Wow -- I guess this makes me think twice about how I return grocery carts

[GothicGyrl]

Yes I am asking....because I don't get it. If you are talking about getting carjacked.....why would her chances of getting carjacked be higher in that situation? Her chances of getting carjacked are the same as everyone in the parking lot.....

True--but she's more of a target because she left the car running.. think like a criminal for a moment--which is going to pose a bigger(or better if you will) chance of you succeeding--a running car already facing an exit type direction with keys inside (they'd have to be, car is on) and it is unattended OR a parked, not running car for which you not only have to wrest the keys out of the owners but start the car, reverse and then exit?

 

Were I the criminal, I know which one I'd choose. Now, her car was locked, so her chances of a carjacking went significantly down. But what if they car caught fire? Keys inside, baby inside? Or started rolling (it has happened, gear shift unlocks, I've had it happen to me) keys/baby inside?

 

LOTS of things could have happened. That they did not just means she got lucky.

[GothicGyrl]

*Things* can happen in or outside of a car. There is risk inherent to life. The question is which risk do you choose? Do you choose the risk of walking in wet/slippery weather or the risk of leaving a sleeping child in a locked car 10 feet from you? Do you choose the risk of going outside, where you could die from a bee sting, lightening, a car accident, a terrorist attack, or do you never leave your house, where statistically most accidents occur? You cannot eliminate risk.

And this argument is simply a strawman/red herring or one of them. Of course there is risk in everything we do. That still does not justify what she did or the risk she took.

 

 

For the record, lest anyone think I actually support her arrest (why would you when I've said many times I did not).. *I* have common sense and if *I* walked up on this situation, *I* have enough gravy train in me to ask someone "is that your car/kid?" and a yes answer would have caused me to do absolutely nothing but walk away. That cop overstepped their boundaries and went way above the law. But that does not let her off the hook, it only releases the hold a bit.

[Nestof3]

LOTS of things could have happened. That they did not just means she got lucky.

 

Lots of things COULD happen. The chances of her having an accident that would result in the endangerment of her child present as well, so should we all be arrested for driving with children in the car?

[Tammy]

I think you are getting carried away now, LOL! I thought she turned off her car.... The chances of any of the things you listed really happening....are slim to none, LOL! I mean....I have no ill feelings for you at all....but the things you listed as 'might happen'....are pretty ridiculous!

[Queen_Zarga]

True--but she's more of a target because she left the car running.. think like a criminal for a moment--which is going to pose a bigger(or better if you will) chance of you succeeding--a running car already facing an exit type direction with keys inside (they'd have to be, car is on) and it is unattended OR a parked, not running car for which you not only have to wrest the keys out of the owners but start the car, reverse and then exit?

 

Were I the criminal, I know which one I'd choose. Now, her car was locked, so her chances of a carjacking went significantly down. But what if they car caught fire? Keys inside, baby inside? Or started rolling (it has happened, gear shift unlocks, I've had it happen to me) keys/baby inside?

 

LOTS of things could have happened. That they did not just means she got lucky.

 

But the article says:

 

 

So Coyne switched on the emergency flashers, locked the car, activated the alarm and walked the other children to the bell ringer.

 

 

How do you alarm a running car?

[SparrowsNest]

a

running car already facing an exit type direction with keys inside (they'd have to be, car is on) and it is unattended OR a parked, not running car for which you not only have to wrest the keys out of the owners but start the car, reverse and then exit?

 

Not true. My car has a remote start, and if someone gets in without the keys and tries to put it in gear, it shuts off immediately. Also, it can be locked, and the remote start ignited, such that the car is running with the doors locked and the car alarmed.

[SparrowsNest]

And this argument is simply a strawman/red herring or one of them. Of course there is risk in everything we do. That still does not justify what she did or the risk she took.

 

 

The argument is perfectly relevant. She had to weigh the risks of whichever course of action she took. You have argued that she took the least sensical course. I am saying that when the risks are so small, it is often darn near impossible to know which risk is greater. I am also saying that we always take all sorts of small risks, so taking a small risk does not demonstrate lack of common sense, else there wouldn't be such a thing as common sense at all.

[GothicGyrl]

I think you are getting carried away now, LOL! I thought she turned off her car.... The chances of any of the things you listed really happening....are slim to none, LOL! I mean....I have no ill feelings for you at all....but the things you listed as 'might happen'....are pretty ridiculous!

You've got to be kidding me, right? You seriously think a carjacking does not happen like that? Are you serious? I am just flabbergasted that you honestly believe car jacking don't happen the way I mention them. Please, I refer you to goolge 101 and type in "car jacking"---here I did it for you:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=9KE&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=car+jacking&spell=1

(pay close attention to the videos, some of them are survellince cameras and the carjackings happen exactly as I said they did)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carjacking

 

 

If you still don't believe what I am saying, slim to none or not.. I will now bow out of this thread and just go cry. I cannot imagine someone not believing in the real dangers that do exist. And, I'll just say this--if she turned her car off (which it does not say), then she doubley stinks.

 

There I said it.

[GothicGyrl]

a

 

Not true. My car has a remote start, and if someone gets in without the keys and tries to put it in gear, it shuts off immediately. Also, it can be locked, and the remote start ignited, such that the car is running with the doors locked and the car alarmed.

Ancedote does not equal data. YOUR car might not start. Someone else's will.

 

I will bow out now because I am just in shock that some find what she did acceptable. I am getting angry at the thought of this. I've seen what locked, closed up cars do to kids, up close and real. I will never forget the images in my head and I won't forgive it.

 

I'm done. Sorry I ever got involved. Truly.

[Tammy]

According to the article YOU POSTED....it said, "So she turned off the engine, put her hazard lights on, locked the car and walked 30 feet from the car to get a few snapshots of the girls, Coyne said."

 

Your chances of getting carjacked are much higher at a gas station or red light....than in the loading zone of Walmart, LOL!

[Perry]

According to this the car was off, until the police turned it on.

[RoughCollie]

Of course real dangers exist. Babies have been stolen out of cars while the mother returns the cart to the stand, for example.

 

The thing is that most people don't think that sort of thing will happen to them. And they are correct about one thing -- it is highly unusual, and it probably won't. The odds are way less than a .01% chance, I would think. Anecdote does not equal data about crimes, as well.

 

Would a reasonable person have done as this woman did? Probably so. The risk she took was miniscule.

 

Would I have done it? No way. I think about the bad things that might happen, no matter how tiny the risk, and try to prevent them. But I'm kind of weird that way, and that is probably due to my having been the victim of a serious crime: to wit, kidnapping at gunpoint. The risk of that happening to someone is extremely low as well.

 

I cannot imagine someone not believing in the real dangers that do exist. And, I'll just say this--if she turned her car off (which it does not say), then she doubley stinks.

 

There I said it.

[GothicGyrl]

According to the article YOU POSTED....it said, "So she turned off the engine, put her hazard lights on, locked the car and walked 30 feet from the car to get a few snapshots of the girls, Coyne said."

 

Your chances of getting carjacked are much higher at a gas station or red light....than in the loading zone of Walmart, LOL!

And according to FACT and Statistics, you would be wrong:

 

http://www.crimedoctor.com/carjacking.htm

 

Pay close attention to the heading "Where Does Carjacking Occur"

 

Top of the 4th paragraph:

Popular carjacking locations are parking lots, shopping centers, gas stations, car washes, convenience stores, ATMs, hotels, valet parking, fast-food drive-thru, and outside of retail stores. Close proximity to a freeway onramp is a desirable escape factor from the carjackers prospective. A risky, but popular location for the carjacker is a roadway intersection with a stoplight.

 

Only lastly are red lights "popular"(on your red light issue, not gas stations and only to show it's more of a concern outside a walmart than a red light).

 

Now please. I am not speaking on this from a "OMG SHE LEFT HER BABIEZZZZZZZ!!!!" stance. :D

 

I've said she did not deserve arrest. I've said that the officer was an idiot. But according to fact and statistics, she was putting herself in high risk. That alone is enough to make me question. Even though according to this: http://huntsville.injuryboard.com/new-laws-about-leaving-children-unattended-in-cars.php what she did does warrant arrest and a fine. I'm still looking for actual laws.

 

Here is one state, Maryland, that says it's law: http://www.lawlib.state.md.us/UnattendedChildren.html

[SparrowsNest]

GothicGirl, I am not saying that no dangers exist. I am saying there are always dangers, and we have to weigh them before making a choice.

 

We don't know about this woman's car. You said in essence that her car was running and therefore there was more danger. I have a car with a remote start, and if she did lock and alarm a running car, it's not unreasonable to suspect that she had a remote access of some sort as well. I did not say that what my car does is what all cars do (anecdote = data), only that my car functions this way and thus hers may have as well -- you are the one who made assumptions as to what running cars can and cannot do and how they will and will not react.

[Harriet Vane]

She is from Illinois....People go out in it all the time to run errands. Seriously unless a blizzard was happening I never postponed errands when we lived in Chicago. N. Illinois has been going through a rough winter and if you waited for it to be warm and nice out you wouldn't be going anywhere. It isn't Florida. :-)

 

In Illinois there is sooooo much bad weather--everyone goes out and takes care of business anyway.

 

I have NO issues with what this woman did, but I do have LOTS of issues with the cop in this case. Frankly, the cop ought to be fired.

[SparrowsNest]

Only lastly are red lights "popular"(on your red light issue, not gas stations and only to show it's more of a concern outside a walmart than a red light).

 

 

But, as they didn't provide data, you are assuming that they were listing the popular spots in decending order of frequency. Maybe, maybe not.

[Queen_Zarga]

If you still don't believe what I am saying, slim to none or not.. I will now bow out of this thread and just go cry.

 

I'm done. Sorry I ever got involved. Truly.

 

And according to FACT and Statistics, you would be wrong:

.

.

.

 

 

 

For someone done talking, you sure talk a lot. :confused:

[GothicGyrl]

GothicGirl, I am not saying that no dangers exist. I am saying there are always dangers, and we have to weigh them before making a choice.

 

We don't know about this woman's car. You said in essence that her car was running and therefore there was more danger. I have a car with a remote start, and if she did lock and alarm a running car, it's not unreasonable to suspect that she had a remote access of some sort as well. I did not say that what my car does is what all cars do (anecdote = data), only that my car functions this way and thus hers may have as well -- you are the one who made assumptions as to what running cars can and cannot do and how they will and will not react.

No, I stated that it is entirely more possible for her situation to end up in a carjacking and I backed it up with fact--after Tammy said it wasn't likely to happen in her situation.

 

I'd welcome you to look at the videos in google, where you would see cars on and off, left alone and attended, being carjacked. I'd also welcome you to read what I just posted above with regard as to how they actually do happen.

 

Her case, though unlikely, makes it very easy for a carjacker to drive off with her car AND her baby inside.

[LizzyBee]

But since the spot directly in front of the bell ringer is clearly marked as a fire lane, which is illegal to park in at any time, she'd have to move a few feet up(in fact!! The first article stated this!!) so she was at least 10 feet away from her car (read the article people--it states this as well).

 

10 feet is far enough away for something to happen. That's for sure.

 

Laws about fire lanes are set by state and local law. I've been in Walmarts that do not have a marked fire lane in front of the store.

 

When my kids go outside to play they are more than 10 feet away from me. Sometimes they are even outside of my view. We live in a neighborhood, so there could be people around. So what????? We all take calculated risks on a daily basis. The risk of a locked, alarmed car being broken into while people are nearby is miniscule.

 

On the risk of carjacking vs. falling - I lived in Baltimore for 11 years, where carjacking is a common occurrence. I've fallen with a baby in my arms, but I was never carjacked. I've personally known lots of people who fell in bad weather, but not a single one who was carjacked. So it's only anecdotal, but I do think falling is much more common than carjacking, even in areas where carjacking is common.

 

I really hope the judge reams the cop for making the arrest, but unfortunately it's more likely that the woman will be found guilty and charged a fine.

[GothicGyrl]

For someone done talking, you sure talk a lot. :confused:

haha, yeah you are right, I do. Faulty wiring I suppose.

 

I consider many here friends, at least on line. It really pains me to hear them agreeing that what this woman did was alright and ok by them

 

So, I'll turn the tables on you.. what if it were a guy? Can you HONESTLY tell me the exact same thing or would you want him strung up for being so reckless because "guys just don't think like women do?" ( a long ago in the past thread on the old board when something very similar came up. They were ready to string the guy up and felt sorry for the mom for losing her baby)

[LizzyBee]

Here is one state, Maryland, that says it's law: http://www.lawlib.state.md.us/UnattendedChildren.html

 

Here is the law from the link you posted:

 

A child under the age of 8 years and out of sight (in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle) of the person charged with his/her care must be left with a reliable person at least 13 years old.

 

The child was never out of the mother's sight, so apparently there wouldn't have been a violation under MD law.

[GothicGyrl]

Here is the law from the link you posted:

 

A child under the age of 8 years and out of sight (in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle) of the person charged with his/her care must be left with a reliable person at least 13 years old.

 

The child was never out of the mother's sight, so apparently there wouldn't have been a violation under MD law.

 

The CAR was never out of the mom's site, the child was, in fact, out of site--windows up, door shut, car locked. Unless she did not have tinted windows (again, I'm only countering you on this), then yes--the child was out of site.

 

A minor technicality, but one I could argue.

[Tammy]

It didn't take long to find a website....that says differently.... http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/rpt/19782.htm

Pay close attention to this part:

 

The most likely places for a carjacking are:

 

High crime areas

Lesser traveled roads (rural areas)

Intersections where you must stop

Isolated areas in parking lots

Residential driveways and gates

Traffic jams or congested areas

[SparrowsNest]

On the risk of carjacking vs. falling - I lived in Baltimore for 11 years, where carjacking is a common occurrence. I've fallen with a baby in my arms, but I was never carjacked. I've personally known lots of people who fell in bad weather, but not a single one who was carjacked. So it's only anecdotal, but I do think falling is much more common than carjacking, even in areas where carjacking is common.

Same is true for me when we lived in DC. I slipped several times, but was never highjacked.

 

Of course without real data, it's just conjecture, which is why I still think it's impossible to say whether she made the best decision. She made the decison she thought best at the time between two very, very small risks. It doesn't require a cop's intervention on any level, and it certainly does not require taxpayer's money to go to trial!

[SparrowsNest]

A child under the age of 8 years and out of sight (in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle) of the person charged with his/her care must be left with a reliable person at least 13 years old.

So, if your 3 year old is napping, and you step out on the front porch to shake a rug, are you violating a law?

[GothicGyrl]

It doesn't require a cop's intervention on any level, and it certainly does not require taxpayer's money to go to trial!

 

And I did say I agreed with this (so give me my cookie now)...;) I just also added that *I* don't feel she used common sense.

 

And Tammy--tit for tat.. we could play a version of youtube poker, only with google stats search? Wanna? :)

 

Seriously, when I typed in "car jacking statistics" what I linked to is what came up. The guy is an expert in this particular field and has documented much of what was stated, himself. I do remember him having a show on Discovery Channel about this as well. Fascinating read, his books are. But if you aren't in to Crime Analysing, it might bore you.

[Joanne]

The irony is amazing.

 

She's arrested while her girls are depositing money for charity.

 

She's keeping one child "safe" while accepting other risks such as the one that happened (nosy people, zealous cops).

 

She's being subjectively inconsiderate while allowing her older girls to "give".

 

She doesn't want to fall with the baby but the weather is fine enough to not miss the photo op.

 

The errand, "trip", event is completely voluntary and not tied to an appointment.

 

Did she deserve what she got. Absolutely not. Did she use common sense and common courtesy? Absolutely not.

 

It's all a bit crazy.

 

I can only wish that every car that parks in the front of a store (usually called the FIRE LANE) would get towed....or ticketed!!!!! You don't know how many times this happens....I guess these people feel special or something.... As you can see....this is my biggest pet peeve when going to Publix!

 

In no parking, standing zones in front of stores, I completely agree.

[GothicGyrl]

So, if your 3 year old is napping, and you step out on the front porch to shake a rug, are you violating a law?

It does say "in a dwelling" and dwelling was once a common word for living space, but would they really snag you for it happening in your own home?

 

I should hope not. But I wouldn't put anything past nosey neighbors either.

[RoughCollie]

Carjacking, 1993-2002

 

* Carjacking rates were higher on average during the first 5 years of the 1993-2002 period (2.1 per 10,000 persons each year) than during the last 5 years (1.3 per 10,000).

* Carjacking victimization rates were highest in urban areas, followed by suburban and rural areas. Ninety-three percent of carjackings occurred in cities or suburbs.

* A weapon was used in 74% of carjacking victimizations. Firearms were used in 45% of carjackings, knives in 11% and other weapons in 18%.

 

Source: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/c02.htm

U.S. Department of Justice

[SparrowsNest]

And I did say I agreed with this (so give me my cookie now)...;) I just also added that *I* don't feel she used common sense.

 

White chocolate chip or macademia nut? ;)

[GothicGyrl]

White chocolate chip or macademia nut? ;)

White chocolate chip please. :)

 

And Rough Collie--that isn't detailed. That's one of the first links that come up in Google and I purposely avoided it because of its lack of detail. It's true, yes, but I was looking for detail to try and back up what I was saying. :D

[chiguirre]

Here are links to the 2 Chicago Tribune articles about this case:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-momontrial,0,833520.story

 

and

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-crestwood13dec13,1,4315152.story

 

She turned off her car, locked and alarmed it.

The police turned the car on later with the toddler inside it. It didn't say if they had someone sitting in the car with her.

The police also left the 9 and 8 yos unattended in the Wal-mart. The father found them sitting there unsupervised.

IL law according to the Trib is:

 

In Illinois, parents who leave their children in a car out of sight and unattended by anyone at least 14 years old for 10 minutes or more can face child-endangerment charges that carry a penalty of up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

 

It's not really clear that this woman even technically broke the law. I'm guessing the Walmart video timer and sight lines determine that.

 

So, not surprisingly, the chief of police is not commenting. He's probably hoping not to be sued or possibly charged with child endangerment.

 

What a complete mess!

[SparrowsNest]

(1.3 per 10,000

 

 

So, the risk of carjacking on any given day is 1 in 3.6 million.

According to this site: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

 

The yearly risk of falling to your death are 1/502,837, or a daily risk of about 1/182 million.

 

But I bet you're more likely to fall in icy weather. Maybe 10 times more likely? So let's say 1/18.2 million.

 

So now it's clear. She should've taken the 1/18.2 million risk of falling and dying with the baby in her arms over the 1/3.6 million risk of carjacking! Which means, at least to me, that she should *definitely* go to jail for taking a 1/3 million risk with her child! ;)

[Tammy]

Well you didn't prove me wrong....which was your goal :) .... I think the point of this whole discussion with you is....to NOT park where she did for FEAR of being carjacked.....is silly! Your chances of being hurt in a car accident are much greater!

[Ellie]

This is ridiculous. Much of parenting is common sense--and she clearly used it, but is somehow being used as a guinea pig to prove a point. Trials like this are a waste of time, tax payer money, and emotional strain for persons involved.

 

Texas has a 5 minute rule to allow children to be alone in car just for circumstances such as this.

 

But you know what they say: If sense were more common, more people would have it. Clearly the police could use some. Maybe folks could take up a collection and buy them a clue...

[RoughCollie]

Did you read the report at the link?

 

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/c02.pdf

 

White chocolate chip please. :)

 

And Rough Collie--that isn't detailed. That's one of the first links that come up in Google and I purposely avoided it because of its lack of detail. It's true, yes, but I was looking for detail to try and back up what I was saying. :D

[GothicGyrl]

Well you didn't prove me wrong....which was your goal :) .... I think the point of this whole discussion with you is....to NOT park where she did for FEAR of being carjacked.....is silly! Your chances of being hurt in a car accident are much greater!

If you feel that justifies her leaving the kid alone, then so be it. Obviously, I disagree. I can't very well leave my baby home alone just to avoid a car accident, but I can most definitely not leave them alone in a locked, not running car--purely for her safety. You might think my logic faulty, so be it. I'll take the risk driving the kid to the store, but not leaving them alone in a locked, not running car.

[GothicGyrl]

Did you read the report at the link?

 

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/c02.pdf

yep and page 2 backs up what I said:

 

• 44% of carjacking incidents occurred in an open

area, such as on the street (other than immediately

adjacent to the victim's own home or that of a friend or

neighbor) or near public transportation (such as a

bus, subway, or train station or an airport), and 24%

occurred in parking lots or garages or near commercial

places such as stores, gas stations, office

buildings, restaurants/bars, or other commercial

facilities.[/QUOTE]

 

Which also backs up what the "crime doctor" website says. That's enough for me. ;)

[Perry]

But it's only carjacking if the driver is in it. Otherwise it's theft.

[GothicGyrl]

But it's only carjacking if the driver is in it. Otherwise it's theft.

umm, baby left alone in car, doors locked, windows up, car not running= carjacking.

 

Carjacking is ANYone in the car, not just the driver.

[Perry]

umm, baby left alone in car, doors locked, windows up, car not running= carjacking.

 

Carjacking is ANYone in the car, not just the driver.

 

It depends whose definition you're using. To commit forcible theft of (a vehicle) from its users.

 

the theft of an automobile from its driver by force or intimidation

 

But anyway, even if you want to call it carjacking, it's most likely to happen when the driver is getting in or out. Not when she's 10 yards away. So whether she has left the kid in the car or not really is irrelevant. The risk is the same. Now if she'd left the car on, or the keys in the car, I'd feel a whole lot differently about it.

[Tammy]

I asked my police neighbor....and he said it wouldn't be considered a carjacking....like you said! It would be a auto theft and kidnapping.

[Nestof3]

Good grief -- remind me not to post articles like this anymore. Pages of nothingness.

 

I cannot believe people are that paranoid about leaving a sleeping baby in a car within sight for a few minutes.

 

I also cannot believe how many people have gotten so ruffled about someone temporarily parking in a fire lane in front of Walmart. The whole thing is so funny. I have NEVER seen a fire truck in front of any store, and don't tell me the lady couldn't have gotten out of the way in time. It would take that long to clear the people and carts.

 

Yeah, yeah -- I know it's against the law, and I don't make a habit of doing so, but I will pick up my mother at the front door

 

AND I would park in front to drop off some coins to the Salvation Army.

[Joanne]

I also cannot believe how many people have gotten so ruffled about someone temporarily parking in a fire lane in front of Walmart.

 

 

I also cannot believe how many people have gotten so ruffled about someone temporarily parking in a fire lane in front of Walmart. The whole thing is so funny. I have NEVER seen a fire truck in front of any store, and don't tell me the lady couldn't have gotten out of the way in time. It would take that long to clear the people and carts.

 

I dated a fireman when I was in my early 20's. Parking in fire lanes seems harmless; what are the chances of a fire at that store at the time you are there? Seemingly nil.

 

But if the store is on fire (or an ambulance needs to come), the chances are 100%. My bf reported fire line issues did impact their ability to respond.

 

She was away, with 2 kids in sleet taking pictures. If there was an emergency, she would be a delay in emergency persononel assisting.

 

I, personally, find it discourteous and entitlement thinking. And in most cases I can think of locally, "parking" in that lane disrupts an existing lane of traffic flow.

 

Yeah, yeah -- I know it's against the law, and I don't make a habit of doing so, but I will pick up my mother at the front door

 

I've got a disabled FIL and a dd whose disease makes her unsteady in inclimate weather. A fall can hyperextend her joints and hurt for a long time. I make do and try to be courteous.

 

 

Pages of nothingness.

 

I cannot believe people are that paranoid about leaving a sleeping baby in a car within sight for a few minutes.

 

FWIW, I am one of the least "paranoid" about issues relating to safety on this board. My kids play outside unsupervised, sometimes when I am not even home, they've gone to public bathrooms alone for years, they do camp, sleepovers and other events away from me.

 

I find what the woman did, while not an arrestable offense, an offense of courtesy and a misjudgment of priority.

[Barb_]

I think it would be far less likely for a guy to be in this position in the first place. Somehow I can't see a police officer reaming a guy his size in the same situation. There are certain petty tyrant types that enjoy pushing smaller people around.

 

Barb

 

 

haha, yeah you are right, I do. Faulty wiring I suppose.

 

I consider many here friends, at least on line. It really pains me to hear them agreeing that what this woman did was alright and ok by them

 

So, I'll turn the tables on you.. what if it were a guy? Can you HONESTLY tell me the exact same thing or would you want him strung up for being so reckless because "guys just don't think like women do?" ( a long ago in the past thread on the old board when something very similar came up. They were ready to string the guy up and felt sorry for the mom for losing her baby)

[Colleen]

I'll play devil's advocate here...

 

I think that's what this boils down to, Toni. Let's imagine this would've been posted in a different light ~ "Omigosh, can you believe this lady's reckless behavior?!" And let's further say people started nodding in agreement ~ "Good grief, this woman doesn't even deserve to have kids!" yada yada yada. You know what you would've done? Posted ad nauseam from the other perspective, lamenting parental paranoia and so on and so forth. You'll talk yourself in circles trying to prove your point ~ and all the moreso if you're in the minority.:001_tt1:

[Harriet Vane]

Thank God! I could not believe this went this far--it's ridiculous.

 

Charges expected to be dropped against Tinley Park mother, source says

 

By Matthew Walberg | Tribune reporter

March 13, 2008

 

Charges are expected to be dropped Thursday against a Tinley Park mother of three who was accused of leaving her sleeping 2-year-old in the family station wagon while her other children donated money at a Salvation Army kettle, a source said Wednesday.

 

Ellen "Treffly" Coyne, 36, is scheduled to appear in court in Bridgeview Thursday on charges of misdemeanor child endangerment and obstruction of justice.

 

Coyne and her husband had not been notified as of Wednesday night.

 

"I'm happy that the [Cook County] state's attorney may be the first voice of reason in this whole affair," said Coyne's husband, Tim Janecyk. "I'm still angry that Crestwood police, who have the same case today as they did when they busted up my family, have pushed it to this point. If she's guilty tomorrow, then there will instantly be a million other criminals out there named Mom."

 

While the couple expected to prevail, they said they have had to bear the stigma of being accused of child abuse.

 

"Basically, I was lumped in with all those people who abuse their kids, who hit them so there are bruises showing and things like that," Coyne said. "It's humiliating, and it's insulting."

 

Coyne and her three daughters, Sierra, 9, Haley, 8, and Phoebe, 2, went to a Wal-Mart in Crestwood on Dec. 8 to donate $8.29 the children had collected for the annual kettle drive. Phoebe fell asleep, so Coyne said she parked at the curb, shut off the engine, locked the doors and activated the hazard lights before leaving the station wagon to take a photo of the girls as they dumped their coins into the bucket.

 

Though Coyne said she was never more than 30 feet from the vehicle, a Crestwood police officer saw the car and arrested her.

 

In Illinois, parents who leave a child unattended in a car for 10 minutes can be charged with misdemeanor child endangerment, which carries a penalty of up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Janecyk said he wants to lobby the General Assembly to clarify the law.

 

The case set off an intense debate on numerous Internet message boards between those ridiculing police for abusing their power and those siding with them for acting. A Dec. 13 Tribune article about the arrest was followed by more than 3,000 comments posted to its Web site.

 

Coyne and her family have asked for an apology from Crestwood. Police Chief Timothy Sulikowski could not be reached for comment Wednesday evening.

 

-----------

 

mwalberg@tribune.com

[Harriet Vane]

I should have clarified this article is copied and pasted from today's Chicago Tribune.

[cin]

I am sending this article to my DH, who leaves the kids in the car all the time for the run in/run out. And while I trust his judgement, it's the demented, busy body weenie in the next car that I DON'T trust. As a homeschooling family, we would probably be charged with everything under the sun if police or CPS found out. >SIGH< :sad:

[KarenNC]

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/15257143/detail.html

 

http://www.kidsandcars.org/fire.htm

 

In one, the mother left the children inside while she went in the store. In the other, she left them while she went to pick up a child from inside the kindergarten. Note that these were primarily very young children, strapped in their car seats.

 

It doesn't require 110 degrees or hours. It can take seconds at any temperature.

 

Yes, my child is out of my sight in my neighborhood or at the park at times, but she certainly wasn't when she was 2 or 3 years old.