Kindergartner Charged With Felony

[tinybear]

Quote by: iclaudius I honestly can't believe that we are even discussing this. A felony would essentially ruin her chances of going to college (at least if she was planning on going to a state school), she would never be able to get a job with the state, etc. I honestly can't think of a mistake a 6-year-old could make that would justify giving out a felony, which could essentially ruin her life.

What's the difference between ruining the life of a 6 year old and an 18 year old?

[Duke1985]

Umm the 6 year old is 6 and thinks and acts as such, whereas the 18 year old knows what their doing unless they are mentally ill.

[iclaudius]

I doubt that any 6-year-old on the history of the planet could quantify the gravity of being charged with resisting arrest. Heck, most of them can't even spell "felony." But assuming for a second that they could understand such matters, I would never expect them to behave like a rational adult under such circumstances. The 6-year-old mind is still developing, and the expectation that they make moral, carefully considered decisions is not even a question I'm willing to consider. Accountability before the law presupposes that the subject at least understands their actions. This is why the insane are exempt.

[Praxius]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint So they get attacked and clawed. It's a six-year-old. A modicum of damage is a risk of the job, and I don't think a child that small could do anything very serious without weaponry.

My father has been teaching long before I was born, and they do not have to take that sort of crap from any person's child and it is not a risk of the job..... a child that size could do plenty.... I've seen some of these kids take some big chunks out of people when they bite, and I don't know about you, but if some kid has intnetions to bite me like that, they're going to get punted into a wall..... so to avoid this situation, call the police and haul them away.

I take it you never had your parents call the cops to come over and scare the crap out of you when you were a kid? I didn't either... but my neighbor did, lol.... it was funny.

Sure, yes, maybe they could because anyone can sue anyone and get away with it, but that doesn't mean the school should be calling the cops. I think that was an overreaction, and not an effective one: whatever was wrong with this kid originally, once the cop got there I'm sure she was mainly scared -- and cuffing her and throwing her in the car is not the way to deal with a scared kid.

Really? What do you do then, give in because they're scared and screaming because they're not getting what they want? That's why kids these days are so screwed up with the law as it is.... they've been babied and pampered for so dam long with Political Correctness and Youth laws that are too easy on them, that they don't care.... they know how to use the system, and they learn at a young age.... my friend starting off at 5 doing similar things is a good case in point.... and that was in the mid 80's.... I imagine what it's like now.

The kid wasn't hurt.... the kid was given a reality check that probably was well over due, as well did some of those other kids who were watching.... making examples sometimes is effective.

If they had prior experience with this kid and this family, they should have been better prepared for this occurrence. They should have built a small padded room, or gotten permission to use a straitjacket, or something.

Don't forget, this is a public school with probably limited funding.... I don't see them building a room for one crazy kid, nor can I see them getting permission to wrap the kid up in a S.Jacket..... which some human rights groups would deem inhumane for a kid that age (Which is no better then taking her away by the cops)

If they encountered this in the past, then chances are, they were prepared and that is why they called the cops.

A regular citizen should call the cops. Schools are supposed to act as legal guardians for the kids, and while there are limits to that, I don't think the school should wash their hands of a kid just because she won't stop crying. What would you think of a parent who called the cops in this situation? If schools want the right to control kids in loco parentis, then they need to live up to the responsibilities.

Teachers are not given all the same rights as their parents, just some of the responsibilities.... They are providing a service, not a right. It is a right for education, but it is not a right to disrupt other's education or abuse those who are trying to educate you.

What would I think of a parent who called the cops on their own kid? I would say good job.... it's not like they're calling the SS.... they're calling the law enforcement and teaching the child that they're not exempt from the laws and mommy and daddy won't be there to protect you for your entire life.... something kids need to realise.

Think about it... what else can a teacher do? What can parents even do these days? Pretty much nothing... you can't smack the shit out of them anymore, you can't spank them, you can't yell at them, you can't do anything related to anything disiplinary.... oh well..... you can tell them to goto their rooms..... yeah, and they hop onto the TV or computer to play games until they come out, or they leap out the window and take off.....

So if Parents are getting screwed in this, how do you expect teachers to do better? The only logical thing to do now a days without getting arrested yourself, is to call the cops and get them to do their thing....

[Praxius]

Quote by: iclaudius I doubt that any 6-year-old on the history of the planet could quantify the gravity of being charged with resisting arrest. Heck, most of them can't even spell "felony." But assuming for a second that they could understand such matters, I would never expect them to behave like a rational adult under such circumstances. The 6-year-old mind is still developing, and the expectation that they make moral, carefully considered decisions is not even a question I'm willing to consider. Accountability before the law presupposes that the subject at least understands their actions. This is why the insane are exempt.

Frig I hate these excuses for kids..... "They don't know any better"

If they don't know any better at the age of 6 then they haven't been brought up correctly.

I knew right and wrong at a very young age, and many kids these days know fully well what's going on.... they know far more then what we knew when we were young.....

As early as I can remember, I knew the basics:

Obey the police and their laws.

Don't attack / hurt other people.

Don't steal.

Don't Lie.

Treat others as I would want to be treated.

DON'T DO THINGS YOU ARE TOLD NOT TO DO!

Frig, if a 6 month old puppy can learn most of these, a half-wit 6 year old kid can... I know I did....

What did I understand the consiquences were for not following the above? Either I'd get the shit beat out of me, or I'd goto jail.... both things I didn't care for.

Apparently this system works, because I'm still alive and I'm not in jail.... nor do I have any hatred towards my parents for how I was brought up.... they taught me how to live in this planet and they taught me to live with my own decisions and consiquences.

Now everybody wants to suck hole and find some excuse as to why they did something so they can get away with it..... oh it was my medication, it was my upbringing, I wasn't love enough, I'm fat, Nobody told me I couldn't do that.....

You want to know the big thing in the eyes of the law..... this is pretty sweet... I learned it in Law class.....

"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse from the law"

If you break the law, it doesn't matter what your age is, or if you didn't know it was illegal, if you broke it you broke it, and you should live up to the consiquences.

But it seems these days, everybody forgot about this, and now everybody get's slaps on the wrist and sent on their way.

And people wonder why the world is screwed up.

[iclaudius]

Prax, there's a huge difference between knowing what is right and what is wrong, and comprehending why it's right and wrong. If you can't comprehend it, you shouldn't be held totally accountable for it.

[Praxius]

Quote by: iclaudius Prax, there's a huge difference between knowing what is right and what is wrong, and comprehending why it's right and wrong. If you can't comprehend it, you shouldn't be held totally accountable for it.

I could comprehend that if I did something I was told not to do, I would have consiquences I would have to pay for my actions, it's not something hard to understand.

I can't just go out on the street and light up a giant bong and ask everyone to join in and not expect to get arrested and put away..... with your above logic, because I don't know all the in's and outs of the laws against marijuana, and I personally still to this day can not comprehend why it is illegal, I shouldn't have to worry about being charged for anything?

Oh but I'm an adult and I should know?

Well I feel you are taught things from day one of birth, respect and understanding right and wrong would be one of those important things you should teach your children..... it's not hard..... frig if you can teach the kid to crawl up on a toilet and take a dump.... teaching them the consiquences that if you don't, you shit your pants, then they can learn not to do something or face jail.

If you go around and tell the kids "You arn't allowed to do that, but you're under age so you can't be charged." what do you think is going to happen?

That's like handing them a stick of dynamite and a lighter and telling them not to use it........ of course they're gonna use it.... so of course they're gonna abuse the system, which you can't say they're not doing.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Duke1985 Umm the 6 year old is 6 and thinks and acts as such, whereas the 18 year old knows what their doing unless they are mentally ill.

If the accused doesn't know what he/she is doing, he/she is entitled to be acquitted anyway (whatever his/her age). The present case presupposes the kid knew what she was doing. C'mon, let's face it: she knew she was kicking, scratching and causing injury to others. Let's not pretend she didn't.

[Rave7pt0]

I hardly ever post on volconvo anymore, and this is a case in point: this conversation is so ridiculous on so many levels that I don't where to start. So I won't.

[Keith Hamburger]

Charging a 6 year old with a felony makes a complete mockery of age of consent laws.

Keith

[tinybear]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Charging a 6 year old with a felony makes a complete mockery of age of consent laws. Keith

Yep, it looks pretty much like the criminal law is there to screw up criminals, ain't it?

[tinybear]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 I hardly ever post on volconvo anymore, and this is a case in point: this conversation is so ridiculous on so many levels that I don't where to start. So I won't.

Please do. We'd like to know what you think. :)

[iclaudius]

And when did I say that adulthood was the brightline for determining when people should be held fully accountable for their actions? All I said was that at 6, you have little or no understanding of morality.

I could comprehend that if I did something I was told not to do, I would have consiquences I would have to pay for my actions, it's not something hard to understand.

Give me a break. If you can't grasp the concept of morality, you should not be held fully accountable for your actions. Period. If you cannot judge whether an action is right or wrong, it is impossible to make an informed decision about anything. If your only incentive not to do something is pain, you are just a drone. All you have done is recited a conditioned response to a new situation. I'll give it to you that there should be consequences, but they should be a teaching tool, and NOT a punishment, which is what a felony is.

To illustrate this example, let's say you're in a room full of objects. You recieve a code of conduct written in the language of the cave-dwelling natives of the Amazon. It tells you what to do and what not to do, but you don't understand it; you'll just have to learn by experience. One time, you touch, say, the red sphere. Some guy with a hickory bat comes in and beats you silly. Lesson learned. Next, you touch the blue cube. You get a cookie. After that, you touch the yellow pyramid. You get shocked. You forget what the red sphere does, so you touch it again. This time a clown walks in and gives you a balloon and a pomeranian. At this point, you have a vague conceptualization of punishment and reinforcement, but you haven't really figured out why things are the way they are, and you definitely haven't figured out whether or not you believe that these actions are justified in their consequences. So, you touch the blue cube expecting to get a cookie, and you get arrested instead.

Back to the real world.

Are they justified in punishing you to that extent (a felony) for merely being what amounts to the direct incarnation of a conditioned response? I say no. A 6-year-old has no idea what morality is, and the state has no business awarding a punishment as severe as a FELONY to such a child specifically for that reason.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Praxius My father has been teaching long before I was born, and they do not have to take that sort of crap from any person's child and it is not a risk of the job..... a child that size could do plenty.... I've seen some of these kids take some big chunks out of people when they bite, and I don't know about you, but if some kid has intnetions to bite me like that, they're going to get punted into a wall..... so to avoid this situation, call the police and haul them away.

I'm a teacher, and it is a risk of the job. I didn't say you had to just take it, but the point it that it might happen; there is no guarantee that you will never be hit, scratched, bitten, kicked, what have you, and so there is no reasonable expectation that you can always avoid it. If it happens there should be consequences; if the kid did somehow do serious damage, you should be able to sue or press charges, and at least get the child removed from your class. But in the moment when the child is acting out, you should not be able to avoid your responsibilities: dealing with that child is the teacher's responsibility first, the administration's second.

Actually, according to that police report, it was the principal who called the cops, so I don't have any complaint about the teacher, specifically; the teacher had the child removed from the classroom, so he/she did his/her job.

Quote by: Praxius I take it you never had your parents call the cops to come over and scare the crap out of you when you were a kid? I didn't either... but my neighbor did, lol.... it was funny.

Yeah, actually, I did. I committed a crime, my dad caught me, he called the police on me. But I was fifteen, and knew perfectly well what I was doing. When I was six, and I pushed a kid backwards and he hit his head on a rock, nobody called the cops on me. If somebody had, I would have been scared out of my mind and I would have fought harder to escape. Are we trying to teach children that they should fear the police, because they could get arrested any time, for any action we disapprove of? Are we trying to create a police state?

Quote by: Praxius Really? What do you do then, give in because they're scared and screaming because they're not getting what they want? That's why kids these days are so screwed up with the law as it is.... they've been babied and pampered for so dam long with Political Correctness and Youth laws that are too easy on them, that they don't care.... they know how to use the system, and they learn at a young age.... my friend starting off at 5 doing similar things is a good case in point.... and that was in the mid 80's.... I imagine what it's like now.

No, you bloody well deal with the child. Why is it that our only options are A, have the child arrested or B, give the child whatever she wants? What happened to C, tell the child No and stick to your goddamn guns? All this happened because a principal couldn't listen to a child screaming. I'll tell you, if you wait long enough, that child will stop screaming -- you don't need the police for that. If it's too loud, put her in a damn closet. Yell in her face! Tell she's a stupid spoiled bitch! Get her attention! Teachers have managed to control children for decades without resorting to handcuffs. What about this kid made her so dangerous that she needed special handling?

Quote by: Praxius The kid wasn't hurt.... the kid was given a reality check that probably was well over due, as well did some of those other kids who were watching.... making examples sometimes is effective.

The kid was simply too young for this reality check. Besides, getting arrested for screaming a lot is not a reality check. Nobody should get arrested for throwing a temper tantrum.

Quote by: Praxius Don't forget, this is a public school with probably limited funding.... I don't see them building a room for one crazy kid, nor can I see them getting permission to wrap the kid up in a S.Jacket..... which some human rights groups would deem inhumane for a kid that age (Which is no better then taking her away by the cops)

Look, all you need is a closet. Put the kid in a closet and ignore her. Actually, all you really need is a pair of ear plugs: put the kid in your office, wear the earplugs, and let her scream herself stupid. While you're at it, keep calling the parents and leave voicemail messages of their kid screaming. That's all this child did! How can that possibly be seen as a criminal offense?

Quote by: Praxius If they encountered this in the past, then chances are, they were prepared and that is why they called the cops.

My point is that that was not a reasonable solution to the problem. If they planned it, then they're stupid, not just lazy.

Quote by: Praxius Teachers are not given all the same rights as their parents, just some of the responsibilities.... They are providing a service, not a right. It is a right for education, but it is not a right to disrupt other's education or abuse those who are trying to educate you.

Nor is it a right to NOT have a child screaming in your office if you are an elementary school principal. It's part of the job. Deal with it.
And you're wrong; in the absence of parents, the school has exactly the same rights as a parent does, within reason. Slapping the child is out, but punishing the child is not.

Quote by: Praxius What would I think of a parent who called the cops on their own kid? I would say good job.... it's not like they're calling the SS.... they're calling the law enforcement and teaching the child that they're not exempt from the laws and mommy and daddy won't be there to protect you for your entire life.... something kids need to realise.

Please don't have kids. If you do, please accept that dealing with your children is your responsibility, your duty, your job. It is not the job of the state.

Quote by: Praxius Think about it... what else can a teacher do? What can parents even do these days? Pretty much nothing... you can't smack the shit out of them anymore, you can't spank them, you can't yell at them, you can't do anything related to anything disiplinary.... oh well..... you can tell them to goto their rooms..... yeah, and they hop onto the TV or computer to play games until they come out, or they leap out the window and take off..... So if Parents are getting screwed in this, how do you expect teachers to do better? The only logical thing to do now a days without getting arrested yourself, is to call the cops and get them to do their thing....

You can yell at them. You can use physical force, as long as it does not cause damage -- IOW, you can carry the kid physically out of the classroom, but you can't hit her in the head while you do it. You can discipline them to some extent.

The main issue is this: at some point, they would have gotten hold of the parents, or they would have been able to take the kid home themselves and drop her off with the parents. Or they could have taken the kid to social services. They should have dealt with the child until then. This child committed no crime, and could not be expected to understand the arrest. It was a poor decision -- simple as that.

[Praxius]

Quote by: iclaudius Give me a break. If you can't grasp the concept of morality, you should not be held fully accountable for your actions. Period. If you cannot judge whether an action is right or wrong, it is impossible to make an informed decision about anything. If your only incentive not to do something is pain, you are just a drone. All you have done is recited a conditioned response to a new situation. I'll give it to you that there should be consequences, but they should be a teaching tool, and NOT a punishment, which is what a felony is.

You may feel that's how it should be, but it isn't.

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Enjoy.

To illustrate this example, let's say you're in a room full of objects. You recieve a code of conduct written in the language of the cave-dwelling natives of the Amazon. It tells you what to do and what not to do, but you don't understand it; you'll just have to learn by experience. One time, you touch, say, the red sphere. Some guy with a hickory bat comes in and beats you silly. Lesson learned. Next, you touch the blue cube. You get a cookie. After that, you touch the yellow pyramid. You get shocked. You forget what the red sphere does, so you touch it again. This time a clown walks in and gives you a balloon and a pomeranian. At this point, you have a vague conceptualization of punishment and reinforcement, but you haven't really figured out why things are the way they are, and you definitely haven't figured out whether or not you believe that these actions are justified in their consequences. So, you touch the blue cube expecting to get a cookie, and you get arrested instead.

If you don't know... then ask. With that same mentality, I could jump in a plane, and fly off with it.... because I don't know all the controls and such, I end up crashing the plane.... but I am not liable for the accident or damages done, along with my possible death, because I was ignorant..... it doesn't work that way no matter what your age is.

Back to the real world. Are they justified in punishing you to that extent (a felony) for merely being what amounts to the direct incarnation of a conditioned response? I say no. A 6-year-old has no idea what morality is, and the state has no business awarding a punishment as severe as a FELONY to such a child specifically for that reason.

I don't see the big deal.... the kids got a criminal record.... when he/she hit's 18, their record is cleared.... this record isn't going to affect their life, except to teach them a lesson.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Praxius You may feel that's how it should be, but it isn't. Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ^ Enjoy.

However, consider ...

Mens rea

Which is cited at the bottom of the same article you linked.

The reason juveniles are not commonly charged with criminal conduct is that it is commonly assumed that a minor is not capable of the thought processes necessary to be culpable of committing the crime.

This is the reason for my comment about making mockery of age of consent laws. If a 6 year old is capable of the reasoning process necessary to be guilty of a felony, that same 6 year old is capable of the reasoning process necessary to consent to sex.

If you consider that to be ridiculous concept, perhaps you should reconsider your support of charging 6 year olds with criminal activity.

Keith

[Praxius]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I'm a teacher, and it is a risk of the job. I didn't say you had to just take it, but the point it that it might happen; there is no guarantee that you will never be hit, scratched, bitten, kicked, what have you, and so there is no reasonable expectation that you can always avoid it. If it happens there should be consequences; if the kid did somehow do serious damage, you should be able to sue or press charges, and at least get the child removed from your class. But in the moment when the child is acting out, you should not be able to avoid your responsibilities: dealing with that child is the teacher's responsibility first, the administration's second.

Granted, but I think all of this is based on the only supplied information.... we don't know if this has occured before, twice, three times, two years in a row, nobody here knows. If she acted out only the one times, then yeah, I could see this being a bit extreme, but if the kid was prone to doing this over and over again, then I feel what was done, was correct.

Yeah, actually, I did. I committed a crime, my dad caught me, he called the police on me. But I was fifteen, and knew perfectly well what I was doing. When I was six, and I pushed a kid backwards and he hit his head on a rock, nobody called the cops on me. If somebody had, I would have been scared out of my mind and I would have fought harder to escape. Are we trying to teach children that they should fear the police, because they could get arrested any time, for any action we disapprove of? Are we trying to create a police state?

Ah, so you say you understood it all because you were 15, yet you exempt this kid because they're 6..... 15 is still underage and deemed that you still wouldn't know the full extent of your actions, much like this kid, but you claimed at that age, you did.... much as when I said at my early years, I did.... so we're both examples proving the latter.

No, you bloody well deal with the child. Why is it that our only options are A, have the child arrested or B, give the child whatever she wants? What happened to C, tell the child No and stick to your goddamn guns? All this happened because a principal couldn't listen to a child screaming. I'll tell you, if you wait long enough, that child will stop screaming -- you don't need the police for that. If it's too loud, put her in a damn closet. Yell in her face! Tell she's a stupid spoiled bitch! Get her attention! Teachers have managed to control children for decades without resorting to handcuffs. What about this kid made her so dangerous that she needed special handling?

Well I remember in grade 11, a girl in class passed in a project half a day late and so she got a zero on the project.... she flipped ape shit and started yelling, screaming, and threatening the teacher in front of the whole class.

Eventually some people were laughing and she started to freak on them, saying she was gonna kill them all and making quite the scene.

The principal was called down and even then she wouldn't stop.... they eventually called the police and hauled her ass away, screaming and shouting all the way....... being a witness to the incident, they did everything appropreatly, regardless of her age.

Case in point, some situations are different from the norm, much like this one is. For most situations what was done by calling the police may have been extreme, but with the experience I went through in the past and how they explained it, I feel it was justified.

The kid was simply too young for this reality check. Besides, getting arrested for screaming a lot is not a reality check. Nobody should get arrested for throwing a temper tantrum.

But she wasn't arrested for a temper tantrum.... she was arrested for disturbing the peace and resisting arrest..... something that happens to a lot of people.

Look, all you need is a closet. Put the kid in a closet and ignore her. Actually, all you really need is a pair of ear plugs: put the kid in your office, wear the earplugs, and let her scream herself stupid. While you're at it, keep calling the parents and leave voicemail messages of their kid screaming. That's all this child did! How can that possibly be seen as a criminal offense?

Check your laws and see. As the police said they followed their books.....

My point is that that was not a reasonable solution to the problem. If they planned it, then they're stupid, not just lazy.

Once again, the entire story about past experiences are not included in this story, so it's a bit hard to come to that conclusion.

Nor is it a right to NOT have a child screaming in your office if you are an elementary school principal. It's part of the job. Deal with it. And you're wrong; in the absence of parents, the school has exactly the same rights as a parent does, within reason. Slapping the child is out, but punishing the child is not.

As I said, some.... ie: within reason as you said.

Please don't have kids. If you do, please accept that dealing with your children is your responsibility, your duty, your job. It is not the job of the state.

Quite the silly comment.... how can you say something like that, when you just said your own father called the state on you?

The main issue is this: at some point, they would have gotten hold of the parents, or they would have been able to take the kid home themselves and drop her off with the parents. Or they could have taken the kid to social services. They should have dealt with the child until then. This child committed no crime, and could not be expected to understand the arrest. It was a poor decision -- simple as that.

Sounds like poor parenting to me, and the school did what they needed to do for the peace of the school, and the teachings of the other students. Yes they have to look out for the well being of the students as gaurdians, but that means as a collective. If one of the collective is causing the rest problems then you solve the problem.

You say the child commited no crime.... if the kid didn't, then there wouldn't have been charges to lay now would there? and please read up on the above link I supplied.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Praxius You may feel that's how it should be, but it isn't. Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ^ Enjoy.

I don't care if that's how it is or isn't. How things are and how things should be are two entirely different things, and whether or not a certain law says something is completely meaningless, because that law could be wrong.

Appeal to Authority - Wiipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Enjoy.

Since I never used legality as a justification for my case, my case does not need to refute it to win this debate. But I'll do it anyway. To convict this kid of a felony would be legally wrong for the same reasons I've outlined above. The legally insane are not given jail time, death sentences, etc. for precisely those reasons. And for those reasons again, their criminal records are not taken seriously, except for medicinal purposes. I really don't understand why you don't get this.

Anyway, back to the scope of the debate: Once again, the concept of presumed knowledge of the law applies only to people who have the capability to understand the concept of morality. 6-year-olds, whether or not they are aware of the rules, do not -- I repeat, DO NOT -- have this capability. There is a big difference between being ignorant of something and being flat-out unable to comprehend that something. If you do not possess the ability to understand why the rules are as they are, I ask you, how are you supposed to be expected to adhere to them? They are just a meaningless set of boundaries to a 6-year-old; without an understanding of why they are, punishment for the sake of punishment (as opposed to learning) is stupid, ineffective, and unjust.

If you don't know... then ask. With that same mentality, I could jump in a plane, and fly off with it.... because I don't know all the controls and such, I end up crashing the plane.... but I am not liable for the accident or damages done, along with my possible death, because I was ignorant..... it doesn't work that way no matter what your age is.

And what about someone who is perpetually mentally age 6. Would you prosecute them? No. And if you did, it would result in HOSPITALIZATION.

I don't see the big deal.... the kids got a criminal record.... when he/she hit's 18, their record is cleared.... this record isn't going to affect their life, except to teach them a lesson.

Is that true? I was under the impression that a felony on any count would automatically disqualify them for state university attendance, as well as any number of jobs, including (reflexively) state jobs. Regardless, it's an unnecessary burden. If anything, I'd send the parents to parenting class and maybe smack the kid around a little.

[DEEJ85]

Quote by: Praxius Frig I hate these excuses for kids..... "They don't know any better" If they don't know any better at the age of 6 then they haven't been brought up correctly. I knew right and wrong at a very young age, and many kids these days know fully well what's going on.... they know far more then what we knew when we were young..... As early as I can remember, I knew the basics: Obey the police and their laws. Don't attack / hurt other people. Don't steal. Don't Lie. Treat others as I would want to be treated. DON'T DO THINGS YOU ARE TOLD NOT TO DO! Frig, if a 6 month old puppy can learn most of these, a half-wit 6 year old kid can... I know I did....

Have you ever met a