6 ms·

I don't known if more laws and regulations are the answer here, or if it'd have undesirable secondary effects in certain situations where it really matters, but

I don't known if more laws and regulations are the answer here, or if it'd have undesirable secondary effects in certain situations where it really matters, but I feel like this behaviour as you describe it should itself be unlawful. You should not be permitted to deliberately harass people you don't know doing nothing wrong in this way, it's that simple. It's a question of individual liberty in the end. I'd hope the police would actually have a private word with them to this effect to be honest, when they do 'report' it. I assume not, but do you know if any ever have?

trogdor 4y ago
>You should not be permitted to deliberately harass people you don't know doing nothing wrong in this way I doubt that most people who call the police about kids playing outside are trying to harass anyone. I think they are just misguided.
- qball 4y ago
  Sufficiently advanced misguidance is indistinguishable from harassment.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
The process as I understand is that the police are compelled to follow up on the report whether or not it initially appears to have merit or not. The incentive understandably is that false positives are perceived to have less negative impact than false negatives[1]. The police serve as a firewall against all inquiries about reporters including asking if reporters could (for lack of better term) be "asked to behave like mature adults." The opacity of communication structure serves to fragment social cohesiveness rather than cultivate it. In a time where people yearn for community, having police block all communication between parties atomizes and alienates community members from each other even more. If I were to turn this into an opportunity to imagine a better future, it would be twofold. One, a non-emergency service should be capable of handling events of this sort[2]. I don't need the same people arresting gang members and murderers doing house calls re: your kid was climbing a tree in your front yard. Second, the persons reporting should be told something of the sort, "Thank you for your concern, your intentions were neighborly, but reporting kids for existing is not a valuable use of our time." Instead I'm stuck with weighing letting my kids be kids and the possibility of guys with guns showing up at my quiet suburban home, and having the talk that starts with, "We know everything's probably fine, but someone called us..." again. 1. I suppose the socially de-incentivizing parents letting kiddos play outside is hard to quantify and "not really much of a concern to police", probably for a different set of biases from their perspective. 2. It's easy to imagine something like CPS getting involved. Maybe I'm naive for asking folks to imagine that a service "not as bad as CPS" could possibly exist. Idk, I'm a parent, not a social services engineer.
- than3 4y ago
  The police are liable if they don't follow-up on the report, and reports are often tailored to be vague by the neighbor to ensure a confrontation with police. That said, its not up to the police to decide the law, its up to the judge or CPS, so going to the lowest common denominator, you'll have to explain it to the judge or assigned case worker. Most investigations are generally a guilty until proven innocent from what I've heard since the safety of the child is paramount. All they have to do is prove there was some negligence which is a very low bar.
  - qball 4y ago
    >The police are liable if they don't follow-up on the report Since when? The police have zero duty to protect anyone or otherwise enforce the law in any way; they already don't bother investigating a good chunk of smaller thefts and will just stand around while crowds torch buildings and shootings continue inside their perimeter. They have a lot of discretion; I suggest they exercise it. >All they have to do is prove there was some negligence which is a very low bar. Most people are agreeable enough that their first response isn't a life-and-death dash to the nearest lawyer. This is generally a mistake, but they really don't know better. >reports are often tailored to be vague by the neighbor to ensure a confrontation with police. "Swatting" and more indirect cases of vexatious litigation are criminal offenses for a reason (even if nobody gets hurt). Karen is guilty of violating these laws; it's time to get serious about enforcing them.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
      I think its time to start giving tickets for misuse of city resources (law enforcement). People should think twice about reporting stuff they should know better about reporting, and police should have a way to use their judgement to decide if what someone reported constitutes a valid complaint, grey area, or a busybody with nothing better to do than waste tax payers' time.
    - than3 4y ago
      > Since when? Its what the courts in many areas have generally ruled. If you make a report, and those reports are valid but ignored, they can be sued and the city or organization becomes liable because they were negligent. A judge decides damages which impact ongoing budgets. > Karen is guilty of violating these laws. Yes, but how difficult is it to prove intent. How often do defamation suits win? Will a prosecutor ever really go after someone that claims a plausible excuse? Don't they have more important things to devote their resources towards? What about the harms caused to the parents, and the children, very hard to quantify. A report is self-enforcing because the police have a duty of care to respond to reports. Litigation would only ever actually occur civilly, and outside of extreme circumstances that demonstrate clear bad faith its a grey area that goes unenforced and unpunished. So who in the end actually gets punished, and is that punishment coercive. The courts generally don't recognize it as such since the accused (the person reporting it) has good faith protection. Its very hard to prove they did it in bad faith. Litigation would only ever actually occur civilly, and outside of extreme circumstances that demonstrate clear bad faith its a grey area that goes unenforced and unpunished. So who in the end actually gets punished?
pengaru 4y ago
Cali is a nanny state. The government has set the example and now some of its constituents feel empowered to do the same because Save The Children.

trogdor 4y ago

>You should not be permitted to deliberately harass people you don't know doing nothing wrong in this way I doubt that most people who call the police about kids playing outside are trying to harass anyone. I think they are just misguided.

qball 4y ago
Sufficiently advanced misguidance is indistinguishable from harassment.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

The process as I understand is that the police are compelled to follow up on the report whether or not it initially appears to have merit or not. The incentive understandably is that false positives are perceived to have less negative impact than false negatives[1]. The police serve as a firewall against all inquiries about reporters including asking if reporters could (for lack of better term) be "asked to behave like mature adults." The opacity of communication structure serves to fragment social cohesiveness rather than cultivate it. In a time where people yearn for community, having police block all communication between parties atomizes and alienates community members from each other even more. If I were to turn this into an opportunity to imagine a better future, it would be twofold. One, a non-emergency service should be capable of handling events of this sort[2]. I don't need the same people arresting gang members and murderers doing house calls re: your kid was climbing a tree in your front yard. Second, the persons reporting should be told something of the sort, "Thank you for your concern, your intentions were neighborly, but reporting kids for existing is not a valuable use of our time." Instead I'm stuck with weighing letting my kids be kids and the possibility of guys with guns showing up at my quiet suburban home, and having the talk that starts with, "We know everything's probably fine, but someone called us..." again. 1. I suppose the socially de-incentivizing parents letting kiddos play outside is hard to quantify and "not really much of a concern to police", probably for a different set of biases from their perspective. 2. It's easy to imagine something like CPS getting involved. Maybe I'm naive for asking folks to imagine that a service "not as bad as CPS" could possibly exist. Idk, I'm a parent, not a social services engineer.

than3 4y ago
The police are liable if they don't follow-up on the report, and reports are often tailored to be vague by the neighbor to ensure a confrontation with police. That said, its not up to the police to decide the law, its up to the judge or CPS, so going to the lowest common denominator, you'll have to explain it to the judge or assigned case worker. Most investigations are generally a guilty until proven innocent from what I've heard since the safety of the child is paramount. All they have to do is prove there was some negligence which is a very low bar.
- qball 4y ago
  >The police are liable if they don't follow-up on the report Since when? The police have zero duty to protect anyone or otherwise enforce the law in any way; they already don't bother investigating a good chunk of smaller thefts and will just stand around while crowds torch buildings and shootings continue inside their perimeter. They have a lot of discretion; I suggest they exercise it. >All they have to do is prove there was some negligence which is a very low bar. Most people are agreeable enough that their first response isn't a life-and-death dash to the nearest lawyer. This is generally a mistake, but they really don't know better. >reports are often tailored to be vague by the neighbor to ensure a confrontation with police. "Swatting" and more indirect cases of vexatious litigation are criminal offenses for a reason (even if nobody gets hurt). Karen is guilty of violating these laws; it's time to get serious about enforcing them.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    I think its time to start giving tickets for misuse of city resources (law enforcement). People should think twice about reporting stuff they should know better about reporting, and police should have a way to use their judgement to decide if what someone reported constitutes a valid complaint, grey area, or a busybody with nothing better to do than waste tax payers' time.
  - than3 4y ago
    > Since when? Its what the courts in many areas have generally ruled. If you make a report, and those reports are valid but ignored, they can be sued and the city or organization becomes liable because they were negligent. A judge decides damages which impact ongoing budgets. > Karen is guilty of violating these laws. Yes, but how difficult is it to prove intent. How often do defamation suits win? Will a prosecutor ever really go after someone that claims a plausible excuse? Don't they have more important things to devote their resources towards? What about the harms caused to the parents, and the children, very hard to quantify. A report is self-enforcing because the police have a duty of care to respond to reports. Litigation would only ever actually occur civilly, and outside of extreme circumstances that demonstrate clear bad faith its a grey area that goes unenforced and unpunished. So who in the end actually gets punished, and is that punishment coercive. The courts generally don't recognize it as such since the accused (the person reporting it) has good faith protection. Its very hard to prove they did it in bad faith. Litigation would only ever actually occur civilly, and outside of extreme circumstances that demonstrate clear bad faith its a grey area that goes unenforced and unpunished. So who in the end actually gets punished?

pengaru 4y ago

Cali is a nanny state. The government has set the example and now some of its constituents feel empowered to do the same because Save The Children.