Probably not going to be a lot of love lost here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yamil-merca ... her-drugs/

Article quote:

"Authorities in Massachusetts are praising an 11-year-old boy who called police to report that his father had drugs in his luggage. Lawrence Police Chief James Fitzpatrick said the boy told officers Wednesday that he had seen his father selling drugs earlier in the day.
Fitzpatrick called the boy 'brave.'
Police say they found more than 200 grams of heroin and the powerful opioid fentanyl, with a street value of about $8,500, in the suitcase."

My guess is that this dad was also abusive and the kid saw his opportunity to get out of an abusive home.

DocLightning wrote:

My guess is that this dad was also abusive and the kid saw his opportunity to get out of an abusive home.

As long as the kid doesn't end up in the care of some lot who are abusive as well.

Interesting note in the story:

"The boy also told officers that he had reported his father to the Department of Children and Families for dealing drugs approximately one year ago, police said, according to the Boston Globe."

One might wonder what, if anything, was done by "authorities" a year ago.

nitepilot79 wrote:

"Authorities in Massachusetts are praising an 11-year-old boy who called police to report that his father had drugs in his luggage.

This is a very tragic case. Kids are loyal to the parents in the extreme.

DocLightning wrote:

My guess is that this dad was also abusive and the kid saw his opportunity to get out of an abusive home.

This might be the case.

I think the police shouldn't broadcast this. And certainly not praise this child. Should every child become a spy? What is the message that they wish to send?

Hopefully, this boy and any siblings if he has any, are going to get the care they need.

Dutchy wrote:

I think the police shouldn't broadcast this. And certainly not praise this child. Should every child become a spy? What is the message that they wish to send?

If a parent doesn't break the laws, then there is nothing to spy on. If the parent is breaks the law in this manner, then he/she deserves to be spied on. End of story.

VSMUT wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I think the police shouldn't broadcast this. And certainly not praise this child. Should every child become a spy? What is the message that they wish to send?

If a parent doesn't break the laws, then there is nothing to spy on. If the parent is breaks the law in this manner, then he/she deserves to be spied on. End of story.

The mindset of many Americans seems to be in free fall:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockleiter

No spying on neighbours, friend, family or anyone should be encouraged by the government.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

No spying on neighbours, friend, family or anyone should be encouraged by the government.

Apples and oranges. I said they deserved it, not that the government should in any way be involved.

VSMUT wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

No spying on neighbours, friend, family or anyone should be encouraged by the government.

Apples and oranges. I said they deserved it, not that the government should in any way be involved.

Police = government: you reacted to a post in which I said the police should not encourage such behavior. And you are perfectly fine with it and to the extreme the reference to NAZI Germany, or a totalitarian regime, like North Korea and Eritrea

Dutchy wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

No spying on neighbours, friend, family or anyone should be encouraged by the government.

Apples and oranges. I said they deserved it, not that the government should in any way be involved.

Police = government: you reacted to a post in which I said the police should not encourage such behavior. And you are perfectly fine with it and to the extreme the reference to NAZI Germany, or a totalitarian regime, like North Korea and Eritrea

Reducto ad hitlerum. Drugs are illegal in the state of Massachusetts. That means forbidden, not just "legal as long as nobody finds out". If you disagree, fine, then change the laws, but you have to adhere to them until they are changed.

VSMUT wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Apples and oranges. I said they deserved it, not that the government should in any way be involved.

Police = government: you reacted to a post in which I said the police should not encourage such behavior. And you are perfectly fine with it and to the extreme the reference to NAZI Germany, or a totalitarian regime, like North Korea and Eritrea

Reducto ad hitlerum. Drugs are illegal in the state of Massachusetts. That means forbidden, not just "legal as long as nobody finds out". If you disagree, fine, then change the laws, but you have to adhere to them until they are changed.

That is not the point, the point is whom does the checking. And in this case, within a family and the government says he did well.

Dutchy wrote:

That is not the point, the point is whom does the checking. And in this case, within a family and the government says he did well.

They didn't tell the child to do it, only applauded him.

Dutchy wrote:

I think the police shouldn't broadcast this. And certainly not praise this child. Should every child become a spy? What is the message that they wish to send?

So much for your free press concerns. In the United States we do not suppress the press.

The police are not broadcasters. The story is news. Reporters are assigned to cover police doings and report on them.

The police are not "praising the child" in the sense that you imply (for becoming a spy). The only statement that we have before us is that the police called him "brave".

Yes, it took guts to do what he did (twice, a year apart). He was indeed brave.

A child is not "spying" by becoming aware of his environment. He is not a rat-fink (negative) for reporting crimes that he observes.

We really don't know much about his (the boy's) circumstances. We can assume that he has learned quite a bit about the terror of drugs just by watching TV. He might have been exposed to anti-drug "just-say-no-to-drugs" teaching in school. He might have learned there that reporting drug dealing was honorable. It is.

Bravo for this brave boy, whose name has quite properly been withheld by the press. Of course he will probably be known in his school and community by association with the name of his father.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I think the police shouldn't broadcast this. And certainly not praise this child. Should every child become a spy? What is the message that they wish to send?

So much for your free press concerns. In the United States we do not suppress the press.

The police are not broadcasters. The story is news. Reporters are assigned to cover police doings and report on them.

The police are not "praising the child" in the sense that you imply (for becoming a spy). The only statement that we have before us is that the police called him "brave".

Yes, it took guts to do what he did (twice, a year apart). He was indeed brave.

A child is not "spying" by becoming aware of his environment. He is not a rat-fink (negative) for reporting crimes that he observes.

We really don't know much about his (the boy's) circumstances. We can assume that he has learned quite a bit about the terror of drugs just by watching TV. He might have been exposed to anti-drug "just-say-no-to-drugs" teaching in school. He might have learned there that reporting drug dealing was honorable. It is.

Bravo for this brave boy, whose name has quite properly been withheld by the press. Of course he will probably be known in his school and community by association with the name of his father.

Really, want to get in another debate about free press? I am going to say --> Because of Trump the US dropped two points 41 --> 43 . You say, I don't believe it because when I see two newspapers both are different --> I say: why not believe RSF. You say --> well basically nothing.

But luckily we don't have to get into that debate. Because this isn't about free press.

I only say we don't need to encourage this. And because a child is involved, the press - free will - needs to be very restrained. The government should also be very restrained. The police could confirm this, but basically, ask the press not to report.

Dutchy wrote:

[
I only say we don't need to encourage this. And because a child is involved, the press - free will - needs to be very restrained. The government should also be very restrained. The police could confirm this, but basically, ask the press not to report.

Aaaahhh, yes. Bury the news of drug busts. Suppress the news you don't like.

I think the story was handled pretty well by the Boston Globe and the police.

I won't ask you views on drugs, generally.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

[
I only say we don't need to encourage this. And because a child is involved, the press - free will - needs to be very restrained. The government should also be very restrained. The police could confirm this, but basically, ask the press not to report.

Aaaahhh, yes. Bury the news of drug busts. Suppress the news you don't like.

I think the story was handled pretty well by the Boston Globe and the police.

I won't ask you views on drugs, generally.

With respect, I think, you are taking the wrong angle. What is the news here? Not the drug busts in it self: small-time drug dealer. So the news is that the boy gave up his father. So my angle is to protect an eleven-year-old in a very harsh situation. I call upon responsible reporting, no broader social benefit justifies reporting this and this might damage the boy even further.

Don't use big words like "suppress the news", in that way you don't need to think about any nuances and I think you want to think about the issues, or am I wrong with that assessment.

BobPatterson wrote:

I won't ask you views on drugs, generally.

Well, even Alaska is more progressive with drugs than The Netherlands. I think soft drugs should be legal and drugs. In general, should more be handled as a medical problem than a law enforcement problem.