• ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch right now. She “contributed to delinquency” because he could have gotten in trouble that he didn’t get into if things had gone entirely differently?

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yes.

      The government decided that children that young should be supervised. She failed to provide that supervision.

      The child coming back safe that time doesn’t count- it’s a dangerous world.

      • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        But they didn’t charge her with endangering him, that’s a different thing.

        Edit to add: And I suspect they didn’t because he was, self evidently, not in danger. So I remain confused about why this became an entire affair.

        • dermanus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Because prosecutors are elected in the US, they do all kinds of stupid things.

      • dermanus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The government decided that children that young should be supervised.

        And we all know that the government is always just and never gets it wrong.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          did I say the government was right?

          the good news here is that, as part of that government by means of voting, you can go and change yours.