Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 18:13:47 GMT -5
Sorry, but we take risks every day. When the risk of something is super, ridiculously low, is it really reasonable to wonder how you would feel if it happened to your kid & act accordingly? I would feel horrible if a car ran up on the sidewalk & killed my kid & I'm sure that happens to a few kids every year. Doesn't mean I should keep my kid from walking on the sidewalk to protect them from something so unlikely to happen. Follow that logic and kids should never ride bikes, jump on tramps, swim, ride horses, be around dogs, etc. Life happens & you should protect from the big stuff & likely stuff, but to protect them from something that happens to 8 kids a year (who likely were intended to be left for a lot longer than 5 minutes) just seems over the top. I am guessing more kids die in school shootings each year, but we still send them off to school every day. There is clearly a difference if opinion. I'm curious as to why the fact that calling 911 results in cops coming, charges filed, dcfs case opened NOT have any sway? Does it not make anyone pause and consider ? I'm confused what you are asking...are you asking why the possibility of cops being called doesn't make me hesitate more? It did at DS2's daycare because I was specifically told it would happened. Elsewhere, honestly I find it very unlikely. I almost never do it anyway, I would never do it on a remotely warm day, and when I say it is under 5 minutes I am being literally because I check my phone to make sure they haven't been left long. Or are you asking why people wouldn't pause and wait a bit before calling knowing they might have charges filed against someone who was really only gone for a few minutes?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 18:34:46 GMT -5
"My state has only had 7 deaths in the 15 years,..."
You say "only " as if that justifies it but I doubt the parents of those 7 feel a lot differently because that was their whole world...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 18:39:12 GMT -5
Having charges filed against me or anything to do with the cops getting involved don't scare me one bit. What scares me and motivates me to never leave him alone is the risk that is just not worth taking. Sure it is hard. I am a single mom with zero family in town. So i just have to plan a little better because i dont have his dad or any family i can ask to leave him to get my haircut, do grocery shopping, pick up milk, etc. but i take care of everything without ever leaving him unattended. You never know when your "5-minute" will turn into 20 (which somebody already said 20 mins) or an hour. Just never worth the risk.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 20:33:46 GMT -5
Why would my 5 minutes turn into 20? Barring the store getting robbed or falling down and getting knocked unconscious, I cannot think of any reason (much less a likely reason) that I would not have control of the situation.
And I say only because compared to annual deaths due to many common activities, that is nothing. I can't live my life around extremely unlikely things occurring.
Those that keep making it sound like this is super dangerous and too risky, it really isn't as long as you factor in time or weather. It is like saying no one should own a gun because a 3 year old shot himself. If a 3 year old shot himself, there were a lot of other factors at play than just owning a gun.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,592
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jun 19, 2014 20:37:27 GMT -5
Confession from an old dinosaur mom: I never left my kids in the car (they didn't want to since they were too afraid they'd miss out on something) but there have been plenty of times when I did things that , looking back, make me go "Sh*T! I shouldn't have done that. That could have turned out really, really bad." And anyone, no matter how careful/thoughtful/judgemental/etc thinks they didn't once they are done raising said kids either has a very defective memory or is outright lying! I've said it before and I'll say it again: raising kids is hard work with a good dose of luck thrown in. So you didn't leave your kid in the car, but you left your child alone in the living room while cooking dinner. Think nothing can happen (choking, falling and breaking bones or worse)? There are pools in this world so kids can drown, and kids learn to open front doors before you realize it and end up in traffic while you were using the bathroom, etc., etc. All we can do is the best we can do and hope that is enough. And the judgement calls someone makes may not work for you personally, but then chances are that yours wouldn't work for the other person either. As for leaving a 4 year-old in the car? I know from personal experience that a 3-year old can unbuckle a car seat. He got one of his very few spankings for that too, after ignoring my warning that I would pull over and do so if he unbuckled. So I would not assume that the 4yo automatically would be in danger. But that's just me. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif)
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 20:41:06 GMT -5
Just because something else has more chance of hurting your child does not take away from the risk a parent would be taking when they leave their kid unattended in a car. So comparing is a poor way of justifying. One risk has no effect on the other one way or the other. Your kid plays outside unattended, yes there is a risk with that but that risk is independent of the risk you are taking by leaving your kid unattended in a car. I completely disagree. I think people have a huge problem judging risk and comparisons are necessary. People tend to be much more frightened when something seems scary or like they won't have control. This is why you have parents terrified of an abduction, but not making their kids wear seatbelts. Or why you have people terrified when something like SARS is in the news, but they don't bother to get flu shots or vaccinate their kids. People suck at judging risk and worry about the wrong damn things most of the time.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 19, 2014 20:51:43 GMT -5
Because the media has never overreacted and made a hoopla disproportionate to what's actually going on. And the police/government have never responded to said outrage in the media. The arrest of a 12 year old girl in FL over bullying when she hadn't spoken to the girl in months springs to mind.
A lot more lives could probably be saved if the police enforced the secured fences around pools law and people started making a stink about how you should have pool alarms that go off when something falls in given the number of kids that fall in when no one is paying attention - often when parents are mere feet away vs all the way in a gas station.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 20:51:58 GMT -5
"This is why you have parents terrified of an abduction, but not making their kids wear seatbelts. "
You are making my point exactly. Any risk is irrelevant to each other. All you are doing is justifying taking one risk you don't need to by saying i take worse risks anyway. Just because they don't make their kids wear safety belts has nothing to do with abduction. They should be doing something to reduce BOTH risks. Sure, one is a bigger risk but it doesn't mean you can let the other one go for being a smaller risk.
It is not just about how big of a risk but also how to manage it. Not leaving your kid in the car unattended is not that hard. So even if it is a small risk, it is one you can easily avoid... Just may not be convenient. But then again when you are a parent most things aren't convenient.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 20:59:05 GMT -5
I'm confused what you are asking...are you asking why the possibility of cops being called doesn't make me hesitate more? It did at DS2's daycare because I was specifically told it would happened. Elsewhere, honestly I find it very unlikely. I almost never do it anyway, I would never do it on a remotely warm day, and when I say it is under 5 minutes I am being literally because I check my phone to make sure they haven't been left long. Or are you asking why people wouldn't pause and wait a bit before calling knowing they might have charges filed against someone who was really only gone for a few minutes? I mean, it's taken so seriously. ..don't you think there's a reason for it? Oh, not really. Most states don't even have an actual law that you can't leave your kid in the car. And at least some that do are fairly moderate, like Florida's law applies to kids under 6 and says they can't be left for more than 15 minutes or if their health is in danger. So this blogger probably lives in a nanny state with an extreme law or is under playing what actually happened. I would put a law against leaving for 5 minutes in moderate weather along side laws as to what size soft drink can be sold. OK, probably not that bad, but something that is a good idea taken way too far.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 21:01:08 GMT -5
"This is why you have parents terrified of an abduction, but not making their kids wear seatbelts. " You are making my point exactly. Any risk is irrelevant to each other. All you are doing is justifying taking one risk you don't need to by saying i take worse risks anyway. Just because they don't make their kids wear safety belts has nothing to do with abduction. They should be doing something to reduce BOTH risks. Sure, one is a bigger risk but it doesn't mean you can let the other one go for being a smaller risk. It is not just about how big of a risk but also how to manage it. Not leaving your kid in the car unattended is not that hard. So even if it is a small risk, it is one you can easily avoid... Just may not be convenient. But then again when you are a parent most things aren't convenient. If you think I am proving your point, then you missed mine.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:10:27 GMT -5
I think i got your point. You are saying people take precautions for things that are less likely to happen but dont do anything about things that are more likely to happen. Am i right? What i am saying is exactly that attitude. Just because they are not taking precautions for the big stuff doesn't mean they should let it all go. Their mistake to begin with to not put the seatbelt on but that doesnt mean it is ok to leave your baby in a car (or at least for a long time for the ones who are ok with the short period). I don't ever put sunscreen on, does that mean i should just pick up smoking and not worry about lung cancer since i am not worried about skin cancer?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Jun 19, 2014 21:13:59 GMT -5
I wonder how some of you would be reacting if this essay had ended in tragedy instead of a messy legal battle and annoying public scrutiny/judgment. Because if her child had died, I'm sure she never would have forgiven herself. And that's not the urban myth some of you are making it out to be. Sure, her kid was just fine and in minimal danger, if any. But I'm sure the parents who had kids die in cars they intentionally left them in felt justified in their choice at the time also.
So here's an alternate version of the "how old does the kid have to be for you to MYOFB" question: At what point SHOULD bystanders get involved when it comes to kids in cars? For the folks who are saying it's a minimal risk and so forth, would you EVER call the cops in this situation? Or do you just always figure the parents know what they're doing?
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jun 19, 2014 21:17:21 GMT -5
Its going to take a long time to catch up on the specifics, but the story touches upon something I grow more and more fearful of; everyone is walking around with a TV studio in their pocket, and the ability to reach the world with it. And most of what is broadcast does not represent the full extent of the truth.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 19, 2014 21:19:08 GMT -5
No, but you should be a hell of a lot more scared of dying from melanoma because you wouldn't wear sunscreen and leaving you kid alone than that he'll die from heat stroke in your car.
One person dies from melanoma every hour (to say nothing of other skin cancers) compared to one kid dying every 9+ days from being left in a car.
Being consumed by "saving" someone from minute chances and ignoring saving yourself/someone from big chances just makes no sense.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 19, 2014 21:22:03 GMT -5
I wonder how some of you would be reacting if this essay had ended in tragedy instead of a messy legal battle and annoying public scrutiny/judgment. Because if her child had died, I'm sure she never would have forgiven herself. And that's not the urban myth some of you are making it out to be. Sure, her kid was just fine and in minimal danger, if any. But I'm sure the parents who had kids die in cars they intentionally left them in felt justified in their choice at the time also. So here's an alternate version of the "how old does the kid have to be for you to MYOFB" question: At what point SHOULD bystanders get involved when it comes to kids in cars? For the folks who are saying it's a minimal risk and so forth, would you EVER call the cops in this situation? Or do you just always figure the parents know what they're doing? I'd get involved if it was obvious the kid was distressed or weather a kid shouldn't be in a car, I had been watching and it had be a long time compared to the age of the child. But I think by the time the kid was in a booster seat, or out of it, I wouldn't do a thing unless the kid was passed out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:23:16 GMT -5
"I wonder how some of you would be reacting if this essay had ended in tragedy instead of a messy legal battle and annoying public scrutiny/judgment. Because if her child had died, I'm sure she never would have forgiven herself. And that's not the urban myth some of you are making it out to be. Sure, her kid was just fine and in minimal danger, if any. But I'm sure the parents who had kids die in cars they intentionally left them in felt justified in their choice at the time also.
So here's an alternate version of the "how old does the kid have to be for you to MYOFB" question: At what point SHOULD bystanders get involved when it comes to kids in cars? For the folks who are saying it's a minimal risk and so forth, would you EVER call the cops in this situation? Or do you just always figure the parents know what they're doing?"
I wonder the same. I am sure the parents of the few kids that died thought they were ok. Or maybe they were forgotten in the car. And somebody just decided to go with MYOFB.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:26:08 GMT -5
"No, but you should be a hell of a lot more scared of dying from melanoma because you wouldn't wear sunscreen and leaving you kid alone than that he'll die from heat stroke in your car. "
I am not saying i am scared of one more over the other. The higher risk doesnt negate the lower risk. I would agree if it was such a hard thing to do but taking the kid with you will cost you a few extra minutes or 15 minutes and maybe in some cases a screaming kid. Neither are worth even the tiniest risk.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Jun 19, 2014 21:26:51 GMT -5
I think i got your point. You are saying people take precautions for things that are less likely to happen but dont do anything about things that are more likely to happen. Am i right? What i am saying is exactly that attitude. Just because they are not taking precautions for the big stuff doesn't mean they should let it all go. Their mistake to begin with to not put the seatbelt on but that doesnt mean it is ok to leave your baby in a car (or at least for a long time for the ones who are ok with the short period). I don't ever put sunscreen on, does that mean i should just pick up smoking and not worry about lung cancer since i am not worried about skin cancer? Do you really think we can protect our kids from everything? Because we take risks every day. We leave DD in her high chair by herself. We turn our back on her in the living room when she could jump off and hurt herself. But at some point we have to use the bathroom.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:30:17 GMT -5
"I'd get involved if it was obvious the kid was distressed or weather a kid shouldn't be in a car, I had been watching and it had be a long time compared to the age of the child. But I think by the time the kid was in a booster seat, or out of it, I wouldn't do a thing unless the kid was passed out."
How would you know exactly that kid was passed out and not just sleeping? How would you know how long the kid had been in the car alone? Would you really sit there and watch the car for a long time to see if it had been a long time for the age of the child? If you are considering any of the above things you said, you should be calling because you don 't know the situation unless you witness it from the very beginning like exactly in the story.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 19, 2014 21:30:36 GMT -5
I would think putting sunscreen on takes a lot less time then wrestling a kid that doesn't want to go someplace or dressing the kid back into winter appropriate clothing. I've never done the latter two, but the former takes me all of 2 minutes to put on. Certainly not a hard thing to do, and has a good chance of making sure your kid doesn't grow up without you yet you don't do it, yet you won't do that.
So you won't do something that takes a) less time than it would to bring the kid in with you for a 5 min trip and b) is more likely to effect your son's life.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:32:13 GMT -5
"Do you really think we can protect our kids from everything? "
No of course not and i didnt say anything remotely close to that. What i said is this situation is something you can very easily (but not conveniently) avoid.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 21:34:43 GMT -5
I think i got your point. You are saying people take precautions for things that are less likely to happen but dont do anything about things that are more likely to happen. Am i right? What i am saying is exactly that attitude. Just because they are not taking precautions for the big stuff doesn't mean they should let it all go. Their mistake to begin with to not put the seatbelt on but that doesnt mean it is ok to leave your baby in a car (or at least for a long time for the ones who are ok with the short period). I don't ever put sunscreen on, does that mean i should just pick up smoking and not worry about lung cancer since i am not worried about skin cancer? No, I am saying people are morons when it comes to assessing risk. We have 8 deaths a year. The odds are virtually zero that anything will happen in 5 minutes on a mild day to a kid in a vehicle. And unless I am a complete idiot, then the odds of me not being able to return to my vehicle within 5 minutes are virtually zero. So, the risk level of this behavior, when done intelligently is basically zero. Yet everyone is up in arms over this behavior as though it is high risk. Everyday behavior that no one would chastise a parent for is statistally way riskier. Riding a bike even with a helmet is far less safe and that would also be an avoidable death, but I doubt any one on here would suggest kids shouldn't ride bikes. I am not saying this is ok just because it is less risky than riding a bike. I am saying it is ok because there is basically zero risk if you aren't an idiot. But, people suck at judging risk...even with numbers. So I find comparisons helpful.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 19, 2014 21:35:30 GMT -5
"I'd get involved if it was obvious the kid was distressed or weather a kid shouldn't be in a car, I had been watching and it had be a long time compared to the age of the child. But I think by the time the kid was in a booster seat, or out of it, I wouldn't do a thing unless the kid was passed out." How would you know exactly that kid was passed out and not just sleeping? How would you know how long the kid had been in the car alone? Would you really sit there and watch the car for a long time to see if it had been a long time for the age of the child? If you are considering any of the above things you said, you should be calling because you don 't know the situation unless you witness it from the very beginning like exactly in the story. If it was warm outside and I saw the kid with its eyes closed I would knock on the window before I called. I wouldn't know how long the kid was in the car, but the signs of heat stroke (again, what kills the kids, NOT suffocation) are things like panting, redness and sweating - kind of easy to visibly see. It's not like one should walk off after you call the cops anyways, so taking a minute or two to decide if it's actually an emergency takes up more of a person's time. But guess what - I've yet to see a kid stuck in a car when I've been in parking lots on a warm day and I friggin live in Florida. A state where one would react more quickly since most days it's over 80!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:39:22 GMT -5
"No, I am saying people are morons when it comes to assessing risk. We have 8 deaths a year. The odds are virtually zero that anything will happen in 5 minutes on a mild day to a kid in a vehicle. And unless I am a complete idiot, then the odds of me not being able to return to my vehicle within 5 minutes are virtually zero."
You were saying 20 minutes in one of your posts... But in any case, if i see your kid in your car by herself, i would call the cops because i would not know how long she'd been in there. And if you are really back within 5 minutes you will be back before i am off the phone with cops even if i see your kid 2 seconds after you leave).
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 21:42:44 GMT -5
If i saw a kid left in a car, then I would judge the situation based on the age or the kid, the appearance of the kid, and the weather. If the kid was in bad condition I would obviously call for help immediately and break a window if needed. If the kid appears ok, but I am concerned base on age, then I would wait 5-10 minutes before calling the police.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 21:45:19 GMT -5
"No, I am saying people are morons when it comes to assessing risk. We have 8 deaths a year. The odds are virtually zero that anything will happen in 5 minutes on a mild day to a kid in a vehicle. And unless I am a complete idiot, then the odds of me not being able to return to my vehicle within 5 minutes are virtually zero." You were saying 20 minutes in one of your posts... But in any case, if i see your kid in your car by herself, i would call the cops because i would not know how long she'd been in there. And if you are really back within 5 minutes you will be back before i am off the phone with cops even if i see your kid 2 seconds after you leave). Lol, no I guess I wasn't clear. I meant 20 minutes total for the entire past year. Like I have probably left them 3-5 times for up to 5 minutes at a time. I was trying to make it clear I don't do this very often.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:46:21 GMT -5
"If the kid appears ok, but I am concerned base on age, then I would wait 5-10 minutes before calling the police"
What if you didnt have time to wait? For example you had left your own kid in the car or had to go pick them up or something. Then would you just leave without doing anything?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:47:14 GMT -5
"Lol, no I guess I wasn't clear. I meant 20 minutes total for the entire past year. Like I have probably left them 3-5 times for up to 5 minutes at a time. I was trying to make it clear I don't do this very often."
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 19, 2014 21:53:22 GMT -5
"If the kid appears ok, but I am concerned base on age, then I would wait 5-10 minutes before calling the police" What if you didnt have time to wait? For example you had left your own kid in the car or had to go pick them up or something. Then would you just leave without doing anything? If I was that concerned I would wait. If waiting was literally not an option and I was very concerned, then I would call the police and give the location. I would not take pictures and give the license plate though. Thinking about it, some of it would also have to do with the location of the car. I would be more apt to call if it is sitting outside a bar or Walmart than outside a gas station. Just based on the typical time someone might spend in the location. I am not against calling the police when the situation warrants it. I just don't think seeing a 4 year older in a car playing an iPad warrants an immediate call.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 1:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 21:56:50 GMT -5
Actually something like this did happen to me, well while with my friend. We went to brunch in an area where there werent too many people. When we left the restaurant my friend saw that her back door was slightly open, she apparently didnt shut all the way after taking her 18-month old daughter out. So she opened the door, put her daughter in the seat, she had a little bagel she was eating still. Then closed the door. Then realized she had put the keys in the diaper bag instead of her purse and it was now locked inside. So now the baby was locked in the car with a bagel (could choke) and while it wasnt a very hot day, it was still not that cool either (houston). We panicked, tried to call a locksmith and they said call 911 because it will be faster. And we did. 5 -10 minutes later 2 cop cars followed by a fire truck showed up right at the same time as the locksmith. So this wasnt the same kind of situation but we still called 911 and they took this very seriously. I would have never thought to call 911 for my own (or my friend's) car and would have attempted to have it opened by a locksmith or someone around. Better safe than sorry...
|
|