Regardless of the legal issues, I’m confused by the basic logistics. One hand for the phone. One for the baby. Was she driving with her knees or her teeth ?
When I read this, the first image that I had was of Diana Ross being cited as an authority on probable cause. What song would give the precedent? Stop in the name of love?
You don’t need to prove beyond reasonable doubt for an arrest warrant, you only need probable cause.
This woman did a number of local TV interviews. “If my child is hungry I’m going to feed it” “If I’m in an accident and I’m in a seat belt and the airbag deploys it’s the same difference”.
During one of the interviews her kid ran up and started feeding. Apparently she’s the living equivalent of a McDonalds drive-through. Definitely no the brightest penny in the pot.
There’s another poster here (thinking it’s Diogenes or elucidator) that fights this claim viciously whenever it’s been made in GD or GQ. Are you certain that what you’re saying is not an extraordinary claim?
I’m saying that car seat laws are something like State mandated “cry it out” parenting.
Okay. So you’ve stopped, gotten the kid out, calmed him down. You put him back in the seat, drive off, he starts crying again. Do you make your trip in 50 foot increments?
Or perhaps you’re in traffic or on a road with no shoulder. The kid just cries the five or ten minutes it takes you to change lanes and find some place safe to park… but what does that five minutes teach a kid?
Which could be an excellent rationale for using carseats voluntarily, though I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else’s child developed the opposite preference as a result of being restrained.
The point is not “car seats are evil”, it’s a question of balancing the psychological costs (or benefits) of having all children restrained and separated from their parents against the benefit from being in a car seat if they’re in a certain type of collision.