Free-Range Kids

Mom Gets Out of Car to Smoke, Is Arrested for Leaving Kids Unattended

Nearby store employees see the children as "unattended."

|

Crying
Chirag Rathod / Flickr

A mom is in the parking lot with her three tots in the car. She wants to smoke a cigarette so she actually gets out of the car—that's how conscientious she is—and lights up.

Nearby store employees see the children as "unattended." And that is when the cops get involved, of course. As TheCitizen.com reports:

Det. Mike Whitlow said Courtney B. Tabor, 33, was charged with three misdemeanor counts of leaving a minor child unattended, a city ordinance violation.

Whitlow said employees at the Michael's store at Hudson Plaza on North Glynn Street saw the three small children in the back of a van with no adult visible in the vicinity. Two of the children were one year of age while the other was age two, Whitlow added.

Whitlow said the car was running but the air conditioner was not. [Note: Other accounts dispute this.]

Police were subsequently called to the scene, Whitlow said. Once officers in a patrol unit arrived, Tabor approached the vehicle, telling officers she was in the vicinity smoking a cigarette.

Whitlow noted that while Tabor might have been in close proximity, she did not appear to have been focused enough to notice the store's employees standing by her vehicle.

Whitlow added that, in this particular case, it was not as much a matter of the young children being in a hot car, rather it was the potential for harm or kidnapping that could result from leaving them unattended.

As radio host Michael Graham, who called this case to my attention, put it:

OK, OK, I get it: My mom and dad, who left my sister and I in the West Columbia, SC, K-Mart parking lot while they went into shop should have been beheaded by the Taliban for the crime of child abandonment. OK, fine.

And yes–leaving kids in a hot car with the windows up in 90 degree heat is both stupid and dangerous. I absolutely agree with that.

But is Riverdale, GA really going to put a mom in jail for standing near her car, smoking a cigarette?

free-range-kids

In a country that believes in arresting parents for theoretical far-fetched horrors, yes. Leaving your kids for even a few minutes is a crime. Even if you are nearby. Even if you are consciously uncoupled from them so they don't inhale secondhand smoke. Any second you are not fully and completely "focused" on them, you are committing a crime. Clearly your kids are at huge risk of the boogeyman kidnapping, in a public place, during store hours.

Advertisement

NEXT: How State Solar Policies Hurt America's Poor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Every parent should be arrested at least once in lieu of kidnappers, just so they understand the gravity of leaving their kids alone.

    1. Every parentperson should be arrested at least once in lieu of kidnappers, just so they understand the gravity of leaving their kids alonethe stupid fucking laws they support.

      1. ROFLMAO!!

      2. Sure, most people would get it. But sociopathic cunts like Claire McCaskill would giggle and treat it as a photo op, and then campaign about how they got arrested in solidarity with the common people.

        1. Oh, fuck me. The fact that she’s a senator representing my state is humiliating. One of the most corrupt Jackson County prosecutors to ever exist(even my liberal friends refuse to vote for her).

          Side note: If not for the fact she managed to illegally keep the polls open late in St. Louis to bus in more ignorant voters to win the election(they were either unfamiliar with her behavior in KC, or just didn’t give a fuck because of Go Team!) You wouldn’t even know her name.

          1. On the plus side, she’s not Shelia Jackson Lee…

      3. Yep. What he said.

      4. +googleplex

    2. Are you serious? If so then you are a moron.

      1. Fist is very rarely serious.

  2. Helicopter parenting is bad enough when it’s freely chosen. Galt help us all now that it’s apparently the law.

    1. But what if a child sees its parent smoking?

  3. I read more stories about kids being kidnapped by the government than by anyone else.

  4. Whitlow noted that while Tabor might have been in close proximity, she did not appear to have been focused enough to notice the store’s employees standing by her vehicle.

    Or she saw them, recognized that they were store employees, and failed to understand that they were a threat. By threat not that they themselves would kidnap the kids, but that they’d call the police who would.

    1. From this point on, when a store employee finds themselves looking down the barrel of a .44 when they sniff around cars in the parking lot, they’ll only have themselves to blame.

  5. result from leaving them unattended

    OK OK … I defended yesterday the greyness of leaving a child in a toy store for an hour and a half as borderline endangerment. But FFS, there’s nothing in the article that indicates that the parent was out of visual sight of their kids.

    I can’t even begin to defend this one. Sheer lunacy.

    1. What better place to leave a child than in a car at a toy store? While smoking, you may enjoy watching them from a distance as they press their face up to the glass.

  6. Bright line! Negligent! We have to protect the kids!!!

    Now that yesterday’s thread is rehashed, anyone want to defend this along the same lines?

    1. I would certainly hope not. This is far more ridiculous than yesterday’s free range nutpunch.

      (Although the mom from yesterday’s story shouldn’t have been arrested either. Not when the toy store’s employees could have tracked down the kid’s mom, and then informed her that the toy store is not a God damned day care and to come pick up her hellspawn.)

      1. No, it isn’t. It’s the same thing. Some assholes saw something and involved the state instead of putting forth even minimal effort to discern the situation, and the state rolled over a convenient victim. The exact same thing. You cannot support one with supporting the other while remaining logically consistent.

        1. Did you actually read and comprehend what was in the parentetical? I specifically said that the mom from yesterday’s story should not have been arrested.

          IOW, the idiots at the toy store should not have called the cops on her either. Not when they could have easily found the mom and then informed that they’re a toy store, not a drop in daycare center.

          So I agree that the nutpunch is caused by the same phenomenon: busy body assholes calling the cops instead of using common sense. All that said though, the idiot mom from yesterday’s story was way more of a dumbshit, just not a dumbshit who should have been arrested.

        2. It’s not remotely the same. Unattended should require the absence of attention (although one could argue that watching from a mile away through a scope is still “absent”). I have a hard time seeing how these kids could reasonably be considered as “unattended”.

          1. It doesn’t matter. In both cases, nobody asked the kids if their parents were nearby, if they were worried, scared, hungry, etc. They just contacted the state, and the state did what the state does.

            1. That’s okay. She was smoking so she’s a bad influence on her children. She deserves some kind of punishment.

            2. Have you seriously never met a 2 year old. Only someone who hasn’t would be oblivious to the fact that you can’t have a real conversation with them.

  7. I see…the law is going to make being a parent more dangerous than being single and/or childless. The government has gone from encouraging stable, married families to throwing parents in prison. Message received: Don’t have kids, let the Social Security and Medicare recipients shift for themselves, because we’re not exactly encouraging the bringing up of a new generation of confident, risk-taking entrepreneurial workers.

    1. The government has gone from encouraging stable, married families to throwing parents in prison.

      I wonder if this happens to gay parents?

      Not that I think police are inherently anti-hetero, I just recall the most recent debate invoking the “War on Families” argument as being the Gay Marriage Debate, and I could see police being more PC and tip-toeing around gay parents.

      1. I wonder if this happens to parents whose kids are actually kidnapped….are they arrested for leaving a minor unattended, child endangerment, or whatever the charge-of-the-month is? Nope. The police search for the child, people bring food, put up posters, organize prayer vigils and search parties, etc.

        So when nothing happens we are charged with crimes, and when something does happen, support from all quarters because “bad things happen”.

        1. This. I was thinking the same thing.

  8. This is a better example of a cause of the breakdown of society than any other example commonly cited. The takeaway from this is that we must, as good citizens, assume every other person is a criminal, intent on committing a crime, and act accordingly.

    1. As this arrest further proves, everyone is a criminal. Criminality should no longer be the litmus test for harmful members of society.

      1. If you define criminal as someone who fails to obey stupid rules created by stupid people in government, then yes.

        I choose to define criminal as someone who harms the life, liberty or property of others.

        Which means that government is the biggest criminal of them all.

    2. Amen. Because, since we obviously can’t trust each other, the only thing we can trust is the government. Agh, this philosophy makes me want to hurl. Like being at the airport, and hearing “If you see something, say something” over the loudspeakers every five minutes.

      1. “If you see something, say something”

        You have no idea how tempting it is to go up to an aiport official and say “I saw a bunch of goons who seemed to really get their jollies off of fondling kids and old ladies. They’re right over there,” and then point to the TSA screening area.

        1. 1st I laughed because its true. Then I was sad for the same reason.

        2. Fucking EXCELLENT. I had never thought of that, but would love to try it. Would be hilarious, up to the point they send me to Gitmo and waterboard me for the rest of my days.

          1. Why else do you think I’ve never actually given in to that temptation? I can’t wait for them to start arming the TSA mouth breathers…

        3. I’m doing this the next time I’m in an airport. Damn the consequences.

        4. I’m still laughing at this.

        5. That would be the only reason I would ever attempt to fly anywhere – just to say that.

          Well. . . maybe to play up the fondling. . . ‘Oh, YES! Right there. . . no, a little higher. . . OH GODS YES! That’s it! Touch me there, daddy!”

      2. Five minutes? Which airport do they wait that long in?

      3. My fave airport announcement is:

        “Unattended bags will be taken by airport security.”

        Thanks for letting us know you’ll take our stuff unless we are present and ready to stop you.

        1. Unattended bags will be taken by airport security.

          Airport Security Guard to Co-worker: I’ll take the blonde; you take the one with the turban.

        2. IF some of these unattended bags start blowing up, airport security will eventually stop taking them.

        3. Please, I was in Atlanta and there was an unattended bottle of water in the line outside the TSA screening area. If anything is suspicious it’s a large bottle of liquid in the middle of the line.

      4. since we obviously can’t trust each other, the only thing we can trust is the government

        Because the government is all of us working together.

        BARF

    3. we must, as good citizens, assume every other person is a criminal, intent on committing a crime, and act accordingly

      ^^DIESE^^

    4. Thanks to the liberal fools and the Fool in Chief.

    5. Just like the police.

  9. Wow, and my mother sent us on an airplane to see Grandma when we were only 10 years old. All by ourselves. She should be rotting in jail!

    1. I walked OFF an airplane because the flight was cancelled at 8 and straight back to my grandparents’ car. Nobody was arrested, I was not kidnapped. (But my grandfather tore a strip off the gate agents who were supposed to be watching me. Probably not wrongly.)

      1. I flew solo at 4. Was supposed to be 5, but lied cause I wanted to go. The stewardesses were very nice and I annoyed the crap out of the guy next to me talking his ear off.

        All was well.

    2. Two days ago I picked my two kids up from the airport. They flew from Switzerland to Minneapolis via Amsterdam with no problems. They are 16 and 13 years old.

      The only problem they had was after they picked up their bags in Minneapolis. Some airport busybody demanded to go with them to make sure that someone was really waiting for them.

      1. Tell your kids, “Next time this happens, kick the busybody in the balls and cry rape.”

    3. I love these irrelevant comments.

      “Back in MY day, we were all driving cars and smoking when we were THREE YEARS OLD…blah blah blah”.

      Kid in the story wasn’t 10. None of them were. They were all under TWO.

      And if the mother was so far away from the car that she didn’t see the other adults approach it, then she’s negligent. The end.

      I’m so glad there are no really important stories the editors at Reason could choose to write about. Otherwise libertarians wouldn’t look so damn foolish bunging on and on about every nitwit idiot parent that runs afoul of the law because they dump their kids on someone else’s lap or wander off three blocks for a Newport and a long phone conversation with their boo.

      1. And if the mother was so far away from the car that she didn’t see the other adults approach it, then she’s negligent. The end.

        Did you even read the article, you fucking rambling idiot?

        1. I did read the article, and wonder what’s missing from the story. Mom wasn’t just stepping away for a cigarette. The car is running, there are two infants inside, and she doesn’t notice a group of strangers around it because she is smoking a cigarette. Sorry, I agree with the principle that “society” is going overboard on some of this, but all the parent in me wants is more facts about this case.

      2. “wander off three blocks for a Newport and a long phone conversation with their boo.”

        Racist.

      3. Oh my sweet fucking Christ, FUCK YOU!

        Anybody, and I mean anybody that thinks these types of infractions are worthy of this kind of reaction is a statist prick.

        You’re a statist prick. Go watch your kids like a hawk instead of trolling us, or we’re calling the cops, asshole.

      4. You are wrong. Objectively wrong. This isn’t even a matter of opinion.

      5. Considering that the detective’s case for neglect is that the store employees could’ve kidnapped the children, this lady was arrested for not stopping a crime that was never committed. That’s some Minority Report shit right there.

        Also, do you walk over and confront anyone who looks at your car when there’s something valuable in it? If the employees aren’t messing with the kids, why bother confronting them?

  10. That woman had her back to those kids for up to a minute at a time – who knows what could have happened? A clear case of microneglect.

    1. The worst kind of neglect!

    2. I call bullshit. Far more likely she was doing a drug deal or worse.

  11. Whitlow noted that while Tabor might have been in close proximity, she did not appear to have been focused enough to notice the store’s employees standing by her vehicle.

    You made a baby. You must maintain total focus on the kid until he or she is 26; otherwise, you can spend some quality time with Bubba in the local drunk tank.

    1. This is probably one of those situations where you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride. I’d be running for fucking mayor or county commissioner just to be a pain in the ass of both the police force and the store. You want to use the law as a weapon? Cool. Let’s play.

      1. This is just like loitering. It is a guaranteed arrest for anyone that the cops want to arrest. It matters not a single bit if the person arrested walks later. It is punishment by cop.

        1. +1 Disorderly conduct

        2. Which is why when it comes to a cop saying “I’m a good guy, please don’t execute me” I’m gonna laugh, then spit in his face.

    2. Whitlow is a moron.

  12. Where I live, smoking inside the car with minors is a crime. So if you smoke inside with the kids it’s a crime, and if you get out and turn away for even a second then it’s a crime. Sucks to be a smoking parent.

    1. So if you smoke inside with the kids it’s a crime, and if you get out and turn away for even a second then it’s a crime. Sucks to be a smoking parent.

      Feature, not bug.

    2. “Sucks to be a smoking parent.”

      Ten bucks a pack in Minnesota. When I was a kid, back in ’70, they were forty-five cents. Adjusted for inflation, they should now cost $2.76 per pack.

      1. And when I was a nine year old kid (same time frame) I would ride alone to the store and buy a carton for the old man.

        1. Yup, then you’d stand right underneath the mushroom clouds during atomic testing too, amirite.

          1. Though you’re hollow and sordid and lacking in morals. . .

            You agree to be recorded with no qualms or quarrels. . .

            You lie and you cheat and you twist round the truth. . .

            Then you cry and you bleat and you kidnap our youth. . .

            You’re still a human being, with a heart and soul. . .

            And here we’re clearly seeing that you’re not well and whole. . .

            Someone hale and wholesome, with mind free and clear. . .

            Would never ever be so fulsom, to a government profiteer. . .

            So with our full feeling, we sincerely wish you well. . .

            Please go and find healing, for your life must be hell.

    3. True, but not the facts here. That’s the problem.

  13. Fayetteville, GA is a town of 15,000. It sounds like it needs less detectives and police, if this is how they spend their time.

    1. Today, Barney Fife wears a bullet-proof vest, carries an assault rifle, and kicks down doors to arrest litter bugs.

      1. Otis was killed in a no-knock raid after Aunt Bea overheard a conversation saying he might be making moonshine.

    2. Fayette county has always been lousy with cops, but used to be they just wrote tickets for every minor violation of traffic decorum.

  14. This nonsense has got to stop.

    1. It’s only going to get worse.

  15. WTF.

    I’d like to hear updates on this. Hopefully the judge will recognize the ridiculousness of this charge and dismiss the case.

    1. In a just society, not only would the judge dump the case, every cop involved would be under a restraining order for the next year: “The next time you come into my courtroom with stupid shit like this you’re going to spend the next tend days in a jail cell to think about it.”

  16. What about latch key kids? We need to start calling the police on parents who work and leave their kids alone in the house.

  17. If I were a judge hearing this case, right before I summarily dismiss it, I would cite the arresting officer for contempt, just for bringing this tripe before me and wasting my time.

    1. It could be a lot of fun to be a judge with a lifetime appointment.

  18. This woman is lying.

    Let’s reason it out. She stepped out to smoke, but happened to smoke long enough and far away enough that not only did the store employees notice her car and come investigate she didn’t reappear until the cops arrived.

    And what is this about store employees being responsible for tracking down deadbeat moms who leave their kids? That isn’t what they’re being paid for.

    1. You don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Fool.

      1. You have a better explanation about where she disappeared to?

        1. Maybe she was looking the other way and not thinking that every other person in the world is trying to interfere with her children.

          1. So she was just looking the other way long enough for people in the store to notice her kids in the van, investigate the van, call the police and wait for the police to arrive? Then she notices something is happening?

            1. What difference, at this point.. does it make?

            2. The more fundamental point is that, despite all of the kids-dying-in-hot-cars outrage, very few, if any, kids die because their parents intentionally left them in the car to run a quick errand. They die when parents accidentally forget them in the car while they go to work (or somewhere else) ALL DAY.

              But, a little zero tolerance via police brutality and public shaming should put a stop to the non-risky behavior, too. right?

            3. So she was just looking the other way long enough for people in the store to notice her kids in the van, investigate the van, call the police and wait for the police to arrive?

              God help us all the day ‘looking the other way long enough for other people to notice’ becomes a crime.

        2. None of these people have any other good explanation for any of these craptastic parents. It’s allllllways Joe Nose-sticker or Johnny Lawdawg’s fault. Always.

          Starting to sound like a liberal cocktail party up in here.

          1. You heard it here, guys. Nobody is EVER a nosy busybody. NOBODY.

            RTFA, dumbass.

          2. Since you’re incapable of thinking of a logical explanation on your own, I’ll give you one. I’m 5’8″ tall. If I get out to smoke a cigarette next to the van, it is at least 6′ tall. I am leaning against my van on the driver’s side door. My windows are tinted and I’m looking in on my kids while smoking and talking to whoever. No, I will not see an employee who comes up the other side of the van and looks in the window (IF they even investigated that far) unless they look in the window directly across from the one I’m leaning against. They will not necessarily see me if the 2nd captain’s chair is blocking me. Due to traffic and the various noises in the air, as well as listening to the person I’m speaking to, I may not hear them approach the vehicle. Then they turn around and go back in the store and I’m none the wiser. Then I see a cop car drive by and since I’m doing nothing wrong I stay where I am. The cop car halts just outside my field of vision due to the van. I’m not moving. It’s not my business (shocker there). Then I might see a shadow, or maybe the cop does appear in a window and I see them so I walk around the car…ta da..”now the mom shows up”. The whole time though, I’ve been on the other side of the van.

            Do you need me to hold your hand, or did you get all that?

    2. You’re saying she should have reacted to them noticing something? And then, what, we have a story about a store employee being arrested for looking weird at people’s kids and being a suspected kidnapper or pedo?

      1. Yup. And then the store employees would learn to mind their own fucking business.

  19. They are worried someone might kidnap the kids so they are going to put the mom in jail. Then kidnap the kids to foster care. Sounds smart.

    1. It’s kidnappers all the way down.

  20. Its another application of the Precautionary Principle – the poor woman cannot prove that her actions will not cause harm to her children, so her behavior must be corrected, in this case by throwing her in jail and taking the kids away from her. Of course, the PP is never applied to the actions of the police or the politicians…

  21. Oh, come on. You know life isn’t fun unless you’re terrified of something, all the time.

    Who wants to see a movie where someone doesn’t get kidnapped/shot/mugged/tortured/killed?

  22. TV: It’s ten o’clock. Do you know where your children are?
    Homer: For the last time no! Where is Bart? His dinner’s getting all cold, and eaten.

    In the director’s cut, SWAT comes in through the window and shoots Santa’s Little Helper.

  23. Wait, if the issue was that the store employees could’ve theoretically kidnapped her kid, shouldn’t they also be arrested for kidnapping?

  24. How stupid. My dad used to stand outside the car and smoke while I sat in the car back in the 80s.

  25. Summary execution of the involved police and store employees by .45-caliber round to the base of the head in the parking lot where they pulled this stunt. I’ll pull the trigger.

    1. It may yet come to that. The STASI learned the hard way.

  26. Clearly this woman should have been armed with a handgun, with which she should’ve shot the store employees when they approached her van and threatened the unattended children. Only THIS would have proved what a loyal mother she probably is.

    Not only are we living in a police state, but the patients are firmly in control of the asylum.

  27. As usual, there isn’t enough information. No one even hints as to how long the mother was gone. The police even admit that the children were not in danger of the temperature – it was “the potential for harm or kidnapping that could result from leaving them unattended”. Well, I guess we all better get ready to hand over a lot more money to build bigger jails if we are now going to be arrested based solely on “potential”. I really wish they would have said how much time had elapsed; for all we know, the employees could have walked out there within seconds of the mother walking away while dialing 911 on their way out to the van and the police could have been there within seconds too. The cop said the mother “appeared” to not have been focused – not that she wasn’t. Sorry, but just not enough information was gathered or given (whatever the case).

    I have to wonder if Michael’s had to report any thefts after they were done being such busy bodies since the word “employees” (more than one)was used to report that’s who went outside to the van. I have shopped at Michael’s and I know that they do not have very many employees working at any one time. I think that would be poetic justice for them to have been robbed while they were minding someone else’s business instead of the store’s.

  28. I am never having children.

  29. Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

    1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

    1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

    1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

    1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

    1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

  30. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

    “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

    The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
    “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

    They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
    The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
    Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008

    .
    This is a Swedish study.

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
    Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14

  31. This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  32. First they came for the Smokers
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Smoker.

    Then they came for the Fatties
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Fatty.

    Then they came for the Unsafe
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not Unsafe.

    Then they came for the children
    of smokers and I did not speak out
    for I had no children.

    Then they came for the drinkers
    But I was not a drinker
    so I did not speak out.

    Then they came for us
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for us.

    So ended a free country!

  33. I think there are enough pedophile teachers being arrested every year to conclude it isn’t safe for parents to leave their kids alone at school either.

  34. Sounds like a lot more was going on here than stepping away for a cigarette.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.