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

[TomC]

Do you believe everything you see on the internet?

Or just the stuff that matches your worldview?

That's something I regularly criticize Trump supporters for doing. Believing anything they read that reinforces their preconceived worldview, while dismissing anything else as implausible.
Tom

But you are stating as fact stuff that hasn't even been provided in the record.

Such as what?
What have I stated as fact?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you believe everything you see on the internet?

Or just the stuff that matches your worldview?

That's something I regularly criticize Trump supporters for doing. Believing anything they read that reinforces their preconceived worldview, while dismissing anything else as implausible.
Tom

But you are stating as fact stuff that hasn't even been provided in the record.

Such as what?
What have I stated as fact?
Tom

Apparently nothing... I was confusing you with another poster. That is my bad, but still all your​ fault.

 

[laughing dog]

That is utter nonsense. The parents did not choose to accept a dumbass complaint. The parents did not choose to enforce the summons.

Do we know that the parents received the summons in time? Do we know if the parents could get off work (or lose their job) to appear for a summons?

In my view, blaming the parents for this incredible fuck up is inane.

You don’t ignore a summons and complaint no matter how dumb you think the allegations. Yes, the parents played a role in this silliness.

That assumes they received a summons to ignore. But playing a part is not the same as picking this path.

 

[J842P]

Fucking Carolinas.

 

[Jarhyn]

If I had, as a 6 year old, torn up someone's prize garden, shit in their flowerbed, pissed my name into their lawn, and dug for buried treasure fucking up a fiber optic cable, I would still expect the penalties to be on the order of "being grounded for a year, and not getting any good presents for my birthday OR christmas".

Of course a lot of that comes down to why I did it, whether I was being a kid, or whether something traumatic had just taken place in my life.

I cannot see police entering meaningfully into it when 6yo's are involved except to scold the everliving shit out of the parents, and then for that shit to roll downhill.

I mean shit, I didn't even get in any real trouble (lol, 3 day in-school-suspension) when I was involved with stealing soda cans out of a cooler at a private venue for the school band concert, and I was fingered as the fall-guy. And that was a teenager actively stealing and breaking things, culminating in the RMA of the cooler/fridge (I didn't cause the RMA, but I got accused of it; mostly, I was just "there"), which was on the order of 300 dollars.

There is no conceivable series of actions a six year old could take (assuming that it does not involve more than a pint of blood on the ground) that would justify arrest, arraignment, and trial. The fact that it went that far in the first place in fact seems to imply the need for arrest, arraignment, and trial over the overreaction to whatever the situation was.

 

[TomC]

That is utter nonsense. The parents did not choose to accept a dumbass complaint. The parents did not choose to enforce the summons.

Do we know that the parents received the summons in time? Do we know if the parents could get off work (or lose their job) to appear for a summons?

In my view, blaming the parents for this incredible fuck up is inane.

You don’t ignore a summons and complaint no matter how dumb you think the allegations. Yes, the parents played a role in this silliness.

That assumes they received a summons to ignore. But playing a part is not the same as picking this path.

I don't see that as a bad assumption.
Around here, you have to work pretty hard to dodge a court summons.
And your kid's arrest.

But hey, like I told [MENTION=236]Elixir[/MENTION]; , I haven't spent much time in North Carolina.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

That assumes they received a summons to ignore. But playing a part is not the same as picking this path.

I don't see that as a bad assumption.
Around here, you have to work pretty hard to dodge a court summons.
And your kid's arrest.

An assumption is not a fact. If I had received such a summons, I would have checked to see if it was a prank, because it is ridiculous. But suppose the choice was going to court over this nonsense with the expectation of nothing happening (which would have been met) or losing your job, I am not sure what I would have done.

Early, I linked to the article that broke this story. If its reporting is even remotely accurate, North Carolina's approach to these situations is atrocious.

 

[TomC]

That assumes they received a summons to ignore. But playing a part is not the same as picking this path.

I don't see that as a bad assumption.
Around here, you have to work pretty hard to dodge a court summons.
And your kid's arrest.

An assumption is not a fact. If I had received such a summons, I would have checked to see if it was a prank, because it is ridiculous. But suppose the choice was going to court over this nonsense with the expectation of nothing happening (which would have been met) or losing your job, I am not sure what I would have done.

Early, I linked to the article that broke this story. If its reporting is even remotely accurate, North Carolina's approach to these situations is atrocious.

I agree, assumptions are not the same as facts.


Which is why I've qualified my opinions.

As opposed to:

The racists are the complainer and the cop who wrote the summons.
The parents, whatever their color, were quite right to ignore the stupid summons or notice or whatever it was.

I don't claim to know what happened. But some assumptions are more plausible than others. "Society slamming a 6y/o for picking a flower" sounds less plausible than "There's more to the story than in the media reports". Knowing what I know about modern media, especially the racism industrial complex, I sincerely doubt that what happened was a bunch of white racists lynching a 6y/o black kid.

But notice the qualifier, "I sincerely doubt..." I try to distinguish between assertions of fact and my opinions, regardless of how strongly I hold the opinions.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

An assumption is not a fact. If I had received such a summons, I would have checked to see if it was a prank, because it is ridiculous. But suppose the choice was going to court over this nonsense with the expectation of nothing happening (which would have been met) or losing your job, I am not sure what I would have done.

Early, I linked to the article that broke this story. If its reporting is even remotely accurate, North Carolina's approach to these situations is atrocious.

I agree, assumptions are not the same as facts.


Which is why I've qualified my opinions.

As opposed to:

The racists are the complainer and the cop who wrote the summons.
The parents, whatever their color, were quite right to ignore the stupid summons or notice or whatever it was.

I don't claim to know what happened. But some assumptions are more plausible than others. "Society slamming a 6y/o for picking a flower" sounds less plausible than "There's more to the story than in the media reports". Knowing what I know about modern media, especially the racism industrial complex, I sincerely doubt that what happened was a bunch of white racists lynching a 6y/o black kid.

And yet you choose to opine that the parents picked this path.

And, if you had read the article I linked, there is some doubt on the parts of a number of residents and people who work in that system about its colorblindness.

But more importantly, it appears there are several "stops" before such a case reaches the judge and at none of those junctions did anyone say "this goes no further", which is an indictment of that process.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

From the link above. Maybe you missed it.

When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents," said Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender's Office. "But if he is black, he takes him to the state."

So someone within the system stated there is racism being used in enforcement.

 

[Trausti]

From the link above. Maybe you missed it.

When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents," said Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender's Office. "But if he is black, he takes him to the state."

So someone within the system stated there is racism being used in enforcement.

Pick them up for what? Is there a warrant?

 

[TomC]

From the link above. Maybe you missed it.

When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents," said Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender's Office. "But if he is black, he takes him to the state."

So someone within the system stated there is racism being used in enforcement.

I don't see where Mary Stansell mentioned that the parents were served a summons and didn't show up.

Perhaps Ms Stansell is the racist, believing that black parents aren't capable of responsible parenting. So she doesn't expect black folks to respond to court orders. She doesn't think them capable of responsible parenting, like going to court for their kids when problems come up and the parents get a court order to appear. Maybe she thinks black parents are lazed back on a couch, drinking and shooting up, and aren't capable of responsible parenting.

Maybe that's the problem.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

From the link above. Maybe you missed it.

When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents," said Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender's Office. "But if he is black, he takes him to the state."

So someone within the system stated there is racism being used in enforcement.

Pick them up for what? Is there a warrant?

From the link above. Maybe you missed it.

When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents," said Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender's Office. "But if he is black, he takes him to the state."

So someone within the system stated there is racism being used in enforcement.

I don't see where Mary Stansell mentioned that the parents were served a summons and didn't show up.

Perhaps Ms Stansell is the racist, believing that black parents aren't capable of responsible parenting. So she doesn't expect black folks to respond to court orders. She doesn't think them capable of responsible parenting, like going to court for their kids when problems come up and the parents get a court order to appear. Maybe she thinks black parents are lazed back on a couch, drinking and shooting up, and aren't capable of responsible parenting.

Maybe that's the problem.
Tom

Do warrants or summons or picked up for what matter to what Ms Stansell said? She's explaining that there is unequal treatment in the juvenile legal system.

 

[TomC]

Pick them up for what? Is there a warrant?

From the link above. Maybe you missed it.

When a cop picks up a white boy, he takes him to his parents," said Mary Stansell, juvenile chief at the Wake County Public Defender's Office. "But if he is black, he takes him to the state."

So someone within the system stated there is racism being used in enforcement.

I don't see where Mary Stansell mentioned that the parents were served a summons and didn't show up.

Perhaps Ms Stansell is the racist, believing that black parents aren't capable of responsible parenting. So she doesn't expect black folks to respond to court orders. She doesn't think them capable of responsible parenting, like going to court for their kids when problems come up and the parents get a court order to appear. Maybe she thinks black parents are lazed back on a couch, drinking and shooting up, and aren't capable of responsible parenting.

Maybe that's the problem.
Tom

Do warrants or summons or picked up for what matter to what Ms Stansell said? She's explaining that there is unequal treatment in the juvenile legal system.

I'm not [MENTION=230]Trausti[/MENTION];

She's claiming that there is unequal treatment. But there's no evidence other than the claim matches what the SJWs prefer to believe.

There probably is unequal treatment, IMHO. But I don't make such claims and base it on my own authoritative opinions like she does.
Or @Elixir does...
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

She's claiming that there is unequal treatment. But there's no evidence other than the claim matches what the SJWs prefer to believe.

There probably is unequal treatment, IMHO. But I don't make such claims and base it on my own authoritative opinions like she does.
Or @Elixir does...
Tom

So the claim, by a system insider BTW, matches that of SJWs so it should be dismissed.

Maybe, just maybe, the SJWs in this care are right.

 

[Elixir]

Pick them up for what?

For picking a tulip, for example.

 

[TomC]

Pick them up for what?

For picking a tulip, for example.

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

 

[laughing dog]

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

 

[ZiprHead]

Pick them up for what?

For picking a tulip, for example.

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.

 

[Trausti]

Pick them up for what?

For picking a tulip, for example.

My point is whether the cops are picking up kids for their behavior or whether they are picking them up to exercise a warrant. Kinda an important difference.