Free-Range Kids

Court Sentences Dad to Hard Labor for Making His 8-Year-Old Son Walk a Mile as a Punishment

"In my opinion, if I was in your shoes, I wouldn't have left my child there. I have a 20-year-old daughter that I would not let her walk home."

|

Walking home
Pavel Losevsky

A year ago today, Mike Tang, a research chemist in Riverside, California, was frustrated and worried. He'd told his son to do his homework—read a grade-level book, like the teacher asked—but the boy, age 8, chose a baby book instead.

This was not the first time his son had done this, and previous punishments like taking away his videogames hadn't worked. So to put the fear of failure into his son, Tang drove him to the local shopping plaza at around 7:40 p.m. and showed him, "This is where homeless people sleep." (There were no actual homeless people present.) Mike then told the boy that he had to walk home, which was about a mile, along the same route that he walks to school. And off dad drove.

Someone quickly noticed the boy alone and called 911. Four police cars arrived a few minutes later, as did Tang and his own dad, coming to check up on the boy. They were shocked to find the cops there. Tang was not permitted to talk to his son. Instead he was handcuffed, charged with criminal child neglect, and taken to jail. He was released after midnight.

Meanwhile, a cop went to his home, entered it and lectured his wife on how to properly discipline kids: "Do you think it's right for an 8-year-old to walk that far in this cold weather? … He could have been kidnapped."

At a jury trial over the summer, Tang represented himself. He hoped to explain that his son had walked the route many times, he himself had walked home in the dark at that age, even if the cops didn't agree with his discipline choices that didn't make him a criminal, and that the town's youth curfew of 10 p.m. meant that kids were allowed outside until that time.

Here are some excerpts from the trial transcript, which was obtained by Reason:

Prosecutor: Now, when we think of a mile, we don't think that that's very far. But this is someone that didn't have a car. This was an eight-year-old small child who was told that he had to walk all the way home in the winter at night.

Note: This was in Southern California. It was 50 degrees. But it's certainly true that 8-year-olds don't have cars.

Officer Doty: At night, anywhere, in my opinion, is just dangerous for a child, for even an adult to walk home that late. Even 8:00 o'clock doesn't seem that late, but it just is. Anything can happen at any time. You can get hit by a car, or somebody can walk up behind you, you know, and steal your purse or try and kidnap you. Things like that. It does happen.

True. Yet people get into car accidents, too—far more frequently than kids get kidnapped (current stats say about 100/year are kidnapped by strangers, about 1600 die as car passengers). Does that mean no one should drive kids anywhere? After all, anything can happen.

In court, Tang argued:

There are always infinitely small risks out there day or night…. My job is not to put them in a bubble and shield them from all possible hypothetical dangers 24/7.

The two sides also argued about whether the boy would be hit by a car by crossing at the wrong part of the street—the part with no crosswalk.

Mike Tang: You're saying this dangerous intersection has no crosswalks whatsoever?

Officer Doty: No, it does.

Mike Tang: It does have crosswalks?

Officer Doty: Yes. What we said was, if he continued down east, there's no crosswalk farther down. Mike Tang: But you also said he knew the way home, correct?

Officer Doty: Yes Mike Tang: So if he knew the way home, he would not walk in an improper direction; would you agree with that?

Prosecutor: Objection, speculation.

Judge Randall Taylor: Yeah, that would be speculation, Mr. Tang.

So the judge allowed the officers to speculate the boy would walk home the wrong way, where there's no crosswalk, but did not allow the dad to speculate he would home walk the right way—even though the officers agreed that the boy knows the route.

Finally, the officer stated that Tang was in the wrong because he—the officer—would never do what he did:

Officer Doty: In my opinion, if I was in your shoes, I wouldn't have left my child there. I have a 20-year-old daughter that I would not let her walk home.

Tang later asked the court if a man who would not let a 20-year-old walk home at 8 at night struck them as a reasonable judge of danger.

Apparently it did. This was a jury trial and the verdict came back: Guilty. Tang was sentenced to a fine of $220 plus one year of parenting classes plus 56 days of "hard labor" which sounds like breaking rocks, but is basically picking up trash and other menial tasks for the county.

To date Tang has refused to do any of these things and now the county is threatening to suspend his driver's license. Which, Tang pointed out in an email to me, means his son would be doing even more walking.

Tang has filed an appeal even as the court has issued a warrant for his arrest. We will keep you posted.

As for my take, I must harken, once again, to the U.C.-Irvine study that was trying to determine why we keep arresting parents for putting their kids in nearly non-existent danger. It found that the more we morally disapprove of a parent, the more danger we believe they put their child in.

That seems to be what happened to Mike Tang. Anyone who wouldn't discipline their kids this way (or even let them walk outside alone before age 20) was primed to see him as a bad dad. And the worse a person they believed him to be, the more likely they were to believe the chilly temperature was too cold, the walkable distance too far, the 7:40 p.m. hour too late, etc., etc. The real danger—small, but not non-existent—loomed large, and the larger it loomed, the more evil seemed Mike Tang, and vice versa, in a spiral of condemnation.

But just because we don't agree with a parenting decision doesn't mean that the government should interfere, unless the parent is truly depraved and dangerous.

Mike Tang was and is neither.

Advertisement

NEXT: Obama Ends 'Wet Foot, Dry Foot' Policy for Cubans, Protesters Plan for Trump Inauguration, Consider the Potato Skin: A.M. Links

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. Mike Tang sounds like a crank. I like it.

    1. anyone know of a gofund me page? I like him for blowing off the punishment since it is unconstitutional and unlawful. Sounds like an American and deserves what little support i can give.

      1. Of course, blowing off punishment puts him at risk of being killed by the police. The more he refuses to comply, the closer he gets to that point where he refuses to go to jail, starts resisting and then they’ll be forced to shoot.

    2. Yeah well that didn’t help him one fucking bit in picking jurors who weren’t cumstains.

  2. My dad made me walk to school, in the dead of winter, without shoes, uphill, both ways!

    1. Lucky!

      I had to drag my dad’s corpse to school every day through a shark-filled lake. Sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads.

    2. Without shoes? When I was a kid, we didn’t have feet.

    3. My school district made me walk to school starting at age 6 – about half a mile. The busing perimeter was one mile.

      In high school they expanded the busing perimeter to 1.5 miles, and I lived 1.49 miles from my school, so off I trudged every day. That walk actually included a significant hill.

  3. Law enforcement now has to exploit cultural differences to create new crimes. Sad!

  4. Sounds like the kid needs to go to a foster home. You know, for his own safety.

    It’s unfortunate this guy got a jury of Goddamned idiots.

    1. It’s unfortunate this guy got a jury of Goddamned idiots.

      These are California voters, so, unavoidable.

    2. Jury of 6 idiots is easier than convincing 12 Taxifornia idiots should be guilty.

      Luckily we have appellate courts and they do occasionally apply law to misdemeanors and reverse the convictions.

  5. Officer Doty: At night, anywhere, in my opinion, is just dangerous for a child, for even an adult to walk home that late. Even 8:00 o’clock doesn’t seem that late, but it just is. Anything can happen at any time. You can get hit by a car, or somebody can walk up behind you, you know, and steal your purse or try and kidnap you. Things like that. It does happen.

    Or a cop might panic if he thinks you’re coming right at him and start blasting away. If a grown-ass man with a gun is terrified of every little shadow he sees, obviously it’s far too risky for a kid in them mean streets.

    Or maybe you should dismiss the testimony of a pants-shitting coward.

    1. I have a 20-year-old daughter that I would not let her walk home.

      Just how would you stop your adult daughter from doing what she wants?

      Anything can happen at any time.

      So, never leave the house? What about all those household hazards?

      Maybe just kill yourself, you raging pussy. Jeebus on a cracker.

      1. Hey, most accidents happen in the home. The only real choice is to just keep running. Keep running so far away. Just keep running. Running all night and day.

        1. Nope, the only choice is to spend your life in bed doing nothing.

      2. Just how would you stop your adult daughter from doing what she wants?

        He’s a cop, which means he thinks everyone has to do what he tells them to do.

        1. That was easy.

  6. Wow. What a fucking kangaroo court.

    1. Seems like he represented himself?

  7. So the judge allowed the officers to speculate the boy would walk home the wrong way, where there’s no crosswalk, but did not allow the dad to speculate he would home walk the right way?even though the officers agreed that the boy knows the route.

    No, the prosecution objected and the judge rightly sustained that objection. The man who had a fool for an attorney by representing himself could have objected to the cop’s speculation and the judge would have sustained it as well.

    It’s not the judge’s job to coach the legal counsel. It’s up to them to object when something is amiss. This idiot probably would have won had he got even Lionel Hutz to be his counsel. He didn’t, and here he is.

    1. Which is reason #467 that lawyers aren’t on the Top 10 List of Most Popular People.

      “I’m going to let *my* witness engage in improper speculation and the judge will allow it, but I’m going to object once the speculation looks like it might be in the defendant’s favor.”

      1. Would you say the same if it were an incompetent prosecutor and a capable defense attorney leading witnesses while objecting to the prosecution’a? Of course not.

        Lots of lawyers are shitheels. But you can bet your ass I’ll have one standing beside me should I ever end up in a courtroom for anything more than a traffic ticket.

        1. I would always recommend that anyone charged with crime get a lawyer.

          And if I were a victim of crime and saw a defense attorney walking all over an incompetent prosecutor in the trial of the person who victimized me? Of course I’d complain.

          1. What if you’re just a casual observer like here?

            1. Then I’d post a comment reflecting my initial reaction.

              1. Fair enough. But like I said, a competent attorney would have stopped at least that part of that witnesses speculation. Who knows what else he may have kept out of the prosecution.

                And the author of this piece should know that and should have brought it up as relevant.

                1. That’s true – or at least some “fool for a client” snark.

                  1. Now, I agree that if you don’t object to something during a trial then you should lose the right (outside of exceptional cases) to object to it during an appeal.

                    But simply because you’ve lost the right to object to something doesn’t mean it’s right.

                    1. Of course not. But if there was an injustice here (, which we are speculating on since there are no links in the story to court records, other viewpoints from principals involved or any background information and since a quick internet search of the guy’s name turns up nothing about the story), the defendant contributed to it by mounting a piss-poor defense.

                    2. I tried Googling his name but only found this article and some stuff about other people.

                      I hope Skenazy isn’t as fast and loose with the facts as some of the other Reason authors – if she is, I’m sorry I relied on her reportage.

                      *If* this trial was unjust, then yes, I’d criticize the guy for representing himself, but not on the grounds that he contributed to the outcome, on the grounds that he should have fought back better.

    2. No, he wouldn’t have won with a lawyer.

      A lawyer would have cost him an arm and a leg for a misdemeanor and clearly the jury agreed with the state.

      He is doing the right thing and defying the state of insanity. The jury was supposed to be the check to California insanity but clearly they were idiot jurors who buy into the Nanny-State nonsense.

      Hopefully an appellate court will smack down this conviction. It would Taxifornia appellate courts, so maybe no reversal.

      1. If the lead witness wasn’t allowed to speculate as to danger, then no danger would have been presented. I can’t imagine there being a case for prosecution were no danger present or speculated upon. Even in California.

        1. You are applying lawyer-think to jurors. The jurors would think that it was dangerous, not matter how many jury instructions are given.

          Come on. I thought you are an attorney. Most jurors do not follow the nuances of law like that. Judges know that, prosecutors know that and you should know that.

          Its like the concept of presumption of innocence and that blank stare you get explaining that to them. They “know” your client is guilty because the prosecutor said it and the back story sounds bad then defendant will not tell us jurors his/her story. Jurors tend to find all the evidence very compelling and no reasonable doubt.

          On that note, I have been pleasantly surprised with one or two jurors holding out no matter how much the other jurors want to fry the defendant.

          1. I thought you are an attorney.

            Sloopy? An attorney?

            He’s one of those guys pushing a shopping cart with all his possessions through the streets of Houston while muttering to himself.

            1. The Woodlands, asshole. I push the shopping cart through The Woodlands not Houston.

              1. Huh. I thought you were an artisan chipotle-mayo maker in Austin…

                *ducks*

          2. Come on. I thought you are an attorney.

            How dare you impugn sloopy with such accusations!

    3. I know. For the SECOND time my GF didn’t hire a lawyer against my advice. She lost and now has to pay a lawyer for an appeal. I had to explain (again) that right or wrong, guilty or innocent, doesn’t matter in court. Proof and legal argument Uber Alles.

      1. “Yeah but lawyers are incompetent at practicing law unlike your average defendant who is really good at it. His chances of winning, or losing less badly, are just as good if he defends himself in front of a jury. Derpity derp derpy do.” /loveconstitution1789

      2. This should be in your basic high school civics classes but you’re lucky to find it taught, if at all, in a law school elective. Courts, if well structured, deliver justice but they do not determine empirical truth. They determine a legal truth. The delta between these truth values may be a signal as to the fairness of a court system.

    4. The problem is Tang didn’t object. Had he objected, the judge would have probably upheld it. That’s why you take lawyers to court with you no matter how simple you think the case is.

  8. Trumpelstiltskins – how many days have I left?

  9. Suspend objective and reasoned thought and what remains is compliance to a world remodeled through imaginative legality based in the amorphous reinvention of ‘what is’.

    Every fucking scenario similar to this involving the suspension of common sense has been successfully subverted through the clever imposition of jarring rationalization shit from hysteria-induced minds.

    The dismantling of reason begins in the house of feelings. And this is by design.

  10. This idiocy was almost certain to happen in CA, where the prevailing opinion is that you are part of a collective and a parent raising their child outside of that collective’s standard is not only to be frowned upon, it’s to be prosecuted.

    If this was rural Texas, the cop would have been run out of town on a rail. And the jury would have laughed it out of court. I hope.

    1. He deserves teh punishment just for living in CA.

    2. If this was my town in Ohio, the cop would be tarred and feathered.

    3. It takes a Potemkin village.

  11. My school district does not provide transportation for 8 year old kids who live less than a mile from school, so that seems like a reasonable metric for walking distance.

    And while they don’t walk at 8pm, they do walk at 7:30 am when it might still be dark in October.

    That said, if the man really did think there were homeless people in the area, letting the kid walk alone at 8 pm is indeed ludicrous.

    1. it was a lesson. I doubt homeless sleep there. He was making a point to scare the kid.

  12. Tang should protest by reading children’s books in front of the court house. Maybe Dr Seuss.

    1. He should read them “The Cat in the Hat” in Latin. Yes, it’s a real book. Available on Amazon.

    2. Apparently, doing so in front of this court house would be the equivalent of reading the works of Shakespeare.

  13. “somebody can walk up behind you, you know, and steal your purse”

    Why punish a father so enlightened he lets his son carry a purse?

  14. Officer Doty: At night, anywhere, in my opinion, is just dangerous for a child

    Good grief, Officer — Get a grip!

  15. In this father’s defense, at least he didn’t drive his son to the cesspool known as San Bernardino and drop him off to walk a mile. That should weigh into his sentencing at a minimum.

  16. Non-negligent parenting according to California law:

    DAD: How was school today?

    SON: Fine. Can I go watch TV?

    DAD: Sure.

  17. That punishment sounds like a little much buuuuuut…
    Dude notices his eight year old reading a book below his grade level (who gives a shit if the kid reads Cat in the Hat instead of The Lorax?) and decides his kid is heading for the streets? What this really boils down to is what neighborhood he kicked his kid out in, and it doesn’t sound like a good one. The kid is eight.

    1. Yeah, I’d like to know where he dropped the kid off and see the crime stats in the surrounding area. Based on that, I’d have a better idea of whether or not the cops should have told him whether they thought it was a good or bad idea.

      Do I think it should be criminal? Almost certainly not. But I’d like to see a little more background on it other than the one side of the story being presented as fact.

      1. and see the crime stats in the surrounding area

        If four cars worth of cops were able to spend a significant amount of their time dealing with this, and a prosecutor was able to spend what, at least a day of his time dealing with this, I’m guessing we’re not talking about a high crime area here.

        1. Well all of that is being reported as fact…without an iota of corroboration by the author.

          With all of the fake news being reported lately, I’d sure like this laziness not be accepted here at Reason.

      2. The neighborhood was less than a mile from his home. How much worse can the crime be than what he would encounter in front of his house. Maybe there is line on the street leading to his house that states, “No crime permitted beyond this point”.

      3. +1 Falling Down. Simplified version.

        1. I live in hope that one day I will find a surplus store with a back room like that.

      4. He hoped to explain that his son had walked the route many times,

        If this is true, I think it’s safe to assume that the crime stats are probably not that bad.

    2. “(who gives a shit if the kid reads Cat in the Hat instead of The Lorax?)”

      The article says the boy was reading a book below the level his teacher wanted.

      1. When I was eight I was reading Ice Station Zebra and The Kon-Tiki Expedition. That kid must be a retard.

    3. I’m going to racistly speculate based on his last name that the kid probably got off easy for that. I’ve heard of far worse.

    4. The mere fact that someone willingly called the police to report a child on the street tells you everything you need to know about the safety of the area and the crime rate therein.

  18. At a jury trial over the summer, Tang represented himself.[…]So the judge allowed the officers to speculate the boy would walk home the wrong way, where there’s no crosswalk, but did not allow the dad to speculate he would home walk the right way?even though the officers agreed that the boy knows the route.

    That’s what you get for not hiring a lawyer. I agree that one shouldn’t need a lawyer in this situation, but our legal system is not a justice system. The judge and prosecutor will engage in trickery that would never fly when you have a half-way competent lawyer to call them on their bullshit. The judge and prosecutor will treat you unfairly if for no other reason than the fact that the sight of a plebeian “practicing law” offends their precious dignity.

    1. It did not matter what was said, the jury agreed with the Nanny-State.

      This guy saved himself thousands and some appellate court somewhere will step in and reverse this insanity.

      1. A competent lawyer wound have prevented the prosecution from speculating on danger. Only a fool wouldn’t think that is likely to influence a jury.

        1. Only a fool would believe anything coming out of a prosecutor’s mouth in this case.

          it was a bad jury and that happens. It was probably 6 on that jury and they are Californian who are mostly fine with the Nanny-State. it was signed, sealed and delivered.

          1. How do you think Mr Tang did during jury selection? Apparently not good.

            Only a fool would believe anything coming out of a prosecutor’s mouth in this case.

            And he was the only trained professional bullshitter present that was attempting to sway the jury. Only a fool would represent himself in this situation.

            1. Clearly y’all don’t agree but I really don’t think a lawyer would have won the case for this guy. Its all speculation now unless he gets a new trial.

              This case is probably a misdemeanor and probably made the news, so all sorts of SJWs wanted to be no that jury. You think lying SJWs just change their ways because Trump won. The SJWs wanted to make sure Californians do not defy the Nanny-State.

              This guy is a dissenter and is willing to stand up against the state for his parental rights even when the the prosecutor says he is violating the law.

              He should leave Taxifornia immediately though.

              1. He should leave Taxifornia immediately though.

                On that we agree. But by the same token, I don’t need any California refugees fucking up my state and my town so I’d prefer they go somewhere other than near me.

                1. Maybe he prefers fighting to make California a better place?

                  1. So maybe he wants to make California Great Again?

                2. doesn’t sound Californian if he isn;t paying the fine or doing the community service and gave the finger to the state. I would like him as a neighbor. Sounds like a decent human being.

              2. This case is probably a misdemeanor and probably made the news, so all sorts of SJWs wanted to be no that jury.

                You’d think so. But a few of us have searched this guy’s name and come up with absolutely nothing. And since there are no links in the story (sorry if I’m beating a dead horse here, but it does bear repeating), it’s hard to determine what really happened.

                1. I could not find a story about this guy either. How did Lenore find this story.

                  We are definitely low on facts about case.

                  I still stand on my comments that SJWs end up on juries and want to be there to further agendas. Hard to get much concrete proof of that though.

                  1. Again, who is generally going to do better in the jury selection phase, a laymen defendant representing himself or an attorney? This isn’t all that hard to grasp.

          2. I’m yours.

      2. some appellate court somewhere will step in and reverse this insanity.

        I seriously doubt it. There’s no way this guy wins anything on appeal without hiring a lawyer, and even then, appellate courts almost never reverse findings of fact by a jury, only mistakes of law by the judge. He’s done.

        1. He can always claim insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Basically that the state did not prove evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to the elements of the crime.

          He has a chance in the appellate court by leaving that the emotional bias of the child neglect in the trial court.

          1. He can always claim insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Basically that the state did not prove evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to the elements of the crime.

            Maybe if he was aware of standards of proof. If only there were some kind of professional that one could hire to figure this stuff out so it never even needs to go to appeals in the first place…

            1. Pro se pleadings and pleadings are construed liberally with courts. He can find what he needs, if he looks and submit an appeal pro se.

              He is also entitled to an appellate attorney because this was a criminal conviction. Some of those appellate attorneys are very good at what they do.

      3. I don’t know why you think jury trials are somehow exempt from the general rule that you shouldn’t represent yourself in court. It’s especially true in the case of jury trials.

        1. I have represented others in court and myself. I have been pretty successful. Some cases and juries are better suited for arguments directly to a jury. For most cases, a lawyer as a buffer is probably the best thing.

          You are right, that some people should not represent themselves.

          I think MORE people should represent themselves because most lawyers are really shitty and sell clients up the river on more occasions than people know. Also MORE people should demand jury and speedy trials to flood the system with trials and some of these ridiculous cases would be dropped.

          Go sit in a criminal court for a day and see what our criminal courts are like. Its sad how prosecutors and judges gang up on Defendants with defense attorneys letting this happen.

          1. I have been to criminal court as a defendant and I walked without so much as a day of probation despite the prosecutor demanding I spend 6 months in jail and two years of probation because I set off some fireworks, thanks to the fact that I hired a competent attorney.

            1. Or you got a light sentence because the charge was ridiculous.

              Come back with stacked felony charges, horrible backstory and get a light sentence and I will give your attorney all the kudos you think your past attorney deserves.

              People outside the court system just do not understand how much back scratching goes on. The government has a bunch of corruption but you people cannot believe that happens in courts too?

              I hate to break it to you but many many attorneys are barely competent and some are not in the right field of law for their skill set. Lots of criminal defense attorneys and they are probably better suited to be tax attorneys or whatever.

              1. Come back with stacked felony charges, horrible backstory

                I don’t get your point. Stacked felony charges seems like a scenario where it would be far more imperative to hire an attorney.

                The government has a bunch of corruption but you people cannot believe that happens in courts too?

                Again I’m not sure what the hell your point is. I say that people ought to hire attorney’s when going to court because the system is corrupt and won’t treat you fairly even if the charges are ridiculous, and you tell me that I’m naive about how much back scratching takes place in court? That’s my entire point, it’s exactly why people ought to hire attorney’s instead of representing themselves. I’m wondering if you’re not reading my posts at all or if you’re trying to make my case for me.

                I hate to break it to you but many many attorneys are barely competent and some are not in the right field of law for their skill set.

                Unlike the vast majority of criminal defendants that are expert practitioners of law? Yeah, thanks for giving me that tough pill to swallow, very eye opening…

          2. So you’re an attorney then? Because I thought only attorney’s can represent other people in court.

        2. I’m sure you are all right about the wisdom of representing yourself. But I still sort of have to admire those who do in a way. If you are innocent it really blows that you have to shell out for a lawyer because the police and/or prosecutor fucked up (or acted maliciously). You should at least be able to sue those people to recoup your costs.

          It seems like judges are a big part of the problem. I remember thinking, at the time of the “sheep fucker” and “woodchipper” incidents, why the hell does Reason need to hire a lawyer for this obvious bullshit? Shouldn’t the judge just tell the plaintiffs to stop wasting time and fuck off?

          I understand that that isn’t how it is, but it’s fucking absurd that anyone has to spend one cent to defend against such blatantly absurd actions.

          1. this is what normal sane people think. Just reality is a bitch

          2. this is what normal sane people think. Just reality is a bitch

    2. See above, but our “legal system” does an excellent job of providing justice. It is, in fact, a justice system. It is not, however, a fairness system. The rules apply equally to all, even those who are ignorant of the rules and thus you engage the system at your peril. This, provided the outcomes are consistent holding all else equal, is Justice.

  19. Is he Asian? He’s perpetuating a stereotype by disciplining his child. They should nail him on that alone.

  20. You know, these stories will be met with a less skeptical eye if there are actual links to court records or corroborating information included in them WITH LINKS WE CAN FOLLOW to get context or background information. Presenting one side as gospel fact and not even asking someone other than the subject their thoughts is so speculative it would be disregarded by any reputable news agency as sloppy at best, and disingenuous at worst.

    If we’re going to challenge things like what supposedly happened here, we are owed the entire story. That will ensure we don’t start sticking our nexk out to defend this guy only to find out he is full of shit.

    1. Agreed. Between this and the ’19 year old bangs 14 year old with 31 year old around’ story, it’s really hard to know what side to take. In both cases I’ve tried to poke around for a little more info, but nothing comes up.

      In both cases, the law seems to have acted disproportionately. That’s really all that can be said.

      A lot of chronic bad-decision-makers who have been arrested for something will tell you that it’s ‘bullshit’ and explain to you exactly why. These emails sound like stories one might hear in DUI classes. The other side of the story is, of course, not presented.

      “They were profiling me! I was the only car on the sidewalk that evening!”
      -Ron White

      1. A quick search of the internet brings up nothing associated with this story. For all I know it’s total bullshit.

  21. I would speculate that anyone whose parents punished them with more than a stern talking-to would have been excluded from the jury.

    And I have this image of the jurors saying “*my* parents never flipped out over *my* schoolwork, and I turned out all right!”

  22. When I was 7 I ran a mile at 8:02. When I was 9 I ran a mile at 6:51. I had trained all winter (northern MN) to try to bring my time under 8 minutes, all during recess.

    Apparently my school was guilty of child abuse too!

  23. When I was about 8 years old, My older brother and I had been fighting all day. It was grating on my dad and he was tired of spanking us. He put me and my brother in the truck, drove out to Milton ford, (a spot about 12 miles from our house up in the ozark mountains) told me and my brother to get out and work out our differences on the walk home. This was summer time in NW arkansas. It was hot, humid, and we had no water.

    We walked home and nothing happened except we quit fighting.

  24. And yet we just hand cash to parents who won’t work to put a roof over their kids heads or feed them.

  25. So this idea of “not allowing” a 20 yo woman to walk at night is…interesting. I didn’t realize Islam is so prevalent in California.

    1. FWIW, the implication, from the preceding sentence, appears to be that the particular location in question is especially dangerous, not that she should never walk alone at 8pm.

      In my opinion, if I was in your shoes, I wouldn’t have left my child there. I have a 20-year-old daughter that I would not let her walk home.

      Which could potentially be backed up by the fact that the father was using this place as an example of where the homeless live (whether or not they actually do), the fact that the officer is not entitled to “let” or not let his adult daughter do anything notwithstanding.

      Skenazy, of course, does not acknowledge that implication:

      Tang later asked the court if a man who would not let a 20-year-old walk home at 8 at night struck them as a reasonable judge of danger.

      This is what bugs me about many of Skenazy’s pieces. This case, like most of them, sounds like total nanny state bullshit. But she writes in a way that makes it appear that she’s eliding something to craft a more perfect victim.

  26. At night, anywhere, in my opinion, is just dangerous for a child, for even an adult to walk home that late. Even 8:00 o’clock doesn’t seem that late, but it just is. Anything can happen at any time. You can get hit by a car, or somebody can walk up behind you, you know, and steal your purse or try and kidnap you. Things like that. It does happen.

    It’s dangerous to read your overwrought concern, Officer Nervioso; doing so may lead to high blood pressure, which may lead to heart attack. And yet, I’m reading it anyway.

  27. So if he knew the way home, he would not walk in an improper direction; would you agree with that?

    Speculative.

    Instead:

    If he knew the way home, why did you believe he would walk in an improper direction?

    Open ended, but not speculative.

  28. A mile is nothing for an 8 year old.

    When my daughter was about 2.5 years old we took her to Rocky Mountain NP.

    On one trail she insisted that she would walk on her own feet rather than be carried.
    So she walked a good 2 miles over rough terrain on her own in a single stretch.

    1. I’d like to see accurate pedometers put in my kids to see how much they walk on a normal day. I bet it’s easily a few miles.

      1. Does shit-smearing count for steps? If so, I think 10+ miles for one of your kids…

        1. They’re over that now. Candy bribery solved that problem.

          1. “Mmmmm, chocolate!”

    2. Yep. My son is 4, and we went on countless 1-2 mile walks hunting Pok?mon this past summer. And he was putting on more miles than me as he would run way ahead of me, then turn around and run back to me.

    3. When my son was 6 we used to walk 2 miles to t-ball practice where he’d run around for an hour and then two miles back. We lived on a mountain in NH but it was downhill one way and uphill the other and if you’ve ever walked downhill, you know it can be harder than uphill at times.

  29. First, they actually needed a jury trial for such a menial case? Second, how in the fuck did 12 reasonable people find him guilty of such ridiculousness? I would have found not guilty, to the point of mistrial, just for the fact that the courts are wasting my time as a juror for bullshit.

    1. If only there were links in the story so we could find out what happened from an objective reporter, the public record of the case or a corroborating party. Then we’d know what happened if this story isn’t a total fabrication or gross exaggeration.

  30. We are so fucked.

  31. When I was in junior high I walked a mile to and from school in a drainage ditch that passed under a major street. My friends and I would routinely find needles and bullet casings and used rubbers. All the kids in the neighborhood walked that path. I remember watching a kid get jumped into a gang under that bridge.Those are rich memories filled with learning experiences. And my parents REFUSED to drive me. This kid will be just fine. Not every trip out of the house is a threat.

  32. Little known fact- Mike Tang invented that famous orange drink while he was working at NASA.

    1. Wow, you got a G-rated joke out of his name, on H&R of all places, good job!

      1. The effort was painful. I shall not repeat that attempt again.

  33. i blame the cock-sucking jury. what a bunch of lifeless pussies.

  34. This is why you should just lock your kids in a closet.

  35. I’m not that old, at 32, but I remember when I was that age getting off the bus at the first stop and walking the rest of the way (more than a mile) just because the bus took too long and I wanted to go home and play with my friends. Kids today are too sheltered. When my teacher told my parents that I wasn’t doing my homework, my dad handed me an encyclopedia and said, “ok, fine, if you don’t want to do your homework, that’s ok, but start copying this encyclopedia, maybe when that gets boring, homework won’t seem so bad. When you get done with “M” come back, there’s 25 other letters.”
    I would have rather walked a mile than filling notebooks handwriting an encyclopedia…

    1. + 1 The Red Headed League.

  36. I have no idea how high crime this neighborhood was, but stranger abductions of 8 yr olds walking in public places in mid evening are EXCEPTIONALLY rare.

    in 20+ yrs of police work I’ve dealt with ZERO

    ZE-RO and I’ve dealt with almost every type of crime, even the mythical “rape in a bathroom” (although it had nothing to do with trans of course), a person struck by a stray bullet from somebody target practicing 1/2 mile away in a rural area… officers may not get shot that often, but my best friend was shot in the head and killed, and three guys in my unit were shot on a warrant (I was supposed to be on but got called off on the last minute) out of my 40 man unit.

    I’ve dealt with two house fires caused by stray fireworks, a bank robbery via bow and arrow (lol!), been in a shooting myself, struck by a Molotov cocktail , and pepper sprayed…

    but no child stranger abductions…

    they are RARE AS FUCK, even granted there are not a lot of 8 yr olds allowed to walk home through industrial/business areas at 8 pm at night.

    ultimately, as some above point out – this is NOT the cops or prosecutor’s fault (although they sound like putzes). THIS IS THE JURY’S FAULT

    THEY ARE THE FINDER OF FACT and THEY DECIDE IF THIS WAS OR WASN’T A CRIME…

    as long as people are willing to unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such behavior is CRIMINALChild Neglect, such charges and trials will continue – because the jury is endorsing the idea that this IS Criminal Child Neglect.

    1. “this is NOT the cops or prosecutor’s fault (although they sound like putzes). THIS IS THE JURY’S FAULT”

      No matter how much you capitalize it…if things happened as Lenore Skenazy described them then there’s PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND.

      If Lenore Skenazy’s account is true, then cops and prosecutors charged a guy with something that isn’t actually child abuse, and as for the jury agreeing with them, so what, it simply means the jury was an accomplice to the injustice (if it was an injustice).

      1. …also, whose fault was it *before* the jury gave its verdict?

        Was it the cops’ and prosecutors’ fault up until the jury said “Guilty,” after which the cops and prosecutor were off the hook because “OMG the jury bought it”?

  37. I’m glad I grew up during the the 70’s. We were always outside, always walking everywhere, always playing. We walked to and from school nearly every day (unless it was raining really hard). We had to learn how to take care of ourselves. Does that mean it was always safe? No–kids got hit by cars, abducted (hell, me and a friend were almost abducted within view of my house but luckily we knew better than to get in the car with the guy. She went home and told her police officer dad who said they were looking for the guy for abducting and molesting girls) etc. But because we were out in the world every day we knew how to handle it. We can’t shelter our children so much that they become easy prey. And I honestly think unless the child is being neglected or abused physically or verbally then the government needs to stay out of it. I can understand them stopping to check on the child, but when the dad showed up and talked to the cops, the cops should have left.

    1. You didn’t have to walk when it was raining hard? Lucky you!

    2. You didn’t have to walk when it was raining hard? Lucky you!

  38. Here are some excerpts from the trial transcript, which was obtained by Reason:

    Is it too much to post a link to the .pdf of that transcript? I want to believe this and I’d like to be able to use it as an example of nanny-statism. But absent any supporting evidence or documentation, it’s gonna be a tougher sale than an Alex Jones or CNN exclusive.

    1. You can search criminal court records in Riverside for a buck. I’m too lazy.

  39. 50 degrees (F) is cold????? WTF? Ever been to Buffalo in winter? True, we only walked a half mile in kindergarten, but still, was Buffalo, IN WINTER! And, aside from a couple of specific days, I don’t even remember it. We just did it.

    At least now we know where “snowflakes” come from.

    1. Fuck Buffalo in winter. Have these assholes even been to San Francisco in the summer???

  40. serious legal question: If Tang gets injured while doing state labor, is the state on the hook for a workman’s comp claim?

  41. Tang will have the last laugh. His kid will grow up to give blow jobs in the Home Depot parking lot for smack and then the state will be paying millions for his rehab.

  42. Is this a real story? I could not find any news articles in Riverside about this.

    1. I get paid ?82 every hour from online joobs. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my friend AB is earning ?9k monthly by doing this job and she showed me how. Try it out on following website..

      ====>>>>>>>>>> http://www.JobMax6.Com

  43. This is Mike Tang himself.
    Thanks for all your support and frank discussions, everyone.

    For anyone wanting to get a copy of the arrest documents, police reports, and trial transcript, please message me. I’ve got absolutely nothing to hide and everything to gain from exposing these corrupt cops to the world.

    Everyone also please Google Riverside County’s “Ordinance 339.2” for a copy of the curfew law. It explicitly states when minors can be out alone. It explicitly states cops shall NOT ARREST in section 4.

    Those wanting to share a piece of their mind should call Corona Police Dept (not Riverside). It’s a part of Riverside County.

    Anyone wanting to do a google map search of the location: here it is.

    The Ralphs supermarket shopping center off of Green River Rd. and Serfas Club Dr. in Corona, CA 92882.

    Feel free to ask me any questions or help me spread the word and you’ll have my full cooperation.

    ?Mike Tang

    1. thanks for taking the time to come here and post, Mike.

  44. I also want to clear up some questions y’all had

    1.) Yes, I did make objections that the police officers speculated my son would walk home the wrong way, the judge overruled it. But he did not overrule the prosecutor when I speculated.

    2.) The judge also manipulated the trial when I tried to testify that when I was young it was perfectly fine to walk home. He said that was irrelevant. He told me to stop talking even when the prosecutor didn’t object. Yet when the police officers testified, they were allowed to mention one attempted kidnapping in the area in 2006 or something.

    3.) I tried to mention the curfew law and Halloween trick or treating multiple times but the prosecutor objected and the judge didn’t allow me to say those things. He specifically said “the curfew law is 10 pm, everybody knows that, this is 8pm, how is that relevant?” and “Halloween is in October, this is in January, how is that relevant?”

    There is no way in hell he is not corrupt!!

    Would I have to be arrested at 10pm sharp for the curfew law to be relevant? If I was arrested at fucking 9:59pm it’s no longer relevant? So in October, kids can go trick or treating and kidnappers would leave the alone, but in January, they come out in droves and kidnap kids??

  45. Even if hiring a lawyer guaranteed a victory, that would still be a financial loss to me. And there’s no guarantee the police might not arrest me again for the same thing a week later.

    A national outcry over this story and bad publicity for Corona Police Department, however, might make them stop this nonsense.

    So at this point, defying them, appealing the verdict, daring the to escalate the punishment, is the only way I can get them to stop harassing good parents. Yes, winning one trial might have been the high road to take. But stopping police across America from harassing parents for decisions they don’t agree with is my preferred outcome over a “not guilty” verdict. If we don’t stand up for what’s right, this nation will be nothing but isolated communities run by nanny-dictators such as the one in Corona.

  46. What’s happening, good websites you possess presently.
    Cialis for men

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.