done to other people or their property, and age, color, sex, or any of that other garbage have NOTHING to do with that line.
Excellent post.
Moi? That works BOTH ways. You stupidly bring up Martin, who was a far older than six... Nananana-boo!
See, you can call me stupid, and I can call you stupid. I don't think it's true in either case. However, I still disagree with you.
Disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily make the other person stupid. That's a six year old's argument. ;-) And I'll still contend that age does matter. We don't let adults have sex with minors because they simply cannot comprehend consent.
Now that's a little stark, argument wise, but it shows the law acknowleges that the younger the mind, the more likely it will not understand.
Now that I do know, however, that the parents couldn't be found, I do see the need to call the cops. That was not in the original story, however. Now, did they apprehend the child, or arrest? The original story was arrest, implying criminal charges, and yes, I still contend that's wrong. I thought about it, too. I'm sure we still disagree, but that still doesn't make me--or you--stupid.