Mom Orders daughters out of car and drives off.

[KittenKoder]

Facts are, a child is in more danger at home than anywhere due to the fact that the more likely offenders are well known family members. The chances of a child being targeted is lower than that of being struck by lightening. Children need to learn responsibility and the ability to think on their own in order to be able to live on their own. They cannot be denied their physical activities or they turn into blobs and tend to be unhealthy. Would you deny your child the chance in life to become a healthy adult just to avoid them being struck by lightening?

ROFL...

Well, there is a lot of truth in what you say Kitten... but the threat from family members comes only when the Family member which potentially threatens the kid feels safe in doing so; meaning that they've been lead to believe that such is acceptable; say, for instance that the family has an open 'lifestyle policy'... I assure you that such is not the case in the Infinitum family; lines are clearly drawn and such demarcations are of such a threshold that to cross one, requires one to KNOW TO A CERTAINTY that in doing so they've left the "Family" zone, where the consequences for such will be swift and devastating.

Secondly, I agree that it's unlikely that a given child will face abduction and possibly even at the odds of being sturck by lightening. But as noted above, BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTENING can quickly become a PROBABILITY... when one subjects themselves to circumstnces where Lightening all around you.

I've personally been struck by the inductive field of lightening 3 times...

There are reasons to not promote that which exposes one's culture to such strikes and you've just noted the best of them.

Perhaps we can agree that not advocating for sexual deviancy and 'alternative lifestyles' to be accepted as normal and/or equaitble with the norm will reduce the overll chances that such freaks will not be plotting a storm over the tree where one's children happen to be standing...

There are two big reasons people have the illusion of an increase in danger, part of it being that they pay too much attention to the media which has thrown perspective out of focus completely making them believe that danger lurks at every corner and that no one is willing to ever help. It has nothing to do with what adult do with their own, it's those who are for some reason capable of harming innocence (in the form of a child) that are dangerous, but there are very simple rules parents can teach their kids to cut their chances to almost zero without causing the damage done by "locking them up", as Penn equated it to.

Most of the problem is that children do not know how to recognize abuse when it happens to them, they don't realize that it's abuse since no one is teaching them. The real danger is the long term abuses by family members or close personal friends because of this, most predators are from such cases (though they never mention that in the media).

By teaching children how to protect themselves at a young age you are also offering them extremely useful skills for their adult lives as well. There was a controversy when a woman let her 10 (if I remember correctly) year old son take the subway home in NY. He wanted to try it and already new what to look out for. So she let him ... and *gasp* nothing happened! He got home safely and learned how to read the maps and such on his own. The media and outrage about it was horrendous, the child was very articulate in the articles for his age even, sharp as a whip. But for some reason people were upset about it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

o get over it....i tossed mine out of the car more than once...he was a hard learner....i might it was toss his ass out of the car or kill his ass inside the car....if child services would do their jobs and not harass parents who "spank" kids then maybe we wouldnt see starved kids who had seen social services..my son threatened me with calling them one time...i told him it would take them 20 minutes to get here and i would be stomping his ass into the ground that entire 20 minutes...then ss would take him and put him in foster care..and my ass wasnt a good enough parent to get him back...he starts crying and tells me they told him to say that in school....you know that damned teacher looked like no one had ever said fuck to her...i was at the school the next day...

ROFL... My youngest sister did that to my Mom once... She was about to get a switching and she yells that she's going to call Child Protective Services....

LOL.. Mom, in her heads up style didn't even miss a beat and told her, GOOD! We might as well give them something to talk about when they get here! Whereupon the switch began it's compliance inducing dance...

Mom was a Switch Ninja...

 

[Gunny]

I think the mom wasn't real smart about this.... too many things can happen to kids alone now...

when do you think government has the right to protect kids... before birth??

(sorry, ravi and strolling ... not directed at you, but my initial take on this is I do disagree with you on this one).

Your initial reaction is a kneejerk attempt to turn this into yet another abortion debate.

 

[Gunny]

3 miles from home in their own hometown?

And the police are involved why?

Let's see ...if the kids walked at a normal pace (say 3 miles an hour) they'd have made it home in sixty minutes.

She left them in the business district of WHITE PLAINS, for goodness sakes.

It wasn't like she dropped them off in Africa.

LIBERALS run the place. Hell if you raise your voice and someone complains you would be visited by Child protective services. Not to mention she is well to do and Obama has made it clear, the well to do are fair game for the Mob.

And the fact that I'm a liberal (according to your POV, at least) and think this issue is much ado about nothing doesn't in any way effect your beliefs about what liberalism and liberals are, does it?

I'd tell you that you were a walking cognitive dissonance, except you seem so comfortably holding wildly conflicting views like this.

Must be nice to live in a world of such absolutes.

Too many people on BOTH sides have completely lost the definition of liberalism. The true liberal mindset here is as long as those children are not in danger, it's nobody's business but the parents' and the children.

Wanting the state to stick its nose in every orifice at the slightest excuse is fascism, not liberalism.

As this board proves, the absolutes that do exist are usually some pretty deranged people.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Facts are, a child is in more danger at home than anywhere due to the fact that the more likely offenders are well known family members. The chances of a child being targeted is lower than that of being struck by lightening. Children need to learn responsibility and the ability to think on their own in order to be able to live on their own. They cannot be denied their physical activities or they turn into blobs and tend to be unhealthy. Would you deny your child the chance in life to become a healthy adult just to avoid them being struck by lightening?

ROFL...

Well, there is a lot of truth in what you say Kitten... but the threat from family members comes only when the Family member which potentially threatens the kid feels safe in doing so; meaning that they've been lead to believe that such is acceptable; say, for instance that the family has an open 'lifestyle policy'... I assure you that such is not the case in the Infinitum family; lines are clearly drawn and such demarcations are of such a threshold that to cross one, requires one to KNOW TO A CERTAINTY that in doing so they've left the "Family" zone, where the consequences for such will be swift and devastating.

Secondly, I agree that it's unlikely that a given child will face abduction and possibly even at the odds of being sturck by lightening. But as noted above, BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTENING can quickly become a PROBABILITY... when one subjects themselves to circumstnces where Lightening all around you.

I've personally been struck by the inductive field of lightening 3 times...

There are reasons to not promote that which exposes one's culture to such strikes and you've just noted the best of them.

Perhaps we can agree that not advocating for sexual deviancy and 'alternative lifestyles' to be accepted as normal and/or equaitble with the norm will reduce the overll chances that such freaks will not be plotting a storm over the tree where one's children happen to be standing...

There are two big reasons people have the illusion of an increase in danger, part of it being that they pay too much attention to the media which has thrown perspective out of focus completely making them believe that danger lurks at every corner and that no one is willing to ever help. It has nothing to do with what adult do with their own, it's those who are for some reason capable of harming innocence (in the form of a child) that are dangerous, but there are very simple rules parents can teach their kids to cut their chances to almost zero without causing the damage done by "locking them up", as Penn equated it to.

Most of the problem is that children do not know how to recognize abuse when it happens to them, they don't realize that it's abuse since no one is teaching them. The real danger is the long term abuses by family members or close personal friends because of this, most predators are from such cases (though they never mention that in the media).

By teaching children how to protect themselves at a young age you are also offering them extremely useful skills for their adult lives as well. There was a controversy when a woman let her 10 (if I remember correctly) year old son take the subway home in NY. He wanted to try it and already new what to look out for. So she let him ... and *gasp* nothing happened! He got home safely and learned how to read the maps and such on his own. The media and outrage about it was horrendous, the child was very articulate in the articles for his age even, sharp as a whip. But for some reason people were upset about it.

I completely agree... We taught our kids early on what sexual abuse was, long before they had any means to understand sex; 'private parts' etc... and yes, I believe that MOST predators were abused... I further believe that MOST homosexuality is a result of pre-adolescent imprinting of sexuality... and I agree that this is an issue which is NEVER 'discussed' in the media; and I further believe that this due to Political correctness, which would necessarily require that such a discussion would paint homosexuality in a negative light and well, we just can't have that...

We sent our 13 yer old son to Florida to vist the Grand parents, as a reward for a flawless report card. He flew unattended from Phoenix to FL... everything went perfect on the outgoing flight, but upon his return, there was the obligatory delays in Dallas, where his flight to Pheonix was cancelled... I spent many anxious hours on the phone withthe airline; who at one point was going to put him in a hotel room for the night... (YEAH! That's what I SAID!) but FINALLY, I found an actual human being who was also a parent and she put him on the next flight out; naturally he was bummed that he didn't get to spend the night in a hotel room by himself, but he eventually got over it...

 

[catzmeow]

Telling your kids to get out of the car and walk home is a far cry from abandonment.

At ages 10-12, it shows a serious lack of judgement on the part of the parent. Particularly at night. IT doesn't bother me that she dumped them out. It bothers me that she did not ensure that they got home safely. As stated above, she could have followed them. Instead, mom was comfortably esconced at home, apparently unconcerned that her 10-year-old still wasn't home, hours later.

 

[Gunny]

3 miles? hell thats nothing....it is just something about that age....they are amazing cruel and sardonic...and thats on a good day

As jillian stated and I alluded to previously, I think part of it's mindset. If I drop my kid 3 miles west of my house the biggest danger she's in is running into a skunk. She lives in NYC.

I think I would have a different mindset when I lived in San Diego than I do here, butif I lived where my paternal family does in New Market, AL, you can pretty much drop them off 10 miles from home.

 

[Gunny]

I think the mom wasn't real smart about this.... too many things can happen to kids alone now...

when do you think government has the right to protect kids... before birth??

(sorry, ravi and strolling ... not directed at you, but my initial take on this is I do disagree with you on this one).

I was, since third grade, allowed and able to walk anywhere my two feet could carry me. Often I'd miss the bus, walk a mile and a half from school to downtown and hang out there until my father got off of work and go home with him. I walked a mile daily morning and afternoon from the bus stop to my house, unchaperoned and unharmed.

When my kids turned eight I started dropping them off further and further from home so they could learn how to get home on their own two feet.

I think that things can happen to kids, but the likelihood is so small that not allowing them to be self-sufficient is a worse course of action.

I agree.

 

[Gunny]

I can see pulling over at the side of the road and smacking either child (my dad often did this when my brother and I came to blows in the back seat as kids), but leaving them IN THE EVENING, three miles from home? I don't think that is appropriate. At all.

The SoCal Treatment: pull into a dry wash, lock the hubs and start doing donuts. They will sure enough STFU all the way home.

 

[catzmeow]

And here, I know that even though we live in a relatively safe suburban area where I routinely forget to lock the doors at night, we also know we have a couple of sex offenders living in the area. My kids are allowed to walk to friends' houses to play on their own, but they need to be within earshot so they can make it home for dinner.

 

[jillian]

I think the mom wasn't real smart about this.... too many things can happen to kids alone now...

when do you think government has the right to protect kids... before birth??

(sorry, ravi and strolling ... not directed at you, but my initial take on this is I do disagree with you on this one).

Your initial reaction is a kneejerk attempt to turn this into yet another abortion debate.

no... it's noting that a lot of people who want no intervention after birth want it before... was just an observation.

nothing kneejerk.

my initial reaction was...

again in case you chose to miss it because you wanted to snipe onthe other issue... [quopte]the mom wasn't real smart about this.... too many things can happen to kids alone now... [/quote]

 

[Gunny]

3 miles? hell thats nothing....it is just something about that age....they are amazing cruel and sardonic...and thats on a good day

I tell the boy all the time that G-d makes them cute so we don't kill them.

It's great to be a grandma. I think boys are harder than girls on mom's through the tweeny stage.

Obviously spoken by someone not a male who was a single parent to a girl during the tweeny and teen stages.

 

[Gunny]

I think the mom wasn't real smart about this.... too many things can happen to kids alone now...

when do you think government has the right to protect kids... before birth??

(sorry, ravi and strolling ... not directed at you, but my initial take on this is I do disagree with you on this one).

Your initial reaction is a kneejerk attempt to turn this into yet another abortion debate.

no... it's noting that a lot of people who want no intervention after birth want it before... was just an observation.

nothing kneejerk.

my initial reaction was...

again in case you chose to miss it because you wanted to snipe onthe other issue... [quopte]the mom wasn't real smart about this.... too many things can happen to kids alone now...

[/QUOTE]

I would want intervention for a 5 years old as well, so your analogy doesn't wash.

And again, I think your mindset is based on where you live.

 

[catzmeow]

Obviously spoken by someone not a male who was a single parent to a girl during the tweeny and teen stages.

My daughter could show complete contempt and disdain for me with a single face muscle when she was 12. Goddamn that was a hard year.

15 is a piece of cake, in comparison.

 

[Ravi]

Telling your kids to get out of the car and walk home is a far cry from abandonment.

At ages 10-12, it shows a serious lack of judgement on the part of the parent. Particularly at night. IT doesn't bother me that she dumped them out. It bothers me that she did not ensure that they got home safely. As stated above, she could have followed them. Instead, mom was comfortably esconced at home, apparently unconcerned that her 10-year-old still wasn't home, hours later.

It did say evening, not night. And she dropped them off in the area of town where there are shops. After reading that she let the one daughter back in the car and left the other I have to say that was wrong...

btw, do you supposed Pubic has the same nervous twitch in real life that he has on the board...laughing before each statement?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Telling your kids to get out of the car and walk home is a far cry from abandonment.

At ages 10-12, it shows a serious lack of judgement on the part of the parent. Particularly at night. IT doesn't bother me that she dumped them out. It bothers me that she did not ensure that they got home safely. As stated above, she could have followed them. Instead, mom was comfortably esconced at home, apparently unconcerned that her 10-year-old still wasn't home, hours later.

It did say evening, not night. And she dropped them off in the area of town where there are shops. After reading that she let the one daughter back in the car and left the other I have to say that was wrong...

btw, do you supposed Pubic has the same nervous twitch in real life that he has on the board...laughing before each statement?

ROFL... When he is responding to something humorous he does... now whether or not that's a nervous twitch is hard to say; but I'd set the validity of that assessment upon the viability of those asserting it. And as a general rule, where a leftist is making the assertion, it's a rare day when validity can be found anywhere near such.

 

[strollingbones]

i think girls are worse at that age...boys are just stupid....girls are wickedly cruel and compete with mom....and of course i live in a safe area....it is nothing at night for my husband to drop me off a mile or so from the house and let me walk home....i do this at 2 and 3 am....i enjoy the night....

she made a bad choice not a criminal one

 

[KittenKoder]

i think girls are worse at that age...boys are just stupid....girls are wickedly cruel and compete with mom....and of course i live in a safe area....it is nothing at night for my husband to drop me off a mile or so from the house and let me walk home....i do this at 2 and 3 am....i enjoy the night....

she made a bad choice not a criminal one

Downtown Seattle, I walk late evenings and early mornings (12-2am more often) and there is nothing but the occasional cop, car, and homeless person. It's too quiet for me really. People are just paranoid these days, there isn't much to fear in reality. We get the occasional late night shooting or some bar violence on weekends, but I would trust letting a child walk home through my city as long as they knew not to stop for anyone they don't know, they'll be safer than waking during rush hour.

 

[Chris]

Always wanted to do that, but wisely knew it was not really an option till they were about 15 or 16.

Police say mom ordered daughters out, drove off

Bet they obey her in the future. Even with the arrest. Rich kids are not gonna like living in State Custody.

My ex wife did the same thing with a bratty kid that would not behave. It was great.

She made him walk home. I loved it!

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Always wanted to do that, but wisely knew it was not really an option till they were about 15 or 16.

Police say mom ordered daughters out, drove off

Bet they obey her in the future. Even with the arrest. Rich kids are not gonna like living in State Custody.

Did that with wife #1 once. Never needed to do it again.