- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21954268
Mom Jailed for Letting 10-Year-Old Walk Alone to Town
“I was not panicking as I know the roads and know he is mature enough to walk there without incident,” says Brittany Patterson.
You must log in or # to comment.
Wild that they said he was found “downtown” in a town of 370.
Busy downtown huh?
MoViNg tO tHe sUbUrB/cOuNtRySiDe fOr tHe kIdS
A woman who saw him walking alongside the road—speed limit: 25 in some places, 35 in others—asked him if he was OK. He said yes.
Nevertheless, she called the police.
Traitor.
The plan (from child protective services) would also require Patterson to download an app onto her son’s phone allowing for his location to be monitored.
If I were the child, I’d forget my phone at home very often. A town like that probably has a no-phone school anyways.
People don’t care about children apparently. Spatial appropriation is an important aspect of childrens’ development. Children cannot lobby for themselves in the same way most adult social groups can do.
You aren’t allowed to have a phone in school and my son is 10. The teachers will take it away.
You can have it you just can’t take it out and use it
I think it depends on the school
No I mean even if you’re not supposed to bring a phone, how is the school going to know if it stays in a closed backpack, turned off.
The spirit of the rule is that kids shouldn’t use the phone at school or let it distract others, but that is nebulous to interpret and enforce whereas “don’t bring it” is easier to enforce.
if its off you can’t track it.
Why are you trying to track it?
My kid used to bring his Pokemon cards to school until someone stole a kids collection and then they were returned but they put out a notice saying no Pokemon cards.
Now can they check every backpack? No. Do kids talk? Very much yes. So if some kid brought it to school everyone would know.
I heard his teacher say “phones are not allowed at school and it’s very serious.” I am guessing it’s theft related and they cannot be held liable if some kid loses their phone worth hundreds of dollars if it’s stolen.
Yes, exactly. They don’t want you to bring a phone for those reasons, but if the parent/kid understand the reason behind the rule, as well as the risks and responsibilities entailed in going against it, it’s not going to hurt anyone to bring one and not use it or talk about it. But the school could never say this is allowed because they don’t want to undermine the rule for all those reasons.
I think they can make rules like that. Where else would a child learn that they have to adhere to authority? Do I want my kid losing his phone because some other kid has a problem understanding that it’s not theirs? No I don’t. I hear what you are saying but I do agree with the rules.
The town has 375 people.
That’s not a suburb…
Better?
Yup!
not quite a mile from his house
It wasn’t even far. They live on 16 acres, he could be just as far into the woods and still be on their property.
Seems less to do with cars and more to do with citizen/government stupidity:
“It’s not quite a mile from his house.”
Looks like Georgia DOES have a “Reasonable Childhood Independence” law…
The sheriff disagreed.
“She kept mentioning how he could have been run over, or kidnapped or ‘anything’ could have happened,” recalls Patterson.
She needs a fucking hobby besides acting like some pedo. 100 percent if this was a man watching a kid it would be taken much differently.
‘anything’ could have happened if he’d stayed home too. ‘Anything’ is a low bar. ;)
Anything can happen at the church at a higher ate than on the road lol
but this clowns never worry about that one…
In a town of 370 people? How many cars were on the road? 3?
Probably around 370 in total, but at any given moment, 3.
I live in a rural community. What scares me the most is the dumbass hicks flying around in their giant vehicles, both old and young. They’re always driving like their houses are on fire.
When I go running on country roads in spandex and sandals, the hicks in the trucks go by real friggin’ slowly. Like, aggressively slowly.
Maybe they just want to objectify you for a bit, if you’re in Spandex?
I assume that’s the case when I cycle in rural areas in Spandex.
Here’s where the problem is. The sheriff is viewing the potential for the kid to get hit by a person driving a car as the kid’s fault, when of course the fault should lie completely with her person operating heavy machinery.
Obligatory reminder: you have the right to silence in the US. Under no circumstances do you have to say anything to them, except for specific things like, “I want a lawyer,” and, “Am I under arrest?”
You also have to say you are involving the 5th amendment if you are going to remain silent. There are cases where the supreme court ruled that the 5th amendment only applies if you verbally invoke it by name.
It helps prevent cops from having you sectioned for laughs.
Supremely idiotic that that’s the case, but it never hurts to be thorough, I guess.
very funny to see this coming from Reason, a libertarian rag that hates public transit
I’ve seen Reason speak highly of Japan’s privatized public transport
Which public transport? Tokyo Metro is publicly-owned. Some of the JR branches are still publicly-owned. JR was only privatized in the late 80s as an anti-labor move and to deflect from the unpopularity of closing unprofitable rural lines. But of course the government built most of the network, including the first shinkansen lines.
It sounds like they’re praising it in Japan and saying “of course it could never work here, Americans are just genetically predisposed to cars”.
Right. I will say there is a lot of the US where cars make sense because they use the same roads that farm equipment uses (which does not make much sense to build rail for), but in the cities (and thus the suburbs) it seemed largely cultural from any historical analysis I’ve seen (with segregation, excessive monopolization of passenger rail, and the advent of modern advertising).
Angry, vindictive Internet dwellers love to identify with the left while arguing on behalf of libertarians. So long as Somebody On The Other Side is getting punished the specifics of self responsibility and internal consistency don’t matter too much.
Angry and vindictive? You’re the one hate-reading a community you clearly don’t like
It’s not hate reading, it’s loving honesty. The article frames the story as an anti-government civil liberty issue, and the community is letting blind rage at the mention of a car create a blind spot over self-defeating libertarianism.
-
The State requires Adults to be responsible for Children until they are at the end of the age of Legal custody, these ages vary, but it’s usually 18 years old
-
It it very difficult for The State to determine which activities done without Adult supervision are safe for children, I mean, just look at the Catholic Church
-
The State is a hammer, everything it sees is a nail
-
“terminal car-brain” 😂 you guys’ll pathologize anything
Dear Santa, for Christmas this year I want a deck of Internet meme psychology tarot cards. The Narcissist. The Gas Lighter. The Driver. I have not been a good boy, thank you for understanding.
Not everything. But you might have pathological difficulty grasping irony.
