And how many people have heard from the police that a curfew is generally not in force?
Sorry, arresting 425 kids without warning is ridiculous. Second of all, in my opinion as well as in the opinion of the ACLU, youth curfew laws are unconstitutional - there is no legal basis to restrict the movement of a law abiding citizen and U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that it was unconstitutional based on a lawsuit filed against Washington DC.
While the District tried to argue that minors simply do not have a constitutional right to freedom of movement as adults do, the Judge disagreed, pointing to ample Supreme Court precedent supporting that right with only narrow limitations. Among the cases he quoted was a 1976 landmark decision, in which the Court commented, "Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority."
So, on that basis alone, I say non-lawbreaking minors have a right to be wherever they damn well please if they have their parents permission, and the government is in the wrong for attempting to legislate morality *again*.
My second point is that my son is homeschooled. He is four years old, and we do not follow the time clock of the rest of America - I and my husband work until four a.m. He goes to sleep around 2-3 am and he wakes up around 12 p.m., and if his pediatrition has no problem with it it's no one's business where he is at 1 a.m. or what he's doing at 1 a.m. other than mine.
*If* they were breaking a law (that was constitutional) it was loitering, and if they were loitering the common means to stop the loitering is to ask people to leave and if they don't go, then you arrest them - this swarm and book gestapo tactic was inexcusable. How many were arrested for drugs? drinking? If they had been, I bet it would have been in that article.
WalMart and KMart both have a history of allowing people to loiter - they both have aggressive PR programs that invite traveling elderly folks in RV's to park overnight at their stores in hopes of becoming their stock up stop. In light of that, this was ageism in it's truest extent.
I hope that this ACLU gets involved, because no matter which way you look at it this was firing a shotgun at a fly, and IMO a severe violation of those kids' civil rights.
I admit I know little about curfew - besides I should not have brought it up because it is not part of the article.
What I will say is that many people are not seeing the whole issue as the article is biased and leaves out TOO much information and all any of us has is speculative.
I dont believe if any one was arrested for drugs or alcohol would be in the article at all if it did or did not happen.
My complaint is that the article is misleading because it leaves out too many details. I am trying to see things from all sides.
I still believe that under age kids, (yes they have civil rights and yes, those rights may have been broken) were unattended by their legal guardians or unsupervised and should not have been - unattended that is.
Do you then disagree with driver's licenses for kids 16, 17, and 18
Do you disagree with laws that allow parents to leave children at home alone if they are 10 and older?
Do you have an explanation as to why someone over 18 years old, the age of majority and the age in which one is legally allowed to cast a vote and legally allowed to sign up for the military or enter a contract without parental permission, were arrested? (Brandi Ratliff, 18. Kris Karsteter, 21. Kyesa Scott, 18. Emily Demmler, 19. Jerome Williams, 19.)
The only person in that article that we know for *sure* was arrested that was under age was Soneary Sy's son, who was a 17 year old straight A student. There was nothing presented other than one young woman's report that there "appeared to be" kids as young as fourteen, and one as young as 10. The people that we do know were arrested were older teens and young adults of the legal age of majority in a public place, and some who had patronized that public place and spent money in the places of business that took their money and then allowed them to be arrested.
That's what we do know from that article. And if, as you say, the article was light on facts and therefor none of us should be making judgments, I fail to see where you are getting your facts to support your theories.
The facts, as I see them, is that older teens and young adults were arrested in a public place without a warning to leave on the request of a company that has a policy of allowing loitering by the elderly. The article said the Houston PD "arrested about 425 people for criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor" - not for curfew violations. The stores would have had to press trespassing charges against the youths, all 425, as this was a public parking lot and not a private place.
How you can come to the conclusion that the Houston PPD was right is beyond me, but your assertion that there isn't enough information in there to make a judgment is *really* beyond me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Woah... Before you judge the parents...
Date: 2002-08-26 10:44 pm (UTC)Sorry, arresting 425 kids without warning is ridiculous. Second of all, in my opinion as well as in the opinion of the ACLU, youth curfew laws are unconstitutional - there is no legal basis to restrict the movement of a law abiding citizen and U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that it was unconstitutional based on a lawsuit filed against Washington DC.
While the District tried to argue that minors simply do not have a constitutional right to freedom of movement as adults do, the Judge disagreed, pointing to ample Supreme Court precedent supporting that right with only narrow limitations. Among the cases he quoted was a 1976 landmark decision, in which the Court commented, "Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority."
So, on that basis alone, I say non-lawbreaking minors have a right to be wherever they damn well please if they have their parents permission, and the government is in the wrong for attempting to legislate morality *again*.
My second point is that my son is homeschooled. He is four years old, and we do not follow the time clock of the rest of America - I and my husband work until four a.m. He goes to sleep around 2-3 am and he wakes up around 12 p.m., and if his pediatrition has no problem with it it's no one's business where he is at 1 a.m. or what he's doing at 1 a.m. other than mine.
*If* they were breaking a law (that was constitutional) it was loitering, and if they were loitering the common means to stop the loitering is to ask people to leave and if they don't go, then you arrest them - this swarm and book gestapo tactic was inexcusable. How many were arrested for drugs? drinking? If they had been, I bet it would have been in that article.
WalMart and KMart both have a history of allowing people to loiter - they both have aggressive PR programs that invite traveling elderly folks in RV's to park overnight at their stores in hopes of becoming their stock up stop. In light of that, this was ageism in it's truest extent.
I hope that this ACLU gets involved, because no matter which way you look at it this was firing a shotgun at a fly, and IMO a severe violation of those kids' civil rights.
Re: Woah... Before you judge the parents...
Date: 2002-08-27 07:40 am (UTC)What I will say is that many people are not seeing the whole issue as the article is biased and leaves out TOO much information and all any of us has is speculative.
I dont believe if any one was arrested for drugs or alcohol would be in the article at all if it did or did not happen.
My complaint is that the article is misleading because it leaves out too many details. I am trying to see things from all sides.
I still believe that under age kids, (yes they have civil rights and yes, those rights may have been broken) were unattended by their legal guardians or unsupervised and should not have been - unattended that is.
Re: Woah... Before you judge the parents...
Date: 2002-08-27 10:35 am (UTC)Do you then disagree with driver's licenses for kids 16, 17, and 18
Do you disagree with laws that allow parents to leave children at home alone if they are 10 and older?
Do you have an explanation as to why someone over 18 years old, the age of majority and the age in which one is legally allowed to cast a vote and legally allowed to sign up for the military or enter a contract without parental permission, were arrested? (Brandi Ratliff, 18. Kris Karsteter, 21. Kyesa Scott, 18. Emily Demmler, 19. Jerome Williams, 19.)
The only person in that article that we know for *sure* was arrested that was under age was Soneary Sy's son, who was a 17 year old straight A student. There was nothing presented other than one young woman's report that there "appeared to be" kids as young as fourteen, and one as young as 10. The people that we do know were arrested were older teens and young adults of the legal age of majority in a public place, and some who had patronized that public place and spent money in the places of business that took their money and then allowed them to be arrested.
That's what we do know from that article. And if, as you say, the article was light on facts and therefor none of us should be making judgments, I fail to see where you are getting your facts to support your theories.
The facts, as I see them, is that older teens and young adults were arrested in a public place without a warning to leave on the request of a company that has a policy of allowing loitering by the elderly. The article said the Houston PD "arrested about 425 people for criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor" - not for curfew violations. The stores would have had to press trespassing charges against the youths, all 425, as this was a public parking lot and not a private place.
How you can come to the conclusion that the Houston PPD was right is beyond me, but your assertion that there isn't enough information in there to make a judgment is *really* beyond me.