There have bee numerous posts saying to talk to the parents. There have been zero posts coming up with a reasonable solution if the parents aren't interested in doing their job.
-
Features
Six-year-old in North Carolina arrested for picking flower from lawn
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
There have bee numerous posts saying to talk to the parents. There have been zero posts coming up with a reasonable solution if the parents aren't interested in doing their job.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
The method for filing complaints against bad parents in North Carolina has already been documented in the thread.
I disagree on the city promising to move it--I very much doubt they did. Other than that, I think you're probably on target. Calling the police on a 6 year old is unlikely to be a first resort. I can easily see it as an attempt to deal with the problem when lesser matters failed--and since the judge threw it out of court it's clear the system doesn't care.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,777
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
There are plenty of assholes who see calling the police on a black child as their civic duty. That's disgusting but it's true.
And...sometimes people will claim that a child or children did something that the child/children did not do--and be very adamant about it. I've seen it happen when I was a kid in school, I've seen it happen as an adult. Yeah, I've been the parent who claimed my kid didn't do that thing because I knew as an absolute fact that they did not do that thing because they were actually with me when someone else did that thing. Not everyone is convinced that the parent who had their child with them is not simply defending their kid. I've seen that happen, as well. Heck, I've been yelled at for not picking up after my dog...while I was picking up after my dog! I always pick up after my dog. I don't have an in season jacket whose pockets are not stuffed full of bags to pick up after my dog. I barely have pants with pockets which are not stuffed full of bags to pick up after my dog. I get it: someone didn't pick up after their dog: I see it, too. I can see that several someones did not pick up after their dogs. Sometimes, I pick up after other people's dogs on other people's property and I sure as shit (sorry for pun) pick up after other people's dogs on my property. Yelling at me for not doing something that in fact, I am doing, will not buy you good will that encourages me to help a neighbor out and pick up an extra pile or two since I'm already bent over with a bag in my hand. But I get it: they were tired of people not picking up after their dogs and I was a handy person to yell at about it.
Not everyone is reasonable.
A 6 year old in court is almost always a tragedy. Sometimes it's not--if the child is being adopted, for example but even that path for a 6 year old is likely paved with tragedy.
This surely was among the worst ways to handle the unauthorized picking of a tulip by a 6 year old.
laughing dog
Contributor
You have presented no evidence that there is some long-standing problem whatsoever. Clearly the system cared enough at the level of the judge to throw this petty complaint out.
It makes a lot more sense as the result of a long standing problem, especially as the parents seem to have blown off the initial notice.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
*ahem* bullshit.
A link was given earlier to complain about bad parents to the state. Also, it was stated the bus stop could be moved. That's 2 things right there.
In addition, there's small claims court...there's contacting the school about school consequences... any of these options may make sense depending on the situation. Are they really bad parents like TomC implied, then make a complaint to social services. Is it really damaging to the property like claimed? Then sue the parents. Is the kid not following school code of conduct at the bus stop on a regular basis? Contact the school.
Instead of a consequence, the kid may need an intervention...also a possibility. Give him a fidget spinner or something he can play with at the bus stop that professionals say will work with him.
Getting a 6 year old arrested, though, for picking a flower is inappropriate, possibly traumatizing, and ineffective.
Yeah, they jump so fast to PUNISHMENT. And that is just demonstrably a terrible choice.
laughing dog
Contributor
Your assumptions make no more sense than the assumption the complainant is an asshole and the initial notice was sent to the wrong address.
Moving the bus stop is a non-answer, it just moves the problem, it doesn't get rid of it.
And complaining about bad parents--think that's going to do anything?
Small claims court? For what? That's not going to solve the problem and the parents are likely judgment-proof anyway.
Contacting the school? What's that going to accomplish? The school has no meaningful enforcement ability.
Social services? We don't have evidence that they are really bad, just that they don't control their kid adequately.
The only entity that actually might solve the problem is the police--and the courts blew it off so we get the usual result: absolutely nothing meaningful gets done.
Getting the police involved should have resulted in an intervention, not going to court. It's pretty clear the parents just blew it off.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
You don't know what the problem is. In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, they reduced the numbers of bus stops this year due to cuts in educational funding aimed at cost to the bus transportation company. That means previous year, the boy as a Kindergartener may have been (assuming this is Winston-Salem which IT MIGHT BE) at a different bus stop where there was no conflict. Now, the property owner who now has to have more kids at his/her stop may be pissed off, especially at the black kid with ADHD and that could be for a number of reasons, including the kid running around a lot, or the fact that he's black, his socio-economic class, maybe the home owner thinks people down the street are trash. Who knows. No one knows. BUT somehow classifying the kid as the problem when it could be the home owner or just the changing situation that's the problem, is a biased assumption.
Loren Pechtel said:
You are far too dismissive and apparently ignorant of an entire subset of people. Complaints to social services about parents (if they are really bad parents as TomC implied) will result in an investigation. If they substantiate that the parents are bad parents, like abusive and/or neglectful, they can start applying warnings and giving extra services, like parenting classes, and possibly later remove the child from the home, if it is terrible. Within that middle ground, of the parent not really being that bad and instead needing help, social services can and does provide assistance, including possibly someone to help with the kid. But since we don't know the situation, even you claim to know absolutely everything about everything, we can't really say for sure if this is appropriate, BUT people closer to the situation with more knowledge would know if the parents needed help or if the home owner is a douchebag or some other thing.
Loren Pechtel said:
IF the situation is of a particular type, whereby this is truly REPEATED like you and TomC made up, then there could be continual property damage to the lawn, garden, house, whatever. IF that is really true, then small claims court would be appropriate against the parents after trying to threaten them about it to get money for the property. There is of course NO EVIDENCE that there actually has been repeated incidents as the only one we are aware of is picking a fucking flower. Only one flower. Yet that doesn't stop you and TomC from imagining all sorts of eggregious property damage. So, IF that were really true, then the homeowner can be financially compensated for any ALLEGED repeat problems. No, the parents are not likely judgment proof. You are being a know-it-all again when you don't know. I am looking at possibilities that you and others are assuming and saying, this is what you can do, but it's likely just your imaginations.
Loren Pechtel said:
This is probably your most irrational claim. School codes of conduct include what you do at the bus stop. IN-SCHOOL consequences are applied EVERY DAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY for students misbehaving at bus stops. That includes if students fight on the way to the bus stop, fight at the bus stop, vandalize property or the bus, swear at the bus driver. ALL OF such situations can have in-school consequences. Therefore, there is HUGE meaningful, enforcement ability.
Loren Pechtel said:
You don't have any evidence of ANYTHING. I wrote IF they are bad parents, then there can be an investigation following to substantiate such claims. Services or child neglect can be followed, assuming they could be bad parents in the first place--not my claim.
Loren Pechtel said:
The police did not solve the problem. Therefore, you are wrong. The judge appropriately dismissed the case because a 6 year old picking a flower one time is not cause for a full-blown criminal case, arrest, and conviction. Your worship of the police makes you think otherwise, but you are 100% wrong. If anything, the homeowner may very well be put on notice for frivolously wasting the police's time and taxpayer money. Of course, we can't be sure of that, but it's an equal possibility to your claims. You just can't admit that you are working from pure assumptions.
Loren Pechtel said:
That is an extremely idiotic thing to write. Getting the police involved would not result in an intervention. That isn't how criminal court works. Social services or the school is what creates an intervention, not the police. As far as the parents "just blew it off," I notice you and TomC repeating that claim over and over without any evidence at all. The news article said the mother "COULD NOT" attend the court intake, not that she "BLEW IT OFF." Being incapable means she had to work or was sick or similar, not she didn't give a fuck because she was out partying. BUT again, SCHOOLS AND SOCIAL SERVICES DO INTERVENTIONS, not the police. Calling the police is ineffective and traumatic for a 6 year old. That's assuming that an intervention is even needed. All we can say is that this happened ONCE and it was a FUCKING FLOWER. Stop making wild assumptions and declaring them to be well-reasoned arguments. You don't know what you are talking about.
QFT
I keep seeing this condemnation of the mother for being a bad parent for not being there when the oNLY information you have is that she “could not” be there.
Why so quick to assume she blew it off instead of she couldn’t get off work?
I presume you also think that it was acceptable for the church to keep moving the pedophile priests around? After all, there might be no problem in the new parish.
And, as always, playing the race card. This was obviously the homeowners fed up with the destruction of their yard, there's no reason to think it's about race.
Complaints to social services about child abuse might result in something being done (and even then if it's not sexual abuse they often don't deal with it.) Complaints to social services about misbehaving children will not do anything.
Small claims at best would net them the value of a tulip + the filing fee. Since this appears to be a lower class neighborhood it probably gets you a piece of paper but no money. Does the term "judgment proof" not mean anything to you?
On the bus, maybe, but nothing is going to happen if it wasn't observed by a school employee. And in-school consequences are basically meaningless if the parents don't care.
CPS isn't going to do anything about mild vandalism.
Yeah, it didn't work. From a practical standpoint the homeowners lost their front yard because the system refused to act.
You just don't want to accept that the weak side can be in the wrong.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
Property rights do not supersede any and all other legal standards. Just because you have insufficient imagination to come up with a better cure does not justify to drag a 6 year old to court over a picked tulip. You don't get to shoot an animal of endangered species either because because it digs up your tulip bulbs, it's your job to build a better fence if you want to avoid the losses. You're arguably in better luck with the kid because the wild animal doesn't have parents capable of taking responsibility for its misdeeds, but that doesn't change the fact that a child this young doesn't or shouldn't count as a legal subject.
Where I live, the minimum age at which someone may have to defend themselves in a criminal juvenile court is 14 - which also happens to be the age of consent for sex, and the same is true in much of Europe. To my European ears, your entire line of argument (which I will paraphrase as "yeah, it's probably not generally the best idea to drag a six year old to court, but there must have been exceptional circumstances that make it reasonable, the whole story doesn't make sense otherwise") sounds not unlike "yeah, it's generally not a good idea to treat six year olds as able to consent to sex, but there probably were a set of special circumstances that make it reasonable in this case. You're so jumping to conclusions by calling it unreasonable without knowing all the details!"
Where I live (and again I believe the same is true in much of Europe), a six year old is even legally unable to own and spend pocket money - we have a concept called "limited contractual capacity" which is what you need to enter an implicit contract such ad the one you enter by buying a candy bar, and the minimum age for that is 7. So even if you did sue him, and convict him, he cannot legally pay the reparations/fine even if he had the money.
Standard liberal error. You are assuming there is a better solution and the side with the power simply failed to find it.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,777
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Dozens of better solutions have been presented in this thread.
I'm sorry you had lousy neighbors when you were a kid. No need to ruin the life of a 6 year old over it.
laughing dog
Contributor
You are engaging the standard authoritarian error - assuming there is no better solution because the authorities are always right.
Jokodo
Veteran Member
And even if there is no better solution, you're simply out of luck. Dragging a six year old to court should simply never be an option, like shooting a member of an endangered species except in self defense or declaring a six year old able to consent to sex are never options - and they don't become options because all other solutions to your tulips problem have failed!
Did you even read my post? My post didn't praise any other options, it specifically pointed out why this isn't an option.