Could be a meteor kills me tomorrow, but how likely is it?
I’m interested if this is true, and if a retailer has ever been successfully sued for it.
Or if it is another case of baseless lawsuit fear.
Same here. I used to bike to the mall all the time (and hang out at book stores, mostly). If the kid was, say, seven years old I’d find it questionable but 11 1/2? Plenty old enough to shop on his own at a toy store.
And if the store has a firm policy about this, they really ought to post it.
At 11 1/2, I was babysitting my 4 younger siblings. Granted, I had a neighbor’s phone number just in case, and it was not for more than a couple of hours, but still…
This isn’t a situation with an easy answer, beyond the store posting its policy at the entrance. Unfortunately, some kids can’t be trusted, some parents can’t be trusted, and in very rare cases, some strangers can’t be trusted. I’m a bit more concerned about the boy biking for 3 miles, and only because there are so many stupid people on the road who are blind to bicyclists.
When did we become so scared of children learning to be independent?
A tattoo shop I’ve used has a sign that reads, “Unaccompanied Minors Will Be Aborted” along with the Roe v Wade legal citation as justification.
This’ll teach both the kid and Dad a valuable life lesson. When someone asks your age, lie and say you are 12.
Reasonable rule, sort-of reasonable application of it till it came to insults, if they did actually happen.
I wonder why 12 though, specifically? Is there some local by-law about kids under 12 being allowed to go out on their own?
If not, then why 12 rather than 11? That’s the age of middle school/junior high in the US and usually entails more independence than is granted to younger kids - basically, it’s the changeover year. It’s not an age where parents will be using toy stores as free babysitting for a couple of hours at a weekend.
If you’re going to have a cut-off age, which I think toy stores should have, then 11 is what I would assume the age to be without a store-posted sign saying that their limit is 12.
If they knew the age limit they probably would have.
“How old are you, Son?”
“How old do I have to be?”
“12.”
“Wonderful! My birthday was yesterday! And here’s my birthday money to spend!”
There’s a very famous similar case that resulted in a lawsuit. It was dropped, but most people don’t want to risk being sued at all. Adam Walsh’s mother left him in the toy department, playing video games, while she browsed the store… A security guard thought he was there by himself and kicked him out of the store. Which resulted in him being kidnapped and murdered. I wouldn’t be surprised if it lead to policies to have kids sit and wait for their parents to come get them.
It’s a reasonable policy. It should have been posted but it doesn’t matter if it was or not, the store acted reasonably. An unaccompanied minor is a potential liability for any business.
What hangs me up is that the kid’s name is “Tadgh, pronounced Tige”. That doesn’t help! Is it a hard or soft G? Is the E silent or pronounced? Also, I agree with FairyChatMom, except I’d say “Why are we so scared of kids being independent?”
At least he was not arrested. I see no Lego store policy on their website about unattended kids.
That’s not babysitting. The kid was shopping, being a customer. When I was 10 I used to ride my bike to the mall and hang out and shop, just like any other customer. The kid had money to spend. So what?
So if I buy a Coke at a restaurant, I can sleep there overnight, because I had money to spend, just like any other customer? Where do you draw the line?
I worked in a couple of big chain bookstores, and I’m all too familiar with the “use the store as a free babysitter” mentality. Unfortunately, there’s no bright line between an unaccompanied kid with $$ in his pocket shopping by himself, and an unaccompanied kid making a mess, rearranging stock at random, pocketing small items, bothering staff or other customers, etc. and so stores have to make a policy and then this is why we can’t have nice things.
No, because regular customers don’t spend the night either. This is a stupid analogy and you know it. If you buy a Coke at a restaurant I think you can do what other customers do. If they let other customers hang out and quietly drink their Cokes then you should be allowed to do the same. If you are causing trouble, or taking up tables that are needed, the restaurant has the right to remove you, just like other customers.
For how long? 15 minutes? An hour? 4 hours?
So there is a line, then? The toy store drew their line a little differently from others, but there surely is one, no?
What gets me is the unwillingness to allow for six months. Truly, you don’t get much closer to being ‘legal’ than 11 1/2. Or do they enforce this policy on kids three days shy of their twelfth birthday? Talk about a case where that common sense we always want to see displayed in “zero tolerance” instances should have been used instead. Sounds like that boy was infinitely more mature than the adults at the Lego store who called the shots.
WTF?
Are we even reading the same story? Where in the article does it say that the kid spend the night in the store?
Does your local restaurant let any of its other customers spend the night there? Most 10-11 year olds don’t have a desire to spend the night in strange places. I sure didn’t. But your own experience may vary.
I draw the line at letting 10-11 year olds shop at stores like other customers, and abiding by the policies of the store. It’s not illegal for a 10 year old to shop at a toy store or a record store or a burger joint.
It’s like the first syllable of tiger. Hard g.
I am finding it sorta strange that the Board consensus is that having “free range children” are a good idea, and that this store policy is reasonable.