The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:27 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
http://fox6now.com/2014/07/29/mother-ar ... ark-alone/

Quote:
Port St. Lucie, FL (WPTV) — A mom faces a charge of child neglect after she allowed her son to go to a park alone. She says he’s old enough but Port St. Lucie Police disagree. Now she’s fighting back.

“I’m totally dumbfounded by this whole situation,” says Nicole Gainey.

It began last Saturday afternoon when Gainey gave her son Dominic permission to walk from their house to Sportsman’s Park .

“Honestly didn’t think I was doing anything wrong,” says Gainey, “I was letting him go play.

It’s a half mile from their Port St. Lucie home. Dominic says it only takes him about 10 to 15 minutes to get there. During the walk, the 7-year-old passed a public pool. Someone there asked him where his mom was.

“They asked me a couple questions and I got scared so I ran off to the park and they called the cops,” says Dominic Guerrisi.

Dominic was playing at the park when an officer pulled up.

“They said ‘where does your mom live,’ ” says Dominic.

Police took him home. That’s when his mom was arrested and charged with child neglect. Gainey says she was shocked.

“My own bondsman said my parents would have been in jail every day,” says Gainey who paid nearly $4,000 to bond out.

The officer wrote in the report that Dominic was unsupervised at the park and that “numerous sex offenders reside in the vicinity.”

“He just basically kept going over that there’s pedophiles and this and that and basically the park wasn’t safe and he shouldn’t be there alone,” says Gainey.

She believes Dominic is mature enough to go to the park alone during the day. Gainey adds her son always has a cell phone which she calls to check on him.

“That I’m here and safe,” says Dominic.

Gainey plans to fight the felony charge. But after this she won’t let Dominic go to the park alone. She’s afraid she’ll be arrested again.

The St. Lucie County State’s Attorney’s office says there is no law that specifies how old a child has to be before he or she can go somewhere unsupervised. It’s done on a case-by-case basis.


I know times are different, but the kicker for me is the highlighted section. Laws shouldn't be that vague.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
It's important to separate what SHOULD be versus the legality of it. I can't imagine letting my son go to a park unsupervised at 7. But, if it's not specifically outlawed, she shouldn't have been arrested.

Moreover, this situation should not result in an arrest regardless. Maybe a warning or something. Lighten up.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:19 am 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
A lot of states have laws that state that kids must be 10-12 before they can be left alone in a house.

While historically we've allowed children to take on greater responsibility at a far far younger age than we do in modern times, we also know now that kids through teens do not have the decision making capacity of an adult, because that portion of the brain is not fully developed.

We (as a population) are pretty blind to what was the norm in the past, but I think we also tend to use rose colored glasses when looking at those times too. Personally I like that we as a society protect our children more, and I don't think a 7 year old should be allowed unsupervised.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:38 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
It's true that the brain does not fully develop until the mid twenties. However as a society, our priority should be on preventing citizens under the age of thirty from voting rather than preventing children under the at of eighteen from playing without adult supervision.

In other words, if you want to apply the logic that we need to adjust our society to fit new data regarding human growth and development, apply it consistently and coherently. Human brain development does mean that, from a purely objective standpoint, your college activists are too immature and irresponsible to have a voice in public policy.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Last edited by Corolinth on Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:39 pm 
Offline
Mountain Man
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:15 pm
Posts: 3374
Yeah, 7 is too young for my tastes. I'm not ready to let my 4th grader walk to school alone yet (two long blocks), but I've seen other people's kids doing it at his age.

But then I think back, and realize that I was walking back and forth by 2nd grade (I know because I remember getting lost, and my Grandma came and found me a block away from the house). But that was in sleepy Wisconsin in the 60s, not five miles from Downtown LA today.

But, yeah, I don't think a cell phone is going to protect a 7-year old. That's another huge misconception people have about what's "safe" these days.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
On the flip side, a stranger approached him and he ran away. It's been discussed with him.

Coro, I hope you're joking. Remember, preventing citizens from voting is ignoring the concerns of those citizens. Whether they are mature or not, their opinions matter, as they are citizens. Moreover, to make that case, you'd have to convince me that immaturity is more harmful than stupidity, considering we allow stupid people to vote.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:39 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
On the flip side, a stranger approached him and he ran away. It's been discussed with him.

Coro, I hope you're joking. Remember, preventing citizens from voting is ignoring the concerns of those citizens. Whether they are mature or not, their opinions matter, as they are citizens. Moreover, to make that case, you'd have to convince me that immaturity is more harmful than stupidity, considering we allow stupid people to vote.
Or, you could read his whole post ...

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:54 pm 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
Some people's opinions don't matter. We don't let twelve year-olds vote, for instance.

The voting age used to be twenty-one years. We reduced it to eighteen because we decided that eighteen year-olds should be considered adults. New information has come to light that we were mistaken, and they are not actually fully developed adults until twenty-five. As such, they should be stripped of voting rights until such a time as heir brains are finished developing.

Or we everybody can shut their pie holes and accept that adulthood is a status granted in degrees throughout a person's life. Which means that, yes, a seven year-old can be left unsupervised.

The door swings both ways. It has other ramifications besides kids being too young to be unsupervised at eight.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:57 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
I'd be a fan of competency tests for suffrage. Basic comprehension and understanding should be necessary to vote.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:11 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Corolinth wrote:
Some people's opinions don't matter. We don't let twelve year-olds vote, for instance.

The voting age used to be twenty-one years. We reduced it to eighteen because we decided that eighteen year-olds should be considered adults. New information has come to light that we were mistaken, and they are not actually fully developed adults until twenty-five. As such, they should be stripped of voting rights until such a time as heir brains are finished developing.

Or we everybody can shut their pie holes and accept that adulthood is a status granted in degrees throughout a person's life. Which means that, yes, a seven year-old can be left unsupervised.

The door swings both ways. It has other ramifications besides kids being too young to be unsupervised at eight.


One of these ideas makes actual sense, and one of them is complete nonsense. The first could have been made as an effective point without the second.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:04 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Trying to remember what I did at seven. I know could go two or three houses down the street, ( with prior approval). I had to walk that far for the bus stop. I can't remember if I went all the way to Jim's (5-6) blocks or if I had to be driven. By 10-11 I had a bike and I could go anywhere our side of SR-12

Different times, small town though.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 452
7 is a bit too young for this in my book. That kind of responsibility makes sense to me around 8-10 years old. But I don't know this kid (maybe he's very mature for his age), or his mom, or what the neighborhood is like. There's a million factors here, so who am I to judge? It's certainly not an issue where the law needs to be involved.

But what really irks me is the fact that this kid didn't even do anything. I can see bringing these charges after the kid wandered out into traffic, or started damaging property, or did something stupid like that. But all he did was walk to the park and not bother anyone? WTF?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:09 pm
Posts: 733
The worst part of this is the lack of clear cut regulation and just a kind of "I'll know it when I see it" enforcement scheme.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:19 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Yeah it is.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:06 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
I am pretty certain I would not have been allowed to go to the park without an adult at 7, and that was over 30 years ago now. In fact, I seem to recall getting in trouble for doing exactly that, and I'm pretty sure I was 7 at the time.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 452
Timmit wrote:
The worst part of this is the lack of clear cut regulation and just a kind of "I'll know it when I see it" enforcement scheme.


I don't think that's a problem. Do you really want clear cut regulations about every little thing that could possibly be considered child neglect?

I'm guessing you don't think a 2 year old should be allowed to walk half a mile to the park on their own. So when we write this law about being out and about unsupervised, what age should it start at? We'll have one county where it's 5 year olds can't be out on their own. In the next one over it might be 6 year olds.

Then how far are they allowed to go? A 5 year old might be able to walk 100 feet to the neighbors. How about a few houses down? Are we going to have different distances for every age? Who's going to decide all this.

And this is all just for the issue of a child walking somewhere on their own. You want to encode all the other ways a child could be neglected, down to every little detail? At some point you just have to write a law making it illegal to neglect a child and let a judge/jury sort it out on a case by case basis. Occasionally there will be problems with the application of the law, like in this case, but there will always be cases like that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:20 am
Posts: 1037
Rorinthas wrote:
Laws shouldn't be that vague.


Completely agree. Pick an age, then enforce the law.

However... Sportsman's Park is on one of the busiest intersections in Port St. Lucie - it's not a little park hidden in the middle of a quiet neighborhood. Seven-year olds definitely have no business walking there alone.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:04 am 
Offline
Oberon's Playground
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:11 am
Posts: 9449
Location: Your Dreams
When I was five, I walked to school by myself.
I walked to the convenience store to get candy by myself. I played outside for long hours without needing mom or dad.

Today I wouldn't have thought of doing the same with my kids.

I've often wondered what's wrong with us that we've become so much more protective than we used to be. I think actually that we're in the wrong now...I suspect it was more beneficial to kids development to let them gain a bit of independance early on. The world is not, today, a more dangerous place than it was 36 years ago. In fact, it's much safer. So why are we cocooning our kids?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me

█ ♣ █


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Harm to children almost always comes from family members, friends, or other kids. The fear of strangers is completely misplaced and out of proportion.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 452
Talya wrote:
I've often wondered what's wrong with us that we've become so much more protective than we used to be. I think actually that we're in the wrong now...I suspect it was more beneficial to kids development to let them gain a bit of independance early on. The world is not, today, a more dangerous place than it was 36 years ago. In fact, it's much safer. So why are we cocooning our kids?


I read an interesting article on this a few weeks ago. You should check it out.

The Overprotected Kid

A preoccupation with safety has stripped childhood of independence, risk taking, and discovery—without making it safer. A new kind of playground points to a better solution.

A trio of boys tramps along the length of a wooden fence, back and forth, shouting like carnival barkers. “The Land! It opens in half an hour.” Down a path and across a grassy square, 5-year-old Dylan can hear them through the window of his nana’s front room. He tries to figure out what half an hour is and whether he can wait that long. When the heavy gate finally swings open, Dylan, the boys, and about a dozen other children race directly to their favorite spots, although it’s hard to see how they navigate so expertly amid the chaos. “Is this a junkyard?” asks my 5-year-old son, Gideon, who has come with me to visit. “Not exactly,” I tell him, although it’s inspired by one. The Land is a playground that takes up nearly an acre at the far end of a quiet housing development in North Wales. It’s only two years old but has no marks of newness and could just as well have been here for decades. The ground is muddy in spots and, at one end, slopes down steeply to a creek where a big, faded plastic boat that most people would have thrown away is wedged into the bank. The center of the playground is dominated by a high pile of tires that is growing ever smaller as a redheaded girl and her friend roll them down the hill and into the creek. “Why are you rolling tires into the water?” my son asks. “Because we are,” the girl replies.

It’s still morning, but someone has already started a fire in the tin drum in the corner, perhaps because it’s late fall and wet-cold, or more likely because the kids here love to start fires. Three boys lounge in the only unbroken chairs around it; they are the oldest ones here, so no one complains. One of them turns on the radio—Shaggy is playing (Honey came in and she caught me red-handed, creeping with the girl next door)—as the others feel in their pockets to make sure the candy bars and soda cans are still there. Nearby, a couple of boys are doing mad flips on a stack of filthy mattresses, which makes a fine trampoline. At the other end of the playground, a dozen or so of the younger kids dart in and out of large structures made up of wooden pallets stacked on top of one another. Occasionally a group knocks down a few pallets—just for the fun of it, or to build some new kind of slide or fort or unnamed structure. Come tomorrow and the Land might have a whole new topography.

Other than some walls lit up with graffiti, there are no bright colors, or anything else that belongs to the usual playground landscape: no shiny metal slide topped by a red steering wheel or a tic-tac-toe board; no yellow seesaw with a central ballast to make sure no one falls off; no rubber bucket swing for babies. There is, however, a frayed rope swing that carries you over the creek and deposits you on the other side, if you can make it that far (otherwise it deposits you in the creek). The actual children’s toys (a tiny stuffed elephant, a soiled Winnie the Pooh) are ignored, one facedown in the mud, the other sitting behind a green plastic chair. On this day, the kids seem excited by a walker that was donated by one of the elderly neighbors and is repurposed, at different moments, as a scooter, a jail cell, and a gymnastics bar.

continued...


It goes on to talk about why kids need to experience danger and learn how to conquer obstacles on their own and without adult supervision in order to become successful, well adjusted adults.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 221 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group