I can see some here have not had to deal with kids and bad choices. Have any of you had to tell a dad his kids ere dead because his wife did not make them wear their seatbelts when she was driving them to church, hit a slick spot, went into the oncoming lane hitting another car head on which pitched 3 kids out of the car.  One boy and two girls. The oldest was 9 and the youngest was 2. They died at the scene. I got to do this within the last 3 months. Not Fun, trust me. It was not my accident but I got stuck telling dad all about it. Wife was airlifted to Seattle. She made it but she doesn't have any kids anymore. 

How dare someone make a decision regarding the welfare of their own child?  The unmitigated gall!
While I may, and do, agree with your assessment of the wisdom of his actions, it really isn't any of your (or my) business.  Should I call the police or CPS or any government agency or official because I don't like the way you raise your kid?  What if you let them watch the wrong show, or read the wrong book, or go to the wrong church, or eat the wrong food, or play with the wrong toys, or live in the wrong neighborhood, or whatever - the list is infinite. 

Teach correct principles.  Let the people govern themselves.  Freedom is better than coercion, even if "we" are "smarter" than "them" and "know" what is "best" for "them".

+1

There is no political correctness on stupid. No ones constitutional rights have been denied by calling the cops when a law is being broke and a childs life is saved. If we are not our brothers keeper then why befriend a broken down roadside biker or stop for stop signs.....screw the posted speed limits....etc. When any of us walk out the door of our humble homes we join society whether we like it or not.....and we should look out for the weak and oppressed.  Any Veterans agree with that on this Memorial Day......shouldn't that concept begin on our  front door as well as abroad.  I'm just saying.....

+1  Well said.

Oh, wow.  So you want someone calling the police everytime you break a law?  Regardless of whether you think that it is a good law?  Maybe if that happened we would lose some of the stupid laws we have.  Assuming anyone still had enough life, liberty or property left to change the laws.

Of all the "caring, neighborly" posters here, not one of you has shown a whit of interest in getting to know the dad, and talking to him about bike safety.  Utter hypocrisy.

If your child's life is not your decision, just whose decision is it?  Mine?  Some gov't committee?  CPS?  As I stated before, every day parent's make decisions that affect their children's lives.  When I was a kid, there were no seatbelts in the cars we had, and it was not illegal for me to ride standing up, sitting down, or laying on the shelf in the rear window.  Now it is a crime.  Same behavior, but now illegal.  My parents "put my (then a child) life at risk.  Should we dig them out of their graves & prosecute?  They let me ride a minibike w/ no helmet.  Evil criminals.  Some of you might want to re-examine just how many of your freedoms you want to give up while you are wanting to take them away from others. 

The man did not kill his kid.  Get a grip.  Please.

There is a huge difference between 'breaking a law' and endangering a child. It is a parents obligation to protect the life of their children, not endanger them. If the guy wants to ride naked, I don't care, it's his choice. It is not the child's choice to ride unprotected, he/she can't complain, or say they don't want to. The decision is made for them, by the parent.
Your right, things that were legal before, like riding in the bed of a pickup, are illegal now, mostly because we've learned better. I don't support most of those laws for adults, but I do for kids. You see, adults can make informed decisions, children can't. Most of the time I don't care what illegal activity you're into, as long as you're not violating or threatening someone else's rights. Then there will be a problem. This man was threatening his child's right to life, and you're damn straight I'm gonna report him, or you, or anyone else who threatens harm to others, just like I'd report a drunk driver.
You want to look the other way? Fine, it's your right to do so. If you come across the accident scene with a tiny body bag a few miles down the road, I hope your sanctimonious rationalization helps you sleep that night...

Friend, I find that post hilarious.  Or your signature line hilarious.  Or the combination of the two.  All of life is risk.  Either risk management belongs to the individual, or it belongs to someone else (the government).  I think my position is clear, if not well-stated.  I believe I understand yours. 

At some point, you have to either claim the right to control other people, or you have to let it go.  IMO, it is better to teach, even though some will choose wrong.  Force vs persuasion.  Freedom vs subjection.  I have not always lived the principle well, but I stand on the side of freedom.  Even with the risks that freedom entails.

Friend, I find that post hilarious.  Or your signature line hilarious.  Or the combination of the two.  All of life is risk.  Either risk management belongs to the individual, or it belongs to someone else (the government).  I think my position is clear, if not well-stated.  I believe I understand yours. 

At some point, you have to either claim the right to control other people, or you have to let it go.  IMO, it is better to teach, even though some will choose wrong.  Force vs persuasion.  Freedom vs subjection.  I have not always lived the principle well, but I stand on the side of freedom.  Even with the risks that freedom entails.

Then you will appreciate this quote as it fits what you are saying:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise." – John Stuart Mill

I agree with you that risk management belongs to the individual... and the individual, the child, in this case didn't have the option to decide risk management for itself...

Once the man on the motorcycle made a decision that could harm another, in this case the child, we can and should, rightfully exercise power over him...

You are correct to champion the rights of the individual, where you are wrong is that you don't see the individuality of the child...

Then you will appreciate this quote as it fits what you are saying:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise." – John Stuart Mill

I agree with you that risk management belongs to the individual... and the individual, the child, in this case didn't have the option to decide risk management for itself...

Once the man on the motorcycle made a decision that could harm another, in this case the child, we can and should, rightfully exercise power over him...

You are correct to champion the rights of the individual, where you are wrong is that you don't see the individuality of the child...

Let's start at the bottom.  I see the individuality of the child.  This child was not harmed.

We all make decisions every day that COULD harm another.  If that is your true criteria for seizing control of another's freedom, we are not anywhere close to agreement.  The correct criteria is actually harming another.   Every time any of us get in a motor vehicle, we have made a decision that could harm another, including little children.  Every time we overeat or under-exercise or smoke we risk a heart attack, which could harm another, especially if we have the heart attack while driving.  Every time we lie, or don't take our kids to church, or allow our kids to play with scissors, we have made a decision that COULD harm another.

I simply do not believe that you love that child more than her dad does.  I do not believe you have any right to make decisions for the child, nor for her father.  I do not believe that I have the right to control how you raise your children, even if I believe you are doing it wrong.  If I care about you, I will try to teach you a better way.  Society should only control behavior after harm has been done.  In the meantime, preach, teach, exhort and expound to your heart's content, but it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of mankind just because you think you are smarter or safer or wiser.

Again, both sides seem to be clear.  I have no hope that you will understand it any better now than before, but maybe some of the other reading this may seen the difference in our positions a bit clearer.

Most of the time I don't care what illegal activity you're into, as long as you're not violating or threatening someone else's rights. Then there will be a problem. This man was threatening his child's right to life, and you're damn straight I'm gonna report him, or you, or anyone else who threatens harm to others, just like I'd report a drunk driver.
You want to look the other way? Fine, it's your right to do so. If you come across the accident scene with a tiny body bag a few miles down the road, I hope your sanctimonious rationalization helps you sleep that night...

Mal! I'lm somewhat stunned to find us on the same side of this issue!   

At some point, you have to either claim the right to control other people, or you have to let it go.  IMO, it is better to teach, even though some will choose wrong.  Force vs persuasion.  Freedom vs subjection.

See Lt1, I believe that the majority of the rules (or at least in theory) are not so much made, as discovered. "Natural" laws like the laws of math or physics as opposed to "positive" laws concerning banking transactions.
And they are not per say "necessary"  for life, but for "civilization"?
To come inside the wall and into the city? you don't think its fair to have some agreed upon (or at least voted upon) standards of behavior?

Let's start at the bottom.  I see the individuality of the child.  This child was not harmed.

We all make decisions every day that COULD harm another.  If that is your true criteria for seizing control of another's freedom, we are not anywhere close to agreement.

So By this criteria should we only prosecute drunk drivers if they actually crash?

I simply do not believe that you love that child more than her dad does.

Don't assume that a parent is actually thinking about whats good for a child.

Let's start at the bottom.  I see the individuality of the child.  This child was not harmed.

We all make decisions every day that COULD harm another.  If that is your true criteria for seizing control of another's freedom, we are not anywhere close to agreement.  The correct criteria is actually harming another.   Every time any of us get in a motor vehicle, we have made a decision that could harm another, including little children.  Every time we overeat or under-exercise or smoke we risk a heart attack, which could harm another, especially if we have the heart attack while driving.  Every time we lie, or don't take our kids to church, or allow our kids to play with scissors, we have made a decision that COULD harm another.

That's quite the reach you have there, Lt...

I simply do not believe that you love that child more than her dad does.  I do not believe you have any right to make decisions for the child, nor for her father.  I do not believe that I have the right to control how you raise your children, even if I believe you are doing it wrong.  If I care about you, I will try to teach you a better way.  Society should only control behavior after harm has been done.  In the meantime, preach, teach, exhort and expound to your heart's content, but it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of mankind just because you think you are smarter or safer or wiser.

While I agree that no-one should have the right to tell anyone how to raise their children, that right ends when they intentionally place them in harm. Society has an obligation to prevent harm... not wait until the harm is done.

Again, both sides seem to be clear.  I have no hope that you will understand it any better now than before, but maybe some of the other reading this may seen the difference in our positions a bit clearer.

Oh, I understand perfectly where you are coming from, and we disagree on but one point, but I find your argument to be specious and an attempt to justify your specific outlook... children  have a right to their lives... and no one, not even the parent, has the right to threaten that right...

Mal! I'lm somewhat stunned to find us on the same side of this issue!   

Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while... 

See Lt1, I believe that the majority of the rules (or at least in theory) are not so much made, as discovered. "Natural" laws like the laws of math or physics as opposed to "positive" laws concerning banking transactions.
And they are not per say "necessary"  for life, but for "civilization"?
To come inside the wall and into the city? you don't think its fair to have some agreed upon (or at least voted upon) standards of behavior?

 

So By this criteria should we only prosecute drunk drivers if they actually crash?

Excellent analogy...

Don't assume that a parent is actually thinking about whats good for a child.

Indeed, some are only thinking of convenience...

Well I was out walking my dog today and a police car casually went by. So I flagged him down and talked to him about what I saw the other day.....and after he picked his jaw off the dash he said.. " In the state of NC that is a felony for child endangerment  period.  He went on to say "driving  around quite neighborhood would be even be frowned upon and/or get a ticket. ........."  " But on the highway there no different than putting a child on a hood of a car and going down the interstate...." he went on to say Child Services would have been called and he would have gone to jail... 4 to 6 yr at least...." .  He went on to say if I ever see something  like that again try to get a tag, pull over and call 911.  ....".You won't believe how many kids get killed or maimed...because a parent thought it was sooooo cute".

Cheers
Ron

So my scenario was pretty close.  You'd go home feeling good about destroying a family.  The family is the basic unit of society, not the busybody.

In Wake County, NC and the surrounding areas, unless he already had a criminal history, he would get probation, the jails are too full to do much more.  DSS would be involved with the family for some time however. 

So my scenario was pretty close.  You'd go home feeling good about destroying a family.  The family is the basic unit of society, not the busybody.

The ultimate responsibility lies with the father, as he made the choice to commit a felony and endanger his child...

   subscribe.

Lt1's comments were over my head. Too philosophical for my tiny head to comprehend. So I am not even gonna try to re-read to understand. What I got so far, is that calling the policy because that guy is endangering his child will tantamount to encroaching on his freedom and his freewill on how to raise his kids (and hence in general to the whole concept of freedom). Hmmm....wondering if we should convert society to the wild wild west - everyone was pretty much looking out for themselves. If you got issues, your six shooter does the talking. If I got this whole thing wrong, apologize.

Lt1's comments aside, my personal feeling is that I sure heck would not want him to endanger someone else's life. That whole scenario of highway driving with a kid on the gas tank tells me that guy is not fit to be a parent. Now, that is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it. But I am with folks that will call the cops on him with whole heart.

As for the comment on spanking kids on grocery store, I am not against some discipline as long as you do not cross the line and beat your kid blue. But I frown when you spank in public. If your kid is really misbehaving and really deserve a spanking, taking him/her to your car or to the bathroom and do it. Just my thought.

Absolutely correct Awaz .....my kids are terrified of public bathrooms to this day and they are in their 30's LOL ....I told him early on in life that I don't do bail for "stupid" either.  As a good friend of mine likes to say "case closed".......

....I told him early on in life that I don't do bail for "stupid" either.

My Dad used to tell me that if I called from jail he would ask me how was the food; good thing I never had to find out if he was bluffing or not. Mom was a little softer she came got me the first time I crossed the line at 14...... 

My Dad used to tell me that if I called from jail he would ask me how was the food; good thing I never had to find out if he was bluffing or not. Mom was a little softer she came got me the first time I crossed the line at 14...... 

LOL at your father's comment ! But I absolutely agree with him !