Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo
- - - - -

Young boy kidnapped and found dead :(


167 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#51 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7509 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:14 PM

Yes but elementary decision theory dictates that the magnitude of a risk has to be weighed against the severity of the outcome you're risking. One in a million or even one in ten million is not that small a chance when you consider what it's a chance of. A week in the hands of one of these people is a long time; being quickly shot to death is, God help us, one of the least bad things that can happen to a child in these situations. And I don't think it would be very easy to quantify to what extent the number of these incidents is kept down by parental and societal preventive measures, so as an argument against watching one's kids (which Reason pushes hard, probably not unrelated to their veneration of Murray Rothbard who wrote that children are property and are owed no duty of care), it falls flat for me.

 

No where did I make any argument against parents watching their children.  I am addressing the alarmist talk that has parents of young children thinking that they are the frequent targets of trafficking.  They simply are not.  Even the occasional stranger abduction of young children is not related to trafficking.

 

Being vigilant requires evaluating real, credible risks.


  • Ravin, kitten18, soror and 2 others like this

#52 heartlikealion

heartlikealion

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11506 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:19 PM

You could argue that being vigilant just means weighing the pros and cons in addition to the statistical risks. Not trying to blame the mom here, just speaking in general. I'm sure when the nuns I knew opened their door (or forced entry happened) they were not thinking, "we're going to get murdered." Statistically break ins like that are probably geared more towards robbery but it doesn't mean that things don't happen you don't expect. Statistically breaks ins happen in the middle of the day when people are at work or school, too. Idgaf about statistics if they don't give me peace of mind.


  • winterbaby likes this

#53 winterbaby

winterbaby

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 641 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:21 PM

No where did I make any argument against parents watching their children.  I am addressing the alarmist talk that has parents of young children thinking that they are the frequent targets of trafficking.  They simply are not.  Even the occasional stranger abduction of young children is not related to trafficking.

 

Being vigilant requires evaluating real, credible risks.

 

You provided a link to Reason dot com which is a major source of arguments against watching one's kids ("free range parenting") and has an ideological background to that which I wish to make people aware of when it comes up. Small magnitude risk does not equal unreal and incredible.


  • nansk, heartlikealion and CinV like this

#54 Tanaqui

Tanaqui

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7602 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:28 PM

You could argue that being vigilant just means weighing the pros and cons in addition to the statistical risks.

 

You cannot spend your life in a state of hyper-alertness. It's not good for you, it's not good for your kids.

 

I notice that you, for one, are criticizing this woman's choice to leave her son in the backseat... but not the original choice to drive to the store in the first place. Which is more likely? That her son would be kidnapped and murdered? Or that he'd die in a car crash while she was driving?

 

Obviously the latter. Should she have left him home? Or done without the medicine? Weigh those pros and cons.

 


  • Dotwithaperiod, Eliana, Ravin and 8 others like this

#55 heartlikealion

heartlikealion

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11506 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:41 PM

 

 

You cannot spend your life in a state of hyper-alertness. It's not good for you, it's not good for your kids.

 

I notice that you, for one, are criticizing this woman's choice to leave her son in the backseat... but not the original choice to drive to the store in the first place. Which is more likely? That her son would be kidnapped and murdered? Or that he'd die in a car crash while she was driving?

 

Obviously the latter. Should she have left him home? Or done without the medicine? Weigh those pros and cons.

 

 

Very good points. Well, it wasn't so much the kid in the car as it was the kid in the car that was probably unlocked and running. Just being in the car with it locked and hopefully armed (if a car has a car alarm) seems like that would lower the risk. If someone tried to approach it the alarm would go off and draw attention. No guarantees of course.

 

Now as for going to the store. I think someone else answered the why had to do with needing medicine. As for risk of driving at 1am vs. leaving a kid in a car at 1am. You're right that car crashes are more common but as a control freak I would probably think to myself hmm is it New Year's Eve? Is this an area with a lot of bars? Are there a lot of drunks on the road? And then I would convince myself that if someone were to hit my car that I would have some level of control in that scenario because maybe I could control the car or my carseats would do their job (no guarantees either! Could hit head on, etc.) vs. being in a store unable to do anything. Both are feelings of helplessness, though. One just seems more menacing to me.

 

There isn't a right or wrong answer.
 



#56 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7509 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:43 PM

You provided a link to Reason dot com which is a major source of arguments against watching one's kids ("free range parenting") and has an ideological background to that which I wish to make people aware of when it comes up. Small magnitude risk does not equal unreal and incredible.


I linked it because it had an easy breakdown of the stats.

You are also overstating their position a great deal.

#57 Word Nerd

Word Nerd

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11324 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:51 AM

You provided a link to Reason dot com which is a major source of arguments against watching one's kids ("free range parenting") and has an ideological background to that which I wish to make people aware of when it comes up. Small magnitude risk does not equal unreal and incredible.


You are mischaracterizing Lenore Skenazy's position and completely missing the point of free-range parenting. Whether you agree with the concept or not, an objection to watching kids is not what drives free-range parenting (nor is it the reason Reason runs Skenazy's columns). It's about giving kids the skills to be independent and disputing the notion that they are in constant danger unless they are supervised 24/7.

Edited by Word Nerd, 19 May 2017 - 06:53 AM.

  • Eliana, kitten18, soror and 6 others like this

#58 Aelwydd

Aelwydd

    Immutable. (Quit looking for the mute button.)

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3065 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:54 AM

It could have easily been prevented if two men didn't decide to commit multiple criminal acts.

Squawking about a parent making a marginal parenting decision doesn't help anyone.


Thank you, ITA.
  • soror, ChocolateReign and PinkyandtheBrains. like this

#59 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:22 AM

Just for the record, Lenore Skenazy has consistently advised against leaving kids alone in an unlocked, running car.  There are also some states with laws against leaving kids in a running car (not just any car).

 

People can't credibly say they are protecting their kids from "risks" when they actually allow their kids to do many things that are statistically much more risky.  If you are protecting your own self from irrational fear and guilt, that's fine, it's your business.  Nobody is telling you to leave your kids in the car when you shop.

 

Nice that some people have remote controls and car alarms.  A lot of people don't.

 

Oh, and I've seen where people left their kids in a running car because they've bought into the hype that all cars will overheat and kill their kids within seconds, regardless of conditions.  So they want to leave the AC on and that means leaving the car on with the keys in it.  When in reality there has never been a child who died due to a brief wait in a hot car.  The risk of that is zero at 1am, but the messages the media is sending make people afraid that their kids could die or (more likely) be taken by the cops if they leave their kids in the car for even 1 minute.


Edited by SKL, 19 May 2017 - 07:28 AM.


#60 maize

maize

    Maizgyver

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17911 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:58 AM

I think our brains are wired to pay more attention to rare risks than common ones. We sort of accept the common ones as normal parts of life--so, we worry less about the risk of our kid drowning at the local pool or dying in a car crash on the way to school than we do about stranger abduction or a plane crash.

Irrational but normal.

Edited by maize, 19 May 2017 - 07:59 AM.

  • Laura Corin, Ravin, frogger and 5 others like this

#61 Moxie

Moxie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8819 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:11 AM




You cannot spend your life in a state of hyper-alertness. It's not good for you, it's not good for your kids.

I notice that you, for one, are criticizing this woman's choice to leave her son in the backseat... but not the original choice to drive to the store in the first place. Which is more likely? That her son would be kidnapped and murdered? Or that he'd die in a car crash while she was driving?

Obviously the latter. Should she have left him home? Or done without the medicine? Weigh those pros and cons.


Driving is a necessity worth the risk. Leaving a 6yo in a car is not a necessity. Lots of bad things happen in parking lots. Cars get hit or broken into all the time. Kids do stupid stuff

I'm a pretty laid back parent but it would never cross my mind to leave a 6yo alone in a car. My mind is blown that people are arguing that that is totally fine.
  • magnificent_baby, jjeepa, MercyA and 2 others like this

#62 magnificent_baby

magnificent_baby

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1996 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:12 AM

I'll disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with leaving a 6 yr old in an air conditioned car while mom runs in to grab medications. A 6 yr old is not an infant that is completely helpless. Nor is a 6 yr old likely to act like a toddler and try to drive the car away. I don't have a problem with it at 1pm or 1am. I would have done it and locked the door behind me with instruction to the child to unlock for me when I come to the window. Because the general truth is that anything going wrong would be very unlikely and rare.

Even with safety precautions, the kid was more likely to drown in the family pool with mom within 10 feet of sight.

Anything that happened was the fault of awful horrid people who killed that precious child.

 

Disagree. He obviously was completely helpless. I would also think a 6 year old would be way more willing to try to drive the car away versus a toddler. This happens in my area a few times a year. Totally preventable.

 

Poor baby. He never should have been left alone.


  • CinV likes this

#63 magnificent_baby

magnificent_baby

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1996 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:15 AM

It could have easily been prevented if two men didn't decide to commit multiple criminal acts.

Squawking about a parent making a marginal parenting decision doesn't help anyone.

 

It does if it makes someone think twice about doing the same thing.


  • MercyA likes this

#64 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:18 AM

Driving is a necessity worth the risk. Leaving a 6yo in a car is not a necessity. Lots of bad things happen in parking lots. Cars get hit or broken into all the time. Kids do stupid stuff

I'm a pretty laid back parent but it would never cross my mind to leave a 6yo alone in a car. My mind is blown that people are arguing that that is totally fine.

 

Lots of bad things happen in stores (and outside of cars in parking lots) too.  Lots of bad things "can happen" when you have to go out at 1am to buy meds.  Lots of bad things happen randomly and we can't prevent many of them, especially not by judging others during a tragedy.

 

Most fatal car accidents don't happen because "driving is a necessity worth the risk."  Driving is often not a necessity; we all drive frequently when it is not necessary.  I guarantee you have driven your kids many situations that were not necessary.  So that logic does not work at all.  It is simply a brush-off to say you are better than somebody else even though your actions are actually NOT less risky.


Edited by SKL, 19 May 2017 - 08:19 AM.

  • Greta, frogger, kitten18 and 1 other like this

#65 Tanaqui

Tanaqui

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7602 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:19 AM

Driving a car isn't a necessity. As a New Yorker, it shocks me that you're not all out there constantly advocating for walkable communities with sufficient public transportation. But since you're not, you could simply stay home and have everything delivered at all times - don't go to the park, don't go to the movies, don't go out. Alternatively, you could only make crucially necessary trips, and hire a babysitter so that the kid doesn't have to go.

 

Lots of bad things happen on roads. Your kid is thousands of times more likely to die in a car crash than because they were left alone.

 

Lots of bad things happen in homes. Your kid is thousands of times more likely to die in a preventable accident at home than from being kidnapped.

 

Lots of bad things happen in stores, although I'm not going to try to compare the relative risk of being kidnapped vs. being trapped in a burglary gone wrong.

 

You can't control the likelihood of being in a rare, unusual situation.


Edited by Tanaqui, 19 May 2017 - 08:20 AM.

  • Dotwithaperiod, Laura Corin, Greta and 3 others like this

#66 heartlikealion

heartlikealion

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11506 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:20 AM

I just want to say that while I agree it's not healthy to always live in a state of hyper-alertness, I'm prone to that more than others I think. But weird crap has happened to my family members. Statistically probably really off the wall. Mother was robbed at a store with a child (I think it was a grocery store. My mom wouldn't advise this but she was ballsy back then and asked to keep her credit cards lol He just took the cash). Sibling was car jacked briefly... they drove car short distance and ditched it after stealing the car stereo. So I'm extra sensitive about the possibilities that happen at grocery stores/parking lots.


  • MercyA and winterbaby like this

#67 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:24 AM

I think our brains are wired to pay more attention to rare risks than common ones. We sort of accept the common ones as normal parts of life--so, we worry less about the risk of our kid drowning at the local pool or dying in a car crash on the way to school than we do about stranger abduction or a plane crash.

Irrational but normal.

 

Actually, I suspect that it isn't as much about the common risks being a normal part of life, as it is that coverage of the uncommon risks is so much MORE a part of our lives.  Because we see more about them in the news, we tend to think the risk is greater than it is.  Just a moment ago on our morning news, there was a little spot about a woman killed in a car crash on the freeway.  They didn't give her name, just showed a couple of pictures and that was it.  But, that was then followed by yet another piece about the two teenagers who were killed while hiking a trail in Delphi Indiana.  Their names, their pictures, etc.  Its such a big media thing in large part because it's SO unusual.  But because we have just seen so much about it, it does tend to make something as not risky as hiking in a park seem like we need more safety measures in place for THAT, instead of for the very common and very real risks of car accidents, because we just don't see as much of those accidents. 
 


  • frogger and Tanaqui like this

#68 Moxie

Moxie

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8819 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:24 AM

Driving a car isn't a necessity. As a New Yorker, it shocks me that you're not all out there constantly advocating for walkable communities with sufficient public transportation. But since you're not, you could simply stay home and have everything delivered at all times - don't go to the park, don't go to the movies, don't go out. Alternatively, you could only make crucially necessary trips, and hire a babysitter so that the kid doesn't have to go.

Lots of bad things happen on roads. Your kid is thousands of times more likely to die in a car crash than because they were left alone.

Lots of bad things happen in homes. Your kid is thousands of times more likely to die in a preventable accident at home than from being kidnapped.

Lots of bad things happen in stores, although I'm not going to try to compare the relative risk of being kidnapped vs. being trapped in a burglary gone wrong.

You can't control the likelihood of being in a rare, unusual situation.


A running car in a parking lot at 1AM getting stolen by thugs is hardly rare. Car break-ins at any time in any area are so common, no one bats an eye. My guess is that they stole the car, panicked when they noticed the kid and shot him.
  • MercyA and CinV like this

#69 Tanaqui

Tanaqui

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7602 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:28 AM

A running car in a parking lot at 1AM getting stolen by thugs is hardly rare. Car break-ins at any time in any area are so common, no one bats an eye. My guess is that they stole the car, panicked when they noticed the kid and shot him.

 

I'm sure you're right. And do you know how extremely rare that is? I dare you to find one more case like this in the past 30 years, anywhere in the English speaking world, where the child ended up killed.

 

Children accidentally getting kidnapped when the car is stolen is unusual, but it happens once or twice a year. Getting killed? I've never heard of that. Usually, they end up returned safely, left on the side of the road, or left in some safe location. Your child is literally more likely to be struck by lightning.


  • maize likes this

#70 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:28 AM

I just want to say that while I agree it's not healthy to always live in a state of hyper-alertness, I'm prone to that more than others I think. But weird crap has happened to my family members. Statistically probably really off the wall. Mother was robbed at a store with a child (I think it was a grocery store. My mom wouldn't advise this but she was ballsy back then and asked to keep her credit cards lol He just took the cash). Sibling was car jacked briefly... they drove car short distance and ditched it after stealing the car stereo. So I'm extra sensitive about the possibilities that happen at grocery stores/parking lots.

 

Interesting that both of those happened when a responsible adult was present.  In the case of mom being robbed at the grocery store, kid may have been safer in the car, or even home alone.



#71 Aelwydd

Aelwydd

    Immutable. (Quit looking for the mute button.)

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3065 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:29 AM

How about addressing the larger issues of society that produce such violent, aimless young males? Instead of blaming the victim's mother?

Fact: Nearly all of the time, in most communities, if you run into the store with your car running, any people in the vicinity are not going to steal your car.

Now, I don't know about others here, but there were many times growing up my parents ran into a store to get something and left us in the car. I daresay the rate of car theft and child abduction was just as high, if not higher, in the 80's.

Could she have locked the door, or brought her kid in, or whatever? Of course, and hindsight is 20/20.

But I saw a picture of that child's poor mother being carried by a relative yesterday. She has collapsed with grief. I have no condemnation for her at all. Her poor baby, and her poor mama's heart.
  • Sue in TX, Eliana, Word Nerd and 9 others like this

#72 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:31 AM

Driving is a necessity worth the risk. Leaving a 6yo in a car is not a necessity. Lots of bad things happen in parking lots. Cars get hit or broken into all the time. Kids do stupid stuff

I'm a pretty laid back parent but it would never cross my mind to leave a 6yo alone in a car. My mind is blown that people are arguing that that is totally fine.

 

Ultimately.....it does not even matter if its "totally fine" to leave a 6yr old in the car or not.

 

The horrific, evil, awful people in this scenario are the people who STOLE a car and SHOT AND KILLED a child.  If they had not COMMITTED A CRIME....this child would still be alive.  They should NEVER have pointed a gun at an innocent 6yr old child and pulled the trigger.  The child is dead because of THEM. 

 

 


Edited by happysmileylady, 19 May 2017 - 08:35 AM.

  • Sue in TX, Eliana, Ravin and 7 others like this

#73 maize

maize

    Maizgyver

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17911 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:35 AM

Your child is literally more likely to be struck by lightning.

Now I am wondering what the statistical likelihood of being struck by lightning is.

And what would be the most appropriate way to compare the two? Likelihood of being struck by ligtningvwhole standing outside during a storm vs. likelihood of being murdered subsequent to an auto theft if left alone in a running car at night?

Difficult statistical analysis and likely insufficient data...

#74 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:35 AM

I'm sure you're right. And do you know how extremely rare that is? I dare you to find one more case like this in the past 30 years, anywhere in the English speaking world, where the child ended up killed.

 

Children accidentally getting kidnapped when the car is stolen is unusual, but it happens once or twice a year. Getting killed? I've never heard of that. Usually, they end up returned safely, left on the side of the road, or left in some safe location. Your child is literally more likely to be struck by lightning.

In fact, there's one that sticks out in my mind.....the guys jumped in a car (that was also running) and took off.  They realized the kid was in the car and they dropped him off at school! 


  • Eliana likes this

#75 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:36 AM

Ultimately.....it does not even matter if its "totally fine" to leave a 6yr old in the car or not.

 

The horrific, evil, awful people in this scenario are the people who STOLE a car and SHOT AND KILLED a child.  If they had not COMMITTED A CRIME....this child would still be alive.  They should NEVER have pointed a gun at an innocent 6yr old child and pulled the trigger.  The child is dead of THEM. 

 

Right.

 

And many other children have been murdered by thugs with no respect for human life.

 

It strikes me that this one may have made the news *because* of our mom-blaming society.  You can't blame the mom for a drive-by shooting of a child in the yard / porch / house, but wow what a feeding frenzy when a mother's decision might have made a difference.  Shame on us.  Once again, women are our own worst enemies.
 


  • Eliana and frogger like this

#76 heartlikealion

heartlikealion

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11506 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:37 AM

Interesting that both of those happened when a responsible adult was present.  In the case of mom being robbed at the grocery store, kid may have been safer in the car, or even home alone.

 

Sibling was in a city that was known as not very safe (as is Jackson, MS). She regretted going there. But ultimately yes the fault lies with the criminals that held her and her friends up at gunpoint. She was with male friends, too.

 

Yes, kid might have been safer in car in that scenario but you don't expect to be robbed in daytime so much as night. This happened in day. 



#77 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:40 AM

Sibling was in a city that was known as not very safe (as is Jackson, MS). She regretted going there. But ultimately yes the fault lies with the criminals that held her and her friends up at gunpoint. She was with male friends, too.

 

Yes, kid might have been safer in car in that scenario but you don't expect to be robbed in daytime so much as night. This happened in day. 

 

I don't "expect to be robbed" at all, and if I ever am robbed in a store that isn't in the middle of a gang war zone, I will consider it a completely random situation, whether my kids are with me or not.
 



#78 heartlikealion

heartlikealion

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11506 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:41 AM

I don't blame the mother. I just don't think an open running car at 1am sounds perfectly safe, either.


  • magnificent_baby likes this

#79 maize

maize

    Maizgyver

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17911 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:43 AM

I don't blame the mother. I just don't think an open running car at 1am sounds perfectly safe, either.


Sitting in my house is not perfectly safe.
  • heartlikealion and scoutingmom like this

#80 heartlikealion

heartlikealion

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11506 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:44 AM

I don't "expect to be robbed" at all, and if I ever am robbed in a store that isn't in the middle of a gang war zone, I will consider it a completely random situation, whether my kids are with me or not.
 

 

Well I may not expect it, but my view of normal has shifted since living here. Now I fully expect to be approached by creepy men when I pump gas or load my child into her carseat. It has happened a handful of times. I fully expect to see men walking down the street with alcohol in a bag at 8am. I have seen it enough.
 


  • winterbaby likes this

#81 heartlikealion

heartlikealion

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11506 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:44 AM

Sitting in my house is not perfectly safe.

 

fair enough...
 


  • maize likes this

#82 winterbaby

winterbaby

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 641 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:00 AM

You are mischaracterizing Lenore Skenazy's position and completely missing the point of free-range parenting. Whether you agree with the concept or not, an objection to watching kids is not what drives free-range parenting (nor is it the reason Reason runs Skenazy's columns). It's about giving kids the skills to be independent and disputing the notion that they are in constant danger unless they are supervised 24/7.

 

That's the rhetoric she presents for not watching your kids (which is merely an objective empirical description of the behavior she advocates), but I'm not sure it's the reason, and I'm confident it's not the reason why Reason dot com - whose intellectual hero (Rothbard) openly advocated markets in children and the right to starve one's child to death - has run so hard with her material and debunks every inadequate supervision case that comes along no matter how outrageous the facts. They want not more independent children, but legal impunity for child neglect. I don't know enough about Skenazy to know whether she realizes what she's gotten in bed with on that platform. But it pays to be aware that a lot of dangerous ideologies draw people in with appealing positions on this or that issue that's of interest to people.

 

I think one's attitude toward low-probability events changes a lot once you've experienced one yourself. Treating low-probability as no-probability is just as irrational as treating it as high-probability. And again, what counts as low depends on the severity of the outcome - and the value one puts on avoiding a given outcome is purely subjective. As someone who has been a victim of violent crime my horror of it may be higher than someone to whom it's an abstraction. Is that really so irrational? The person who's been through it has more information about what it's really like and how worth avoiding it is. The level of excited, strident ridicule heaped on risk-avoidant attitudes whenever this comes up, anywhere... well it's interesting. It doesn't convince me that people are really so sure there's nothing to be afraid of.


  • MercyA likes this

#83 Kinsa

Kinsa

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9271 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:06 AM

Utimately, we rationalize and blame the mother because it makes us fearful if we don't. "Wow, that could've been MY child. But wait, no it couldn't have been because I would have done XYZ instead. Phew! I guess my kid is safe!" To admit that it could have happened to us makes us fearful. Humans don't like fear, so we blame the mother in order to raise ourselves up out of the fear.
  • Dotwithaperiod, Eliana, Joules and 12 others like this

#84 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:14 AM

The level of excited, strident ridicule heaped on risk-avoidant attitudes whenever this comes up, anywhere... well it's interesting. It doesn't convince me that people are really so sure there's nothing to be afraid of.

 

It's not so much ridicule being heaped on risk avoidant attitudes.  It's defense against the idea that just because someone has a risk avoidant attitude....EVERYONE should have the SAME attitude and those who don't are as much to blame when their children get hurt as the people who hurt them.  The whole discussion was started because people are heaping blame on the MOTHER....not the people who FIRED A GUN at a child.  

 


  • Eliana, Word Nerd and maize like this

#85 magnificent_baby

magnificent_baby

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1996 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:19 AM

Right.

 

And many other children have been murdered by thugs with no respect for human life.

 

It strikes me that this one may have made the news *because* of our mom-blaming society.  You can't blame the mom for a drive-by shooting of a child in the yard / porch / house, but wow what a feeding frenzy when a mother's decision might have made a difference.  Shame on us.  Once again, women are our own worst enemies.
 

 

Re: the bold, I think it was because he was killed which is unusual in this scenario, not to throw the mom under the bus.

 

Your example of blaming the mom in a drive by situation is comparing apples to oranges.

 

There are precautions that can be taken in life, even if it's an inconvenience. Seatbelts, lifejackets, helmets, not leaving young kids in the car, etc. Yep, I get extremely tired of yelling out the front door at my kids to get their helmets on when they are on their bikes and scooters but I'm going to continue doing this every time. Sure, it would be much easier to ignore it, but that's my job as a parent when a traumatic brain injury is a consequence, even if the chances are slim. And yes, I do let them play outside without me directly being next to them, but like your example of the drive by, I'm not giving the criminal an easy opportunity such as a running vehicle. They also are older than 6 and nearly the size of adults, and numerous adults and kids are outside in their yards at any given time. I think of my 6 year old niece. She's tiny. And relatively helpless. There's a difference.

 

I'm not directly blaming her at all but unfortunately her direct decision to leave him in there definitely played a part in this.


  • MercyA, CinV, Selkie and 1 other like this

#86 heartlikealion

heartlikealion

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11506 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:20 AM

Utimately, we rationalize and blame the mother because it makes us fearful if we don't. "Wow, that could've been MY child. But wait, no it couldn't have been because I would have done XYZ instead. Phew! I guess my kid is safe!" To admit that it could have happened to us makes us fearful. Humans don't like fear, so we blame the mother in order to raise ourselves up out of the fear.

 

I think it's more like we blame whatever parent was in charge at the time it occured. Had the father run into the store I'm sure people would be saying, "Dad should have done ABC" or "why didn't Dad leave child at home with Mom?" I don't know where Dad was or if anyone is asking. Probably because single parent mothers are so common we might not ask about dad as quickly.
 

I don't think I'm 100% safe. I realize that if someone is set to do something bad and I get in their way I could be doomed even if I think I did everything right. I can't stop bullets.



#87 winterbaby

winterbaby

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 641 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:25 AM

It's not so much ridicule being heaped on risk avoidant attitudes.  It's defense against the idea that just because someone has a risk avoidant attitude....EVERYONE should have the SAME attitude and those who don't are as much to blame when their children get hurt as the people who hurt them.  The whole discussion was started because people are heaping blame on the MOTHER....not the people who FIRED A GUN at a child.  

 

I don't see that attitude. Scrolling back through the thread I saw two or three people mention, without anywhere near the level of drama you're suggesting, that leaving a kid in a parking lot at 1AM is an imprudent thing to do. It is. That doesn't make her responsible for the criminals' action. I can hold both not blaming her, and continuing to believe that leaving my kid in a parking lot at 1AM is not something I should do myself, in my head at the same time.


  • SquirrellyMama and MercyA like this

#88 liber

liber

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:27 AM

OT, but mother and many like her, used to park my baby carriage outside the grocery store while she went in to shop. On any given day there could a row of us babies there. My times have certainly changed. This would be in the early 70's.

Edited by liber, 19 May 2017 - 09:28 AM.

  • kitten18, PinkyandtheBrains. and scoutingmom like this

#89 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:39 AM

My first thought is, "Why did the parent/guardian leave their child in the car at that time of night?" Seriously.

Yes, this is a tragedy. It COULD HAVE been prevented.

 

 

Not blame but, damn, parenting 101--never leave a kid in a car, especially a running, unlocked one!! In many towns it is illegal to leave a car idling because people will steal it!

It doesn't matter if you say "not blame" or "I am not directly blaming".  When people use statements like "why did the parent leave their child.....seriously." and "damn, parenting 101" and when people indicate agreement with those same things.......Yes, it indicates that people believe that everyone should come to the same determination of risk and take the same precautions and it implies that don't who don't are not only at fault, but idiots too. (and no, these phrases clearly don't say the word idiot.)


  • scoutingmom likes this

#90 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:39 AM

OK now we are seeing the words "sure it's easier ...."  PLEASE.  This mom was not buying meds at 1am with her kid in the car because of "easy."  Based on what I've read so far, she was faced with multiple sucky options at 1am when she or someone in her family was apparently ill enough to need to buy meds.  Drag tired/sick kid into cold grocery store?  Leave kid in car?  Skip the drugs until kid is in someone else's care tomorrow?  Leave kid home (possibly alone) and take that much longer to get the job done?

 

I'm not sure why she left her car on / unlocked.  I don't think it was because she felt like life would feel nice and leisurely that way.  Maybe she was just too damn tired (and/or sick) to reason it out.

 

I don't know her personal situation, but I've been a single mom with one or all of us being sick.  Yaknow, I left my 5yo in the car one day when she was puking so I could sign her sister into school.  Figured that while an imperfect situation, it was better than bringing her in covered in vomit and likely to puke some more.  The internet wasn't rushing to help me out with a better solution.


  • Eliana, frogger, kitten18 and 2 others like this

#91 kahlanne

kahlanne

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 785 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:44 AM

It truly is sad. Jackson is not a safe town at all. We drive through there going to north MS to visit family. One night a car flew around us and began shooting across the interstate. They shot four to five times across then sped off. Then another vehicle sped around us chasing them. Both exited at the next ramp. It was so quick and unimaginable that we didn't even have time to react. My teens woke up from the noise and asked what it was. We called the police but  they didn't seem that concerned. All we could give them was the color of the car/truck and the exit ramp number. Almost seemed like they didn't believe us. Anyway, its crazy what some people will do.

 


  • CinV likes this

#92 happysmileylady

happysmileylady

    Empress Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:45 AM

And again, it really doesn't MATTER if she was reasoning it out or not.  It doesn't matter if she was doing a risk assessment or not.  She did not shoot her child.  She did not steal a car.  Had these EVIL people not stolen a car and pointed a gun at a child and pulled the trigger......the kid would still be alive, even after she left him in the car at 1am.


  • kitten18 likes this

#93 caedmyn

caedmyn

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1087 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:48 AM

Driving a car isn't a necessity. As a New Yorker, it shocks me that you're not all out there constantly advocating for walkable communities with sufficient public transportation. But since you're not, you could simply stay home and have everything delivered at all times - don't go to the park, don't go to the movies, don't go out. Alternatively, you could only make crucially necessary trips, and hire a babysitter so that the kid doesn't have to go.

 

Lots of bad things happen on roads. Your kid is thousands of times more likely to die in a car crash than because they were left alone.

 

Lots of bad things happen in homes. Your kid is thousands of times more likely to die in a preventable accident at home than from being kidnapped.

 

Lots of bad things happen in stores, although I'm not going to try to compare the relative risk of being kidnapped vs. being trapped in a burglary gone wrong.

 

You can't control the likelihood of being in a rare, unusual situation.

 

Driving actually is a necessity in many places.  We live 7 miles outside town.  There is public transportation in town, but none out here.  And nobody delivers out here either.  And even if there was public transportation, I can't imagine trying to, say, get groceries (even a couple of bags worth) by riding on a bus with 5 children.  Public transportation everywhere or even available simply isn't feasible in more rural or sparsely populated areas.


  • fraidycat and MercyA like this

#94 kahlanne

kahlanne

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 785 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:50 AM

I haven't read all the replies but I did want to add that I read in a very detailed news article this morning that the mom reported the car stolen first but didn't mention that her son was in the car. It is unsure exactly when she finally reported the child in the car but it appears the police immediately issued an Amber Alert which was 2 hours later. From the article it definitely implied that the mom didn't report until hours later but they didn't quote the police as saying so. I cannot fathom that detail being left out when you make the original report. Why? It was 7 hours later the car was found with the boy dead. So those two hours could have been important.  If you read some of the social media comments, which taken with a grain of salt, there are other suggestions as to how this happened. I hesitate to post them because they aren't verified but in a way they seem more plausible than not reporting your child missing with the car instantly.



#95 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:56 AM

I haven't read all the replies but I did want to add that I read in a very detailed news article this morning that the mom reported the car stolen first but didn't mention that her son was in the car. It is unsure exactly when she finally reported the child in the car but it appears the police immediately issued an Amber Alert which was 2 hours later. From the article it definitely implied that the mom didn't report until hours later but they didn't quote the police as saying so. I cannot fathom that detail being left out when you make the original report. Why? It was 7 hours later the car was found with the boy dead. So those two hours could have been important.  If you read some of the social media comments, which taken with a grain of salt, there are other suggestions as to how this happened. I hesitate to post them because they aren't verified but in a way they seem more plausible than not reporting your child missing with the car instantly.

 

That does sound odd, but (1) news reports are very often incorrect and (2) the mom might have been in shock.

 

And as I mentioned earlier, there are alternative possibilities e.g. gang vengeance killing, but I'll leave it up to the police to figure that out.



#96 maize

maize

    Maizgyver

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17911 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:56 AM

And again, it really doesn't MATTER if she was reasoning it out or not. It doesn't matter if she was doing a risk assessment or not. She did not shoot her child. She did not steal a car. Had these EVIL people not stolen a car and pointed a gun at a child and pulled the trigger......the kid would still be alive, even after she left him in the car at 1am.

Right.

The person using the gun is responsible for what is done with the gun.

A woman I know was accosted by a gun-wielding criminal while at a stop light. He demanded she get out of her car and hand over the keys. She asked to first get her preschool aged child out of the back seat and he refused--instead climbing into the car and driving around town with her and the child for some time before eventually letting them out.

The woman was not at fault for driving her car down the road and being accosted by a criminal. The dude with the gun was at fault.

Edited by maize, 19 May 2017 - 09:56 AM.


#97 magnificent_baby

magnificent_baby

    Hive Mind Level 6 Worker: Scout Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1996 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:58 AM

OK now we are seeing the words "sure it's easier ...."  PLEASE.  This mom was not buying meds at 1am with her kid in the car because of "easy."  Based on what I've read so far, she was faced with multiple sucky options at 1am when she or someone in her family was apparently ill enough to need to buy meds.  Drag tired/sick kid into cold grocery store?  Leave kid in car?  Skip the drugs until kid is in someone else's care tomorrow?  Leave kid home (possibly alone) and take that much longer to get the job done?

 

I'm not sure why she left her car on / unlocked.  I don't think it was because she felt like life would feel nice and leisurely that way.  Maybe she was just too damn tired (and/or sick) to reason it out.

 

I don't know her personal situation, but I've been a single mom with one or all of us being sick.  Yaknow, I left my 5yo in the car one day when she was puking so I could sign her sister into school.  Figured that while an imperfect situation, it was better than bringing her in covered in vomit and likely to puke some more.  The internet wasn't rushing to help me out with a better solution.

 

Yep, parenting is hard. And there are many situations that really suck. But I don't think having a sick kid in the middle of the night nor being a single parent gets one out of being responsible for taking reasonable and IMO basic precautions. Obviously the criminals didn't give a $hit if he was sick or if she was a single parent.

 

The criminals are absolutely at fault and responsible. But again, could have been prevented.

 

ETA: I think in your specific example, that's more reasonable than hers. Different time of day, different location. Still risky? Yes, but different circumstances.


Edited by magnificent_baby, 19 May 2017 - 10:00 AM.

  • MercyA likes this

#98 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:58 AM

Driving actually is a necessity in many places.  We live 7 miles outside town.  There is public transportation in town, but none out here.  And nobody delivers out here either.  And even if there was public transportation, I can't imagine trying to, say, get groceries (even a couple of bags worth) by riding on a bus with 5 children.  Public transportation everywhere or even available simply isn't feasible in more rural or sparsely populated areas.

 

Sure, but even in those places, "good parents" drive their kids more than absolutely necessary.  And, they don't do the blame game when others' kids die during unnecessary car drives.  It's a double standard, coupled with the apparent need to kick others while they are down.
 


  • Laura Corin and Tanaqui like this

#99 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26160 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:00 AM

But again, could have been prevented.

 

Well technically, so can everything bad that ever happens to your family members save for some congenital diseases, but I hope the internet is kinder when these things happen to you.


  • fastforward and maize like this

#100 kahlanne

kahlanne

    Hive Mind Level 4 Worker: Builder Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 785 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:06 AM

Edited because I don't want to be seen as unkind by posting the alternate idea of how this happened. Time will tell if the mom and child was in wrong place at wrong time or if those "family members" posting online were correct in how it happened. 


Edited by kahlanne, 19 May 2017 - 10:27 AM.