On an errand, dad locked kids in trunk

[discocrisco01]

Source: Associated Press

FALL RIVER, Mass. — Massachusetts police say a man locked his two young sons in the trunk of his car while he ran an errand.

Fall River police say Michael Monahan put his children, ages 3 and 6, in the trunk of his Pontiac Trans Am for several minutes Tuesday morning while he went inside a sailing shop.

According to court records, Monahan told investigators the boys like to play in the trunk.

Monahan, 35, pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to assault and reckless endangerment of a child. He was released on cash bail.

A broadcast from WPRI-TV showed Monahan's attorney telling a judge that his client loves his children.

Read more at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6740754.html

[anonymous171]

1. lol

[vadawg]

2. rofl, we shouldnt laugh but this is goddam funny in so many ways

[imdjh]

4. it offends the senses a bit, but what's the actual harm here?

[pnwmom]

12. There would be psychological harm, at least. n/t

[vadawg]

15. lol what makes you say that, maybe the kids love spelunking and this is normal

i think there is more likely to be psychological harm from the fallout from the incident than the actual incident... to the kids it was probuably just a game...

[pnwmom]

26. We're talking about a 3 year old locked in a dark trunk. It would be scary. Furthermore,

it's not legal to leave children of 3 and 6 unattended in a vehicle. He probably left them in a trunk so no one else would know they were there.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[imdjh]

61. looking at the actual law (God forbid)

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/265-13l.htm

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Chapter 265: Section 13L. Wanton or reckless behavior creating a risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child; duty to act; penalty

Section 13L. For the purposes of this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:—

“Child”, any person under 18 years of age.

“Serious bodily injury”, bodily injury which results in a permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb or organ, or substantial risk of death.

“Sexual abuse”, an indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 under section 13B of chapter 265; indecent assault and battery on a person age 14 or over under section 13H of said chapter 265; rape under section 22 of said chapter 265; rape of a child under 16 with force under section 22A of said chapter 265; rape and abuse of a child under section 23 of said chapter 265; assault with intent to commit rape under section 24 of said chapter 265; and assault of a child with intent to commit rape under section 24B of said chapter 265.

Whoever wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.

For the purposes of this section, such wanton or reckless behavior occurs when a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his acts, or omissions where there is a duty to act, would result in serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

CHAPTER 265. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

Chapter 265: Section 15. Assault; intent to murder or maim; penalty

Section 15. Whoever assaults another with intent to commit murder, or to maim or disfigure his person in any way described in the preceding section, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two and one half years.

[TCJ70]

31. I think you'd have to ask the kids about that...

...not that this isn't strange, but, kids are strange!

[pnwmom]

32. How many 3 year olds do you know who would want to be locked in a dark car trunk

while their parent left them to go inside a store? Minutes could seem much longer to a child that age.

I think many of the people replying here really don't know much about small children, and they're giving the father way too much credit.

Do you know there are laws against leaving small children (under the age of 8) alone anywhere in a vehicle? I think the father left them in the trunk so no one would report him for leaving them in the passenger compartment where they could be seen.

[TCJ70]

33. Oh of course...

...and I would never say this father did the right thing in leaving his kids in a trunk! I just think kids respond to things in different ways...traumatizing for one may not be traumatizing for another.

[pnwmom]

34. We're not talking about kids in general, we're talking about a 3 year old and a 6

year old.

Three years old is VERY young, with very little sense of time, and often a fear of the dark. I doubt that any preschool teacher or pediatrician would think a three year old would be okay with that.

[vadawg]

35. lot of assumptions there, no doubt the father is a dick but you dont know anything about the kids

my two kids frinstance have no fear of the dark, god knows why as my wife hates it, but the two of them love to play in dark places in the house and both love the night, the father could be right in that they love being in the trunk :shrug: still an idiot idea though...

[treestar]

40. Not that I approve in the least

But at least he was with the 6 year old. If he were alone it would be scary but with big brother maybe not.

[pnwmom]

60. Maybe. But the father was also charged with assault. I wonder what the basis

of that charge is.

[pnwmom]

45. What if another vehicle had rear-ended his? One of my nieces just had a parking accident.

(She's a new driver.) It happens.

It's illegal to leave small children unattended in a vehicle, period.

[imdjh]

55. Then my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were child endangerers.

Come on, isn't this more ninny nanny helicopter crap? No, the good parent has never left a child to roast in a car on a hot day, but people have been leaving kids in cars while they ran into the store for as long as there have been cars. Someone posted that it was the store employee who called it in, so obviously the trunk was line of sight to where Dad was.

Seriously, pnwmom, god help the parent exposed to the armchair jury of modern America. When I was 8 years old, I was playing on the dock while my sisters were crabbing farther down. I got into a pram and untied it. In no time I was headed out into the channel. My parents were up at the house when this happened. You know damned well that there are people on this board who would say that my parents ought to be locked up for negligence, probably for allowing me to be near water, certainly for being near water without a life jacket, and god knows for them not chaining the pram to the dock or something.

The world of parenting is not defined by suburban Washington 5 star safety rating helicopter parents. You could put an eye out.

[pnwmom]

56. The fact that the store employee called it in shows that the store employee

was CONCERNED for the well-being of the children.

And the "world of parenting" or -- in this case -- laws pertaining to leaving small children unattended in a vehicle, is clearly more defined by parents like me than by people like you. That's why these laws exist. To keep children safe even if their parents are idiots.

[virgogal]

6. I don't see that it is funny in any way but maybe that's just me.

[vadawg]

9. yeah its just you.....

[varelse]

17. It's obviously not just her

do you think the police were laughing? :eyes:

[vadawg]

18. i can almost guarentee the cops laughed at this, but probuably still had to issue the ticket

theres lots of shit that cops come across thats highly amusing to them, but they still have to deal with it according to the laws...

[varelse]

21. I don't see any humor in this either

This is wrong for several reasons

1) they cannot leave the car if they for some reason need to do so for their own safety (or if they just needed to, say, use the bathroom)
2) no one else can see them - if he had been detained or delayed, it could have been very bad for the kids to be locked in the trunk, and they might have been there for a while before anyone figured it out and helped them
3) what if someone had stolen the car while he was in the shop?
4) how the hell could the cops know that he wasn't going to drive away with them still in the trunk?
5) both kids were too young to be left unattended, even "just for a few minutes" while the guy went shopping. If he could not bring them into the shop with him, then he needed to postpone the shopping or browsing until they were safely in someone elses' custody.

[vadawg]

22. yup he broke laws but its still funny to think that the dude did this especially to go into a

sailing store, for some reason this is the best part of the story, i guess i have the humour that goes along with dealing with this kinda shit on a dailly basis...

[varelse]

23. It's not like I'm especially outraged here - I'm sure he didn't mean to hurt the kids

or compromise their safety. I just don't understand his decision making process AT ALL. Maybe the cognitive dissonance is preventing me from "getting" the joke. :shrug:

[vadawg]

24. for me the big funny is the sailing store, i can understand needing to go to the can

or having to go into the bank or something, but the sailing store unless the boat is sinking is not an emergency...

[pnwmom]

49. And why couldn't the boys go in with him?

Parents are supposed to be responsible. Let's pretend the boys DID want to play in the trunk. A good parent would have said, no -- that's not a safe place to play. Period. Otherwise, he's taking the risk that they might play in the trunk someday without an adult knowing about it.

[pnwmom]

27. I think he put them in there so no one would see them in the car -- since it's

illegal to leave little children unattended.

[varelse]

44. Yes - it's illegal because it compromises their safety

and can even, under certain circumstances be fatal. I sincerely hope he was lying when he claimed that they like to play in the trunk. That would be akin to admitting that your kids like to play in old, junked refrigerators - not a safe place to play and definitely something that should not be encouraged or even permitted by a responsible guardian.

[pnwmom]

28. Do they laugh every time they find unattended children in a vehicle?

Or just when they're hidden in a trunk?

[vadawg]

30. depends on the circumstances of the find, kinda like the way some deaths have humour in them

it all depends on the circumstances fo each individual find...

[pipi_k]

39. Not to make light of the situation or anything...

because one of the things that would worry me about this is the possibility of the car being hit from behind by someone who's lost control of their car or something, but seriously...cops laugh at a lot of things the rest of us might not find amusing.

They have to, or else they'd never be able to do their jobs or stay sane from some of the truly hideous and heartbreaking things they see on the job.

So yes, I can imagine the cops having a good laugh over this, especially when they found out that the kids were OK.


:)

[SammyWinstonJack]

50. No it isn't.

:eyes:

[Book Lover]

10. No it's not just you

I used to own a '79 Trans Am - the people here saying its trunk is cavernous are bullshitters who want to justify their laughter.

[Liberal_in_LA]

52. Not funny to me either.

[imdjh]

3. I don't see the assault or endangerment.

[pnwmom]

29. It's child endangerment to leave small children unattended in a vehicle, whether

you leave them in the passenger compartment or the trunk.

[imdjh]

41. But you can hand them off to some CETA nightmare daycare without fear of prosecution.

The article didn't tell us much actually. The dad could have been twenty feet away from these kids at all times. If you let a small child play in the back of a pick-up is it child endangerment? After all, he could climb over the side and fall to the ground. How about people who put the kid in a playpen and then go to the basement to swap out a load of laundry?

I'm always a little hesitant when someone's life is going to be royally fucked up by the law for what might have happened, but didn't happen.

[pnwmom]

46. The store employee who called the police clearly didn't think the child was safe.

(According to a TV news report I saw somewhere). I think there's more to this story.

[Robb]

5. To be fair, clearly the judge thinks "trunk"

...and doesn't think "the cavernous space at the rear of a Trans Am, suitable for five-man football." :D

[jobycom]

7. I guess the cops are afraid the trunk monster would show them porn or something?

Otherwise I'm missing the whole "reckless endangerment" angle here... If this was Texas in July I'd get it...

[pnwmom]

57. Someone trying to park behind him could have rear-ended his vehicle

with the kids in the trunk. My niece, a new driver, just had a parking accident the other day. Drunk drivers also make "mistakes." It happens.

But the law has already defined the crime of leaving small children unattended ANYWHERE in a car as "reckless endangerment." This father might have put the kids in the trunk so they wouldn't have been visible to passers-by.

If he was telling the truth, and his kids love to be locked in the truck, then he's endangering them by encouraging this, rather than by telling them it's not safe. What if they try this on their own someday? A father's job is to be smarter and more responsible than his kids.

[jobycom]

62. And they could have been killed in the store by a robber or an exploding heating system.

:shrug: They could even have been abducted from the store while he was with them.

I doubt they were in more danger in the trunk, in any realistic statistical way.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

8. I have a feeling this Michael Monahan will hear about this for the Rest of his Life.

lol.

[imdjh]

16. I have a feeling his exwife is the reason he got arrested.

[Caretha]

36. I know this is going to be a mental stretch for you

but try. He was arrested because he broke the law. I imagine though his wife and her attorney will be appealing to the court so this asshole of an ex-husband will have to have supervised visitation from here on out.

[imdjh]

42. Oh yeah, we have a winner here.

[pnwmom]

48. As they should. He was reported by a store employee, by the way. n/t

[panzerfaust]

37. Or, maybe he got arrested for locking children in the trunk of a car -

Which could have resulted in their deaths?

Nah - must be the ex-wifie thing.

[pnwmom]

47. Wrong. An employee at the store he went into reported him. n/t

[varelse]

11. ...

http://whythefuckdoyouhaveakid.com

[AspenRose]

14. Oh, boy

I'm still dealing with thisiswhyyourefat.com and that wal-mart shoppers site.

:crazy:

[varelse]

19. lol

I won't even look at the wal-mart shoppers site. :scared: Yes, I am a coward.

[BuelahWitch]

51. I went there

I'm not generally fond of kids, but I feel sorry for the little ones who live with the dimwits featured in the pictures and videos.

[rwheeler31]

13. This is disgusting, spread the fear, abuse.

How many more paranoid adults do we need? There are too many security firms trying to get business.

[flvegan]

20. What year was this Trans Am?

1982 on it was a hatchback. Prior to that, those trunks were tiny tiny tiny.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. until you added the rest of the text, I was about to offer congrats

for the bestest post ever. And then you had to go get logical and truthie and all on us.

[WI_DEM]

43. Fall River is also where Lizzie Borden took an axe and gave her mother 40 whacks and...

when she saw what she had done gave her father 41.

[imdjh]

53. But what was she really saying?

[Crabby Appleton]

54. She probably got locked in a trunk when she was a child

[pnwmom]

58. So why was the father charged with assault? Something tells me

there's more to this story. You don't get charged with assault for leaving your children in a car, that's the reckless endangerment charge.

[BoneDaddy]

59. Did he give them food and water?

Shit maybe they were crazy kids....Just fucking kidding... This guy deserves what he gets.