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

[Politesse]

Nearing 200 posts and we have no more info about what happened and presuppositions made by others. All we know is that someone claimed something happened and the case was immediately dismissed by a judge. How we get nearly 200 posts going back and forth about the parties we know NOTHING about is beyond me... and certainly an indication that we can't even agree on the lack of details.

It's beyond you? Do you read this forum? Seldom does anyone read anything about the court cases we argue over; our opinions on court cases are remarkably predictable if you know our political sympathies. And so it goes with the nation. Once the media shows up, facts swiftly become irrelevant. You don't bring facts to a show trial.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I read on the Intertubes that tulip plants are pretty resilient. So, if you pick the flower, the bulb may regrow another flower next year. The probability of this is increased if the leaves are not picked because they will die and replenish nutrients in the soil. However, in the case of a maintained garden, you can expect someone to be supplying plant food and water etc anyway, in which case, the tulip flowers will most likely bloom again next year.

Also, it's probably a bad idea to have a bus stop next to a flower garden. Not just because of kids stomping on the soil or maybe picking a flower, but because of bees. If you want plant-life next to your bus stop, it's probably better to have a safe, tall tree that can't realistically be climbed, but that provides protection from rain and sun.

 

[Politesse]

If you do know that the parents tried to prevent that from happening, please share your information. Because I'm not seeing any such information.
Tom

There most likely will not be more information forthcoming. Juvenile court, other than outcomes, is generally kept private.

It's also a thirteen year old case. I mean, what new information is going to come to light? I suppose if he wanted, for some inexplicable reason, to invite a bunch of media madness and racist trash into his life, the man himself could call the cameras over and tell his story, but what would that tell us beyond what we already know?

"Ah yes, well I remember. I was there at the bus stop that day, scribbling with my crayons..."

 

[TomC]

If you do know that the parents tried to prevent that from happening, please share your information. Because I'm not seeing any such information.
Tom

There most likely will not be more information forthcoming. Juvenile court, other than outcomes, is generally kept private.

It's also a thirteen year old case. I mean, what new information is going to come to light? I suppose if he wanted, for some inexplicable reason, to invite a bunch of media madness and racist trash into his life, the man himself could call the cameras over and tell his story, but what would that tell us beyond what we already know?

"Ah yes, well I remember. I was there at the bus stop that day, scribbling with my crayons..."

It's 13 years old? Where did you see that? All the links I saw were dated this month.

I finally scrolled around in the links looking for mention of the parents. All I found was one sentence describing the mother as a no show at the intake, after which the judge threw the whole thing(against the child) out. It didn't say why she wasn't there, only that the case went on to a judge who ended it.

What I got from the article was that some activists are trying to change the law in North Carolina. I certainly support that effort. If they had to go back 13 years to find a suitably outrageous episode to report about, maybe things in NC aren't quite as dire as supposed by some posters here.

It's still pretty stupid having a 6y/o in court.

But apparently the problem was the mom who didn't show up for her child.


Tom

 

[Politesse]

It's also a thirteen year old case. I mean, what new information is going to come to light? I suppose if he wanted, for some inexplicable reason, to invite a bunch of media madness and racist trash into his life, the man himself could call the cameras over and tell his story, but what would that tell us beyond what we already know?

"Ah yes, well I remember. I was there at the bus stop that day, scribbling with my crayons..."

It's 13 years old? Where did you see that? All the links I saw were dated this month.

I finally scrolled around in the links looking for mention of the parents. All I found was one sentence describing the mother as a no show at the intake, after which the judge threw the whole thing(against the child) out. It didn't say why she wasn't there, only that the case went on to a judge who ended it.

What I got from the article was that some activists are trying to change the law in North Carolina. I certainly support that effort. If they had to go back 13 years to find a suitably outrageous episode to report about, maybe things in NC aren't quite as dire as supposed by some posters here.

It's still pretty stupid having a 6y/o in court.

But apparently the problem was the mom who didn't show up for her child.


Tom

The story is going around because the change in the law is a current issue the state is debating, not because the case is a current case. But I disagree that unjust laws are any less unjust if their most heinous use happened thirteen years ago rather than three. If it was wrong to arrest a child on petty charges in 2004, it should still be wrong to arrest a child on petty charges now, and the law should reflect that. Moreover, if you'd read the article, you'd see that 7,000 similar charges were laid against North Carolinan children between 2015-2018 alone. So this isn't some archaic problem.

If you want to see some more recent videos of child abuse by the police, check out this video from September 2019:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/us/body-camera-video-6-year-old-arrested/index.html

The girl was being arrested for throwing a tantrum after not being allowed to wear sunglasses in the classroom. The arresting officer later bragged to his fellows, again on camera, that she was a "new record" for him.

 

[TomC]

It's also a thirteen year old case. I mean, what new information is going to come to light? I suppose if he wanted, for some inexplicable reason, to invite a bunch of media madness and racist trash into his life, the man himself could call the cameras over and tell his story, but what would that tell us beyond what we already know?

"Ah yes, well I remember. I was there at the bus stop that day, scribbling with my crayons..."

It's 13 years old? Where did you see that? All the links I saw were dated this month.

I finally scrolled around in the links looking for mention of the parents. All I found was one sentence describing the mother as a no show at the intake, after which the judge threw the whole thing(against the child) out. It didn't say why she wasn't there, only that the case went on to a judge who ended it.

What I got from the article was that some activists are trying to change the law in North Carolina. I certainly support that effort. If they had to go back 13 years to find a suitably outrageous episode to report about, maybe things in NC aren't quite as dire as supposed by some posters here.

It's still pretty stupid having a 6y/o in court.

But apparently the problem was the mom who didn't show up for her child.


Tom

The story is going around because the change in the law is a current issue the state is debating, not because the case is a current case. But I disagree that unjust laws are any less unjust if their most heinous use happened thirteen years ago rather than three. If it was wrong to arrest a child in 2004, it should still be wrong to arrest a child now, and the law should reflect that. Moreover, if you'd read the article, you'd see that 7,000 similar charges were laid against children 2015-2018 alone. So this isn't some archaic problem.

Which part of my bolding did you miss?
Tom

 

[Politesse]

The story is going around because the change in the law is a current issue the state is debating, not because the case is a current case. But I disagree that unjust laws are any less unjust if their most heinous use happened thirteen years ago rather than three. If it was wrong to arrest a child in 2004, it should still be wrong to arrest a child now, and the law should reflect that. Moreover, if you'd read the article, you'd see that 7,000 similar charges were laid against children 2015-2018 alone. So this isn't some archaic problem.

Which part of my bolding did you miss?
Tom

The bolded part. sorry.

 

[Politesse]

I will say, if the mother couldn't make the court date for whatever reason, and trusted the attourney to handle it, I don't see that as necessarily a moral fault. A child should not be arrested, but also is not necessarily be better off if their single mother gets (for instance) fired from her job for taking the day off. If she were sitting at home watching Simpsons reruns instead I could understand the invective, but if you don't know why she wasn't able to make it, then all the character assassination on mere hypothetical seems way out of bounds. If such heinous laws didn't exist in the first place, there would be no need for such a discussion.

 

[TomC]

The story is going around because the change in the law is a current issue the state is debating, not because the case is a current case. But I disagree that unjust laws are any less unjust if their most heinous use happened thirteen years ago rather than three. If it was wrong to arrest a child in 2004, it should still be wrong to arrest a child now, and the law should reflect that. Moreover, if you'd read the article, you'd see that 7,000 similar charges were laid against children 2015-2018 alone. So this isn't some archaic problem.

Which part of my bolding did you miss?
Tom

The bolded part. sorry.

You know I love you, you bitch.
Tom

 

[Toni]

If you do know that the parents tried to prevent that from happening, please share your information. Because I'm not seeing any such information.
Tom

There most likely will not be more information forthcoming. Juvenile court, other than outcomes, is generally kept private.

It's also a thirteen year old case. I mean, what new information is going to come to light? I suppose if he wanted, for some inexplicable reason, to invite a bunch of media madness and racist trash into his life, the man himself could call the cameras over and tell his story, but what would that tell us beyond what we already know?

"Ah yes, well I remember. I was there at the bus stop that day, scribbling with my crayons..."

This is NOT a 13 year old case but one that happened in March of this year.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1410711/6-year-old-boy-arrested-for-picking-flower-at-bus-stop

While the 6-year-old ending up before a judge may seem shocking, around 7,300 complaints were actually filed against 6- to 11-year-olds from 2015 to 2018, Juvenile State data showed as cited by the newspaper.

Of those complaints, 47 percent were against Black children, 40 percent against white children and 7 percent against Hispanic or Latino children, the report said. Around 22 percent of the state’s population is Black, 70 percent white and 10 percent Hispanic.

The arrest of the boy, who is Black, has also been seen as a case of racial discrimination in the juvenile justice system.

“When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents. But if he is black, he takes him to the state,” Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender’s Office, was quoted as saying.



Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/14107...-for-picking-flower-at-bus-stop#ixzz6qct9jIGp
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Please note that the 7300 complaints against young children were filed in North Carolina, only one state.

 

[laughing dog]

But apparently the problem was the mom who didn't show up for her child.

The real problem is that a parent had to show up in the first place because the complaint had been allowed to progress to that level.

 

[TomC]

But apparently the problem was the mom who didn't show up for her child.

The real problem is that a parent had to show up in the first place because the complaint had been allowed to progress to that level.

You think that the problem is expecting parents to take responsibility for their kids?

I guess I grew up in a different world than you did. Around me, parents stood up for their kids, but took responsibility for their behavior when the kids were too young to do so. Parents did the disciplining, they didn't expect the state or teachers or whatever to do it.

Times have changed. Not for the better, unfortunately, at least not in my opinion. Part of the reason my partner and I sold our house downtown and moved out to the country was the increasing number of children who didn't really have parents. The kids did whatever they wanted, and the parents couldn't be bothered looking out for them. FUCK yo Flowers!

We now live in a place where the security is private. Parents can be evicted of they don't take responsibility for their children's behavior. Nobody has to call the police, we just call the office. The staff takes care of it. And they do.

It's extremely rare. I only know of one time in 20 years that the staff had to take serious action. Parents who don't want to take care of their kids just don't move here. That works for me.

But I also realize that my attitude has a side effect. Irresponsible parents and their miscreant progeny are being concentrated in places like where I used to live. Sorry, that's not my problem exactly. I paid in town property taxes for years, and I didn't get squat for it. Mostly, it paid for a public school system I've never been in or enrolled anyone in.
Now I don't. And I don't have to put up with other people's badly raised children either.

Works for me. FUCK yo brats.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

It's also a thirteen year old case. I mean, what new information is going to come to light? I suppose if he wanted, for some inexplicable reason, to invite a bunch of media madness and racist trash into his life, the man himself could call the cameras over and tell his story, but what would that tell us beyond what we already know?

"Ah yes, well I remember. I was there at the bus stop that day, scribbling with my crayons..."

This is NOT a 13 year old case but one that happened in March of this year.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1410711/6-year-old-boy-arrested-for-picking-flower-at-bus-stop

While the 6-year-old ending up before a judge may seem shocking, around 7,300 complaints were actually filed against 6- to 11-year-olds from 2015 to 2018, Juvenile State data showed as cited by the newspaper.

Of those complaints, 47 percent were against Black children, 40 percent against white children and 7 percent against Hispanic or Latino children, the report said. Around 22 percent of the state’s population is Black, 70 percent white and 10 percent Hispanic.

The arrest of the boy, who is Black, has also been seen as a case of racial discrimination in the juvenile justice system.

“When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents. But if he is black, he takes him to the state,” Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender’s Office, was quoted as saying.



Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/14107...-for-picking-flower-at-bus-stop#ixzz6qct9jIGp
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Please note that the 7300 complaints against young children were filed in North Carolina, only one state.

As said, the article was written in March of this year. The incident is an older one that she happened to know about, that the author is citing to help explain why the law needs to be changed. As well she should. https://www.complex.com/life/6-year-old-boy-sent-to-court-north-carolina-for-picking-a-tulip

Please note that the 7300 complaints against young children were filed in North Carolina, only one state.

Exactly so. North Carolina has the most regressive laws and outcomes in the country, but many other states also allow for people to be arrested and charged at very young ages, and with or without parental representation. This is a national, not just North Carolinan, issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's also a thirteen year old case. I mean, what new information is going to come to light? I suppose if he wanted, for some inexplicable reason, to invite a bunch of media madness and racist trash into his life, the man himself could call the cameras over and tell his story, but what would that tell us beyond what we already know?

"Ah yes, well I remember. I was there at the bus stop that day, scribbling with my crayons..."

This is NOT a 13 year old case but one that happened in March of this year.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1410711/6-year-old-boy-arrested-for-picking-flower-at-bus-stop

While the 6-year-old ending up before a judge may seem shocking, around 7,300 complaints were actually filed against 6- to 11-year-olds from 2015 to 2018, Juvenile State data showed as cited by the newspaper.

Of those complaints, 47 percent were against Black children, 40 percent against white children and 7 percent against Hispanic or Latino children, the report said. Around 22 percent of the state’s population is Black, 70 percent white and 10 percent Hispanic.

The arrest of the boy, who is Black, has also been seen as a case of racial discrimination in the juvenile justice system.

“When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents. But if he is black, he takes him to the state,” Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender’s Office, was quoted as saying.



Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/14107...-for-picking-flower-at-bus-stop#ixzz6qct9jIGp
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Please note that the 7300 complaints against young children were filed in North Carolina, only one state.

Don't shoot the messenger... but 11 years old is like 10000 times older than a 6 year old. Kids that are 11 definitely a lot more mature. Definitely not MATURE, but a zillion times more than say a six year old. I'd be interested in the number of 6 and 7 year olds. Granted, black children usually get their age over-estimated by a dozen years.

Complainer: Yeah, there was a seven year old black kid on drugs, cause he was babbling incoherently, He had something in his hand. I thought he was going to kill me.
Police: Umm... that was a baby with a rattle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But apparently the problem was the mom who didn't show up for her child.

The real problem is that a parent had to show up in the first place because the complaint had been allowed to progress to that level.

You think that the problem is expecting parents to take responsibility for their kids?

I guess I grew up in a different world than you did. Around me, parents stood up for their kids, but took responsibility for their behavior when the kids were too young to do so. Parents did the disciplining, they didn't expect the state or teachers or whatever to do it.

Oh goody! It's the "When I was a kid" fallacy. About the only thing that isn't BS following those words is "Packages were larger in the grocery store" and "Things cost less". I suppose West Side Story was a futuristic look at the world when children and teens weren't behaving.

 

[TomC]

You think that the problem is expecting parents to take responsibility for their kids?

I guess I grew up in a different world than you did. Around me, parents stood up for their kids, but took responsibility for their behavior when the kids were too young to do so. Parents did the disciplining, they didn't expect the state or teachers or whatever to do it.

Oh goody! It's the "When I was a kid" fallacy. About the only thing that isn't BS following those words is "Packages were larger in the grocery store" and "Things cost less". I suppose West Side Story was a futuristic look at the world when children and teens weren't behaving.

Your deeply insightful analysis is worthy of [MENTION=28]laughing dog[/MENTION];
Kudos! You're brilliant!
Tom

 

[TomC]

This is NOT a 13 year old case but one that happened in March of this year.

It's also a thirteen year old case.

Could someone explain which of these two claims is true?
With evidence, please?

One of them is demonstrably wrong. I'm not sure which.
Tom

 

[Toni]

You think that the problem is expecting parents to take responsibility for their kids?

I guess I grew up in a different world than you did. Around me, parents stood up for their kids, but took responsibility for their behavior when the kids were too young to do so. Parents did the disciplining, they didn't expect the state or teachers or whatever to do it.

Oh goody! It's the "When I was a kid" fallacy. About the only thing that isn't BS following those words is "Packages were larger in the grocery store" and "Things cost less". I suppose West Side Story was a futuristic look at the world when children and teens weren't behaving.

Your deeply insightful analysis is worthy of [MENTION=28]laughing dog[/MENTION];
Kudos! You're brilliant!
Tom

It's good that you've identified two posters who post insightful analysis. Everyone needs a couple of heroes.

 

[laughing dog]

But apparently the problem was the mom who didn't show up for her child.

The real problem is that a parent had to show up in the first place because the complaint had been allowed to progress to that level.

You think that the problem is expecting parents to take responsibility for their kids? ....

You have no information that either of these parents is not taking responsibility for their 6 year old, because we do not have any information as to why the parents did not show up to court. None. Yet here you are again, bloviating about parent responsibility.
For some obscure reason, you appear unable to parse the simple idea that the case of this 6 year old should never had progressed to the point where any parents had to go to court.

 

[laughing dog]

This is NOT a 13 year old case but one that happened in March of this year.

It's also a thirteen year old case.

Could someone explain which of these two claims is true?
With evidence, please?

One of them is demonstrably wrong. I'm not sure which.
Tom

From the 1st sentence of the quoted OP article -

According to the Winston-Salem Journal, a six-year-old boy was recently charged with injury to real property for picking a tulip from a yard at his bus stop.

. The word "recently" strongly suggests the case is not 13 years old.

Now, if you were really interested, you could have googled "6 year old picks tulip" and you would have found this unprotected article - https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1410711/6-year-old-boy-arrested-for-picking-flower-at-bus-stop
that reports

While the child may not fully understand the situation, many argue that this may change the boy’s life for the worse, as per Winston-Salem Journal on March 14.

“Should a child that believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy be making life-altering decisions?” New Hanover County Chief District Court Judge Jay Corpening was quoted as saying.