You ask,

Does she not watch the news and hear about children being abducted constantly?

We’ll say it again, no child had ever been molested or kidnapped at that mall. Kids just don’t really get kidnapped from malls by strangers. If it ever does happen, it’ll be all over the news, and you’ll feel like it happens more often that it does. But it just doesn’t really happen.

I am getting a feeling that maybe we’d all be well-served if people were required to read up on cognitive biases before weighing in on issues like this.

I know that you want to keep beating this horse, but once again you have strayed from the topic.

First, as far as crime in Bozeman, please remember that Bozeman is the home of the University of Montana – Bozeman and as such, the crime stats for the college are included in those for the city.

Here is a summary for the crime stats for UM-Bozeman:

http://www.montana.edu/wwwmsupd/current.shtml

Please notice the numbers for forced sexual assaults. It is clear that the vast majority of sexual assaults / rapes you cited happened at UM-Bozeman. (14 of 16) If you look at the location of the assaults, you’ll find that they all happened on University property – either on campus, or off campus, but none happened in public areas such as a mall.

Secondly, your statistic that Bozeman has a rape a week is a mistake in your reading of the very statistics you cited. The stats given on the page are not direct numbers, but weighted numbers.

Third, you ask the question of “why is the city rate higher than the national average?” Once you remove the college from the stats, the rate is well below the national average. It is also somewhat deceptive that while you ask about the property rate, you do not ask as to why, even combining the college stats in with the city, the violent crime (which includes the rape statistic) is less than half than that of the country.

Lastly, whether the employees of the mall were correct or not in calling the police is not the issue here. Please stop saying it is.

The issue is whether a mother should be charged for letting her kids have an afternoon at a mall where there was no indication of violence, molestation, or kidnapping.

The cop, the DA and the judge “overlawyered” this case.

The city has a crime rating of 2.6 out a possible 5. Higher ratings indicate that your area is safer. This number compares crime in that city to crimes on a state level and in the entire nation.

Forcible Rape,Burglary and Motor Vehicle Theft are all “higher” than the state average.

Murder,Aggravated Assault, Overall Robbery Rate, Larceny Theft and Arson are all “lower” are all lower than the state average.

Please note that the Forcible Rape,Property Crime Total,Larceny Theft and Arson rates are “higher” than the national average.

What has happened in the five years since these statistics have been published? Does a weakening economy and fewer people working ever decrease crime?

The property Crime Total for Bozeman is 4777.4, the Montana state level is 5285.1 and the national average is 4295.6. Why is the city rate higher than the national average?

With 51.5 Forcible Rapes in Bozeman and the state average being 32.1 and the national rate is 37.2 is the mall telling its customers the truth when it comes to crime on their property? Malls are notorious for being centers of crime even if they dont tell you about it.

With one Forcible Rape happening on the average every week in the city of Bozeman do any of you really think it is that safe to allow 5 pre teen children to go to the mall on their own?

Say what you want about me, but the crime statistics tell me the city has a serious problems with Forcible Rape,Total Property Crime(as calculated) and Arsons.

The employees at this mall did this women a favor by calling the police even if you dont agree with it or not ?

And your point? Are you saying that these 5 kids did any type of vandalism?

Your next arguement that “how do I know if the children of Bozeman are doing this wont fly either.

I never made such an argument, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

It appears to me that the city is not as safe as some of the posters have thought it to be.

I just want to get this straight…… are you saying that because some people spray paint or create grafitti, that means that all kids in Bozeman do so? Is that your argument? Or are you saying that the 5 kids in this story were running around spray painting the town?

You have gone far astray from the facts of this story.

Do you want your children exposed to this?

Exposed to what? The graffiti? Do you have any way that can prevent kids from seeing graffiti?

Police officers are only there to observe a violation of the law.

So much for “protect and serve,” eh?

They takes their facts of the case to the district attorney who then takes all of it before a judge and a decision is made.

So when the mother was arrested in front of her kids, the DA had been contacted? Once again, you are arguing things that are not factual.

A case for their bad judgement does not hold any water with me because 3 different elected officers of the have looked at the facts and rendered a decision.

Where are you getting this from? A cop arrested the woman. A DA prosecuted her despite her obvious bias in the case. A judge ruled against the woman in such a horrific manner that he imposed a gag order on the case. Why would that be other than the fact that the case would so outrage the community and be so contrary to the law?

If you wont supervise you own children at all hours of the day and night, the city will step in and do it for you.

Of course, this mother was doing what she was supposed to do, so once again, your argument has no merit.

If the parents are not doing their job then the city does need to step in and do the job the parents wont or will not do.

Just who decides what that “job” is? In this case, it is clear that the people of Bozeman were astounded by this case. So the city “stepped in” in secrecy. Is that what you want? Governmental officials telling people what they can or cannot do raising their kids and if they disagree with the parents, take the parents to some secret trial?

You have jumped the shark here. Your first argument in this case was that the police were “protecting” the kids from some danger. That has been shown to be false, so now you are attacking the kids by saying they were running around tagging places.

Your arguement for the city checking the contents of your social networking sites is lame and not a part of this discussion.

I am sorry that you find that the tendancy of the Bozeman government to overreach into people’s lives has no bearing on a discussion of another incident where the government overreached into the lives of their citizens. Yet somehow graffiti (which the kids were not accused of) seems germaine to you.

Since you brought it up I will tell that I want my city officials checked out for head to toe if they might point a gun at me(police)in the future or represent the city at a meeting with the smell of alcohol on their breath.

Of course, that wasn’t what demanding account names, passwords, and any comments you may have posted on any site was designed to do, but once again, don’t let the facts get in the way of what you are trying to say.

Do you support hiring felons,drunks and perverts to take your tax dollars and not do their jobs?

Of course, whether someone is a felon, drunk, or pervert is not going to be asnwered by a password to a social networking site, but once again, don’t let the facts get in the way of your point. In case you didn’t know, questions about felony convictions, DUI’s, etc are standard on employment applications. It is therefore clear that asking for passwords, usernames, and sites that one posts upon has a different purpose that you believe.

If you wont take care of your children, then why did you have them?

If we were talking about a parent who wasn’t taking care of their kids, you might have a point. As the parent in question was taking care of the kids, there is no need to respond to this.

If the parent cannot fiqure this out themselves, dont expect any special treatment when the police awake you from a dead sleep and start asking you questions about the location of your children. You wont get any!

And when the government continues to tell you how to raise your kids, what you must teach them, what you must believe, where you can go, what you can do with the kids, what you can write on a private website, or the beliefs you must install into your children, don’t ask the rest of us for help. You won’t get any!

I encourage you to visit the official website of Bozeman, Montana and see for yourself that it appears more then a few (but not all) parents are ” taking a nap” and not properly supervising their children too.

I agree the city has many good things for the children to do, more than most cities of the same size. They also have some children that are not supervised and they have posted on the Internet for the whole world to see.

Go to the “Vandalism and Graffiti Task Force Binder” and view the pictures of the damage for yourself that shows the city does in fact have citizens that setting fires to public toilets, burning outdoor theaters, destroyed water fountains and spray painting confusing statements about raping and then not raping someone on buildings within city limits.

Your next arguement that “how do I know if the children of Bozeman are doing this wont fly either. In all of my many years on this earth I have never heard of or read about a Grandpa or Grandma getting caught for spray painting profanity on a building wall. You can be assured that children or gang members are doing this and attempting to be just like the entertainment available today in America that tells over and over “Its cool to be a fool”!!!

It appears to me that the city is not as safe as some of the posters have thought it to be. Do you want your children exposed to this?

Police officers are only there to observe a violation of the law. They takes their facts of the case to the district attorney who then takes all of it before a judge and a decision is made. A case for their bad judgement does not hold any water with me because 3 different elected officers of the have looked at the facts and rendered a decision.

As far as their arrongance in telling the citizens what to do, isnt this what the “takes a village to raise a child” crowd want us to do for them . If you wont supervise you own children at all hours of the day and night, the city will step in and do it for you. If the parents are not doing their job then the city does need to step in and do the job the parents wont or will not do.

Your arguement for the city checking the contents of your social networking sites is lame and not a part of this discussion. Since you brought it up I will tell that I want my city officials checked out for head to toe if they might point a gun at me(police)in the future or represent the city at a meeting with the smell of alcohol on their breath. Do you support hiring felons,drunks and perverts to take your tax dollars and not do their jobs?

If you wont take care of your children, then why did you have them?

If the parent cannot fiqure this out themselves, dont expect any special treatment when the police awake you from a dead sleep and start asking you questions about the location of your children. You wont get any!

I am not sure how you see circular reasoning in my post as I never say that the outcome supported the mother’s decision.

But to answer your question…….

Nope.

Let’s compare the two cases:

In KY, the husband had an interest in seeing his wife commit suicide.
In MO, the woman had a desire to make sure her kids are safe.

In KY, it is forseeable that a drunk, despondant suicidal woman would use the gun.
In MO, it is not forseeable that the kids who were in a mall that had never had a molestation of a child much less the abduction of a child that some harm would come to any of the children.

In KY, the guy handed his wife a gun – the type of weapon that people use to kill themselves all the time.
In MO, the mother handed her kids a reward for being good kids and completing a course on how to handle emergencies.

In KY, the woman was drunk and suicidal.
In MO, the kids were excited and happy.

I can see why you would want to use the KY as a comparrision because the cases are so similar. (ummm….. no.)

This is a case of the cop and the prosecutor substitution their judgement for that of the mother. This is a case where the cop and the prosecutor feel they know more about raising this parent’s children than the mother does.

By the way, Bozeman, MO is also where applicants for city jobs had to list usernames and passwords for their social-networking sites.

http://tinyurl.com/kptpmh

The city has since dropped that requirement but it is clear that there is an attitude in the city that people such as the DA and the cop know what is best for you.

That sounds like circular reasoning. Would your conclusion be different if harm had come to one or more of the children? See, e.g.,

“No probation for man who handed gun to suicidal wife”
By Jason Riley, from Louisville Courier-Journal (Wed. July 15, 2009), begins
“A Louisville man convicted of reckless homicide after handing his intoxicated wife a handgun that she used to kill herself in 2007 was denied probation Wednesday and sentenced to six years in prison.”

The article also explains that the man is also facing federal weapons charges. There apparently is no dispute this his wife was drunk, depressed and committed suicide. However, he knew that and handed her the gun she killed herself with.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090715/NEWS01/907150387/1008/NEWS01/No+probation+for+man+who+handed+gun+to+suicidal+wife

I don’t have any problems with the Kentucky case or in the one which is the subject of this blog. There is no reason to include death or grievous bodily harm to another as part of a reckless endangerment charge. Fortunately, but fortuitously, the children were unharmed. The outcome was different in Kentucky, so the charge was reckless homicide.