Mom on Trial - Leaves child in Car for minutes

[mickeyboat]

Whether it got dropped or it didn't, the charge still indicates that this lady acted badly to some extent toward the police. I don't know exactly what she said or did but, no matter what people say, police typically don't charge people with random charges of obstruction when they are being calm and cooperative.

The charges also indicated that the lady endangered her child, which many people on the DIS, and in the DA's office believe was not true.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

The charges also indicated that the lady endangered her child, which many people on the DIS, and in the DA's office believe was not true.

They might not agree with the police officer's assessment but they can at least understand the police officer's reasoning for the charge. Therefore, even if she shouldn't have been arrested for obstruction of a peace officer, I think it's fair to say that there must have been something that led to this charge. Or are you trying to say that the officer just randomly arrested her and that the police department is corrupt?

 

[chobie]

They might not agree with the police officer's assessment but they can at least understand the police officer's reasoning for the charge. Therefore, even if she shouldn't have been arrested for obstruction of a peace officer, I think it's fair to say that there must have been something that led to this charge. Or are you trying to say that the officer just randomly arrested her and that the police department is corrupt?

Or maybe the police man was just over zealous.

 

[mickeyboat]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Since neither one of us was there, we only have our own suppositions about the situation on which to base our arguments.

I am sure the officer had some reason to bring up the charges. I would not assume the officer was corrupt or randomly arrested her. I would assert that he was mistaken about what was required to make a case on these charges.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

I am sure the officer had some reason to bring up the charges. I would not assume the officer was corrupt or randomly arrested her. I would assert that he was mistaken about what was required to make a case on these charges.

But his/her job isn't to think about making a case. His/her job is to respond immediately to the situation at hand. He/she is in no way a lawyer, a judge, or a jury.

 

[daisax]

I would not assume the officer was corrupt

Feel free -- he IS. He's double dipping -- working a job with full disability in one district while acting as a police officer in another.

Of course even though I read it this morning I can't find the link -- anybody have it handy?

 

[piglet too]

Here is what I can find on the officer
http://www.nbc5.com/news/15631237/detail.html
http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/847820,CST-NWS-cop18.article

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Ok, so let's say that he is collecting disability while working. That's wrong, right? But I think what the woman did was also wrong. His cheating the system doesn't make her any less wrong, in my opinion.

 

[piglet too]

I don't believe that the two situations are in any way related. It just so happens that because of his involvement in the mother's arrest, someone dredged up this information. If you feel that what she did is wrong, we'll just agree to disagree on that, then yes, both actions are wrong. (did that make any sense??) His cheating the system should have nothing to do with her and her case.

 

[mickeyboat]

But his/her job isn't to think about making a case. His/her job is to respond immediately to the situation at hand. He/she is in no way a lawyer, a judge, or a jury.

But his job is to know what the law is. He can't arrest people just because he does not like their parenting methods. He can only arrest people when he has probable cause to believe they committed a crime. There is judgment involved, sure, and he clearly made an error in his judgment in this case.

Denae

 

[NYBlue1]

But his job is to know what the law is. He can't arrest people just because he does not like their parenting methods. He can only arrest people when he has probable cause to believe they committed a crime. There is judgment involved, sure, and he clearly made an error in his judgment in this case.

Denae

Again...Just because a case is dropped before it goes to court does not mean that the officer did not have the right to arrest her in the first place. The DA's office even formally charged and prepared for trial, because the charges were dropped, does not mean the officer was wrong to arrest.

It was in the best intrest of justice for this woman to not have been charged. If the woman had not decided that she did not have to respond to lawful orders from the officers and talk on her cell phone instead of straighting the whole thing out in he first place, my guess, this never got as ugly as it did, believe it or not, sometimes good people, freak out and force the hand of an officer.

You have to stop saying the officer did not know the law, the officer knew the law and the charge was arrestable or the DA would not have taken it to the point they did. PLEASE stop saying the charge was not arestable,and the officer does not know the law its just not true.

 

[meandtheguys2]

believe it or not, sometimes good people, freak out and force the hand of an officer.

Kind of like his girlfriend the community officer?

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that she (the mom) might not have been less than happy with the situation. You cannot expect someone being accosted and accused of neglect to react calmly, however.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

But his job is to know what the law is. He can't arrest people just because he does not like their parenting methods. He can only arrest people when he has probable cause to believe they committed a crime. There is judgment involved, sure, and he clearly made an error in his judgment in this case.

Denae

He obviously knew the law. Whenever a police officer is called to the scene for a child neglect case they have to respond. The law says that children were not to be left alone in vehicles. Period. I'm not sure what you are disputing here. He could have chose to deal with this lady differently, sure. But to say that he was acting outside of the law is very misinformed.

 

[NYBlue1]

Kind of like his girlfriend the community officer?

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that she (the mom) might not have been less than happy with the situation. You cannot expect someone being accosted and accused of neglect to react calmly, however.

I dont know, I was not there to see the situation, you are going by the word of the woman that was being questioned. Like I said last time, why is this womans word the end all be all?

None of us were there to see what happened and all the information is from the mothers account. You cant go by one persons account. If the community officer found a child alone in a car they have every right to contact the police to investigate the situation.

 

[meandtheguys2]

He obviously knew the law. Whenever a police officer is called to the scene for a child neglect case they have to respond. The law says that children were not to be left alone in vehicles. Period. I'm not sure what you are disputing here. He could have chose to deal with this lady differently, sure. But to say that he was acting outside of the law is very misinformed.

There is room within the law, however for common sense. If my child is in the car 5 feet away while I talk with someone, am I breaking the law? Maybe the letter. What about 10 feet? What if I have 2 kids in the car, and one is 13? He is legally allowed to babysit, so am I covered? A good police officer would have defused the situation. It isn't hard. He was probably afraid he wouldn't get any lovin' that evening if he didn't...

 

[NYBlue1]

Feel free -- he IS. He's double dipping -- working a job with full disability in one district while acting as a police officer in another.

Of course even though I read it this morning I can't find the link -- anybody have it handy?

From what I understand he is working he is just working the desk not heavy lifting, how is that double dipping

 

[mickeyboat]

Again...Just because a case is dropped before it goes to court does not mean that the officer did not have the right to arrest her in the first place. The DA's office even formally charged and prepared for trial, because the charges were dropped, does not mean the officer was wrong to arrest.

It was in the best intrest of justice for this woman to not have been charged. If the woman had not decided that she did not have to respond to lawful orders from the officers and talk on her cell phone instead of straighting the whole thing out in he first place, my guess, this never got as ugly as it did, believe it or not, sometimes good people, freak out and force the hand of an officer.

You have to stop saying the officer did not know the law, the officer knew the law and the charge was arrestable or the DA would not have taken it to the point they did. PLEASE stop saying the charge was not arestable,and the officer does not know the law its just not true.

According to my read of the limited facts we have been presented, the officer made an error in judgment. I have never said he was corrupt, just that he misinterpreted the situation, and that he possibly confused his idea of bad parenting with something that was against the law.

As to how the scene unfolded, perhaps if the mother did not return to her vehicle to find an "angry officer," she might have been more cooperative. Perhaps it would not have gotten to the point if the officer had not blocked return to the vehicle, effectively cutting her off from her child. Perhaps it would not have gotten to that point had the officer not yelled at the mother in a tirade.

http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-031208-chicago-mom,0,1603569.story

I tell you what. If a police office blocked the way to my child and started screaming at me, you can bet your life I would not stand still and quiet. The least I would do is call DH on my cell and refuse to answer questions.

Denae

 

[mickeyboat]

He obviously knew the law. Whenever a police officer is called to the scene for a child neglect case they have to respond. The law says that children were not to be left alone in vehicles. Period. I'm not sure what you are disputing here. He could have chose to deal with this lady differently, sure. But to say that he was acting outside of the law is very misinformed.

The law does not say that.

 

[NYBlue1]

My DH has told me NEVER to talk to the police, to call a lawyer first.

You are bound by law to answer basic questions such as name date of birth when a police officer questions you , if you dont want to answer any questions after that , you do have the right to ask for a lawyer after you have been arrested and read your miranda warnings. if you did nothing wrong why ask for a lawyer? Why cause yourself the trouble of getting arrested for hampering an investigation or just be brought in for further investigation because you are acting suspeciously by refusing to answer simple non incriminating questions? Nothing can be used against you untill you have been arrested and read those warnings, the miranda , or the right to remain silent, right to an attorney ect ect.

Your husbands advice is putting you in a bad position

 

[mickeyboat]

"Bizarrely, while she was being arrested and transported to jail, the girls she had taken to the Salvation Army kettle were left alone in the parking lot and later found huddle on a bench inside Wal-Mart, too terrified by the police officers to ask for help."

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/03/07/was-it-really-child-endangerment-in-illinois-parking-lot/