14 yr old gets busted for lemonade stand..(w.t.f)

[DeathStrudel]

Anyone saying "the law's the law," is just ignorant. If you honestly think laws are meant to make people safe and that police officers enforce laws for the sake of justice then you are sadly mistaken. Laws should be questioned, not taken as the word of god. IMO, if a crime has no victim (such as this one) then how can you even call it a crime? Somebody gets punished not because they are causing problems for others, but simply because "it's the law." Do you really not see the major flaw in this way of thinking?

Oh god, it's called SAFETY, ladies and gentlemen.

How many psychos do we have on this world right now? Do you think it would be safe for those kids to just sell those things on the street? Do you think we don't have psychos who could rob the complete lemonade stand and give the child a fucking permanent trauma for the rest of her fucking youth? These traumas cost the government and parents money, a lot of money.
And having a permit which would have made their lemonade stand legal would also protect them from these dangers?


QUOTE(BlueStar @ Jul 17 2011, 09:29 AM) I think the difference is between middle class kids selling it to spend on entertainment and poor kids selling it to pay for food. Think people would be more comofrtable with one than the other, but can't justify creating a crime of "Street selling while not adorable."

The problem with what your saying is it's how YOU think others would feel. You don't know how they would feel, so stop acting like your feeling about it are how most people feel because chances are, they aren't.

 

[BlueStar]

Anyone saying "the law's the law," is just ignorant. If you honestly think laws are meant to make people safe and that police officers enforce laws for the sake of justice then you are sadly mistaken. Laws should be questioned, not taken as the word of god. IMO, if a crime has no victim (such as this one) then how can you even call it a crime? Somebody gets punished not because they are causing problems for others, but simply because "it's the law." Do you really not see the major flaw in this way of thinking?

Then you campaign to CHANGE THE LAW, not just decide on a case-by-case basis depending on how society views the people who are breaking it.

QUOTE

I think the difference is between middle class kids selling it to spend on entertainment and poor kids selling it to pay for food. Think people would be more comofrtable with one than the other, but can't justify creating a crime of "Street selling while not adorable."

The problem with what your saying is it's how YOU think others would feel. You don't know how they would feel, so stop acting like your feeling about it are how most people feel because chances are, they aren't.

I never said they were my feelings about it. I'm convinced if it was grubby foreign kids selling stuff on the street that were told they needed a license that it wouldn't have made the news and they wouldn't have had thousands of keyboard warriors demanding they be exempt from laws that apply to everyone else. If a law's on the books you apply it to everyone, you don't just say "Off you go coppers, arrest anyone you don't like the look of and let people off if they seem like a nice chap. Let's be careful out there."

 

[DeathStrudel]

Anyone saying "the law's the law," is just ignorant. If you honestly think laws are meant to make people safe and that police officers enforce laws for the sake of justice then you are sadly mistaken. Laws should be questioned, not taken as the word of god. IMO, if a crime has no victim (such as this one) then how can you even call it a crime? Somebody gets punished not because they are causing problems for others, but simply because "it's the law." Do you really not see the major flaw in this way of thinking?

Then you campaign to CHANGE THE LAW, not just decide on a case-by-case basis depending on how society views the people who are breaking it.
So you think it's ok to punish people when what they have done hasn't hurt anybody? If you answer yes then I am done talking to you because that's just ridiculous. Think about if you were in a situation where you technically broke the law, but no harm was done, would you turn yourself in? Or if they arrested you would say something like, "You guys are totally right and I'm going to plead guilty and don't mind paying any fines or possibly serving jail time, because I know I broke the law and that was wrong and I should be punished for it even though nobody was affected by it" If you answer yes to this question, then you're probably lying.

edit: also my point had nothing to do with how society view the "criminals," it's how society view the "crime," regardless of who committed it, cute child or not

QUOTE(BlueStar @ Jul 17 2011, 09:29 AM)

I think the difference is between middle class kids selling it to spend on entertainment and poor kids selling it to pay for food. Think people would be more comofrtable with one than the other, but can't justify creating a crime of "Street selling while not adorable."

The problem with what your saying is it's how YOU think others would feel. You don't know how they would feel, so stop acting like your feeling about it are how most people feel because chances are, they aren't.

I never said they were my feelings about it. I'm convinced if it was grubby foreign kids selling stuff on the street that were told they needed a license that it wouldn't have made the news and they wouldn't have had thousands of keyboard warriors demanding they be exempt from laws that apply to everyone else. If a law's on the books you apply it to everyone, you don't just say "Off you go coppers, arrest anyone you don't like the look of and let people off if they seem like a nice chap. Let's be careful out there."

My point is you don't know how others would react, but you keep assuming that you know.

 

[Assax]

Then you campaign to CHANGE THE LAW, not just decide on a case-by-case basis depending on how society views the people who are breaking it.

I think the difference is between middle class kids selling it to spend on entertainment and poor kids selling it to pay for food. Think people would be more comofrtable with one than the other, but can't justify creating a crime of "Street selling while not adorable."

The problem with what your saying is it's how YOU think others would feel. You don't know how they would feel, so stop acting like your feeling about it are how most people feel because chances are, they aren't.

I never said they were my feelings about it. I'm convinced if it was grubby foreign kids selling stuff on the street that were told they needed a license that it wouldn't have made the news and they wouldn't have had thousands of keyboard warriors demanding they be exempt from laws that apply to everyone else. If a law's on the books you apply it to everyone, you don't just say "Off you go coppers, arrest anyone you don't like the look of and let people off if they seem like a nice chap. Let's be careful out there."

It makes me sad that people need a law for everything instead of using their common sense.
I'm sure if someone is going to campaign to change the law for children selling stuff on the street e.g. in this case lemonade people would laugh because thats just ridiculous.
Why would you even feel the need to change laws for something - for me atleast - so obvious, I think thats pathetic, as if humanity cannot decide such simply and trivial things without the law.

 

[FAST6191]

Several thoughts on this

First you will not get any argument from me for a statement along the lines of "US tax and business law along with the things that inform it are a mess".
To this end I find the concept of a business license amusing although most places I find myself do something similar and require you to put effort in to get out of it (national insurance seems to mirror this somewhat in the UK- making it something of an opt out affair should you start a business).

Police often seem measured on stats down to the officer level. Does not make it justified I agree and even without press I am sure words would have been had but I wanted to leave it out there. Granted it would have been preferable to either turn a blind eye or not jump right to the "full sanctions" ("you can not do this, should it still be going on in the morning/this evening.....").

Ages- some terms that probably need to be looked up "age of criminal responsibility" (granted this is a UK version of the term but something similar exists stateside) and purpose of "family court".

"toxins"- this would probably be a foodstuff prepared on site rather than a packaged foodstuff (making the door to door and such like analogies somewhat weaker). Not saying I would not laugh at someone that urged caution on such grounds but there is a line of logic at least now polio is a thing of the past (or should be).

The water park prices.
http://www.lawncare.net/lawn-watering-restrictions/ seems to include Georgia. So an arguably seasonal ( http://www.wunderground.com/history/airpor...eq_statename=NA - granted going by that I would consider opening in March or possibly earlier but having some amusing stories on similar matters* I can see it being a shorter season) business in a state with water restrictions and presumably high insurance rates (I am basing this off discussions with skate park owners and such like over the years- I consider it unlikely but I am prepared to be wrong here).

*California late October one year- temperature is about 20 degrees C (aka a nice Summer day in the UK) so my dad lets us jump in the pool of the hotel we are at. Receptionist comes screaming out worried about it being too cold, things get explained and she wanders off shaking her head like we are mad, odd looks from passers by on similar grounds being one example of such things.

 

[BlueStar]

So you think it's ok to punish people when what they have done hasn't hurt anybody? If you answer yes then I am done talking to you because that's just ridiculous.

So do you think it's OK to just decide laws don't apply to people on a whim, when other people are going to have to follow them? The law is on the books. This cop decides not to enforce it, a different cop decides to enforce it on someone else. You're fine with that? Who got punished? You're going on like the kids were thrown in jail, stop having a tantrum and just look at the situation without getting over emotional. You need a permit to sell on the street. People sold stuff on the street without a premit and were told they needed a permit. What's the problem? I don't think smoking a joint hurts anyone else, but I don't think the right way to deal with that is for everyone to walk down the high street lighting up and then act shocked and appalled if they get told not to by policeman because they think the law doesn't apply to them.

If you have these laws on the books, but decide they generally shouldn't be enforced in the kind of wooly, idealistic fashion people are talking about (That you just know when it's something that's OK even though it's technically against the law and everyone has the same standards on this), how do you make sure that is done fairly? Won't police just enforce laws based on if they think there'll be publicity about it or not? "Hmm, lemonade stand, the kids are cute, the mother's a journalist, I'll let it slide. Hmm, these kids won't kick up a fuss, no-one cares about kids in this neighbourhood, I'm bored, I'll close their stand down."

At what age do you stop having this right to sell stuff on the street without a permit? What if one officer decides 14 and 10 is OK, but 16 and 14 isn't, but another officer one street away decides 18 year olds running a lemonade stand is fine?

People are just taking the easy stance without even thinking about wider implications.

 

[DeathStrudel]

So you think it's ok to punish people when what they have done hasn't hurt anybody? If you answer yes then I am done talking to you because that's just ridiculous.

So do you think it's OK to just decide laws don't apply to people on a whim, when other people are going to have to follow them? The law is on the books. This cop decides not to enforce it, a different cop decides to enforce it on someone else. You're fine with that? Who got punished? You're going on like the kids were thrown in jail, stop having a tantrum and just look at the situation without getting over emotional. You need a permit to sell on the street. People sold stuff on the street without a premit and were told they needed a permit. What's the problem? I don't think smoking a joint hurts anyone else, but I don't think the right way to deal with that is for everyone to walk down the high street lighting up and then act shocked and appalled if they get told not to by policeman because they think the law doesn't apply to them.

If you have these laws on the books, but decide they generally shouldn't be enforced in the kind of wooley, idealist fashion people are talking about (That you just know when it's something that's OK and everyone has the same idea), how do you make sure that is done fairly? Won't police just enforce laws based on if they think there'll be publicity about it or not? "Hmm, lemonade stand, the kids are cute, the mother's a journalist, I'll let it slide. Hmm, these kids won't kick up a fuss, no-one cares about kids in this neighbourhood, I'm bored, I'll close their stand down."

At what age do you stop having this right to sell stuff on the street without a permit? What if one officer decides 14 and 10 is OK, but 16 and 14 isn't, but another officer one street away decides 18 year olds running a lemonade stand is fine?

That's not what I'm saying at all, learn to understand what people are saying, there's no point in even trying to explain because I highly don't you'll be able to grasp it based on the level of intellect you have shown

 

[BlueStar]

That's not what I'm saying at all, learn to understand what people are saying, there's no point in even trying to explain because I highly don't you'll be able to grasp it based on the level of intellect you have shown

And

QUOTEyou think it's ok to punish people when what they have done hasn't hurt anybody

Wasn't what I was saying at all.

Seems that what you mean by "There's no point in trying to explain" is that you can no longer back up your own argument and you want out.

So, people of GBATemp "It's just common sense, it's obvious that kids should be allowed to run a lemonade stall without a permit."

Come on then, at what age do you stop being allowed to sell on the street without a permit? Is it just lemonade, or can you sell anything? Are there some things you shouldn't be allowed to sell, or some places? Seeing as it's just common sense I presume you're all going to give the same answer.

 

[Schlupi]

For those of you who say the law is meant to only protect people...

Here in Chicago, we have a law saying that you can NOT record a conversation with an on-duty police officer or you will be arrested for it. One lady recently was raped by two cops, and she went back to the station they were posted in and tried to reason with them and talk to them about it. She said she wanted to talk to them, and she asked permission to record the conversation. They consented verbally. After she talked to them and they supposedly admitted their guilt on tape she was immediately arrested on the "recording" charge, as well as several other things. She got 15 years in jail just for trying to get the proper punishment for these assholes that they deserved. Apparently cops cannot held responsible for what they say.


Anyways... point to the story is, you guys who are all uptight and righteous saying laws are just meant to protect people are silly. You say, "What if something happened to somebody who drank the lemonade?" What about STREET FAIRS? FLEA MARKETS? These people don't have permits. Their sales are EXTREMELY loosely regulated. They just sell shit for 20 bucks a week and they can do whatever they want to their food/merchandise. Should they NOT be permitted to sell just because they don't have a permit too? What if they are legit and not causing any harm? If so, why stop them?

With the corruption and grey areas of legality in our world nobody can truly judge what is right or wrong sometimes. I agree with you all to SOME extent; there are in fact many laws to keep the peace and protect the well being of citizens. However, not all of them are just or reasonable. If you think laws were only meant to protect people, you're dreadfully mistaken.

 

[DeathStrudel]

That's not what I'm saying at all, learn to understand what people are saying, there's no point in even trying to explain because I highly don't you'll be able to grasp it based on the level of intellect you have shown

And

QUOTEyou think it's ok to punish people when what they have done hasn't hurt anybody

nice job leaving out the question mark, it was a question, I never said it was what you were saying

Wasn't what I was saying at all.

Seems that what you mean by "There's no point in trying to explain" is that you can no longer back up your own argument and you want out.

So, people of GBATemp "It's just common sense, it's obvious that kids should be allowed to run a lemonade stall without a permit."

Come on then, at what age do you stop being allowed to sell on the street without a permit? Is it just lemonade, or can you sell anything? Are there some things you shouldn't be allowed to sell, or some places? Seeing as it's just common sense I presume you're all going to give the same answer.

Yes, I want out of an argument with somebody that isn't going to change their mind and keeps replying with things unrelated to what I'm saying

edit: "It's just common sense, it's obvious that kids should be allowed to run a lemonade stall without a permit."

 

[Shinigami357]

@Blue Star

If you understand that the law was indeed upheld, then why so butthurt about it, then? The law, shining example of societal responsibility that it is, was upheld. Why you go out of your way to even link things that don't even have any bearing on this?

Yeah, we get it, you hold the opinion that the law should cover everyone. I don't think anyone in their right minds would deny that. Our point all along is simple: what fucked-up kind of law would require something so insignificant as a lemonade stand to get a city permit to set up? That's bloody ridiculous.

In any case, it isn't a capital offense. Like I said [as as you've acknowledged] the 'case' ended with a slap to the wrist, informing the children of the law/rules regarding the permits, and then they were ordered to pack up. Story done.

Also, to everyone going gaga over these [non-existent in this case] "toxins"

1. I think I said a while back - no kid who genuinely wanted to earn money would sell something that turns customers away. It's common sense.
2. These kids have parents. Obviously, they knew one way or the other that their daughters would be setting up shop. You really think they won't at the very least supervise in making the lemonade?



@FAST6191 - Criminal law now covers business permits? I thought that was under commercial law or something.

 

[Jamstruth]

Here's what I think having thought about it.
If the kids were in the middle of a city park or whatever then fine, shut them down.
If they were in a suburban street or something then leave them be.

Also since the kids won't have Social Security Numbers yet (assuming its similar to National Insurance Numbers in the UK) they would never be able to get these permits. Hell they can't have jobs but you expect them to get permits before having fun and selling something on their street? Some allowances have to be made for things such as this.

As for your analogy with gurbby kids selling. If they were just kids selling outside their house and from a poor family hell I'd sympathise with them. The problem is that we're all invisioning some kids sitting on their front lawn trying to sell to passing neighbours. We are in no way imagining any kind of serious enterprise here which would require a permit.

 

[BlueStar]

I'm not the one who's butthurt about it, I'm not the one that's bawwwwwwwwwwwing about the situation. And I don't see anyone going 'gaga' over toxins, I'm certainly not. That's not the issue here at all.

If you think there should be a change in the law, campign for permits to not be needed for kids. But like I say, I don't think it will be as simple as people think. You can't write a law saying "People can't sell on the street without a permit unless they're kids doing something cool like lemonade stands and stuff." You need to define what a stall is, what a kid is, where they can set it up. And if people answer the questions in my last post, you'll suddenly find it's not all "common sense" after all.

 

[BlueStar]

edit: "It's just common sense, it's obvious that kids should be allowed to run a lemonade stall without a permit."

 

[Jamstruth]

Actually its you that's gotten so worked up about our attitude that. "Yeah, law was upheld like it should be but..c'mon! Its just some kids on their front lawn!"

 

[BlueStar]

Actually its you that's gotten so worked up about our attitude that. "Yeah, law was upheld like it should be but..c'mon! Its just some kids on their front lawn!"

People went absolutely apeshit at the beginning of this thread talking about socialism and acting like SWAT swooped down in riot gear and smashed their glasses with batons. Now we're talking about the punishment fitting the crime, as if they've been given the death penalty. The 'punishment' being that they were allowed to keep their takings, politely told they'd need a permit to keep on selling stuff by the side of the road like everyone else and given the opportunity to get one. How could the 'punishment' be any less?

 

[DeathStrudel]

I'm not the one who's butthurt about it, I'm not the one that's bawwwwwwwwwwwing about the situation. And I don't see anyone going 'gaga' over toxins, I'm certainly not. That's not the issue here at all.

If you think there should be a change in the law, campign for permits to not be needed for kids. But like I say, I don't think it will be as simple as people think. You can't write a law saying "People can't sell on the street without a permit unless they're kids doing something cool like lemonade stands and stuff." You need to define what a stall is, what a kid is, where they can set it up. And if people answer the questions in my last post, you'll suddenly find it's not all "common sense" after all.
You shouldn't have to get a law changed, the cop could've just stopped and thought, "hey, these kids are not harming anybody in any way so why should I force them to shut it down?" People seem to use the law as an excuse to not have morals. Laws are made for a reason, to protect people; if the cops are clearly not protecting anybody by enforcing a law then I see no reason as to why it was enforced.


QUOTE(BlueStar @ Jul 17 2011, 11:27 AM) How could the 'punishment' be any less?

umm, to let them continue since they were doing no harm?

 

[Magmorph]

Anyone saying "the law's the law," is just ignorant. If you honestly think laws are meant to make people safe and that police officers enforce laws for the sake of justice then you are sadly mistaken. Laws should be questioned, not taken as the word of god. IMO, if a crime has no victim (such as this one) then how can you even call it a crime? Somebody gets punished not because they are causing problems for others, but simply because "it's the law." Do you really not see the major flaw in this way of thinking?

It is a crime because there is a law against it. That is the very definition of a crime. There is a victim to this crime too. That 50 dollars would have gone somewhere had it been payed. If you don't like the law there are ways to get it changed.

 

[DeathStrudel]

Anyone saying "the law's the law," is just ignorant. If you honestly think laws are meant to make people safe and that police officers enforce laws for the sake of justice then you are sadly mistaken. Laws should be questioned, not taken as the word of god. IMO, if a crime has no victim (such as this one) then how can you even call it a crime? Somebody gets punished not because they are causing problems for others, but simply because "it's the law." Do you really not see the major flaw in this way of thinking?

It is a crime because there is a law against it. That is the very definition of a crime. There is a victim to this crime too. That 50 dollars would have gone somewhere had it been payed. If you don't like the law there are ways to get it changed.

So somebody didn't get money that shouldn't have to be paid in the first place, I feel so sorry for them

 

[Domination]

You know, I feel sorry for the kid, but the basic doctrine of Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat still applies, even if its a kid who doesn't know anything, the law still applies. First thing we learnt was that legality and morality are not essentially the same. Adultery is not illegal in Singapore, whereas importing of (bubble/chewing)gum is. Not everything in the law is correct and logical, but it still must be upheld by the commissioned enforcers.

And besides, its not the law's fault: if the government that enacted the statute(and the relevant subsidiary legislation) didn't specifically state small stalls like these were exempted, it should be expected to be taken at face value. I'm not really sure about that though, which act were they in offence of?