From: leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis)
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:29:25 GMT
Followup-To: ba.general

In article <1992Oct6.013217.26155@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
|> In article <6998@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
|> >"Go ahead and trespass, raise hell, and break things nothing
|> >is too good for Bob's children."
|> >
|> >Attitudes like your's only make me care less about your children.  Saying
|> 
|> Please stop misrepresenting my attitudes and views.

The sad thing is that your postings come out like this.

You state things like:
  By definition children are not responsible for their actions.

  By definition it doesn't matter whether a child is trespassing or
     not, the property owner is liable for anything that happens.

  By definition children are stupid and will make mistakes.  This makes
     any and all adults in the area responsible for them.  Even if
     they aren't their parents and didn't want them on their property.

  By definition children are too important to not do anything and every
     thing possible to protect them.  Even if the cost and risk is
     forced upon a third party who doesn't want them around and can't
     control the actions, judgement, and values taught to the child.

  By definition children should never assume any risks or harm due to
     their activities, even if their parents are neglegent.  If their
     parent is neglegent, any and all adults are forced to assume the
     task of protecting the child.  The neglegent parent isn't responsible.

  By definition children aren't capable of learning and following simple
     rules and values like trespassing and respect.  Even if the child
     knows they're doing something they were told not to, the property
     owner is responsible.

  It doesn't matter if the neighborhood children damage your property and
     trespass.  If they get hurt while on your property, trespassing or
     not, the owner is responsible.

  It doesn't matter if the parent doesn't control their child's actions
     and location.  If the child sneaks onto your property and gets
     hurt the property owner is responsible.  The neglegent parent sues
     for damages.

This sends clear messages to both parents and children:
  You're not responsible for your actions!  Someone will assume the
  risk and cost for you.  It isn't important or required for parents
  to teach their children basic values like respect and trespassing,
  because the bottom line is they aren't responsible.

  Children can ignore the wishes of their neighbors and do whatever they
  want.  If the parent is neglegent in controlling the child the neighbor
  is forced to do whatever is required to protect the uncontrolled and
  unwanted child.  Neighbors are expected to just assume the responsiblity
  and damages resulting from another's children with no way to control
  the child's actions and values.

  Property owners are always responsible even if the child knows it is
  somewhere it isn't wanted and/or doing something it was told not to do.
  Even if the child is breaking the law at the time, the child and its
  parent aren't the responsible party if they get hurt.

Total BS.  No wonder we have so many problems with drop outs, teenage
crimes, and drugs.  From an early age the child learns that when some
thing really bad happens, they aren't responsible.  If something good
happens take credit for it, but if something negative happens blame
someone else.