# Screaming 15-Year-Old Girl Pepper Sprayed **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2007, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699 "2007-10-05T22:53:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/261 "2007-10-10T09:51:04Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] She’s a child in a world where there’s a law called the “Youth Protection Ordinance” that says she has to be indoors during certain hours. When you tell someone that they need to be “protected” from their own desire to go outside their home, that’s proof that you think of them as a child (or an animal, or a mental patient). If you don’t consider them responsible enough to decide something as simple as whether they should be inside or outside, how can you expect them to be responsible in any serious situation like an interaction with the police? [/QUOTE] Which is all the more reason why the cop was right to pepper spray her after she bit him. For his protection against her irresponsible behavior and for her protection against her irresponsible behavior. ---
**Author:** ![miamouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@miamouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miamouse)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/262 "2007-10-10T10:23:46Z")
**Sleeps With Butterflies** link also provides some important insight, since we are picking apart the minutiae of the officers actions, (but not the girl’s). > [@](#): > > The tape indicates that Riley was placed into the back seat of an officer’s patrol vehicle and officers attempted to wash off the pepper spray using a bottle of water. If the officer was so malicious, racist, unprofessional, and uncaring of a 15 year old girl, why would he bother to try to clean her face after she was subdued? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/263 "2007-10-10T15:29:10Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] She’s a child in a world where there’s a law called the “Youth Protection Ordinance” that says she has to be indoors during certain hours. When you tell someone that they need to be “protected” from their own desire to go outside their home, that’s proof that you think of them as a child (or an animal, or a mental patient). If you don’t consider them responsible enough to decide something as simple as whether they should be inside or outside, how can you expect them to be responsible in any serious situation like an interaction with the police? [/QUOTE] My guess is that the ordinance was passed to address specific problems they were having concerning teens. I’ve seen towns respond this way before. That doesn’t mean they think they are children. They just couldn’t name the ordinance “Control your fucking kids before we have to” If I discovered my 15 year old daughter was walking the streets late night I’d be reading her the riot act not making excuses. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/264 "2007-10-10T15:43:07Z")
[QUOTE=miamouse] **Sleeps With Butterflies** link also provides some important insight, since we are picking apart the minutiae of the officers actions, (but not the girl’s). If the officer was so malicious, racist, unprofessional, and uncaring of a 15 year old girl, why would he bother to try to clean her face after she was subdued? [/QUOTE] And check out what her aunt, an adult perhaps, says. > [@](#): > > Riley’s aunt, Gloria Smith, said the tape shows police brutality and excessive force, even though her niece bit the arresting officer on the arm. > > “Well, she did that after his aggressive behavior. He never stated why he was apprehending her. Her rights were never read to her; she was violated all the way,” Smith said. Feeling bad or angry at her being punched and maced is one thing. To totally excuse her behavior and her assault on the officer is another. Previous run ins with the law. A bag of clothes with tags still on them. It’s not conclusive but the aunt should at least entertain the possibility that her niece was up to no good and maybe be concerned about setting _her_ straight. When my son was caught shoplifting a soda both he and his Mom complained that the cop involved had a really bad attitude and as if that somehow excused him and the store clerk was a jerk because after he was caught and offered to pay the clerk said “too late, I called the cops” I reminded them who the thief was in that group. We don’t know the girl was stealing but it sure seems like the officer had enough reason to take her in while investigating. Some people don’t seem to fathom how differently others think. As I previously posted , an ex gang member at work said of this incident, people will often purposely act crazy hoping the officer will do something wrong. That may be hard for some to imagine but I believe it’s a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/265 "2007-10-10T22:07:16Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] My guess is that the ordinance was passed to address specific problems they were having concerning teens. I’ve seen towns respond this way before. [/quote] Well, never mind then, I guess that makes it all OK. That reminds me, my hypothetical town has had some specific problems concerning black people. Care to sign a petition? > [@](#): > > That doesn’t mean they think they are children. They just couldn’t name the ordinance “Control your fucking kids before we have to” They could’ve named it something more appropriate, like the “Youth Restriction Ordinance” or the “Neither Seen Nor Heard Ordinance”. It’s the difference between pretending you’re taking away someone’s freedom for their own good – treating them like children – and admitting you’re taking it away because you don’t like them. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/266 "2007-10-10T22:29:15Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] Well, never mind then, I guess that makes it all OK. That reminds me, my hypothetical town has had some specific problems concerning black people. Care to sign a petition? [/QUOTE] Thats quite the ridiculous analogy you got there. Care to try again. > [@](#): > > They could’ve named it something more appropriate, like the “Youth Restriction Ordinance” or the “Neither Seen Nor Heard Ordinance”. It’s the difference between pretending you’re taking away someone’s freedom for their own good – treating them like children – and admitting you’re taking it away because you don’t like them. I see. So evidently you know what was going on there and why the ordinance was passed and then inappropriately named. Please tell us. I for one would like to know. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/267 "2007-10-10T23:29:57Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Thats quite the ridiculous analogy you got there. Care to try again. [/quote] Nope, the analogy is fine, and I think my point has been made. It **is** ridiculous to restrict the movement of an entire group just because there are “specific problems” concerning members of that group. Some people just look the other way when it’s a group they feel comfortable spitting on. > [@](#): > > I see. So evidently you know what was going on there and why the ordinance was passed and then inappropriately named. Please tell us. I for one would like to know. Look, you’re the one who suggested that the ordinance is there to “control … fucking kids”, so make up your mind. Either it’s meant to keep minors away from trouble they might encounter outside (as the name suggests), in which case it is indeed treating them like children who can’t make that decision on their own, or it’s meant to keep them from going outside and _causing_ trouble, in which case the names I suggested are indeed more appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/268 "2007-10-10T23:32:37Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] Look, you’re the one who suggested that the ordinance is there to “control … fucking kids”, so make up your mind. Either it’s meant to keep minors away from trouble they might encounter outside (as the name suggests), in which case it is indeed treating them like children who can’t make that decision on their own, or it’s meant to keep them from going outside and _causing_ trouble, in which case the names I suggested are indeed more appropriate. [/QUOTE] Why does it have to be one or the other? Surely it can be there with the idea of protecting kids _and_ with the idea that often kids are a bother to adults and shouldn’t be out late. Besides, a curfew for kids encompasses a lot. It can mean finding a five year old wandering by the highway because its parents are negligent. Or it can mean apprehending a fifteen year old for suspicious behavior and using forceful behavior on her if she’s turned violent. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/269 "2007-10-10T23:42:55Z")
[QUOTE=Zoggie] Why does it have to be one or the other? Surely it can be there with the idea of protecting kids _and_ with the idea that often kids are a bother to adults and shouldn’t be out late. [/quote] In which case it both treats minors as children _and_ has an inappropriate name. > [@](#): > > Besides, a curfew for kids encompasses a lot. It can mean finding a five year old wandering by the highway because its parents are negligent. Or it can mean apprehending a fifteen year old for suspicious behavior and using forceful behavior on her if she’s turned violent. Do you actually need a curfew to apprehend someone for suspicious behavior? If so, shouldn’t we be worried about all the suspicious behavior by adults that we’re powerless to stop? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2007, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/270 "2007-10-10T23:49:07Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] In which case it both treats minors as children _and_ has an inappropriate name. Do you actually need a curfew to apprehend someone for suspicious behavior? If so, shouldn’t we be worried about all the suspicious behavior by adults that we’re powerless to stop? [/QUOTE] I don’t see what difference it makes what we call it. And no, you don’t need a curfew to apprehend someone. But that gives you one more thing to charge them with, if need be. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/271 "2007-10-11T00:03:35Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] Nope, the analogy is fine, and I think my point has been made. It **is** ridiculous to restrict the movement of an entire group just because there are “specific problems” concerning members of that group. Some people just look the other way when it’s a group they feel comfortable spitting on. [/QUOTE] No your analogy is not fine. Restricting the movements based on race is different than a curfew based on whether or not you are a legal adult. It’s unfortunate but true that sometimes there just isn’t enough resources available to seek out and deal with the individuals. It’s the old “a few bad apples” scenario and it’s been a part of reality for a while now. Is it ideal? Nope. But real life isn’t. It’s a matter of weighing the advantages or benefits of an ordinance against the down side. I don’t know the details of the ordinance but for many responsible parents their teenagers are already in and accounted for by a certain hour. > [@](#): > > Look, you’re the one who suggested that the ordinance is there to “control … fucking kids”, so make up your mind. Either it’s meant to keep minors away from trouble they might encounter outside (as the name suggests), in which case it is indeed treating them like children who can’t make that decision on their own, or it’s meant to keep them from going outside and _causing_ trouble, in which case the names I suggested are indeed more appropriate. I fail to see how a name you think is more appropriate changes anything. Your original bitch was that treating them like children and not allowing them to choose meant they were children or something like that. My teenagers got privileges by demonstrating they were mature enough to handle them. If they demonstrated otherwise they lost them until their behavior or attitude changed. The same is actually true for adults. Abuse your driving privilege and you risk losing it. Misbehave in a certain area and it may result in you not being welcome back. I’ve seen kids who’s parents for various reasons can’t or won’t provide the guidance and discipline they need. That means someone, or maybe society in general, has to step in and let them know that there are consequences for actions. It doesn’t make them a child or erase their responsibility for their choices. Rather it teaches them there are real consequences. So, IMO your suggestion about the ordinance making them somehow equal to children doesn’t hold up. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/272 "2007-10-11T00:08:45Z")
[QUOTE=Zoggie] I don’t see what difference it makes what we call it. And no, you don’t need a curfew to apprehend someone. But that gives you one more thing to charge them with, if need be. [/QUOTE] I don’t know the details but I can easily understand that if there were problems with unsupervised teens causing problems late night a curfew might be one way to handle it. That gives the police a tool and allows them to stop kids that are out to late and see if they are causing problems or just need to be sent home. Does anyone know when the curfew started? I thought the time of the video was in question. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/273 "2007-10-11T00:28:06Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Does anyone know when the curfew started? I thought the time of the video was in question. [/QUOTE] Well, it’s clearly not 7:20 PM, as the display appears to show. It was July, after all, and it was dark. I’ve heard suggestions that the device was displaying Greenwich Meridian Time, but I’m more inclined to think that the “time” displayed is not “time of day” but rather “time since the officer came on duty”. If he came on duty at 6:00 PM, (which I don’t know) and this incident occurred around 1:20 AM, then that would be 7 hours, 20 minutes. In any case, I’m all for curfews. I can think of very few legitimate reasons for teenagers to be walking the streets at that time of night. I know what they’re doing around _here_ at that time of night. They’re spray painting their gang tags on anything and everything (they got the fence behind my house, where we had to look at it every day; they tagged my best friend’s car …). They’re stealing my bikes off my front porch. They’re loitering in front of convenience stores trying to get adults to buy booze for them. They’re breaking into my car. “Youth Protection Ordinance” sounds perfectly appropriate to me. Obeying the ordinance protects them from me busting their heads with a bat if I catch them. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/274 "2007-10-11T00:47:38Z")
[QUOTE=Zoggie] And no, you don’t need a curfew to apprehend someone. But that gives you one more thing to charge them with, if need be. [/QUOTE] It sure does, but are you saying that’s a _good_ thing? We should outlaw more things just to have more charges to throw at “bad guys”? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > No your analogy is not fine. Restricting the movements based on race is different than a curfew based on whether or not you are a legal adult. It’s only different because spitting on people for being the wrong color bothers you, and spitting on people for being the wrong age doesn’t bother you. A couple centuries ago, you might find people saying “restricting the movements based on religion is different than a curfew based on whether or not you’re a white man”, making essentially the same argument as you are today. > [@](#): > > It’s unfortunate but true that sometimes there just isn’t enough resources available to seek out and deal with the individuals. It’s the old “a few bad apples” scenario and it’s been a part of reality for a while now. Is it ideal? Nope. But real life isn’t. That logic applies equally well to race, gender, religion, or any other factor you choose to discriminate on. > [@](#): > > I fail to see how a name you think is more appropriate changes anything. Your original bitch was that treating them like children and not allowing them to choose meant they were children or something like that. Correct. The Orwellian name of the ordinance is a separate complaint. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen kids who’s parents for various reasons can’t or won’t provide the guidance and discipline they need. That means someone, or maybe society in general, has to step in and let them know that there are consequences for actions. It doesn’t make them a child or erase their responsibility for their choices. Rather it teaches them there are real consequences. Punishing someone for breaking the law teaches them that there are real consequences. Passing the law in the first place, however, sends the message that they’re children who can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t know the details but I can easily understand that if there were problems with unsupervised teens causing problems late night a curfew might be one way to handle it. That gives the police a tool and allows them to stop kids that are out to late and see if they are causing problems or just need to be sent home. Yup, just like when those unsupervised blacks are walking around at night, we need to give the police a tool to stop them to see if they’re causing problems. Care to sign my petition yet? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/275 "2007-10-11T00:57:22Z")
[QUOTE=Phase42] In any case, I’m all for curfews. I can think of very few legitimate reasons for teenagers to be walking the streets at that time of night. [/quote] I can think of very few legitimate reasons for _anyone_ to be walking the streets at that time of night. Curfews for all ages, then? > [@](#): > > [They’re breaking into my car, etc.] “Youth Protection Ordinance” sounds perfectly appropriate to me. Obeying the ordinance protects them from me busting their heads with a bat if I catch them. Um… obeying the laws against the actual _crimes_ they’re committing would do that. Unless you’re just battering every kid you see at night, no matter what they’re doing, in which case I can think of a much simpler way to protect them from you. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/276 "2007-10-11T00:59:07Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] It sure does, but are you saying that’s a _good_ thing? We should outlaw more things just to have more charges to throw at “bad guys”? [/QUOTE] In this case, maybe. Is there a good reason for a fifteen year old to be out at one in the morning? It’s not good for them to be out that late unsupervised and it’s not good for the rest of us because they could get up to trouble. I don’t think you can compare it to discrimination by race. It’s widely accepted that adolescents tend to be more impulsive when it comes to decision making, and that they sometimes do not consider the consequences of their actions. Limiting when they’re out is often the best option. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/277 "2007-10-11T01:02:55Z")
[QUOTE=Zoggie] In this case, maybe. Is there a good reason for a fifteen year old to be out at one in the morning? It’s not good for them to be out that late unsupervised and it’s not good for the rest of us because they could get up to trouble. [/quote] Is there a good reason for _anyone_ to be out at one in the morning? When did American citizens start needing “good reasons” to walk around, anyway? As long as they’re not committing a crime, I’d say wanting to go out is a good enough reason. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you can compare it to discrimination by race. It’s widely accepted that adolescents tend to be more impulsive when it comes to decision making, and that they sometimes do not consider the consequences of their actions. I hope I don’t need to remind you of all the things that were “widely accepted” about other minority groups in the past. Furthermore, adults sometimes don’t consider the consequences of their actions either, and everyone is impulsive from time to time. And impulsiveness isn’t a good reason to take away someone’s freedom anyway. If what you’re getting at is the idea that young people might be more likely to commit crimes than the average adult, check out the crime statistics by race and income and see where that logic leads. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/278 "2007-10-11T01:03:07Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] It sure does, but are you saying that’s a _good_ thing? We should outlaw more things just to have more charges to throw at “bad guys”? It’s only different because spitting on people for being the wrong color bothers you, and spitting on people for being the wrong age doesn’t bother you. A couple centuries ago, you might find people saying “restricting the movements based on religion is different than a curfew based on whether or not you’re a white man”, making essentially the same argument as you are today. That logic applies equally well to race, gender, religion, or any other factor you choose to discriminate on. Correct. The Orwellian name of the ordinance is a separate complaint. Punishing someone for breaking the law teaches them that there are real consequences. Passing the law in the first place, however, sends the message that they’re children who can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves. Yup, just like when those unsupervised blacks are walking around at night, we need to give the police a tool to stop them to see if they’re causing problems. Care to sign my petition yet? [/QUOTE] You should get on lowering the drinking age next. You really think curfews aren’t a good idea? You really think that 15 year olds should be allowed out at 2 am? Is that really what you’re saying? Or are you playing purposely dense to underscore the idea that she was only a child and omg that dirty pig punched a child! I can’t decide what your up to, but either way it’s pretty silly. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/279 "2007-10-11T01:03:26Z")
Gee, I wonder why we’re restricting the rights of minors to buy alcohol. Or to buy firearms. Maybe those minors need to be emancipated. ---
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2007, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699/280 "2007-10-11T01:09:35Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] I can think of very few legitimate reasons for _anyone_ to be walking the streets at that time of night. Curfews for all ages, then? [/QUOTE] Because _you_ can’t think of legitimate reasons for _anyone_ to be out at that time of the night means that no one can? Dictator much? I guess if we’re going to give children all of the same freedoms as adults we’re going to let 10 year olds drive, 5 year olds babysit their baby brothers, 8 year olds can drink (as long as they don’t drive - of course!), and maybe 7 year olds can have 40 hour a week jobs. If you can’t see why adults can be out at night while underage people shouldn’t be, then you’re being thick on purpose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screaming-15-year-old-girl-pepper-sprayed/421699.md?page=15)