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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Parents are going to let a six year old be six next to a bus stop, as they ought. A six year old is going to be six.

That's ridiculous. Competent parents don't let a SIX year old do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Sorry if I'm boring you with another true story.
When I was SIX, I picked some flowers for my mom. We lived in a very urban place(Gary Indiana, all the way down on 6th Ave.)

My mom said "Oh, these are really pretty." Then started quizzing me on where they came from. She knew I didn't have any money and wasn't allowed to cross the street without my parents. She quickly figured out which yard I'd stolen them from. She carefully explained that other people's yards aren't mine. And then marched me down to the house who's yard I got them from and gave them back, then made me apologize for picking the nice lady's flowers. My victim was very gracious, and said that she was glad that I'd been honest, but didn't want me picking her flowers any more. Mom offered to pay a bit, but the nice lady just said, "No, I'm just happy that this won't happen again"
Tom

And if instead, the old lady said, "Too bad. I am going to call the police. Plus, you are trespassing. Get off my property now!" you'd be shit out of luck if you lived in North Carolina. Because in North Carolina, the government allows people to victimize 6 year olds by charging them with crimes. Your life would have been completely different, you'd be traumatized by all the public exposure, court case, thinking you are a bad person. You would be a victim because the system is unjust that allows such things, just like if the punishment for public urination was cutting off your penis, you'd be a victim of the state. There isn't only one victim when the government allows such things to happen to 6 year olds for picking a tulip. Our founding fathers understood tyranny which is why they made an amendment to the Constitution to disallow the government from cruel and unusual punishments and even before that laws did not allow those to stand trial who were not competent to do so exactly because it victimizes them. Both offenders and offendees can be victims. Don't engage in a false dichotomy.

 

[TomC]

TomC, you have to forgo the 6 year old in court in order to make your subsequent assumptions. All of that hypothetical refuse of yours is subjected to the six year old picking flowers and ending up in court. Otherwise you'd be throwing allegations into thin air as you'd have no parents as the target for your argument without the child in question.

Please explain what assumptions I'm making, other than that the kid has parents.

My point is that nobody in this thread actually knows what really happened, including me. I'm pretty sure that the child is getting caught in the crossfire of some dysfunctional b.s. that isn't being reported.
Tom

Please explain what assumptions you say, and in the next sentence, you assume the child is caught in the crossfire of some dysfunctional B.S. What do you think assumption means?

That the evidence that the kid was in court was sufficiently substantial to rise above the term "assumption". I'm assuming that the kid even exists, based on nothing but a thread on TFT claiming that there's a news source reporting that any of this happened.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Parents are going to let a six year old be six next to a bus stop, as they ought. A six year old is going to be six.

That's ridiculous. Competent parents don't let a SIX year old do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Sorry if I'm boring you with another true story.
When I was SIX, I picked some flowers for my mom. We lived in a very urban place(Gary Indiana, all the way down on 6th Ave.)

My mom said "Oh, these are really pretty." Then started quizzing me on where they came from. She knew I didn't have any money and wasn't allowed to cross the street without my parents. She quickly figured out which yard I'd stolen them from. She carefully explained that other people's yards aren't mine. And then marched me down to the house who's yard I got them from and gave them back, then made me apologize for picking the nice lady's flowers. My victim was very gracious, and said that she was glad that I'd been honest, but didn't want me picking her flowers any more. Mom offered to pay a bit, but the nice lady just said, "No, I'm just happy that this won't happen again"
Tom

And if instead, the old lady said, "Too bad. I am going to call the police. Plus, you are trespassing. Get off my property now!" you'd be shit out of luck if you lived in North Carolina. Because in North Carolina, the government allows people to victimize 6 year olds by charging them with crimes. Your life would have been completely different, you'd be traumatized by all the public exposure, court case, thinking you are a bad person. You would be a victim because the system is unjust that allows such things, just like if the punishment for public urination was cutting off your penis, you'd be a victim of the state. There isn't only one victim when the government allows such things to happen to 6 year olds for picking a tulip. Our founding fathers understood tyranny which is why they made an amendment to the Constitution to disallow the government from cruel and unusual punishments and even before that laws did not allow those to stand trial who were not competent to do so exactly because it victimizes them. Both offenders and offendees can be victims. Don't engage in a false dichotomy.

Dayum.

Maybe you need a nice cup of chamomile tea or something...
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

And if instead, the old lady said, "Too bad. I am going to call the police. Plus, you are trespassing. Get off my property now!" you'd be shit out of luck if you lived in North Carolina. Because in North Carolina, the government allows people to victimize 6 year olds by charging them with crimes. Your life would have been completely different, you'd be traumatized by all the public exposure, court case, thinking you are a bad person. You would be a victim because the system is unjust that allows such things, just like if the punishment for public urination was cutting off your penis, you'd be a victim of the state. There isn't only one victim when the government allows such things to happen to 6 year olds for picking a tulip. Our founding fathers understood tyranny which is why they made an amendment to the Constitution to disallow the government from cruel and unusual punishments and even before that laws did not allow those to stand trial who were not competent to do so exactly because it victimizes them. Both offenders and offendees can be victims. Don't engage in a false dichotomy.

Dayum.

Maybe you need a nice cup of chamomile tea or something...
Tom

I'd say more than that, you need the clue Don is offering you.

 

[TomC]

And if instead, the old lady said, "Too bad. I am going to call the police. Plus, you are trespassing. Get off my property now!" you'd be shit out of luck if you lived in North Carolina. Because in North Carolina, the government allows people to victimize 6 year olds by charging them with crimes. Your life would have been completely different, you'd be traumatized by all the public exposure, court case, thinking you are a bad person. You would be a victim because the system is unjust that allows such things, just like if the punishment for public urination was cutting off your penis, you'd be a victim of the state. There isn't only one victim when the government allows such things to happen to 6 year olds for picking a tulip. Our founding fathers understood tyranny which is why they made an amendment to the Constitution to disallow the government from cruel and unusual punishments and even before that laws did not allow those to stand trial who were not competent to do so exactly because it victimizes them. Both offenders and offendees can be victims. Don't engage in a false dichotomy.

Dayum.

Maybe you need a nice cup of chamomile tea or something...
Tom

I'd say more than that, you need the clue Don is offering you.

Feel free to explain what you mean.

Please leave out the face eating leopard bullshit emotive parts.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd say more than that, you need the clue Don is offering you.

Feel free to explain what you mean.

Please leave out the face eating leopard bullshit emotive parts.
Tom

So are you having a hard time reading Don's words? Which words are giving you trouble, exactly?

 

[Gospel]

Please explain what assumptions you say, and in the next sentence, you assume the child is caught in the crossfire of some dysfunctional B.S. What do you think assumption means?

That the evidence that the kid was in court was sufficiently substantial to rise above the term "assumption". I'm assuming that the kid even exists, based on nothing but a thread on TFT claiming that there's a news source reporting that any of this happened.
Tom

When you're done moving that goalpost please put it back where you found it. You didn't assume the child was in court you assumed the child is caught up in some dysfunctional crossfire (amongst other things). I for one appreciate you sharing a relevant memory of picking flowers when you were a child, however, you have facts about that and aren't making assumptions there. You're are however making assumptions about this kid and his parents because you don't have the facts. You've acknowledged this yourself so I don't know why you're making assumptions and trying to defend them. That's some ole makebelieve Willy Wonka Wonderland woo-woo yeehaw lip smacking nonsense.

At the end of the day, a judge threw the case out. I'm certain the judge had access to evidence so if the judge saw nothing to pursue then you can shove it.

 

[TomC]

I'd say more than that, you need the clue Don is offering you.

Feel free to explain what you mean.

Please leave out the face eating leopard bullshit emotive parts.
Tom

So are you having a hard time reading Don's words? Which words are giving you trouble, exactly?

OK.
You prefer not to discuss what you posted and would rather change the subject to another poster.



Got it. And I do understand why you'd prefer that.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Dayum.

Maybe you need a nice cup of chamomile tea or something...
Tom

This conversation has gone from hallucinatory to now surreal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And if instead, the old lady said, "Too bad. I am going to call the police. Plus, you are trespassing. Get off my property now!" you'd be shit out of luck if you lived in North Carolina. Because in North Carolina, the government allows people to victimize 6 year olds by charging them with crimes. Your life would have been completely different, you'd be traumatized by all the public exposure, court case, thinking you are a bad person. You would be a victim because the system is unjust that allows such things, just like if the punishment for public urination was cutting off your penis, you'd be a victim of the state. There isn't only one victim when the government allows such things to happen to 6 year olds for picking a tulip. Our founding fathers understood tyranny which is why they made an amendment to the Constitution to disallow the government from cruel and unusual punishments and even before that laws did not allow those to stand trial who were not competent to do so exactly because it victimizes them. Both offenders and offendees can be victims. Don't engage in a false dichotomy.

While the 6 year old was in the courtroom this is obviously actually a case of charging the parents with failure to control their child. Nobody believes the kid will be punished in any fashion other than by the parents.

 

[Toni]

And if instead, the old lady said, "Too bad. I am going to call the police. Plus, you are trespassing. Get off my property now!" you'd be shit out of luck if you lived in North Carolina. Because in North Carolina, the government allows people to victimize 6 year olds by charging them with crimes. Your life would have been completely different, you'd be traumatized by all the public exposure, court case, thinking you are a bad person. You would be a victim because the system is unjust that allows such things, just like if the punishment for public urination was cutting off your penis, you'd be a victim of the state. There isn't only one victim when the government allows such things to happen to 6 year olds for picking a tulip. Our founding fathers understood tyranny which is why they made an amendment to the Constitution to disallow the government from cruel and unusual punishments and even before that laws did not allow those to stand trial who were not competent to do so exactly because it victimizes them. Both offenders and offendees can be victims. Don't engage in a false dichotomy.

While the 6 year old was in the courtroom this is obviously actually a case of charging the parents with failure to control their child. Nobody believes the kid will be punished in any fashion other than by the parents.

Or even by the parents.

Honestly, I've had my flowers picked by unauthorized children---and occasionally, someone well old enough to know better. The college kids sometimes maybe got a dirty look---for not asking permission. The kids? Mostly I'd say that they should ask first and then offer them another flower or two or three, taking care to stay away from those with thorns or stickery parts. And of course, the kids who picked cherries, unauthorized got the same treatment: You should ask first! And why don't you try that branch there--it's easier to reach and I see 3 ripe ones right now.

It takes a special kind of asshole to call the cops on a 6 year old unless the child were in danger or were actually endangering another child or person or animal.

It takes an extremely dysfunctional law enforcement department to arrest a 6 year old child. And for someone to agree to prosecute such a case--well, even I wouldn't use the kind of language needed to describe such an abhorrent being.

 

[Toni]

The fact is, we are not talking about adults, so your analogy bears no validity.

I am talking about the adults, not the child.

I don't know the back story, so I'm not sure which of the adults I'm talking about. But they are who I'm talking about, your lack of reading comprehension notwithstanding.
Tom

Your attempt to compare men sexually harrassing and even assaulting and raping women as you did upthread to a child picking a flower is disgusting and creepy. I do not know what it is that you are lacking that you could even attempt to make such a comparison and say that it is an example of victim blaming but it's something pretty substantial.

You write about you picking a neighbors' flowers for your mother and your mother marching you to the neighbor and making you return them and apologize. THAT is appropriate. Arresting a child and dragging the child and/or parent into court is so far from appropriate that they do not even exist in the same universe. No decent human being could think so any more than any decent human being could think that the victim of sexual harassment or sexual assault or rape could be equated with the 'victim' of a flower snatching by a 6 year old.

The victim in this is the 6 year old. And his parents who must take time off of work, incur other costs and face unwarranted scrutiny over their child behaving as a child.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And if instead, the old lady said, "Too bad. I am going to call the police. Plus, you are trespassing. Get off my property now!" you'd be shit out of luck if you lived in North Carolina. Because in North Carolina, the government allows people to victimize 6 year olds by charging them with crimes. Your life would have been completely different, you'd be traumatized by all the public exposure, court case, thinking you are a bad person. You would be a victim because the system is unjust that allows such things, just like if the punishment for public urination was cutting off your penis, you'd be a victim of the state. There isn't only one victim when the government allows such things to happen to 6 year olds for picking a tulip. Our founding fathers understood tyranny which is why they made an amendment to the Constitution to disallow the government from cruel and unusual punishments and even before that laws did not allow those to stand trial who were not competent to do so exactly because it victimizes them. Both offenders and offendees can be victims. Don't engage in a false dichotomy.

While the 6 year old was in the courtroom this is obviously actually a case of charging the parents with failure to control their child. Nobody believes the kid will be punished in any fashion other than by the parents.

That has already been debunked. Read the thread before responding. For benefit of lurkers, the parents can be charged with neglect separately and so such charge of child would be redundant. Plus, it would be traumatic for the kid, thus counter-productive.

 

[Gospel]

And if instead, the old lady said, "Too bad. I am going to call the police. Plus, you are trespassing. Get off my property now!" you'd be shit out of luck if you lived in North Carolina. Because in North Carolina, the government allows people to victimize 6 year olds by charging them with crimes. Your life would have been completely different, you'd be traumatized by all the public exposure, court case, thinking you are a bad person. You would be a victim because the system is unjust that allows such things, just like if the punishment for public urination was cutting off your penis, you'd be a victim of the state. There isn't only one victim when the government allows such things to happen to 6 year olds for picking a tulip. Our founding fathers understood tyranny which is why they made an amendment to the Constitution to disallow the government from cruel and unusual punishments and even before that laws did not allow those to stand trial who were not competent to do so exactly because it victimizes them. Both offenders and offendees can be victims. Don't engage in a false dichotomy.

While the 6 year old was in the courtroom this is obviously actually a case of charging the parents with failure to control their child. Nobody believes the kid will be punished in any fashion other than by the parents.

Cool story bro. What were the parents charged with? I missed that obviouspart. And when did we start processing adults in juvenile court? Lots of questions. I highly doubt the parents will punish the child. I know I wouldn't after this bullshit my baby would be getting icecream and a T-Shirt that reads "Fuck yo flowers".

 

[Gun Nut]

Here let me give you [MENTION=28]laughing dog[/MENTION]; explanation for this ridiculous situation.






If women dropped rape accusations more frequently, rape would be less of a problem.
Victims who won't just shut up are obviously the problem

Amirite?

Tom

OMFG, You just compared a 6 year old with ADHD taking a tulip at a bus stop to RAPE! Rape victims go through serious traumas. Holy fuck!

Yes he did. A d I pointed out that if people equipped with the mental and social faculties of a six year old could accomplish the raw physical output of an adult, we would put them in and raise them in secure facilities.

I will absolutely blame the victim of a leopard-face-eating as much as I will blame the idiot who grows something pickable immediately adjacent to a place where people are expected to loiter.

No. The comparison was victim blaming, not with the nature of the tort.

 

[Gun Nut]

It takes a special kind of asshole to call the cops on a 6 year old unless the child were in danger or were actually endangering another child or person or animal.

There's a new take worth raising... What if the property owner applied pesticides, following all manufacturer recommendations and local ordinances, and placed signage as required to warn of the poisonous terrane nearby. A six year old would not read that, or possibly not be able to read it. Perhaps the property owner was saving this kid from getting sick, or worse?
Furthermore, if the kid was mentally challenged and unmonitored by an adult, calling the police is much more secure for the concerned property owner to help the child not get hurt than engaging the child themselves.

This is a good idea, actually.
I live down the block from a great park that thousands of people use everyday to walk their dogs. Many of them walk by my house on their way, and their dog takes a squirt (or worse) on the edge of my grass every time. There is a spot on my lawn near a a parking sign (no sidewalk) that will never grow grass.
I think I will order some "WARNING TOXIC CHEMICALS IN USE" signs to put along the edge.. not actually treat the area.. just the signs. See if they yank their dogs over to the other side of the street now, hehe.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It takes a special kind of asshole to call the cops on a 6 year old unless the child were in danger or were actually endangering another child or person or animal.

There's a new take worth raising... What if the property owner applied pesticides, following all manufacturer recommendations and local ordinances, and placed signage as required to warn of the poisonous terrane nearby. A six year old would not read that, or possibly not be able to read it. Perhaps the property owner was saving this kid from getting sick, or worse?
Furthermore, if the kid was mentally challenged and unmonitored by an adult, calling the police is much more secure for the concerned property owner to help the child not get hurt than engaging the child themselves.

This is a good idea, actually.
I live down the block from a great park that thousands of people use everyday to walk their dogs. Many of them walk by my house on their way, and their dog takes a squirt (or worse) on the edge of my grass every time. There is a spot on my lawn near a a parking sign (no sidewalk) that will never grow grass.
I think I will order some "WARNING TOXIC CHEMICALS IN USE" signs to put along the edge.. not actually treat the area.. just the signs. See if they yank their dogs over to the other side of the street now, hehe.

Having the kid go to court is not a preventive measure. It's punitive. Telling the school to change the bus stop location because there are toxic chemicals next to the bus stop would be the rational course of action. In fact, that'd also be the solution for a whole host of other imagined scenarios.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While the 6 year old was in the courtroom this is obviously actually a case of charging the parents with failure to control their child. Nobody believes the kid will be punished in any fashion other than by the parents.

Or even by the parents.

Honestly, I've had my flowers picked by unauthorized children---and occasionally, someone well old enough to know better. The college kids sometimes maybe got a dirty look---for not asking permission. The kids? Mostly I'd say that they should ask first and then offer them another flower or two or three, taking care to stay away from those with thorns or stickery parts. And of course, the kids who picked cherries, unauthorized got the same treatment: You should ask first! And why don't you try that branch there--it's easier to reach and I see 3 ripe ones right now.

It takes a special kind of asshole to call the cops on a 6 year old unless the child were in danger or were actually endangering another child or person or animal.

It takes an extremely dysfunctional law enforcement department to arrest a 6 year old child. And for someone to agree to prosecute such a case--well, even I wouldn't use the kind of language needed to describe such an abhorrent being.

So you are basically saying there is nothing to be done about kids destroying your yard.

 

[Gospel]

While the 6 year old was in the courtroom this is obviously actually a case of charging the parents with failure to control their child. Nobody believes the kid will be punished in any fashion other than by the parents.

Or even by the parents.

Honestly, I've had my flowers picked by unauthorized children---and occasionally, someone well old enough to know better. The college kids sometimes maybe got a dirty look---for not asking permission. The kids? Mostly I'd say that they should ask first and then offer them another flower or two or three, taking care to stay away from those with thorns or stickery parts. And of course, the kids who picked cherries, unauthorized got the same treatment: You should ask first! And why don't you try that branch there--it's easier to reach and I see 3 ripe ones right now.

It takes a special kind of asshole to call the cops on a 6 year old unless the child were in danger or were actually endangering another child or person or animal.

It takes an extremely dysfunctional law enforcement department to arrest a 6 year old child. And for someone to agree to prosecute such a case--well, even I wouldn't use the kind of language needed to describe such an abhorrent being.

So you are basically saying there is nothing to be done about kids destroying your yard.

Yeah, it's called talking to their parents. Like what happened in TomC's story accept it would be the victim (if he/she acted like an adult) choosing to do so. Then if no remedy is found you file a complaint on the parents not a fucking 6-year-old.

 

[Elixir]

So you are basically saying there is nothing to be done about kids destroying your yard.

Yeah, it's called talking to their parents. Like what happened in TomC's story accept it would be the victim (if he/she acted like an adult) choosing to do so. Then if no remedy is found you file a complaint on the parents not a fucking 6-year-old.

Or send him through the “Restorative Justice” ritual. That’ll put the feeragod into the little felon.