10-Year-Old Kid Offered Probation for Peeing Behind His Mom's Car
His mom is rejecting the prosecutors' absurdly strict probation rules.

A Mississippi 10-year-old has been sentenced to three months' probation for urinating behind his mother's car. But the boy's mother is refusing to sign his probation agreement, citing the stringency of the agreement's terms.
"It's just a regular probation. I thought it was something informed for a juvenile. But it's the same terms an adult criminal would have," Carlos Moore, the family's attorney, told the Associated Press on Tuesday. "We cannot in good conscience accept a probation agreement that treats a 10-year-old child as a criminal."
In August, third-grader Quantavious Eason was seen urinating behind his mother's car while she went inside an attorney's office. Senatobia, Mississippi, police saw Quantavious, arrested him, and took him to a local police station. According to the boy's mother, Latonya Eason, her son was even placed inside a jail cell, despite posing no threat to the officers.
Quantavious was charged with "child in need of supervision," and a youth court judge sentenced him last week to three months of probation, as well as a two-page report on late basketball player Kobe Bryant.
According to the A.P., the terms of Quantavious' probation resembled those given to adults—including that he submit to drug tests at his probation officer's discretion and a ban on the boy possessing any weapons. The probation agreement also placed a strict 8 p.m. curfew on the boy, one that would apply despite the upcoming Christmas holiday.
According to Moore, the prosecution threatened to upgrade the charge against Quantavious to disorderly conduct if his family attempted to take the case to a formal trial. As a result, Latonya Eason initially suggested that she would sign the agreement.
"We are not going to appeal. He will not have a criminal record, this is probation. And he is a fan of Kobe Bryant, so he doesn't mind writing the two-page report," Moore told NBC last week. "But, still, the principle of it—he should not have to do anything. He should be enjoying his Christmas holiday like the other kids."
But on Tuesday, Moore announced that Latonya Eason wouldn't sign the probation agreement after reading it in full and that he had filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Quantavious.
"The terms proposed are not in the best interest of our client, and we will take all necessary steps to challenge them," Moore told the A.P.
While it is unclear whether the case against Quantavious will be dismissed, what's certain is that police never should have arrested a 10-year-old for something as minor as public urination in the first place. The fact that police—and prosecutors—responded so aggressively to a completely nonviolent child has led Moore to suggest that racial bias has played a role in the boy's case.
"He did what any reasonable person would do: He urinated next to the car behind the door—not exposing himself to anyone," Moore told NBC last week. "He would not have been arrested, prosecuted or sentenced if he was any other color, race, besides Black."
"I want to make sure this doesn't happen again," Latonya Eason added. "No matter the color or who you are, no child should have to go through that."
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.
Please
to post comments
If the other side of the story is that he was intentionally urinating onto a different vehicle, what conclusion do we draw?
He apparently wasn't urinating on the car but behind it. Something I think almost every parent has allowed to happen when the kid needs to go and there is no restroom around. Presumably, he didn't realize he could go and ask in the office. Because he's 10.
Honestly, I think it has less to do with the color of his skin than the socio-economic class of the family. His mother left him in the car to go into an attorney's office, presumably due to some other legal issue the family is dealing with. That police happened to be there too gives the impression it was at a strip mall in a less affluent part of town.
According to a prior article, the office was explicitly posted that he couldn't. And because he's 10, he believed the sign.
And, yeah, I think this is a lot more about class than race.
Why do you think this is about class rather than race? I can see the police may have just stopped the kid from peeing because they were just there. But the prosecutor and judge?
The police and prosecution are actually the last in the chain of this ridiculous circumstance. I am kind of on the fence here and believe that the unnamed attorney is a huge source of the problem.
Was it Carlos Moore's office‽
There is a good reason that this is being left out of the race baited narrative, and why they are not pursuing legal action against the attorney, whose absurd policy instigated the issue. If it is Carlos Moore, then I highly recommend that she file an ethics complaint against him with the state bar. It's a bizarre conflict of interest but is not even close to grey.
_In August, third-grader Quantavious Eason was seen urinating behind his mother's car while she went inside an attorney's office._
Who is this attorney, and what is the law firm’s name?
Unfortunately, none of us readers/commenters can confidently say that we know the whole story. Why? Because most or all of what we know is what has been published in Reason about it, and Reason has a long and well-established history of publishing articles to gin up comment and indignation that are incomplete, or cherry-pick facts.
For purposes of discussion, let's agree that 10-y/o X actually urinated near a parked car. He apparently making some attempt at being discreet, not waving that offensive organ around in display and frightening the horses. Would not a verbal admonishment from the officer observing the offense have been sufficient? One has to ask why it went so far beyond that, and involved a trip to the police station, confinement in a cell for an unknown period of time, involvement of the gears of the justus [sic] system, including wasting the system's time with a demand for a guilty plea to a charge, followed by acquiescence to the terms of probation, and ultimately the threat to escalate charges to a more serious level if the parent did not sign the probation papers? Are all levels of the system here described so currently underutilized as to have that much spare time on their hands, with no more important malefactors to pursue, catch, charge, convict, and punish a 10 year old boy? (If the obscene malefactor had been a white girl who simply squatted behind the sheltering car door of her parents Mercedes-Benz, would the brou-ha-ha still have escalated to a Cat. V offense?) [I am not sure whether race or class or sex being the prime directive in this legal Royal Nonesuch.]
Does no one else detect a pattern here? You take a nothingburger of an offense, aggravate the circumstances, threaten the offender with "upping the charges" if he won't plead, and start the process of feeding another victim into the woodchipper. On the other hand, the system takes significant offenses like looting, arson, assault and battery, or grand theft auto, and hands out what amounts to a similar punishment that a 10 y/o is threatened with for peeing on the sidewalk? And then the operators of the system lament the "lack of respect" shown for a "justus" system run like a poorly-written comedy routine?
I've got a notion that in this case, somebody, somewhere, committed contempt of cop, and/or failed/refused to genuflect in front of a D.A. in his own mind is an underappreciate lawgiver and bringer of justus [sic]!
Agreed. Too many of these articles in Reason detailing supposedly obviously egregious actions turn out to be nothing of the sort.
likely more to this story which isn't being reported.
But Emma doesn't want to dig a little.
Like what? The kid is 10.
Nothing because you are throwing out a hypothetical that didn't happen.
Lucky he didn't get charged with public urination. In some states that puts someone on the sex offender registry.
He was charged with public urination and (while this article doesn't say it, the previous one did) he was threatened with listing on the state's sex offender registry.
Disgusting, and not at all surprising.
"He would not have been arrested, prosecuted or sentenced if he was any other color, race, besides Black."
Well, yeah. Because otherwise he wouldn't have been in Mississippi.
ouch
I mean.......... it's true, but oof.
My father was charged with public urination or something like that for peeing behind a tree. The judge was pretty disgusted with the whole waste of time and fined him $10 or something like that and had some strong words for the cops and City Attorney.
"sentenced him last week to three months of probation, as well as a two-page report on late basketball player Kobe Bryant"
A clear violation of the ban on cruel & unusual punishment.
They should have made him write a report on R Kelly.
Only if the report is written in pee
That is a valuable skill in prison.
To the tune of Let it Snow
Oh the prices outside are frightful
Brandon’s fix is blightful
Inflation don’t seem to slow
Fuck you Joe, fuck you Joe, fuck you Joe
Man, it doesn't show signs of stopping
In Brandon’s pants he’s plopping
The lights must be turned down low
Fuck you Joe, fuck you Joe
There’s a kid he’ll kiss goodnight
Then take a fall in usual form
But if Joe tries told too tight
The whole time a scared kid will squirm
Oh, his fire is quickly dying
We’ll be glad when he’s goodbyeing
Statist shills still love him so
Fuck you Joe, fuck you Joe, fuck you Joe
Not quite scanful in a few places, but I'll give you a B+. Keep it up!
Fuck you Joe, fuck you Joe, fuck you Joe
Light years beyond anything the pedo or the retarded squirrel have ever come up with. B+ as well.
Don’t fear the revolt!
(insurrection)!
All our times have come
Here, but now they’re gone
Seasons don’t fear the revolt
Nor do the wind, the sun, or the rain
(We can be like they are)
Come on, baby
(Don’t fear the revolt)
Baby, take my hand
(Don’t fear the revolt)
We’ll be able to fly
Baby, I’m your man
La, la la, la la
La, la la, la la
Valentine is done
Here but now they’re gone
Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbs
Are together in eternity
(Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbitt)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel
STOP SAYING FUCK YOU JOE!
— Lying Jeffy
Any reasonable person would piss in public?
Any reasonable 10-year old in that situation. Were you never 10?
I had certainly learned not to piss right out on the streets by then.
I'll grant this story doesn't pay out the details of the surrounding areas, but the quote still struck me as odd.
I'm 10 now.
Buttplug tumesces...
The previous article noted that office the mother was stopping at was marked "no public restrooms". So, yeah, in that circumstances any reasonable person who couldn't hold it (and that happens to everyone sometimes) would find a semi-private place behind the car rather than piss their clothes.
I wondered about that. Those signs usually means Joe Random Doe customer can't use their bathrooms, but if she was a client, I'd think that would be different.
But a 10 year old wouldn't know that distinction.
At 10, I could barely get my kid to go talk to an adult he knew to ask for something, let alone a stranger in a formal office setting.
It is a normal human activity like when a mother insists on breastfeeding in a public place…or folks riding public transportation in blue cities masturbate.
They poop on public transportation too.
Sure. Sometimes you can't wait. That is true of adults as well as children. Do you really expect him to pee his pants? He apparently concealed himself behind the car door, so his private parts were not visible and could not offend anyone. He shouldn't have been arrested at all, much less prosecuted.
Even if his private parts were visible, so what? He's 10.
I agree. But my point was that that wasn't an issue in this case.
SPB2 is aroused
When ya' gotta go, ya' gotta go.
A full bladder is painful, whether in public or not.
That'll learn the lil' fucker!
Sarcasm is not ok. The government is trying to get the young thug on the straight and narrow. Shame on you for mocking those efforts.
I guess the State was jealous of the boy's jewels.
This story pisses me off.
What is the punishment for your kid keying another car?
Ask sarc.
This ? This is what's clogging the courts ?
You know, I've seen businesses turn away pregnant women who needed to use a restroom if they don't like the look of you, customer or not. And with a sign posted, well what was the kid supposed to do ? This is more on "we don't have public restrooms" than we need 24-hour 10yr old Policing patrols.
I understand that there has to be some semblance of decorum in a public space like parking lots. Peeing is not allowed. There ought to be some kind of punishment, but there's no reason to arrest anyone or take them to court. Just stick a ticket in mom's windshield.
Ah, yes, let's have a government response to the scourge of 10 year olds peeing in a parking lot.
pregnant women who needed to use a restroom
Gonna need some definitions here.
Oh no you don't. It isn't that left in here. Well not yet, anyways.
Take a good look at much of the editorial staff.
Oh the places I've pissed!
It's Mississippi. $100 bucks says Quantavious Eason is Black. Another $100 says the Prosecutor is White. And you know where that leads.
First of the cop should've just said something to the kid, and drive off. But next time make sure it's in California or Washington state were they encourage sidewalk, defecation and pissing.
I don't understand the empathy for this thug. He's supposed to know better, and obviously his parents aren't teaching him. So what choice do we have but to arrest him and sentence him to probation. All of the racism cries are so ridiculous. The government is spending so much time and money trying to get this young thug on the straight and narrow. Plus, he SHOULD be taught respect for those in authoritay. In other words, the government is showing society's hope that he can be reformed. That should be praised, not pilloried.
Frankly, I am shocked that the mom isn't thanking the cops for doing this.
You're kidding, right? I know sarcasm is harder to pick up in written text than spoken word. You aren't really so stupid as to be sort-of semi serious with your comment?
I thought "authoritay" was a dead tell. 🙂
Bro...calling a 10yr old a thug because he exhibited poor judgement and peed in public is a little harsh. I hope your being sarcastic in your post.
I thought "authoritay" was a dead tell.
A 10 year old peeing discreetly in a parking lot isn't worthy of government response. Obviously, the budget for the cops and prosecutors is far too high.
The most this incident should have led to was maybe a fine and a "stern" talking to from the cops about public urination and safety. The fact that it went this far....yeah I have no problem with the cops, prosecutor, and judge having to face accusations of classism or racism. Common sense for government officials when fails this spectacularly, humiliation on the level of what the cops faced in the Afroman music videos is what is called for here.
Well the obvious reaction to this entirely inconsequential event should have been to ignore it. And while I don't generally buy into the race angle, why exactly would the cops even notice a 10 year old kid standing next to car for 45 seconds? Unless of course he's got an enlarged prostate. Then we could be talking like an entire minute. On the bright side the heroic cops all got home safely that night and isn't that the only thing that really matters?
Sadly, they didn't get to shoot any dogs.
I suprised they didn't put him on the sex offender registry, which they do to kids all the time
1) I'm thinking way back to when I was 10. I'm pretty sure I knew better than to whip my Johnson out on a public street and take a leak. Bushes or trees are there to get behind.
2) Of course the race card was played. I mean, Latonya and Quantavious? Where else would this go when Latonya didn't immediately get her little victim off with a pat on the head.
3) Way to raise a nice BLM Loot and Riot kid. Now he knows he can do anything, get away with it and someone will make excuses for him.
4) What the hell is wrong with the cops to immediately go with arresting a 10yr old? What about waiting for the mother to come out or go in after her, tell what he was doing and suggest she take care of it.
5) A book report? On a basketball player? What does that have to do with anything? Put the kid on probation and have a strong word with the cops about arresting kids for nonsense like that.
6) Curfew....way over rated. Where is a 10yr old going after 8pm anyways? If Christmas was coming up and his mom wanted to take him to church or the grandparents Christmas Eve the probation officer would have said fine. They can do that. I went out with a probation officer and she did stuff like that all the time for the juveniles.