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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

If the parents had responded appropriately, why did their SIX year old wind up in court?

A six year old wound up in court because the neighbor did not drop the charge and no other entity in NC can make them do so, including the DCF/DCYS who knows that charging a kid of 6 is bad for them.

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!

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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

If the parents had responded appropriately, why did their SIX year old wind up in court?

A six year old wound up in court because the neighbor did not drop the charge and no other entity in NC can make them do so, including the DCF/DCYS who knows that charging a kid of 6 is bad for them.

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

You would be if rape was equivalent to a picked flower. But since it is not, you are seriously wrong.

 

[Gospel]

"You wouldn't believe it, one night I got in jail in Starkville Mississippi for picking flowers." Johnny Cash

It's crazy how TomC seems to forgo the 6-year-old child part. Do you really think the State Police (and staff), the prosecutor (and their staff), Lawyer (and staff) Judge (and staff) should spend any time on a case about a 6-year-old & a flower? All this posturing and creating arguments out of thin air to justify a 6-year-old in court is just silly man.

 

[TomC]

"You wouldn't believe it, one night I got in jail in Starkville Mississippi for picking flowers." Johnny Cash

It's crazy how TomC seems to forgo the 6-year-old child part. Do you really think the State Police (and staff), the prosecutor (and their staff), Lawyer (and staff) Judge (and staff) should spend any time on a case about a 6-year-old & a flower? All this posturing and creating arguments out of thin air to justify a 6-year-old in court is just silly man.

I don't see why my point is so hard to grasp. I'm hardly "forgoing" the SIX year old part. I agree, it's idiotic for a small child to wind up in court. It's the adults who are the problem. I'm just not sure in what way, and I'm confident that there's a back story that has not been covered in the media. But when small children are involved I assume parental responsibility until demonstrated otherwise. So far, I've seen no evidence of that. What I mostly see is victim blaming. Somebody suggested the homeowners should move!

Maybe the city has been promising the victims that the bus stop would be moved half a block down for years, but haven't gotten around to actually doing it. This is the victim's way of pressuring the city to keep that promise. Maybe the kid's single mom dumped him on a reluctant grandma and went off with her new boyfriend, who doesn't like kids. Grandma isn't legal guardian, feels no responsibility for the kid's behavior, and can't reach his mother.
Who knows?

But I'm sure that there is more to this story than "evil homeowners trying to destroy an innocent young boy." I just don't claim to know what it is.
Tom

 

[TomC]

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

You would be if rape was equivalent to a picked flower. But since it is not, you are seriously wrong.

Since I wasn't comparing the severity, but using an example of victim blaming, you've managed to miss the point completely.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

You would be if rape was equivalent to a picked flower. But since it is not, you are seriously wrong.

Since I wasn't comparing the severity, but using an example of victim blaming, you've managed to miss the point completely.
Tom

No, you missed the point because the severity is relevant. Rational decisions are cost-benefit analyses. Severity of offenses play a role in cost-benefit. In this case, seeking justice or choosing an appropriate consequence has on the one hand, trauma from a victim and yes, trauma an offender may suffer due to either the court trial or legal consequences. If we are talking about an adult who stole a loaf of bread from a store, the store owner would be a victim, but if the consequence to the thief is cutting off their hands and feet, we know they are also a victim. A store owner who pursued legal action against such an adult, even if the store owner were a victim, knowing the consequences and knowing the thief stole for needed food, would be unkind to say the least. It isn't victim blaming to say so because we have the comparative outcomes and a sense of justice. Compare that to life-long trauma due to physically being raped, bleeding, emotionally traumatized perhaps for decades from having a healthy sex life and consequences in relationships with romantic partners due to the rape, that is severe, as you know. A rapist with mental competence going to a court trial and experiencing a small bit of emotional trauma for doing so is but nothing in comparison...but actually serving some 20 years in prison is very significant and so something of a just system. But if you compare, the trauma that this 6 year old is going through as a person who is not competent to stand trial nor understand legal consequences, huge emotional traumas, possibly thinking now he is a bad person for years to come, and public exposure versus the action of him picking a flower from someone's property, the actual victimization of this child is greater than the victimization of the flower owner in terms of severity. Therefore, severity is relevant, and a direct analogy to rape shows it is an inappropriate analogy because you have to compare severity across multiple aspects of the offense and social/legal outcome.

 

[laughing dog]

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

You would be if rape was equivalent to a picked flower. But since it is not, you are seriously wrong.

Since I wasn't comparing the severity, but using an example of victim blaming, you've managed to miss the point completely.
Tom

One cannot miss what is not there. Given you seem to blame the parents, your response and explanation are truly ironic.

 

[Gospel]

"You wouldn't believe it, one night I got in jail in Starkville Mississippi for picking flowers." Johnny Cash

It's crazy how TomC seems to forgo the 6-year-old child part. Do you really think the State Police (and staff), the prosecutor (and their staff), Lawyer (and staff) Judge (and staff) should spend any time on a case about a 6-year-old & a flower? All this posturing and creating arguments out of thin air to justify a 6-year-old in court is just silly man.

I don't see why my point is so hard to grasp. I'm hardly "forgoing" the SIX year old part. I agree, it's idiotic for a small child to wind up in court. It's the adults who are the problem. I'm just not sure in what way, and I'm confident that there's a back story that has not been covered in the media. But when small children are involved I assume parental responsibility until demonstrated otherwise. So far, I've seen no evidence of that. What I mostly see is victim blaming. Somebody suggested the homeowners should move!

Maybe the city has been promising the victims that the bus stop would be moved half a block down for years, but haven't gotten around to actually doing it. This is the victim's way of pressuring the city to keep that promise. Maybe the kid's single mom dumped him on a reluctant grandma and went off with her new boyfriend, who doesn't like kids. Grandma isn't legal guardian, feels no responsibility for the kid's behavior, and can't reach his mother.
Who knows?

But I'm sure that there is more to this story than "evil homeowners trying to destroy an innocent young boy." I just don't claim to know what it is.
Tom

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.

 

[TomC]

"You wouldn't believe it, one night I got in jail in Starkville Mississippi for picking flowers." Johnny Cash

It's crazy how TomC seems to forgo the 6-year-old child part. Do you really think the State Police (and staff), the prosecutor (and their staff), Lawyer (and staff) Judge (and staff) should spend any time on a case about a 6-year-old & a flower? All this posturing and creating arguments out of thin air to justify a 6-year-old in court is just silly man.

I don't see why my point is so hard to grasp. I'm hardly "forgoing" the SIX year old part. I agree, it's idiotic for a small child to wind up in court. It's the adults who are the problem. I'm just not sure in what way, and I'm confident that there's a back story that has not been covered in the media. But when small children are involved I assume parental responsibility until demonstrated otherwise. So far, I've seen no evidence of that. What I mostly see is victim blaming. Somebody suggested the homeowners should move!

Maybe the city has been promising the victims that the bus stop would be moved half a block down for years, but haven't gotten around to actually doing it. This is the victim's way of pressuring the city to keep that promise. Maybe the kid's single mom dumped him on a reluctant grandma and went off with her new boyfriend, who doesn't like kids. Grandma isn't legal guardian, feels no responsibility for the kid's behavior, and can't reach his mother.
Who knows?

But I'm sure that there is more to this story than "evil homeowners trying to destroy an innocent young boy." I just don't claim to know what it is.
Tom

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

 

[TomC]

No, you missed the point because the severity is relevant.

No, that was just an example of victim blaming that people often understand. Not comparing the severity.


Let me try this.
A woman is working at her desk. A male coworker starts rubbing her shoulders. She tells him to stop, again. He doesn't stop, he responds "But you look so good in that dress you're wearing."
She complains to her boss. Boss responds "Well, you do look great in that skirt. Maybe you should just get over being popular with the boys. Or maybe you should find another job."

It's just a shoulder rub, after all. Do you see the victim blaming in that scenario? Or does it still escape you?

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

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

No, you missed the point because the severity is relevant.

No, that was just an example of victim blaming that people often understand. Not comparing the severity.


Let me try this.
A woman is working at her desk. A male coworker starts rubbing her shoulders. She tells him to stop, again. He doesn't stop, he responds "But you look so good in that dress you're wearing."
She complains to her boss. Boss responds "Well, you do look great in that skirt. Maybe you should just get over being popular with the boys. Or maybe you should find another job."

It's just a shoulder rub, after all. Do you see the victim blaming in that scenario? Or does it still escape you?

Tom

A woman is working at her desk, in the middle of a leopard cage. A leopard starts eating her face. She tells it to stop but it does not because it is a leopard. She complains to people. People suggest she stop working in a leopard cage.

The fact is, we are not talking about adults, so your analogy bears no validity. We are talking specifically about whether someone can be considered a victim when their actions have a predicable result, and the engine of that result IS NOT a reasoning, mature, socially aware adult.

She would be as rightful in pursuing a call to animal control because squirrels keep shitting in her yard.

It is pissing into the wind. You can revisit this when six year olds are no longer six year olds.

 

[TomC]

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

There is no reasonable adult making decisions to "violate" the "victim" here, so your analogy does not hold. Your analogy requires that, in a situation where one person is being imposes on, that the imposing party is capable of "not being a leopard". 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.

I don't care which adults you wish you could apply the analogy to. It just doesn't hold. Your analogy of "victim blaming" requires that the party that create the victim be a "moral actor" in the first place.

As much as you wish you could ignore talking about the child, you cannot, because the "man giving the backrub" here is a six year old.

 

[TomC]

There is no reasonable adult making decisions to "violate" the "victim" here, so your analogy does not hold.

Could you explain your opinion in a way that isn't word salad?

We can both agree that the child is one victim. I've done so many times. But not the only one, and while you may think that this is all about one tulip I very much doubt that is true.

I still think that competent, responsible, parents could have avoided the child's court date. Nobody has given me reason to believe differently. If it's possible that the parents could have prevented this ridiculous scenario, a SIX year old in court, then the kid is a victim of the parents.
Not the homeowners who were vandalized. They are also victims. Maybe of the city, maybe of the parents, maybe something else that wasn't mentioned in the media. I'm not claiming to know the whole story!
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

 

[Elixir]

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

Totally. Letting the little fucker pick a flower puts him on a fast track to a life in prison.
IF HE'S BLACK.

 

[TomC]

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

Totally. Letting the little fucker pick a flower puts him on a fast track to a life in prison.
IF HE'S BLACK.

Why do you SJWs insist on making this about race? I've never brought that up. I see no reason to do so. Race has nothing do with it.

It's the irresponsible parenting that's helping him towards a prison term, if that's happening. That happens to white kids too.

Why is race so important? Looks like you're a victim of the outrage industry to me.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

No, you missed the point because the severity is relevant.

No, that was just an example of victim blaming that people often understand. Not comparing the severity.


Let me try this.
A woman is working at her desk. A male coworker starts rubbing her shoulders. She tells him to stop, again. He doesn't stop, he responds "But you look so good in that dress you're wearing."
She complains to her boss. Boss responds "Well, you do look great in that skirt. Maybe you should just get over being popular with the boys. Or maybe you should find another job."

It's just a shoulder rub, after all. Do you see the victim blaming in that scenario? Or does it still escape you?

Tom

What escapes me is why you are bringing up victim blaming, especially when you seem to engage in it when you blame this child's parents.

 

[Gospel]

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?