.jpg)
But a couple of recent cases here in the Tampa Bay area struck a chord with me, particularly the reaction of the parents.
First, four middle school classmates are accused of raping a teammate multiple times with a broom handle and a hockey stick in the school locker room. A reaction from one of the parents:
But what makes him so sure? Is that simply something he needs to say in court?Myers' father, Jaime, called his son respectful and denied the charges.
"He's been a very wonderful son that any dad would be proud to have," Jaime Myers said in court. "I am certain that he is innocent of these allegations."
Next, a wealthy couple has formed a protective legal shield around their 17-year-old daughter who is suspected of fleeing in a hit-and-run crash that killed a homeless woman.
The parents of 17-year-old Jordan Valdez hired a lawyer and avoided the questions of detectives after police impounded her Nissan Murano as evidence in a Feb. 8 crash. ... The Valdez family isn't the first caught in a tug-of-war between the protection of a child and civic responsibility.I think I know which way I would pull. But I don't really know. Honestly, who could?
I'll defer to the parents on this one.
9 comments:
Night time, winter, homeless crack user scuttling across the street away from an intersection while presumably not wearing day-glo and warning lights.
What if the teenager knew she'd hit *something* but thought she'd clipped a garbage can? To me, that explains an awful lot: why she didn't hide her car, why she was shocked to find it had been impounded, and most of all, why her parents are listening to their lawyer rather than letting the St. Pete Times organize a hangin' party on their behalf.
In working with kids, it always surprises me how far parents will go to defend their children. I've had a case where the child was videotaped doing something illegal. The parent at first swore the child could not have done it (I know my child!). But then after watching the videotape, she sat slack-jawed. She swore she would take care of it as soon as possible, only to return the next day again claiming the innocence of her child. According to her, the tape didn't prove anything.
I always stand up for my children, but I also attempt to get the whole first before making a judgement. I know that there are three sides to every story. And I know that sometimes when outside the purview of their parents.
I'm not familiar with the case in FL but there was an accident in metro Atlanta over the Easter holiday in which a college student was responsible for a hit and run that killed 5 people, 2 adults and three minor children in two separate vehicles. The driver's mother helped hide and repair the car before the police caught up with them.
My children are young so we haven't encountered a situation of importance where their decision making skills have been called upon. I'd like to believe that if it came down to their killing someone, accidentally or not, I would not aid and abet them. But it's easy to say when you're still in the sandbox stage of parenting.
@Anon: I don't know that any of the things you mentioned in the first graf have anything to do with the case - the woman was still run down in the street. And the teenage girl allegedly failed to stop and render aid. That's a crime. Plain and simple.
I sympathize with Valdez and her family's plight, no matter her role in all of this. But if she was involved in the accident, her parents have likely done her a disservice. By putting up roadblocks, they've brought more scrutiny to the case and might draw a tougher time in court than what the alleged crime calls for.
But who knows? Thanks for commenting, regardless.
@Max: Yeah. I mean, I understand the parental instinct to protect a child. I really do, even if I don't (na'meen). But sometimes, I think it's more harmful to blindly defend your kid in situations like that. It's not about the moment. It's about laying the foundation for a better future, you know?
@Kia: Geez. I hadn't heard anything about that case. I'll have to Google it.
And Amen to the rest.
i have three kids. i have gone to bat for all of them in various ways. i have a pretty good record; in fact, at least one of my children has an unrealistic view of my powers.
she was trying to get past security with her boy friend an airport once and he was stopped--and she said, "if my mom was here you'd get thru!!"
i have gone up against teachers, principals, the police, city hall, you name it.
but like max, i always have the facts, work really hard to get the facts, and the three sides is true as well. often there is no way to know the "true" truth.
i also know my children well and their tendencies. all kids lie. and you have to put yourself in the other kids' shoes, too, if it's appropriate and base your actions on what is right not just for your own child.
joel, you may be childless now, but you already know what it means to be a good parent--because you have them.
Blackink,
You assume the driver knew she hit a person. I suggest a reasonable Tampa resident, feeling a thump in the dark, in the winter, away from an intersection, and seeing nothing in the street behind her, might believe that she had clipped a garbage can.
These are the kinds of things that would come out in court, not in the newspaper-- not unless the newspaper were on a mission to demonize the jaywalker rather than the alleged driver.
With at least two cars following close behind-- and with the car immediately behind being driven by what the Times has described as a "very nervous, 'tweaked out'" driver-- would you "stop and render aid"-- presumably policing the area for empty pudding cups and cat food tins- if you thought you'd clipped someone's garbage can? Of course not.
What are we to make out of that Times quote about the "tweaked out" Hispanic male, anyway? The Tampa Bay area has a long history of white trash demanding "justice" against folks with names like Valdez. Which side has the Times historically been on when the lynch mob starts to gather? How often has it been leading the parade?
Good thing we still at least pay lip service to the idea of the accused being presumed innocent until proven guilty, isn't it?
Anon, sounds like you've got something on the line here.
But your reasoning doesn't make much sense: she might have "clipped" a garbage can in the middle of the street? Really? If that's the case, why didn't she see it?
What's more, according to police reports, the girl apparently knew she had been involved in a serious accident? Otherwise, why would have her family bothered calling the cops the morning after?
Look, I'm willing to allow the courts to settle the issue. But the family's behavior in the aftermath of the accident has been, uh, interesting. If there's nothing to hide, then why not completely and fully cooperate with the investigators?
Oh, and all of this:
"What are we to make out of that Times quote about the "tweaked out" Hispanic male, anyway? The Tampa Bay area has a long history of white trash demanding "justice" against folks with names like Valdez. Which side has the Times historically been on when the lynch mob starts to gather? How often has it been leading the parade?"
Are you serious? Give me some examples.
Of course I'm serious. And no, I don't have "something on the line here", except an interest in media-led lynch mobs.
Any defense lawyer will tell you that the family would lose, not gain, from behaving differently. They cooperated with the police. The law is what's in the police's way, not the family's behavior.
As for the last paragraph, go spend a day in the Tampa Public Library reading up on the local boys in sheets. It'll be enlightening for you. Then ask yourself, what does labeling a Hispanic man who has nothing to do with the accident as "tweaked out" (which is to say, under the influence of methamphetamine) add to the narrative? Why was it included?
"Of course I'm serious. And no, I don't have 'something on the line here', except an interest in media-led lynch mobs."
I'm skeptical. How'd you find this blog? We don't get many anonymous commenters on here. (Not that I don't appreciate the feedback. Just sayin'.) And saying you have proof and providing it are two different things. You should at least have a couple of examples off-top, no?
"Any defense lawyer will tell you that the family would lose, not gain, from behaving differently. They cooperated with the police. The law is what's in the police's way, not the family's behavior."
Well, I guess we'll see how this all resolves itself.
Btw, the reference to "tweaked out" came from a witness and a police report, not the actual Times reporter. And I would guess that matters (and was included in the story) because if someone had knowingly run over someone in the street, their disposition around the time of the accident would certainly be of interest to investigators. Don't you think?
Post a Comment