22 ms·

This makes my blood boil. It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips. In general, centralization of power leads to unequal

This makes my blood boil. It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips. In general, centralization of power leads to unequal society. There should be quick and immediate recourse against police officers acting like this. No police officer should feel safe or beyond swift reproach when making comments like the ones in this article, yet there is absolutely no justice available for those affected. Even in a best-case scenario where charges are dropped a few days later, this is the psychological equivalent of a home invasion, and attempted kidnapping of their children. Dropping charges is not justice. Those officers should lose their jobs (but won't, because Killingly, like all of the 'Quiet Corner' is a complete boys club), and everyone involved in the decision tree should be heavily scrutinized. The town should issue a public apology. And whoever may or may not have called 911 should be publicly berated. This is unacceptable. This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. Police are out of control. No police officer in the country should feel comfortable making those threats. They are out of control

CoastalCoder 4y ago
> This makes my blood boil. It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips. Without talking to them, I'm not sure that's a fair conclusion. Regardless, IMHO the real culprit is vagueness / ambiguity in the applicable laws. Which means the legislators are at fault. And in a democracy, ultimately the voters.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Sorry, but no. Common sense is enough to realize that this is a ridiculous situation, no matter what the law says. You can't lay the acts of specific police officers at the door of legislators and voters. And if their concerns were real rather than just a pretext for a powertrip they'd keep an eye out instead of making it impossible for children to lead a normal life.
  - CoastalCoder 4y ago
    > You can't lay the acts of specific police officers at the door of legislators and voters. I'm not. In this situation, there were (at least) two necessary conditions for the arrest to happen: (1) The law was written in a way that led the police to believe a crime had occurred. (2) The police chose to perform the arrest. If either of those conditions weren't true, then I don't think this incident would have happened. It's entirely possible that the police exercised lousy judgment in this case. I'm simply reserving judgment until I hear their side of the story. I brought up (2) for several reasons. First, I think it's BS to create politically sticky situations for police, and then skapegoat them things turn out badly. (Imagine the news coverage if they didn't arrest the parents in a situation like this, and then the kids were abducted.) Second, I don't see how, in a democratic form of government, citizens can avoid responsibility for the state of their laws. If the laws are outside their control, it's not a democracy.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Again. No. Police officers have their own brains and make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis, not every weird interpretation of a law needs to lead to an arrest. 'Imagine' is a nice pre-amble to a strawman: that didn't happen. What did happen is ridiculous, and regardless of the citizens having a very indirect say in the laws that get made to make them first cause rather than the police officers (and their immediate superiors) is - frankly - ridiculous. I really wonder why you would bend over backwards to find excuses for something like this, it doesn't pass the beginnings of a common sense test. Having your parents arrested because you're walking on the streets as a child makes zero sense, no matter what the law says and no police officer with half a brain should make that arrest. Arrests are for criminals, worst case if they really wanted to test the law they could have simply cited the parents and then they'd have their day in court, this is simply a power play of the very worst kind. Oh, and it is 'scapegoat'.
    - jjk166 4y ago
      > (1) The law was written in a way that led the police to believe a crime had occurred. The fact that charges were never brought means that the law very likely wasn't written in a way that a reasonable person would believe a crime had occurred. Certainly the DA's office did not believe a crime worth indicting had occurred.
- thebooktocome 4y ago
  Police still have very broad discretion in what laws they enforce.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Bullshit. Police in america are able to exercise discretion, which means they could (and should) have laughed at the order to arrest these parents and not carried it out, or at least just went and talked to them instead. They decided to arrest them instead, in all likelihood because it makes them feel powerful. How can you seriously think this is anyone’s fault but the cops? Blaming politicians is one thing and they absolutely are to blame for a lot of our policing problems, but blaming “voters” for cops being assholes is just ridiculous.
  - DrThunder 4y ago
    It's not an either or bud, it's both. IF you are allowing laws in place that these police officers are able to use as justification then your government is just as at fault as the officers. It's pure idiocy not to blame both. Where do you think the officers get their power from? It's like you're failing to reach the logical conclusion and blunting your own thought process because you hate cops. Cops AND the government giving them the power to do stuff like this are both to blame.
    - colpabar 4y ago
      I’m not your bud, guy.
      - DrThunder 4y ago
        Oh ok, that upset you but yelling bullshit in your comments with no objective data to back your statements up is fine? You need to chill. Maybe use your anger vote in someone who doesn't allow your police officers to act this way?
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      The laws don't actually have to exist. Cops can arrest you if they just say they thought it was the law and that the believed they had the right to enforce it. They can totally make it up. So while you may not be convicted of violating a made up law you still have to deal with all the consequences of the arrest. No ramifications for the cops at all. They have virtually unlimited power.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kelipso 4y ago
  Saying vote better is the I will pray that things get better of our times.
  - CoastalCoder 4y ago
    > Saying vote better is the I will pray that things get better of our times. Please see my other comments about there being two necessary conditions for this arrest to have occurred.
- spamizbad 4y ago
  You’re getting downvoted but what you’re saying is kinda true. What typically spurned these laws was an actual tragedy: a parent had their child run to the store to buy something, child was abducted, family was devastated, and then worked to pass some law that makes it illegal for children under a certain age to be unaccompanied by an adult. Well-meaning but ultimately way too restrictive: what happened to their child was a freak tragedy, not a common occurrence. Personally, as a parent, I hate these laws. I want my son to be able to explore the neighborhood, have fun, do outside chores etc without myself or my wife monitoring him. Imo forcing parents to be glued to their kids 24/7 makes life more stressful for everyone.
  - avisser 4y ago
    Bad laws notwithstanding, I think GP getting downvoted for giving police the benefit of the doubt. In today's America, I think it's fair to be a skeptic first when it comes to the cops.
    - CoastalCoder 4y ago
      > I think GP getting downvoted for giving police the benefit of the doubt. FWIW, I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply withholding judgment, which (hopefully) is more neutral.
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      Skeptic yes, but OP passed hard judgement. If OP would have speculated or suggested a possible cause, that would be healthy skepticism. OP is dripping with bias and preconceived notion.
  - epistemer 4y ago
    There is no going back though. No politician is going to risk repealing this type of law and then have their career destroyed when a single crime happens against a kid that this law would have "prevented". People bashing the cops for this is bullshit too. The cops are the bad guys either way. They enforce the law and they are the bad guys. Something happens to a kid with this law in place and then they are also the bad guy for not doing their job. The solution to all this is simply to not have children. It is just another of the near daily reminders of how great it is to be child free.
- ShrimpHawk 4y ago
  The police (executive branch) are the ones who decide what and how to enforce as evidence by the fact they dropped the charges. We live in a very vague world and have to use our own judgement on things as laws cannot contain the full context necessary to make those judgements. Do you truly expect an elected official from a city across the state or across the country to understand the relationship between you and your neighbors or the structure of your town? If there is truly so much crime that it is unsafe for children to walk to a store unsupervised than that points more at a failing of the police but we know that police do not prevent crime[1]. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when...
  - CoastalCoder 4y ago
    > The police (executive branch) are the ones who decide what and how to enforce as evidence by the fact they dropped the charges. We live in a very vague world and have to use our own judgement on things as laws cannot contain the full context necessary to make those judgements. I have two counterpoints. 1) We haven't heard the police officer's side of things. All we're going on is one news story, which didn't even interview them. So we simply have no idea what additional factors they may have considered. I think it's irresponsible to pass judgment on them until getting more info. 2) I agree that laws need to be written with some discretion left to the judiciary. However, there's been enough media coverage on this general topic over the years, that Connecticut voters have had a chance to refine the laws. E.g., to modify the laws to clarify that kids are permitted to roam free in public places. But they didn't.
  - landemva 4y ago
    > they [police] dropped the charges. Are you sure the police dropped the charges? Usually criminal charges are brought by a prosecuting attorney, not police.
John23832 4y ago
Most of our cops a no longer people who want to protect their communities. They're losers who like the feeling of power. The ability to impose their will on others is a rush.
- Eupraxias 4y ago
  I love the idea that things were different once...
  - semi-extrinsic 4y ago
    They are different even today in first world countries. Where I live, becoming a police officer is a three year education (equivalent to a bachelor's degree) and it's not easy to get accepted to the programme. Training on what the law actually says, de-escalation, handling mentally ill people etc. is an important part of this. As a consequence, most cops are good human beings who care about their community.
    - Eupraxias 4y ago
      This is also my personal experience, including a good friend of mine who opted for policing for these reasons after completing a degree in philosophy. He has been a beloved small town cop for many years.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Being a cop in the US has become vastly less dangerous which changed the dynamics around who becomes cops.
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      This would suggest that trend is reversing: https://nleomf.org/memorial/facts-figures/officer-fatality-data/officer-deaths-by-year/ https://nleomf.org/memorial/facts-figures/officer-fatality-d...
      - deleted 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sitkack 4y ago
> Eastern bloc level authoritarianism That is uncalled for, I know a ton of people that grew up in Warsaw Pact countries and they could in fact walk to Babushka's Dumpling Shop and back without getting their parents arrested. I'd recommend people skip the article and go directly the advocacy site it links to and affect change locally. The event happened in 2019, involves the typical dumb ACAB trope and then is swept away. They most likely dropped charges because it was an unlawful arrest and the parents could have sued and most likely won. When the DA found out they most likely shut the whole thing down. https://letgrow.org/resources/state-policy-maps/ https://letgrow.org/resources/state-policy-maps/
- roywiggins 4y ago
  Not obvious to me that they could have sued and won, people sue for much worse things and lose under "qualified immunity." The bar is very high.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  You’re leaving out the part where the police got COS involved who then harassed the family for months. As others have mentioned, they’d have no ability to sue for the actions of the officers unless there was existing case law about almost the exact situation. Qualified immunity protects officers who do stupid shit like this.
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    Qualified immunity does not protect officers, it protects municipalities. Indemnification protects officers, but no one ever talks about it.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Sure I'm glossing over that, but for practical purposes you have no redress because the officers were acting in their official capacity.
      - 4y ago
mikrl 4y ago
>This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. Police are out of control Outside of the Polish martial law I don’t think my family ever risked arrest for walking to a cake shop as kids. Cannot comment on the USSR, but I highly doubt the authorities did that kind of thing either outside of, perhaps, the holodomor.
- COGlory 4y ago
  I was more drawing analogy between how above reproach authority was (or at least how it was portrayed to me) than about whether or not children could freely explore.
mindslight 4y ago
It's even worse when you think about just how many Dunkin' Donuts there are. It's likely the kids didn't even have to cross a major intersection. I wholeheartedly agree that the fundamental issue is the complete lack of judicial accountability. These people are getting paid a salary while they harass you, clock out at 5, and their morning routine is to get right back at it. Meanwhile your entire life is personally disrupted due to their power trip and/or malicious mistake, and the best case you can hope for is to be able to walk away? Whether or not these officers' actions were in line with official department policy, there should be automatic compensation to the victims for their arrest and imprisonment, emotional distress, hiring attorneys and other expenses incurred. And if these officers' actions were not in line with written department policy, then they need to be treated as private citizens harassing people under the color of law, and be held personally criminally liable for the false imprisonment, etc.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > And if these officers' actions were not in line with written department policy, then they need to be treated as private citizens harassing people under the color of law, and be held personally criminally liable for the false imprisonment, etc. Have to get rid of qualified immunity first, which we invented (in a total coincidence) at the same time cops really wanted to be thumping civil rights protesters without consequencews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray
  - mindslight 4y ago
    I agree that qualified immunity is a harmful and bogus precedent that needs to be eliminated. But my point is that if they are acting outside written department policy, then they're no longer acting as an agent of the state in the first place. Like when a cop beats their spouse, they can't claim qualified immunity as if it were part of their policing duties. The same standard should apply during daylight hours when they depart from the mandate of their employment.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
ajross 4y ago
> This makes my blood boil. It's supposed to. This is Reason's schtick, publishing click magnets about terrible overreach by our evil Big Government Overlords, and you need to give this publication a ton of salt if you read it. Like start out by noticing that this isn't journalism. It's written by Lenore Skenazy "president of Let Grow, a nonprofit promoting childhood independence and resilience, and founder of the Free-Range Kids movement." Quite literally this is an evangelism and fundraising piece by a charity that benefits from exactly the outrage it's trying to drive. If the guy was arrested, where's a link to the records? Where are the statements from police? This apparently happened four years ago. Where's the contemporary coverage? Why does a Google search for "Killingly CT parent arrested 2019" return a bunch of SEO cross links to the same story by the same person? I'm not saying this is wrong. I'm saying we need to be a little more careful with what we get upset about.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Oh please. They publish a lot of journalism and have been covering police abuse for decades including work by Radley Balko back in 2017 when no one cared. Senior editor Jacob Sullum has won awards for his journalism on drug policy. Elizabeth Nolan Brown does great investigative work around sex workers. It isn’t a click bait farm, even if YOU disagree with their politics.
  - ajross 4y ago
    That may all be true, but it remains the case that every time I see a Reason link being thrown around it's one of these kinda suspect things. You know this is a junk piece. They ran it anyway. Again: how much work does it take to assign a journalist and call the police department to verify the arrest records?
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      I can't really speak to this article, and as they've changed the family's name(s) for privacy reasons it's hard to fact check, but other stuff published by Lenore Skenazy about similar cases seems more readily verifiable. That said I don't really pay much attention to this type of story so I'm not well versed on the issue or who is credible in reporting on it. But for issues I do follow, I usually find their reporting to be excellent.
u801e 4y ago
> And whoever may or may not have called 911 should be publicly berated. They could file a FOIA for 911 call recordings during that timeframe. It's likely no calls were made.
DrThunder 4y ago
If this is a law in the area the police officers enforcing it aren't the main problem. They're a secondary issue stemming from government overreach.
- bentcorner 4y ago
  Whether there is a law or not doesn't matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina
  - DrThunder 4y ago
    Did you even read that case? Are you under the impression a traffic stop is equal to being arrested? The guy was convicted of COCAINE TRAFFICKING and arrested for that. Which means there's a law in place for COCAINE TRAFFICKING. I feel like you just googled that and pasted what the search result. Even if your assumption was true it's still the fault of legislators that have allowed the executive branch that much leeway to act outside of the written law. You ought to study the 3 branches of government.
confidantlake 4y ago
My parents are from an eastern block country. This never happened.
- MSFT_Edging 4y ago
  Its like that classic tweet that went something like American's seeing something happen that's uniquely American: "What are we, a bunch of Asians??" It's amazing how effective propaganda can be.
- COGlory 4y ago
  Again, to clarify, I was not saying children in Eastern bloc countries were arrested for exploring. I was saying that authority was (at least viewed as by Western countries) beyond reproach. The infuriating thing isn't that the police made mistakes or were jerks. It's that the family can do nothing to achieve justice against the state/the state has no consequences.
  - confidantlake 4y ago
    For sure I understand, I was not trying to say you were wrong. My point was in some ways our system is worse than what we consider dystopian authoritarian systems.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism OTOH, you could argue the opposite. It made the news (even if the source in this case is especially biased, I will assume good faith). In a country the size of the US, some amount of official misbehavior is going to happen with some regularity, it's just a numbers game. I'll worry more when we stop hearing about it.
nosianu 4y ago
> This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. I know several other people already commented, but still I want to add my own view because this pains me. I grew up in the 1970s/80s in an area of two 35 thousand people towns (plus lots and lots of smaller towns and villages - rural but it's still all densely populated). We had all the freedoms to go anywhere except doing school hours - as long as we didn't drive (pretty far) to the German-German border area. Which I would not even have been able to point out the direction. I was in the forests and out alone ALL THE TIME, and so was everybody else. I also was a "key child", this too was very common, I had a house key and was left alone in our house all afternoon, and again, that was common. Independence, education, sports - the East did not want to raise feeble people. Daily life was NOT some dystopian thing. Youth life was full of biking around in the afternoons, visiting friends all over the place or into the fields and woods, weekend parties, and we were mostly left alone, by parents too. When I visited the US for two months, driving around in an old car I had bought (~20 - rental car was too expensive for that long, surcharge for being young too) - and sleeping in it most of the time. My impression afterwards was that the US was quite the police state. Sleeping in the care alone, never mind driving in an old car near the Mexican border once, got me lots of friendly meetings with ne police friends... never had any problems and it was all friendly, with my German passport and my story of driving from New York to Alaska to San Diego to Key West to Washington D.C. and lots of loops for scenery and NPs on the way, but I don't think I had a SINGLE encounter with East German police in all my life. Okay once, visiting the East Berlin airport, when I was with a friend who looked "non-standard", they only checked his ID and nothing from me. And when I saw "Employee of the Month" parking at the very first McDonals I drove by in my new (old) car I could not stop laughing. THIS was sooooo East German! And we even had jokes about it, assuming such a thing would never exist in the West! And here I was in the capitalist mother country and saw a key component of "socialist" worker life.
- jmnicolas 4y ago
  I don't think OP referred to authoritarianism about children, but authoritarianism in general. If you had tried to get over the wall you'd been shot and your family questioned. And they probably would have been suspects for the rest of their life. I'm pretty sure you can find happy kids in North Korea too, it doesn't mean they're not living in an authoritarian society.
hosh 4y ago
This is not necessarily a power trip. There are people who genuinely feel that way, and are doing this for the public good. I think there has been a confusion in our society between well-being and safety. There are definitely circumstances where one is unsafe, but this is for their well-being (letting the teenager drive by themselves for an errand), and there are circumstances where one is safe, but someone’s well-being is degrading (helicopter parenting).
- dahart 4y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean? I not certain, but I don’t think any U.S. police are legally allowed to demand well-being without a safety concern. What laws require well-being, and justify police threats? Why do you think they might not have been doing this capriciously in this specific case? The department admitted the stop was over-reach, even before the parents found out the officers had called child proctective services on the parents over walking outside. Is that demonstrating a reasonable concern for well-being? I surely want to have the right to let my kids walk around outside, and I believe that there is no U.S. law that limit this right, nor should there be one.
  - hosh 4y ago
    I don’t think people can define legal standards for “well-being” distinct from “safety”. And yet, this is where things are headed: https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/60624/young-adults-are-struggling-with-their-mental-health-is-more-childhood-independence-the-answer https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/60624/young-adults-are-strugg... Beyond whether parents have a right to do this or not, is whether or not children can grow into resilient, confident, independently-thinking citizens. And what we have is a whole generation ill-adapted to the uncertainty of life, much less becoming the leaders, voters, and parents tomorrow when we’re no longer there.
    - dahart 4y ago
      > I don’t think people can define legal standards for “well-being” distinct from “safety Maybe I don’t understand the distinction you made then. If you can’t distinguish them legally, then what is the difference you’re talking about? Are you saying that well-being is safety, and police can and should be able to arrest people & parents for failing to be well?
indymike 4y ago
> Dropping charges is not justice. Agreed. This is one where qualified immunity needs to go. This is a rights violation all the way... against the kids civil rights and against the parents. Also, I'd love to listen to the 911 calls.
- user3939382 4y ago
  It's not justice at all, the parents now have an arrest record. Hopefully they never have to fill out an application that asks about that (e.g. pistol license).
  - noisy_boy 4y ago
    Can't they atleast push for expunging of the records? No charges were pressed; if the state wants to dispute that, they are opening the gate for a lawsuit.
    - user3939382 4y ago
      Pistol license applications explicitly state that you have to include expunged records. Also, what expunged actually means (or if it's available at all) depends on the state. If you wanted to work for the government, get certain clearances, etc it would also come up on background checks. So it's totally unfair that innocent people like this have it attached to their name.
  - indymike 4y ago
    A) The arrest should have never, ever happened. There needs to be a line where police know they are not allowed to cross. This I'm immune from everything because I'm an agent of the government needs to go now. B) The arrest record needs to go away forever C) Arrest records should never be used by government to deny rights or services, only conviction records.
pjc50 4y ago
> It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips I thought this was going to be about various killings by cops, but it turns out to be a place name. Anyway, this is the hugely attenuated white version of what confrontational policing gives America. I suspect if you went looking for anecdotes involving black children you might find far worse outcomes. Nobody in this story spent even a whole night in jail! Nobody was injured! Nobody had to pay bail fees! No property damage by police! They didn't even shoot the dog.
- COGlory 4y ago
  >Anyway, this is the hugely attenuated white version of what confrontational policing gives America. I mean, I'm not a huge fan of that stuff either, but I lived in Killingly for a number of years, so perhaps this one caught my attention for that reason?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
droopyEyelids 4y ago
> In general, centralization of power leads to unequal society. Your axe grinding doesnt make sense here. Police powers are one of the most federated types of power in the country! And these sound like they were the smallest unit of police, town police. In fact, its difficult to imagine the more centralized police causing this type of trouble. Can you imagine a state trooper wasting time with this? Or the FBI investigating a child walking alone?
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  France has "federalized" police in most of the country and they don't have this problem. I'm with you, that doesn't seem to be the causal factor. I don't have great insight into police, but I've had a little into a few county governments and school districts, and the impression I've gotten is the opposite: the more local interested are insulated from state or federal oversight (de facto, if not de jure) the more wildly-corrupt and tyrannical they get.
epolanski 4y ago
> This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. Nah, my family is from eastern Europe and the stuff that happens in US was never seen here, ever.
furyg3 4y ago
> No police officer in the country should feel comfortable making those threats. They are out of control This is what gets me. Even if this town is as dangerous as these police claim that it is, I can think of a hundred other responses that are orders of magnitude more useful than the route they chose, if their priority is indeed the safety of the children. Follow the kids for a bit to make sure they're ok. "Hey kids, your parents know you're going to the store? ok!" "Hey parents, you gave your kids permission to walk to the store alone? ok!" "Hey just checking in, you know that there's this sex offender around the corner right? ok!" You can surveil the sex offenders. You can, you know, make your town safer (you are the police, right?). I doubt this town is that unsafe, however. Ironically the polarization, paranoia, untrusting nature, and general hysteria in the US are a vicious cycle that leads to actual danger and more polarization, paranoia, etc.
RGamma 4y ago
> In general, centralization of power leads to unequal society (*) (*) when not matched by appropriate safe guards.
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  If it's matched with safeguards that are themselves empowered, then it's not centralization of power.
3pac 4y ago
I think that centralization of power is a spurious correlation. It may be part of the equation, but there is more to it. Norway has a single national police organization which extends the local level. It is well-regarded by the citizens who are also big on free-range parenting. In Oslo you can find teenagers practicing skateboard on the steps of parliament during the day. On the other hand Americans might find certain means of protective services, for adults and for minors, overreaching. Also, didn't absolutely everybody in the US rally around James Comey, during his unjust firing?
dheera 4y ago
> It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips. Yep. TFA: "that there are registered sex offenders all over town that could take them" -- Police should be arresting the shit out of those criminals, not innocent people. Congratulations, police, by arresting innocent parents you just traumatized some kids, and if they become criminals because they grew up in foster care missing their actually good parents, you have blood on your hands. (I know they dropped charges, but in the shitty slow legal system we have, it's a real possibility this could have played out differently.) Fix the town so innocent people can live sane lives in it.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  This is a very good point. Our society is more dangerous (giving them the premise, this might not be the case in actuality) because of their ineptitude and corruption. They asked us to disarm ourselves, they asked us to trust them, to give them the power to police our behavior, then we do and our societies become less safe. Then they use this as a justification to tell us how to raise our kids. If society is less safe it's their fault. So they either need to fix the problem or go get a job at McDonalds, either way leave me the fuck alone and don't tell me how to raise my kids.
luxuryballs 4y ago
They should hang in the public square on the very next Sunday, it’s the only thing that will truly change anything at this point. You might think this is extreme but I welcome you to come back in 5-10 years and read it again and see what you think.
_a_a_a_ 4y ago
Christ, calm down a bit. Stupid shit happens, but the article not about that - they stimulus'd and you response'd exactly as intended. Get some insight into them and yourself or you're going to be easily manipulable forever.
sasattack 4y ago
> This is unacceptable. This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. Nope it's just good old fashioned American police state activities. Once again people on this website love this subtle form of American Exceptionalism where they Pretend that America is not the most oppressive and destructive racist country in history. If you were a A person of color fighting for your rights, a Communist, or any other ideological enemy of the United States you would realize that this activity from the police is nothing more than a generalization of the official policies of police towards "undesirables" in the 20th century.
mikotodomo 4y ago
The police were just overreacting bro. They still had good intent and I applaud them for taking the initiative to combat rampant child sex trafficking that is almost never fought against these drays. From the judge's point of view, since a cop was feeding them info, of course the judge will side closer to the cop.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

> This makes my blood boil. It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips. Without talking to them, I'm not sure that's a fair conclusion. Regardless, IMHO the real culprit is vagueness / ambiguity in the applicable laws. Which means the legislators are at fault. And in a democracy, ultimately the voters.

jacquesm 4y ago
Sorry, but no. Common sense is enough to realize that this is a ridiculous situation, no matter what the law says. You can't lay the acts of specific police officers at the door of legislators and voters. And if their concerns were real rather than just a pretext for a powertrip they'd keep an eye out instead of making it impossible for children to lead a normal life.
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  > You can't lay the acts of specific police officers at the door of legislators and voters. I'm not. In this situation, there were (at least) two necessary conditions for the arrest to happen: (1) The law was written in a way that led the police to believe a crime had occurred. (2) The police chose to perform the arrest. If either of those conditions weren't true, then I don't think this incident would have happened. It's entirely possible that the police exercised lousy judgment in this case. I'm simply reserving judgment until I hear their side of the story. I brought up (2) for several reasons. First, I think it's BS to create politically sticky situations for police, and then skapegoat them things turn out badly. (Imagine the news coverage if they didn't arrest the parents in a situation like this, and then the kids were abducted.) Second, I don't see how, in a democratic form of government, citizens can avoid responsibility for the state of their laws. If the laws are outside their control, it's not a democracy.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Again. No. Police officers have their own brains and make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis, not every weird interpretation of a law needs to lead to an arrest. 'Imagine' is a nice pre-amble to a strawman: that didn't happen. What did happen is ridiculous, and regardless of the citizens having a very indirect say in the laws that get made to make them first cause rather than the police officers (and their immediate superiors) is - frankly - ridiculous. I really wonder why you would bend over backwards to find excuses for something like this, it doesn't pass the beginnings of a common sense test. Having your parents arrested because you're walking on the streets as a child makes zero sense, no matter what the law says and no police officer with half a brain should make that arrest. Arrests are for criminals, worst case if they really wanted to test the law they could have simply cited the parents and then they'd have their day in court, this is simply a power play of the very worst kind. Oh, and it is 'scapegoat'.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    > (1) The law was written in a way that led the police to believe a crime had occurred. The fact that charges were never brought means that the law very likely wasn't written in a way that a reasonable person would believe a crime had occurred. Certainly the DA's office did not believe a crime worth indicting had occurred.
thebooktocome 4y ago
Police still have very broad discretion in what laws they enforce.
colpabar 4y ago
Bullshit. Police in america are able to exercise discretion, which means they could (and should) have laughed at the order to arrest these parents and not carried it out, or at least just went and talked to them instead. They decided to arrest them instead, in all likelihood because it makes them feel powerful. How can you seriously think this is anyone’s fault but the cops? Blaming politicians is one thing and they absolutely are to blame for a lot of our policing problems, but blaming “voters” for cops being assholes is just ridiculous.
- DrThunder 4y ago
  It's not an either or bud, it's both. IF you are allowing laws in place that these police officers are able to use as justification then your government is just as at fault as the officers. It's pure idiocy not to blame both. Where do you think the officers get their power from? It's like you're failing to reach the logical conclusion and blunting your own thought process because you hate cops. Cops AND the government giving them the power to do stuff like this are both to blame.
  - colpabar 4y ago
    I’m not your bud, guy.
    - DrThunder 4y ago
      Oh ok, that upset you but yelling bullshit in your comments with no objective data to back your statements up is fine? You need to chill. Maybe use your anger vote in someone who doesn't allow your police officers to act this way?
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    The laws don't actually have to exist. Cops can arrest you if they just say they thought it was the law and that the believed they had the right to enforce it. They can totally make it up. So while you may not be convicted of violating a made up law you still have to deal with all the consequences of the arrest. No ramifications for the cops at all. They have virtually unlimited power.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kelipso 4y ago
Saying vote better is the I will pray that things get better of our times.
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  > Saying vote better is the I will pray that things get better of our times. Please see my other comments about there being two necessary conditions for this arrest to have occurred.
spamizbad 4y ago
You’re getting downvoted but what you’re saying is kinda true. What typically spurned these laws was an actual tragedy: a parent had their child run to the store to buy something, child was abducted, family was devastated, and then worked to pass some law that makes it illegal for children under a certain age to be unaccompanied by an adult. Well-meaning but ultimately way too restrictive: what happened to their child was a freak tragedy, not a common occurrence. Personally, as a parent, I hate these laws. I want my son to be able to explore the neighborhood, have fun, do outside chores etc without myself or my wife monitoring him. Imo forcing parents to be glued to their kids 24/7 makes life more stressful for everyone.
- avisser 4y ago
  Bad laws notwithstanding, I think GP getting downvoted for giving police the benefit of the doubt. In today's America, I think it's fair to be a skeptic first when it comes to the cops.
  - CoastalCoder 4y ago
    > I think GP getting downvoted for giving police the benefit of the doubt. FWIW, I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply withholding judgment, which (hopefully) is more neutral.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    Skeptic yes, but OP passed hard judgement. If OP would have speculated or suggested a possible cause, that would be healthy skepticism. OP is dripping with bias and preconceived notion.
- epistemer 4y ago
  There is no going back though. No politician is going to risk repealing this type of law and then have their career destroyed when a single crime happens against a kid that this law would have "prevented". People bashing the cops for this is bullshit too. The cops are the bad guys either way. They enforce the law and they are the bad guys. Something happens to a kid with this law in place and then they are also the bad guy for not doing their job. The solution to all this is simply to not have children. It is just another of the near daily reminders of how great it is to be child free.
ShrimpHawk 4y ago
The police (executive branch) are the ones who decide what and how to enforce as evidence by the fact they dropped the charges. We live in a very vague world and have to use our own judgement on things as laws cannot contain the full context necessary to make those judgements. Do you truly expect an elected official from a city across the state or across the country to understand the relationship between you and your neighbors or the structure of your town? If there is truly so much crime that it is unsafe for children to walk to a store unsupervised than that points more at a failing of the police but we know that police do not prevent crime[1]. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when...
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  > The police (executive branch) are the ones who decide what and how to enforce as evidence by the fact they dropped the charges. We live in a very vague world and have to use our own judgement on things as laws cannot contain the full context necessary to make those judgements. I have two counterpoints. 1) We haven't heard the police officer's side of things. All we're going on is one news story, which didn't even interview them. So we simply have no idea what additional factors they may have considered. I think it's irresponsible to pass judgment on them until getting more info. 2) I agree that laws need to be written with some discretion left to the judiciary. However, there's been enough media coverage on this general topic over the years, that Connecticut voters have had a chance to refine the laws. E.g., to modify the laws to clarify that kids are permitted to roam free in public places. But they didn't.
- landemva 4y ago
  > they [police] dropped the charges. Are you sure the police dropped the charges? Usually criminal charges are brought by a prosecuting attorney, not police.

John23832 4y ago

Most of our cops a no longer people who want to protect their communities. They're losers who like the feeling of power. The ability to impose their will on others is a rush.

Eupraxias 4y ago
I love the idea that things were different once...
- semi-extrinsic 4y ago
  They are different even today in first world countries. Where I live, becoming a police officer is a three year education (equivalent to a bachelor's degree) and it's not easy to get accepted to the programme. Training on what the law actually says, de-escalation, handling mentally ill people etc. is an important part of this. As a consequence, most cops are good human beings who care about their community.
  - Eupraxias 4y ago
    This is also my personal experience, including a good friend of mine who opted for policing for these reasons after completing a degree in philosophy. He has been a beloved small town cop for many years.
- Retric 4y ago
  Being a cop in the US has become vastly less dangerous which changed the dynamics around who becomes cops.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    This would suggest that trend is reversing: https://nleomf.org/memorial/facts-figures/officer-fatality-data/officer-deaths-by-year/ https://nleomf.org/memorial/facts-figures/officer-fatality-d...
    - deleted 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sitkack 4y ago

> Eastern bloc level authoritarianism That is uncalled for, I know a ton of people that grew up in Warsaw Pact countries and they could in fact walk to Babushka's Dumpling Shop and back without getting their parents arrested. I'd recommend people skip the article and go directly the advocacy site it links to and affect change locally. The event happened in 2019, involves the typical dumb ACAB trope and then is swept away. They most likely dropped charges because it was an unlawful arrest and the parents could have sued and most likely won. When the DA found out they most likely shut the whole thing down. https://letgrow.org/resources/state-policy-maps/ https://letgrow.org/resources/state-policy-maps/

roywiggins 4y ago
Not obvious to me that they could have sued and won, people sue for much worse things and lose under "qualified immunity." The bar is very high.
ch4s3 4y ago
You’re leaving out the part where the police got COS involved who then harassed the family for months. As others have mentioned, they’d have no ability to sue for the actions of the officers unless there was existing case law about almost the exact situation. Qualified immunity protects officers who do stupid shit like this.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  Qualified immunity does not protect officers, it protects municipalities. Indemnification protects officers, but no one ever talks about it.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Sure I'm glossing over that, but for practical purposes you have no redress because the officers were acting in their official capacity.
    - 4y ago

mikrl 4y ago

>This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. Police are out of control Outside of the Polish martial law I don’t think my family ever risked arrest for walking to a cake shop as kids. Cannot comment on the USSR, but I highly doubt the authorities did that kind of thing either outside of, perhaps, the holodomor.

COGlory 4y ago
I was more drawing analogy between how above reproach authority was (or at least how it was portrayed to me) than about whether or not children could freely explore.

mindslight 4y ago

It's even worse when you think about just how many Dunkin' Donuts there are. It's likely the kids didn't even have to cross a major intersection. I wholeheartedly agree that the fundamental issue is the complete lack of judicial accountability. These people are getting paid a salary while they harass you, clock out at 5, and their morning routine is to get right back at it. Meanwhile your entire life is personally disrupted due to their power trip and/or malicious mistake, and the best case you can hope for is to be able to walk away? Whether or not these officers' actions were in line with official department policy, there should be automatic compensation to the victims for their arrest and imprisonment, emotional distress, hiring attorneys and other expenses incurred. And if these officers' actions were not in line with written department policy, then they need to be treated as private citizens harassing people under the color of law, and be held personally criminally liable for the false imprisonment, etc.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> And if these officers' actions were not in line with written department policy, then they need to be treated as private citizens harassing people under the color of law, and be held personally criminally liable for the false imprisonment, etc. Have to get rid of qualified immunity first, which we invented (in a total coincidence) at the same time cops really wanted to be thumping civil rights protesters without consequencews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray
- mindslight 4y ago
  I agree that qualified immunity is a harmful and bogus precedent that needs to be eliminated. But my point is that if they are acting outside written department policy, then they're no longer acting as an agent of the state in the first place. Like when a cop beats their spouse, they can't claim qualified immunity as if it were part of their policing duties. The same standard should apply during daylight hours when they depart from the mandate of their employment.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago

ajross 4y ago

> This makes my blood boil. It's supposed to. This is Reason's schtick, publishing click magnets about terrible overreach by our evil Big Government Overlords, and you need to give this publication a ton of salt if you read it. Like start out by noticing that this isn't journalism. It's written by Lenore Skenazy "president of Let Grow, a nonprofit promoting childhood independence and resilience, and founder of the Free-Range Kids movement." Quite literally this is an evangelism and fundraising piece by a charity that benefits from exactly the outrage it's trying to drive. If the guy was arrested, where's a link to the records? Where are the statements from police? This apparently happened four years ago. Where's the contemporary coverage? Why does a Google search for "Killingly CT parent arrested 2019" return a bunch of SEO cross links to the same story by the same person? I'm not saying this is wrong. I'm saying we need to be a little more careful with what we get upset about.

ch4s3 4y ago
Oh please. They publish a lot of journalism and have been covering police abuse for decades including work by Radley Balko back in 2017 when no one cared. Senior editor Jacob Sullum has won awards for his journalism on drug policy. Elizabeth Nolan Brown does great investigative work around sex workers. It isn’t a click bait farm, even if YOU disagree with their politics.
- ajross 4y ago
  That may all be true, but it remains the case that every time I see a Reason link being thrown around it's one of these kinda suspect things. You know this is a junk piece. They ran it anyway. Again: how much work does it take to assign a journalist and call the police department to verify the arrest records?
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I can't really speak to this article, and as they've changed the family's name(s) for privacy reasons it's hard to fact check, but other stuff published by Lenore Skenazy about similar cases seems more readily verifiable. That said I don't really pay much attention to this type of story so I'm not well versed on the issue or who is credible in reporting on it. But for issues I do follow, I usually find their reporting to be excellent.

u801e 4y ago

> And whoever may or may not have called 911 should be publicly berated. They could file a FOIA for 911 call recordings during that timeframe. It's likely no calls were made.

DrThunder 4y ago

If this is a law in the area the police officers enforcing it aren't the main problem. They're a secondary issue stemming from government overreach.

bentcorner 4y ago
Whether there is a law or not doesn't matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina
- DrThunder 4y ago
  Did you even read that case? Are you under the impression a traffic stop is equal to being arrested? The guy was convicted of COCAINE TRAFFICKING and arrested for that. Which means there's a law in place for COCAINE TRAFFICKING. I feel like you just googled that and pasted what the search result. Even if your assumption was true it's still the fault of legislators that have allowed the executive branch that much leeway to act outside of the written law. You ought to study the 3 branches of government.

confidantlake 4y ago

My parents are from an eastern block country. This never happened.

MSFT_Edging 4y ago
Its like that classic tweet that went something like American's seeing something happen that's uniquely American: "What are we, a bunch of Asians??" It's amazing how effective propaganda can be.
COGlory 4y ago
Again, to clarify, I was not saying children in Eastern bloc countries were arrested for exploring. I was saying that authority was (at least viewed as by Western countries) beyond reproach. The infuriating thing isn't that the police made mistakes or were jerks. It's that the family can do nothing to achieve justice against the state/the state has no consequences.
- confidantlake 4y ago
  For sure I understand, I was not trying to say you were wrong. My point was in some ways our system is worse than what we consider dystopian authoritarian systems.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism OTOH, you could argue the opposite. It made the news (even if the source in this case is especially biased, I will assume good faith). In a country the size of the US, some amount of official misbehavior is going to happen with some regularity, it's just a numbers game. I'll worry more when we stop hearing about it.

nosianu 4y ago

> This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. I know several other people already commented, but still I want to add my own view because this pains me. I grew up in the 1970s/80s in an area of two 35 thousand people towns (plus lots and lots of smaller towns and villages - rural but it's still all densely populated). We had all the freedoms to go anywhere except doing school hours - as long as we didn't drive (pretty far) to the German-German border area. Which I would not even have been able to point out the direction. I was in the forests and out alone ALL THE TIME, and so was everybody else. I also was a "key child", this too was very common, I had a house key and was left alone in our house all afternoon, and again, that was common. Independence, education, sports - the East did not want to raise feeble people. Daily life was NOT some dystopian thing. Youth life was full of biking around in the afternoons, visiting friends all over the place or into the fields and woods, weekend parties, and we were mostly left alone, by parents too. When I visited the US for two months, driving around in an old car I had bought (~20 - rental car was too expensive for that long, surcharge for being young too) - and sleeping in it most of the time. My impression afterwards was that the US was quite the police state. Sleeping in the care alone, never mind driving in an old car near the Mexican border once, got me lots of friendly meetings with ne police friends... never had any problems and it was all friendly, with my German passport and my story of driving from New York to Alaska to San Diego to Key West to Washington D.C. and lots of loops for scenery and NPs on the way, but I don't think I had a SINGLE encounter with East German police in all my life. Okay once, visiting the East Berlin airport, when I was with a friend who looked "non-standard", they only checked his ID and nothing from me. And when I saw "Employee of the Month" parking at the very first McDonals I drove by in my new (old) car I could not stop laughing. THIS was sooooo East German! And we even had jokes about it, assuming such a thing would never exist in the West! And here I was in the capitalist mother country and saw a key component of "socialist" worker life.

jmnicolas 4y ago
I don't think OP referred to authoritarianism about children, but authoritarianism in general. If you had tried to get over the wall you'd been shot and your family questioned. And they probably would have been suspects for the rest of their life. I'm pretty sure you can find happy kids in North Korea too, it doesn't mean they're not living in an authoritarian society.

hosh 4y ago

This is not necessarily a power trip. There are people who genuinely feel that way, and are doing this for the public good. I think there has been a confusion in our society between well-being and safety. There are definitely circumstances where one is unsafe, but this is for their well-being (letting the teenager drive by themselves for an errand), and there are circumstances where one is safe, but someone’s well-being is degrading (helicopter parenting).

dahart 4y ago
Can you elaborate on what you mean? I not certain, but I don’t think any U.S. police are legally allowed to demand well-being without a safety concern. What laws require well-being, and justify police threats? Why do you think they might not have been doing this capriciously in this specific case? The department admitted the stop was over-reach, even before the parents found out the officers had called child proctective services on the parents over walking outside. Is that demonstrating a reasonable concern for well-being? I surely want to have the right to let my kids walk around outside, and I believe that there is no U.S. law that limit this right, nor should there be one.
- hosh 4y ago
  I don’t think people can define legal standards for “well-being” distinct from “safety”. And yet, this is where things are headed: https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/60624/young-adults-are-struggling-with-their-mental-health-is-more-childhood-independence-the-answer https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/60624/young-adults-are-strugg... Beyond whether parents have a right to do this or not, is whether or not children can grow into resilient, confident, independently-thinking citizens. And what we have is a whole generation ill-adapted to the uncertainty of life, much less becoming the leaders, voters, and parents tomorrow when we’re no longer there.
  - dahart 4y ago
    > I don’t think people can define legal standards for “well-being” distinct from “safety Maybe I don’t understand the distinction you made then. If you can’t distinguish them legally, then what is the difference you’re talking about? Are you saying that well-being is safety, and police can and should be able to arrest people & parents for failing to be well?

indymike 4y ago

> Dropping charges is not justice. Agreed. This is one where qualified immunity needs to go. This is a rights violation all the way... against the kids civil rights and against the parents. Also, I'd love to listen to the 911 calls.

user3939382 4y ago
It's not justice at all, the parents now have an arrest record. Hopefully they never have to fill out an application that asks about that (e.g. pistol license).
- noisy_boy 4y ago
  Can't they atleast push for expunging of the records? No charges were pressed; if the state wants to dispute that, they are opening the gate for a lawsuit.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    Pistol license applications explicitly state that you have to include expunged records. Also, what expunged actually means (or if it's available at all) depends on the state. If you wanted to work for the government, get certain clearances, etc it would also come up on background checks. So it's totally unfair that innocent people like this have it attached to their name.
- indymike 4y ago
  A) The arrest should have never, ever happened. There needs to be a line where police know they are not allowed to cross. This I'm immune from everything because I'm an agent of the government needs to go now. B) The arrest record needs to go away forever C) Arrest records should never be used by government to deny rights or services, only conviction records.

pjc50 4y ago

> It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips I thought this was going to be about various killings by cops, but it turns out to be a place name. Anyway, this is the hugely attenuated white version of what confrontational policing gives America. I suspect if you went looking for anecdotes involving black children you might find far worse outcomes. Nobody in this story spent even a whole night in jail! Nobody was injured! Nobody had to pay bail fees! No property damage by police! They didn't even shoot the dog.

COGlory 4y ago
>Anyway, this is the hugely attenuated white version of what confrontational policing gives America. I mean, I'm not a huge fan of that stuff either, but I lived in Killingly for a number of years, so perhaps this one caught my attention for that reason?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

droopyEyelids 4y ago

> In general, centralization of power leads to unequal society. Your axe grinding doesnt make sense here. Police powers are one of the most federated types of power in the country! And these sound like they were the smallest unit of police, town police. In fact, its difficult to imagine the more centralized police causing this type of trouble. Can you imagine a state trooper wasting time with this? Or the FBI investigating a child walking alone?

yamtaddle 4y ago
France has "federalized" police in most of the country and they don't have this problem. I'm with you, that doesn't seem to be the causal factor. I don't have great insight into police, but I've had a little into a few county governments and school districts, and the impression I've gotten is the opposite: the more local interested are insulated from state or federal oversight (de facto, if not de jure) the more wildly-corrupt and tyrannical they get.

epolanski 4y ago

> This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. Nah, my family is from eastern Europe and the stuff that happens in US was never seen here, ever.

furyg3 4y ago

> No police officer in the country should feel comfortable making those threats. They are out of control This is what gets me. Even if this town is as dangerous as these police claim that it is, I can think of a hundred other responses that are orders of magnitude more useful than the route they chose, if their priority is indeed the safety of the children. Follow the kids for a bit to make sure they're ok. "Hey kids, your parents know you're going to the store? ok!" "Hey parents, you gave your kids permission to walk to the store alone? ok!" "Hey just checking in, you know that there's this sex offender around the corner right? ok!" You can surveil the sex offenders. You can, you know, make your town safer (you are the police, right?). I doubt this town is that unsafe, however. Ironically the polarization, paranoia, untrusting nature, and general hysteria in the US are a vicious cycle that leads to actual danger and more polarization, paranoia, etc.

RGamma 4y ago

> In general, centralization of power leads to unequal society (*) (*) when not matched by appropriate safe guards.

WaxProlix 4y ago
If it's matched with safeguards that are themselves empowered, then it's not centralization of power.

3pac 4y ago

I think that centralization of power is a spurious correlation. It may be part of the equation, but there is more to it. Norway has a single national police organization which extends the local level. It is well-regarded by the citizens who are also big on free-range parenting. In Oslo you can find teenagers practicing skateboard on the steps of parliament during the day. On the other hand Americans might find certain means of protective services, for adults and for minors, overreaching. Also, didn't absolutely everybody in the US rally around James Comey, during his unjust firing?

dheera 4y ago

> It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips. Yep. TFA: "that there are registered sex offenders all over town that could take them" -- Police should be arresting the shit out of those criminals, not innocent people. Congratulations, police, by arresting innocent parents you just traumatized some kids, and if they become criminals because they grew up in foster care missing their actually good parents, you have blood on your hands. (I know they dropped charges, but in the shitty slow legal system we have, it's a real possibility this could have played out differently.) Fix the town so innocent people can live sane lives in it.

friend_and_foe 4y ago
This is a very good point. Our society is more dangerous (giving them the premise, this might not be the case in actuality) because of their ineptitude and corruption. They asked us to disarm ourselves, they asked us to trust them, to give them the power to police our behavior, then we do and our societies become less safe. Then they use this as a justification to tell us how to raise our kids. If society is less safe it's their fault. So they either need to fix the problem or go get a job at McDonalds, either way leave me the fuck alone and don't tell me how to raise my kids.

luxuryballs 4y ago

They should hang in the public square on the very next Sunday, it’s the only thing that will truly change anything at this point. You might think this is extreme but I welcome you to come back in 5-10 years and read it again and see what you think.

_a_a_a_ 4y ago

Christ, calm down a bit. Stupid shit happens, but the article not about that - they stimulus'd and you response'd exactly as intended. Get some insight into them and yourself or you're going to be easily manipulable forever.

sasattack 4y ago

> This is unacceptable. This is Eastern bloc level authoritarianism. Nope it's just good old fashioned American police state activities. Once again people on this website love this subtle form of American Exceptionalism where they Pretend that America is not the most oppressive and destructive racist country in history. If you were a A person of color fighting for your rights, a Communist, or any other ideological enemy of the United States you would realize that this activity from the police is nothing more than a generalization of the official policies of police towards "undesirables" in the 20th century.

mikotodomo 4y ago

The police were just overreacting bro. They still had good intent and I applaud them for taking the initiative to combat rampant child sex trafficking that is almost never fought against these drays. From the judge's point of view, since a cop was feeding them info, of course the judge will side closer to the cop.