• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Six-year-old in North Carolina arrested for picking flower from lawn

He got picked up because his parents dodged court summons. His parent's choices resulted in this ridiculous situation.
Please stop confusing your assumptions with fact.
One of the few facts here is that the parents were given a summons.
There's very few facts involved. But that is one.


Here's another fact. You don't know that any of this happened. Do you know that this kid is any more real than Tawana Brawley?

We don't know they initiated the complaint.
Who is "they"?

We don't know they pushed the complaint through the process.

Who is they?
We don't know they received the summons.
Maybe you think that the judiciary in North Carolina doesn't serve summons on black people, but all I can say is
WTF?

The assumption that the parent were legally informed doesn't seem that difficult to understand.

Seriously, you think that state governments don't bother informing people of court orders? Is that really what you meant to say?

Tom
 
That's not what happened, according to earlier posts.

He got picked up because his parents dodged court summons. His parent's choices resulted in this ridiculous situation.
Tom

Why didn't they pick up the parents then? They were the ones that defied the court order, not the child.

I don't know.
I never claimed to know.

I assume that there's more going on in this particular event than the media mentioned.

Maybe the mother was a relative of the police chief. But I wouldn't know about that. Which is why I don't make unqualified assertions about the event.
Tom
 
That's not what happened, according to earlier posts.

He got picked up because his parents dodged court summons. His parent's choices resulted in this ridiculous situation.
Tom

Why didn't they pick up the parents then? They were the ones that defied the court order, not the child.

I don't know.
I never claimed to know.

I assume that there's more going on in this particular event than the media mentioned.

Maybe the mother was a relative of the police chief. But I wouldn't know about that. Which is why I don't make unqualified assertions about the event.
Tom

That doesn't stop you from making assumptions, all in defense of the legal system.
 
I don't know.
I never claimed to know.

I assume that there's more going on in this particular event than the media mentioned.

Maybe the mother was a relative of the police chief. But I wouldn't know about that. Which is why I don't make unqualified assertions about the event.
Tom

That doesn't stop you from making assumptions, all in defense of the legal system.

We need to go back to blood feuds and self help. To hell with this rule of law crap.
 
I don't know.
I never claimed to know.

I assume that there's more going on in this particular event than the media mentioned.

Maybe the mother was a relative of the police chief. But I wouldn't know about that. Which is why I don't make unqualified assertions about the event.
Tom

That doesn't stop you from making assumptions, all in defense of the legal system.

We need to go back to blood feuds and self help. To hell with this rule of law crap.

You mean the rule of law that arrested a six year old for picking a flower? :picardfacepalm:
 
I don't know.
I never claimed to know.

I assume that there's more going on in this particular event than the media mentioned.

Maybe the mother was a relative of the police chief. But I wouldn't know about that. Which is why I don't make unqualified assertions about the event.
Tom

That doesn't stop you from making assumptions, all in defense of the legal system.

Not to mention the fact that as long as all possible assumptions lead to the same conclusion, then conclusion remans valid regardless of which assumption is true.

Here, there is not a possible universe where the destruction of real property by a six year old warrants any kind of legal consequences to the six year old. Fuck, if a six year old had stolen their parent's gun and shot their neighbor's dog, I would be hesitant to say they criminal consequences are warranted.
 
We need to go back to blood feuds and self help. To hell with this rule of law crap.

You mean the rule of law that arrested a six year old for picking a flower? :picardfacepalm:

If you fail to appear after a court summons, that’s contempt of court. Doesn’t matter the validity of the underlying charge.

Then why didn't they arrest the parents? They were the ones that were summonsed.
 
Maybe the parents gave the notice the just perusal it deserved. This is showing the insanity of subjecting children as young as 6 to the legal system.

Then again, maybe the parents are so accustomed to ignoring their children's bad behavior that they blew off a court summons. Sounds like a kid on the road to prison.
Tom

Yeah. I very much doubt this is over a tulip. Rather, I suspect the person whose tulip was picked had had a lot of trouble with damage to their yard from kids waiting for the bus and decided to do something about it. Whether it was this kid before or not we don't know. Obviously a kid of 6 isn't going to be punished, this was obviously an attempt to get the parents to deal with their children.

Instead the parents blew off a court summons. Blowing off a court summons, no matter how unreasonable you feel it is, is not the right course of action.

I also suspect that they blew off other attempts to address this but that's less certain.
 
One of the few facts here is that the parents were given a summons.
There's very few facts involved. But that is one.
No, that is not a fact. A summons was issued. We do not know if the parents received the summons.
Here's another fact. You don't know that any of this happened. Do you know that this kid is any more real than Tawana Brawley?
Wow, I know there are multiple witnesses who say the child exists.

Who is "they"?

We don't know they pushed the complaint through the process.

Who is they?
FFS, read in context - I was talking about the parents.
Maybe you think that the judiciary in North Carolina doesn't serve summons on black people, but all I can say is
WTF?

The assumption that the parent were legally informed doesn't seem that difficult to understand.
As assumption it is not difficult to understand, but it as assumption, not a fact. Just like the idea that we do not know the parents received the summons i for whatever reason s not difficult to understand, yet you seem incapable of grasping it.
Seriously, you think that state governments don't bother informing people of court orders? Is that really what you meant to say?
No, I am saying we don't know if they received the summons. It is possible that the court had the wrong address or the it was delivered to the wrong address or any other number of possible mistakes.

My point is that you routinely employ a double standard of demanding others recognize their assumptions while you act as if yours are facts.
 
I don't know.
I never claimed to know.

I assume that there's more going on in this particular event than the media mentioned.

Maybe the mother was a relative of the police chief. But I wouldn't know about that. Which is why I don't make unqualified assertions about the event.
Tom

That doesn't stop you from making assumptions, all in defense of the legal system.

Not to mention the fact that as long as all possible assumptions lead to the same conclusion, then conclusion remans valid regardless of which assumption is true.

Here, there is not a possible universe where the destruction of real property by a six year old warrants any kind of legal consequences to the six year old. Fuck, if a six year old had stolen their parent's gun and shot their neighbor's dog, I would be hesitant to say they criminal consequences are warranted.

I would think that possible criminal consequences for the parents would be in order. Please note the word: possible.

I grew up in a home with guns and knew the rules which were: Do NOT touch the guns and NEVER store a gun that has any ammunition in it and has not been properly cleaned first. Now, if we had been different children, the kind inclined to be curious enough about guns to disregard the absolute fact that our hides would be tanned but good, storing them in a closet or under my parents' bed would have been really foolish. But in those days, most people stored their guns--almost exclusively hunting rifles and maybe a shotgun or two exactly the same way my dad (and uncle and grandfather) stored theirs. One Christmas, my mother was really proud to have saved enough money to present my father with a fancy gun rack. But still: without my father's express permission and supervision, had I touched one of the guns, I can still imagine my rear burning and I'm sure I would still be confined to my childhood bedroom to this day.

Alas, we do not live in those times,for good or for ill. But these days, people seem absolutely certain that they need an AK15 or other semiautomatic high powered rifle, although almost none of them would be able to find a deer to shoot or know how to field dress it, etc. The NRA and the GOP have riled people up to believe that any day they will be overrun by black rapist drug dealers who want to get at your wife and your daughter and your grandma, too, so if you're a real man, you need to be prepared to defend them and also to defend yourself from a government who might someday care more about saving lives than funding the NRA and NRA backed politicians.

Too many people lack the sense to keep their firearms properly stored or maintained and away from children. Such individuals should forfeit their 'right' to own weapons.
 
Not to mention the fact that as long as all possible assumptions lead to the same conclusion, then conclusion remans valid regardless of which assumption is true.

Here, there is not a possible universe where the destruction of real property by a six year old warrants any kind of legal consequences to the six year old. Fuck, if a six year old had stolen their parent's gun and shot their neighbor's dog, I would be hesitant to say they criminal consequences are warranted.

I would think that possible criminal consequences for the parents would be in order. Please note the word: possible.

I grew up in a home with guns and knew the rules which were: Do NOT touch the guns and NEVER store a gun that has any ammunition in it and has not been properly cleaned first. Now, if we had been different children, the kind inclined to be curious enough about guns to disregard the absolute fact that our hides would be tanned but good, storing them in a closet or under my parents' bed would have been really foolish. But in those days, most people stored their guns--almost exclusively hunting rifles and maybe a shotgun or two exactly the same way my dad (and uncle and grandfather) stored theirs. One Christmas, my mother was really proud to have saved enough money to present my father with a fancy gun rack. But still: without my father's express permission and supervision, had I touched one of the guns, I can still imagine my rear burning and I'm sure I would still be confined to my childhood bedroom to this day.

Alas, we do not live in those times,for good or for ill. But these days, people seem absolutely certain that they need an AK15 or other semiautomatic high powered rifle, although almost none of them would be able to find a deer to shoot or know how to field dress it, etc. The NRA and the GOP have riled people up to believe that any day they will be overrun by black rapist drug dealers who want to get at your wife and your daughter and your grandma, too, so if you're a real man, you need to be prepared to defend them and also to defend yourself from a government who might someday care more about saving lives than funding the NRA and NRA backed politicians.

Too many people lack the sense to keep their firearms properly stored or maintained and away from children. Such individuals should forfeit their 'right' to own weapons.

For the parents, yes. Not for the child. The child in such a case would have a bad day and ask "where is mommy/daddy (the parent who left the gun unsecured) going?" And "why did they take away mommy/daddy's gun thing?"

My point is that there is no world where a 6 year old should be jailed over tulips. I don't care if it's a world record, or a state fair grand champion tulip, or is planted literally in the ashes of your dead spouse, and it was killed. It's a six year old, and all that six year old sees is "pretty flower".

Court is not an acceptable forum for "that six year old picked my flower".

Some people went on to die on a ridiculous hill of hair dragging in a fight? I'll gladly die on this hill that, short of trying to bury dead, dissected animals animals in that garden that this child does not belong in a courthouse over the incident.
 
The racists are the complainer and the cop who wrote the summons.

Years of hearing such confident, but evidence free, accusations of racism is why I don't take accusations of racism particularly seriously any more. Not without solid evidence that racism played some part in an event. Solid evidence, not some vague reference to an old social media post.

Your post reinforced my observation that much, maybe most, of the racism in the USA is the product of an industry based on manufactured outrage. You know little or nothing about the complainants, the cop, or the history in this event. But that doesn't stop you from asserting that it's about racism.

What I see is irresponsible parenting. The kid wound up in court because irresponsible parents couldn't be bothered responding. That's the bottom line. Had they answered the summons, this wouldn't have happened.
Tom

As they say, the demand for racism far outstrips the supply.

It is very fortunate for you that is your experience. My experience is that there is no limit to the supply of racism, and areas where the appetite for it is insatiable as well.
 
If you fail to appear after a court summons, that’s contempt of court. Doesn’t matter the validity of the underlying charge.

Then why didn't they arrest the parents? They were the ones that were summonsed.

Do we know that the parents were not arrested or otherwise advised that they would be arrested if they failed to appear at a rescheduled date? the child got to the court somehow... perhaps is was during the parents surrendering... the parents get fingerprinted and released to the court for a hearing regarding their child who was also present... that is a reasonable assumption - but we don't know from the exactly two articles written to entertain rather than inform.
 
Maybe the parents gave the notice the just perusal it deserved. This is showing the insanity of subjecting children as young as 6 to the legal system.

Then again, maybe the parents are so accustomed to ignoring their children's bad behavior that they blew off a court summons. Sounds like a kid on the road to prison.
Tom

He's fucking SIX, Tom.
Sheesh. I'd ignore any summons or citation issued on a six year old if I had one. Especially if it was for picking flowers.
Isn't that the age children are supposed to be learning (or not learning) lessons what will become most important for them later in life?
 
He's fucking SIX, Tom.
Sheesh. I'd ignore any summons or citation issued on a six year old if I had one. Especially if it was for picking flowers.
Isn't that the age children are supposed to be learning (or not learning) lessons what will become most important for them later in life?

Yeah, twenty lashes should straighten out the little fucker. Plus it would be faster, cheaper and probably more memorable to the mini-felon.
 
He's fucking SIX, Tom.
Sheesh. I'd ignore any summons or citation issued on a six year old if I had one. Especially if it was for picking flowers.
Isn't that the age children are supposed to be learning (or not learning) lessons what will become most important for them later in life?

Yeah, twenty lashes should straighten out the little fucker. Plus it would be faster, cheaper and probably more memorable to the mini-felon.

I still see the problem as the parents, not the child.
As keeps being pointed out, he's SIX! This is on them.

And who knows why the complainants took drastic action. Maybe they just got fed up with vandalism by students at the bus stop, over years, and decided to send a message to all the neighborhood parents. "We're gonna start prosecuting if you don't teach your kids to respect other people's property."

I'm not claiming to know the back story, but I'm confident that there is one.
Tom
 
Yeah, twenty lashes should straighten out the little fucker. Plus it would be faster, cheaper and probably more memorable to the mini-felon.

I still see the problem as the parents, not the child.
Riiight, because in your view, there is no issue with an adult filing a criminal complaint against a 6 year old for picking a tulip, and there is also no issue with the police continuing to process a criminal complaint against a 6 year old for picking a tulip or the court system for letting it get as far as it did.
 
Yeah, twenty lashes should straighten out the little fucker. Plus it would be faster, cheaper and probably more memorable to the mini-felon.

I still see the problem as the parents, not the child.
As keeps being pointed out, he's SIX! This is on them.

And who knows why the complainants took drastic action. Maybe they just got fed up with vandalism by students at the bus stop, over years, and decided to send a message to all the neighborhood parents. "We're gonna start prosecuting if you don't teach your kids to respect other people's property."

I'm not claiming to know the back story, but I'm confident that there is one.
Tom

Yeah, that's still stupid. If you live at a bus stop, your garden next to it WILL get fucked with. Period. End of discussion. Just as it's ridiculous to get angry at the sky for rain, it is ridiculous to get angry that bus stops increase exposure to idle hands.

The solution there is to not move into houses at bus stops, or do your gardening in the back.

Doesn't matter how "fed up" they are. At some point, you need to accept that when you build your castles in swamps, they will sink.
 
Yeah, twenty lashes should straighten out the little fucker. Plus it would be faster, cheaper and probably more memorable to the mini-felon.

I still see the problem as the parents, not the child.
As keeps being pointed out, he's SIX! This is on them.

And who knows why the complainants took drastic action. Maybe they just got fed up with vandalism by students at the bus stop, over years, and decided to send a message to all the neighborhood parents. "We're gonna start prosecuting if you don't teach your kids to respect other people's property."

I'm not claiming to know the back story, but I'm confident that there is one.
Tom

Yeah, that's still stupid. If you live at a bus stop, your garden next to it WILL get fucked with. Period. End of discussion. Just as it's ridiculous to get angry at the sky for rain, it is ridiculous to get angry that bus stops increase exposure to idle hands.

The solution there is to not move into houses at bus stops, or do your gardening in the back.

Doesn't matter how "fed up" they are. At some point, you need to accept that when you build your castles in swamps, they will sink.

Dang that's some serious victim blaming.

Ya know, if women don't want to attract attention from men they should stop wearing slutty clothes in public.
Tom
 
Back
Top Bottom