521–530 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, I wanted to add that remark as well, especially because the topic is about kids. But I didn't. And of course bicycles are far less dangerous than any car. So there is no reason to complain or criticise this great achievement.
Yes, it wasn't meant so much as a criticism as a caveat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't search his backpack without consent - he asked for, and was presumably given, consent. There are certainly scenarios where you should consider the police to be your adversary and enforce every right you have to its fullest extent, but choosing your battles is just as important. The police have far more rights to detain a juvenile compared to an adult, and an unaccompanied 13 year old with a backpack at 5am…
> He didn't search his backpack without consent I never said he did. I said greedo shouldn't have given that consent. > Allowing a quick search to confirm that you're just pursuing a harmless hobby and are not putting yourself in any danger or likely to be reported missing a couple of hours later, seems like the easiest and fastest way to deal with that particular encounter. It puts you in danger of arrest and false…
He was a juvenile, carrying a rucksack, walking alone at 5am. He is already starting from a position of being detained as a potential runaway. His encounter can get better (proving that he's just a birdwatcher and being allowed on his way) or worse (if he's carrying anything he can be arrested for). If he's just carrying a camera and a pair of binoculars, it seems like its worth the risk. The officer has better things to do with his day than ferry around kids who clearly aren't runaways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't search his backpack without consent - he asked for, and was presumably given, consent. There are certainly scenarios where you should consider the police to be your adversary and enforce every right you have to its fullest extent, but choosing your battles is just as important. The police have far more rights to detain a juvenile compared to an adult, and an unaccompanied 13 year old with a backpack at 5am…
> He didn't search his backpack without consent I never said he did. I said greedo shouldn't have given that consent. > Allowing a quick search to confirm that you're just pursuing a harmless hobby and are not putting yourself in any danger or likely to be reported missing a couple of hours later, seems like the easiest and fastest way to deal with that particular encounter. It puts you in danger of arrest and false…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He didn't search his backpack without consent I never said he did. I said greedo shouldn't have given that consent. > Allowing a quick search to confirm that you're just pursuing a harmless hobby and are not putting yourself in any danger or likely to be reported missing a couple of hours later, seems like the easiest and fastest way to deal with that particular encounter. It puts you in danger of arrest and false…
If you're starting from a position where the police can't take any action against you without more evidence, and they need you to provide that evidence, sure. In that case, there may be no benefit to you to cooperating. But that's not where the parent post was. He was a juvenile, carrying a rucksack, walking alone at 5am. He is already starting from a position of being detained as a potential runaway. His encounter c…
There's never any benefit to you in cooperating. You do the absolute minimum you are compelled by law to do, and do nothing further.
I encourage you to read James Duane's book. You are the target audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're starting from a position where the police can't take any action against you without more evidence, and they need you to provide that evidence, sure. In that case, there may be no benefit to you to cooperating. But that's not where the parent post was. He was a juvenile, carrying a rucksack, walking alone at 5am. He is already starting from a position of being detained as a potential runaway. His encounter c…
> In that case, there may be no benefit to you to cooperating. There's never any benefit to you in cooperating. You do the absolute minimum you are compelled by law to do, and do nothing further. I encourage you to read James Duane's book. You are the target audience.
By all means enforce your rights, but make sure you know your opponents rights too, and choose your battles carefully.
Just felt like it was worth mentioning because, let's face it, he's asking a great and important question :)
Well I think it's fine, building jumbo planes.
Or takin' a ride on a cosmic train.
Switch on summer from a slot machine.
Get what you want to if you want,
Cause you can get anything.
I know we've come a long way,
We're changin' day to day,
But tell me,
Where do the children play?
By Cat Stevens
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rivers of high-speed traffic in the city? Dude, I feel like I can't allow my kids to walk alone to school that's four blocks over in my own neighborhood without some nanny state enabler calling child services on me. Hell, I don't let them play in the front yard and wonder how long it'll be before I get the knock on the door because I let them play unsupervised in the fenced backyard with a trained full-grown German s…
And then it spitballs. The police / CPS will listen , and we've all heard horror stories about "good people" getting slapped with lawsuits, fines, community service[1], or straight up losing their kids [2] because of a system gone mad. And the sad part is that we've been conditioned to it. The parent that lets their kids roam with that kind of societal norm and social pressure? You start wondering... [1] http://www.s…
Holy shit, that is fucking kidnapping. But somehow because a government worker does it somehow it's not the same thing?
Though I definitely agree this shouldn't go too far. There was this article that I just read a few days ago, that stated that Iceland was able to drastically curb teenage drug/alcohol use with some measures, which included after school interest clubs etc. and especially, a law that prevented them from being outside after 0:00 (summer) or 22:00 (winter)... which I certainly find way too draconian. You'd definitely still want to give the teens much more freedom even if it entails a risk of them getting influenced by some negative factors. Still, it's their life and you need to let them learn stuffs and explore on their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, more than that: if robot cars could be made incapable of hitting pedestrians, then children might start to roam again. It would be a marvellous unintended consequence...
that is impossible in real world. if you go 50 kmh in 50 kmh zone, and small kid jumps 2m in front of your car suddenly, there is nothing anybody or any software can do. if it's 5m, would you rather crash and kill the parents than the kid? what about 2 kids? it's dangerous direction of thoughts, meaning kids won't have to be careful when outside. but you have bikes, you have tons of other dangers.