Thread: Last year, police arrested a Texas mom. They put her in jail. She lost her job.
Her alleged crime: Leaving her teen daughter home alone.
There are a surprising amount of disturbing cases like this that fly under the radar. Let's talk about them.
In 2018, a mom let her 14-year-old—who did online homeschooling—stay home while she was on a trip. The neighbors agreed to supervise.
So police called CPS, performed a warrantless search of the home, took the kid, & refused to let her call her parents. reason.com/2022/12/14/thi…
Cops then jailed the mom for "child abandonment." A court confirmed last week that the police are not entitled to qualified immunity for that ridiculous reaction. She can finally sue.
But this is not the first time the state has criminalized normal parenting.
Like the time cops arrested another Texas mom, jailed her, & charged her with child endangerment for letting her 8-year-old son walk half a mile home reason.com/2022/11/16/sub…
Or the time 5 cop cars showed up to this Georgia mom's home before they arrested & jailed her for letting her 14-year-old daughter babysit her four siblings reason.com/2022/02/08/mel…
Or the time Arizona threatened a local mom with prison & placement on Arizona's Central Registry—which is similar to the sex-offender registry—for letting her 2 kids play in the park while she went grocery shopping reason.com/2021/12/14/ari…
Or the time police arrested & jailed an Ohio mom for letting her 10-year-old babysit while she worked the evening shift until 10:00 p.m. reason.com/2021/02/15/cop…
Or the time that Child Protective Services investigated this Virginia mom for...letting her 3 kids play outside. We can't have that! reason.com/2022/12/08/emi…
These cases are a reminder of what happens when you involve the state in everything.
Being a non-helicoper parent may land you with criminal charges. It's patently absurd. No one should fear jail for raising well-adjusted kids. /end reason.com/2022/12/14/thi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you claim to believe in a culture of absolute free speech, that has to include the speech of your competitors. If this isn’t an accidental bot error, then it’s beyond parody.
Yeah, sorry, but this is just absurd. I couldn’t stand this account. That shouldn’t matter. Elon can do what he wants, but if you say you support “a culture of free speech,” then that also has to apply to really obnoxious speech. Hope this is an error.
OK, this is really odd. At least some of these have to be a mistake.
The same person who said conservative SCOTUS justices should never again "have a peaceful moment in public" has the audacity to claim the moral high ground on harmful rhetoric.
Harassment & violence don't magically become OK when the person has views you dislike. I am so tired.
It is obviously wrong to harass or attack LGBT people. It is obviously wrong to harass or attack pro-life people.
And it is wild to me how this is apparently *not* obvious to some people, who think such tactics are fine so long as they have the "right" targets. It's so gross.
I suppose this is easier than having to defend your long history of advocating harassment against people you disagree with politically
Today, a Colorado man had a hearing to determine if he'll face 12 years in prison for having child porn. But no one—including the gov't—thinks he had child porn.
He's a school principal who was investigating a sexting incident. And cops want him branded a sex offender.
Bradley Bass did his job in accordance with school policy. But cops say in the process he ran afoul of an old Colorado child-porn law, which they are now weaponizing against him to criminalize him for...doing his job.
Here's the kicker! That same law makes an exception for cops who come to possess explicit photos for their investigations.
So if police do it, it's OK. When a school principal does the same thing, he faces more than a decade in prison & a place on the sex offender registry.
Every business owner has the right to make decisions based on their values. They can associate with & promote who & what they want. That’s *their* First Amendment right, no matter how much you hate it.
Just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t mean they should. I disagree with lots of decisions companies make, including at Twitter. But to argue that’s illegal because it hurts your feelings is patently absurd.
Translation: We stole what may have been someone’s life savings—potentially ruining his life—for no tangible public safety benefit. And then we acted like that was heroic.
The government can steal money from people without charging them with a crime.
For people who think I’m being dramatic about it ruining lives, consider this family who lost their home after the gov’t seized $1 million from them without criminal charges reason.com/2022/02/18/fbi…
Or the veteran who police seized $90,000 from simply because he was carrying a large amount of cash. Which, by the way, isn’t illegal! reason.com/2021/12/01/wat…
This is huge: Manhattan DA @AlvinBraggNYC has told a judge that he can no longer prosecute Tracy McCarter for murder.
This is the same woman who seems to have killed her husband in self-defense. Bragg campaigned on her innocence—& proceeded to prosecute anyway. A few thoughts.
McCarter was indicted on murder charges after stabbing her estranged husband.
But there was a big catch: The grand jury didn't hear about how he had a long history of violent abuse, because prosecutors concealed it. I covered the case in detail here: reason.com/2022/09/02/man…
Let me put it more plainly: Alvin Bragg ran on ending mass incarceration & criminal justice reform.
And then he spent the last year prosecuting a domestic violence victim—potentially sending her to prison for life—after using her story to clinch office. Amazing.