Slashdot Log In
Children Arrested, DNA Tested for Playing in a Tree?
Posted by
Cliff
on Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:36 PM
from the children-shouldn't-need-to-be-scared-this-straight dept.
from the children-shouldn't-need-to-be-scared-this-straight dept.
skelator2821 wrote in with another account of a police action gone way overboard. From the article: "To the 12-year-old friends planning to build themselves a den, the cherry tree seemed an inviting source of material. But the afternoon adventure turned into a frightening ordeal for Sam Cannon, Amy Higgins and Katy Smith after they climbed into the 20ft tree - then found themselves hauled into a police station and locked into cells for up to two hours." skelator2821's basic question in all of this: "What is this World coming to? Do you think they went to far?" Well? Do you?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
treehouse of love (Score:5, Funny)
Re:treehouse of love (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Thankfully, I live in the USA (Score:5, Funny)
Do I think they went to far? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do I think they went to far? (Score:5, Funny)
"Two young snipers in a tree,
K-I-L-L-I-N-G..."
I mean, it's a common mistake.
Parent
Re:Do I think they went to far? (Score:5, Funny)
I am wondering why askslashdot is being used to push agendas/post news stories, i know this isn't a new thing, but aren't there real questions to be answered? Why couldn't this story just be a normal news submission?
Good question! You might submit it to askslashdot for some fine answers.
Parent
I have the justification (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Do I think they went to far? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Should have been too far, but it probably wasn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should have been too far, but it probably wasn' (Score:5, Insightful)
The police in the UK are trying to build a DNA sample database of the entire population.
So far, they have only got permission to take samples if they arrest someone; this may explain their willingness to arrest everyone they can, for the most trivial reasons. The law then allows the sample to be retained indefinitely, even if the person is released with no charge (hence, the parents cannot sue).
The UK is rapidly becoming one of the countries with the most draconian social controls in the Western world.
Parent
Start 'Em Young (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, what if they got hurt falling out of that tree? The police are here to help.
Re:The parents agree (Score:5, Funny)
Dammit, at their age I was carrying a gun and defending my land from railroad surveyers and rabid dogs.
Parent
Re:The parents agree (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are worried about hyperbole in the article, I'm interested in the police claim that they kids were trying to strip ever branch from the cherry tree. Now, I haven't seen this important civic landmark (not entirely sarcastic: trees can be significant, although it didn't really sound like this one was, except from the police description), but your typical tree has a lot of branches, many of which a 12-year-old would be hard-pressed indeed to remove. Of course, we might speculate that the kids had saws and axes, but then we're stuck trying to explain why that wasn't mentioned by the police defending their actions. So that brings us back to the question: how likely was it to the police that the kids were trying to strip the tree and kill it? Did they really believe that? If so, should we trust their testimony and their judgement on this and other case?
Parent
Re:The parents agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Break a branch, become a criminal, go to jail.
Raze a forest, become a Captain of Industry, go to government.
KFG
Parent
Re:The parents agree (Score:5, Insightful)
No one doesn't. Kids climb trees. They don't normally get arrested for it. Their responses were normal.
These infant-willed "preteens" didn't belong in a 20 foot cherry tree.
Maybe you've never seen a tree before. So you might want to sit down for this.
20 feet is actually quite short for a tree. Most people would consider that a shrub, not a tree.
When you climb a shrub or a tree, it is not necessary or even possible to climb up to the very highest leaves at the top. They won't hold your weight. Therefore the fact that the tree height is 20 feet strongly indicates that these kids were at a much lower height at the time of their arrest. They were probably at varying heights from zero to about ten- the article doesn't say. This would further indicate that emotional stability (as determined by an arrest) need not be a prerequisite for climbing shrubbery.
Parent
Re:Start 'Em Young (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm sure they made an impression, all right. These kids will dislike and mistrust the police for the rest of their lives.
Cops have been doing the "well, I should book you, but I'll let you go this time" routine for centuries.
Yup, it's called exercising sound judgement. They should have done it again this time.
Parent
what's so bad about that? (Score:5, Funny)
This just in. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
They always have been and always will be. I can count on one hand the number of run-ins I've had with cops that have been anything other than shitty - and no, I'm not a criminal.
Of course they went too far, they often do.
The culture of deliberate, misleading, trumped-up fear we live in today isn't helping anything either.
Frankly, we need more stories like this so more people realize just what the hell is going on.
My limited experience has been surprisingly OK (Score:5, Interesting)
Feeling as I do that this power relationship brings out the uglier sides of human nature, I'm always sure to let them be the alpha male (or female) so I don't trigger any "I must prove that I'm a badass" reactions. But I'm one of the people who see the implications of the Zimbardo prison experiment in everyday situations, probably to an extent where most people would be rolling their eyes and saying "you're really reaching now."
Parent
Re:My limited experience has been surprisingly OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I'm white, on top of which I go to great lengths to be polite and act in a respectful way, even if I'm thinking "what the hell do you want from me?"
I'm black, I do the same thing as you do, and I've had pretty much the same experience. The one time I've actually gotten a ticket, the officer thanked me for being polite to him. Not that that's the only time I've been pulled over, but the previous three or so times, I got off with just a warning. I'm not sure why exactly, but being nice can never hurt. Luckily, I don't really have to worry about traffic tickets anymore, since I drive to work on 280 [wikipedia.org]. There are no laws on 280.
But I'm one of the people who see the implications of the Zimbardo prison experiment in everyday situations, probably to an extent where most people would be rolling their eyes and saying "you're really reaching now."
Exactly. You take normal people and put them into a position of power, and it changes them. In my experience, treating them with respect instead of antagonizing them tends to soften the effect. I don't see why more people don't give it a shot. Plus, out of all the cops out there, how many of them are truly bad people? I don't think there are that many.
Parent
Re:My limited experience has been surprisingly OK (Score:5, Interesting)
The bigger problem is that ALL the "good" cops just look the other way. The police have perfected the prisoner's delima. They call it a "blue brotherhood" or whatever. Basically the police have figured out that if they all keep quiet then nobody will ever get in trouble.
Granted, the trend in many places seems to be getting better. Cops no longer cover each other on blatant criminal activity (profiteering, murders etc). But it still seems to be OK to routinely abuse your power and nobody will speak up.
Parent
Re:My limited experience has been surprisingly OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Being respectful and polite is not the same as "demeaning yourself and giving up all self-respect", unless your self-image is based on your (perceived) ability to rude whenever you want to.
Parent
Re:This just in. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Cops are human beings, and unless you're living in an area that disables them from being a human being, you needn't be an ass all the time. Imagine being spit on, insulted, and assualted every day, all hours of the day, by drunks, drugheads, and assholes who try to make trouble. Eventually, you stop blinking, and stop being nice.
Sure, some places have corrupt cops and a corrupt justice system that does not work. I'll agree that our justice system is infact broken, all the way around, and that that the entire government is illegal at a fundemental level and I'v got books and documents that proove as much. But not every area requires the same amount of crap to be taken nor given.
I had a cop approach me today, said someone called 911 from my home. I know this is BS; nobody's home at all, cept for me and I'm heading out. She asked me to check; I checked, and explained where everyone was and that everyone was accounted for. She asked to take a quick look inside; I allowed her to, and she was in and out within a few seconds and I watched her every second. I was polite, curtious, and overbearingly nice and I made her feel like crap afterwards and even said "have a nice day, hope you find who called". The point? I COULD have said "Mam, I do not consent to any searches of my property" and we could've gone from there depending on what she would've wanted to do. But when the cops are nice, and courteous, and trying to do their job, if you're nice to them, they will be nice to you.
And I'm sure she could've been an ass about it too, but her business there was to check the 911 call.
I had a cop come to me with a complaint from some neighbors over a car in my driveway that was newspapered and being painted; I was waiting for a cool, dry day to do the painting on. The realestate agent down the block didn't like it, and filed a complaint stating the car was a junk car and was undrivable. I was as nice as I could be to that cop, and know what he did for me? Told me exactly how to comply with the law and gave me a week before he stickered it; IE, make sure it was lisenced plated, stickered, and was drivable. So all I had to do was rip off the paper, put the plate on, and drive it to a different spot in the driveway and he said "ok, you're good". All the car had on it was primer, and all of the trim had tape on it so it didn't look great. He didn't sticker it at all, said it was in compliance, and went back to the station. He wasn't exactly 100% nice about it and was I'll admit, somewhat condescending, but he was civil and gave me the benefit of the doubt.
And I'm sure the real-estate agent is still quite pissed.
Otherwise, you exercise your rights when you need to. If the cop gives you attitude and talks of using excessive force, know your rights, how to state them, and be civil about it. If a cop decides he doesn't want to trust you as a human being, or treat you as one, by all means exercise every right you have. "I do not consent to any searches sir", and "Sir, can we keep this civil?" or my favorite, "Are you detaining me or can I go about my business" and if they answer yes, you ask "on what grounds?". Later, this can be used in court to put the sucker behind bars or de-badge them. Some cops flambast you with a shit-hose like you wouldn't believe and they do it to intimidate; don't be intimdated. Others will cuff you, put you on the ground, and tell you to sit there, and unless you're living in an area where the judicial system is corrupt to the core, you're good to go to get that cop put into jail for assualt.
And if you're going to do something risky, be nice and make sure your ass is covered. Going to smoke pot? Have a way to cover the smell and dispose of the evidence quickly and smoke it in such a fashon nobody will know. Going to modify a gun to make it full auto? Keep the gun stashed in a spot where it'd take considerable time and effort to find them. I'v even had cops say "wow, that's illegal. You going to get rid of it for me so I don't have to report it?" because I was nice.
Parent
Re:This just in. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
The result is that people who crave power and who couldn't get better jobs are attracted to policework, and get it. Once they do, they get lazy and start pulling off crap like this.
Ideally, cops would all have law degrees (without lowering current standards) and get paid like lawyers do, but the public is too cheap to pay for that, so instead we pay a lot less and bitch about the resulting quality of service.
Parent
Re:This just in. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Surely you mean, Graphical Violins leads to Explicit Sax?
Parent
anyone else... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:anyone else... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think complaining to the police about children playing in a tree should be considered "anti-social"...
Parent
Re:anyone else... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, this isn't your personal property (and I agree that kids destroying a tree in my garden would offend me). As for "tearing down", I don't know if you've ever seen a tree, but they're fairly hardy buggers - we build houses out of them, and before steel came along they were quite popular for ocean-going ships.
I'd be fairly confident that an afternoon in the company of 3 twelve-year-olds wasn't going to significantly damage the tree. Perhaps a few broken twigs, and a little less foliage. Destroying something does after-all imply a fairly major difference to the tree - my dictionary defines it as "put an end to the existence of".
This is quite clearly an example of cops going well-over-the-top in response to a minor incident, just because they can. I'd be more tempted to arrest the busybody who called the cops in the first place, for wasting police time.
If I was the child's parent, I'd be writing to the chief-constable demanding action; writing to the local and national newspapers with the story; putting adverts up in the local shop-windows asking people whether they thought it was right; writing to the local council demanding they investigate; setting up a website detailing the incident so it's public knowldge; writing to my Member of Parliament, and even the PM; in short creating such a stink that the officers in question are likely to get formally reprimanded. On every one of those letters I'd have the officers identified by badge number, the name of their Sergeant, and the actions-taken-to-date by the police to rectify their mistake.
After all, if the police have done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about, have they ? All I'll do is make myself look a fool. Unless, of course, the majority of people agree with *me*
You don't lock kids up for breaking a few twigs. Betcha that tree is there long after the kids are dead. Like I said, they're hardy buggers.
Simon
Parent
Way too far (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the law in Britain to take (and store) DNA samples when you are simply arrested? Convicted, yes, I can see....but just arrested? Insane.
(this does not even go into the complete foolishness of arresting them for what they actually did).
Re:Way too far (Score:5, Insightful)
Required or not...do they?
Parent
Anti-Social? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when was being anti-social a crime?
in Britain, since 1998 (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
So in the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
Not flamebait, not an attack on the UK, but serious questions.
Re:So in the UK (Score:5, Informative)
One current scheme is to setup fingerprint access to schools, this is funded by the DfE (Department for Education) and comes from a special budget. The DfE are reluctant to discuss what is done with the data and how long it will be kept. However, given the present administrations desire to collect biometric data and centralise it, its not too big a step to believe that this too will be centralised. It would mean that the government would have biometrics on the population from when it enters the state education system. Initially this will be fingerprint only but once that has been proven possible to defeat other data will be stored, DNA etc.
There is an argument that all of this will help the authorities prosecute offenders. It smacks too much of a police state for me. This action by the police is merely following the trend that has been established. The police can do no wrong at the moment.
Parent
Re:So in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
We feel sorry for the people of your historically important island, but for the rest of us, this is great news. We'll just wait and see how this 'police-state' experiment of yours turns out, and learn the lessons from that.
Please, speed up the Orwellization of your fine country, so that we may arrive at our conclusions the sooner.
Much thanks in advance,
Rest of the World
Parent
At least some good comes of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-social behaviour??? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Law and Order (Score:5, Funny)
Mulitple Complaints to police? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, no! Three twelve year olds having fun! I better call the fucking cops!
The people who called in are probably chatting with those kids' parents right now about how the police over-reacted.
Good point, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Today I was riding my bike home from work when I passed a car stopped by the side of a busy road, next to a small park with a bike path. The passenger's side door was open, and a girl about age 10 was standing by it crying. I stopped to watch, surprised. The girl was talking to someone in the car, and she would half get in the car, then step back, then repeat, crying all the time.
What do you think was going on? Doesn't look good, does it? Doesn't that make it remarkable that, as I approached on my bike, and while I was stopped, about three or four other people walked, jogged or rode on bikes past, and of course about two dozen cars drove by -- and no one else stopped? It was also in clear view of some new condos across the street that sell for upwards of $500,000 -- but no one came out of them.
I went up to the girl, and, staying well back (to help the girl feel safe), I looked more closely. In the car was a woman with another child. I asked the child her name, whether the woman was her mother, and whether she wanted to get in the car. She told me her name, said it was her mother, and that she did want to get in the car. The woman said it was her child, and that the girl wanted to get in the car, but wasn't being allowed to because she was in a "time out." I assume the woman was driving when she stopped and put the child out of the car at the side of the road as some kind of punishment. The girl would then be crying because she feared she was about to be abandoned.
After thinking it all through for a bit, I believed the woman. The girl and the woman and the other child in the car looked alike (all blonde wavy hair, similar face, and so on), and when I talked to the little girl she drew away from me and closer to the woman -- that is, she seemed instinctively to trust the woman more than me. The woman's story seemed unlikely for an abductor -- silly, unrehearsed, unlikely to soothe suspicion. So I didn't call the cops. (I did suggest to the woman that, as one parent to another, my advice would be to avoid disciplining her 10-year-old by pretending to abandon her on the side of the road. I said this rather less forcefully than I would have if her children had not been in earshot. For example, I did not call her a fscking idiot who should have been sterilized at menarche.)
I'm still bothered by whether I did the right thing, although the girl climbed in the car after I talked to her seemingly willingly enough, and the car drove off not in any obvious hurry. I hope I wasn't too trusting.
But my point is that it was very noticeable to me that no one else wanted to get involved. Dozens of other adults passed close by and saw what I did -- no one else stopped to take a closer look, make sure the girl was OK.
Perhaps we have come to delegate some of what used to be our normal social responsibility to our fellow man to the police. Small wonder that these things happen, then, although I wish they wouldn't.
Parent
Unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
Questioned by police, the scared friends admitted they had broken some loose branches because they had wanted to build a tree house, but said they did not realise what they had done was wrong.
Officers considered charging the children with criminal damage but eventually decided a reprimand - the equivalent of a caution for juveniles - was sufficient.
I can think of many [epa.gov] other [anarac.com] people [bikertony.com] to be arresting for criminal damage.
What the heck is this world coming to? Kids playing in a tree, break a few branches and get arrested (and DNA tested!? WTF?). Meanwhile, corporations are allowed to get away with this garbage. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with world
Lucky kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lucky kids (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
The Daily Mail is part of the yellow press (Score:5, Informative)
So, if -- and that's a VERY big if -- everything reported is true I deplore it, but I have serious doubts as to whether the story is at all objective.
If the Mail was looking for a reaction, I'm sure it got what it was after.
It's interesting that Google News and Google proper only carry two reports of this, and there is no mention on the BBC web site (as of 21.38 PDT).
This has all the hallmarks of a carefully manufactured and groomed story deisgned to garner publicty and web page impressions.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)
Police in the UK in the last few years have had pressure to crack down on young 'hooligans' roaming the streets at night causing damage. I don't think that these kids were doing anything wrong, but there were plenty of 12 year olds I saw in my time in the UK that should have definately been reprimanded for their actions, if not locked up.
Some examples.. My mother came over to visit me and on the first evening she was in London she had an (uneaten) apple thrown at her while walking from the station to my house, hitting her in the chest. This was delibrately thrown from across the street from one of a group of around 15 10-15 year olds.
When cycling home one day, a couple of kids on a scooter travelling in the opposite direction suddenly stopped. The kid on the back threw an egg, which hit me in the shoulder. I was going around 17-18mph at the time and it didn't tickle. My friend had the same thing happen a few years earlier, except it was thrown from a moving car in north london. It hit him in the eye and he has lost partial sight in one eye.
I couldn't park a car on the street for more than a couple of weeks, or it would get broken in to. I'm fairly sure it was kids, since the car was never driven away, just the window smashed or the lock broken.
When walking home through a small park, another one of my friends was struck on the back of the head by a full 2L PET drink bottle. The kid still had the bottle in his hand and when my friend turned around, there were 5-6 or so kids ready to "go at it". My friend just walked away.
One or two 12 year olds are nothing to worry about. But 10-15 little bastards, some with kitchen knives or metal pipes or whatever have the capability to kill 2-3 adults. And get away with it! because they know nothing will happen to them because they are kids. They know all their rights and none of their responsabilities.
It's situations like this that ABSO's were created, which is why I'm all for them.
It starts with cutting down one cherry tree (Score:5, Funny)
It starts off with just cutting down one cherry tree as a kid. Then - I shall not tell a lie - it can lead to organising the overthrow of the British rulers in a revloution lasting years, assisted by the (gasp) French and the establishment of another country where people even drive on the other side of the road out of spite.
that's the only way... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just like the people who said "if it turns out Iraq doesn't have a WMD program, then I will oppose the war," and when Iraq was found to lack a WMD program, they still supported the war, because once you're in, rationalizations and prevarications are too easy to muster to maintain consistency. You don't want to waffle, do you? On the other end of the spectrum, leftists didn't want to acknowledge the excesses of Stalinism, because they had chosen a side. Loyalty to any party or ideology is incompatible with integrity.
Parent
Re:Climbing Tree is a crime?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my opinion,
Matt
Parent
Re:Does anyone read TFA anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
It
On
There ought to be nothing wrong with kids playing in public trees, and I'd be willing to bet my house that the tree will survive an afternoon's attention from 3 twelve-year-olds.
Nice spin put on it by the police spokesman "destroying an ornamental cherry tree by stripping every branch from it". It was a tree in a public park, not a centrepiece of an arrangement. I'd love to see the twelve-year-old who could "strip every branch" from a tree... Certainly the ones in the picture didn't look up to it. Hercules'd have problems.
My dictionary defines "destroying" as "to put an end to the existence of". Somewhat emotive language for a few broken twigs, I feel. You don't lock young kids up over a few broken twigs; if you do anything, you drive them home and let their parents give them merry hell for being delivered home by the police.
Or you could just let them play. It's a friggin' tree!
Simon
Parent
Re:FP (Score:5, Funny)
Coulter: "I'm sure the mothers of these brats are only trying to cash in on the publicity generated when these terrorists-in-training assassinate god-fearing citizens from their lofty perch using liberal weapons of mass destruction."
FOX: "Such as?"
Coulter: "Lethal b-b guns. Poison darts."
FOX: "And what about Bin Laden?"
Coulter: "Hates American trees. Wants to crash planes into them all."
> FOX: "What would you do to protect us?"
Coulter: "Cut down all the trees. Keep the terrorists out of them. Castrate all liberals."
FOX: "God bless America."
Coulter: "It's all Clinton's fault. Oh, and buy all my books."
FOX: "Did you really have your Adam's Apple surgically removed so you could pass as female?"
Coulter: withering sneer.
Parent