4 ms·

It isn't the neighbors job to be mentally functional. It is, however, the police's, DA, and CPS's job.

z9znz 4y ago
It's also suburban Waco, Texas. That's not exactly the epicenter of education in the US, much less even in Texas. Ironically, more rural Texas regions tend to ha√e more independent kids; after all, you'll see 10 year old kids driving the family truck on farms and ranches.
- steelframe 4y ago
  > more rural Texas regions tend to ha√e more independent kids Genuinely curious. How did you manage to type '√' rather than 'v'? It this a keyboard or locale issue?
  - moreati 4y ago
    Not OP, speculating. On a Mac option + v types a √, which is a fairly easy typo.
    - jonny_eh 4y ago
      It is?
    - z9znz 4y ago
      Yes, this seems to be what is happening. I now think that on rare occasions the side of my left hand may be brushing the opt key while I type. Until today, it has only been a very rare † instead of t. √ is a new one for me.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - z9znz 4y ago
    That's the first time I've gotten that instead of a V. I didn't bother editing it because I thought it was amusing. More often (but still rare), I'll end up with a † instead of t. As someone below mentioned, it appears to be (on Mac) opt+key. I use a Razer Blackwidow something something mechanical keyboard, and it sits pretty tall. Only just now I figured out how I think this opt thing is happening. The side of my left hand appears to sometimes sit low enough that it may be bumping the opt key. Prior to this moment, the whole † thing had been a mystery to me :P.
pdonis 4y ago
> It isn't the neighbors job to be mentally functional. I'm not sure I agree. One of the requirements for an adult citizen in a civil society is to be reasonable in your dealings with neighbors. > It is, however, the police's, DA, and CPS's job. "Mentally functional" does not necessarily mean "giving citizens a break". The criminal law that the mom was charged with is a law, it's on the books, and law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law. They do have a certain amount of discretion, but the incentives they are facing, particularly in a community which is strongly in favor of "law and order" (which I suspect the one in question is), are against their exercising discretion in favor of a citizen. And putting the "sex trafficking" thing into the mix just makes it worse. The only real way to fix this is to remove things like this from the discretion of law enforcement by not having a law like this in the first place. (Unfortunately, it appears that when the law was revised to allow kids more independence, they only revised the family law code, not the criminal code. They should have revised both. So I would say the ultimate fault here is the legislature, for being incompetent when making law.)
- bengy5959 4y ago
  Should someone get a ticket for going 66 mph in a 65 zone? I don't really think officer discretion is avoidable to a certain degree. Laws can never be written perfectly. There are always going to be ridiculous edge cases like this where a reasonable person would know the law shouldn't be applied. This is why so much legal precedent is based on what a reasonable person would do or what a reasonable person would assume given a certain situation. I do agree that the neighbor should not be let off on this, nor am I trying to excuse their behavior. But there are always going to be Karens that call the cops for no reason and the system has to be able to deal with that.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > Should someone get a ticket for going 66 mph in a 65 zone? Speed limit laws should not even exist in the first place. They are a paradigmatic example of laws that are unreasonable and should not exist. The fact that it is impossible to enforce them as written, or even with light-years of as written, is one reason for that. > I don't really think officer discretion is avoidable to a certain degree. To a certain degree, yes. But it should be limited. In the system we have now, it's not; the scope of laws on the books is huge, to the point that all of us are probably technically violating multiple laws every day, and we are all relying on a huge amount of discretion on the part of law enforcement to allow us to go about our business without continually being interrupted. That's not good. > there are always going to be Karens that call the cops for no reason and the system has to be able to deal with that. Yes, and the way to deal with it is to have the law be reasonable. It is not to have lots of unreasonable laws on the books and then hope that law enforcement exercises discretion in practically all cases, only actually prosecuting the "really serious" ones. It's to not have unreasonable laws on the books at all, so when a Karen calls the cops for no reason, the cops can just say "Ma'am, that's not against the law, nothing for us to do."

It's also suburban Waco, Texas. That's not exactly the epicenter of education in the US, much less even in Texas. Ironically, more rural Texas regions tend to ha√e more independent kids; after all, you'll see 10 year old kids driving the family truck on farms and ranches.

steelframe 4y ago
> more rural Texas regions tend to ha√e more independent kids Genuinely curious. How did you manage to type '√' rather than 'v'? It this a keyboard or locale issue?
- moreati 4y ago
  Not OP, speculating. On a Mac option + v types a √, which is a fairly easy typo.
  - jonny_eh 4y ago
    It is?
  - z9znz 4y ago
    Yes, this seems to be what is happening. I now think that on rare occasions the side of my left hand may be brushing the opt key while I type. Until today, it has only been a very rare † instead of t. √ is a new one for me.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- z9znz 4y ago
  That's the first time I've gotten that instead of a V. I didn't bother editing it because I thought it was amusing. More often (but still rare), I'll end up with a † instead of t. As someone below mentioned, it appears to be (on Mac) opt+key. I use a Razer Blackwidow something something mechanical keyboard, and it sits pretty tall. Only just now I figured out how I think this opt thing is happening. The side of my left hand appears to sometimes sit low enough that it may be bumping the opt key. Prior to this moment, the whole † thing had been a mystery to me :P.

pdonis 4y ago

> It isn't the neighbors job to be mentally functional. I'm not sure I agree. One of the requirements for an adult citizen in a civil society is to be reasonable in your dealings with neighbors. > It is, however, the police's, DA, and CPS's job. "Mentally functional" does not necessarily mean "giving citizens a break". The criminal law that the mom was charged with is a law, it's on the books, and law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law. They do have a certain amount of discretion, but the incentives they are facing, particularly in a community which is strongly in favor of "law and order" (which I suspect the one in question is), are against their exercising discretion in favor of a citizen. And putting the "sex trafficking" thing into the mix just makes it worse. The only real way to fix this is to remove things like this from the discretion of law enforcement by not having a law like this in the first place. (Unfortunately, it appears that when the law was revised to allow kids more independence, they only revised the family law code, not the criminal code. They should have revised both. So I would say the ultimate fault here is the legislature, for being incompetent when making law.)

bengy5959 4y ago
Should someone get a ticket for going 66 mph in a 65 zone? I don't really think officer discretion is avoidable to a certain degree. Laws can never be written perfectly. There are always going to be ridiculous edge cases like this where a reasonable person would know the law shouldn't be applied. This is why so much legal precedent is based on what a reasonable person would do or what a reasonable person would assume given a certain situation. I do agree that the neighbor should not be let off on this, nor am I trying to excuse their behavior. But there are always going to be Karens that call the cops for no reason and the system has to be able to deal with that.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Should someone get a ticket for going 66 mph in a 65 zone? Speed limit laws should not even exist in the first place. They are a paradigmatic example of laws that are unreasonable and should not exist. The fact that it is impossible to enforce them as written, or even with light-years of as written, is one reason for that. > I don't really think officer discretion is avoidable to a certain degree. To a certain degree, yes. But it should be limited. In the system we have now, it's not; the scope of laws on the books is huge, to the point that all of us are probably technically violating multiple laws every day, and we are all relying on a huge amount of discretion on the part of law enforcement to allow us to go about our business without continually being interrupted. That's not good. > there are always going to be Karens that call the cops for no reason and the system has to be able to deal with that. Yes, and the way to deal with it is to have the law be reasonable. It is not to have lots of unreasonable laws on the books and then hope that law enforcement exercises discretion in practically all cases, only actually prosecuting the "really serious" ones. It's to not have unreasonable laws on the books at all, so when a Karen calls the cops for no reason, the cops can just say "Ma'am, that's not against the law, nothing for us to do."