The Keys Family/Children
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): The Keys Family/Children
Okay, admittedly I am mad at the moment and I haven't done much research. I am typing now, though, because I want to express myself while I am feeling this outrage. I don't want to lose this particular conviction that this is just WRONG.
After getting my precious little people off to school, I came back and posted to ya'll about Terry and then turned on FOX news.
There was a family on with children. The parents had taken the children to Florida and ALLOWED THE CHILDREN TO BREAK THE LAW to cross the line and try to give Terry water. The children were handcuffed, arrested, and booked. There is no fine but the children have been sentenced to community service. The Mom and Dad calmly sat at the interview on FOX news and said that they told the children that this was an illegal act, that they could be arrested and that there would probably be press coverage. The kids said they understood that--and the parents took their children out to DELIBERATELY BREAK THE LAW!!!!!
Now that is just wrong.
I hate what is happening to Terry. It is a horrible shame. But The Bible says we are to obey the laws of the land and to not only explain to kids that they will be breaking the law but also to DRIVE THEM THERE AND ALLOW THE KIDS TO BREAK THE LAW, BE ARRESTED, BE HANDCUFFED, TAKEN TO JUVENILE HALL AND SENTENCED is an outrage.
What a mixed message to send a child: "We only obey the law when we agree with it."
What happens when the child is confronted later in life with a rule/law that the child does not think it necessary? Are they going to violate that too? "Hhhmmm, I don't feel like paying for my purchase today, I don't agree with the price, I think I'll make a political statement and steal it." Or "Hhmmmmm, I got a lot of attention and press last time I acted out against the law, maybe I'll get a lot of attention and press if I do it again."
The parents said they took the children to Florida after the kids said they wanted to go. Since when do KIDS make these kinds of decisions????!!!!!
I might have allowed children of a certain age, perhaps over 12, to go and to hold a sign or witness/participate in appropriate, peaceful demonstration to stand for a principle. But to allow a child to BREAK THE LAW??!! No way.
MM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369033/posts
Hope I got it right.
The caption is in favor of this action. I am absolutely opposed to children being allowed to break the law.
Please, again, let me say that I think what is happening to Terry is terrible.
But allowing children to break the law to stand against it is wrong and a bad/potentially disasterous parenting decision.
MM
We may not agree with what they did, but think back to all the protests and sit ins. That's basically the same thing. Remember the First Amendment. I discussed with my 11yo son what's going on with this case, and while in his opinion what's happening to Terri is wrong, the kids (and everyone else arrested) were wrong, too. He thinks Terri's fate should ultimately be up to Terri's family and the doctor's, not the rest of us and the polititians. Sometimes Robin can be very deep, and this seems to be one of those times. Here's another article about what happened that doesn't seem as "in favor" of it.
US Police Handcuff Children
Thanks Cat. I read the article. Robin is right. Why isn't he being interviewed? :-)
I know, because his Mom cares too much about him to exploit his intelligence.
He sounds like a great kid.
MM
As many of you know, I have strong political views. I have been involved in a variety of demonstrations, ranging from school board/public education issues to anti-war, since the mid 1970s. When my children were young and were not in school, sometimes I would take them with me to a school board meeting (NOT a demonstration) when I was scheduled to speak and didn't have a sitter. With coloring books, books to read, crackers and juice. And we would wait in the hall until it was near the time for public speakers (as opposed to school board business meeting). But I never, never, never took my children to a demonstration. If I couldn't arrange child-care, I didn't go. I believed then and believe now that it is wrong to take a child under about 14 or 16 to a demonstration, no matter how much the child says s/he wants to go. And for the child 14 and over, I'd want to be very, very sure that this is something the child has thought through carefully and is doing for his/her own reasons, not mine. There are crowds of people, noise, and too many chances for harm.
I note that while the children were arrested for trespassing, the mother, who undoubtedly encouraged them, was not arrested.
When adults want to risk breaking the law for something they believe in, that is entirely their right, as long as they are willing to face the consequences. This is the first rule of demonstrating. I may not agree with what they support or believe, but I support their right to take their own risks to make their point. But to involve minor children - who will now have a juvenile arrest record - is simply wrong to me.
Ditto Ginny.
Right. Mom sat on the sidelines. I guess someone had to stay "clean" to get the rest of them out of jail.
Ginny the Moderator is brillant. :-)
MM
Nuhuh, not brilliant. Just a mom before anything else, and tending to err on the side of caution, especially for my kids.
My own thinking on this is that the kids naturally picked up the parents' attitudes about many things, including the Terry Schiavo matter, and of course said they wanted to go along to the demonstrations. After all, they are out of school right now, and it looks exciting. Especially when mom tells them (according to at least one of the articles) that the TV news people wlll be there - after all, "I might be on television". And when some of the adults started planning to invade the hospice in efforts to bring water to Mrs. Schiavo (which they, of course, knew would be fruitless and would probably result in arrest, but would also make a very public point), the kids thought it would be exciting and fun, and it would gain them the approval of their parents and their parents' friends. So far, fairly typical teenage kind of thinking, and nothing wrong with that. (Heck, my kids, who are now very much adults, pretty much reflect my political opinions. Not surprising, since I raised them.)
To my mind, where the disconnect came is where mom not only let them do it, but evidenced strong approval AND didn't do it herself. She let her children take a risk she was not herself willing to take. Probably because she thinks that the kids will be let go right away, but if she is arrested she might be held several hours, eventually have a hearing, and be assessed a fine. It is, after all, probably basically a "citation" offense, with no jail time but with a fine and possibly probation requiring a promise not to do it again, and an adult arrestee would be held for several hours to be "processed" - sometimes up to 48 hours - before being released. This is what happened to the protestors who blocked the doors of the federal building here in Philadelphia when we were demonstrating against the Iraq war.
But, when the demonstrations against the Iraq war were planned, people were asked well ahead of time if they wanted to participate in civil disobedience (block the doors, stay put when told to move, go limp when physically removed - no struggle, no fighting back, be polite at all times). If they wanted to participate in civil disobedience they were required, if they wanted the support of the demonstration planning group, to go to training so that they could practice not struggling or fighting or saying rude or nasty things to the federal or local police. Minors were not allowed. A lawyer was at all training sessions and made sure that everyone who wanted to commit civil disobedience knew the legal implications. Students, high school and college age, were especially counseled that this would mean an arrest record, which could have implications as to college admission, grad school admission, admission to certain professions, and potential scholarship or student aid money. My personal feeling is that I don't think anyone under 25 or who hasn't been out in the real, working world fully understands the implication of an arrest record, even for civil disobedience, and if it were up to me I would strongly discourage people under 25 from doing civil disobedience.
Yes, juvenile records are "sealed", but we all know that the sealing of court records is not perfect. For one thing, if someone is arrested as an adult and the police run a records check, the fact of juvenile arrest comes up and the police and courts may take that into account when deciding whether to release, bail or no bail, etc. Even if an arrest record (juvenile or adult) is expunged (wiped out because the arrest was a "bad" arrest), it still comes up on a police or court search although it is supposed to be blocked from any other kind of search.
I wonder if Mom realizes that her children might, in some areas, be taken to a juvenile facility to be processed and held there - which is something I would NOT want for my kids. And there is always the possibility that a juvenile social worker might charge her with being an unfit mom for enabling or encouraging her children to break the law. And if she and the childrens' father are not in agreement with their participation in this activity, the father could make all kinds of waves as to custody.
Actually, I didn't know any of this stuff about arrest records and how arrestees are processed when I decided not to take my children to demonstrations - I learned all of that later when I became a legal secretary and when I became involved in demonstration planning. I just decided it wasn't an appropriate place for children because of the crowds, noise, potential risks of getting separated or lost, and not wanting to teach my children that it's OK to break the law until they were old enough to really think that through for themselves.
I have been trained as a "peacekeeper" for demonstrations. Peacekeepers keep moving back and forth along the line of the demonstration, watching to make sure that no one does anything stupid like getting into arguments with bystanders or provacateurs (sp???), or any attempt to damage any public or private property, and watch for anyone who might be having any physical problems. We keep an especially careful eye on any young people in any demonstration, because there is often a greater potential there for doing something stupid, including impulsively joining those who are committing civil disobedience, and in such cases we generally sort of surround them and move them out so that they can be thoroughly counseled on the unwisdom of random, impulsive civil disobedience and the potential consequences to them. That tends to discourage them fairly quickly.
You know, of course, that if anyone actually was able to get into Terry Schiavo's room and actually get some water into her mouth, she'd probably choke and might aspirate. She hasn't swallowed since the feeding tube was inserted and according to the court appointed doctors who have examined her does not have the ability to swallow.
Well, I am not too troubled by it. It was a peaceful demonstration and the arrests were prearranged with the police. I'm not troubled by the "breaking the law" part either. Rosa Parks broke the law when she sat in the front of the bus. Laws are ever-changing and this is one way to elicit change (not that it always works). It was just a symbolic gesture and probably educational for the kids in the long run. It'll make them more interesting people in their college applications.
Ditto Mommmie
However on a job application it may not look so great.
|
Members
