# I hope you got taken to jail . . . **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 20, 2002, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095 "2002-10-20T13:25:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/141 "2002-10-31T03:22:55Z")
**wring** - > [@](#): > > what we did suggest was that if you see a situation where some one’s doing something illegal and dangerous, and (notice that word ‘and’ in there, it’s key) their actions are placing minors at risk and (did ya notice that one, too??? hope so) you’re in a position where you can do something about it, you should, like do something about it. Wow that’s a pretty broad statement there. illegal and dangerous: speeding placing minors at risk: simply present in the car in a position to do something about it: When would you _not_ be in a position to pick up a phone? So now, by your logic, if somebody is merely speeding with a child in the car, “you should, like do something about it”. You are changing your argument with each new post. It was a _ **petty offense** _. period. In case you can’t grasp that concept: petty _adj;_ Of small importance; trivial: a petty grievance. To me, that means “of not warranting getting all upset, calling the police, and _hoping they got taken to jail_” ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/142 "2002-10-31T03:27:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eleusis \* > \*\*Do you call the police when you see somebody speeding? If nobody ever speeded, thousands of lives would be saved. > > Do you call the cops when you see somebody not wearing a seatbelt? Thousands more could be saved if everybody always wore their seatbelts. Oh, it was child who doesn’t know better. What if it was a 9 year old child, to big for child restraints, not wearing a seatbelt? Do you call the cops then? > > [Almost 1 in 10 children under five are not restrained properly](http://www.airbagtesting.com/Stats.html). You’ve got a lot of cop-calling to do. \*\* I dont know about where you live, but the cops around here have REQUESTED that you call them if you see someone with their kids unrestrained in a car. See, they dont like scraping up children off the road. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/143 "2002-10-31T03:39:31Z")
These kids were not “simply present in the car.” They were unrestrained in a moving vehicle, presumably standing, and hanging out the sunroof. That is not “merely speeding with a child in the car.” That is arguably child endangerment, which is not a “petty offense.” If you don’t grasp that concept, try looking up “child” and “endangerment.” I realize your argument is easier to make if you ignore the realities of the situation under discussion, but I’m not willing to allow you to do that. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/144 "2002-10-31T07:26:40Z")
**Jodi** - > [@](#): > > These kids were not “simply present in the car.” They were unrestrained in a moving vehicle I know that. Did you read **wring** ’s definition of when the cops should be called? Did you see where I said that merely speeding with a child in the car fits into that definition? In Illinois, failure to comply with the [Child Passenger Protection Act](http://www.legis.state.il.us/ilcs/ch625/ch625act25.htm), is a Petty Offense. So is [speeding](http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/stspdlaw98/ilspeed.htm). Now then, regarding child endangerment, in the [Supreme Court case GAIL ATWATER v. CITY OF LAGO VISTA](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/99-1408.pdf), a woman was arrested for the misdemeanor offense of letting her five year old stand in the front seat of a pickup truck. She was not charged with Child Endangerment, but she was cited a $50 fine and released within an hour. She sued, saying she should not have been arrested for the petty offense. (admittedly this was a case of 4th ammendment and probable cause issues and she lost the case, the court ruling that in Texas, she could legally be arrested for _any_ traffic offense besides speeding and open containers) I submit for your perusal this fine argument: > [@](#): > > 13 [Justice Ginsburg]: Now here in this very case, could the > 14 officer have said, child endangerment is a felony, so it’s > 15 not simply the misdemeanor of not buckling up, but you’ve > 16 put your children in danger and therefore the offense is > 17 child endangerment which is a felony. > > 18 MR. DE CARLI: Several responses to that Justice > 19 Ginsburg. First, in that instance, probable cause, if the > 20 arrest were based on alleged child endangerment there > 21 probable cause would act as a restraint because the police > 22 officer to justify the arrest would have to establish a > 23 certain degree of certainty that the specific conduct was > 24 child endangerment. **Now, this was not child endangerment > 25 for several reasons, one, the legislature has imposed an > 1 extremely minimal penalty, two, it’s not child > 2 endangerment because you are set – by virtue of the fact > 3 that if we were to call this child endangerment then not > 4 using your turn signal or perhaps speeding or running a > 5 red light, those are just as close to any possible harm as > 6 not wearing a seat belt.** > 7 There’s a causation problem, in other words. > 8 And most importantly is that by, if we truly are concerned > 9 about the welfare of the children, then arresting the > 10 mother and taking the mother away is inflicting a far > 11 greater harm on those children, and it’s doing – > > 12 [Justice C’Connor]: Well, the facts here are very > 13 unattractive. **I mean one doesn’t like to think that a > 14 mother is going to be stopped for not wearing a seat belt > 15 and have her children in tears in the car while the mother > 16 is hauled off to jail. You’ve got the perfect case.** > > 17 MR. DE CARLI: We’d like to think so Justice > 18 O’Connor. (bolding mine) _“one, the legislature has imposed an extremely minimal penalty”_ As have all fifty states. _"two, it’s not child endangerment because you are set – by virtue of the fact that if we were to call this child endangerment then not using your turn signal or perhaps speeding or running a red light, those are just as close to any possible harm as not wearing a seat belt. "_ Hmm that’s remarkably similar to what I’ve been saying all along. ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/145 "2002-10-31T12:01:46Z")
**wring** - I wanted to let this one slide because most of the arguments regarding logical fallacies I have seen tend to degrade into obnoxious backquoting of everybody pointing out all previous logical fallacies, which then incite more. It can degenerate into a never ending circle. Everybody is guilty of this. I can point out logical fallacies by most of the posters in this thread, including myself . But since you said, “I still win”… It’s been 14 years since I’ve taken a college logic course and my memory of the specifc fallacies is rusty, but I suggest you read up on logical fallacies before you accuse me of one while you are in the very process of committing the same fallacy. In this case I am not even guilty of the one you describe. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*your point was that it was a minor crime, therefore no one should bother calling, since the police had better things to do. > > I pointed out, in rebuttal, that the police actually do deal w/quite a few ‘minor’ issues. I never said everyone should call everytime they see some minor violation of the law. That’s called a straw man. You seem particularly fond of that one. Have you given him a name yet? cuddle w/him at night? [snip] > \*\* My point was that it was a simple traffic violation, therefore it’s not necessary to get all upset, call the cops, and _hope they got taken to jail_. My assertion that the police have better things to do than make a special trip to track down and give some lady a petty traffic ticket is but one, albeit more concrete, _justification_ of my argument. Not the _premise_. By attacking an argument that was different than mine, **you** are the one guilty of the _straw man_ fallacy in this case. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*So, when you give us data about how many kids are unrestrained, suggesting ‘why aren’t we calling on all of them’, since no one has suggested that everybody call the cops every time they see a child unrestrained, well, that’s what makes it a straw man. \*\* Again, not a straw man. I’m asserting that by your own definitions of when it is necessary to call the police, you would be calling them for at least 1 in 10 cars with children on the road. Furthermore, the statistic illustrates how perhaps the behavior, while irresponsible, is not necessarily that out of the ordinary and/or outrageous. You, however, are again attacking an argument I did not provide (at least in the quoted post). Again, most of us here are guilty of these, but _those in glass houses should not throw stones_. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/146 "2002-10-31T14:46:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eleusis \* > \*\*Do you call the police when you see somebody speeding? If nobody ever speeded, thousands of lives would be saved. > > What if it was a 9 year old child, to big for child restraints, not wearing a seatbelt? Do you call the cops then? > > [Almost 1 in 10 children under five are not restrained properly](http://www.airbagtesting.com/Stats.html). You’ve got a lot of cop-calling to do. \*\* I’m going to address these one point at a time. 1. Yes, I have called the police on people speeding excessively, especially when they’re driving recklessly. It’s not just about them being a horse’s ass; their being a horse’s ass can hurt me or someone else. I have a severe aversion to car accidents, and a simple phone call can save lives. The police welcome calls like this because there’s not enough police manpower to catch everyone. 2. There are seatbelt adapters for kids in that situation. I don’t call the cops for that; I can’t see who is or who is not in restraints. 3. I saw this statistic in my child safety seat class that I took while pregnant. That doesn’t refer to children not in seats, it refers to seats that are not properly installed or in car seats that are not appropriate for the child’s size. The fine for improper restraint may be minor in some states, but the ultimate price is a child’s life. It’s a shame to see that some of you value them so little. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/147 "2002-10-31T16:38:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eleusis \* > \*\*_"two, it’s not child endangerment because you are set – by virtue of the fact that if we were to call this child endangerment then not using your turn signal or perhaps speeding or running a red light, those are just as close to any possible harm as not wearing a seat belt. "_ > > Hmm that’s remarkably similar to what I’ve been saying all along. \*\* The statement you quoted was made by a lawyer petitioning on behalf of the mother. If one of the justices had said that they you’d really have something. [Here’s](http://www.ruralmedics.com/pubed.htm) what happened to a toddler who was in a seat belt but not a car seat: > [@](#): > > [S]ome California Highway Patrol officials believe the child might not have lost her arm had she been riding in a child car seat. The law requires children under 4 and weighing less than 40 pounds to be strapped into a child car seat. > > “There was no child seat in the car, period,” said CHP Officer Sal Vela, the first officer to arrive at the accident scene. > > Vela, who is writing the accident report on Vi Pham’s case, said he’s recommending that the District Attorney’s Office charge her father with child endangerment, as well as with failing to restrain a child in a child car seat. The CHP is serious about their state’s seat belt laws; $271 for the first offense and up to $500 fine for repeat offenders. They also equate unrestrained children with child neglect & endangerment [cite](http://www.cityofelcentro.org/connections_june2002.pdf)(pdf) Consider [this report from Texas](http://www.reporter-news.com/texas97/gramma042597.html): > [@](#): > > WHARTON, Texas (AP) - A woman whose 2-year-old grandson was decapitated by her car’s air bag has been given two years’ deferred adjudication after she accepted a plea bargain and pleaded no contest to child endangerment. > [snip] > The woman told police the air bag deployed when she swerved to avoid another car as she was driving her grandson and a 6-year-old nephew around El Campo to view Christmas decorations. > > Police said both children were in the front seat, but the grandson was not wearing a seat belt. > > Officers said Mrs. Fields went through a stop sign and left 39 feet of skid marks. I say Ms. Atwater got off lightly. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/148 "2002-10-31T17:30:09Z")
ELEUSIS – > [@](#): > > In Illinois, failure to comply with the Child Passenger Protection Act, is a Petty Offense. So is speeding. I’m not talking about _simply_ failing to buckle up your children. I’m not talking about _simply_ speeding. I’m talking about both, AND allowing the children to stand up in the car AND allowing them to hang out the sun roof. So kindly stop telling me how “petty” the various elements of this action are when viewed separately, when obviously what prompted the OP’er to call was the presence of _all_ of them occurring at _once_. THAT is not a “petty” thing. THAT arguably amounts to endangering the children, and THAT is why she called. What part of this do you not get? Since you want to talk about Illinois law, that state provides in part: > [@](#): > > **Endangering the life or health of a child.** (a) It is unlawful for any person to willfully cause or permit the life or health of a child under the age of 18 to be endangered or to willfully cause or permit a child to be placed in circumstances that endanger the child’s life or health, except that it is not unlawful for a person to relinquish a child in accordance with the Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act. 720 ILCS 5/12-21.6. Do it once, it’s a misdemeanor. Do it twice, it’s a felony. And while the statute does not specifically address th conduct we are discussing here, it _does_ specifically state that leaving a young child alone in a vehicle for more than 10 minutes presumptively violates the statute. If even _that_ conduct violates the statute and constitutes child endangerment, a very strong argument may be made by extrapolation that the behavior we are discussing here violates the statute as well. Most (if not all) other states likewise have child endangerment statutes (or reckless endangerment statutes) to criminalize the stupid endangerment of the health or safety of kids. Further, as JEFF OLSON pointed out, you have cited to an oral argument before the Supreme Court, not to the decision of the case. Oral argument is when each side gets to state its position and say how it believes the court will rule; therefore, most oral arguments will include statements supporting diametrically-opposed interpretations of the law – one in favor, and one against. Neither has any value as a legal matter. As it happens, in this case you have cited to the losing side. The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas peace officer _did_ have full authority to arrest Ms. Atwater on the spot and cart her off to jail, just for the misdemeanor of failing to have her kids buckled up in the front seat. And FYI, the cite to that case is _Atwater v. City of Lago Vista_, 523 U.S. 318 (2000), and you can read the opinion [here](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-1408). Once again, there is NOT an “extremely minimal penalty” for child endangerment in ANY of the 50 states. Which brings us right back to the question of whether the actions under discussion here constitute child endangerment. You have done nothing but repeat over and over that they are not, but you have not explained why. I am not just talking about speeding. I am not just talking about a seat-belt violation. I am not just talking about letting your kids stand up in the car. I am not just talking about letting them hang out the window. I am talking about a situation that included _all of those_. You want to break this down into its component parts so that you may continue to argue about how minor each part is, but you are entirely failing to realize that the sum of those “minor” parts may equal something that is no longer “minor.” It may not be a logicall fallacy, but it certainly is a logical failing, to continue to construe an argument as A **or** B **or** C **or** D, when it’s very clear that what we’re talking about is A **and** B **and** C **and** D. ---
**Author:** ![Stephi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecd19e/32.png) [@Stephi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2002, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/149 "2002-10-31T19:02:04Z")
IMHO: The OP was completely correct to call the police on that woman. That was incredibly dangerous. I’ll take my **Moron** sign with pride now, thanks. At least I’m in good company. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/150 "2002-11-01T14:13:15Z")
OK, I’m hoping that at some point we can just agree to disagree, but I will again address this point by point. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jeff Olsen \* > \*\*The statement you quoted was made by a lawyer petitioning on behalf of the mother. If one of the justices had said that they you’d really have something. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Jodi_ > Further, as JEFF OLSON pointed out, you have cited to an oral argument before the Supreme Court, not to the decision of the case. Oral argument is when each side gets to state its position and say how it believes the court will rule; therefore, most oral arguments will include statements supporting diametrically-opposed interpretations of the law – one in favor, and one against. Neither has any value as a legal matter. As it happens, in this case you have cited to the losing side. The Supreme Court ruled that the Texas peace officer _did_ have full authority to arrest Ms. Atwater on the spot and cart her off to jail, just for the misdemeanor of failing to have her kids buckled up in the front seat. And FYI, the cite to that case is _Atwater v. City of Lago Vista_, 523 U.S. 318 (2000), and you can read the opinion [here](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-1408).\*\* I thought I clearly stated in my above post that this was not a ruling by the supreme court per se, but an uncontested, and even agreed upon, argument before them. The germane question was whether the plaintiff could be arrested on the grounds that it (allowing a five year old to ride standing up in the front seat of a pickup truck) could have been construed as Child Endangerment, a felony. In this dialog, Justice O’Connor emphatically agreed that it did NOT constitute Child Endangerment. The fact that this case was lost on the grounds that _in Texas, (again, excepting speeding and open containters) **ANY** traffic violation can get you arrested, including but not limited to failure to properly restrain a child, running a stop sign, failure to use your turn signal, not wearing your own seat belt, or operating a motor vehicle with a burnt out tail light_, is completey irrelavent. Furthermore, citing specific laws on the books dealing with leaving children unattended in parked cars only backs up my position. Many states are writing laws to deal with leaving children in parked cars, and DUI with children in the car, specifically criminalizing these actions as felonious Child Endangerment (and rightly so). But there are already laws on the books making the failure to restrain a child a misdemeanor. **Jeff-** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jeff Olsen \* > [Officer Sal] Vela … said he’s recommending that the District Attorney’s Office charge her father with child endangerment One cop’s _legal opinion_ equals exactly as much as mine. Squat. Cite this case again after the prosecutor agrees to file the charges and the court convicts him. > [@](#): > > The CHP is serious about their state’s seat belt laws; $271 for the first offense and up to $500 fine for repeat offenders. They also equate unrestrained children with child neglect & endangerment cite(pdf) Your link isn’t working for me (server not found) but if in California it’s a misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $271, how can it be (and by whom) be “equated” with child endangerment? I further question your source because [this site](http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain2.htm) lists the maximum fine for improper child restraint in California to be $100 for a first offense. > [@](#): > > Consider this report from Texas: This link is also bad, but I managed to dig up the story. She had been drinking and taking cough syrup. Nobody, even me, wants kids in a car with a chemically impaired driver, be them restrained or not. **Jodi** - I will concede that the sum of the two (or even three or four - though I’m not sure that allowing the tikes to stand up and put their heads out the window is a separate violation beyond mere restraint) petty violations could be more egregious than it’s constituent parts. I still do not believe, and will not likely be swayed to believe, that the behavior depicted in the OP denotes Child Endangerment or that it necessitates the moral outrage and vigilantism of the OP. Can we just agree that the behavior was irresponsible, and then _agree to disagree_ on the perceived danger and severity of the actions, and therefore the warranted response? ---
**Author:** ![Diane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Diane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diane)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/151 "2002-11-01T15:36:23Z")
Amazing how some people just don’t know when to stop, especially when others have chewed them up, spit them out, and made them look like total fools. Ah well, cheap, if not pathetic, entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/152 "2002-11-01T16:26:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eleusis \* > **Your link isn’t working for me (server not found)** ["]Try this instead]([http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:r0V8lzFPWisC:www.cityofelcentro.org/connections\_june2002.pdf+“seat+belt”+california+“child+endangerment”&hl=en&ie=UTF-8](http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:r0V8lzFPWisC:www.cityofelcentro.org/connections_june2002.pdf+%22seat+belt%22+california+%22child+endangerment%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)[/url). > [@](#): > > **how can it be (and by whom) be “equated” with child endangerment?** That’s what the CHP says. At this time I don’t know if the law agrees with them. > [@](#): > > \*\*This link is also bad, but I managed to dig up the story. She had been drinking and taking cough syrup. Nobody, even me, wants kids in a car with a chemically impaired driver, be them restrained or not. \*\* Right, but she wasn’t leagally impaired and the kid was evidently killed by a faulty airbag. > [@](#): > > \*\*I still do not believe, and will not likely be swayed to believe, that the behavior depicted in the OP denotes Child Endangerment or that it necessitates the moral outrage and vigilantism of the OP. \*\* Nice to see the “blind to the problem until it happens to me” mentality is alive and well. I hope for your sake you never see anything to make you consider changing your mind. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2002, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/153 "2002-11-01T21:25:11Z")
ELEUSIS – > [@](#): > > I thought I clearly stated in my above post that this was not a ruling by the supreme court per se, but an uncontested, and even agreed upon, argument before them. This is simply incorrect. Why on earth would you think the argument you cited to was “agreed upon”? It might have been “uncontested” in that, because it was totally tangential to the actual issue under discussion, the opposing side didn’t bother to address it, but that does not mean it was “agreed upon.” > [@](#): > > The germane question was whether the plaintiff could be arrested on the grounds that it (allowing a five year old to ride standing up in the front seat of a pickup truck) could have been construed as Child Endangerment, a felony. In this dialog, Justice O’Connor emphatically agreed that it did NOT constitute Child Endangerment. Incorrect again. First, that was not the “germane question” and I suggest you read the case again if you think it was. Second Justice O’Conner did not “emphatically agreed that it did NOT constitute Child Endangerment,” but rather rhetorically took that argument to its logical extreme. That does not mean she agreed with it – she may have, but she may not, there’s no way to tell. You are, however, correct that the fact that this case was lost on the grounds _in Texas_ is totally irrelevant. What matters is that it was lost. > [@](#): > > I will concede that the sum of the two (or even three or four - though I’m not sure that allowing the tikes to stand up and put their heads out the window is a separate violation beyond mere restraint) petty violations could be more egregious than it’s constituent parts. Good. Thank you. > [@](#): > > I still do not believe, and will not likely be swayed to believe, that the behavior depicted in the OP denotes Child Endangerment or that it necessitates the moral outrage and vigilantism of the OP. Well, that’s your O, and frankly I’m not all that interested in changing it. Reasonable minds certainly can differ about when a given action becomes so objectionable that a complaint about it to the authorities is warranted. But YOU came into this thread being snotty and dismissive to the OP’er, taking the position that her decision to call the authorities was such an outrageous example of busybody-ness as to be totally indefensible. I am happy to agree to disagree with you on both the perceived danger and the severity of the response, but I hope that you will concede that your initial posts did not seem to reflect that you realized the OP’er’s opinion might legitimately differ with yours. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/154 "2002-11-02T07:25:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I still do not believe, and will not likely be swayed to believe, that the behavior depicted in the OP denotes Child Endangerment or that it necessitates the moral outrage and vigilantism of the OP. Calling the police to report a crime is vigilantism? ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095/155 "2002-11-03T03:16:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diane \* > \*\*Amazing how some people just don’t know when to stop, especially when others have chewed them up, spit them out, and made them look like total fools. > > Ah well, cheap, if not pathetic, entertainment. \*\* Note: Being outnumbered, or even shouted down (as happens often on these boards) does **NOT** mean one’s position is wrong, or even untenable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hope-you-got-taken-to-jail/133095.md?page=7)