• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police and "Free Range" Children

What does this have to do with CPS? CPS works wonderfully for the majority of children. This is about police officers.

No they really don't.

If you want your faith in this agency shattered, at least for Wash state Google Olympia kiawanis boys ranch
 
You have no idea what that experience is/can be like obviously.

To ride in a car unrestrained with a policeman? The only way I could believe this being traumatic is if the parents are loony anti police advocates and taught their kids to fear cops. They didn't take them to jail....
 
Same here. We woke up, had breakfast, then headed out. Came home for lunch and headed out again. Came home for dinner then went out again until it was too dark. By the way, I ran with scissors as well.

We had bows and arrows - and real Jarts!

jarts.jpg
 
Same here. We woke up, had breakfast, then headed out. Came home for lunch and headed out again. Came home for dinner then went out again until it was too dark. By the way, I ran with scissors as well.

Yeah I used to walk two miles down to the ferry dock at southworth with my dog when I was 10-12. Never an issue.

Then again in a rural area like where I grew up is a little different then in an urban area adjacent to the most dangerous major city In the country
 
Why couldn't the police have told the kids, hop in and we'll give you a lift home. and that's the most I would grant.

Because they probably knew that the children would be doing the same thing tomorrow. Rather, the core issue needs to be addressed. That can be done by:

A. taking action against the parents, or
B. accept that allowing the kids to walk to the park is with in the parental authority of the couple.

As for "A" verse "B", I would objectively go for "B" (the couple's decision, though questionable is not criminal). Subjectively though, after seeing the street video, I would not have alot of sympathy for the parents should the State of Maryland go for option "A".
 
Last edited:
Because they probably knew that the children would be doing the same thing tomorrow. Rather, the core issue needs to be addressed. That can be done by:

A. taking action against the parents, or
B. accept that allowing the kids to walk to the park is with in the parental authority of the couple.

As for "A" verse "B", I would objectively go for "B" (the couple's decision, though questionable is not criminal). Subjectively though, after seeing the street video, I would not have alot of sympathy for the parents should the State of Maryland go for option "A".

Then you endorse the evolving police state. Option B is the only option for free America.
 
Then you endorse the evolving police state. Option B is the only option for free America.

Personally, I would go for "B" as the couple's decision, though questionable is not criminal.

After seeing a video of the street, I am just not going to affirm their decision. if Maryland goes for option "A" (which I hope they do not), I am not going to make a donation to say, a legal defense fund for the parents.

In short, option "B" is the correct out come- I just dont have alot of smpathy for these particular parents. That does not mean I favor option "A", and it definetly does not mean I favor a police state.
 
Last edited:
Because they probably knew that the children would be doing the same thing tomorrow. Rather, the core issue needs to be addressed. That can be done by:

A. taking action against the parents, or
B. accept that allowing the kids to walk to the park is with in the parental authority of the couple.

As for "A" verse "B", I would objectively go for "B" (the couple's decision, though questionable is not criminal). Subjectively though, after seeing the street video, I would not have alot of sympathy for the parents should the State of Maryland go for option "A".

There was absolutely no legitimate legal basis for the action the police took. There are at least three SC courses affirming parents 14th amendment right to raise their children as they see fit. The state cannot usurp that right just because it disagrees with parenting choices. Letting your young kids walk home in a safe neighborhood is perfectly safe. I hope the parents sue and take the municipality to the cleaners.
 
There was absolutely no legitimate legal basis for the action the police took. There are at least three SC courses affirming parents 14th amendment right to raise their children as they see fit. The state cannot usurp that right just because it disagrees with parenting choices. Letting your young kids walk home in a safe neighborhood is perfectly safe. I hope the parents sue and take the municipality to the cleaners.

You are mixing apples with oranges with the supreme court references. Parents dont have an inherent right to endanger their children. That moves the analysis to whether or not the children are being endangered. If they are being endangered, then the parents can face criminal charges.

After seeing a video of the street, I think the actions of the parents are questionable, but not criminal per se. Thus, the State should drop the issue. At the same time, I really dont have alot of sympathy for these particular parents (street is busy, side walks narrow). Thus... no contributions to a hypothetical legal defense fund from me
 
Last edited:
You are mixing apples with oranges with the supreme court references. Parents dont have an inherent right to endanger their children. That moves the analysis to whether or not the chidlren are being endangered. If they are being endangered, then the parents can face criminal charges.

After seeing a video of the street, I think the actions of the parents are questionable, but not criminal per se. Thus, the State should drop the issue. At the same time, I really dont have alot of sympathy for these particular parents. Thus... no contributions to a hypothetical legal defense fund from me

It's not apples and oranges. What it does is set the stage for deciding when the state can step in and the SC has said that the state must have a very compelling argument - one justice went as far as saying the standard should be "strict scrutiny" which is the highest hurdle they have.

Objectively - based on statistics - it's completely safe for kids to walk home alone. It depends on the neighborhood of course but assuming a normal suburb the incidence of kids being in hit by cars is lower, much much lower, than kids being in cars that in accidents. And kids honestly almost never get kidnapped and when they do it's usually by someone they know. In short those kids were probably safer on the street than they were in the police car. Given that and given the high hurdle that the SC has erected for the state to legally second guess parents the state here is in all likelihood wrong and should be made to pay for it.
 
It's not apples and oranges. What it does is set the stage for deciding when the state can step in and the SC has said that the state must have a very compelling argument - one justice went as far as saying the standard should be "strict scrutiny" which is the highest hurdle they have.

And the courts have determined that the State does have a compelling interest in preventing me from endangering my children. As a result, if I do endanger them, I can face criminal charges.
Objectively - based on statistics - it's completely safe for kids to walk home alone. It depends on the neighborhood of course but assuming a normal suburb the incidence of kids being in hit by cars is lower, much much lower, than kids being in cars that in accidents. And kids honestly almost never get kidnapped and when they do it's usually by someone they know.

Agreed.

That is why my own children are also free range (to a point) and they dont even wear bicyle helmets. All that aside, after seeing video of this specific street, and the specific ages of the children, and the specific sidewalks, these parents are not going to get any "High fives" from me. That does not mean I think their actions are criminal (questionable judgement does not mean "criminal"), it just means that I dont have alot of sympathy for them.
 
Last edited:
And the courts have determined that the State does have a compelling interest in preventing me from endangering my children. As a result, if I do endanger them, I can face criminal charges.


Agreed.

That is why my own children are also free range (to a point) and they dont even wear bicyle helmets. All that aside, after seeing video of this specific street, and the specific ages of the children, and the specific sidewalks, these parents are not going to get any "High fives" from me. That does not mean I think their actions are criminal (questionable judgement does not mean "criminal"), it just means that I dont have alot of sympathy for them.

We largely agree.
 
To ride in a car unrestrained with a policeman? The only way I could believe this being traumatic is if the parents are loony anti police advocates and taught their kids to fear cops. They didn't take them to jail....

It was the kid-equivalent of jail, being treated like other juvenile delinquents, possibly in with juvenile delinquents, held against their will, period. I would be really pissed if my kids were subjected to that stuff if they didnt deserve it.
 
And the courts have determined that the State does have a compelling interest in preventing me from endangering my children. As a result, if I do endanger them, I can face criminal charges.


Agreed.

That is why my own children are also free range (to a point) and they dont even wear bicyle helmets. All that aside, after seeing video of this specific street, and the specific ages of the children, and the specific sidewalks, these parents are not going to get any "High fives" from me. That does not mean I think their actions are criminal (questionable judgement does not mean "criminal"), it just means that I dont have alot of sympathy for them.

I never understood the whole kids must wear bicycle helmets thing. The fact of the matter is there is really no evidence out there to suggest they do anything but look stupid.
 
Yeah I used to walk two miles down to the ferry dock at southworth with my dog when I was 10-12. Never an issue.

Then again in a rural area like where I grew up is a little different then in an urban area adjacent to the most dangerous major city In the country

Not really. I grew up in NYC and we were going to the local park, unescorted by adults, by the time we were 9. By 12 I was riding buses and subways alone. What's changed is people's attitudes. We're a society of chicken littles.
 
I never understood the whole kids must wear bicycle helmets thing. The fact of the matter is there is really no evidence out there to suggest they do anything but look stupid.

Neither have I. Heck, we all survived with out them. I was surprised when my red state city passed an ordinance requiring them. I just ignored it and was only going to make my kids wear them if I was directly told to do so by a police officer. Thankfully, that has not happened.
 
just more of the nanny state

government thinking it knows better than parents on how to raise their children
 
I never understood the whole kids must wear bicycle helmets thing. The fact of the matter is there is really no evidence out there to suggest they do anything but look stupid.

I do understand and first-hand. For a period of years, my daughter was rather the poster child for bike helmets and testified more than once before the state Congress (as did I). When you fall off a bike, the greatest danger is a traumatic head injury. Broken arms are fixable, brains not so much.

In my kid's case, she was struck by a truck dragging a trailer and driving 45 mph. The bike went one way, the seat of the bike went another, and the kid went yet another, being thrown 15 feet in the air and landing on her head. Helmet was split four ways. DPS used to take that helmet around to schools. I still have it.

Kid spent the night in the hospital and was pretty scratched up, but she sustained no major injuries. I'll never forget seeing her stretched out on the grass unconscious with blood trickling out of her mouth just like in the movies. Or the remorseful truck driver, a young father himself, literally sitting in the middle of the road keening.
 
Back
Top Bottom