7 ms·

As with lots of things: The details matter. Leaving a kid in a car shouldn't be an offense. Not returning ~soon~ might be and might be a reason to call the cops

As with lots of things: The details matter. Leaving a kid in a car shouldn't be an offense. Not returning ~soon~ might be and might be a reason to call the cops/force the car open. Parents can damage/kill their kids in uncountable ways. Most don't and really try to avoid that. Trying to watch over their shoulder isn't 'Good citizenship', it's crazy and a witch hunt. You start to be labeled as child abuser if your kid is crying like hell (toothing maybe, or really interested in strawberries that you don't like to hand out - but the people around you don't understand that, don't have the slightest bit of clue about the situation. More often than not, OTHER parents are worse than the rest). Give it a rest. The scenario you describe sounds terrible. But it's not relevant to the situation at hand. The person in the article describes that she checked the temperature, knew how long it'd take (even had a deadline on multiple levels, not only 'Today I do not want to choke my kid in the car' - she even planned to take a flight before the kid could have taken any damage. More seriously, a parent decided something for her kid. Something she does gazillion times a day. People might object to a number of her decisions and this particular one got her in trouble? Someone 'snitched'? Sad. The system failed. I understand: - someone was worried, called the cops - cops reacted (yay!) But: - before cops arrived, kid was gone and obviously safe with the parent - charges were pressed, just because? One word: Insane. I'm a father of two, both younger than the kid in the car. edit: One of the worst typos I made so far.

now 12y ago
It was worse than that. Someone wasn’t worried. Instead of acting, by, say, trying to talk to the kid in the car or perhaps just calling the cops, they “recorded the incident using a phone’s camera, and had then contacted the police”. Baffling. By the way, this is what I think of every time I hear someone use the phrase ”a good samaritan”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU
anigbrowl 12y ago
- before cops arrived, kid was gone and obviously safe with the parent The second half of your premise contains two completely unwarranted assumptions. How exactly were the police supposed to know the now-departed child was a) safe and b) with his parent? Recall that the Mom who wrote the piece was driving a vehicle that wasn't registered to her and so therefore didn't match the description on the registered owners' driving licenses. We know with hindsight that she had borrowed her parents' minivan for the trip, but the police would not have been justified in making that inference.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  The article appears to indicate that the person capturing video saw the lady leave and return. It is not clear if the video was rolling the entire time but certainly as the video-taker was giving the video to the police, they may have mentioned that the same person who left the car also returned. I don't see why the police would be more worried about an abduction in this situation than in any other "person with child" situation.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Because the person in the video doesn't match the description of the registered owner of the car as recorded on their driving license. Think about it.
    - IanDrake 12y ago
      I've thought long and hard about it... Still makes no difference. For it to make a difference you would have to leap to the conclusion that a woman stole the car, stole a kid (?), and then left the stolen car and the kid in the parking lot, which is now very conspicuous in the US (apparently). That could only make sense if you assumed average moms are child snatching car thieves. I'm told only 2 in 10 mom's snatch kids and only 1 in 10 of those steal cars. So there's only a 2% chance of that happening at once!
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        Considering the possibility isn't the same thing as leaping to the conclusion. It's not like the woman was pursued, arrested, and thrown in jail before she ever got near the airport. Rather, the police did the sensible thing and followed the matter up by checking with the owner of the vehicle that was seen in the parking lot. Are you saying that if there's only a 2% chance of something odd being a criminal incident, they should just blow it off?
        IanDrake 12y ago

now 12y ago

It was worse than that. Someone wasn’t worried. Instead of acting, by, say, trying to talk to the kid in the car or perhaps just calling the cops, they “recorded the incident using a phone’s camera, and had then contacted the police”. Baffling. By the way, this is what I think of every time I hear someone use the phrase ”a good samaritan”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU

anigbrowl 12y ago

- before cops arrived, kid was gone and obviously safe with the parent The second half of your premise contains two completely unwarranted assumptions. How exactly were the police supposed to know the now-departed child was a) safe and b) with his parent? Recall that the Mom who wrote the piece was driving a vehicle that wasn't registered to her and so therefore didn't match the description on the registered owners' driving licenses. We know with hindsight that she had borrowed her parents' minivan for the trip, but the police would not have been justified in making that inference.

jack-r-abbit 12y ago
The article appears to indicate that the person capturing video saw the lady leave and return. It is not clear if the video was rolling the entire time but certainly as the video-taker was giving the video to the police, they may have mentioned that the same person who left the car also returned. I don't see why the police would be more worried about an abduction in this situation than in any other "person with child" situation.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Because the person in the video doesn't match the description of the registered owner of the car as recorded on their driving license. Think about it.
  - IanDrake 12y ago
    I've thought long and hard about it... Still makes no difference. For it to make a difference you would have to leap to the conclusion that a woman stole the car, stole a kid (?), and then left the stolen car and the kid in the parking lot, which is now very conspicuous in the US (apparently). That could only make sense if you assumed average moms are child snatching car thieves. I'm told only 2 in 10 mom's snatch kids and only 1 in 10 of those steal cars. So there's only a 2% chance of that happening at once!
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Considering the possibility isn't the same thing as leaping to the conclusion. It's not like the woman was pursued, arrested, and thrown in jail before she ever got near the airport. Rather, the police did the sensible thing and followed the matter up by checking with the owner of the vehicle that was seen in the parking lot. Are you saying that if there's only a 2% chance of something odd being a criminal incident, they should just blow it off?
      - IanDrake 12y ago