Shopper had pattern of leaving child unattended (Story update)

[The Straight Story]

Shopper had pattern of leaving child unattended
By Bill Bertolino, Tribune
December 15, 2006

The Scottsdale woman under investigation by state authorities for leaving her toddler in an unlocked car this week while shopping at Neiman Marcus left her child unattended for about 40 minutes the week before while she went jewelry shopping in north Scottsdale and later went to Starbucks with her dog, according to a police report.

At least three employees at Hodson Jewelry Gallery, 8924 E. Pinnacle Peak Road, told police they saw Gardenia Zakrzewski Johansson calmly shopping for about 20 minutes on Dec. 4 before asking one, “I have a baby in my car, can you watch him while I go to Starbucks?” according to the report.

One jewelry store employee said she was “God-smacked” when the woman asked her to watch her baby and asked her “Where are you going?”.

The employee told police Zakrzewski Johansson then went outside to a silver sedan with tinted windows, retrieved a small dog, and relocked the car before walking to the nearby Starbucks where she was for about another 15 to 20 minutes, according to the report.

Jewelry store employees wouldn’t comment on the incident Friday.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=80685

OP:
Mom shops in Neiman Marcus with dog, leaves 2 yr old in car

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2917080

[lpbk2713]

1. *I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.*

[latebloomer]

58. That was "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille"

I just saw "Sunset Boulevard" last night! GREAT flick!

[lpbk2713]

62. I noticed that after it was too late to edit.

I didn't get away with it..... :eyes:


Of course I meant to paste something from "Streetcar ... "

[Minnesota_Lib]

66. Bingo!

[latebloomer]

68. Ha ha!

My husband and I both yelled "Laura Bush!!" last night while watching Norma Desmond making that completely bonkers face.

[GrantDem]

60. Love your sig line pic....

Limpballs is an assbag...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Tansy_Gold]

2. I half expected this to be about my son-in-law's ex-wife

She has had dealings with the police over leaving a toddler in a locked car while shopping and, like the woman in the article, has expensive taste.

However, s-i-l's ex doesn't do dogs at all. . . . .

One would think that people who do things like this and end up in the news about it would be so embarrassed, so humiliated, that they'd see the freakin' light of day and NOT DO THIS SORT OF THING ANYMORE. Of course, they're not embarrassed, they're just angry that they've been harassed like this.


Tansy Gold, shakin' her head

[sweetheart]

3. and repeatedly nothing came of it

All the 'crimes' are imaginary, its between her and her kid.

:popcorn:

[The Straight Story]

4. Kind of like drunk driving, some people do it and nothing comes of it

So punish the result and not the cause some would argue.

[sweetheart]

6. Punish the harm

our society is increasingly punishing imaginary crimes, rather than
simply cracking down hard on real crime.

If a drunk driver causes harm, punish that harshly.

If someone rapes, attacks, assaults and projects on to others, punish that harshly.

It is individual behaviour, that are excused by drugs or whatever pretense,
and as intent is not divisable by the law, only the intent that causes harm should be punished.

The citizen should be held 100% accountable for the results of their actions,
left with freedom and liberty to make decisions otherwise.

Speeding on an empty highway, busted by traffic camera, is another one
of those non-crimes, like taking drugs, all sorts of things that every person
naturally recognizes as a right, and instead, the prison guards are shaking
people down and criminalizing, projecting the state and the media in to every private
moment of a woman shopping in phoenix; those same media that started the iraq war,
that sustain the war on drugs, and that sustain our war posture culture,
nosey nosers indeed.

[Lurking Dem]

11. How about preventing a needless tragedy?

Sat a kid goes all weekend and Monday morning without food because his mother was stupefied drunk and didn't have food in the house. He gets lunch at school on Monday so.....

no harm was done?

Your posts frankly flabbergast me.

[sweetheart]

16. where?

That sounds like life. Maybe someone at the school will find out and help the mother out.

Liberty and human initiative take up where the state leaves off. By intruding the state
in to so much, people are systemically gelded of their individuality and their right to
make stupid choices and learn from them.

[cali]

18. Is this personal with you?

It's beginning to sound that way. Your defense of someone who clearly endangered their child, is more than a little odd. Have you had a run in with social services in some way?

[valerief]

20. Yeah, it sure sounds that way. nt

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

26. The attitude seems to be

if you didn't mean to do anything bad then it's okay. And if you got in a wreck and killed someone then you would learn from your mistake. The "someone" being an expendable growth experience, apparently.

[sweetheart]

35. How about when they put a GPS in your phone

...and give you a ticket for every single violation of the speed limit on your journey,
would you accept *all* those tickets, and would you not complain, even though not a single
officer saw you speed?

Its a slippery slope's all i'm sayin'. Maybe when Kids and parents have GPS enabled
mobile phones, the child support nazis can watch from space to make sure that the two
signals do not get separated, and if they are separated, they can send down 'tickets'.

Or more realistically, they can put tracking tags on kids and parents to make sure that
one never leaves the range of the other without heavy warnings and major financial penalties.
Then the phrase, "ball and chain" can come back in all but form.

[progdonkey]

47. so, a crime is only a crime if it's witnessed?

If a father beats his son but a policeman doesn't happen to witness it, I guess you'd say that no crime was committed?

Speeding is of course a much lower level crime than child abuse, but just because it goes unwitnessed doesn't mean it's not still breaking the law. And yes, I'd accept all those tickets, because I was in fact speeding. If the speed limit is 65 and I'm going 85, I am speeding and I am breaking the law, whether or not a cop actually catches me doing it.

Things aren't illegal only if an officer actually catches in the act of you doing them. I mean, that's kindergarten level stuff.

I'm still trying to figure out how your argument isn't just totally retarded. If a pickpocket snatches a man's wallet in a crowd, and no one (including a police officer) sees the theft occur, you'd say no crime was committed? How is that different from not getting caught for speeding?

[sweetheart]

53. Victem crime has witnesses

A car on an empty highway, witnessed by a satellite computer is not remotely similar to a child being beaten.

One is not a crime, as there is no living witness. What if they gave you a 100 dollar ticket for every
minute you were over the speed limit, calling each minute a separate violation of the law, and all those
tickets amounted to enough money to bankrupt you. Its just a bit further down the slippery slope from where
we're parked today.

All crimes with more than 2 people involved have witnesses, and i'm not talking about those, you're
introducing victem crime where injury is done in one form or another. I'm not talking about such
cases, as clearly for injury to occurr, there is a plaintiff witness.

[uppityperson]

79. So an unwitnessed beating is NOT a crime?

You say "victem crime has witnesses" so if there are no witnesses, there was no crime? All anything with more than 2 people have witnesses since, even if they die, someone witnessed something. However, all victim crime does not involve more than 2 people. All crime makes a victim out of someone. How about when the victim is killed by the other person? There were not more than 2 people involved, and 1 of those is dead. According to your definition, there was no victim.

[sweetheart]

98. 1 person can't have a victem except themself

I miswrote "over" 2, when i meant "2 or over". You know what i'm getting at, and its a very
fair comment to distinguish between victem and nonvictem crime.

[hedgehog]

88. It sounds like you've ben caught on a traffic camera.

The road is a commons for use by all, not a reserve for those with the fastest cars. I saw how that works on the autobahn and I think that attitude carries over on the European approach to a lane closing. Here, only a few jerks try to sneak in at the head of the line. Everyone else takes turns. It's the opposite over there. Guess what? Americans get past closed lanes in a fraction of the time because we take a communitarian approach at least with regards to traffic laws.

[Ikonoklast]

94. OK , you're speeding on an empty highway

No one in sight, at 0300 on a Sunday morning. You are doing 'only' 25 mph over the posted. No law being broken, no harm, no foul, no witnesses, no crime, right?

Dead wrong. Emphasis on DEAD.


Late night speeder has a tire failure due to under-inflation and flips car on deserted stretch of Interstate. The driver of the vehicle is still alive, barely. If he had been going slower, he just may have been able to ride out the flat tire he had instead of rolling the car because the tire failed catastrophically at the higher speed instead of just getting flatter.

I was the first one at the scene. I made the call for help.

THAT IS WHY THERE ARE POSTED SPEED LIMITS. Ignoring them is a crime, and for a very good reason.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

24. Because we have a duty as a society

to protect those who are vulnerable and unable to care for themselves.

She could make a stupid choice and learn from it but if her child is dead or kidnapped where is the duty to the child?

This isn't the Highlands of Scotland, you know. We have people with guns and stuff here.

[Dorian Gray]

32. Are you serious?

Individual liberty stops when your actions endanger the lives of another human being.

[sweetheart]

36. That's not true

Bush is at liberty, and he has taken the lives of thousands.
many corporations are at liberty, and have taken the lives of many.

You'll have to explain how this woman was endangering a life by her actions.

I agree with your comment, Dorian Gray, but we are not in that world,
but rather one where the police state has, year on year, encroached on
our civil liberties, one where that erosion has been steadily supported
by a media brainwashing blitz... the kind of justification behind this:


Throw the woman in jail, get bigger prisons. Nobody deserves liberty,
they might step on your foot.

[hedgehog]

90. So because Bush commits crimes and gets away with it, then so

should everyone else? By the way, who defined liberty as the right to drive without regard to speed limits?

[progdonkey]

93. "You'll have to explain how this woman was endangering a life by her actions."

Are you serious?

:banghead:

[wickerwoman]

105. I remember car shopping with my parents

and my three year old brother. He climbed into a car with an open door, pushed down the emergency brake and because the car was parked on a hill it started to roll back into traffic. Fortunately my parents were right there and were able to jump into the car and pull the brake before the car rolled into the street but that's only because they were standing next to the car and paying attention.

Something tells me a woman who leaves her kid in a car unattended for forty minutes probably didn't bother to secure him or her very carefully. The kid could easily have fiddled around with the brake and caused an accident, endangering not just the kid but other drivers in the parking lot.

Anyway, who is saying this woman should be put in jail? She should be fined, her insurance should go through the roof and she should be sent to parenting classes. She *IS* endangering not just her child but other people with her carelessness and it is in the interests of society to protect both her child and others.

I was in a Brazilian barbecue restaurant a few weeks ago. If you've never been in this kind of restaurant, it feature waiters circulating around the tables with hunks of meat on skewers and six inch carving knives. They come to your table and carve off as much meat as you want. Anyway, one "mother" was there with three boys between four and seven who were racing in circles around the tables screaming and I swear *trying* to trip the waiters with the big ass knives for at least thirty minutes while this woman talked on her cellphone and completely ignored them. Are you saying we should all have respected this woman's right to privacy while her kids went around risking either 1.) being stabbed themselves 2.) causing a waiter to stab himself or 3.) causing a waiter to trip and stab another guest? Anyway, the manager asked her to leave twice and she refused. At last, they asked her for her name and threated to call social services and then she packed up her shit and huffed off without paying.

Just because our liberties have been encroched on doesn't mean some assholes don't need a wake-up call but good.

[Elidor]

38. Isn't there a nice libertarian board somewhere you can go play on?

Your proud display of ignorance is actually dropping the collective IQ of GD, if that's possible.

[piedmont]

41. why? Is this "Authoritarian Underground?" nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. Why is it the school's responsibility?

And if you think this kid will walk in to school on Monday and announce that there is no food at his house and he has not eaten since Friday, you are delusional.

[Lurking Dem]

64. So let's just throw up our hands

and not do anything at all? To what end?

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. When did I say that?

My point is that this is clearly a SOCIETY problem. It is not productive to just say "well, the school will take care of this kid". In reality, there is only so much we can do at school. And we are in it alone, which is very frustrating.

[Lurking Dem]

73. I believe you must have misread that post.

And read what I was responding to. I was taking her assertion to its heinous conclusion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. That sarcasm smiley

comes in handy. :)

[Lurking Dem]

75. I thought the title

and the "flabbergasted" comment was enough. Sorry to have confused you! I too often feel, when I am passionate about something, like I am having a face to face conversation and forget that nuance doesn't translate well online!

[The Straight Story]

76. I think you are correct on that front

It is hard at times to tell how people are saying things, so we let our minds decide how we hear it. Anger can appear when none is present, and of course that is sometimes dependent on words people choose to express themselves.

I can imagine a day when message boards are driven by voice files, so we have people speaking their answers instead of typing them (I almost said writing them, but writing is waning as typing is gaining).

I have spoken to several DU'ers by phone of late, and it makes a world of difference now when I read what they type, I 'hear' it as though they were saying it in my mind (ie I Don't use voices my mind makes up to compensate for not knowing how someone sounds).

Kind of like my one thread 'My dog barks, some' but you don't even know what kind of dog I have but already you have formed a mental image of it in your head (and one could ask in a thread, I say 'dog' and tell me what kind you see - wonder how people would reply to that and other words?).

At any rate, good post.

[Lurking Dem]

78. Thank you very much.

Voice files would be fascinating. Maybe you should start a thread!

[The Straight Story]

81. We need a DU party line :) might help raise funds for DU...

1-900-1DU-Sexy

Hey this is TSS, what ya doing baby?

I am posting naked on GD...

Oh yeah baby. Post on a smoking thread, let me hear ya yell.

(lighting up) Ahhhh yes, now I am talking about Obama, do you look like him at all?

No, but we can pretend I am him. Vote for me baby, pull that lever!

[Lurking Dem]

84. ROFLOL!

alt.sex.threadjack

[FedUpWithIt All]

34. I was that kid.

It went on longer than a simple weekend before it was noticed outside our home.

Some people's callousness astounds me. Let a child go hungry but if we were to talk about a dog going without food for days...whole 'nother story.

:eyes:

[sweetheart]

37. Were you taken away from your parents?

What came of that? Were child services involved? Your school? church? Police? courts?

Who saved you?

[FedUpWithIt All]

44. All of the above were involved in one way or another.

My three younger brothers and i were all removed, some of us several times.

My mother would leave me, before age eleven in charge of three younger siblings. The youngest was less than a year old. The fist time we were removed (a few months after my father died) she had not returned for nearly three weeks. We survived on military rations my uncle had sent several months before while he was in the marines. I was twelve. I tried getting family to help and none would get involved. I was afraid at the time to contact anyone else because my mother had conditioned us to be afraid of "other people" who might take us away. Eventually the police were contacted and we were removed. We were separated and i went to a group home while my brothers went to a foster home. After a few months we were returned.

Over the next few years she lost us several more times. About four years after the initial removal my two youngest brothers went to live with a alcoholic aunt. All told they lived a better life than they would have if they stayed in my mother's care. The oldest of my younger brothers and myself were shuffled amongst people from our church, group homes, foster homes and other family. Each time we would settle my mother would get back custody and the process would continue.

Believe me when i tell you that this is the sanitized version. Similar and much worse went on for over a decade. I was one of the lucky ones. Someone DID get involved. If they hadn't i dread to think were my life would be now. I learned that the life i was living was not the only way to live. I learned that it was possible to make a better life for myself and eventually my children.

You may be capable of managing your own life. Many many others are not. There is collateral damage to your way of thinking. Perhaps you can simply put it all out of your mind. Not your problem. Out of sight out of mind. For myself, it is NEVER far from my mind. I KNOW what i felt and i know many others have it far worse. And children have no options. They are subject to the whims of those in charge of their lives. It is a terrifying position to be in. I know i was fortunate.

THANK GOD for those who care enough, to give up a bit of their own to protect those who have none.

Edited to add...I saved me. But i would not have known that it could be done if someone had not shown me.

[Lurking Dem]

48. Thank you so much

for sharing that.

I can't even begin to imagine what that was like.

[FedUpWithIt All]

49. ...

:hug: It was rough but there is so much good that has come from it.

Over Thanksgiving my youngest brother had a chat with me outside. He has been getting seizures for a couple of years since signing up for the military. It hurts me to see him struggle so much. He was my baby. We were talking about it and his desire to go to college. In the middle of the conversation he says, "You know, i tell everyone that YOU are my mother. They know." He went on to tell me the places that life took him, places that i had not even known about.

During a court appearance many years ago several adults were trying to influence him to decide where he wanted to live. He was four and wanted to be back home with us, his mother, his family. He told me that he was scared and confused and in the middle of it all i had knelt down. I was 14. I don't remember this. Apparently i said to him, "You can come home with us, but if things go bad again you might not have this choice again. If you go with ****, you will never be far away. We may not be able to see each other as much but nobody will be able to keep us apart." In tears he explained that he knew that i REALLY loved him and wanted him safe.

He thanked me...

This is the good side.

;-)

[Lurking Dem]

51. Now I'm all snuffly.

:hug: What an amazing spirit you have!

[FedUpWithIt All]

54. A heartfelt thank you...

:hug:

Come on now, don't go making me all snuffly too.

[The Straight Story]

56. Your story says a lot more to me than I can relate here

I thank you deeply for sharing. It really hit a nerve with me.

[FedUpWithIt All]

57. Then we are even.

I cried when you wrote about your love for your wife. I was so very touched by it.

I am sorry for all the things you have been through in the past couple of years. One thing about life though, if it looks like rain today, it does not mean the sun will stay away for long. :D Life changes, constantly.



:hug:

[Mad_Dem_X]

61. God bless you

Thank you for sharing that; I think some people on this board needed a little reality check.

[FedUpWithIt All]

95. Thank you, Mad_Dem_X ...

I can use all the blessings i can get.

:hug:

[uppityperson]

80. Thank you for sharing what you have.

It cannot be easy but it is good to have reality injected, someone who has been there speak out. Peace to you and yours.

[FedUpWithIt All]

96. Welcome, uppityperson....

At this point in my life, it is not so difficult to share. It is such a part of who i am and who i have become. I am pretty content with my life now. Long way still to go but i am pretty confident i will get there.

Peace to you as well. :hug:

[jilln]

100. Where has anyone said

they didn't care about a kid going hungry but were upset about a dog going hungry? I don't know a single person who wouldn't be upset by both.

Or is that something you experienced in your life?

[FedUpWithIt All]

102. I was referring to some of the insensitivity of "some" here

In another thread about a tragedy involving an animal, accountability for an adult's neglect is acceptable to a "certain person" that apparently thinks the mistreatment of the child in this case is a non-issue. I believe in the other case the neglect was called "criminal". Here it is nobody's business.

Mind you i said "some". Most of the people here are sensitive and compassionate, and i am glad to know them. Most it seems find the mistreatment or neglect of anyone or thing unable to care for itself appalling.

Terrible migraine tonight so i apologize if this is not terribly coherent.

[sweetheart]

119. insensitivity indeed

I think its brilliant that you told that story here.
It proves the need for intervention in some cases.
It evidences as well, that people read way more in to these discussions,
in terms of judgmeents of others, and moral superiority trips about nothing, then they should.
no harm done... no WMD's sir... but some of y'all are ready to invade anyways.
Ain't obvious how we got in to iraq, the nanny's were out in force.

And then, maybe if you discover actually, very potentially given the montessouri school
thing, that the mother actually has an extremely tight bond with her child, and has,
like all mothers' do, a 5th, 6th, and 7th sense eye-in-the-skye on her kid, that
in this case, the kid is not facing any of the tragic circumstances that befell you,
and in some cases, when no harm is or has come, then its not like your case at all,
its one of those cases that should get shut and roundfiled. The media sting has
been punishment enough.

[FedUpWithIt All]

123. Are you offended that i shared a viewpoint that differs from your own?

There are mothers ALL OVER this board telling you that they would GLADLY tolerate a bit of of intervention of their personal liberties as parents for the safety and security of children.

Are you actually suggesting that parents "5th, 6th, and 7th sense eye-in-the-skye" makes up for the lack of actual physical responsibility? Because i am sure you are aware that if this were the case, no child would EVER suffer an accident. I also think that parents who's children suffer unfortunate mishaps would be GREATLY offended by your assertion that only parents who have "extremely tight bond with her child" would have this magical sense.

I have asked you before and i will ask you again...are you a parent?

Any parent who would leave their TWO YEAR OLD child alone in a vehicle while they did selfish and unnecessary things is NOT putting their child's needs before their own. PERIOD. YOU have NO IDEA what other areas of parental responsibility she may also be lax on. But her behavior as posted by the OP shows a distinct precedent of irresponsibility. You, it seems, would only be happy to investigate other potential areas of irresponsibility once and if a tragedy happened. I would bet, if the child were OLDER THAN TWO and therefore able to actually SPEAK FOR HIMSELF, he would not thanking you for allowing him and his potential safety to be a pawn in your agenda.

"the kid is not facing any of the tragic circumstances that befell you"

You know this how? Because tragedy did NOT happen? Perhaps that is become someone, other than his mother, believed he deserved better treatment and care than he was getting and DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

[jilln]

126. OK, I think I understand

When I first read your post it seemed like you were saying that's a common position but now it seems you were referring to a specific situation.

[hedgehog]

87. How do you know the highway is empty?

Are you suggesting that people be allowed to speed until they hit someone? Driving drunk is OK until someone gets killed? How about falling asleep while smoking on the couch? That's not illegal, but I wouldn't do that, either.

[sweetheart]

99. Yes, you have EXACTLY the point

We know that smoking on the couch can lead to fire and death, so people who don't
want to burn to death make choices. Every time you make a turn on the freeway, you too
are making a life or death choice, as only a couple degrees turns of the wheel at the
wrong time and you're 60mph in to a concrete wall.. poof, the princess diana effect.

But you don't drive in to the wall, do you, because you are a thinking, free intelligent
person with a sense of self preservation; as are we all. All the behaviour crimes are
social control systems indoctrinated in to the public, so that they will destroy individualism
themselves without the need for interference by the elites.

Everyone's doing a great job of it, the prisons are packed full of non-crimes and people are
so afraid that they say every street is not safe... lets lock up the rest. When ALL the
country is interned in prison, will the one who wears the wrong socks or leaves her cell door
open be the new thought criminal. Leaving a cell door open could expose your cellmate to
theft or a crime, 2 more years prison time for criminal nothing.

[Coventina]

31. Scottsdale AZ is NOT "Brigadoon"

It is a small city within the greater metropolitan area of Phoenix, AZ with all of the problems that major US cities have.

I live here, within a mile of Scottsdale Fashion Square, and as other posters from the area have stated, this was NOT SAFE for the child!!

Scottsdale Fashion Square is in a fairly nice area, but it is not "exclusive" by any stretch of the imagination! We have PLENTY of crime here, particularly auto theft. What if her vehicle had been stolen with the child in it?!?!

The area for valet parking at the mall is NOT secured, beyond the frequent comings and goings of the valets.

This pawning off of her child on strangers, and YES, they are STRANGERS is completely irresponsible given the society we live in now in 2006!

If she had lived in Scottsdale back in the 1960s, what she did would have been just fine (most likely) but this is NOT 1966!

10,000 people move to the Phoenix area EVERY MONTH! Do you have any concept of what that does to societal norms? Virtually everyone here is a stranger to each other. There is almost no sense of community or responsibility to each other to look out for each other's property, well-being or children.

It is sad, it makes me depressed and frustrated, but THAT IS THE WAY IT IS! Those valets CANNOT be responsible for babysitting! They have not been fingerprinted or background checked. They are high school students (mostly) working part time and they don't deserve to be trusted with the cars they park, much less a two year old!!

You can't look over from Scotland and judge what is safe behavior for Scottsdale.

[sweetheart]

43. That's huge population growth, impressive indeed

Yes, i've visited phoenix and observed the decline of tucson as well, over the decades,
what was once a place where i felt the desert, to another unsustainable petrol sprawl.

It is very sad, that immigration has meant such a social erosion.

Maybe that lady is just not in touch with what scottsdale is becoming, and she
should move to a rural eco-community where her behaviour will be acceptable... but
she may not have that nieman marcus or starbucks.

As a creative solution, if that lady lost her drivers license for leaving a minor
in the car, then maybe during her period on public transport, she would get further
in touch with the community that she currently floats on top of.

[AZBlue]

50. She should lose more than her license, althougth that would be a fun punishment.

We have barely anything resembling "public transport" here, so picturing her sitting out in the sun awaiting the afternoon's one bus on her route makes me smile.

[sweetheart]

55. here's a photo of nieman marcus in scottsdale from space

The fashion mall directory, the photo shows nieman marcus as the white
rectangle in center, and valet parking? Could be in the parking structure
to the right of the photo... not sure.
http://www.fashionsquare.com/directory.asp

[bread_and_roses]

59. It is NEVER OK to leave a small child alone in a car ANYWHERE

Are you out of your mind? I'm sorry, I don't usually call names or make personal attacks, but your arguements are literally insane. Every year some unattended infants/toddlers die in cars from heat, for one thing.

Small children are not safe unattended in public spaces. Period.

[sweetheart]

65. Dogma

Small children are not safe unattended in public spaces. Period.

That may be what you believe, but suprisingly, children have survived in public spaces for
thousands of years without incident before the authoritarians showed up to save us all.

Phoenix in december, which is what we're talking about, is high 70, low 40, hardly the cooking
temperature you're thinking. Its between the woman and her kid.

You people are repeating dogma and soundbites that you believe very deeply.

It means you've redefined the concept of a soceity in which we are presumed innocent. Apparently,
we are all presumed guilty, and children are all unsafe around 'people', as we're all a threat.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. I don't buy in to your fearmongering, or
any of the other fearmongering and imaginary crime conjuration going on this thread.

[bread_and_roses]

70. It can't be "between the woman and her kid" the "kid" has no power

to decide or act for him/herself. Nor are children a parent's "property" over which the parent "owner" has some inalienable right to ignore, neglect as s/he pleases.

There is no fear-mongering here, only sanity vs. insanity. What "dogma' is it that argues in favor of parent's OR society having no obligation to provide safety for the helpless? Or that any decision about safety can be left "between" a child and a parent as if there were parity of ability to act? Such utter nonsense. As for your "thousands of years" there have also been "thousands of years" in which children died unnecessary deaths due to the exigencies of their parents' lives or due to their "owner" parent's abuse, neglect. I guess those children should have made better decisions "between" themselves and their parents, eh?

[sweetheart]

101. The helpless private person

You make an excellent point, and i am inclined to agree.

But the jurisprudence of law must be more conservative, it must be,
or we are meddling in people's families, when it is in the interests
of mother and child whom i'd wager she loves more than 'we' do.

The Fashion shopping center where she was visiting, should tell her
she will be banned from shopping there if she leaves a kid in the car,
as it is putting their insurance rates up too high. Fairly, the real
complaint should be rendered by the private authority on who's ground
the incidents took place.

There are plenty of private complaints, and surely after this media
drubbing the woman ain't feeling all that good... gosh imagine how it
must feel to have every nosey noser in ameircan crawling in to your
underpants... like having 10,000 earthworms stuffed in your pants...
wiggling around in the dark looking for a way to screw ya.

Maybe like they have speeding courses so that speeding drivers can
knock off some points from their license, they could have parenting
courses where the rules are spelled out to parents who do not know what
the nosey nosers expect.

[FedUpWithIt All]

71. It has NEVER been acceptable to leave a TWO yr old child without adult supervision.

Please give an example of ANY society that leaves two year olds accounted for. Good luck.

We are not speaking about a school aged child here. Two year olds usually cannot tell you their address and often cannot even tell you their full name. They do not have the ability to get OUT of a car on their own in many cases. They certainly do not have the understanding necessary to comprehend that not all people are "safe". You expect that a two your old child would be able communicate affectively their situation and other necessary information should the need arise.

What if that woman had fallen down with a heart attack in that store before she informed the clerk that there was a baby in the car? How long do you suppose it would have been before someone found the child? I am fairly certain that the car would be the last thing on anyone's mind in the event of an emergency with the mother. A "BABY" (using the mother's word) is another issue all together.

Do you even HAVE children?

[uppityperson]

82. children have survived in public spaces for thousands of years without incident

They had malls thousands of years ago, places where a thousand strangers gathered and people left their small children alone in? And cars, windowed metal boxes to leave children in? Here are a couple articles on temperatures in cars, granted they are about dogs, but it applies to people also. "Between the woman and her kid" hardly since the parent is responsible for the child, not the reverse, not co-responsible but parent is responsible for child.

http://www.peta.org/feat/dogdays/index.html

In May, a dog died after being locked in a parked car on a sunny, 67°F day in Albany, N.Y., even though the car windows had allegedly been left open a crack.

http://www.healthypet.com/library_view.aspx?ID=139&sid=1

Cracking the windows doesn't cut it
So where are the danger zones? The most obvious is your car: It can become a death trap even on a mild sunny day--and can insidiously raise the car's temperature to well above 120 degrees! Never, ever leave your pet inside the car. If Fido can't come with you when you get out of the car, leave him at home.

So, regardless of whether or not people thousands of yrs ago left their small children unattended around large groups of strangers and had no problem with it, you are repeating dogma and soundbites that you believe very deeply.

[Gold Metal Flake]

86. Sweetheart is Right!

(copy of #47)

How dare they expect short citizens to be coddled by tall citizens in such an irresponsible manner. The expectation of special privileges by short citizens has gone on too long and must stop.

With all this nanny-state do-gooderism resulting in all of this ridiculous publicity, the poor woman will no longer be able to depend on her normal child care methods. She should no longer leave the short citizen in the car but should feel free to bring the short citizen into the mall and place it atop one of the many benches that are scattered throughout the financial freedom facility. If the short citizen is personally responsible, as it should be, it will stay in that spot until the citizen shopper fulfills her desires, as long as that will take. All responsible tall citizens can be trusted not to bother the short citizen. Nothing further should be done.

All short citizens should be required to live independent lives. To provide "care" or "comfort" is a burden to all members of society. Short citizens must care for themselves. If an infant citizen is annoyed by the carrier citizen’s use of tobacco, alcohol, heroin or methamphetamines it should find lodging elsewhere.

Every time a short citizen finds itself in some sort of calamity, such as (and I hate to use these nanny-state buzzwords but for the sake of clarity I include them) "kidnapping", "sexual assault", "trauma" or "death", it is the tall citizen that is too blame. It is time to place the responsibility of survival equally on all of the shoulders of a society, not just those who have learned how to walk, defend themselves, fear fire or say their own name.

[oldcoot]

104. If it so safe, why did she take her dog to Starbucks?

I would be more inclined to feel sympathy for her if she had left her dog in the car and she had never done anything like this in the past. I would also have more sympathy for her if she was rushed and had only left the child and dog to run into the grocery store. However, she left the child not only to shop for jewelry but to buy a drink at Starbucks. She is also a thirty-nine year old educated woman, who has probably received the same information as the rest of us about the dangers of leaving children in cars.

While I agree that one should not live one's life in total fear, one should use some common sense, especially when it comes to protecting one's children. Although most adults do not want to kidnap or harm a child, why make easy for a criminal to harm one's child? Since she willing to pay complete strangers to watch her child, she should have had no problem hiring a qualified babysitter to stay with her child or waited until her husband was available to watch the child before shopping.

[cali]

106. There's a difference between dogma

and facts. The facts are unassailable regarding the dangers of leaving a toddler alone in a car in a parking garage. Anyone who defends such a practice is demonstrating a moral blind spot.

[sweetheart]

108. , so unassailable in fact...

...that no danger happened, after said incidents.

You're personal inflections are showing cali, its a constant repeat thing for you, in so
many posts, you suggest that the person you disagree with is lesser, morally,
must have something wrong, must be personally involved, whereas you are just the
white knight inquisitor who bullys people by adding personal inflections.

All the danger and moral judgements did not exist, did not happen, as all the
jdugemental nannys weren't there to meddle, and nothign happened... nothing happened,
what danger, nothing happened?

There is a dangerous element on the loose in the democratic party, the nanny bullys;
they are as ruthless as the xtian fundies, and are just as vindictive when it comes to
stripping away civil liberties. They bully the same way the fundies do as well, with
constant ad hominem projections that anyone who opposes them is morally deficient and
therefore not able to make a compelling argument.

[Bridget Burke]

109. Ah, you've made a study of a DU poster....

And cali has been found wanting.

Perhaps you should find Libertarian Underground. Since when is neglecting a child a "civil liberty?"

You've made lots of posts in this thread & I haven't noticed one compelling argument.

[sweetheart]

111. get out of the tent you libertarians

... the nannys want to rule the place.

[Bridget Burke]

118. Well, the rich lady could certainly have afforded a nanny.

DO you consider your use of "nanny" new & amusing?

I'm not much in favor of policing anything done to oneself. Or done between two (or more) consenting adults. The two year old was not a "consenting adult."

But I'm not fond of libertarians. (Mostly, because they aren't fond of anyone but themselves.) They can build their own tent. Or tents--one per libertarian.

[sweetheart]

120. I'd wager she's heard more than an earful by now

I bet that she's in it up to her nose in people telling her what to do,
every snippet of advice from 10's of millions, in her psychic email inbox,
I wish her the best as people curse her, people who wish they had the
money to worry about leaving a kid in a car at nieman marcus, the whole
cursed lot... really, she's got to be getting a stiff kick, and i'm
sure it hurts; i'm sure her life is permanently changed by this media lynching.

[cali]

110. Baloney,

to put it as nicely as I can. I do not, as you state, constantly go around suggesting that the people I disagree with are lesser morally. If there's something I see as demonstrating a moral blind spot, I do point it out. As do many others. This thread is a case in point. I realize you have a grudge against me. That's your problem, but prevaricating ain't pretty.

[sweetheart]

112. you do it every time

YOu did it again... its a reflex... "i realize you have a grudge against me."

Projecting your attacks on to me is part of your form. I am not attacking you.
I never fly in on your comments and make a personal argument. I discuss the subject
without inflecting on the speaker. You, with examples on this thread, and off in
to the history logs, consistently use this projecting style.

It reminds me of how people used to cheat in water polo. They would put an arm
when the ref wasn't looking and push down in to the water, so after some time, my
treading water is holding up my opponent team mate... when i try to push him off,
the ref calls 'me' for pushing... you bully like that... pushing down down down,
and then someone responds, and you hold you hands up, innocent, not on camera with
an actual punch.

The problem with that bullying, is that you make crap arguments behind it, all you
really are projecting is that the group think of the heard is the 'right' way and
anyone who disagrees 'has a grudge', ' has a moral hole' or whatever unarguable
point you accuse... dishonest and wholly disingenous argument indeed.

[cali]

113. LOL!

Sorry, but this really is funny. Your attacks on me in this thread have been unmistakable and egregious to the point that they've been excised by the mods. Unlike mine. This point is a stunning example of disconnect.

BTW, as you're still posting on this thread, why didn't you respond to the person, who in response to you, entitled his post "I was that child"?

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

124. Sorry,

your post is so confused that responding to it is nearly impossible. And as I've said, I consider your position on this topic, indefensible. Let me add, that I am a mom, living in a very rural and safe place, and I would never have left my kids when they were small, not even to run into a store for a minute. What that woman did was take an insane risk.
Now, I'm done with this discussion.

[FedUpWithIt All]

125. YOU are mistaken,

my post came after your post to Cali. In fact Cali was not even a part of the little side thread regarding my own story. Just helping you out here.

As to my cross thread mention...apparently you recognized yourself. You are correct. I was speaking about you. You seemed to think that it is CRIMINAL neglect for a parent to leave a dog and infant unattended. But using your own standard in this thread one could argue that it is NOT criminal neglect. Just like speeding down a highway doesn't always lead to an accident, nobody could ever predict that a dog would hurt an infant...right? WRONG! We know that it is possible and in some issues LIKELY that harm might happen. This is why we do not drive drunk, speed, leave our very young children unattended (in cars or with dogs)...

I really got a kick out of the "other poster" aspect of this post. See how it works. ;)

[Roland99]

5. "God-smacked"?? WTF is "God-smacked"??

[On the Road]

7. I Suspect the Quote Should Have Been "Gobsmacked" (with a "b")

But either the speaker or the reporter confused it with the alternative metal band Godsmack.

gobsmacked
adjective UK INFORMAL
so shocked that you cannot speak.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=33574&dict=CALD

[Roland99]

10. Never heard of the term 'gobsmacked' either

<shrug>


:)

[Kutjara]

42. It's a very common term in the UK.

I don't know how the woman in AZ came to (mis)hear it, though.

[SemperEadem]

13. The reporter should have known better

if they were too young to, then the copy editor/desk manager should have known better.

That went through all of the filters who check a story before it goes to print and it went through incorrectly anyway.

[TroglodyteScholar]

17. There's always the chance...

That the person actually used the incorrect term "godsmacked." Althought, if I were the reporter, I would have just left that out. It's not worth a even. It's a completely disposeable quote anyway...it doesn't contribute to the story at all.

[SemperEadem]

22. exactly

"Althought, if I were the reporter, I would have just left that out. It's not worth a even. It's a completely disposeable quote anyway...it doesn't contribute to the story at all."

[valerief]

19. Well, it was a quotation and it was in quotation marks. It would have

been bad journalism for the reporter to change it.

[The Straight Story]

8. Who knows, sounds like something from wrestling...(nt)

[Gold Metal Flake]

9. An incorrect use of "gob-smacked".

[NickB79]

30. Well, Godsmack is a pretty good rock band

Maybe the worker quoted was a big Godsmack fan and it was the first thing that popped into her head?

[On the Road]

12. I Was Asked by a Poor Black Couple in a Supermarket

to hold their infant while they made a phone call. I was afraid they were abandoning the baby and did not accept.

This is irresponsible, but there are different standards in different times and places. A few decades ago, things like this were more common. When I was an infant, my parents left me sleeping in the car while they went bowling.

[cali]

14. No offense, but

why in recounting this story, did you feel it was germane to include the race of the couple?

[Morgana LaFey]

85. I thought you were going to ask

if she'd have also refused if it'd been a white couple.

[rucky]

52. How much has kidnapping gone up since a few decades ago?

I think it's the same as it ever was - at least the "stranger-danger" type. It's just the trust levels have gone down. I'm always torn about trusting strangers and building community vs. being "safe" and in fear.

[On the Road]

117. I Didn't Think of That Angle So Much

and (per the other responder) I didn't mean to emphasize the racial element either.

There was just something strange about it -- the supposed parents both had odd little smiles. It didn't seem like a request for help --why couldn't one of them couldn't hold the child when the other was on the phone? My bullshit detection went off, but I couldn't figure out what the angle would be other than a desire to ditch the baby. I have heard of this happening in poor countries.

I do know what you mean about building community and trusting strangers. I actually think trust levels reached a bottom a while ago and have gone back up. Building community is partly simply treating people decently, acting like you belong in a place, and refusing to accept the de facto segregation that still exists. Dangers of poor neighborhoods tend to be overestimated anyway.

[FedUpWithIt All]

72. I went to Red Robin with my children about two years ago.

While we were leaving i noticed that their were three children sitting on a bench near the entrance. The oldest looked to be about 9 and she was crying. The other two children looked to be about 6 and 5. I went up to the receptionist and asked her if she was aware of the children. She said she was and that the manager was in the process of calling the police. Apparently, the parents had left the children there and had not returned for over an hour. Not knowing if the parents WERE coming back the manager was left with little choice. The last thing the receptionist said was the the children had not even been aware that they were being left. I do not know the outcome of the situation.

This stuff does happen.

[BlackVelvet04]

15. If she had handed out a couple of twenties with her request

I don't think we would be hearing about this.

[Ilsa]

21. "I have a baby in ..." Do you think maybe she has a bonding problem?

"A baby"? Not, "My baby"?

If she doesn't want to take her 2 year shopping, maybe she should hire a sitter. I suspect she can afford it if she's shopping at Needless Markup.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Really, she takes THE DOG and not the child?

I guess we know who rates in her mind.

Most people would take the child (in a stroller) and leave the dog in the car.

That kid is going to grow up with serious issues.

[Jennicut]

23. As a mother of a 1 year old and 2 year old this is horrible and irresponsible

I just can't imagine leaving them alone while I go shopping, so nonchalant. And to take the dog and not the child? Anyone could come along and take your child. If its hot in the car or freezing cold, the child can die. I know it might be as much fun to take them with you but still. If your buying expensive items than surely one can afford a babysitter?! In this case, let the government punish her at will. She has the resources to take care of this child and is refusing to do so. However, I don't want the government impeding on anyone's individual rights and if someone seems poor and desperate and is unable to take care of their child then I would try to help them/help the child go to the correct child services. I worked with abandoned children, ages 6-12 for a few years after college and many of them were able to adjust and later be adopted.

[prole_for_peace]

28. if she has been observed doing this twice in a few weeks

then she has done it before. i know it was in december in scottsdale but i would bet she has done this multiple times and not always when the temperature is moderate.

[lies and propaganda]

29. I was sooooo not surprised when i saw the mall...

Scootsdale Fashion Square is were the swells go to hobnob, I can very much picture old snatchy women shopping with their dogs while abandoning their kids. As an Arizonan, I can almost guarantee it went through her head 'Well, its not hot out.'

Shes lucky her kid is alive and that she picked the right time of year to be a shitty mother.

[Bobbie Jo]

33. Just picked up an Amber Alert...

Out of Indianapolis....reporting the abduction of a 12mo old boy sitting in a RUNNING AUTOMOBILE outside a convenience store....while the father ran in for a "quick purchase."

WTF is wrong with people? :grr:

[earth mom]

39. My ex neighbor used to leave her infant and toddler sleeping

in the house while she ran across a busy street to a convenience store to buy cigarettes or whatever-because of the traffic and the distance it was easily a 15 minute or longer trip there and back. I didn't know about it until just before we moved away and I was horrified. I wish I would have let her have a piece of my mind but I didn't. :banghead:

[Gold Metal Flake]

45. Sweetheart is right!

How dare they expect short citizens to be coddled by tall citizens in such an irresponsible manner. The expectation of special privileges by short citizens has gone on too long and must stop.

With all this nanny-state do-gooderism resulting in all of this ridiculous publicity, the poor woman will no longer be able to depend on her normal child care methods. She should no longer leave the short citizen in the car but should feel free to bring the short citizen into the mall and place it atop one of the many benches that are scattered throughout the financial freedom facility. If the short citizen is personally responsible, as it should be, it will stay in that spot until the citizen shopper fulfills her desires, as long as that will take. All responsible tall citizens can be trusted not to bother the short citizen. Nothing further should be done.

All short citizens should be required to live independent lives. To provide "care" or "comfort" is a burden to all members of society. Short citizens must care for themselves. If an infant citizen is annoyed by the carrier citizen’s use of tobacco, alcohol, heroin or methamphetamines it should find lodging elsewhere.

Every time a short citizen finds itself in some sort of calamity, such as (and I hate to use these nanny-state buzzwords but for the sake of clarity I include them) "kidnapping", "sexual assault", "trauma" or "death", it is the tall citizen that is too blame. It is time to place the responsibility of survival equally on all of the shoulders of a society, not just those who have learned how to walk, defend themselves, fear fire or say their own name.




Edit: plurals and spelling

[uppityperson]

83. Exactly! Quit trying to take away short citizen's rights!

you put it well, thank you

[fudge stripe cookays]

107. .

:rofl:

[SoCalDem]

46. This is not some young "Brittney-wannabee". She;s well into her thirties

by the looks of that picture..

Shame on her for not planning ahead. She's not hurting for money if she's doing the kind of shopping the articles portrayed.

Surely she could afford childcare while she shopped..

Could it be that this was a "trophy baby", who's suddenly turned out to be "not so much fun as she expected"??

my .02

As a mother who had THREE boys within a 4½ year timeframe, I can tell you that there WERE times when I considered locking them all in the trunk.( not really, but kids can be frustrating sometimes),:evilgrin:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

67. If she is so wealthy that she can shop at those stores, couldn't she afford a babysitter?

:shrug:

[Chovexani]

77. Only in fucking Scottsdale

Yuppie rich fuck pit of the Valley.

I've been there like three times since I moved out here and each time I lost a little more of my dwindling faith in humanity.

[Coventina]

116. Um, you may be confusing Scottsdale with Paradise Valley.

See my post below, thanks.

[Renew Deal]

89. Proves that money doesn't buy brains.

:dunce:

[hedgehog]

91. What about this:

Some years ago, I left a bunch of kids ages 2-11 in a parked car while I ran in to get something quickly. It would have taken 20 minutes to unbuckle all the kids, march them in, do my business, march them out and buckle them in again. I figured it was a case of safety in numbers, the kids are well behaved and weren't climbing all over but were all belted in and the oldest was in charge.

[catchnrelease]

92. Too scary for me

A couple of years ago, there was a family on tv that had started with a similar situation. All the kids, 4 if I recall correctly, were strapped in their seats ready to leave the house. (Ages were similar to yours, preteen to little.) Mom had to run back into the house briefly, I think she was getting the family's bird to take to the vet or something close to that. In that couple of minutes the older kids were messing with the cigarette lighter and set the inside of the car on fire. All were burned and the littlest severely because they couldn't get the him out of his car seat. Although he survived he didn't resemble a little boy anymore. I've never forgotten that. Even good kids sometimes don't realize the consequences of what they do. I've tried to drill into my daughter to never leave the grandkids in the car, no matter how tempting it is to just run into a bank, store, etc. Just MHO.

[AZBlue]

97. The Neiman's north side opens almost right out onto the parking lot.

I think that's where the valet is - which is right next to the parking structure you pointed out. Either that or it might be the south entrance which does open right onto the parking lot - don't valet at Neiman's too much myself, so not sure. :-)

No matter where the valet is, it's sick and wrong.

[Fleshdancer]

103. This b*tch can afford a sitter

I was angry when I read about her the first time but to know that she has a pattern of doing this really pisses me off. Could you imagine witnessing this? If this is her public display of caring for her child, I'm afraid to find out what her private displays look like.

[lonestarnot]

114. Snottsdale is embarrassing in every sense of the word.

From it's snobby ass business establishments to its more culture shoppers, snottsdale sucks. This woman is a perfect example.

[Coventina]

115. Hey now! I live here! Am I embarrassing?

Yes, Scottsdale has its problems: corrupt city council, annoying tourist destinations, "snobby" businesses and plenty of snobby residents (esp. in North Scottsdale).

But don't forget there are a lot of poor and middle-class areas of Scottsdale as well! I live about a mile from the "downtown" area and I can tell you that it is NOT "snobby ass". Just working class folks trying to get by in GW's economy like everyone else.

[lonestarnot]

127. Yes you are right, but I was not referencing the poor, working class, so I

guess that doesn't include you. :hug:

[Little Wing]

121. Big Fucking Deal

All this energy spent on one obnoxious screwup