Yes, that is precisely what I'm
saying.
Charles Mims
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Angela
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:20 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: RE: [Sndbox] FL. Boy fined on bike
I
think what Charles is trying to say (and correct me if I'm wrong Charles, it has
been known to happen before) is that if he hadn't been playing so close to the
road, he wouldn't have had to worry about misjudging a jump.
-----Original Message-----In a message dated 11/6/2003 11:58:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] FL. Boy fined on bike
Exactly right I don't agree with you on that point . I do agree that it wasn't necessary to involve the police. But I do think the parents should impose some form of punishment to insure that he doesn't play that close to the road in the future.
I never said he should go unpunished, just that he didn't need to be written a citation. It should have been handled adult to adult. Just because it's an accident doesn't mean there should be no consequences.
and that would be fine if he was playing close to the road on purpose. but i believe it was you earlier who said he misjudged the jump and ended up where he did? so in reality hes not gonna get punished for being too close hes being punished for misjudging a distance. and i dont see how a punishment is gonna keep him from misjudging again in the future
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
