Slashdot Mirror
Children Arrested, DNA Tested for Playing in a Tree?
skelator2821 wrote in with another account of a police action gone way overboard. From the article: "To the 12-year-old friends planning to build themselves a den, the cherry tree seemed an inviting source of material. But the afternoon adventure turned into a frightening ordeal for Sam Cannon, Amy Higgins and Katy Smith after they climbed into the 20ft tree - then found themselves hauled into a police station and locked into cells for up to two hours." skelator2821's basic question in all of this: "What is this World coming to? Do you think they went to far?" Well? Do you?
It seems unanimous that the cops went "too far". Probably so. And, yes, I hate the cops too. In the United States, most cops seem to me to be louts with too much power and too little education.
Nobody has commented, though, on the seriousness of the kids' behaviour. Destruction of a tree on public land is true vandalism. A twenty foot tree may be twenty years old--and much harder to replace than man-made targets of vandalism, such as signs, cars, or windows. The parents of these children should have taught their children to respect trees as common property of incalculable value.
I live near public land in the United States and the behaviour of children using the land is appalling. I've seen acres of land ripped up by dirt bikes, seedling trees intentionally pulled up for no apparent reason except boredom, and, yes, branches broken for the purpose of making "forts." Most of the land used regularly by children is simply barren, except for those trees tall enough to withstand constant abuse. Those trees, too, will eventually die, and there will be no young trees to replace them.
I think complaining to the police about children playing in a tree should be considered "anti-social"...
Read the damn article. The kids weren't playing in a tree, they were tearing down a tree (that wasn't their own, by the way) so that they could build a fort. There is a difference. One is an act of play which demands a "Hey, kids, get off my lawn!" while the other is an action you'd probably call the cops about. If some neighborhood kids came over to my house and started ripping branches off one of my trees, I'd have to be in a good mood just to call the police - I'd probably go out there myself and raise hell at 'em. Wouldn't you do the same? What if they started ripping the siding off your house so they could make a fort? Or stole pieces of your fence? Even if you were in the best of spirits, I'm sure you wouldn't laugh it off, saying, "Oh, those kids are quite crazy these days, aren't they Ingrid?"
I don't know about you, but when I was twelve, I sure as hell knew better than to destroy something that didn't belong to me. I knew that if I did, there would be punishments. I would have to pay for what I took/destroyed, and probably would get punishment for it. Was the punishment too severe? Perhaps. But stop trying to paint these kids as angels who the police violently traumatized for no particular reason. They were "stripping every branch from it" so they could build their "den."