LogFAQs > #966734773

Gaawa_chan posted...

This is a bizarre leap in logic coming from you.

Reading the article again, they are pretty vague about the kid's involvement. It sounds like he followed the fugitive into the house voluntarily, which on my first pass I assumed meant he was trying to protect him in some way, but it could just as easily be read more neutrally and leave open the possibility that he was taken as a hostage, or even just that he also lived there and chose to stay inside instead of leaving when the police showed up (probably not a bad idea, given the high probability of being shot if he opened the door).

Jen0125 posted...

How can a child harbor a criminal??

The same way anyone else does: By using whatever means they have available to protect the person from the police. Kids have fewer means available, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Now, should they be criminally prosecuted for, say, helping to barricade a door that their older brother is hiding behind (not to imply that's what happened here, since there aren't enough details to infer that)? Potentially not. By virtue of being younger, kids (although 15 is pushing into territory where this excuse doesn't work as well anymore) aren't necessarily going to make good decisions in a high-pressure, emotionally charged situation like that, so calling it a legitimate mistake and letting them off with a warning may be reasonable. That's something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on the details. More broadly, though, there's no reason to categorically say that a child can't help an adult hide from the law.

JigsawTDCII posted...

adjl trying his hand at PO levels of pedantic here

I've always been PO levels of pedantic.

Far-Queue posted...

I'm curious if these clowns think it's less sad that the child who died is 15, as opposed to say a 6 year-old or something. Like, what does it matter? It's f***ing weird to be this hung up on something they're wrong about in the first place.

Mostly, it's a matter of speaking accurately instead of leaving out details for the sake of appealing more strongly to the reader's emotions, which is what you've come across as doing (intentionally or otherwise). That affects people's understanding of the situation, and once they figure out the whole truth of the matter, may lead to them dismissing your position as being histrionic and alarmist and feeling that the police may have been right (see: BS0 having doubts about the police's culpability). Obviously, the police are wrong and there's zero excuse for this. You don't need to leave out details or appeal to anyone's emotions to convey that conclusion.