Teens Sedate Parents For Net Access

[DalekJaas]

Dunno the ages of the girls, but if they are 15-16 or older the parents shouldnt be dicks and just let them use the internet

 

[Snownine]

We don't know details as to how these girls have been treated, so I would hesitate to judge their actions.
But:
The basic idea is that they were fighting for their rights and freedom to do what they want. How you may ask?
First of all, people don't automatically turn "mature" on their 18th birthday, the system is only based around age because it's too lazy to actually look for maturity. Even further, as of now, kids don't really have their own rights and are just property. Why? Simply because the parents get to make the decisions for them, regardless of their maturity and the parent's maturity because the parent's basically possess their rights and are supposed to act as a representative until they have reached the age of maturity. I'm also saying that people's view of "maturity" is more often than not based on their own standards and what they would do, which isn't necessarily the right thing. The problem here is that most kinds just don't have the courage to right for the rights they cherish. So Kudos to these girls in that regard, they ceratinly do atleast have courage. It's also an important part of growing up to realize that your paren't aren't flawless and to rebel against them if you think their decisions are wrong to become an independent and healthy individual. After all, we aren't trying raise soldiers who just have to follow the orders that they're given, soldiers usually even made the inital decision by themselves, while kids are just forced to do what they're told. It's basically limited-time-tyranny (and currently you really aren't presented with any choice other than fighting or running if you want freedom. Kinda like the american revolution, but this oppression ends the day they turn 18 in most countries, and you don't necessarily have to fight. But put simply: If somebody is able to make his own decisions, bear responsibilities and can generally provide good reasoning for why he'd doing what he's doing, why interfere? You don't really force "protection from their own mistakes" on adults either, do you? What's the difference between the 22 year olds who keep drinking too much alcohol at parties and these teenagers? I'd call neather responsible, but both are probably aware of the consequences of their decisions.
But put simply: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The law is flawed. Why I may ask? Because children basically can't even go to court, hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit without their parent's assisstance. To understand what I'm saying, just imagine you would basically "belong" to your parents at your current age and maturity. Would you like it? Probably not. Would you fight for your freedom? Hell yeah!
Though, thb, I think drugging the parents might be understandable because in that situation, this is possibly the most harmless thing they could do to get what they wanted with the least possible effort and time.
Also fighting isn't as childish as you may want to put it. If that's childish, then you're also calling terrorists childish, but terrorists are just stupid. The point is, that it isn't the state's duty to protect its citizen from their own stupidity if they don't want the protection and aren't harming anyone else other than themselves.
To quote a famous quote on liberty and freedom(I don't really know anymore where I heard it):
"One man's liberty ends where another man's liberty begins."
Society should try to hold onto this principle a little more, I think.

There is a difference between teenage rebellion and poisoning people. This act was in no way harmless, drugs are an extremely serious matter and I highly doubt either of these girls has a pharmacy degree or even the slightest inkling of the potential dangers or reactions associated with the drug they used. What they did amounts to assault just because they did not get their way. They took drastic actions for self serving reasons without a thought to the serious, potentially lethal repercussions of their actions or the well being of others. What they did was childish in the extreme, not mature.

 

[DarthFennec]

... wow, really? When I was that age and I wanted unrestricted internet access, I just installed a keylogger and stole my parents password so I could log on while they were away. I guess drugging them is another way to do it, but ... really?

 

[DarthFennec]

Dunno the ages of the girls, but if they are 15-16 or older the parents shouldnt be dicks and just let them use the internet

"The girls - aged 15 and 16 - have been arrested, and charged with conspiracy and mingling a pharmaceutical with food."

I agree, 10pm is a bit ridiculous. 2am is about right. But I guess if the parents go to bed before then it's kind of hard to enforce that.
They have it better than I did though, lol. My parents didn't set a curfew or anything, but I was only allowed to get online with their permission, and they always sat behind me and stared over my shoulder the entire time I was on.

 

[Patrick Buck]

Man that is some messed up shit... Teenagers are so pathetic these days.

HEY. SOME teenagers are so pathetic these days.
Not all of us.

 

[MorganL4]

Considering the fact the parent called the police instead of being a responsible parent and discipling the children good on the kids. The parent sounds kinda shitty from the way they've acted.

Sometimes when a kid does something really extreme it is important to get the authorities involved, if only to impress upon the kid just HOW FAR over the line they have stepped. As the cop said "If they were adults they would be facing jail time."

 

[Therumancer]

Considering the fact the parent called the police instead of being a responsible parent and discipling the children good on the kids. The parent sounds kinda shitty from the way they've acted.

The way it sounds to me is that they went to the police for the testing to find out what happened for sure. According to the article it's up to the DA as to whether or not to pursue it, which means that the parents themselves are apparently not pressing charges.

That kind of testing isn't something just anyone knows how to do (though it is relatively easy for the police). If the parents suspected they were drugged, the girls won't admit it, wanting to find out and see if there are going to be some effects if they screwed up/used the wrong stuff isn't entirely out of line.

Also, unlike the movies and TV shows when a crime is committed it's not always just up to the victim as to whether they want to press charges. A crime is a crime, and when brought to the attention of the authorities the state pursues it. This is incidently where the term "victimless crimes" comes from, while usually used in referance to drugs and alchohol and similar things, it also applies to any case where something is being done because it's a violation of the laws, not because it did any measurable harm in the specific instance. The Law, and it's enforcers, being out to promote order and enforce the rules, not just arrest people who have done things to other people.

In cases like this the reason why the DA might pursue it is because while there is no official complaint being made, there is a vested interest in enforcing the policy that people don't drug each other without permission. Something that could range from physicians giving medication to patients that don't want it, to the classic "date rape" scenario. In a number of cases like rape, the victim might not want to come forward on their own for various reasons, pursueing it as a matter of policy is a way to still go after the rapist though, for the drugs, if not the sexual assault. Since the rape victim can be forced to testify on the drugs as a witness, it can also be used to coerce them to tell the full story since they are going to be going to court anyway. The way things work isn't always as straightforward as it is in a police drama (and half the time they get the laws and such wrong, or at least don't bother to consider that the law doesn't work the same way everywhere).

To be honest, I think the two girls need to be sent to Juvie, whether the parents want them to go or not. Letting this go sets a bad example, and might encourage further incidents. If kids figure "well, my parents will never press charges because they love me even if I piss them off"... which is correct in most cases... they might take it as free reign to do this kind of crap when they see other kids getting away with it on those grounds. Eventually someone will get seriously hurt or killed. Sending them to jail for decades would be overkill (dumb kids) but let them finish school and turn 18 in juvie lockup (which will suck) which will send a strong message to anyone with an eye on the situation, punish them, and let them get on with their lives down the road as adults.

 

[Baldry]

Considering the fact the parent called the police instead of being a responsible parent and discipling the children good on the kids. The parent sounds kinda shitty from the way they've acted.

Snippy-do-da

Hey guys, I've already covered these comments, essentially, with another two chaps who questioned what I said. You can go find them if you wanna continue this further and see me defend my point.

 

[Darken12]

I hope the girls slipped them benzodiazepines (overdosing on them is relatively safe). If they had used barbiturates instead, they could have killed them. Barbiturates are nothing to trifle with.