Should Parents Be Penalized for Leaving Children in Cars Unattended?

whats a breaking yard?

Probably the home of your avatar

Often enough it would appear that the victim of a crime is charged as if we can all anticipate all crimes.

I can certainly understand why a woman with a couple of kids in car seats might run into the convenience store to get whatever.

Probably she wanted to leave the heat running.

She probably did not expect to be out of the car for more than 5 to seven minutes, and probably did not anticipate that the car would be stolen.

Likely it would have been better if she had not left the keys in the car, and the car running.

However I am more inclined to look at the major crime, which was car thieft and kidnapping.

My neighbors let their children play in the yard, while they are in the house.

If someone comes and kidnaps the children should they be charged with negligence?

Reading it, initially I thought it happens when the parent needs to run in for something quick. Instead of bringing the kids in that can make a 5 minutes run into 20 minutes.

Then you consider one has to look into what type of neighborhood it is. and was the car running, weather and such. Did she put her kids health in danger?

As far as the article stating;

Fortunately the children were unharmed, but safety consultant Cindy Dort says it could have been so much worse.

I don't know who this Cindy Dort is to know what situation might arise, hell, the mother could have brought the kids in and the store have been held up. Stop reading more what ifs. As far as safety, how do you teach kids about safety, preach to them all you want. And if you protect the kids from all possible dangers, how are they to learn.

Christ listening to these safety experts on child rearing these kids would be in their 20's, unemployed and living with their parents if you shield them from everything.

Chalk it up to a learning experience, and don't lose the focus of the actual thief and kidnapper. ^{or did he get away}

p911

In my opinion, no, children should not be left in cars alone. I have 3 children and have never left them in a car alone. We get out and keep each other company. They learn at the same time what shopping, banking etc is all about. How to handle money, choose the best fruit, and, and, and. They are my life; I made them, and take care of them. They are well behaved and I will take them anywhere without being shy for them. You should always be weary that something might happen. After all, they are kids. One often hears in SA, young children were left in a car. Parents go gambling and the child is in the car with no windows open etc. Being a very hot country, temperatures are just too high to leave kids in cars. A car should not be idling while you are not in it, period, especially with kids inside.

Ya think going to grab a candy bar is a fair comparison??

I don't leave mine in the car, even just buying a candy bar. That is how we have done it and still do it. That's how they were brought up and I am sure that's how they will look after their kids one day. When they were small the trek into the shops were a handfull but now that they are older we enjoy every moment of it.

In my opinion, no, children should not be left in cars alone.

That would include your driveway, even when you forgot your wallet in the house and make a quick dash in to get it, of course.

. Let me say it this way. We are 5 in the family. If I forget the wallet then the wife stay's in the car with the kids while I fetch it. Or, she fetches it while I stay. If it is quick dash into the shop, either of us stay or we all get out. But the kids are never left unattended in the car. Many a time on a very hot day, buying a coke or whatever, I would also leave the car idling with the aircon on, while they wait for me. But Not Unattended. If you leave house to a shop with a small kid or any kid for that matter, why do you take him/her with you if you are only going to leave him/her in the car?? Rather leave him/her at home with the spouse. If you don't have a spouse, take your kid with you when you get out. Remember, I only gave my opinion. What WE do. Not what other people should do. I feel it is wrong to leave a kid in a car. Here the other day a dehidrated kid was found in a car, lying on the back seat, windows closed, in 30°C heat outside because the mother thought she was only going to be 5 min's and it turned into an hour without realising it. Kid nearly died. Is the mother still responsible? Hell, yes.

Maybe it is equally wrong to bring up your children in SA.

No criticism meant - I am wrestling with this dilemma myself.

Wow, never looked at it that way.

You're entitled to your belief.

My belief is to live in safe areas, if I couldn't safely leave my children in a vehicle for 15 minutes I should move my family to a safe area. My children learned about dangers when they're very young, they're told not to touch the stove but they only do it once. They learned about knives and guns and snakes and bad people and other predators too. When they scraped a knee they knew dad would spit on it and make it better but they could do that themselves so they did.

Things don't break when they can bend.

When I was ten it was my responsibility to look after my 3 younger siblings when an adult was absent. If my mother thought I wasn't being responsible she let me know how the cow ate the cabbage but I guess some kids don't get hands-on responsibility experience early on; it's a shame.

Ya must live in an area I wouldn't want to be left in alone

I respectfully disagree with what you have stated about living in a safe area. Bad things happen everywhere and it gets worse year by year. More than likely there is more that happens in your area than you know. The way to find out is to spend (not like you or anybody else actually has time to do this) about a week or so in your local hospital ER or your local city police dept. or your local EMS station. You'll probably find that you don't live in the area you thought you did and now you have to move to the Northwest Territories, or back to the 1950s.

Kids shouldn't be left in the car. If they have to be, take the keys. It's that simple. I have 6 kids, I know.

It seems that lots of people are taking the view that its such a bad bad world out there and the children must be protected from everything!

I dont have kids but if I did then I would leave them in the car on there own. Tho I probably wouldnt leave the keys in the ignition and the engine running.

Generally you will know if you are living in a good/safe area or a bad area you dont need to got to the local A&E to know that bad things happen everywhere but there is no need to get paranoid!

If we were talking about security for your beloved Windows, would you expect the community [internet] to police it self or would you install the 3 layers of security you advocate on a recent thread?

Imagine that

that level of involvement in your area. Some may find this level of interaction awkward but after a year or two they get over it. If there is heard a shout or cry a neighbors curtains may open then doors and help offered if needed. Some find it difficult to allow another to help them expecting to owe something for being helped but its being neighborly, they get over that too.

Do you think the case in question was in such a community?

Interest tidbit I heard just the other day, and it pertains to this topic.

They had a name for it and it escapes me, when bystanders do nothing while someone is in distress.

Anyway, If your attacked, you get a better response if you yell Fire instead of Help

Violating the social compact?

You post is out of context of post #15 which I was replying to.

Suffice it to say our society has regressed so that description of the social compact seems foreign.

Do you think the mother in question lives in a community similar to the one's we live in?

Do you think the mother in question interacts with her community in a meaningful way?

A social compact has both benefits & requirements/duties...

You've shift your position from your 1st post to here has changed from

This question is a "what if" generator but I believe the correct answer is yes. Penalization of a parent for having left a child in a car should be under taken case by case; that's why we have Judges and not just charts of regulations to govern our conduct.

To

I think a case could be made of the business not providing a secure environment to operate and protect the customer.

To

Actually it's up to the society to enforce upon the unscrupulous business proprietor. This is civil responsibility 101.

You moved to blaming society?

Blaming society for what though?

And who else is to blame in a country of the people by the people?

You have convinced me your view is correct, though I can still see how the mother in this case, or others could be tempted to do otherwise.

I am also influenced by the poster with Law Enforcement experience.

My friends in Law Enforcement say, "Protect yourself, we are mostly garbage collectors."

Further upon a little reflection I note that Convenience Stores even in relatively safe areas often do attract fringe elements.

That comes down to the environment, convenient store and gas stations especially in cold weather (and without kids) when they leave the cars running, the car is gone when they return.

Justice can be served in allot of ways, when stupidity is one.

I've got to support Bwire and Conrads on this one. The times we live in simply make it too dangerous to leave children in a car. In South Africa the thugs will steal the milk out of your coffee and then kill you because there's not enough sugar in it. I'm sure the rest of the world is not too far behind us. Frankly over here I would postulate that the average citizen is more clued up on security and self preservation (Our cops are not in a position to help) than most of America's Security Specialist Consultants. As a result, we would generally not leave children unattended in any situation as kidnapping of kids for all manner of horrors is way above acceptable levels. And for good measure my kids could safely and purposefully handle any firearm by the age of four or five. Bottom line, do everything you can to protect those precious gifts from God, our children.

The times we live in simply make it too dangerous to leave children in a car.

and

The times we live in simply make it too dangerous to leave children in a car. In South Africa the thugs will steal the milk out of ......

Which brings it to post #4, on the environment the kids were left in......

I am sorry to hear about your environment, but there are places in the U.S. and this may be hard to believe that don't need a reason

Which also brings the other issue I'm interested in when do these poster's with the same opinion ween your kids. When you talk safety most accidents happen at home.

I going to stretch this, so following the criteria set. Even your baby setters would have to be are trained adults, because it sounds like the children even the ones with courses in baby sitting can not be entrusted with this responsibility.

I always felt when one has to draw the line, be consisted, to where when the child, actually begins to learn practical life experiences solo..........when he/she goes off to college?

p911

And I think the adult (s) are the ones to make the decision. I think there should be an absolute minimum of laws guiding this and in no case should they be hard and fast.

And along with those decision comes diversity among us.

We already have too many poorly crafted laws whose....

Like they know whats best for us, than ourselves.

I think everyone is missing the point from this story, both from a legal and logical standpoint.

The woman left the car running. This is illegal (as stated in the article). By performing an illegal act, she endangered the children. The endangerment was made clear when the car was stolen and crashed.

Officials are talking about charging her with endangering the children because of an illegal act (leaving the car running). It is a far stretch to say they want to prosecute her for just leaving the kids in the car. If the car was not left running, I highly doubt that there would be any basis for prosecution.

Let's say you perform an armed robbery in a bank, and bring your 7 year old along. I'm pretty sure if you got caught, you would be charged with armed robbery and child endangerment. Would the news article be titled "Man may face charges for taking child into bank"?

From the article:

Dort says while there is a law against leaving a running car unattended, it does not specifically address whether children are left inside. So the police or prosecutors would have to decide case by case whether the children were endangered. But Dort says, law or not, it's always a bad idea.

If children are left in a running car, does it count as a car being left unattended? Technically there is someone in the car. What if the car was never stolen - should she still be prosecuted?

(Just playing devils advocate here and asking opinion-oriented questions)

Police is playing it conservative. Let the court decide, and set the precedence.

What if the car was never stolen - should she still be prosecuted?

On cases such as this, it is pushed only after when something happens or the danger is more obvious, and noticed by others, such as a hot day

I am currently of the opinion that prosecuting the woman for reckless endangerment would be an additional consequence not warranted. She almost lost her babies and suffered damage to her truck, aspects that are probably consequence enough. She learned her lesson. There are so many other people out there that should be punished (murderers, kidnappers, etc) that get away and they are concerned about a mother who made a mistake. Seems so small and petty in the grand scheme of things.

I share that opinion, as stated in one of my earlier post not to lose focus with the actually criminal that jacked the car.

If things can go in the justice system, she would probally get spanked harder that the actual criminal

It wouldn't hurt her to take a class in critical thinking.

I was going to say a remedial parenting class...

She's just playing the devils advocate.

I look at how I was raised on the farm. And some of these posters would probably shi#. Was it a risk, yes,

did accidents happen not to me but others in the farming communitee most certainly, they may have been few but quite tragic more so that when it happened to kids.

Would I trade it with a being raised in what I would call a sheltered life style, never.

Do I expect other to understand, How could they.

Even though I would not raise my kids the same as I was raised myself, I do instill consequences to actions at a very young age.

What I gained from how I was raised IMO it gave my a advantage when I went on my own. and that how I try to do it without putting my kids at risk.......yah they will always be kids

Gee, at least I'm willing to have an opinion publicly.

With or without kids

Walking away from a running truck

ain't too bright.

You might be a redneck

I think a case could be made of the business not providing a secure environment to operate and protect the customer.

So the local 7-11 needs to provide valet parking then?

You're being quite generous with my statement

Not valet but a security person may be appropriate, notice no barred windows as the video shows the convenience store may not be a notoriously crime ridden area, a few posters maybe over playing the intent of the women.

That may pass for a truck in Troy but it's a SUV in this neighborhood.

Would a security person have helped? A security persons function would be to protect the stores assets 1st & formost

If there were no kids involved, would we even be talking about this?

We would probably just be chuckling about the lack of (un)commonsense displayed by this woman for walking away from a running SUV...

The objective of having a security person in the previous post is to provide a secure environment for the customer and the business. Isn't customer safety an asset of a business?

*We would probably just be chuckling about the lack of (un)commonsense displayed by this woman for walking away from a running SUV...

Being from sunny SOCAL you have no point of reference. It's a common practice in cold winter areas to leave the car running when going in to shop or restaurant.

It is law in NY parked vehicles may not idle more than 5 minutes, excuse me

I take my dogs with me in my car, when it's too hot the dogs have to stay home, part of my responsibilities as a pet owner.

I don't bring them along & leave the car running with the ac on...

Is a Twinkey break more important than her kids?

Need to work on your geography from around Thanksgiving...

Okay it's southern northern CA at about 2000' elevation with average winter of 32°F and occasionally have bad weather and cold.

Wow, nice area for a big town over 1750 pop

We went through there many times on the way up the hill.

Here in upper mid-west winter average 10°F but like last year it was -20 or less for 35 days and we live in the banana belt with 108 pop

Big deal you live out in the boonies & it's cold.

Where I live [I don't actually live in town] wasn't the point & you know it...

Irresponsible is irresponsible

more training is required to drive than to have kids,

all that's required is a working set of reproductive organs.

Bad decisions have repercussions [or is someone going to argue the mother made a good decision?]

I wasn't advocating anything more serious than a small bit of education.

Is ithe environment outside the vehicle that makes leaving children inside irresponsible?

No

leaving the keys in the running car is irresponsible.

Jaxy,

I agree with you. I was just pointing out that the threat of charges for endangerment were because she had left the car running, not that she had simply left the kids in the car. Let's hope common sense prevails, and this woman is not punished further. The threat of charges made this a high profile case, lot's of people read and discuss, and it is likely that someone else thinks twice about doing this. I hope this is the motivation behind the threat to prosecute.

But it does beg the question, "what is OK?". I don't think it is an absolute. As others have pointed out, 20-30 years ago, what she did would probably be seen as OK, and the only bad guy would be the hijacker. We have become a very risk adverse society, for better or worse.

In Demark, it is perfectly acceptable to leave an infant in a carriage outside a restaurant while the parents have a meal. See this perspective. A Danish couple did this in New York, were arrested, jailed, had their child taken away by protective services and were treated like child abusers. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply explain to them that this is not OK here, and could be very dangerous in New York?

I actually saw the part about leaving carriages outside in Denmark culture, I think it was an Oprah show.

I was just trying to ask questions that would stimulate discussion and such, not attacking your statement, which was a solid one. The added complication of what it right to leave the keys in the car is another situation to address. To not leave the car running in the middle of the winter months would be cruel as far as to not keep the children warm. Running cars make it easier for carjackers/thieves, however. Such a vast grey area is this topic and several opinions are valid. But when the opinions are on both sides of the fence (to penalize or not to penalize) are valid, where do you draw the line? The article stated that each situation needs a specific evaluation to come up to a just conclusion.

Thats where this law is based on norms. and this can change not only country to county but between city to city itself. and that is where common sense or at least intelligence kicks in

I was just pointing out that the threat of charges for endangerment were because she had left the car running,

Reference of the principles and objectives of the ordinance including any precedence need study before this claim can be made it is relevant to this incident.

Thanks,

Perry

You wanna try that one again?

I was just pointing out that the threat of charges for endangerment were because she had left the car running,

Reference of the principles and objectives of the ordinance including any precedence need study before the claim can be made relevant to this incident.

She learned her lesson.

Yes I believe so and with the coverage generated regardless if any additional penalty many others will learn from her mistake too.

Another thing we all need be reminded of is before vilifying we should take walk in her shoes...though criticism is healthy.

by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.

Thats when the hard part comes in...........is the definition.

And stretching....

Because the definition will be a precedence to all. even accidents in the home, one can not pick and choose. How many deaths due to faulty cribs. IMO one has to draw the line

In part "No person... having custodial control... shall create a sustainable risk to... health or safety... by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.

And on top of that when you bring norms into play. Define an acceptable risk. Even the wording allows risks.

So, in summary... laws are written in a way to show that defined elements are met or not met. The situational variations are used to determine sentencing severity.

Even the wording can be left to interpretation. To be determined initially by the officers, but in the end, by the courts

Like I stated on one of my earlier posts, that the police department is just being conservative, because something happened. And that are considering it. And let the DA decide to continue or even the courts.

"Define an acceptable risk"

I understand your position, but risk is risk... it's degree is subjective and subjectivity can not be written into a law. Rather the law is written in such a way that subjectivity can be introduced, defended, and considered.

No law is written perfectly to account for every situation, they can't be. And of course the police are being conservative, that is how we are trained to be. If there is a probability that a law has been broken, a police officer will cite it. As you mentioned, it is then left up to the prosecutor if they are going to pursue the charges. And even then, it will up to the Judge on how to proceed if the charges are brought to the court. These open-ended laws, multiple levels of checks and balances, and varying levels of punishment are intentional...

They provide for the excusal of minor offences while providing a framework to punish more sever ones.

It is also why Prosecutors and Judges are voted into their position by the community and law enforcement officers are simply hired without public consensus. A law enforcement office is directed to detain, arrest, and cite... if they feels a crime has been committed, there is no subjectivity in his job, at least there shouldn't be. It is not his job to be judge and jury which is where the subjectivity is designed to be considered.

Anyway, I understand your frustration, I wish I could state it more clearly but every one who complains about the ambiguity of our laws is looking at them the wrong way... we want them worded that way... to allow for subjectivity, to allow for those situations that have not been considered, to provide a opportunity to create a defense, a justification of action.

Remember back in the '70s and '80 when there was the public concern that if you shot and killed an intruder that you could be charged with murder depending on if he fell inside or outside your house? That was a justifiable fear because the law related to those situations was written too specifically and the location in which the intruder died did have a bearing on the shooter meeting certain elements of manslaughter.

So, how to write a law that is specific enough to charge a criminal against, but open-ended enough to allow for existential circumstances and accidents... you have to pick a middle ground and it is this middle ground where the debate between prosecutor and defender occur... where the true crime is separated from a stupid decision. You want this middle ground, you need it.

JavaHead

but risk is risk...

No it is not, its a risk to get into your car. Its a risk to mow the lawn. its a risk to earn a living. OR do your kids watch TV, eat twinkles, drink soda while you do the chores......oh oh, you just put your kids at risk.

One thing is, as a law enforcement officer you have to make a judgement call, and that should not include bad judgement

Even your post stated a level of risk as in sustainable risk . And with that, what is an acceptable.

And this is the problem when your substitute common sense with even more laws then needs to be defined. Did that parent suffer, yes, and if something happened to her child, no amount of punishment would ever equal that greif. Is the law proactive to stop making the parent to something like this" as you can see, no.

If you paint with a wide definition of risk is risk, your second job as a law enforcer officer will be your primary one......

One has to be reasonable and leave only justice being blind.

I am not frustrated, actually I am enjoying this post. I just interject when I see the kids being put on a pedestal, and cherished and all the rest that is bestowed unto them as clear cut precious artifacts. Loved yes. but to bring them up in a sterile environment.

There not artifacts, they are children no better or worse that yours and mine. Only when questioned farther or in-depth, I have a hard time believing it, that some parenting would not draw a line, when they would like a night out by themselves without the kids, and begin weening thier kids that they would hire a 15-16 year old babysitter, but because the definition of risk is too high they don't.

or maybe they do hire one to babysit their 17-18 year old boy.

Thank you for having the courage to wear the uniform...

Law enforcement can be a rewarding career though often when 90% of your contact with civilians is with those 8% - 10% of problem children our perspective and or ability to maintain objectivity becomes a casualty of those occupational environmental factors upon the psyche.

*In part "No person... having custodial control... shall create a sustainable risk to... health or safety... by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.

A neat butterfly net...

*First in regards to laws, in general, and why there is a need for judge, jury, and lawyers... laws are written with the intent of being specific in regards to the elements of the crime and the state of mind of both the victim and the perpetrator. They are not written with the intent of dealing with the plethora of situational variations created by the environment surrounding the criminal activity or based on varying perceptions of the same environment by different individuals.

This last is not totally accurate as the law does specifically include principles as you mentioned and objectives which are used to deliberate said environmental factors.

The sad thing is 20-30 years ago this woman would have done nothing wrong in any of our eyes.

The thing is that this woman should have never had to worried about her car being stolen in the first place.

Law-makers find it easier to apply laws on the honest people vs criminals so they make new laws and rules up for the honest to have to follow instead of dealing harsher with the criminals in the first place. Chanes are this was not the car thief's first offence.

My point is: Toughen the laws we have and apply them to the CRIMINALS not to the average honest person.

The only thing they have done here in made another wise honest mother of two..A CRIMINAL..

Oh and another point is......the new criminal (The Mother) (although unlikely) by law could receive more jail time than the car thief.(Ridiculous)

To some of you.........you need to stop condemming the woman and start thinking about which direction our justice system is headed.

Good comment, you reinforce some things already stated.

But like what I mentioned earlier....what happened to the thief/kidnapper. I do not believe this situation should be separated. The mother was a victim, if she left the car running. yes that was very foolish and irresponsible of her and against the law.

But this law is only enforced when something like this happens. What is wrong with that. There is nothing proactive at all about that.

Spot on and I totally agree with you there!

Should the business then be responsible in part by not providing a safe environment to the customer. Likely such a thing would go a long towards reducing such incidents.

The worst blunder is leaving the engine on with key in. The kids being inside would have given the innocent curious signal which could have attracted the kidnapper who could have taken a timely chance. Thank God that nothing serious took place.

Which part of "Don't leave anything valuable inside the car" does people don't understand?

Only if one believe their kids are worth less then their wallet.

What about the rules "Don't steal, kidnap, murder, etc" do people not understand?

"...business not providing a secure environment to operate and protect the customer..."

It is not the business' responsibility to watch out for customers' belongings! This falls into the catagory of personal responsibility! If the woman feels she is responsible enough to have children, then she must be responsible to provide a safe environment for them. It DOES depend on the neighborhood, yes. Here in my small town, it isn't unusual to see people leave their keys in their cars, or their doors unlocked. But, even here, no one would dare leave their children in the car, much less with the engine running!

Personal responsibility, people...it all boils down to this.

No one has greater responsibility of a child than the parent.

It is the responsibility of the business proprietor to police the area of the operation of the business. This includes but is not limited to maintaining a clean environment and free of physical hazards.

Would the incident need become a car-jacking to get attention?

The buck falls on all of us actually and it is upon all of us to insist on safety and security everywhere, this is a responsibility of a society of individuals to police itself; personal responsibility, people...it all boils down to this.

In everything we do, there is an element of risk assessment involved.

At work, this is written down and agreed by all interested parties before commencement of activities.

As parents, there are no observers to agree our decisions unless scrutinised once an event has taken place. We can all have 20/20 vision in hindsight!

We parents make decisions based on our individual experiences and beliefs in bringing up children, and do so 24/7/365(or6) for years.

As children grow up, they need to be given space to make these decisions for themselves, rather than have them made by their parents. At 10yo, I would have expected one of my children to look after a younger sibling for a couple of minutes (although I would not have left them with the keys, let alone the engine running).

Shame, shame shame on you. Ten years olds start driving tractors on the farm, six year olds know better than to touch the controls, period...without permission...yeah personal responsibility starts that early.

Its one thing allowing a kid to drive on private land, but another on a public highway. Mine helped with car repairs when the job needed two people, and when small hands reached where mine could not, but always under supervision. Even now, my 15yo gets told by her friends' parents how bad we are, because we allow her to find her own way across town instead of driving her.

Ten years olds start driving tractors on the farm, six year olds know better than to touch the controls, period...without permission...yeah personal responsibility starts that early.

No consequences do. I do not know what your point is about driving tractor

You ever burn yourself on a stove as a kid, even after being told to stay away or you'll get burned. Its too bad it happened but bad experiences are become engrained.

"...It is the responsibility of the business proprietor to police the area of the operation of the business. This includes but is not limited to maintaining a clean environment and free of physical hazards..."

Disagree! The business IS responsible for certain safety and environmental policies to be in effect, true. But the policing of the parking area, and surroundings, is entirely up to the owner of the business. At least in CA, there are no laws stating that a business owner has to provide a 'safe zone' for customers. (However, they DO have to provide a handicapped parking space and be wheelchair accessible...but I digress...) The decision is entirely up to the business owner.

Actually it's up to the society to enforce upon the unscrupulous business proprietor. This is civil responsibility 101.

I suppose you want a law enacted?

isn't that a lot like mandating health insurance?

I suppose you want a law enacted?

Absolutely not, this as it should be falls between what is required by law and what should be offered responsibly.

In the case presented by the thread poster I don't think the area is particularly subject to continuous violent crime, more likely a punk wanted a ride then freaked when realizing the children were in the SUV. A vehicle with parking break set and transmission disengaged appropriately for parking is not a danger to well disciplined children whether the vehicles engine is running or not. The danger comes from the environment our society has by omission allowed to exist.

If better security of our public areas were a deliberate requirement of the citizenry the escalation of crime we've been experiencing would diminish. But because it's inconvenient we haven't paid attention and so it goes.

The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

Actually it's up to the society to enforce upon the unscrupulous business proprietor. This is civil responsibility 101.

huh? you mean to tell me you believe that all businesses in high crime areas are unscrupulous?

And what is civil responsibility 101? anti-business, No businesses or stores in high crime areas.

How would that fit in the next class of economics 101?

"....Actually it's up to the society to enforce upon the unscrupulous business proprietor. This is civil responsibility 101....."

By all means, if you disagree with the safety standards of any establishment, you are, as an American, free to boycott said establishment, and inform others of your reasoning. That is a constitutional right. I may not agree with your reasons, and am thus able to go and patronize said establishment. That is MY constitutional right. One man's poison et cetera... Civil responsibility is when you see an unsafe situation, and notify the establishment of that danger, and, if nothing is done to fix the situation, you then notify others about it. That is a moral code, and living up to it is your choice.

I really can't believe any of you are even concidering this is the store owners fault....Wow

What do you think he should have done..had armed guards out front watching everybody's move.

If someone was carjacked at a traffic light and kids were in the back seat when the driver was told to get out....Should the City then be charged with not suppling security on the streets.............

Give your heads a shake people.

And slap yerselves HARD, while you're at it! LOL

I have very strong doubts that the mother in question will ever leave her children again in a running car.

Hence I have very strong doubt that for others it is recommended in their future.

Overall it would be strongly implied by the evidence of what might happen, regardless of laws, that vary from state to state, or even nation to nation, that such a practice simply is not recommended.