If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tampa Bay Online)   Today's baby left in a car while mom shops at a liquor store is brought to you by Ocala, Florida   (tbo.com) divider line 59
    More: Florida, Ocala, liquor stores, mom  
•       •       •

3240 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2013 at 1:01 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-12 09:46:31 PM
TrollingForColumbine:

I'd poker

Apparently someone did.
 
2013-12-13 08:35:51 AM

MycroftHolmes: She was arrested, kid couldn't go with her to jail.


Where do you think DCF picked the kid up? The kid's father, another family member, or a friend are all better options as temporary custodians than DCF for 16 whole minutes of 'neglect.'
 
2013-12-13 09:38:36 AM

Bruce Campbell: MycroftHolmes: She was arrested, kid couldn't go with her to jail.

Where do you think DCF picked the kid up? The kid's father, another family member, or a friend are all better options as temporary custodians than DCF for 16 whole minutes of 'neglect.'


I don't think they can legally pass the kid to a 'friend'.  And my assumption would be that they tried to reach another legal caretaker for the kid but couldn't.  As you say, DCF is probably not the best or easiest route.

But let's assume that all cops are idiots and they did the stupidest thing possible for the worst reasons possible that you, with much less information than they had, can obviously see was a mistake.  And that the multitude of options that you, in your ignorance can clearly see, they were just too stupid to recognize.
 
2013-12-13 10:44:05 AM

MycroftHolmes: I don't think they can legally pass the kid to a 'friend'.  And my assumption would be that they tried to reach another legal caretaker for the kid but couldn't.  As you say, DCF is probably not the best or easiest route.

But let's assume that all cops are idiots and they did the stupidest thing possible for the worst reasons possible that you, with much less information than they had, can obviously see was a mistake.  And that the multitude of options that you, in your ignorance can clearly see, they were just too stupid to recognize.


I am not making assumptions at all.  My opinion is based solely on the facts presented, and those facts would not warrant booking her for neglect, nor would it be grounds to take her kid away from her.  To the contrary you are the one making assumptions that the police obviously had their reasons above and beyond what was specified in the article.
 
2013-12-13 02:56:53 PM

Bruce Campbell: MycroftHolmes: I don't think they can legally pass the kid to a 'friend'.  And my assumption would be that they tried to reach another legal caretaker for the kid but couldn't.  As you say, DCF is probably not the best or easiest route.

But let's assume that all cops are idiots and they did the stupidest thing possible for the worst reasons possible that you, with much less information than they had, can obviously see was a mistake.  And that the multitude of options that you, in your ignorance can clearly see, they were just too stupid to recognize.

I am not making assumptions at all.  My opinion is based solely on the facts presented, and those facts would not warrant booking her for neglect, nor would it be grounds to take her kid away from her.  To the contrary you are the one making assumptions that the police obviously had their reasons above and beyond what was specified in the article.


In your comments, you mentioned that there were obvious alternatives that would have been better temporary guardians than DCF.  For this comment to be valid, you are assuming that these options were available and the police did not try and contact them.

You made a false equivalency in your first statement.  You said that 16 minutes of neglect is not enough to lose custody.  I pointed out that the temporary loss of custody was due to the arrest.  So, the question is, should she have been arrested for child neglect because she left her very young child who was in some level of distress (crying) alone for 16 minutes.
 
2013-12-13 03:56:51 PM

MycroftHolmes: Bruce Campbell: MycroftHolmes: I don't think they can legally pass the kid to a 'friend'.  And my assumption would be that they tried to reach another legal caretaker for the kid but couldn't.  As you say, DCF is probably not the best or easiest route.

But let's assume that all cops are idiots and they did the stupidest thing possible for the worst reasons possible that you, with much less information than they had, can obviously see was a mistake.  And that the multitude of options that you, in your ignorance can clearly see, they were just too stupid to recognize.

I am not making assumptions at all.  My opinion is based solely on the facts presented, and those facts would not warrant booking her for neglect, nor would it be grounds to take her kid away from her.  To the contrary you are the one making assumptions that the police obviously had their reasons above and beyond what was specified in the article.

In your comments, you mentioned that there were obvious alternatives that would have been better temporary guardians than DCF.  For this comment to be valid, you are assuming that these options were available and the police did not try and contact them.

You made a false equivalency in your first statement.  You said that 16 minutes of neglect is not enough to lose custody.  I pointed out that the temporary loss of custody was due to the arrest.  So, the question is, should she have been arrested for child neglect because she left her very young child who was in some level of distress (crying) alone for 16 minutes.


Children in such cases have been left with friends before in FL in circumstance where the caretaker has been arrested, specifically when the arrest is the ONLY reason to need another to care for the child.  Absent any additional information, the facts are that the police took the kid away for a specious reason in the first place:

(e)"Neglect of a child" means:
1.A caregiver's failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2.A caregiver's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.


 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statu te &Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0827/Sections/0827.03.html">http://www. leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0827/Sections/0827.03.html

Without any assumption and based on the facts in the article, there should have been no arrest in the first place.

Now it's assumption time.  Only cops with a hard-on for someone back talking them would deem 16 minutes in a locked car in 60 degree weather as conditions where one can REASONABLY expect to result in serious physical or mental injury.  Better not put a tantrumming kid in a crib and close the door for 16 minutes because it amounts to the same farking thing.
 
2013-12-13 04:51:04 PM

Bruce Campbell: Better not put a tantrumming kid in a crib and close the door for 16 minutes because it amounts to the same farking thing.


really?  You equate a kid being inside your house to a kid being left alone in a public area?   really?

And I would agree to an extent, though it is harder to prove.  Leaving a kid who is in distress completely unmonitored for a period of time would be considered neglect.  If I leave my tantrumming kid in the house and go across the street at a time that someone does a wellness check, you can bet that there would be repercussions.
 
2013-12-13 10:30:02 PM

theflatline: I live in Ocala, and we have two ABC state run stores.

This particular store is always reorganizing the booze so nothing is ever in the same damn place.

However, dumb ass mom should not have left the baby in the store.  It does have grocery carts you could put the baby in.


You're right, people get pretty mad when you just leave your baby in the store.
 
2013-12-13 11:44:56 PM

Dark Cloud: theflatline: I live in Ocala, and we have two ABC state run stores.

This particular store is always reorganizing the booze so nothing is ever in the same damn place.

However, dumb ass mom should not have left the baby in the store.  It does have grocery carts you could put the baby in.

You're right, people get pretty mad when you just leave your baby in the store.


not me,because, hey, free baby
 
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report