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

[Jokodo]

Because this thread is about a six year old who was dragged to court to defend himself for his crimes, and you're fucking justifying that mess by saying "maybe they did it to put pressure on the parents whom they couldn't get to cooperate otherwise?"

That's fucking Somali pirate level logic.

No, that isn't what I said. Not even close.
Tom

You should read your own posts before clicking "send". I even borrowed the wording "put pressure" from your post, the one under which I wrote my comment.

Here's a longer quote: "This was an opportunity for the homeowners to put some social pressure on the adults"

You're presenting a scenario where the homeowner didn't actually mean to target the child but used the state to kidnap the child in order to put pressure on the parents as a justification of this mess.

That's all on you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because this thread is about a six year old who was dragged to court to defend himself for his crimes, and you're fucking justifying that mess by saying "maybe they did it to put pressure on the parents whom they couldn't get to cooperate otherwise?"

That's fucking Somali pirate level logic.

No, that isn't what I said. Not even close.
Tom

You should read your own posts before clicking "send". I even borrowed the wording "put pressure" from your post, the one under which I wrote my comment.

Here's a longer quote: "This was an opportunity for the homeowners to put some social pressure on the adults"

You're presenting a scenario where the homeowner didn't actually mean to target the child but used the state to kidnap the child in order to put pressure on the parents as a justification of this mess.

That's all on you.

So, using a child as leverage.

 

[TomC]

Because this thread is about a six year old who was dragged to court to defend himself for his crimes, and you're fucking justifying that mess by saying "maybe they did it to put pressure on the parents whom they couldn't get to cooperate otherwise?"

That's fucking Somali pirate level logic.

No, that isn't what I said. Not even close.
Tom

You should read your own posts before clicking "send". I even borrowed the wording "put pressure" from your post, the one under which I wrote my comment.

Here's a longer quote: "This was an opportunity for the homeowners to put some social pressure on the adults"

You're presenting a scenario where the homeowner didn't actually mean to target the child but used the state to kidnap the child in order to put pressure on the parents as a justification of this mess.

That's all on you.

You're still making up stuff and attributing it to me.

Which part of "I don't claim to know the whole story" are you unable to understand?
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

*ahem* bullshit.

This was you earlier in the thread:

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.

Further victimizing the kid and his parents by slandering them, while adding some extra padding of plausible deniability ala "sounds like" and "maybe" does not absolve you. Nice try. In particular, the news articles say the mother "COULD NOT" attend the court appearance, not "BLEW OFF." So there isn't even any maybe to discuss. COULD not as in was sick with covid, sick with bed-ridden illness, had to work and boss wouldn't let her take the day off, needed the money for rent and so couldn't take the day off, etc.'' You cannot rationally claim MAYBE she blew it off because of X because she didn't blow it off. You CAN rationally propose a maybe around her not BEING ABLE to attend the appearance.

 

[Jokodo]

You should read your own posts before clicking "send". I even borrowed the wording "put pressure" from your post, the one under which I wrote my comment.

Here's a longer quote: "This was an opportunity for the homeowners to put some social pressure on the adults"

You're presenting a scenario where the homeowner didn't actually mean to target the child but used the state to kidnap the child in order to put pressure on the parents as a justification of this mess.

That's all on you.

You're still making up stuff and attributing it to me.

Which part of "I don't claim to know the whole story" are you unable to understand?
Tom

I understand that part. It's irrelevant. There is no scenario that justifies sending a 6-year-old to court. A six year old was sent to court. We know that much. That really should be the end of the story.

There are (extremely rare) situations where shooting a six year old is justified to prevent harm to others. Whenever that is unnecessary or can be avoided, whatever his misdeeds, the child may belong in therapy and/or his legal guardians may belong in court for neglect or worse - but not the child. A six year old in court is just intrinsically nonsensical.

You actually seem to subconsciously at least acknowledge as much: The best you've come up with as justification is arguing that they may be using it to put pressure on the parents. Allow me to paraphrase "What do we know, they may not be evil as such, they might just be using Somali pirate tactics to achieve a legitimate goal. Painting them as evil without knowing the details is so mean!"

 

[TomC]

You should read your own posts before clicking "send". I even borrowed the wording "put pressure" from your post, the one under which I wrote my comment.

Here's a longer quote: "This was an opportunity for the homeowners to put some social pressure on the adults"

You're presenting a scenario where the homeowner didn't actually mean to target the child but used the state to kidnap the child in order to put pressure on the parents as a justification of this mess.

That's all on you.

So, using a child as leverage.

Yes.
In the scenario I described, either the city or the parents could have prevented the child from winding up downtown. Together, they could have prevented the child being in court and also addressed the vandalism problem.

But if any of that happened, it wasn't in any of the reports I read. Heck, between Jimmy Higgins and Politesse, I'm not even sure what decade this happened in. I'm not claiming to know what really happened.
Tom

 

[Gun Nut]

According to a poster here, "Fuck yo Flowers", imma buy the kid ice cream.
Tom

Yeah, for filing a complaint on a six-year-old and not the adult, the kid deserves ice cream while the complainer deserves the "fuck yo flowers".

Calling the cops over a tulip deserves nothing but derision.

Someone knocks on your door, you answer, and they shoot you in your face.
At their trial, I'll be sure to mention that only derision can be given for complaining about someone knocking on a door and twitching their finger.

 

[Jokodo]

Just saying

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_criminal_responsibility#/media/File:Criminal_age.svg

 

[Jokodo]

You should read your own posts before clicking "send". I even borrowed the wording "put pressure" from your post, the one under which I wrote my comment.

Here's a longer quote: "This was an opportunity for the homeowners to put some social pressure on the adults"

You're presenting a scenario where the homeowner didn't actually mean to target the child but used the state to kidnap the child in order to put pressure on the parents as a justification of this mess.

That's all on you.

So, using a child as leverage.

Yes.
In the scenario I described, either the city or the parents could have prevented the child from winding up downtown. Together, they could have prevented the child being in court and also addressed the vandalism problem.

You know what would also have prevented the child being in court, and irrespective of any details we can only speculate about?

A sane law.

 

[TomC]

There is no scenario that justifies sending a 6-year-old to court. A six year old was sent to court. We know that much. That really should be the end of the story.

But you are putting the blame on the homeowners. Why are you blaming them and ignoring the other adults in the situation? If the parents had shown up for the "intake", would this have happened? If the city didn't prosecute 6y/o people would this have happened? Clearly, they don't. The judge dismissed the bullshit straight away, what happened after that?
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

There is no scenario that justifies sending a 6-year-old to court. A six year old was sent to court. We know that much. That really should be the end of the story.

But you are putting the blame on the homeowners.

Quote me. I said if this was their intention, ridicule is the least they deserve. I'm mostly blaming the legal and judicial system that allows this to happen in the first place.

Why are you blaming them and ignoring the other adults in the situation?

Am I? Methinks you should be getting a mirror: You are the one squarely blaming the parents without any information whatsoever that justifies doing so.

If the parents had shown up for the "intake", would this have happened?

We don't know. We do know it wouldn't have happened in a sane country with sane laws, whatever the parent did or didn't do. Yet you jump to blame the parents.

 

[Jokodo]

By the way, let me remind you of your first two contributions to this thread:

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.

But the parents aren't. They apparently didn't care what happened to the kid enough to respond to a summons served to them. They're action of blowing off a summons is why the cops involved the kid in the system. The parents picked this state of affairs.
Tom

You literally claimed that "[t]he parents picked this state of affairs" without any justification - and you tell others that they're making assumptions when they point out that the known facts alone are sufficient to show how absurd this law is?

 

[TomC]

Yes.
In the scenario I described, either the city or the parents could have prevented the child from winding up downtown. Together, they could have prevented the child being in court and also addressed the vandalism problem.

You know what would also have prevented the child being in court, and irrespective of any details we can only speculate about?

A sane law.

I've agreed that. From what I can see, the activists are trying to change the law. I'm good with that, it sounds stupid to me.
But the reporting isn't honest, it's biased in favor of what they want.
Tom

 

[TomC]

By the way, let me remind you of your first two contributions to this thread:

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.

But the parents aren't. They apparently didn't care what happened to the kid enough to respond to a summons served to them. They're action of blowing off a summons is why the cops involved the kid in the system. The parents picked this state of affairs.
Tom

You literally claimed that "[t]he parents picked this state of affairs" without any justification - and you tell others that they're making assumptions when they point out that the known facts alone are sufficient to show how absurd this law is?

According to the news reports that were linked, the parents could have ended this by showing up for an "intake" meeting. But they didn't.
According to the reports linked, the parents chose something else.
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

By the way, let me remind you of your first two contributions to this thread:





You literally claimed that "[t]he parents picked this state of affairs" without any justification - and you tell others that they're making assumptions when they point out that the known facts alone are sufficient to show how absurd this law is?

According to the news reports that were linked, the parents could have ended this by showing up for an "intake" meeting. But they didn't.
According to the reports linked, the parents chose something else.
Tom

Could you please quote the relevant section that shows that? If it'sunder this link https://journalnow.com/north-caroli...cle_e2a15a82-8383-11eb-91ee-43ce7c88753b.html it tells me that I can't access it from the EU because they can't be bothered to comply with European data protection laws, and in all fairness I can't be bothered to set up a proxy connection.

And anyway, that does nothing to my main point: In a sane legal framework, whether the parents choose or choose not showing up for an "intake" meeting has zero bearing on whether a kid of six is going to be dragged to court as an accused - that option is never on the table.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes.
In the scenario I described, either the city or the parents could have prevented the child from winding up downtown. Together, they could have prevented the child being in court and also addressed the vandalism problem.

You know what would also have prevented the child being in court, and irrespective of any details we can only speculate about?

A sane law.

I've agreed that. From what I can see, the activists are trying to change the law. I'm good with that, it sounds stupid to me.
But the reporting isn't honest, it's biased in favor of what they want.
Tom

In what way, exactly? Say what you say is true and it needs the combination of stupid parents and stupid laws for this situation to arise: The state cannot ban stupid parents, but it can scrap stupid laws. If a bad outcome requires the joint action of two factors only one of which you can change, it makes perfect sense to focus your energy and effort on that one rather than lamenting about that which you cannot change and accomplishing nothing.

 

[TomC]

Could you please quote the relevant section that shows that?

The 6-year-old accused of picking the tulip ended up before a judge because his mother couldn't make the intake meeting. Once the judge realized what was happening, he dismissed the case, said Boyer.

https://journalnow.com/north-caroli...cle_e2a15a82-8383-11eb-91ee-43ce7c88753b.html

Yes, I spent 15 minutes retrieving a quote for your information. You're welcome.

The kid went to court because his mom had more important things to do. Whatever that was.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Could you please quote the relevant section that shows that?

The 6-year-old accused of picking the tulip ended up before a judge because his mother couldn't make the intake meeting. Once the judge realized what was happening, he dismissed the case, said Boyer.

https://journalnow.com/north-caroli...cle_e2a15a82-8383-11eb-91ee-43ce7c88753b.html

Yes, I spent 15 minutes retrieving a quote for your information. You're welcome.

The kid went to court because his mom had more important things to do. Whatever that was.

That requires the knowledge that the mother knew when and where the meeting was, and choose not to attend. All of which are not facts in evidence.

 

[Jokodo]

Could you please quote the relevant section that shows that?

The 6-year-old accused of picking the tulip ended up before a judge because his mother couldn't make the intake meeting. Once the judge realized what was happening, he dismissed the case, said Boyer.

https://journalnow.com/north-caroli...cle_e2a15a82-8383-11eb-91ee-43ce7c88753b.html

Yes, I spent 15 minutes retrieving a quote for your information. You're welcome.

The kid went to court because his mom had more important things to do. Whatever that was.
Tom

That doesn't say at all that she couldn't be bothered. For all that tells us, she could have been caught up in a blizzard or her boss threatened to fire her if she took the day off. Jeez.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to a poster here, "Fuck yo Flowers", imma buy the kid ice cream.
Tom

Yeah, for filing a complaint on a six-year-old and not the adult, the kid deserves ice cream while the complainer deserves the "fuck yo flowers".

And how do you file a complaint against an adult in this case? The wrongdoing is by the child. The system does not have a good procedure to handle such cases.