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?
They only went too far, if the tree was less than 20ft..
Never happened. True story.
Where else is he gonna make out with 2 chicks when his Mom is home?
We shoot our children down from the trees.
I'm not sure. I, myself, have never been to far.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
That's a pretty good way to introduce the kids to the way this country works - complete strangers can cause you large amounts of suffering for the smallest mistakes. That's not how the country SHOULD work, of course, but it is.
These children have nothing to hide. They should not be afraid of DNA tests, or being interviewed by police.
Besides, what if they got hurt falling out of that tree? The police are here to help.
--
make install -not war
I mean, if a police officer can't haul three twelve-year-olds to jail on spurious charges, take mugshots, and record DNA samples, how are we ever going to win the war on terror?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Cops are dicks.
They always have been and always will be. I can count on one hand the number of run-ins I've had with cops that have been anything other than shitty - and no, I'm not a criminal.
Of course they went too far, they often do.
The culture of deliberate, misleading, trumped-up fear we live in today isn't helping anything either.
Frankly, we need more stories like this so more people realize just what the hell is going on.
disturbed by the "anti-social behavoir" remarks? Or is it just me?
12 year olds....DNA samples (and stored for X years) taken without parental or legal approval? Insane.
Is the law in Britain to take (and store) DNA samples when you are simply arrested? Convicted, yes, I can see....but just arrested? Insane.
(this does not even go into the complete foolishness of arresting them for what they actually did).
Superintendent Stuart Johnson, operations manager at Halesowen police station, said: 'I support the actions of my officers who responded to complaints from the public about "kids destroying" an ornamental cherry tree by stripping every branch from it, in an area where there have been reports of anti-social behaviour.
Since when was being anti-social a crime?
So in the UK they put kids into the same holding areas as adults and can gather DNA from them without some sort of court order or parental consent? And the criminal records of children can actually be queried by schools?
Not flamebait, not an attack on the UK, but serious questions.
Now at least these three kids and all of their friends will realize firsthand what sort of world they're coming into rather than having to wait until they're all grown up to figure it out like most people do (if they ever do). The people who start the action that fixes these sort of problems are often the same people who have suffered because of them.
You're right -- my first response to my 12 year old after they've been sprung is, "Suck it up mister, or else someone's going to make you their bitch if you're not a hardcase yet!"
Dammit, at their age I was carrying a gun and defending my land from railroad surveyers and rabid dogs.
So, seriously, can someone explain to me what the eff "Anti-social behaviour" in a legal context means? Sounds to me like I'd be arrested in heartbeat there! While this and other "zero-tolerance" policies seem so offensive to us, just think about what our grandchildren will say. They'll be so accustomed to this type of law enforcement it won't phase them at all. "What do you expect, grandpa, they were climbing a tree for godsake! Somebody had to do something!"
In the criminal justice system, arboreal trespassing offenses are considered especially heinous. In the West Midlands, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Halesowen police. These are their stories.
Feeling as I do that this power relationship brings out the uglier sides of human nature, I'm always sure to let them be the alpha male (or female) so I don't trigger any "I must prove that I'm a badass" reactions. But I'm one of the people who see the implications of the Zimbardo prison experiment in everyday situations, probably to an extent where most people would be rolling their eyes and saying "you're really reaching now."
Oh, no! Three twelve year olds having fun! I better call the fucking cops!
The people who called in are probably chatting with those kids' parents right now about how the police over-reacted.
I have heard of a lot of teens and college kids, not to mention full adults, breaking down upon being arrested and thrown in jail. Especially when they don't understand what's going on. Being totally powerless will do that to you.
If you are worried about hyperbole in the article, I'm interested in the police claim that they kids were trying to strip ever branch from the cherry tree. Now, I haven't seen this important civic landmark (not entirely sarcastic: trees can be significant, although it didn't really sound like this one was, except from the police description), but your typical tree has a lot of branches, many of which a 12-year-old would be hard-pressed indeed to remove. Of course, we might speculate that the kids had saws and axes, but then we're stuck trying to explain why that wasn't mentioned by the police defending their actions. So that brings us back to the question: how likely was it to the police that the kids were trying to strip the tree and kill it? Did they really believe that? If so, should we trust their testimony and their judgement on this and other case?
FTFA (bolded text was done by me):
... civilized my ass.
Questioned by police, the scared friends admitted they had broken some loose branches because they had wanted to build a tree house, but said they did not realise what they had done was wrong.
Officers considered charging the children with criminal damage but eventually decided a reprimand - the equivalent of a caution for juveniles - was sufficient.
I can think of many other people to be arresting for criminal damage.
What the heck is this world coming to? Kids playing in a tree, break a few branches and get arrested (and DNA tested!? WTF?). Meanwhile, corporations are allowed to get away with this garbage. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with world
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
This is the same country where police executed an unarmed and immobilized man for wearing a winter coat on the subway. These kids should count their blessings.
It's just like the people who said "if it turns out Iraq doesn't have a WMD program, then I will oppose the war," and when Iraq was found to lack a WMD program, they still supported the war, because once you're in, rationalizations and prevarications are too easy to muster to maintain consistency. You don't want to waffle, do you? On the other end of the spectrum, leftists didn't want to acknowledge the excesses of Stalinism, because they had chosen a side. Loyalty to any party or ideology is incompatible with integrity.
You know there was once a time when the cop would simply walk a beat, in doing this he actually built a bond between him and those he was supposed to protect. Also he knew from doing this who was likely to be "good" or "bad" if something went down. Ever since they took to driving around in cars this bond has been broken and they now just respond to calls without the humanity behind it.
Just my opinion,
Matt
Gotta protect the underage cherries.
I probably would have been harder on the police department, but one has to wonder about the 12-year-old's responses to their experience
No one doesn't. Kids climb trees. They don't normally get arrested for it. Their responses were normal.
These infant-willed "preteens" didn't belong in a 20 foot cherry tree.
Maybe you've never seen a tree before. So you might want to sit down for this.
20 feet is actually quite short for a tree. Most people would consider that a shrub, not a tree.
When you climb a shrub or a tree, it is not necessary or even possible to climb up to the very highest leaves at the top. They won't hold your weight. Therefore the fact that the tree height is 20 feet strongly indicates that these kids were at a much lower height at the time of their arrest. They were probably at varying heights from zero to about ten- the article doesn't say. This would further indicate that emotional stability (as determined by an arrest) need not be a prerequisite for climbing shrubbery.
While it was not (yet) as bad as The Sun when I left the UK in 2002, the Daily Mail was a strident, hysterical, sensationalist muckracking journal well on its way to parity. I would believe maybe 15-20% of what is reported here as "fact". The paper also carries a political/social agenda on just about everything, and I suspect very strongly that we are seeing an extremely distorted story that is being "economical with the truth".
So, if -- and that's a VERY big if -- everything reported is true I deplore it, but I have serious doubts as to whether the story is at all objective.
If the Mail was looking for a reaction, I'm sure it got what it was after.
It's interesting that Google News and Google proper only carry two reports of this, and there is no mention on the BBC web site (as of 21.38 PDT).
This has all the hallmarks of a carefully manufactured and groomed story deisgned to garner publicty and web page impressions.
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Thank you, Tony Blair. Having created a crime-free paradise (by American standards), the British government has proceeded to outlaw merely unpleasant behaviour.
How many trees do corporations, land owners, and the government itself chop down every day? My guess would be more than one!
Break a branch, become a criminal, go to jail.
Raze a forest, become a Captain of Industry, go to government.
KFG
I will type small words so you grok:
... was ... a ... tree
... public ... land
It
On
There ought to be nothing wrong with kids playing in public trees, and I'd be willing to bet my house that the tree will survive an afternoon's attention from 3 twelve-year-olds.
Nice spin put on it by the police spokesman "destroying an ornamental cherry tree by stripping every branch from it". It was a tree in a public park, not a centrepiece of an arrangement. I'd love to see the twelve-year-old who could "strip every branch" from a tree... Certainly the ones in the picture didn't look up to it. Hercules'd have problems.
My dictionary defines "destroying" as "to put an end to the existence of". Somewhat emotive language for a few broken twigs, I feel. You don't lock young kids up over a few broken twigs; if you do anything, you drive them home and let their parents give them merry hell for being delivered home by the police.
Or you could just let them play. It's a friggin' tree!
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
You raise an interesting point: are the police responding this strongly -- too strongly -- because no one else will?
Today I was riding my bike home from work when I passed a car stopped by the side of a busy road, next to a small park with a bike path. The passenger's side door was open, and a girl about age 10 was standing by it crying. I stopped to watch, surprised. The girl was talking to someone in the car, and she would half get in the car, then step back, then repeat, crying all the time.
What do you think was going on? Doesn't look good, does it? Doesn't that make it remarkable that, as I approached on my bike, and while I was stopped, about three or four other people walked, jogged or rode on bikes past, and of course about two dozen cars drove by -- and no one else stopped? It was also in clear view of some new condos across the street that sell for upwards of $500,000 -- but no one came out of them.
I went up to the girl, and, staying well back (to help the girl feel safe), I looked more closely. In the car was a woman with another child. I asked the child her name, whether the woman was her mother, and whether she wanted to get in the car. She told me her name, said it was her mother, and that she did want to get in the car. The woman said it was her child, and that the girl wanted to get in the car, but wasn't being allowed to because she was in a "time out." I assume the woman was driving when she stopped and put the child out of the car at the side of the road as some kind of punishment. The girl would then be crying because she feared she was about to be abandoned.
After thinking it all through for a bit, I believed the woman. The girl and the woman and the other child in the car looked alike (all blonde wavy hair, similar face, and so on), and when I talked to the little girl she drew away from me and closer to the woman -- that is, she seemed instinctively to trust the woman more than me. The woman's story seemed unlikely for an abductor -- silly, unrehearsed, unlikely to soothe suspicion. So I didn't call the cops. (I did suggest to the woman that, as one parent to another, my advice would be to avoid disciplining her 10-year-old by pretending to abandon her on the side of the road. I said this rather less forcefully than I would have if her children had not been in earshot. For example, I did not call her a fscking idiot who should have been sterilized at menarche.)
I'm still bothered by whether I did the right thing, although the girl climbed in the car after I talked to her seemingly willingly enough, and the car drove off not in any obvious hurry. I hope I wasn't too trusting.
But my point is that it was very noticeable to me that no one else wanted to get involved. Dozens of other adults passed close by and saw what I did -- no one else stopped to take a closer look, make sure the girl was OK.
Perhaps we have come to delegate some of what used to be our normal social responsibility to our fellow man to the police. Small wonder that these things happen, then, although I wish they wouldn't.
Nerds everywhere should be deeply concerned about tree traversal being made illegal.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Police in the UK in the last few years have had pressure to crack down on young 'hooligans' roaming the streets at night causing damage. I don't think that these kids were doing anything wrong, but there were plenty of 12 year olds I saw in my time in the UK that should have definately been reprimanded for their actions, if not locked up.
Some examples.. My mother came over to visit me and on the first evening she was in London she had an (uneaten) apple thrown at her while walking from the station to my house, hitting her in the chest. This was delibrately thrown from across the street from one of a group of around 15 10-15 year olds.
When cycling home one day, a couple of kids on a scooter travelling in the opposite direction suddenly stopped. The kid on the back threw an egg, which hit me in the shoulder. I was going around 17-18mph at the time and it didn't tickle. My friend had the same thing happen a few years earlier, except it was thrown from a moving car in north london. It hit him in the eye and he has lost partial sight in one eye.
I couldn't park a car on the street for more than a couple of weeks, or it would get broken in to. I'm fairly sure it was kids, since the car was never driven away, just the window smashed or the lock broken.
When walking home through a small park, another one of my friends was struck on the back of the head by a full 2L PET drink bottle. The kid still had the bottle in his hand and when my friend turned around, there were 5-6 or so kids ready to "go at it". My friend just walked away.
One or two 12 year olds are nothing to worry about. But 10-15 little bastards, some with kitchen knives or metal pipes or whatever have the capability to kill 2-3 adults. And get away with it! because they know nothing will happen to them because they are kids. They know all their rights and none of their responsabilities.
It's situations like this that ABSO's were created, which is why I'm all for them.
Coulter: "I'm sure the mothers of these brats are only trying to cash in on the publicity generated when these terrorists-in-training assassinate god-fearing citizens from their lofty perch using liberal weapons of mass destruction."
FOX: "Such as?"
Coulter: "Lethal b-b guns. Poison darts."
FOX: "And what about Bin Laden?"
Coulter: "Hates American trees. Wants to crash planes into them all."
> FOX: "What would you do to protect us?"
Coulter: "Cut down all the trees. Keep the terrorists out of them. Castrate all liberals."
FOX: "God bless America."
Coulter: "It's all Clinton's fault. Oh, and buy all my books."
FOX: "Did you really have your Adam's Apple surgically removed so you could pass as female?"
Coulter: withering sneer.
It starts off with just cutting down one cherry tree as a kid. Then - I shall not tell a lie - it can lead to organising the overthrow of the British rulers in a revloution lasting years, assisted by the (gasp) French and the establishment of another country where people even drive on the other side of the road out of spite.
The police in the UK are trying to build a DNA sample database of the entire population.
So far, they have only got permission to take samples if they arrest someone; this may explain their willingness to arrest everyone they can, for the most trivial reasons. The law then allows the sample to be retained indefinitely, even if the person is released with no charge (hence, the parents cannot sue).
The UK is rapidly becoming one of the countries with the most draconian social controls in the Western world.
A friend of mine recently resigned from the police for this reason. Apparently he had arrest quotas to be met, leading to him being effectively forced to arrest some people who he thought would be better served with a warning. Everyone nicked in this way had their DNA put on record, even though in a lot of cases there was no intent to prosecute. In the end he couldn't stomach the cynicism beheind this policy and resigned on principle, for which I salute him.
"Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
Read the article, they weren't climbing a tree, they were ripping it apart.
b ase
To the 12-year-old friends planning to build themselves a den, the cherry tree seemed an inviting source of material.
Climbing doesn't get you wood.
Officers considered charging the children with criminal damage but eventually decided a reprimand - the equivalent of a caution for juveniles - was sufficient.
They got off with a warning.
As far as DNA samples, well maybe if the UK wasn't so focused on getting everyons DNA they wouldn't have done so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_National_DNA_Data
The perfect reply to this argument (which comes up every time someone mentions that most cops are assholes) is this: a McDonald's employee has more accountability than a cop does. As a 16 year old burger-flipper, if a customer acts like a complete asshole--even going so far as to yelling and cussing you out--you are NOT allowed to verbally abuse the customer in return in any way, shape or form. At most you can ask him/her to leave the building, that's it.
Years ago, I worked at McDonald's for four months and a very good friend of mine was punched in the face. Through a plate glass window. A woman tried to order at the pickup window, was told she needed to drive around again, so she punched through the drive-through window, hitting my friend in the face. If she (my friend) had hit her back, there's not a doubt in my mind that she would have lost her job. Instead, she walked away calmly and called her supervisor and the police.
Now, I'm not implying that the police shouldn't use force when necessary. I'm also not denying that they're human too, that it's a nasty, dirty job and I'm sure it's really rough on them. But you know what? Working at McDonald's is in many was rougher (if you doubt this, I could tell you some more horror stories... absolutely the worst 4 months of my life, period.), and yet their workers are held to a much higher standard than the police. Why is that? Why do so many of us make allowances for the police to exercise HUGE leaps of personal discretion, to bend the law whenever it suits them? It's a tough job, but they chose it and we shouldn't let them bend the rules (or ignore them) whenever they feel like it. I saw a TON of asshole customers at McDonalds, yet I didn't say a foul word to any of them. I didn't spit in their food either (no one did--they would've been fired on the spot.) I did my job as professionally as I could, regardless of how shitty I was treated.
And I was a fucking fry cook!
Please please please please PLEASE tell me we can hold our police officers up to the same standards as our burger flippers.
Unbeknownst to these children we've secretly switched their country with new freeze-dried Third Reich. Let's watch and see their reaction.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
I read the summary for this article and was outraged- then I read the article, realized it was in England and my reaction was "yeah that's about right." The UK has lost its collective mind. The English are the only people on the planet who could have read 1984 and said "Hey, that sounds like a nice place to live- let's give it a try."
-sirket
If you can't define the crime in a reasonably precise manner, it's total bullshit. That's all there is to it. The fact that your government has gotten you to buy into the insanity doesn't make it right. If there are certain particular things that society needs to discourage, those need to be SPELLED OUT CLEARLY. You simply don't need to lump a bunch of things like assault, stalking, reckless driving or vandalism in some vague catchall sort of dragnet.
This goes far beyond just mere victimless crimes to non-crimes.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The unfortunate side effect being that when all the honest cops like your friend have resigned, what's left are the people who shouldn't have become cops in the first place. :(
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?