Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Civil Liberties

Watch This: Police Interrogation of Arrested Mom Is Patronizing and Wrong

It is not a crime to let a child of 9 play at a park during the summer. In fact, it is a time-honored tradition.

Lenore Skenazy | 8.18.2014 11:07 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Support Debra Harrell Facebook page
(Support Debra Harrell Facebook page)
Debra Harrell
Support Debra Harrell Facebook page

Debra Harrell, the South Carolina mom who was jailed for letting her 9-year-old play at a popular park while she worked her shift at McDonalds is now suing WJBF-TV, the station that aired a tape of her police interrogation.

On its Facebook page, WJBF-TV originally included footage of Harrell giving her name, address, and social security number. This outraged viewers as much as it did Harrell's pro bono lawyer, Robert Phillips, who filed the suit. Even more outrageous is the interrogation itself, which included these exchanges:

OFFICER (talking about Harrell's daughter):  "So you leave her at the park unsupervised?"

HARRELL: "Yeah, but you know -- everybody's there. I didn't feel I needed to be up there, sitting up there."

OFFICER: "You're her mother, right?"

HARRELL: "Yes sir."

OFFICER: "You understand that you're in charge of her well being?"

HARRELL: "Yes sir."

OFFICER: "It's not other people's job to do so."

Could the officer be any more patronizing, cruel, or wrong? It is not a crime to let a child of 9 play at a park during the summer. In fact, it is a time-honored tradition. 

Moreover, it isn't insane to think that a sunny playground teeming with kids, parents, and park workers is a safe place for a child to spend some glorious time. Children don't need constant supervision, and for the law to insist they do is to make a criminal out of anyone who lets her kids walk to school, run an errand, or deliver papers. It is outlawing independence and trust.

Even so, the officer insists to Harrell that leaving a child alone at all constitutes "willful abandonment," a crime.

As a parent in charge of my own kids' well-being, I believe that it is healthy for them to be on their own sometimes, and good for them to be out in public without me—dependent on their own wits and the help of strangers, should they need it. They are teens now, but I also believed that when they were in the single digits.

There's one more clip from this extremely sad and disturbing interview in which Harrell is trying to explain to a second interrogator what happened to her daughter after their home was burglarized:

"They broke in my house. She don't have no TV, no nothing to look at no more. I thought that [the park] would be the safest place for her."

It was. It is! A place to get exercise. A place to make friends. A place to play: that most crucial of childhood activities. It was better than safe, it was a smart place that a good mom would bring her child, except for one problem: The authorities are at war with common sense, an autonomous childhood, and moms.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Millennials are More Libertarian than the Political Duopoly Wants to Believe

Lenore Skenazy is president of Let Grow, a nonprofit promoting childhood independence and resilience, and founder of the Free-Range Kids movement.

Civil LibertiesFree-Range KidsParenting
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (140)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Adans smith   11 years ago

    When i was at or near that age I played little league baseball.We had one car my father took to work,my mother didn't drive.I road my bike down the railroad track about a mile to the park for practice in the A.M.,Some how I lived to tell the story

    1. Almanian!   11 years ago

      I forgot about Pee Wee League. I was 8 - the ballpark we played at was literally on the other side of town from our house. I rode over there on my trusty Schwinn Typhoon every day during the summer.

      Alone.

      THE HORROR! I'd forgotten all about getting abducted and raped and murdered.

      1. Dweebston   11 years ago

        But child abduction is at an all-time high! You were just lucky you grew up in a safer era.

        1. Almanian!   11 years ago

          The 70's - only about one child abduction per city per day. Way lower than today.

        2. sportmodel   11 years ago

          Amen.

  2. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

    Isn't it fascinating that the cop takes exactly the same line on this as so many commenters here did on that story about the kid who was left at the toy store in the mall:

    OFFICER: "It's not other people's job to do so."

    1. Spencer   11 years ago

      I think the difference is that people here were pointing out it was shitty parenting to go shopping while leaving your kid alone in a crowded mall.

      The cop is saying it's illegal to leave your kid at a playground while you go work.

      Conflation: It's a common problem.

    2. MP   11 years ago

      The "other people's job" essentially boiled down to liability. I don't see that there's the same liability issue here. Usually liability on public properly is restricted to poor maintenance. But there's no expectation in a public park of the existence of a supervising authority, unless such existence is explicitly organized, such as a lifeguard.

      1. The Tone Police   11 years ago

        You two can try to draw a distinction to defend yourselves, but it's transparent that RC is right and you're wrong.

        1. MP   11 years ago

          Clearly the must successful form of debate is IT'S OBVIOUS. BOW TO MY SUPERIOR INTELLECT.

          Works every time.

          1. The Tone Police   11 years ago

            What I saw from that original debate is that you had an impulse that "leaving kid at store is bad" and came up with a post hoc justification why it made sense. The business owes the same duty of care to a child in a store as it does for an adult. I don't know where you're coming up with this extra "liability" that justifies your judgmentalism.

            1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

              This

            2. Spencer   11 years ago

              Again, bad parenting, not illegal parenting. And it is BAD parenting- subjective as such a judgement might be. But claiming one's reasoning is ad hoc justification vs. explanation of their principles is silly.

      2. Kurt   11 years ago

        Yes - it actually boiled down to private property, which MegaloMonocle still doesn't seem to understand.

        1. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

          I know there are distinctions, although as things currently stand I think the distinction between public and private property has been badly blurred by "public accomodations" laws.

          I'm not even saying that those distinctions aren't valid, to some extent.

          Here's the deal, though: nobody was ever saying that it was the store's "job" or "responsibility" in any sense (other than simple human decency) to keep an eye on a kid.

          The common thread seems to be that it is the parent's absolute, non-delegable responsibility to keep their child under their eye 24/7 unless and until their child is in the custody of a state-approved facility (school, day care, whatever). The idea that civil
          society (friends, neighbors, the public, whoever) can be relied upon in any way is simply unmutual badthink, or something.

          Like I said, a common thread.

        2. Zeb   11 years ago

          Private property open to the public.

          If they wanted to put up a sign saying "no unattended children", they could have. They didn't do that.

          1. Kurt   11 years ago

            Private property open to the public for the purpose of commerce.

            If they wanted to put up a sign saying "no picnic lunches", they could have...

            If they wanted to put up a sign saying "no book club meetings", they could have...

            If they wanted to put up a sign saying "no ultimate frisbee", they could have...

      3. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

        The "other people's job" essentially boiled down to liability. I don't see that there's the same liability issue here.

        Yeah, well that argument would be horseshit. That store owner was no more liable for that kid than he is for anyone else in that store. If he had a sign posted saying "no unsupervised children" that'd be one thing. He didn't.

        1. Spencer   11 years ago

          So we're saying you've got to post signs to indemnify yourself from liabilities? So, if they didn't have a sign that said, "No Crack Sales Allowed" they would be liable for crack sold on their property?

          The argument that they could've had a sign is bullshit.

          1. The Tone Police   11 years ago

            Noooo, he's saying that the liabilities are the same regardless of the patron's age.

            1. Spencer   11 years ago

              Yes, the liability is the same- but the potential for incident is MUCH higher.

              1. Kurt   11 years ago

                More to the point, the ability to respond is not the same. A retail store can and would ask an adult to leave after loitering in the store for an hour and a half with no intention of buying anything. For practical reasons they can't do so with an unsupervised young child.

        2. twoskinsoneman   11 years ago

          The store owners don't need a sign. They decided they did not want an unattended child in their store as is there right.

    3. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

      Wait. Hold on. I thought it took a village.

      1. Dweebston   11 years ago

        Villages are a prosaic conception of human interaction. It fosters tribalism, racism, and barbarism. The modern child takes a nation to raise.

      2. Zeb   11 years ago

        Hillary Clinton really fucked up that notion. The idea that it takes a village is a pretty good one if you don't expand the idea of village to mean massive welfare and regulatory state and if you don't assume that the village must be conscripted to do it.

        1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

          Which is why the better title for her book is It Takes Some Pillage.

    4. SmokinDave   11 years ago

      Odd that, when it comes to kids here illegally, we're told the exact opposite."These are our children" I believe was the quote. She's a bad parent for leaving her child at part-yet foreign parents who send their children alone to make their way to the US are supposed to be good ones? This is screwed up.

  3. Brian D   11 years ago

    And now the police are making her daughter even more safe by locking up her mother, thereby preventing her from earning money to buy her daughter food and stuff.

    /derp

    1. Zeb   11 years ago

      That's the most fucked up part. Even if it were a bad idea for mom to leave the kid in the park for the day, arresting mom is almost certainly going to do far more harm to the kid.

      1. Episiarch   11 years ago

        The last thing in the world they care about is the kid's welfare. This is about being a nosy prick behind the color of law.

  4. black blood   11 years ago

    Mom knows her kid better than anyone else. It's arrogant to assume the kid can't take care of herself, because the officer is not the kid's father and is completely ignorant of that child's capabilities and the mother's fitness as a parent. End of story.

    1. $park?'s head exploded   11 years ago

      See, that's where you're wrong. Nobody knows you better than the state.

  5. trshmnster the terrible   11 years ago

    I'm downright shocked that any of us made it to adulthood without being kidnapped, abused, and otherwise mistreated while playing games unsupervised at parks! I swear, every time my friends and I would go play at the park by ourselves, we had to spend the entire time dodging pedophiles, ransom takers, and serial killers. It's amazing that we were able to find off this horde day in and day out.

    Now it is actually dangerous for kids to play by themselves at the park. There's a large risk of an Apache attack chopper parent becoming "concerned" and having the authorities haul mommy off to be sodomized at the county jail while the kids are abused in a foster home for a few weeks.

    1. Andrew S.   11 years ago

      But things are soooo much more dangerous nowadays than when we were kids! Why, hundreds of kids a day are snatched away by strangers!

      (oh, the arguments I get into with my mother about this stuff, since she actually seems to believe things like that)

      1. Hyperion   11 years ago

        Maybe she saw it on CNN?

        1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

          Jerry Springer.

          Wait, which is worse?

          1. croaker   11 years ago

            Facebook is planning to flag parody news reports because people believe them.

            When are they going to start flagging CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal...

        2. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

          "Nancy Grace will lead the human race to its end. She is the herald of the apocalypse. The harbinger of death. They must not follow her."

          1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

            Agreed.

            1. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

              No ISWYDT?

              (Nancy Grace rhymes with Kara Thrace!)

      2. UnCivilServant   11 years ago

        Why, hundreds of kids a day are snatched away by strangers!

        Most of those strangers are acting under the color of law, possibly wearing badges. Abduction 'for your own good' is no less horrific than any other kind.

      3. Rasilio   11 years ago

        "But things are soooo much more dangerous nowadays than when we were kids! Why, hundreds of kids a day are snatched away by strangers"

        Indeed they are.

        Except now a days the snatchers are agents of the state who are above the law

    2. Hyperion   11 years ago

      We're not living in the same world now! If not, why would we need a big humongous giant overreaching oppressive government to protect us?

      1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

        Don't people realize we are living in the "POST 911 WORLD"?

        1. trshmnster the terrible   11 years ago

          The ghost of Osama bin Laden needs your child for the jihad!!

    3. Pope Jimbo   11 years ago

      My hometown had (has?) a giant park system and in the middle of it they have the Rec Center. As a kid you can go in the Rec and ask for any number of things from board games, to sporting goods (gloves, bats, balls, racquets, etc.).

      Every day in the summer most of us kids would have to do some chores. After that if you stuck around the house, you got more chores. So we went to the Rec and met all the other kids down there.

      I get every morning there were about 50 to 60 kids around the Rec trying to figure out what to do. I don't think there were any adults. The Rec was run by high schoolers who needed a summer job.

      1. trshmnster the terrible   11 years ago

        I lived in a farming community that was quickly being turned into suburbia. We had a similar Park, but it was too far away for a 5-10 year old to bike. Instead we played in the corn fields.

        We about got shot a few times by the neighbors. They thought we were coyotes. That was the worst of it, though. No pedophiles, no serial killers, no kidnappers, just a couple guys with rifles, hoping to find off coyotes.

  6. Brian D   11 years ago

    How long before parents are arrested for leaving their kid to play alone in their backyard while the parents are in the house? After all, some crook could just jump the fence and snatch them away!

    1. Hyperion   11 years ago

      Probably not much longer if we don't have a 'libertarian moment' for real.

      There was a recent story about a mother being arrested for swearing in front of her children. We're almost back to the Puritan age where they burned witches and heading straight for the dark ages.

    2. Madisonian   11 years ago

      I was declined for adopting a dog on this basis, that I might sometimes leave it alone in a fenced secluded yard with 6-8 foot fences and gates on all sides. My children also played in this yard, with my only popping head out the window every 10 minutes to check/yell at them. I also allowed my daughter to walk to school with the neighbor boy who was a few years older and did the same with my own 2 at about the 11/8 range. Clearly, I am a menace that the feds should have picked up years ago. I even allowed the children at 12-13 to walk with a friend to the shopping area 8 blocks from my house, in the Bronx yet.

    3. Spooky   11 years ago

      Happened in Texas. And the mom was actually supervising. http://www.copblock.org/20877/.....y-outside/

  7. Hyperion   11 years ago

    OFFICER: "You're her mother, right?"

    HARRELL: "Yes sir."

    OFFICER: "You understand that you're in charge of her well being?"

    HARRELL: "Yes sir."

    OFFICER: "It's not other people's job to do so."

    Ok, now I'm really confused. That's not what Melissa Harris Perry told me...

    1. Almanian!   11 years ago

      It takes a village idiot...

    2. JParker   11 years ago

      Why do I think the proper response to the question "You understand that you're in charge of her well being?" should have been "yes, do you?"

  8. John   11 years ago

    Fuck you I want to talk to my lawyer. It is a simple statement but an invaluable one. For God's sake people, don't talk to the cops, EVER!!

    1. Hyperion   11 years ago

      I'm not so sure that's a good idea, John. Maybe just being quiet is better. The cops have already shown that they are to the point where they would beat someone to death in front of cameras and not have any fear of anything happening to them worse than a paid vacation.

      1. John   11 years ago

        Good point.

        1. World's Oldest Fraggle   11 years ago

          But apparently remaining silent would be evidence of not caring about her child and could be used against her.

          1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

            Oh, come on now, THAT amendment is soooo 1791.

      2. WTF   11 years ago

        But if you're going to be quiet, make sure you first state you are invoking the fifth amendment, otherwise your silence is proof of guilt.

        1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

          Yeah, by now it's to the point where you specifically need to say you're invoking the 5th Amendment as incorporated by the 14, plus any applicable state-law privilege, and asserting any and all applicable privileges. Otherwise they'll say you've waived your rights.

    2. Edgehopper   11 years ago

      Interesting fact: your 5th amendment rights will work against criminal cases, but not if the state tries to take your children away. Then lawyering up will be taken as noncompliance and evidence of refusal to accept state-recommended parenting practices.

      1. The Tone Police   11 years ago

        You just made that up.

  9. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

    OFFICER: "It's not other people's job to do so."

    And yet there he is.

    1. WTF   11 years ago

      OFFICER: "It's not other people's job to do so."

      MOTHER: "So what the fuck are you doing interfering with my kid, asshole?"

      1. Hyperion   11 years ago

        OFFICER: BAM, WHAP, WHAP WHAP, BOOM, CRASH, BAM!

        MOTHER: ***

        OFFICER 2: She's not breahthing.

        OFFICER: She was resisting!

        1. WTF   11 years ago

          OFFICER: "STOP RESISTING!!" WHAM! WHAM! WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!

          1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

            OFFICER: BANG!

            OFFICER 2: *shrugs shoulders* BANG!

            OFFICER 1&2:BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

            *Reload*

            BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

            1. straffinrun   11 years ago

              BANG! needed one more. forgot the dog.

              1. trshmnster the terrible   11 years ago

                Damn you and your 1 minute faster response!

            2. trshmnster the terrible   11 years ago

              Oh, I missed the part where she had a dog.

    2. JEP   11 years ago

      Yeah, where's Melissa Harris Perry to tells us that it takes a village to raise kids, and that the children belong to the community?

  10. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    OFFICER: "It's not other people's job to do so."

    Says the man who has no compunction whatsoever about telling other people what to do and how to behave, at gunpoint.

  11. Episiarch   11 years ago

    This has just become a social excuse for giving someone else shit and interfering with their lives. "You aren't parenting properly and I'm going to tell you so". We create these positions of power (cops) and of course the worst possible people gravitate to the position, does it surprise anyone that of course the people who gravitate to it are going to be controlling busybody scumbags? It's basically a given.

    1. MP   11 years ago

      There is some of that. But they're also acting in accordance with current cultural norms. I think it's hard to put the blame on authoritarianism when the cultural expectation is what it is today.

      1. Episiarch   11 years ago

        You're very eager to shift the blame away from the shitheads who are actually doing this.

        1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

          He's got a point. I mean, "the shitheads who are actually doing this" were summoned by a concerned citizen with a cultural expectation that parents are supposed to hover over their children all day long.

        2. JEP   11 years ago

          I can see MP's point. Maybe the problem is that the law is written such that it allows the enforcing of cultural norms?

          If this lady is being charged with "child endangerment", then everyone is going to have a different definition of that and the cultural norm is going to change from generation to generation. So the law, in effect, is written in such a way that the police can enforce a tyranny of the majority, the majority opinion what determines what the "norm" is.

          1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

            What law?

            1. JEP   11 years ago

              I am making the assumption that this woman was jailed for actually breaking a law, and that the officer(s) would need a justification for her arrest.

              I admit I was speaking in generalities.

              1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

                Got it. Just wanted to be clear here. The only place a law was broken here was in this pig's mind.

        3. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          No, I think MP is on to something.

          If one looks at the demographics of the town, it is clear that it is a mostly middle-class, suburban community. Now while the authoritarian impulse of Officer Friendly is well-documented, we shouldn't forget that he has a whole group of people behind him who have granted him power under the license of "law and order" (i.e., enforcing the cultural norms of the prestiged)

  12. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    Has anyone met a cop who wasn't a patronizing prick? I haven't.

    1. Zeb   11 years ago

      They definitely have special training for that. It's probably in the same class where they learn how to use big words in stupid ways to make themselves sound smarter.

    2. Rasilio   11 years ago

      Actually yes I have.

      Amazingly my last 3 interactions with cops were all decent reasonable guys. But it helps that I am pretty clearly a middle aged upper middle class white dude and I didn't give them any shit back.

      If I was 25, black, drove a POS car, or lived in a sketchy neighborhood I can't say the results would have been the same.

  13. Raston Bot   11 years ago

    With a headline like, "Only On 6: Mother Explains Why She Left Daughter in Park" I expected to find that the local reporter, having faced harsh criticism, interviewed the mother to introduce a little balance. Nope, it was just the transcript from the police interrogation.

    1. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

      What's bizarre is that, not that long ago the idea that a mother would have to explain why she left her kid at a park would be just, nuts.

      Scene: Bare cinderblock walls. Lightbulb swinging gently overhead. Woman in prison uniform handcuffed to chair.

      COP: "Why did you leave your daughter at the park?"

      MOTHER: "Umm, to play?"

  14. np   11 years ago

    But many ideas become cultural norms through laws. If politicians didn't create some panic about teh childrenz, then even if some helicopter moms where shrieking, we wouldn't have these kinds of issues today.

    1. np   11 years ago

      ^ meant to be a reply to MP
      http://reason.com/blog/2014/08.....nt_4712143

    2. $park?'s head exploded   11 years ago

      Which dame first, the chicken or the egg?

      1. $park?'s head exploded   11 years ago

        Maybe that's a little unclear.

        Laws don't spring fully formed from the forehead of the president. Laws come about when a large enough group of people with enough money "convince" politicians that the world won't behave properly without new laws.

  15. jmomls   11 years ago

    Two things:
    1. She wasn't "arrested for letting her kid play at the park" She was arrested for abandoning her child for hours at a time with no supervision. Stop being so disengenous. I thought this was "REASON", not ILLOGIC.
    2. No one cares what the rest of you did when you were 7 years old living in Mayberry in the 50s, m'kay?

    1. Dweebston   11 years ago

      If you read the article you'd almost be left with the impression that the distinction between "willful abandonment" and "left to play in a park while mom works" is the crux of Skenazy's interest in the case.

    2. Zeb   11 years ago

      abandoning her child for hours at a time with no supervision

      Or, in other words, letting her kid play in the park. Leaving a kid on his own for an afternoon is not abandonment by any reasonable definition of the term.

      Kids were probably in more danger being on their own in Mayberry in the 50s.

    3. Acosmist   11 years ago

      +1 awesome comment

    4. David K   11 years ago

      In regards to #2, quit being a patronizing prick. It's not "m'kay".

    5. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

      Pussy.

      1. David K   11 years ago

        Ah, I should have looked closer at her screenname.

    6. Almanian!   11 years ago

      I thought this was "REASON", not ILLOGIC.

      Also, drink.

    7. Jordan   11 years ago

      Leaving a child alone for hours is in no way dangerous. Driving them to the park or leaving them with a relative* are far more dangerous.

      *Most child abductions and sexual assaults are committed by family members.

  16. Dweebston   11 years ago

    It has never been safer for a child to be a child. It has never been more perilous for an adult to be a parent.

    1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      Well put.

  17. WTF   11 years ago

    I thought this was "REASON", not ILLOGIC.

    DRINK!

  18. Kaptious Kristen   11 years ago

    Kids are too fat! They need to play more!
    Kids are in danger! They need to be locked inside more!

    1. Episiarch   11 years ago

      Kids are a great way to fuck with someone! Let me see how I can use this to fuck with someone and feel morally superior while I do it!

    2. JEP   11 years ago

      There's a fortune to be made in child-sized hamster wheels.

      1. Dweebston   11 years ago

        There's a fortune to be made in child-sized hamsters.

        1. JEP   11 years ago

          Rodents of Unusual Size? I don't think they actually exist...

          1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

            +1 Fire Swamp

        2. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

          Actually, I suspect the big money is in hamster-sized children.

      2. Christophe   11 years ago

        Hey, that was my joke in the last thread.

        1. JEP   11 years ago

          Apologies. I didn't see it.

  19. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    I think it's hard to put the blame on authoritarianism when the cultural expectation is what it is today.

    Orders were followed.

    1. JEP   11 years ago

      Well, I would say that the cultural expectation is authoritarianism.

      This is the usual problem with democracy, right? We get the form of government we deserve. The majority determines what the cultural norm is, and since individual rights aren't protected, the cultural norm determines what's right and wrong. Then, the police are expected to enforce the cultural norm.

      1. $park?'s head exploded   11 years ago

        There is a reason it's called the tyranny of the majority.

    2. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

      A cultural expectation of authoritarianism doesn't really do much for me, thanks.

      1. $park?'s head exploded   11 years ago

        You might be living in the wrong place. Or at least at the wrong time.

  20. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    I thought this was "REASON", not ILLOGIC.

    It's early, but fuck it.

  21. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    Since I'm too lazy and disinterested to actually read it, what imminent and overwhelming peril to the child is claimed to exist, here?

    Are we talking full-on BOOGEYMAN CHILD MOLESTURZ or "what if she falls down and no one is there to kiss her little boo-boo"?

    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      what imminent and overwhelming peril to the child is claimed to exist, here?

      It's quaint that you think they're still bothering to think one up. The entirety of the justification was just "we don't do that here".

    2. Andrew S.   11 years ago

      Judging from the reactions the local media was hyping up when this story first broke, it's the former. Because every park is filled with chomos just waiting to snatch away your child the second you look away.

  22. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    As most of us are aware, statistically speaking, the child would be more likely to be molested by someone she knows than a stranger lurking at the park.

    1. Christophe   11 years ago

      Dude, pointing that out just means they'll also criminalize leaving your kid in the care of relatives.

      1. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

        We're on our way to requiring parenting licenses, or somesuch.

        The big Kultur War fight of 2022 will be over discrimination against trannies who want parenting licenses. Mark my words.

        1. $park?'s head exploded   11 years ago

          Wait, m-f or f-m?

  23. Svenster   11 years ago

    I know it's a very minor thing, but I hate the idea that one always calls a cop, Sir. You see every response of this mother. Yes Sir, I understand Sir. Fuck that. Sir is a form of respect, and he sure as hell wasn't treating her with respect. Calling her ma'am, for instance. Not bullying her, or instance.

    From the news story: "How many times have you taken her up there and don't just tell me this one crap because that's not true?" asked the Sergeant.

    This is a public servant, talking to a citizen like this!

    1. Zeb   11 years ago

      It is a bit fucked that that is such a common thing and that most people just accept it.
      I am fairly proud to be able to say that I have never unmockingly addressed anyone as "sir", cop or not.

      1. steve walsh   11 years ago

        I will always address the cop that pulls me over for speeding 'sir' in the most polite way possible, particularly if I am guilty (always). I don't really respect him, just use it as a tactical ploy for leniency. It almost always works!

      2. steve walsh   11 years ago

        I will always address the cop that pulls me over for speeding 'sir' in the most polite way possible, particularly if I am guilty (always). I don't really respect him, just use it as a tactical ploy for leniency. It almost always works!

    2. Robert   11 years ago

      I do it as an extension of calling sports game officials "Sir" during the game.

  24. steve walsh   11 years ago

    Lots to be offended and outraged about on this one. The most irritating part for me is the notion, as implied from the arrest and interrogation, that children must be supervised 100% of the time. That's nonsensical, impractical, and likely to result in a bunch of adults incapable of effectively caring for themselves.

  25. silverfang789   11 years ago

    She should look them in the eye and boldly proclaim that there's no law against letting a nine-year-old play in a park unsupervised.

  26. Ted S.   11 years ago

    Is it me or did nobody mention that the cops do everything they can to keep from releasing the name of one of their own who shot a suspect, but are perfectly willing to release stuff like this to try to embarrass suspects?

  27. Robert   11 years ago

    Maybe they need shirts labeled "Free Range Child", so people will say, "Oh, it's one of those," & leave them & their parents alone. Like, you know, the 5th Amendment counts only if you invoke it explicitly.

  28. Bruce Majors Libertarian4Mayor   11 years ago

    No one got shot!

  29. sportmodel   11 years ago

    Yes parks can be a wonderful place for kids to play. But, where do you think child abductors go to grab kids? They go to parks quite often and select a kid who has no supervision. This woman was in the wrong and saying she isn't is ridiculous.

    1. twoskinsoneman   11 years ago

      derp!

  30. tim_lebsack   11 years ago

    I'm reminded of the parks in Dallas with signs on benches saying 'You may not sit here unless accompanied by a child'. You know, to keep those child molesters away. Hasn't always worked but at least the City Council and Parks Department has done something.

  31. Joec578   11 years ago

    This woman is guilty of loving her child. Never talk to the police. They will twist your words and hang you with it.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive

M. Nolan Gray | From the July 2025 issue

Photo: Dire Wolf De-extinction

Ronald Bailey | From the July 2025 issue

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!