Make a stupid mistake & MD prohibits your seeing son, lest SUPERVISED

[Fern5827]

Subject: Parents *spanked* by MD for letting kids trunk ride
From: (Fern5827)
Date: 7/23/2003 5:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: >

Vote here.

Subject: Fmr tchr cannot see 12yo son, UNLESS SUPERVISED
From: (Fern5827)
Date: 7/23/2003 12:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: >

Good grief. What punishment would have been meted out to the family had she
spanked him?

Subject: Child abuse or poor judgement? Kids wanted to ride in trunk
From: (Fern5827)
Date: 7/23/2003 12:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: >

Parents felt it would be ok.

Both parents stable and employed. For this lapse, they received 150K bail, and
no rights to see their 12yo son, unless SUPERVISED.

Even the other child's parent is stunned with the severity of charges lodged
against this model couple.

Vote and view video of situation on ABC news site below.

And folks are unaware with the reach of CPS and its unaccountable, unsupervised
bureaucracy:?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/GMA030723Locked_in_trunk.html

[Roger Schlafly]

"Fern5827" > wrote
> Subject: Child abuse or poor judgement? Kids wanted to ride in trunk

15 years for a harmless little ride in the trunk? This should not even
be a crime.

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Fern5827" > wrote
> > Subject: Child abuse or poor judgement? Kids wanted to ride in trunk
>
> 15 years for a harmless little ride in the trunk? This should not even
> be a crime.

In the event that there was a car crash, the children could have been
severely injured because they were not restrained or if the car caught fire.
In addition, rescue workers would not know to look for them in the trunk if
the parents were not awake or alive.

I believe that they are guilty of reckless endangerment. I don't know what
type of sentence I would make if I were the judge. I think I would make sure
the parents are well-supervised by the child protective services, take
parenting classes and pay court costs.

Also, please note that the parents have been convicted of anything. The
charges seem warranted. I think these cases is being handled correctly.

It is up to a judge to decide if the parents are guilty, and if so, what
they are guilty of and what the punishment should be.

I can find no excuse for endangering kids like this.

Jeff

[JG]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> .. .

> > "Fern5827" > wrote
> > > Subject: Child abuse or poor judgement? Kids wanted to ride in
trunk

> > 15 years for a harmless little ride in the trunk? This should not
even
> > be a crime.

> In the event that there was a car crash, the children could have been
> severely injured because they were not restrained or if the car caught
fire.
> In addition, rescue workers would not know to look for them in the
trunk if
> the parents were not awake or alive.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! *Potential* injuries are all around
us, Jeff. Fine the parents $96 for not having the boys restrained
(http://www.sha.state.md.us/Safety/oots/trafficsignalsandlaws/childpas.a
sp). Period. Next case...

> Also, please note that the parents have been convicted of anything.

Huh? HUH? <g>

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > > 15 years for a harmless little ride in the trunk? This should not even
> > > be a crime.
> > In the event that there was a car crash, the children could have been
> > severely injured because they were not restrained or if the car caught
> fire.
>
> Possibly. It is also possible that the kids would have been better off in
> the trunk. They also might have been better off if the parents forgot the]
> kids, and left them at the gas station.
>
> Riding in the trunk was a one-time thing, under controlled circumstances.

The circumstances would not be controlled if there were a crash. And what if
one of the kids got sick or very scared? How would the driver know?

> The probability of a resulting injury would be less than 1 in a million.
> I do not think that people should be sent to prison for taking
> 1-in-a-million
> risks. Nothing bad happened.

So risking children's lives is ok unless someone gets injured?

[Jeff Utz]

"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> > .. .
>
> > > "Fern5827" > wrote
> > > > Subject: Child abuse or poor judgement? Kids wanted to ride in
> trunk
>
> > > 15 years for a harmless little ride in the trunk? This should not
> even
> > > be a crime.
>
> > In the event that there was a car crash, the children could have been
> > severely injured because they were not restrained or if the car caught
> fire.
> > In addition, rescue workers would not know to look for them in the
> trunk if
> > the parents were not awake or alive.
>
> Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! *Potential* injuries are all around
> us, Jeff. Fine the parents $96 for not having the boys restrained
> (http://www.sha.state.md.us/Safety/oots/trafficsignalsandlaws/childpas.a
> sp). Period. Next case...

You're correct, of course. There are potential injuries all around us. But
to put kids in a more dangerous situation is stupid.

> > Also, please note that the parents have been convicted of anything.
>
> Huh? HUH? <g>

The parents were arrested, but not convicted. That is up to the judge and
jury to do.

Jeff

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote
> And what if
> one of the kids got sick or very scared? How would the driver know?

During a 20-minute car ride? What if I play hide-and-seek with my
kid, and the kid gets scared? Should that be a criminal offense?

> > The probability of a resulting injury would be less than 1 in a million.
> > I do not think that people should be sent to prison for taking
> > 1-in-a-million risks. Nothing bad happened.
> So risking children's lives is ok unless someone gets injured?

Everything in life has risks. If I drive my kid to school, then there is
a risk to the kid's life. Yes, I think that it is ok to take that risk.

[Mark Probert]

Roger Schlafly wrote:
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
>
>>And what if
>>one of the kids got sick or very scared? How would the driver know?
>
>
> During a 20-minute car ride? What if I play hide-and-seek with my
> kid, and the kid gets scared? Should that be a criminal offense?

B-a-a-a-a-a-a-d analogy, as there is a possibility that the kids could
have been injured if the car was rear ended.

I sure hope it was not a Crown Victoria.

>>>The probability of a resulting injury would be less than 1 in a million.
>>>I do not think that people should be sent to prison for taking
>>>1-in-a-million risks. Nothing bad happened.
>>
>>So risking children's lives is ok unless someone gets injured?
>
> Everything in life has risks. If I drive my kid to school, then there is
> a risk to the kid's life. Yes, I think that it is ok to take that risk.

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > And what if
> > one of the kids got sick or very scared? How would the driver know?
>
> During a 20-minute car ride? What if I play hide-and-seek with my
> kid, and the kid gets scared? Should that be a criminal offense?

Two different things. If you play hide and seek, and your kids gets scared,
the kid could come out or yell or something, and you would know. Not true of
the kids in the trunk. The driver has no way of knowing what the kids are
scared or sick in the trunk.

> > > The probability of a resulting injury would be less than 1 in a
million.
> > > I do not think that people should be sent to prison for taking
> > > 1-in-a-million risks. Nothing bad happened.
> > So risking children's lives is ok unless someone gets injured?
>
> Everything in life has risks. If I drive my kid to school, then there is
> a risk to the kid's life. Yes, I think that it is ok to take that risk.

Taking kids to school is a necessary risk. Putting kids in a trunk where
they cannot communicate with others & run a higher risk of injury in a crash
is an unnecessary risk.

Jeff

[JG]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...

> Taking kids to school is a necessary risk.

The biggest risk, of course, being that they might be exposed to an
"educator" who shares some of your ridiculous quasi-socialist
notions...<g>

JG

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law
into contempt.
--Elizabeth Cady Stanton


Putting kids in a trunk where
> they cannot communicate with others & run a higher risk of injury in a
crash
> is an unnecessary risk.

[Roger Schlafly]

"JG" > wrote
> Tell you what, Jeff. Go ahead and draw up a list of *every*thing that a
> child does, or could *potentially* do, or that could *conceivably"*
> happen during his/her childhood and rate each item from 1-10 based on
> how "dangerous" you perceive it to be. ("Sleeping face up," for
> example, would be a "1"; "Sleeping face down" maybe a "2"; "Gun in the
> house, unloaded and properly stored" perhaps also a "2"; "Gun in the
> house, loaded, possibly accessible (to a really adventurous, agile kid)"
> perhaps a "9"; "Gun in house, loaded, easily accessible" a "10";
> "Playing ball next to a busy road" perhaps an "8"; "Running with
> scissors" maybe a "6"... When you're done (10, 20 years?), attach an
> appropriate penalty to each number, with "serious" penalties (i.e.,
> something other than simply a "slap on the wrist" warning) to, say, "6"
> and above. Next, submit the list to your state legislator and ask
> him/her to introduce it as a bill during the next legislative session.
> (Next, wait for the straight jacket-bearing guys in the white shirts to
> show up at your door. <g>)

You are giving him ideas! <g> Here in California, we already have plenty
of people who think that way. We have to have kids in car seats until
age 6, helmets on kids riding bikes and other activities, etc. We just
narrowly avoided a law against (non-hands-free) car phones, but that
was probably only because of the state budget crisis in which Democrats
had held up the required annual budget in order to attempt to raise taxes
to increase welfare payments. No doubt the busybody legislators will be
back passing nanny laws.

There are homeschoolers who think that sending a kid to school is
an unnecessary risk. Others object to swimming pools, eating meat,
celebrating Halloween, pets, stairs, TV, hot dogs, soda, etc. If you
make it a crime for a parent to allow a one-in-a-million risk to the
kids, then at least 99% of all parents will be felons.

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "JG" > wrote
> > Tell you what, Jeff. Go ahead and draw up a list of *every*thing that a
> > child does, or could *potentially* do, or that could *conceivably"*
> > happen during his/her childhood and rate each item from 1-10 based on
> > how "dangerous" you perceive it to be. ("Sleeping face up," for
> > example, would be a "1"; "Sleeping face down" maybe a "2"; "Gun in the
> > house, unloaded and properly stored" perhaps also a "2"; "Gun in the
> > house, loaded, possibly accessible (to a really adventurous, agile kid)"
> > perhaps a "9"; "Gun in house, loaded, easily accessible" a "10";
> > "Playing ball next to a busy road" perhaps an "8"; "Running with
> > scissors" maybe a "6"... When you're done (10, 20 years?), attach an
> > appropriate penalty to each number, with "serious" penalties (i.e.,
> > something other than simply a "slap on the wrist" warning) to, say, "6"
> > and above. Next, submit the list to your state legislator and ask
> > him/her to introduce it as a bill during the next legislative session.
> > (Next, wait for the straight jacket-bearing guys in the white shirts to
> > show up at your door. <g>)
>
> You are giving him ideas! <g> Here in California, we already have plenty
> of people who think that way. We have to have kids in car seats until
> age 6, helmets on kids riding bikes and other activities, etc.

Good!

> We just
> narrowly avoided a law against (non-hands-free) car phones, but that
> was probably only because of the state budget crisis in which Democrats
> had held up the required annual budget in order to attempt to raise taxes
> to increase welfare payments.

And pay for schools and other mandates. Too bad about not getting that law
not allowing cell phones.

> No doubt the busybody legislators will be
> back passing nanny laws.

Good. I don't want to get in a crash caused by some guy not paying attention
because he is talking on the cell phone.

> There are homeschoolers who think that sending a kid to school is
> an unnecessary risk. Others object to swimming pools, eating meat,
> celebrating Halloween, pets, stairs, TV, hot dogs, soda, etc. If you
> make it a crime for a parent to allow a one-in-a-million risk to the
> kids, then at least 99% of all parents will be felons.

There are certain risks that are reasonable. Locking a kid in a trunk, IMHO,
is not reasonable.

Unless you and JG have something new to add to the discussion, I will not be
posting in it again.

Jeff