BBC just getting in reports. Check out CNN

-- Chris (enquiries@griffenmill.com), March 05, 2001

Answers

I imagine it's all the gun's fault. Poor kid was probably deprived of something or other and this big evil gun just up and jumped into his hand and whispers into his ear "please shoot me".

-- who's fault (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 05, 2001.

Oh boy, the media will love this one! Maybe they'll finally drop the "storm of the century" bullshit.

-- hee hee (people @ are. sheeple), March 05, 2001.

I heard a knee-jerk reaction to this about a half our ago at a Big O Tire store. Some guy said they should throw the parents of kids who commit crimes like this in jail, and the guy said he has four guns at home that he keeps securely locked up. I reminded this guy that the two students at Columbine did not get the guns they used at Columbine from their parents.

I do think parents should spend more time with their children than they do.

-- Scapegoating is easy (solutions@are.harder), March 05, 2001.

If the parents don't know the kids have guns, that is all the more reason to throw the parents in jail.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 05, 2001.

"If the parents don't know the kids have guns, that is all the more reason to throw the parents in jail. "

Buddy, all I can say is that you must have been some kind of amazing suck-up and a goodie-two-shoes when you were in high school, if you kept your parents perfectly informed of everything you did.

Mom: "Welcome home, Buddy. How was your day?"

Buddy: "Hey, mom. My day went pretty well. I spent most of second period math class staring at Julia Peterson's breasts, then during third period study hall I got excused to the bathroom so I could jerk off."

Mom: "That's nice dear. Now account for every minute since then so I'll know if you got into any othe mischief."

Buddy: "Soul of honor, mom, nothing much to speak of."

Mom: "OK. Run along, Buddy. But if you buy any guns secretly from any of those older neighbor boys, I want to be informed right away so I can restrict your access to them."

Buddy: "Sure thing, mom! Bye!" [Slams screen door.]

It's like a line my father used to say: He's a good boy and he does what he's told. I just wish I could think of more things to tell him not to do!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 05, 2001.

LOL Nipper!

Uh, Buddy, the problem is a little more complex....

-- (@ .), March 05, 2001.

Oh gawd Buddy! Julia Peterson? Good grief man, she was a carpenter's dream.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 05, 2001.

Fuck you.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 06, 2001.

Oh, and you didn't address the point.

Do you think the parents in these cases should be held responsible?

I do.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 06, 2001.

OK. You think they should be held responsible. That is your privilege. We are all free to make fools of ourselves from time to time. No law against it.

But you do understand that your idea stands the normal perception of responsibility on its head. After all, you are not held responsible for your neighbor's actions, or your parents' actions. Because of the special financial relationship of married couples, you might be held financially liable for your wife's actions, but if your wife murders the milkman with a garden trowel, you don't go to death row. Why should you?

Nowhere else in the normal world are we treated as the culprit, if we did not commit the crime.

But let us assume that parents are now to be held responsible for their child shooting a gun at someone else. This begs the question: just how far would this new principle extend?

For example:

If your son commits rape without your knowledge, should you be arrested?

If your daughter phones in a bomb threat to the school, should you be sentenced to 100 hours of community service?

What if your offspring gets into a fight and punches a classmate, should that classmate throw a punch at you to get even?

Where does it end, Barry? I really want to know.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 06, 2001.

I'm confused here. When, exactly, did parents lose culpability for the acts of their underage children?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 06, 2001.

"When, exactly, did parents lose culpability for the acts of their underage children?"

If your 10-year old breaks the neighbor's window playing baseball, the neighbor still expects you to pay for it, if that is what you mean. Civil settlement for any property damage your child does still devolves onto you.

Criminal responsibility is quite different from civil liability. I don't think parents' culpability has ever extended to the point where they served jail time because their teenaged child committed a crime. How responsible can you be if you have no idea what your child intends to do and are in another part of town when the crime is committed? You can't supervise a teenaged child every minute. Even if it were possible, it wouldn't be desirable. A child who is intent on committing a crime will do so, no matter what the parent does. Threatening parents with jail can't change that.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 06, 2001.

I think I see what Buddy is driving at, although I cannot agree with his implications.

If your child opens fire and starts shooting people, I don't think there is any way for you to avoid the feeling that you have failed as a parent in some really important way. But what that way might be, can be tricky to pin down. Did you fail to impart any morality? Did you fail to provide an understanding ear to his troubles, or create a home environment where such an ear didn't seem to exist? Surely there must have been some signs that something like this was possible or brewing, and you must have somehow chosen not to see them. Where all did you fail?

And broken homes are tough on everyone. If you remain single, then you are very hard pressed for the time and energy required to raise a child with any competence. If you remarry, the child very often feels like a fifth wheel as your attentions are devoted to building a life with a new person, to whom the child is unrelated and often feels unwanted, even if it's not fully true.

But we can't go overboard in frustration. Buddy expects parents to know everything their children are thinking or doing at all times, despite the universal desire of children to keep at least some secrets. I don't know the best trade between being so strict your child fears you and is always thinking of running away, and being so lax that the child feels you genuinely don't care if he lives or dies.

Certainly my own parents knew I had guns -- they gave them to me! They also taught me how to use them, and instilled in me a very healthy respect for what the guns could do. Still, as a high schooler I was expected to be responsible - my parents could not follow me around every minute, nor would I consider it good parenting even if they could.

I don't know the answer, but I know it's not as simple as punishing the wrong people out of sheer vindictive irritation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 06, 2001.

LOL @ nipper.

FWIW, my son and my nephew were 13, I lived in Penthouse apt on top bout 5 floors up. I went to bed, they were playing nintendo. No problem.

Next day at work, I was called by bldg management. I got home from work and the SWAT team was at my door. The both of them thought it cool to throw a milk jug off the balcony, it hit vehicle.

WHO was responsible for prop damage? ME.

WHERE did I fail? Um, guess i shouldve stayed UP ALL nite? :-)

nothing in comparison to a murder but my personal experience. I cant be with my child 24-7 although I should have been?

BTW i turned it over to my insurance company it paid the $1400.00 damage under liability. Some policies have a clause where they will pay for acts of minors in that regard as they state that minors arent of age of accountability till beyond 13. I SAID SOME, so dont beat me with it, ok?

just my lil tale of woe.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 06, 2001.

To prepare our fighting men to go to war and kill a person years ago, bullseye targets were used in training. This lead to a large percentage of soldiers in World War 1 and 2 and Korea to actualy shoot over the enemy's head so as not to kill. But when human silhouettes were used in practice, that percentage decreased. Now the military uses video imagary to simulate actual combat. The target looks and moves like a human being in three dimensional color and basically the hesitation to kill another human being does not exist anymore with the combat soldier.

The same thing with our kids. They have been playing these things heavily for the last 10 years now and they are trained to shoot and kill another person by the time they are 6 years old. They see the moving person and they aim and they pull the trigger with no remorse. The wounded or dead enemy recovers as soon as they feed the machine with more quarters. Death is not permanent in their world. Why do they wear clothing that says NO FEAR or NO PAIN?

When I went to high school in the Sixties, most every boy in school that had a vehicle also had a revolver or rifle under the seat or hangin in the rear window. We got pissed off at our classmates and teachers but we sure as hell never EVER considered takin somebody elses life. We didn't live in the video KILL world, but we knew what a bullet would do and how permanent the results were.

-- Boswell (cjseed@webtv.net), March 06, 2001.

I still haven't seen a link to the story. I hope I don't have to resort to the T.V. for the news on it. [horror at the thought]

There WAS this, put out by the MSNBC folks [who condense everything into nothing].

Nipper: I can't follow the logic of my being responsible for a broken window yet not being responsible for a crime far worse. I know you're thinking of it from a legal standpoint, but I'm thinking of it as the parent of three kids. [It may have been a lie, but I told them that *I*'d go to jail for anything they did while still minors.]

Flint: Damn right. There is NO WAY that I could walk away from one of my kids having done something like this without wondering where I went wrong.

Boswell: Those video games don't mean anything. My son had been playing around with those "kill em" videos since he was little, and he grew up to be a pacifist.

There's something at play in these instances that indicate [to me] parental neglect. Like 'sumer said, we can't watch 'em all the time, but where do the kids get the money for guns? The last time I looked, one couldn't buy a gun for under $200.00. That's a chunk of change for a kid who's working part-time after school at Burger King. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but when MY kids spent their money they were anxious to share with me what they bought.

Maybe not the situation in THIS case [which I STILL haven't heard about], but what was the deal in those OTHER cases? How, exactly, does a kid make a bomb in his bedroom without someone in the family knowing what's going on? No siblings to "rat" on him? Nobody goes into the room and checks under the bed?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 07, 2001.

I should read my E-mail news more often.

link

SANTEE, Ca. - A 15-year-old freshman opened fire at his high school on Monday, killing two youths and wounding 13 other people, authorities said. One witness said the youth smiled as he fired.

One person was dead at the scene and 14 others were injured, Santee Fire Department spokesman Jeff Fehlberg said. Later, a second victim died at Grossmont Hospital. It was the largest number of dead and wounded in a school shooting since the Columbine tragedy nearly two years ago.

Both of the dead were juveniles, and at least two of those shot were campus supervisors at Santana High School, Sheriff William Kolender said.

The suspect, a ninth-grader, was apprehended.

Student John Schardt said he was in a nearby classroom when the shooting started at about 9:20 a.m. in a nearby boys room. "I looked at the kid, and he was smiling and shooting his weapon," said Schardt, 17.

"It was total chaos. People were trying to take cover," Schardt said.

Schardt said he took photos of victims and another student videotaped the gunman's arrest, but authorities confiscated the film and the tape.

Neil O'Grady, 15, said the suspect had talked to him and other friends over the weekend about a shooting at the school, but they didn't believe him.

"He was telling us how he was going to bring a gun to school ... but we thought he was joking," O'Grady said. "We were like, 'Yeah, right.'"

The suspect recently had two skateboards stolen from him, O'Grady said. "He always gets picked on; he's scrawny, he's little," O'Grady said. "People think he's dumb."

Another friend of the suspect, Joshua Stevens, 15, was questioned by authorities because of things the suspect had told him, said Chris Reynolds, the boyfriend of Stevens' mother.

Reynolds, 29, said the suspect had talked about bringing a gun to school when he spent the night at their house Saturday. Reynolds said he didn't think the boy was serious.

"I'm upset with myself for not doing anything," Reynolds said. "I made a bad choice."

One deputy was teaching a class at the time of the shooting and was at the site within moments, Kolender said.

Students were escorted to a nearby shopping center. Television images showed a parking lot full of students and parents milling anxiously while paramedics took away the injured. Classes were canceled for Tuesday and counselors would be available, officials said.

Another student, Alicia Zimmer, told KGTV she froze with fright until her boyfriend pushed her out of the way. "I dropped my stuff; it's still there right in the middle of the hall. It was really scary," she said.

Zimmer said she didn't see the shooter but she did see a girl with blood on her arm and another with blood on her hands and a boy lying face down on the floor.

Andrew Kaforey, a 17-year-old senior, said he ran into the bathroom with a security guard after hearing what sounded like a firecracker or a gunshot.

"He pointed the gun right at me but he didn't shoot," Kaforey said. As he and the guard ran out, the suspect shot the guard in the back, Kaforey said.

Kaforey's 14-year-old brother, Jacob, said a boy they believe was the shooter had talked earlier about how he owned a gun, although other students hadn't seen the weapon. The boy also had talked about stealing a car and going to Mexico, Jacob said.

In Washington, President Bush called the shooting a "disgraceful act of cowardice" and said the best prevention is to teach children right from wrong.

Gov. Gray Davis, whose wife graduated from Santana High, said: "Our hearts and prayers go out to the students and their families, the school administrators and the law enforcement officials involved in this incident."

Santee, a town of 59,000 residents, is about 10 miles northeast of San Diego. Santana High, which opened in 1965, has more that 1,900 students in grades nine through 12.

On April 20, 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 23 before killing themselves. It was the worst of a string of mass shootings at schools that shocked the nation.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 07, 2001.

Whether the charges be criminal or civil, I believe that parents in these cases should be held responsible. The same goes for parents of minors found wandering the streets, dealing drugs, robbing houses, stealing cars, etc.

What is so controversial about that?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Buddy, what kind of kid were you? Did you listen to your parents and act according to their wishes? Were you rebelious? Did you ever commit a crime such as shoplifting? Smoke a joint? Drop acid? Steal a car? Commit assault & battery? Public drunkeness? Drive without license? Date rape? Deface property?

There's no way I could have been controlled short of locking me in a closet and/or using heavy sedation. I knew many kids who were just like me and some who were worse. If parents were jailed for their kids' crimes my home town would have completely collapsed.

Criminal prosecution of individuals for crimes they do not commit is unfeasible and just plain ludicrous, IMO. Kids are not robots. They do not operate according to programming like pieces of software. Kids are individuals, with their own sets of actions & reactions to stimuli.

I say hold kids accountable for their OWN actions. FWIW, every child should visit a prison. Maybe sleep in a cell for a night. Get a taste of incarceration. The experience certainly changed my 'tude.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

Buddy, did you even bother to read my post?

It is very unreasonable to make parents liable for the acts of their children.

PS, do you have children? If so, i dont even know how you could ask that question.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 07, 2001.

The same goes for parents of minors found wandering the streets, dealing drugs, robbing houses, stealing cars, etc. What is so controversial about that?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

My niece snuck out at 3:00 am and the police brought her home. Here in Cleve Ohio it is a 100 fine. Because my sister had JUST filed charge of unruly against my niece the fine was waived.

Now one must ask, since most are found wanderin around at nite, tell me buddy, are you a parent willing to sit up ALL hours of the nite to 'keep watch'?

So you are implying that regardless Parents are the cause? NOT.

-- sumer (shh@aol.co), March 07, 2001.

Here in Cleve Ohio it is a 100 fine.

Who is charged with the fine?

If it's the parents, then I rest my case.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

If a kid steal a car and wreck, who is going to pay? The parents.

If a kid burns down a neighbor's house, who will pay? The parents.

A parent/guardian is responsible for the actions of minors under their care. The kid may be the one going to jail, but the parents are still accountable.

It's not a hard concept, and laws to that affect are certainly more prevalent folks here are making them out to be.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

more prevalent than

typo in previous post

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Anita,

I've got to disagree with you to some extent when you write "Those video games don't mean anything."

I've been having an extended dialogue about the school shootings with a very verbal highschooler for quite some time. We have a close friend who has been developing these training games for the military for many, many years. USC, Paramount, & the military created a unit fusing the academic, public, & private/profit sectors last year. I'm still having a hard time rectifying the morality involved in some of this stuff with my friend. Many hours are spent on these videogames in our house, but we are very involved parents. I don't think we should be blind to the fact that we are training these kids to kill. It's a noxious cocktail with the high divorce rates, working parents {I work too, but it can be a real balancing act} and disaffected youth in large public schools. That said, the cure could be worse than the disease for a free society.

The irony is that my kids school is much safer than the ones I went to. Still, when my child called on a cell phone from an unfamiliar parent's car saying "there was a bomb threat at school...", my impulse was no longer to laugh it off & figure that some yahoo just didn't want to take a test that day.

Here's the website of a fellow that I caught on the radio yesterday, you might find some fo the essays interesting:

http://www.killology.com/sitemap.htm

If it is correct that this child shooter had little parental attention, that could be a significant factor in this particular case - though possibly not a factor in some of the other recent shootings.

It think the way the media has portrayed and sold these events has made the shooters romantic figures in a way, and am not suprised to see kids emulating these beahviors and scenarios.

-- flora (***@__._), March 07, 2001.

Flora, thanks for helpin me out a little with the video game aspect. They see the head blow up and the spray of red blood and it's a goddamn game to them. There is no family life, respect, or responsibility in SOME of these kids lives anymore. That's why when they are in the process of committing these terrible acts they are either smiling or look like they aren't even at home.

-- Boswell (cjseed@webtv.net), March 07, 2001.

Fines are MAJOR revenue sources for law enforcement, Buddy. The judges don't care where the money originates, nor who forks it over.

I'm not a parent so the only points of reference I have, Buddy, are my childhood experiences and peers who've reproduced miniature sociopaths. No parent I *know* has been criminally charged for the crimes of their kids. No parent I know has been charged with conspiracy in crimes perpetrated by their offspring. None. Nadie. Nobody.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

Flora:

Thanks for the link. I checked out a few of the articles, and what I learned was that the shooters who had engaged in these video games were better shots. I DEFINITELY feel that they improve hand-eye coordination. I've joined my son in some of these games and I was killed almost immediately because I'm the same klutz with a mouse or a trigger. The goal in my son's mind was to SURVIVE and win the game. I SAW that. In addition, he didn't engage in these games to the exclusion of face-to-face activities with the rest of the family, or even other pursuits of his fancy, of which chess was just one.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 07, 2001.

Below are just a few of the laws I was able to find regarding the liability of parents for the actions of their minor children. This is why I find it absurd that some are arguing that this shouldn't be the case.

The strongest one here is the last one from Delaware. Part of it reads: (a) Any negligence of a minor under age 18 driving a motor vehicle upon a highway of this State, who has been licensed under § 2710 of this title, shall be imputed to any person who signed the license application on behalf of the minor, and that person shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the minor's negligence.

This means if you sign the license application for you child, and your child kills somebody in a car accident, you are equally liable for it. ____

Mississippi/Mississippi Code of 1972/TITLE 37 EDUCATION/CHAPTER 11 GENERAL PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO EDUCATION/§ 37-11-53. School district discipline plans; appearance by parents, guardians or custodians at discipline conferences; recovery from parents for damage or destruction of school property.

§ 37-11-53. School district discipline plans; appearance by parents, guardians or custodians at discipline conferences; recovery from parents for damage or destruction of school property.

(2)...

(a) A parent, guardian or custodian of a compulsory-school-age child enrolled in a public school district shall be responsible financially for his or her minor child's destructive acts against school property or persons;

(d) A parent, guardian or custodian of a compulsory-school-age child enrolled in a public school district shall be responsible for any criminal fines brought against such student for unlawful activity as defined in Section 37-11-29 occurring on school grounds.

_____

New Mexico/New Mexico Statutes/NEW MEXICO STATUTES ANNOTATED /Chapter 32A Children's Code /Chapter 32A, Article 2 Delinquency /§ 32A-2-28 Parental responsibility (1999 Repl.) 32A-2-28. Parental responsibility.

A. In any complaint alleging delinquency, a parent of the child alleged to be delinquent may be made a party in the petition. If a parent is made a party and if a child is adjudicated a delinquent, the court may order the parent or parents to submit to counseling, participate in any probation or other treatment program ordered by the court and, if the child is committed for institutionalization, participate in any institutional treatment or counseling program including attendance at the site of the institution. The court shall order the parent to support the child committed for institutionalization by paying the reasonable costs of support, maintenance and treatment of the child that the parent is financially able to pay. The court may use the child support guidelines set forth in Section 40-4-11.1 NMSA 1978 to calculate a reasonable payment.

B. If a fine is imposed against a child by a court of this state, the parent of the child is not liable to pay the fine.

C. The court may enforce any of its orders issued pursuant to this section by use of its contempt power.

_____

Mississippi/Mississippi Code of 1972/TITLE 93 DOMESTIC RELATIONS/CHAPTER 13 GUARDIANS AND CONSERVATORS/ WARDS, GENERALLY/§ 93-13-2. Civil liability of parents for damages resulting from malicious and willful acts of certain minor children. § 93-13-2. Civil liability of parents for damages resulting from malicious and willful acts of certain minor children.

(1) Any property owner shall be entitled to recover damages in an amount not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), plus necessary court costs, from the parents of any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years and over the age of ten (10), who maliciously and willfully damages or destroys property belonging to such owner. However, this section shall not apply to parents whose parental custody and control of such child have been removed by court order or decree.

(2) The action authorized in this section shall be in addition to all other actions which the owner is entitled to maintain and nothing in this section shall preclude recovery in a greater amount from the minor or from any person, including the parents, for damages to which such minor or other person would otherwise be liable.

(3) It is the purpose of this section to authorize recovery from parents in situations where they are not otherwise liable and to limit the amount of recovery. The provisions of this section shall apply only to acts committed on and after July 1, 1978.

Sources: Laws, 1978, ch. 492, § 1; Laws, 1981, ch. 370, § 1; Laws, 1999, ch. 508, § 1, eff from and after July 1, 1999.

_____

Mississippi/Mississippi Code of 1972/TITLE 65 HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES AND FERRIES/CHAPTER 7 PUBLIC ROADS AND STREETS; PRIVATE WAY/ARTICLE 1. PUBLIC ROADS AND STREETS/ GENERAL PROVISIONS/§ 65-7-23. Defacing, removing or destroying signs or traffic control devices prohibited; penalties; liability for cost of repair; liability of parents of minor.

§ 65-7-23. Defacing, removing or destroying signs or traffic control devices prohibited; penalties; liability for cost of repair; liability of parents of minor.

(1) Any person willfully defacing, removing, marring, damaging or destroying any sign or guide board, including any railroad crossing sign or flasher signal, or other traffic control device erected as provided shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be liable for the actual cost of replacing or repairing such sign and shall be fined not less than Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than six (6) months, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment. If the offender is a minor, the parents of such minor shall be civilly liable in accordance with Section 93-13-2 for the actual cost of replacing or repairing the sign, signal or device.

(2) The penalties prescribed in subsection (1) of this section shall also be applicable to any person, and to the parents of any minor, who willfully defaces, mars or damages any bridge, underpass or overpass.

Sources: Codes, 1930, § 6323; Laws, 1942, § 8297; Laws, 1926, ch. 224; Laws, 1977, ch. 323, § 1; Laws, 1993, ch. 483, § 1, eff from and after July 1, 1993.

____

New Mexico/New Mexico Statutes/NEW MEXICO STATUTES ANNOTATED /Chapter 32A Children's Code /Chapter 32A, Article 2 Delinquency /§ 32A-2-27 Injury to person or destruction of property; liability; costs and attorneys' fees; restitution (1999 Repl.)

32A-2-27. Injury to person or destruction of property; liability; costs and attorneys' fees; restitution.

A. Any person may recover damages not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000) in a civil action in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction from the parent, guardian or custodian having custody and control of a child when the child has maliciously or willfully injured a person or damaged, destroyed or deprived use of property, real or personal, belonging to the person bringing the action.

B. Recovery of damages under this section is limited to the actual damages proved in the action, not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000) taxable court costs and, in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys' fees to be fixed by the court or tribunal.

C. Nothing contained in this section limits the discretion of the court to issue an order requiring damages or restitution to be paid by the child when the child has been found to be within the provisions of the Delinquency Act [this article].

D. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed so as to impute liability to any foster parent.

History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-2-27, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 56.

_____

Delaware/Delaware Code/TITLE 21 Motor Vehicles/PART IV Miscellaneous/CHAPTER 61. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR DRIVER'S NEGLIGENCE/ § 6105. Liability of parent, guardian or employer for negligence of minor. § 6105. Liability of parent, guardian or employer for negligence of minor.

(a) Any negligence of a minor under age 18 driving a motor vehicle upon a highway of this State, who has been licensed under § 2710 of this title, shall be imputed to any person who signed the license application on behalf of the minor, and that person shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the minor's negligence.

(b) The liability imposed upon the person who signed the application of a minor under the age of 18 years, as provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall apply to the original license or permit granted to the minor or any renewal thereof, without the necessity of such person signing the minor's renewal application, unless such person notifies the Department of Public Safety in writing at least 30 days prior to the date of any such renewal of the original license or permit granted to the minor that the person does not consent to such renewal.

(36 Del. Laws, c. 10, § 71; Code 1935, § 5609; 44 Del. Laws, c. 189; 21 Del. C. 1953, § 6105; 57 Del. Laws, c. 495, § 3; 57 Del. Laws, c. 670, § 17B; 71 Del. Laws, c. 282, §§ 8, 9.)

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Anita,

I just heard there was a shooting at a PA parochial school today.

The hand eye coordination practice has cool aspects, a doctor friend told us that it is something they look for in aspiring neurosurgeons.

I'm sure your kid turned out fine, growing up in your household no doubt gave him lots of opportunites for social interaction and personal responsibility.

Isn't it strange that the Peace-Love-Dove generation has spawned the future that we have?

Anybody want to take a crack on the hypnotic level that is induced by the prescribed psychotropic drugs that so many of the kids are on these days.

Zero tolerance, what a joke...oopsie - thread drift!

-- flora (***@__._), March 07, 2001.

South Dakota/South Dakota Codified Laws/TITLE 25. DOMESTIC RELATIONS/CHAPTER 25-5. PARENT AND CHILD/ § 25-5-15. Parental liability for willful acts of child - Limitation of recovery - Motor vehicle cases excepted - Specific findings in disputed cases.

§ 25-5-15. Parental liability for willful acts of child - Limitation of recovery - Motor vehicle cases excepted - Specific findings in disputed cases.

Any person, firm, association, private or public corporation, including the State of South Dakota and its political subdivisions, suffering damages to real, personal or mixed property, or personal injury, through the malicious and willful act or acts of a minor child or children under the age of eighteen years while residing with their parents, shall have therefor a cause of action against and recover of the parents of such child or children. In each case the amount of recovery against one or both of the parents shall be limited to actual damages of fifteen hundred dollars and the taxable court costs, and does not apply to damages proximately caused through the operation of a motor vehicle by the minor child or children. If the issue is disputed, any determination that a parent is not responsible for the full amount of actual damages and costs authorized by this section shall be justified in a specific finding, in writing or on the record.

Source: SL 1957, ch 41; SDC Supp 1960, § 14.0309-1; SL 1979, ch 166; 1980, ch 188; 1993, ch 194.

___

South Dakota/South Dakota Codified Laws/TITLE 40. ANIMALS AND LIVESTOCK/CHAPTER 40-1. CRUELTY, ABUSE AND INJURY TO ANIMALS/ § 40-1-32. Liability of parent or guardian for violation by minor.

§ 40-1-32. Liability of parent or guardian for violation by minor.

A parent or guardian is civilly liable for any violation of this chapter committed by a minor in their custody.

Source: SL 1991, ch 331, § 26.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Buddy: "I can't follow the logic of my being responsible for a broken window yet not being responsible for a crime far worse."

FWIW, much of law and legal precedent was formed to serve the interests of the gentry, who were very big on property, since they owned a lot of it and their power rested on it. Consequently, when property is damaged by anything but an "act of God", someone must pay for the damage. Parents are held liable for the damages caused by minor children mainly because children are seen as indigents who could not pay for it themselves, and someone must pay for the damage.

Criminal acts are viewed more as a matter of individual morality. Children reach the "age of reason" at about the age of seven. Right about then, they become capable of seeing a chain of cause and effect longer than "when I push it, it falls over". From then on, they become increasingly responsible for acting morally and responsibly.

For example, when a three-year old burns down the neighbor's house, we don't impute malice, any more than we would to a cat that knocked over a heater. When a 10 year old burns down the neighbor's house, we say he definitely should know better and we punsh him, but not as severely as we would an adult. At 16, we call him an arsonist and hold him personally accountable as an adult.

The reason for this gradation is obvious. We naturally try to discover how far the child was able to foresee the results of their action. Thia makes a difference to us, because this measures the immorality of their action, and it is the "knowing right from wrong" that makes an act a crime.

As with all legal theories, this one is as damned imperfect as the rest. But we make do with it and stumble on because the alternatives we can imagine (like jailing the parents) seem worse.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 07, 2001.

Buddy,

How do you imagine punishing the responsible parents?

Ther is no way they can repay someone for their dead or damaged child, spouse, or parent. I'd expect to see more wards of the state & emancipated minors if you could carry this through to to a satisfactory end.

Parents should be responsible for their kids, period. Guess what, many are barely responsible for themselves. Thank goodness most are lucky enough to skate by as is.

-- flora (***@__._), March 07, 2001.

Nipper said: Buddy: "I can't follow the logic of my being responsible for a broken window yet not being responsible for a crime far worse."

That quote was from Anita, not me. And apparently Anita agrees with me on this.

Let me get back to the original point that made me say parents should be thrown in jail (admittedly a simplistic reaction). Allow me to substitute "held accountable" with "thrown in jail". Some anonymous poster said that the Columbine kids' parents did not know they had guns. The fact of the matter is that, in at least one case, the guns were in the parents' house along with bombs and bomb-making materials. Now explain to me why the parents in that case shouldn't be liable for something. They could be charged with neglect, aiding and abetting, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or probably numerous other things. What part of that do you have a problem with?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

P.S. not to mention that the Columbine parents refused to talk to investigators for a long time unless they were given immunity. Now, why would they need immunity? Do you think it was because their lawyers advised them that they could be held liable or have criminal charges of neglect or some similar charge brought against them?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

How do you imagine punishing the responsible parents?

Oh, how about jail (if appropriate based on charges brought)? Maybe jail with the kid.

How about community service?

How about not allowing a gun owner whose kid shoots people to own any more guns?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

http://www.bestbuysonthenet.com/c-law/reports/121.html

Are Parents Liable For The Acts Of Their Children?

August 21, 1999

Are parents legally responsible for the acts of their children? Can parents be forced to compensate someone who is harmed by their under-18 year old child? Like so many legal questions, the answer is “it depends.”

The general rule of common law is that children are legally separate individuals, and are responsible for their own conduct. Under the general rule, if a child damages property or causes injury, the victim may attempt to recover compensation only from the child, and not from the child's parents. For example, if a child breaks a neighbor's window with a rock, the neighbor has no recourse against the parents under the general rule. He may bring a lawsuit against the child, but the parents could not be forced to pay any judgment awarded. The obvious problem with the general rule is that children typically have no resources from which to pay a judgment. Historically, many deserving victims have gone uncompensated, and many parents have gotten off scot-free, under the general rule.

The most important exceptions to the general rule are the various states “family responsibility statutes.” Almost all states have enacted statutes that at least partly negate the general rule and make parents civilly liable in some circumstances for the conduct of their children. None of the statutes make parents liable in all instances. Furthermore, parental liability in some states is limited to several hundred or several thousand dollars. Some state's statutes cover only certain limited conduct, such as juvenile vandalism. Some cover only property damage, and do not make parents liable for personal injuries caused by their children. Typically, the statutes make parents more or less automatically responsible for some of their children's acts, but some states, such as Utah, absolve parents of responsibility if they have made a reasonable effort to control their children. Like the general rule, the family responsibility statutes have failed in many instances to provide fair recovery for deserving victims.

Another area of law, known as parental negligence, has developed to fill in some of the void. In many states, a parent can be held liable for harm done by his or her child if he or she was negligent in supervising the child. Under the law, a parent has a duty to supervise his or her child, and failure to do so reasonably is negligence. A case that occurred in Maine illustrates parental negligence law. In that case, the plaintiff child borrowed a defective bicycle from a neighbor child, and was injured while riding it. The injured child's parents sued on behalf of their child, alleging that the neighbors negligently supervised their child. Their legal theory was that the neighbor parents knew, or should have known, their daughter was lending the defective bicycle to the plaintiff, and that they should have prevented their child from lending the bicycle. The court ruled that the neighbors did not have any actual knowledge of the lending of the bicycle, and therefore had no duty to control their child in that instance.

The lesson for parents to carry away from this is that they can potentially be held liable if they fail to control their child's behavior, at least when they are aware of the behavior. Any failure to use reasonable care in supervising their child that results in harm to others or their property can make them liable for negligence. In addition, some states make parents virtually automatically liable for some acts of their children, such as vandalism. Keep in mind, too, that even if a minor child commits an act for which the parents are not personally liable, it is likely that the parents will end up bearing the resulting legal expenses (and the scorn of their neighbors) just the same.

Steven Barker Attorney

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Almost all states have enacted statutes that at least partly negate the general rule and make parents civilly liable in some circumstances for the conduct of their children.

We are not communicating, Buddy. Read your own C/P again. Read the statutes you C/P'd again. They pertain to financial responsibility - fines and restitution. You're leaping a gaping gorge from there to parents serving jail time on behalf of their children.

(I assume) it is assumed children do not have the financial resources to pay large fines and judgments. Therefore their legal guardians are held liable. But again, it matters not who pays the $$$, just so long as it's paid.

The same cannot be said for jail time. Joe Wealthy As Sh*t cannot pay Emma I'm Poor to serve his prison sentence. Joe CAN pay Emma's fines incurred due to little Frankie Sociopath's misdeeds.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

-- Sorry (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

Rich,

I already said that "jail time" was a simplification.

I just think that part of the problem with these school shooting incidents is unsupervised minors. The latchkey kids in this country are the ones doing these things. It is time we took a long hard look at the way parents are supervising these kids. In many cases, and I believe in most of the cases involving school shootings, the parents should be charged with neglect under existing statutes due to leaving their children unsupervised.

As for the questions above about what kind of kid I was. Suffice it to say that if I was the kid who heard another kid claiming he was going to bring a gun to school and shoot people I would have reported it. You probably would have called me a tattle-tale. Well, we need more tattle-tales.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Buddy,

You don't have to answer this - but I was wondering if your kids are of high school age?

You get onto somewhat thin ice with cheerleading the tattle-tale or snitch idea. Last night our local news station played a film clip of a Mardi Gras celebration gone wild. Their request was 'if you recognize anyone in this video, please call the police or sheriff'. My husband ribs me by asking 'who would you like get in trouble?'. Kids in middle & highschool are merciless at manipulating pecking orders and the power structure - they make the loons on this board out to be rank amateurs.

One of the most powerful examples that we apparently have of the positive and valuable actions a parent can take is our very own Deano. I'd be suprised if his boy, or possibly any of the boys he invests in, winds up as a school shooter.

-- flora (***@__._), March 07, 2001.

My sole presence on this thread is to try to point to and differentiate between financial and criminal responsibility, Buddy. I've done a piss-poor job of it, so I'll retire back to my quiet nook. You don't seem to care or note the differences.

Don't know why you think I might have tagged you a tattle-tale for reporting a threat. The breaking of school rules, of non-violent nature, is picayune BS. Threats of bodily harm are serious matters. Now if you had reported ME for smoking a cigarette on school grounds you can bet I wouldn't have resorted to name calling. The piper would have been paid for sticking his nose where it didn't belong. But these are two wildly different offenses. And you would have been in the right, IMO, to report any threat against you by the likes of ME. :)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

Rich,

I've got a story about a kid who was arrested yesterday for images presented in a poem:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? file=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/07/MN154784.DTL

"It was enough to alarm us," Belmont Police Sgt. Robyn Pitts said last night. "The police department would look at this as possibly being real -- up to the point it's proven it's not, because if we don't, we could possibly be putting people in harm's way."

Anyone care to comment?

-- flora (***@__._), March 07, 2001.

Sorry for the misattribution, Buddy. It was Anita's quote.

As for parents who commit aiding and abetting... [shrug]... you are talking about parents who themselves commit a separate and distinct crime from the crime they aided or abetted. In that case, I suppose jail time could be in order.

You seem to have considerably muted your first reaction, that the kid killed, so the parents whould be thrown in jail. Good. That muting gives a much calmer and more rational response.

If you'd said in the first place that parents who encourage their child to commit mayhem or murder, or parents who simply don't care that their child is a violent criminal and make no effort to correct their child's open criminal behavior should be held responsible for their own negligance, or for their assistance and encouragement of crimes, then you wouldn't have stirred up much argument, I think.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 07, 2001.

Nipper,

My initial one-liner on this thread, which stirred up the reaction as you said, was a reaction to the post above it where an anon. poster said that the Columbine kids did not get the guns from their parents. However, at least one of the kids did have guns and explosives in his parents' house. What I was trying to say is that if a parent doesn't know that their kid has guns in the house then they are probably being negligent.

I'm sorry. My one-liner was too simplistic and reactionary to get my point across.

The bottom line for me is that the parents should be held accountable. I'm not saying that the father of the kid in San Diego should be charged with murder, just that he be held accountable for his actions. As you can see from the California law summary I posted above, their is a statute to this effect in California for situations where a minor uses a firearm.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Tried your URL twice, flora. Pulls up a blank page. Did a cursory look-see on the site but came up blank. Would love to read the article. I smell a new thread.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

I guess what I'm also trying to say is this. As a parent, I can't imagine a situation where a kid would commit such a heinous crime unless there was some type of negligent behavior on the part of the parent. I could be wrong. I guess a "good" kid could do this even though his parents were loving and nurturing, but I doubt it. I think that in these cases the parent should at least be investigated for negligence.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Rich,

You have to take the space out between the ? and "file".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001 /03/07/MN154784.DTL

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Oops, now watch out for more spaces

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Here's a link.

-- (link@for.you), March 07, 2001.

Buddy, I guess you are one lucky person to go through life without meeting any truly amoral people.They usually start off as children with parents.I've met one or two & they just have a black hole - a nothingness where care or respect is concerned.Its not always apparent especially where their upbringing has left them with an understanding of the desirability to conform to society's expectations.Push the right button though & boom !In these rare cases I don't think the parent's are to blame.Is it a form of mental illness ?

-- Chris (enquiries@griffenmill.com), March 07, 2001.

Chris,

I think you are right. I thought about this some more. There certainly are cases where the parent can't be held responsible, mental illness (especially if they didn't know about it) would be one. But investigating the parents would bring this out. As in any other type of charge, negligence must be proven in order to find the parent guilty. If there is no provable negligence, then nothing can be done.

Oh, and believe me, I've known plenty of amoral people. There were lots of brats and bullies among the kids I grew up with. And I see them now too with my son's classmates. In many of these cases the brat or bully is also the offspring of a bully.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 07, 2001.

Buddy,

Thanks for hanging in on this thread. Obviously, it is a passionate subject, more so for those with children of their own. I pray this is the closest any of us ever gets to the subject.

JG

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

Interesting that you bring up brats & bullies on this thread. Do you realize that this kid was deemed by his classmates as a 'fag' because of his slight build? As a newcomer from Maryland, he was called a hick because of his accent? There are many more personally debilitating factors in this particular case {a best friend's death, an absent mother & preoccupied father}, but I still think it gets dicey when you assign absolute individual moral culpability in a knee-jerk response. We aren't going to begin to address this kind of thing, and modern {school} culture, unless we take a broader view. In my opinion, parental community service time is worthless once the horse is out of the barn {gadzooks, I'm sounding like Boz!}.

PS - You wouldn't believe the kinds of kids who, when assigned a journal entry, will write 'I want to kill so & so'. It happened in my day - heck my sisters are prolly still scrawling it as I type. What has changed?

-- flora (***@__._), March 07, 2001.

Bullying contributes to these types of tragedies, no doubt. As both a former bully and one who was bullied, I have a pretty good handle on that issue. Exerting such power is a masculine tendency, IMO. I'll hold further comment for another day.

Peace -

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

Radio libertarian Gene Burns is going off now about the kid in Belmont, CA who is sitting in jail - uncharged as yet for writing the poem. You can get there through the link halfway down this thread:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004dHt

{7:30 PM left coast time}

-- flora (***@__._), March 07, 2001.

A sign of the times?...

Link

Wave of School Threats Shocks Nation

By The Associated Press

A loaded handgun in a kindergarten class. A revolver with a sawed-off barrel in a middle school. Hit lists in high school. Even boasts that the Columbine massacre was mere child's play.

Ever since Charles Andrew Williams allegedly killed two classmates and wounded 13 others Monday at his high school in suburban San Diego, parents and educators have witnessed a rash of school-related threats.

The schools in question can be public and private. They can be elementary, middle or high. The children can be boys or girls, popular or outcast. The reports keep coming in.

-- In California alone, 16 students, including three teens who attend the California School for the Deaf, have been detained since Tuesday for threatening teachers and students or bringing weapons on campus.

Among them was a 15-year-old Perris High School student who was led off in handcuffs Wednesday when he boasted that he could outdo the massacre of 15, including two teen gunmen, at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in 1999.

-- In Pennsylvania, a 14-year-old girl was charged with attempted homicide after allegedly shooting a classmate in the shoulder at their parochial school in Williamsport on Wednesday.

And a 12-year-old student of the Thomas Morton Elementary School in southwest Philadelphia was arrested Wednesday after a .22-caliber pistol was allegedly found in his possession.

On Monday, an 8-year-old boy armed with a loaded handgun threatened a ''bloodbath'' in the Henry C. Lea School in west Philadelphia before being taken into custody.

-- In Michigan, police arrested a 17-year-old girl accused of talking some middle school students into delivering a false bomb threat to authorities. The teen gave a note to three children Tuesday at a playground next to the school and told them to bring it to the sheriff's office.

-- In Iowa, a 15-year-old Assumption High School student was arrested Wednesday after threatening to get a gun and shoot everyone in the school, Davenport police said. By court order, he will undergo a psychiatric evaluation. A student tipped authorities.

-- In Florida, Philip M. Bryant, a sophomore at Bayshore High School in Bradenton, was charged Wednesday with carrying a loaded semiautomatic handgun on campus. Bryant, 17, was suspended.

And John Wayne Morrison, 17, was arrested after he was allegedly found carrying a revolver with a sawed-off barrel at Meadowlawn Middle School, his former school, in St. Petersburg. A student saw the gun and alerted a detective.

-- In Washington state, a 16-year-old boy was arrested Wednesday after allegedly brandishing a gun during a Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps session. Classmates at Kentwood High School in Covington said he ordered them to sit down and shut up, then let them leave. No one was hurt.

-- In Wisconsin, a 14-year-old boy who fled from his middle school while being disciplined Wednesday returned with a gun just after classes let out but was taken into custody without incident, Elm Grove police said.

-- In Texas, a high school freshman found with a hit list of pupils he reportedly wanted to kill was expelled from Harlingen High School. The letter suggested the boy wanted to commit the same attack as the shooter in San Diego.

-- In Arizona, three students were arrested Wednesday: An eighth- grader was accused of threatening to bring a gun to school to shoot sixth-graders; a 13-year-old was arrested for making threats to shoot classmates who ridiculed him; and a 13-year-old girl was arrested after a bomb threat was left on an answering machine Tuesday night.

-- In New Jersey, a 15-year-old boy honor student was arrested in Camden for allegedly threatening to shoot members of a high school clique during a wood shop class Tuesday.

-- In Indianapolis, Calvin Sistrunk Jr. and Shawnee Sistrunk were charged with felony neglect Wednesday when their 6-year-old daughter took a loaded handgun to kindergarten March 1.

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), March 08, 2001.

What needs to happen is that we as a society need to stop treating the bad behavior by kids these days, and I think it is more widespread than before, as normal adolescent behavior. I don't recall the bullies being tolerated by school authorities and parents when I was a kid as they are being now.

Rich,

Thanks for the comments. I tried to move beyond the personal attack on me in this thread to turn it into more of a thought process. For me it was useful.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 08, 2001.

I was reading through all the comments on this sight. I don't know if what I have to say is of any intrest because my situation did not invvolve firearms but, it did involve violence. I would like to know how others feel about my situation and if anyone knows someone who can help us. My daughter was attacked by another student. She suffered a closed head injury resulting in a concussion. Seven girls were involved in planning the attack. We asked that the girls be disciplined according to school and state policy. The attack was planned at school but took place off school grounds during school hours. The town police would not help us because one of the girls was the Town Managers daughter. The tribal police would not help us because one of the girls is the Sgt.'s daughter.(We are from a very small town bordering an indian reservation.) The school would not help us because the superintendants niece was involved. The girl who actually committed the assault was the "STAR BASKETBALL PLAYER" at the high school. In Colorado, we have a COLORADO SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE MANUAL. In it it states in section22-33-106 GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION, EXPULSION AND DENIAL OF ADMISSION(1)(c) Behavior on or off school property which is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or of school personnel including behavior which creates a threat of physical harm to the child or other children. My daughter had been going to the school for help two weeks prior to the assault because she was afraid of these students. The school told her they saw no threat. As of yet, the school has refused to even investigate. We have witnesses, a taped statement from the superintendants niece stating the attack was planned at school and a restraining order from a judge stating she(the judge) feels there is still a threat against my daughter. We have transfered her part time to another school. Our daughter has not been the only victim of an attack or bullying. Several students have transfered to other schools. In our district we have had stabbings, a childs coat was burned on the playground, a child in a wheel-chair was harrassed,racial comments have been made to and about students by school staff, etc. The aggressors were all either connected to someone in power or jocks. I called the State Attorney Generals office,State Board of Education, Civil Rights, and the Goveners office. They all told me there was no way they could make the school keep our kids safe and follow state guidelines. The superintendant of our school said following the Colorado policies was an option and he was opting not to. My daughter comes from a stable loving family. But what if one of these days, these kids bully a child who doesn't have that support at home? What if that child snaps? What if that child has access to a gun? Everyone thinks it will never happen in their school. Parents have to be held responsible for their kids, sure. What about our schools? Is it too much for a child to ask that they be able to recieve an education without being afraid to go to school? Why are there guidelines if their "optional"? Why would anyone especially a superintendent opt not to protect children? Am I asking too much?

-- Karen Torres (ktorres@ignacio.co.us), March 29, 2001.

Karen,

The superintendant of our school said following the Colorado policies was an option and he was opting not to.

Do you have a school board to go to? The superintendant has to answer to someone.

If that doesn't work then go to the local newspaper with the story.

I wish you and your daughter well. No one should have to be afraid!

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), March 29, 2001.

Karen

It's sounds as if you need the lamda lamda lamda fraternity to come in and teach those kids a few manners.

What goes around, comes around, comes to mind. Those kids will get their just desserts one day.

Hope your daughter is OK. Mine went thru something very similar a couple years ago that resulted in a year of home schooling. She's back in public high school now with those same kids. The only difference this year was she didn't back down from them the 1st day of school. I'm not saying that's the right answer for your situation, but it worked for us. Bullies can quickly gain respect for anyone that won't take any of their shit.

Good luck!!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), March 29, 2001.

If local law enforcement refuses to act, call the county sheriff's office. If that fails, call the state attorney general's office.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 29, 2001.

Karen, only you can decide how hard you are willing to push on this. Living in a small town can be hard, if the town takes sides against you. However, if you really want to take effective action on this, here is how I would proceed:

It sounds like you have already followed the procedures you were supposed to follow to get redress. Write down as much as you can remember about what dates you approached various authorities, what you asked them, what they answered. Gather evidence that they refused to do what is required of them by law. Gather your medical evidence for the assault and the concussion. Try to get a statement from the doctor who treated your daughter.

Take your evidence to the county law enforcement authorities. Show it to them. Remind them that there was an assault involved. Ask them to enforce the law, too. Write down what they tell you. If they refuse, take your evidence to the Attorney General of Colorado. Show it. Ask again. Write down what you are told.

If you still are getting the run around, go to the Denver Post newspaper, Denver television stations and radio. Ask them if they are interested in telling the public how the Attorney General handles cases like yours. Show them all your documentation. Chances are they would drool over the chance to tell your story and give the AG a black eye.

The only way to make this work would be to take names and hold everyone's feet to the handiest fire. And prepare to be unpopular in your home town. I hate to say it, but this is how blacks were kept down in the rural South for generations. Welcome to their world.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 29, 2001.