Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Sheriff Makes Good On Threat


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

Posted

I wondered why, when the sheriff said he was going to embarrass the kids, the kid's face was blanked out.

 

But I guess that was the television station's idea. Because this TV news didn't block it out.

 

 

Posted

Here in Florida we don't mess around, especially with Sheriff's like Chitwood and Grady.

 

 

Posted

Two things:

 

1.  " Atta boy Sheriff.  Go for the juglar every time

 

2;  Who is this ten year old news caster?  He was more coherent and adult with his questions and comments than 95% of the older so called "News" people on TV, radio, or in the newspapers. and almost every left wing politicians and their puppets and followers.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Black Angus McPherson said:

I don't have a problem with how he handles the kids.  I do have a problem with him trying to charge the parents for the cost of the investigation.  Charge the kid, if you can, but the parents didn't make the threats.

 

Angus

Parents are supposed to be responsible for minor kids.  Most dn't appear to be and will fight like hell to be excused from this.

 

Time to make the parents responsible again and stop making excuses for their kids' actions.

 

Why do you want to let the adults off the hook for the minors' action, just like they get off the hook for almost anything the little brats do..

Posted
9 hours ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

Here in Florida we don't mess around, especially with Sheriff's like Chitwood and Grady.

 

You forgot about our favorite on this side of the state, Ivey. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Parents are supposed to be responsible for minor kids.  Most dn't appear to be and will fight like hell to be excused from this.

 

Time to make the parents responsible again and stop making excuses for their kids' actions.

 

Why do you want to let the adults off the hook for the minors' action, just like they get off the hook for almost anything the little brats do..

 

I would ask, Why do you want to punish one person for the actions of another?

At what point does it stop?  You're 17 year old steals a car/robs a bank/rapes the neighbor/pick your crime, so then you should be jailed with them?  Or just sued into bankruptcy?  Why stop with minors?  If you raised the kid you should be responsible forever.  Maybe, if we would allow Momma's old threat "I brought you into this world, I can take you out."  I've known some good people that had their kids turn to s#!t

 

Nope, not a fan.  I see little difference between this and making people, today, pay for the sins of slave owners 200 years ago.

 

That's one man's opinion.

 

Angus 

And 40, Thanks for being a people like you being a reason people like me can bitch about people like you. ;)

(For the record, I would never bitch about people like you.  I actually like what I know of you and frequently agree with you.  I am merely stating a differing opinion on this matter.)

 

Posted

while I cannot comment on the above --- I did tell my children that if they ever acted up in school (elementary school or High School) that I or their mother would make sure they minded their manners when we would accompany them to school for (an/the) entire day if they ever got into trouble.  This included recesses, lunch period and holding their hand while walking between classes.  It only took 1 incident, and all towed the line for the remainder of their education...

Posted
1 hour ago, Black Angus McPherson said:

I would ask, Why do you want to punish one person for the actions of another?

On the point of parents and minor children, I think we’ll have to respectfully disagree. 

If a minor has an at-fault auto accident, the parents’ insurance rates go up. 


If a minor wants a loan to buy a car/motorcycle/etc, the parents have to co-sign. 
 

Once upon a time, if a child pulled the school’s fire alarm, the parents were called to account with the principal and fire chief. 
 

I’m HIGHLY an advocate of personal accountability, but parents and minor children are a nuanced situation.  We need to stop blanket absolving parents for their kids’ actions. 

Posted

Many years back, we came home and as I got out of the wife's car I noticed my truck window was down. That surprised me. I go over to look, and it is not rolled down. It has been shot out. Go in the house to call the law. I'm going to the kitchen to get the phone and the kitchen floor is covered with glass. Kitchen windows have been shot out.

 

When the cop arrived the man across the street came over and said that Randy, who lived next door, and Jonathan, who lived down the street, had been up on Randy's roof shooting at my house with a BB gun.

 

Jonathan's father paid to have new windows put in my truck. Randy's father, who installed glass for a living, personally put new windows in my kitchen. Because they were responsible for the stuff their children did. Those two 10-year-old kids could not come up with the four or five hundred dollars it cost to replace that glass.

 

Now as to when it is supposed to stop - don't know. If my 17-year-old threw a brick through the store window, it doesn't seem right to me that I should be financially responsible. If my 10-year-old did it - same brick, same window - yeah. I pay. Then I beat the living hell out of the kid.

 

But the hypothetical 17-year-olds in my statement and in yours are irrelevant. That kid the cop arrested was 11. And his parents are financially responsible for his uh-ohs.

Posted

If the parents did their job while a child was young,they likely wouldn't grow up to be a thug.

Posted

Age of majority seems to have been agreed upon as 18.

 

Your 17 year old can't vote or sign a binding contract cause the law recognizes they are minors.  

 

If your 17 year old  brick thrower is charged as an adult I figure you'd be off the hook legally but if they go to juvie court I bet you gotta pay.

Posted

Going off on a tangent --

 

We have the age of consent, which is the age where they decide you are old enough that you can make the decision whether or not to have sex. According to the television it is 18 everywhere in the world, which is nonsense.

 

If you do a search on age of consent in the United States, they run from a high of 18 down to a low of I believe 14. I know 16 is the age of consent in several States.

 

So my question is, if you're considered old enough to legally have sex, does that mean you're considered old enough to be tried as an adult when you break the law?

 

 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.