7 ms·

How does this happen? There’s no silver lining which makes this conviction reasonable. If they can’t appeal, I hope they use Streisand to get the town or state

How does this happen? There’s no silver lining which makes this conviction reasonable. If they can’t appeal, I hope they use Streisand to get the town or state of Virginia to vacate everything.

alasano 13d ago
I'm not sure if this just bias from news stories but in general it feels like absurd things which would be avoided with just common sense from authorities tend to happen in the US.
garciasn 13d ago
They charged her criminally instead of civilly, because in 2023 VA passed a 'free-range parenting' amendment to allow for actions that appropriate for the child's maturity and are not done in a grossly negligent manner that endangers the child. This is likely why the defense asked for comments from others on the child's maturity. The criminal definition apparently has no such modification. E: removed a double ‘likely’
- cucumber3732842 13d ago
  >They charged her criminally instead of civilly, Joke's on them because now she has rights. I'm being a little hyperbolic but not nearly as much as I wish I was. The .gov can make just about anything stick if it's civil. Criminal is where your rights really kick in.
thewillowcat 13d ago
It happened because a neighbor was so disturbed by a child walking alone to report it, the police thought it was serious enough to refer for prosecution, and a prosecutor decided it needed to be charged using their office's limited resources. All insane. The part that really gets to me is that the neighbor was so "concerned" about the child's safety that they called the police, but for some reason, in their urgent concern, they didn't take the simple step of approaching and talking to the child to see where they were going or if a parent knew where they were.
- Polizeiposaune 13d ago
  Perhaps the neighbor who called it in thought that if they approached the child themselves, they might be seen as a potential child molester.
  - GJim 13d ago
    If you automatically assume somebody approaching a child is a kidde fiddler (!) then your society has problems.
    - voakbasda 13d ago
      Welcome to ‘murica
    - greedo 13d ago
      Yes. As a father of two (grown) children in the US, this is the default assumption for most men.
      - GJim 13d ago
        Your society needs help.
    - insane_dreamer 13d ago
      This is America
    - shaftway 13d ago
      There is zero chance I would approach a kid on their own that isn't mine. Because there is a very non-zero chance that someone would accuse me of that. If it gets to charges, even if I do successfully defend myself, then my name is mud and it costs me a ton. I'd call security too. Not my monkey, not my circus.
      - FireBeyond 13d ago
        Yes. In my "other life" I work in fire and EMS, and in uniform regularly have parents stop us and point us out to their kids - "If you're ever hurt or in trouble, you can ALWAYS go to these people, they're safe.", or the look of absolute trust when someone thrusts their sick child at you, hoping for you to make it better. And that, somewhat unsurprisingly, sometimes include seeing that child in undress. Take off my uniform. My partner spent several years in childcare, both at centers and as a nanny. We're out in public and she sees a crying child? She goes to it, talks to it, hugs it perhaps, reassures. Me? Not a chance. For better or worse, societal conditioning is that that is something I as a male /do/ /not/ /do/. Because it's nefarious that I'd even want to.
softwaredoug 13d ago
Virginia also has a free range kid law. And in particular, the conviction here was delinquency of a minor. That's usually used to convict parents of teenagers whose kids do serious crimes. I caveat to say, we don't know the full details. But it all seems pretty weak sauce.
- WarmWash 13d ago
  I hate to to say it but way to often "outrage" stories like this are written for engagement, not assessment. The boy could have been spotted walking along a highway median, or similar detail that would kind of spoil the outrage effect. Lord knows the pedestrian hostile nature of modern infrastructure.
  - softwaredoug 13d ago
    That’s possible Though in this case the kid was walking all in a gated community.
- OkayPhysicist 13d ago
  IMO, this whole case has a smell of politically motivated prosecution. The fact that the mom worked for Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel that pushed Virginia's free-range child law, which the judge allowed the prosecution to present a wild legal theory in direct contradiction to is just rather convenient. It's far from improbable that a family court judge would have a bone to pick. Law enforcement gets a weird lens about public safety because of selection bias.
anal_reactor 13d ago
> How does this happen? Simple. Evolutionarily, the dumber you are, the higher the risks of dying, because you do stupid shit. Inversely, the safer the environment, the dumber people become, because not doing stupid shit stops being evolutionarily advantageous. Nature is pretty brutal so there is evolutionary pressure not to be dumb, but in modern civilization we have pretty much infinite resources dedicated to safety, which means there is a feedback loop "people are dumber -> more safety measures -> people are dumber -> more safety measures". When you go to poor countries you'll realize just how much knowledge children posses on the topic on how not to die.

How does this happen? There’s no silver lining which makes this conviction reasonable. If they can’t appeal, I hope they use Streisand to get the town or state of Virginia to vacate everything.

alasano 13d ago

I'm not sure if this just bias from news stories but in general it feels like absurd things which would be avoided with just common sense from authorities tend to happen in the US.

garciasn 13d ago

They charged her criminally instead of civilly, because in 2023 VA passed a 'free-range parenting' amendment to allow for actions that appropriate for the child's maturity and are not done in a grossly negligent manner that endangers the child. This is likely why the defense asked for comments from others on the child's maturity. The criminal definition apparently has no such modification. E: removed a double ‘likely’

cucumber3732842 13d ago
>They charged her criminally instead of civilly, Joke's on them because now she has rights. I'm being a little hyperbolic but not nearly as much as I wish I was. The .gov can make just about anything stick if it's civil. Criminal is where your rights really kick in.

thewillowcat 13d ago

It happened because a neighbor was so disturbed by a child walking alone to report it, the police thought it was serious enough to refer for prosecution, and a prosecutor decided it needed to be charged using their office's limited resources. All insane. The part that really gets to me is that the neighbor was so "concerned" about the child's safety that they called the police, but for some reason, in their urgent concern, they didn't take the simple step of approaching and talking to the child to see where they were going or if a parent knew where they were.

Polizeiposaune 13d ago
Perhaps the neighbor who called it in thought that if they approached the child themselves, they might be seen as a potential child molester.
- GJim 13d ago
  If you automatically assume somebody approaching a child is a kidde fiddler (!) then your society has problems.
  - voakbasda 13d ago
    Welcome to ‘murica
  - greedo 13d ago
    Yes. As a father of two (grown) children in the US, this is the default assumption for most men.
    - GJim 13d ago
      Your society needs help.
  - insane_dreamer 13d ago
    This is America
  - shaftway 13d ago
    There is zero chance I would approach a kid on their own that isn't mine. Because there is a very non-zero chance that someone would accuse me of that. If it gets to charges, even if I do successfully defend myself, then my name is mud and it costs me a ton. I'd call security too. Not my monkey, not my circus.
    - FireBeyond 13d ago
      Yes. In my "other life" I work in fire and EMS, and in uniform regularly have parents stop us and point us out to their kids - "If you're ever hurt or in trouble, you can ALWAYS go to these people, they're safe.", or the look of absolute trust when someone thrusts their sick child at you, hoping for you to make it better. And that, somewhat unsurprisingly, sometimes include seeing that child in undress. Take off my uniform. My partner spent several years in childcare, both at centers and as a nanny. We're out in public and she sees a crying child? She goes to it, talks to it, hugs it perhaps, reassures. Me? Not a chance. For better or worse, societal conditioning is that that is something I as a male /do/ /not/ /do/. Because it's nefarious that I'd even want to.

softwaredoug 13d ago

Virginia also has a free range kid law. And in particular, the conviction here was delinquency of a minor. That's usually used to convict parents of teenagers whose kids do serious crimes. I caveat to say, we don't know the full details. But it all seems pretty weak sauce.

WarmWash 13d ago
I hate to to say it but way to often "outrage" stories like this are written for engagement, not assessment. The boy could have been spotted walking along a highway median, or similar detail that would kind of spoil the outrage effect. Lord knows the pedestrian hostile nature of modern infrastructure.
- softwaredoug 13d ago
  That’s possible Though in this case the kid was walking all in a gated community.
OkayPhysicist 13d ago
IMO, this whole case has a smell of politically motivated prosecution. The fact that the mom worked for Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel that pushed Virginia's free-range child law, which the judge allowed the prosecution to present a wild legal theory in direct contradiction to is just rather convenient. It's far from improbable that a family court judge would have a bone to pick. Law enforcement gets a weird lens about public safety because of selection bias.

anal_reactor 13d ago

> How does this happen? Simple. Evolutionarily, the dumber you are, the higher the risks of dying, because you do stupid shit. Inversely, the safer the environment, the dumber people become, because not doing stupid shit stops being evolutionarily advantageous. Nature is pretty brutal so there is evolutionary pressure not to be dumb, but in modern civilization we have pretty much infinite resources dedicated to safety, which means there is a feedback loop "people are dumber -> more safety measures -> people are dumber -> more safety measures". When you go to poor countries you'll realize just how much knowledge children posses on the topic on how not to die.