Mom on Trial - Leaves child in Car for minutes

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

We don't know enough to condemn the mother either, yet she has been condemned here.

I can't "condemn" this mother in a legal sense but I do feel like I have enough information, by her own admission, to say that her judgement was poor on that day. I don't think that a child that small should ever be left in a car alone and I do not think that people should illegally park in loading zones (which is minor by comparison, admittedly). That doesn't mean that she should necessarily go to jail. That, I do not have enough info to form an opinion on.

 

[poohandwendy]

I can't "condemn" this mother in a legal sense but I do feel like I have enough information, by her own admission, to say that her judgement was poor on that day. I don't think that a child that small should ever be left in a car alone and I do not think that people should illegally park in loading zones (which is minor by comparison, admittedly). That doesn't mean that she should necessarily go to jail. That, I do not have enough info to form an opinion on.

Exactly, you feel you have enough information to make a judgment, your opinion is based on what you think is the right thing to do. Other people feel they have enough information to make a different judgment based on their opinion. None of our judgments are going to result in sentencing. All of our judgments are merely opinions stated in a discussion on a message board.

It's very possible that all of our opinions would be different if we had different information.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

Exactly, you feel you have enough information to make a judgment, your opinion is based on what you think is the right thing to do. Other people feel they have enough information to make a different judgment based on their opinion. None of our judgments are going to result in sentencing. All of our judgments are merely opinions stated in a discussion on a message board.

It's very possible that all of our opinions would be different if we had different information.

Yes? You said that like I've been disagreeing with you. I don't recall saying that people couldn't have different opinions based on the information we have.

 

[NYBlue1]

I wouldn't know. I usually tend to side with the cops in most cases. I guess that works both ways. We don't know enough to condemn the mother either, yet she has been condemned here.

Going with what little we have, I have formed my opinion. It's a message board, not a jury. It's only a discussion based on what bits and pieces we have at our disposal. It would be quite boring if every topic required all angles represented and only facts known. We wouldn't have anything to discuss if those were the requirements. As it stands, we are taking a newsbit and commenting on what our general feelings are given the little information we have. I think it goes without saying that if other truths came to light, opinions would change.

If this were a jury, I would agree that it is important that we have all of the facts.

I am not condemning the mother, never did in the entire thread. I dont care for the jumping to conclusions where the police are involved. I have no problems with people discussing opinions. I do have a problem with the rude comments made regarding the police when the entire story is not present,that is wrong in my opinion.

I dont think the woman should have been arrested if the story happened the way the mother said it happened, it could have been handled differently, but without the other side, I cant make an intelligent argument against the police , condemning them, calling them names and everything else throw their way on this thread.

 

[le_queef]

Welcome to the nanny state. Common sense get's thrown out the window.

 

[schnerk]

I don't know if anyone saw this...

From MSNBC.com


Charges will be dropped against a woman who briefly left her 2-year-old daughter alone in the car to take her two older daughters to pour coins into a Salvation Army kettle, prosecutors said Thursday.

The woman, Treffly Coyne, was charged with misdemeanor child endangerment and obstructing a peace officer after a Crestwood police officer spotted her sleeping daughter alone in the vehicle Dec. 8. The mother claimed she was close by at all times and was gone for just minutes.

Coyne’s trial was supposed to begin Thursday, but prosecutors could not meet the burden of proof and decided to drop the charges, Cook County State’s Attorney spokesman John Gorman said.

Her husband reacted with relief and anger. If convicted, his wife faced up to a year in jail and a fine of $2,500.

“We shouldn’t have had to fight this long and this hard when my wife never did anything wrong,” said Timothy Janecyk. The planned dismissal of the charges “only shows they tore my family apart for no reason.”

Coyne, who was arrested in a loading zone near the entrance of a Wal-Mart store, contended 2-year-old Phoebe, who was sleeping, was safe inside the car after she locked it, activated the alarm system and turned on the emergency flashers.

She said she was never more than 30 feet from the vehicle, did not step inside the store and was gone for only minutes. And her attorney said because the car was always in sight, Coyne’s daughter never was unattended.

Crestwood Police Chief Timothy Sulikowski said he disagreed with prosecutors’ decision.

“We stand by the actions of our officers that night and they were looking out for the best interests of the child,” he said.

Sulikowski said that while police were obligated to report the case to the state’s child welfare agency, Coyne would not have been arrested had she cooperated and not refused to give them basic information, including the child’s name.

“By not providing us with that information and the information of her child, at that point we don’t know that that child is hers. We don’t know if that child has been listed as a kidnapped child or a missing child,” he said. “Absolutely, she forced this.”

Coyne has acknowledged that she did not tell the officers her child’s name after she called her husband on her cell phone and he told her not to say anything until he arrived. She said she was afraid and only wanted to wait for her husband, but police arrested her before he did.

 

[mickeyboat]

Uh, Denae, the only issue I have is using ParentDish as a source. I read the blog a lot and they are sometimes pretty bad about getting facts wrong and embellishing the stories. Is there a news report that says the children were left alone?

I hear you. But since we don't have any sworn witness testimony to go from, we have what we have.

ParentDish? That's hardly a "source".

Also, I'm quite surprised that you don't realize the difference between a court precedent and a law. When a court rules a law to be unconstitutional, it sets a precedent. Therefore, when someone is charged under that law again and goes before the courts, they will likely get off because a precedent has been set. However, if the law isn't formally repealed, it can and will still be enforced. You seem to be suggesting that the police officer should have acted as a judiciary instead of an enforcer. There was nothing wrong with him charging her under that law in the terms of his role. Furthermore, the DA supported the charge.

After you graduate from law school, please review and report back to me.

Also, you are changing the terms of the argument every time I counter what you say. You said that because the child was left for 10 minutes, she broke the law. That part of the law was declared unconstitutional (not precedent-setting, UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Precedent often interprets the meaning of a law, or the application of the law. They are two different things).

In order for a charge of endangerment to stick, the other parts of the statute must be met. Of course she could still have been charged, but there is some judgment involved. I feel the cop used poor judgment (which they do sometimes, see CNN's video today of cops HITTING someone with their car). Period.

I am done arguing with you just for the sake of argument.

Have a pleasant day!

Denae

 

[disneymom3]

ParentDish? That's hardly a "source".

Also, I'm quite surprised that you don't realize the difference between a court precedent and a law. When a court rules a law to be unconstitutional, it sets a precedent. Therefore, when someone is charged under that law again and goes before the courts, they will likely get off because a precedent has been set. However, if the law isn't formally repealed, it can and will still be enforced. You seem to be suggesting that the police officer should have acted as a judiciary instead of an enforcer. There was nothing wrong with him charging her under that law in the terms of his role. Furthermore, the DA supported the charge.

I am quite surprised that you sound so condescending.

 

[daisax]

The parents are now suing the town for leaving the children unattended. The father said they were going to drop it until the city insisted the cops had done the right thing.

It will be interesting if the police defense to leaving the kids alone was "they weren't alone -- we were 30 feet away! They were FINE!"

 

[schnerk]

The parents are now suing the town for leaving the children unattended. The father said they were going to drop it until the city insisted the cops had done the right thing.

It will be interesting if the police defense to leaving the kids alone was "they weren't alone -- we were 30 feet away! They were FINE!"

I am pretty sure that there are laws protecting law enforement agents from prosecution when they are attempting to enforce the law.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

I am quite surprised that you sound so condescending.

I was speaking directly to someone who claims to be an attorney who seems to have an odd understanding of the law.

 

[meandtheguys2]

LOL, I knew you couldn't just walk away.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

LOL, I knew you couldn't just walk away.

I didn't say I was walking away. I think this is a really interesting case.

 

[Missy1961]

They dropped the charges, maybe we should kill this thread.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

They dropped the charges, maybe we should kill this thread.

I would like to follow the story. I would like to know what comes of this accusation against the police officer and if they are going to sue. If no one else is interested, I'm sure the thread will die.