# 14 yr old gets busted for lemonade stand..(w.t.f)



## shortz1994 (Jul 16, 2011)

This is screwed up, kids can't even sell lemonade like when we were younger? so big business scared? That they will go out of business cause of some 10yr?   http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/...lemonade-stand/


----------



## Holified 2x (Jul 16, 2011)

On the news link u posted it says the page is currently unavailable


----------



## shortz1994 (Jul 16, 2011)

Holified 2x said:
			
		

> On the news link u posted it says the page is currently unavailable


 reposted, they delete that ? why not sure, but found it.


----------



## dickfour (Jul 16, 2011)

That's Socialism, it teaches people to be dependent.. Overweening regulation from government crushes any type of self reliance and entrepreneurship but it's okay if you want to be a dirt bag layabout and collect welfare.


----------



## Holified 2x (Jul 16, 2011)

shortz1994 said:
			
		

> Holified 2x said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok read it & I can't believe a cop would do that these little girls  were  trying to earn a honest pay to go to the water-park & the cop ruined it with his blasphemous allegations.


----------



## ShinyJellicent12 (Jul 16, 2011)

What
The 
F***


----------



## Kiaku (Jul 16, 2011)

That's absurd!! It's just a lemonade stand from kids! I wonder what the co-workers said to the police who busted the children..


----------



## Waflix (Jul 16, 2011)

Even though though you should have a license to sell this, it is hard to decide if it should be shut down or not. Yes, because they could put some kind of poison in it (they don't want to take any risk). And no, because they learn to get responsibilty.
The problem is that it's just to risky to let them to this.


----------



## Technik (Jul 16, 2011)

"We don't know how the lemonade was made, who made it, ect..." It was made by CHILDREN!


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Jul 16, 2011)

Oh wow, that makes _so _much sense. Good job, law. Good luck encouraging young entrepreneurs in the future


----------



## nutella (Jul 16, 2011)

Nobody got arrested. They just shut the stand down. Am I the only one not seeing the problem here?


----------



## sonknuck23 (Jul 16, 2011)

^

Lmao. People are FUCKED up.


----------



## Paarish (Jul 16, 2011)

I understand why they shut it but still. They needed to make a quick buck and lemonade stands are the traditional way for young children


----------



## CrimzonEyed (Jul 16, 2011)

oh no children selling lemonade! We better stop them before they turn into whore's!


----------



## Waflix (Jul 16, 2011)

nutella said:
			
		

> Nobody got arrested. They just shut the stand down. Am I the only one not seeing the problem here?



No. I totally agree with you.
----

They didn't have license, and it was never controlled. The law is meant to protect people. If someone dies from the lemonade in an curious way, the children will go to jail. If someone gets sick, the children will go to jail. The law is meant to protect people.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 16, 2011)

America really sucks but again.. You forgot something.. 14 years old can use the money to buy drugs or alcohol from an older people. Perhaps ? That's possibly.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 16, 2011)

Waflix said:
			
		

> nutella said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a joke. Do you even know what you're talking about? Kids can literally get away with murder (as a first offense). It's lemonade, not some lethal poison you moron. The law is meant to squeeze as much cash out of anyone it can, and limit freedoms to keep people in a submissive line. If you pay enough, you can avoid the law. As long as the higher ups get cash, what the fuck do they care.

It was a childrens lemonade stand. They've existed since the dawn of lemons, it's retarded to even THINK of shutting down a tiny little lemonade stand like the police did. That was way out of line. It wasn't a multi-million dollar business enterprise. Considering it sounds like they already had it up the day prior and still couldn't afford the tickets, it's pretty obvious they were probably pulling in very, very small profit.


----------



## Rayder (Jul 16, 2011)

So, these kids can't go to the waterpark now because some asshole cop decides to shut down a harmless lemonade stand.   And people wonder why no one trusts cops anymore.  What a dick move to pull on little kids.  Greedy governments want to make little kids buy a freaking license just to run a simple lemonade stand, LITTLE KIDS, how pathetic.  It's time people start telling the government to get out from up our asses all the time.  

That kind of stuff just pisses me off.  They were just little kids trying to raise money to have a little harmless fun at a waterpark, for Pete's sake.  Hope that cop feels like a big man now.  Hope a REAL criminal tears him a new one soon.  It would be just what he deserves.


----------



## purplesludge (Jul 16, 2011)

Waflix said:
			
		

> nutella said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know how it works in the Netherlands but something has to be proven for someone to go to jail in the US and on top of that 14 year olds don't go to jail


----------



## emigre (Jul 16, 2011)

$27 for a children's ticket? Ladies and gentlemen that's the real criminal offence in this tale.


----------



## Waflix (Jul 16, 2011)

purplesludge said:
			
		

> Waflix said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see that as a joke. The law is (nearly) perfect, it can help any and everyone that agrees with it, etc.. But the sometimes the problem is the government. They can indeed be weak, and some of them are even so weak that they accept money so he 'didn't kill anyone'. That's a bad cop. Not all police officers are bad. They try to protect people, and in this case they decided to close a lemonade stand to take away a risk. They don't know what has happened with the lemonade, they don't know anything about the quality and the recipe, and they don't know what they will do with the money for sure. (Don't say "They were going to spend it to the Water Park!". Because if you do, you will also have to believe a man with blood on its hands that says "I didn't kill him!".)


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 16, 2011)

Waflix said:
			
		

> purplesludge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and apparently the Netherlands will jail 10 year old girls.

Frankly your knowledge credibility is total shit. You're talking out of your ass, and it shows.


----------



## Theraima (Jul 16, 2011)

Theyre just kids, where would they get any kind of "poison" or toxin and why in earth would they put into their lemonade if theyre selling it? Doesnt really make any sense..


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 16, 2011)

Theraima said:
			
		

> Theyre just kids, where would they get any kind of "poison" or toxin and why in earth would they put into their lemonade if theyre selling it? Doesnt really make any sense..



Regardless, it didn't get shut down for any sort of safety or wellbeing reasons. It was shut down because the kids didn't buy a permit that allowed them to run their "business". The cop even stated that clearly.


----------



## thela_kid (Jul 16, 2011)

the man's keeping us down!


----------



## Waflix (Jul 16, 2011)

Theraima said:
			
		

> Theyre just kids, where would they get any kind of "poison" or toxin and why in earth would they put into their lemonade if theyre selling it? Doesnt really make any sense..
> 
> Where do they get drugs? Where do they get sigarets? Where do they get alcohol? Where do they get guns?
> 
> ...



No, the Netherlands will not, unless there are very good reasons for it. And these girls didn't go to jail.
And a very good reason for putting someone in jail is for toxifying someone.


----------



## gloweyjoey (Jul 16, 2011)

This has nothing to do with lemonade or children. Its their CITY LAW that you need a permit to sell on the street, which is no different from what it is in other cities. This also has nothing to do with a rogue cop making wild accusations of TOXINS or POISONS. They were busted for NOT HAVING A PERMIT. If you dont like your LOCAL laws, you should vote, and attend some meetings, but I guarantee you these laws for PERMITS will never go away. The girls needed a business license, peddler’s permit and food permit to operate, even on residential property. These laws also are not new... None the less it is pretty messed up to inforce a fine on them. I think they should have just informed them of the law and told them to stop and not slap them with a fine.


----------



## Technik (Jul 16, 2011)

Well It didn't really look like they were doing it in an average neighborhood, looked like they were on the side of a road.


----------



## Jamstruth (Jul 16, 2011)

gloweyjoey said:
			
		

> I think they should have just informed them of the law and told them to stop and not slap them with a fine.


That's what they did. There was no fine mentioned.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 16, 2011)

Psssh. Idiots are getting more idiotic by the day. The fuck is up with that kind of city? "The law is the law" huh? BS.

@Waflix

Interesting analogy "Don't say "They were going to spend it to the Water Park!". Because if you do, you will also have to believe a man with blood on its hands that says "I didn't kill him!". But, sadly, it's wrong. 

First thing - There isn't any evidence contrary to the girls' claims of wanting to go to the water park but clearly, there's blood on the man's hand on the other example. You can't claim anything against anyone unless you have ANY evidence - Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Second - Even if there IS blood on your hands, that still isn't proof of anything. At worst it's circumstantial evidence. Having blood on you only proves you were in the crime scene at any given time that the blood was still fresh enough [i.e. not yet dried out] to coat your hands. That's all. Further evidence [probable cause, weapon, TOD, etc etc] is required to even consider a case.

IMHO, you're more likely to get blood on you trying to help someone who got stabbed/shot than if you did the crime yourself [in which case you'd probably flee at once].

Also, not all kids do drugs, smoke cigarettes or own guns. Don't assume they do. That's a shitty and fucked up way to think, no offense meant.



PS

I don't suppose they arrest individual girl scouts selling cookies door to door? Psssh.


----------



## gloweyjoey (Jul 16, 2011)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> gloweyjoey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah yes, no fine is mentioned. I was looking through some other articles and apparently some other kids were busted for their lemonade stand which they opened near the US Open site. It says they were fined $500, and they supposedly were going to donate their proceeds to a cancer benefit.http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/06/1...lemonade-stand/


----------



## Snailface (Jul 16, 2011)

Ubisoft needs to rise to the occasion and make a lemonaid stand simulator for the DS to save these girls from the perils of red-tape.

Lemonaid Stand Tycoon: Shovelware to the rescue! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Spoiler



And we can do our part by helping them to get the rom to work 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



(That's cost savings, an important aspect for any successful business endeaver!)


----------



## BryceOne (Jul 16, 2011)

It would be cool if their waterpark sees all this and just gives the girls tickets.


----------



## gloweyjoey (Jul 16, 2011)

Shinigami357 said:
			
		

> i don't suppose they arrest individual girl scouts selling cookies door to door? Psssh.


No, but In some cities with peddlers ordinance in place, the stands they set up can be shut down.

“That’s how we have to enforce it – all or none,” Mansour said. “The good thing is they don’t have to pay the fee, but they still need to get the permit so we can remind them of the safety rules. That’s the biggest thing about it, to remind them that we don’t mind them doing it, but kids can’t be in the street under any circumstances or they will be shut down.”
http://times-georgian.com/pages/full_story...amp;id=12135979


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 16, 2011)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> No, the Netherlands will not, unless there are very good reasons for it. And these girls didn't go to jail.
> *And a very good reason for putting someone in jail is for toxifying someone.*



Yeah...someone of age. Being 18 here in Canada. If the Netherlands will actually put a child in jail for ANY reason, it's completely fucked. Unless you're thinking juvie, not jail. Which is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference. Children are tried, and sentenced much, MUCH more leniently then people who are of age. Like I said, they can even get away with 1st degree murder as a first offense. I've read cases where they didn't even have to show remorse for god sakes. Worst case scenario is juvie, and from what i've heard...that's nothing terrible.

and for the third time. This had nothing to do with safety or wellbeing issues. IT WAS ABOUT MONEY! The girls didn't shell out enough cash for the government to allow them to have a tiny little lemonade stand to earn money for a water park. Your argument is not only wrong and idiotic, but it has absolutely no context towards this subject.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 16, 2011)

@gloweyjoey

I am sure you are correct. For future reference, it's sarcasm.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 16, 2011)

Let's just take a break  from the hysterical and breathless rightous indigation and THINK OF THE CHILDREN mob-outrage for a second.

So when people start setting up stalls all along your road selling all kinds of shit without a permit, getting in the way of your parking spaces, not paying taxes on what they sell, potentially selling fake or dangerous goods and they say "But we've established the precedent that you don't need a permit for selling stuff on the street, you guys all went apeshit when a policeman actually enforced that law, remember?" you're going to say... What?  It's OK if they're 14?  And then you get the sellers getting their 14 year old cousin to front the shop?

Laws don't have a qualifier at the end "Unless the person commiting the offense is adorable and middle class and violating the law in a way that's just gosh-darn as American as apple pie"

Policeman in doing job shock, full story at 11


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 16, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Let's just take a break  from the hysterical and breathless rightous indigation and THINK OF THE CHILDREN mob-outrage for a second.
> 
> So when people start setting up stalls all along your road selling all kinds of shit without a permit, getting in the way of your parking spaces, not paying taxes on what they sell, potentially selling fake or dangerous goods and they say "But we've established the precedent that you don't need a permit for selling stuff on the street, you guys all went apeshit when a policeman actually enforced that law, remember?" you're going to say... What?  It's OK if they're 14?  And then you get the sellers getting their 14 year old cousin to front the shop?
> 
> ...




Meh. First things, first - I didn't grow up in the same communities [not even the same country] you people did. In here, selling stuff on the streets as a way to earn a living is an acceptable idea. We just take it that's its better than sitting around the house on your arse.

Also, I don't see why everyone always jumps to the conclusion that people will always try to get one up on the law based on a case involving kids. I get it - the police were doing their job [of enforcing a rather expensive permit, but still]. But on the other hand, the kids weren't intent on harming anyone [as people assume that they would/could] or even trespassing the law - they probably weren't even aware they needed permits for that stuff.

Children do what children do. Adults who try to get something out of it - either by copying or inducing such skull-numbingly high fees - are despicable, IMHO. It's adults who sell dangerous shit, and it's adults who assume that everyone does the same. I personally don't think a child who's selling anything to earn money for something would fuck up what they're selling or get in other people's way- it messes up the revenue.


----------



## ecko (Jul 16, 2011)

shut down a lemonade stand, made because the kids wanted to go the waterpark? wtf is wrong with people these days.

atleast tell me the damn cop gave them the money to go to the waterpark. what a douchebag move


----------



## Jamstruth (Jul 16, 2011)

The thing is that YES it is the law. YES it is something that should be enforced but are you going to make them pay the sales tax on it etc.?

It does, of course, depend on where they set up the stand. If they set it up in the middle of a city then yeah shut it down but on a suburban street maybe not. Also Bluestar it does not set a precedent at all. Will people start setting p random stalls without permits because two 10 year olds set up a lemonade stand just up the road anduse that as an excuse? No.

I understand why they did it etc. but it does seem dumb. The police officers were just doing their jobs though so meh.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 16, 2011)

Of course it sets a precedent. It also moves into the territory of cops enforcing laws against certain types of people and not others, based on how those groups are seen by society. Is that a good route to go down?


----------



## AlanJohn (Jul 16, 2011)

I didn't get mad on the state because of this...
I got mad when I saw the prices for a ticket to the water park!
_27$ !!!_


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 16, 2011)

Hm... I don't think you get it. Seriously, how the law handles minors is different from how they handle everything else. That's the only precedent here - everyone [minors included] aren't allowed to set up their own [temporary] businesses regarding food without permits. The fact that some people are going "poor children" is due to the fact that they were children. People just react differently when it's children that's the focus of the story. I don't see any precedents there.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Jul 16, 2011)

*waits for Minstrels to be renamed after a claim of racial insensitivity*



			
				Hells Malice said:
			
		

> It's lemonade, not some lethal poison you moron. The law is meant to *squeeze* as much cash out of anyone it can


Pun intended?


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 16, 2011)

Wonder if the same logic would be applied if it was poor Romany gypsy children selling heather.


----------



## thela_kid (Jul 16, 2011)

we should make this a poll


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 16, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Wonder if the same logic would be applied if it was poor Romany gypsy children selling heather.



Just to expand on this (was just a quick reply before I got off the bus) there's a peculiar quirk of human nature where if you want someone to give you something, the best thing you can do is convince them you don't really need it.  I saw an experiment where they got the same guy to go to the same Burger King and tell the same story in the same voice - that he'd bought a burger there yesterday, when he got on the train the bun was hard and he couldn't eat it.  When he went in dressed as a smart businessman who could easily have just bought another burger, they gave him a free burger.  When he went in looking dishevelled and hungry, they said they couldn't help him.  That's also why you're more likely to give 50p to a middle class woman who doesn't have change for her twenty to buy a train ticket than you are to give 20p to a homeless guy who wants some food.

Likewise, while people will be delighted to see a permitless lemonade stall (complete with backwards S) by the roadside in their neighbourhood manned by some suburban kids who want to go to a waterpark, I doubt they'd be as happy if it was some kids selling gum so they could afford food.  And I doubt the latter group would have as much sympathy if they were moved on by the police as these kids have, what with the "Oh no, they can't go to the waterpark, they'll have to go and play on their Xbox instead"

This is why you take an attitude of applying the law to everyone, even people who would be let off if it was up to a vote thanks to being adorable or otherwise viewed kindly by society.  Start with the "Oh, but they're just cute kids" and you quickly end up with a two-tier justice system.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jul 16, 2011)

Wow.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




That's kinda pants-on-head, don't you think?



Spoiler











Although it is good to know that if I ever have to fight the law, I won't actually need to do anything. They're perfectly capable of slipping over and braining themselves on their own truncheons without any help from me. 

I fought the law and...the law beat itself up. Doesn't quite fit the rhythm of the music but it's more accurate.


----------



## Sterling (Jul 16, 2011)

I understand that this is the law, but I myself did this when I was 12. I even had a couple police officers come by and buy a glass. These sort of things are looked past. I got maybe 70 dollars in two days. That isn't alot. When I had my lawn mowing business I was making 25 dollars for 45 minutes of work. Neither were registered businesses, and neither were busted. These sort of things have been attempted on a regular basis since the 60s or probably less. My parents did it, their parents did it and so on. I think this is ridiculous myself, even if it is the law.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 17, 2011)

The whole "it's the law, he was doing his job" debate was dead and obsolete from the beginning. The officer wasn't justifiably using his power as a law enforcer to bring forth a better America, he was bullying some kids who wanted to go to a water park.

You're damn right they get treated different because they're kids. What exactly do you expect them to do at that age? There isn't a whole hell of a lot some kids can do to earn money.

A little lemonade stand won't put Walmart out of business, and the government wont be making any money off of it. So let them be. There's not a damn thing wrong with some kids taking the initiative to earn some money for themselves. Frankly, it should be encouraged. We wouldn't have so many spoiled, lazy morons if the kids actually trying to DO something for themselves weren't being oppressed so pointlessly.


----------



## Nujui (Jul 17, 2011)

Just let the kid have a lemonade stand.

Like it's gonna hurt crap for someone to sell lemonade, especially a 14 year old, come on use you're common sense.


----------



## Densetsu (Jul 17, 2011)

BryceOne said:
			
		

> It would be cool if their waterpark sees all this and just gives the girls tickets.


This would be a heartwarming article to balance out the calloused asshole of a cop who was "just doing his job."  

I've heard cops complain about being spread out thin and they don't have enough manpower to do get things done...it's because stupid pigs are shutting down lemonade stands when their dumb asses should be out there stopping _real_ crimes.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 17, 2011)

emigre said:
			
		

> $27 for a children's ticket? Ladies and gentlemen that's the real criminal offence in this tale.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yea, _real_ criminals like the ones that charge $27 for a children's ticket.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




So if I read right, they are not getting busted for healthy reasons,but except for not having a permit?

Isn't it something wrong there?

A permit = automatic it's safe?


----------



## ferofax (Jul 17, 2011)

...wait, so 10 year old kids are expected to shell out $50 for a lemon stand permit? wow, that's just really fucked up.


----------



## zeromac (Jul 17, 2011)

ferofax said:
			
		

> ...wait, so 10 year old kids are expected to shell out $50 for a lemon stand permit? wow, that's just really fucked up.


14 year old girls


----------



## Fluto (Jul 17, 2011)

The Police were jealous since the kids were making more money than them


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

Like I say, as long as poor kids/teens selling gum and bottled water to feed themselves get the same support as kids who want money for the waterpark, which I very much doubt.  Which is why the law should apply to everyone.


----------



## shyam513 (Jul 17, 2011)

It's lemonade, for heaven's sake. all this stuff about "health threats", I agree with the woman in the video - do they really have nothing better to do?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 17, 2011)

I think the better question is why the fuck a 14 year old would run a lemonade stand. At that age you may be able to get a job or just ask for an allowance. When I was 14 I basically waited until my birthday and Christmas for whatever cash I needed.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 17, 2011)

Come on, people, get real.

The 10 year olds were obviously using the lemonade stand as a way to form their business skills and fund a trip to the water park in the process cover for their underground drug trade operation! It's so clear just reading about it.
The police did the right thing and I think they should get medals for doing such a great job crushing those children's futures in showing initiative and becoming independent members of society shutting down a large portion of the city's drug trade.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> The 10 year olds were obviously using the lemonade stand as a way to form their business skills and fund a trip to the water park in the process


Maybe they'd form better business skills by learning how the business world works in terms of having to follow local laws?

The strawman arguments implying they were told they couldn't do it because they might have been selling poison or operating a criminal empire don't really help the situation.  Laws apply to everyone, even people you like.  That's something people sometimes have difficulty accepting.

No-one seems willing to answer the question about if they'd be happy with kids selling stuff in their neighbourhood if it was poor kids doing it to feed themselves, either they don't want to answer the question or no-one's actually reading the thread and just giving the standard response of "OMG, poor adorable kids, nasty facist policeman" after reading the OP and never visiting the thread again.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Welcome to the world of being 10 years old.


----------



## Rayder (Jul 17, 2011)

The point is, they were kids.  If they were adults, I could see them being required to have a vendors license, but they were kids.  Rules aren't the same for kids.  Those kids probably couldn't even apply for the license themselves if they wanted to.  Then there's the fact that at $50 a day for the license, they would never make a profit just selling lemonade.  I'm sure the whole point of the license was to prevent adult street peddlers from popping up everywhere and selling various items everyday, not kids from selling lemonade for just a couple days until they had enough money for a trip to a waterpark.  It was a dick move on the part of the cop, plain and simple, regardless of how they try to justify their actions.


----------



## iluvfupaburgers (Jul 17, 2011)

first it was the basketball hoops taken out, now this. man, what do people have against children nowadays. i find it dumb how they took out the lemonade stand, where i live, business licences only apply to businesses that are bigger than a certain amount of people, and actually own a building to work in, since that would be considered a business, kinda. but i guess a lemonade stand that is going to be taken out in a couple of days and runned by 10 year olds is a business, therefore need this licence. 



			
				BlueStar said:
			
		

> No-one seems willing to answer the question about if they'd be happy with kids selling stuff in their neighbourhood if it was poor kids doing it to feed themselves, either they don't want to answer the question or no-one's actually reading the thread and just giving the standard response of "OMG, poor adorable kids, nasty facist policeman" after reading the OP and never visiting the thread again.


if they were poor. why would they be selling lemonade instead of eating them or drinking? or were would they get that lemonade, and stand?


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uh, yes.  Yes they are unless the law specifically states otherwise. This one doesn't.  Maybe you could lobby to have the rules changed, but then don't complain when 14 year old poor kids are selling gum and bottled water on your street in order to get money for food and you whine "But that's _differrrennnnt_.

Person I feel most sorry for is the cop at the centre of the witchunt.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not only is that not different in the least, but why would people cry about it?


----------



## Johnny_Drama (Jul 17, 2011)

Oh god, it's called* SAFETY*, ladies and gentlemen.

How many psychos do we have on this world right now? Do you think it would be safe for those kids to just sell those things on the street? Do you think we don't have psychos who could rob the complete lemonade stand and give the child a fucking permanent trauma for the rest of her fucking youth? These traumas cost the government and parents money, a lot of money.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 17, 2011)

Johnny_Drama said:
			
		

> Oh god, it's called* SAFETY*, ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> How many psychos do we have on this world right now? Do you think it would be safe for those kids to just sell those things on the street? Do you think we don't have psychos who could rob the complete lemonade stand and give the child a fucking permanent trauma for the rest of her fucking youth? These traumas cost the government and parents money, a lot of money.


So we should all stay inside and fear the outside world, sheltering our children from every life experience that they may ever have.


Makes sense.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> Not only is that not different in the least, but why would people cry about it?



I think people would see it in a very different manner and suddenly "Oh, but the rules shouldn't apply to children" wouldn't be the cry from the peanut gallery.


----------



## air2004 (Jul 17, 2011)

Yeah , because a business license would stop them from poisining the lemonade....fucking retarded laws


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


14 year olds selling gum and water vs 14 year olds selling lemonade?

Not really too much of a difference there.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the difference is between middle class kids selling it to spend on entertainment and poor kids selling it to pay for food.  Think people would be more comofrtable with one than the other, but can't justify creating a crime of "Street selling while not adorable."


----------



## Assax (Jul 17, 2011)

Man I love those law discussions, tbh all those law zombies make me rage really hard.
Whats up with all this "the law states so" bullshit nowadays, use your common sense instead of blindly reading what the law states. 
Not trying to be anarchist or anything but seriously sometimes I find it awfull that people seem to forget what childhood is or what kids do.

Grown ups always act as if they never wanted to do things that children nowadays too and scold them whenever children make stupid things. Especially so when those grown ups are working and always say "I'm only doing my job" goddamn, stop following the rules and laws like a blind machine and start acting like a human with free will.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not seeing your logic.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

Gee, dunno why Blue Star is so hung up on this whole "what if kids start selling [insert whatever] in your neighborhood" idea. What exactly is the point of THAT argument? As long as the children aren't selling/doing drugs, selling food is a legitimate source of income, even in the short-term. Maybe you were raised well-to-do or something, but anyone who's had to go through this shit knows how hard money is to come by.

Second, I don't see your stand on "laws should cover everyone" blah blah. Not all laws do, believe me. Minors [anyone below 18] just are a different thing from adults. Now, if they were older than 18, with *full rights and liabilities* in the eyes of the law, that's a different story. But anyone below 18? They're not deemed responsible - their guardians are. As you can see [can you?] the girls were given a slap on the wrist, informed of the law/rule about permits and told to pack up. Technically, that's the general way the law handles anyone who is deemed a minor. I still think that fee is ridiculous, especially if it covers such minor enterprises like a friggin lemonade stand, but that's my opinion.

I dunno, is the law different in Europe?



@Johnny - I don't remember the officer saying even once that the girls were in danger. The stand was set up across the street from their house, from the looks of it. And really, why the hell would any person rob a lemonade stand?


----------



## ninditsu (Jul 17, 2011)

by the book police work. just unlucky that they set up shop while that officer was on duty.


----------



## Nujui (Jul 17, 2011)

Johnny_Drama said:
			
		

> Oh god, it's called* SAFETY*, ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> How many psychos do we have on this world right now? Do you think it would be safe for those kids to just sell those things on the street? Do you think we don't have psychos who could rob the complete lemonade stand and give the child a fucking permanent trauma for the rest of her fucking youth? These traumas cost the government and parents money, a lot of money.


Psychos rob lemonade stands now?

They must be getting desperate.


----------



## Johnny_Drama (Jul 17, 2011)

KirbyBoy said:
			
		

> Psychos rob lemonade stands now?
> 
> They must be getting desperate.
> 
> QUOTE(Shinigami357 @ Jul 17 2011, 03:35 PM) @Johnny - I don't remember the officer saying even once that the girls were in danger. The stand was set up across the street from their house, from the looks of it. And really, why the hell would any person rob a lemonade stand?



http://tinyurl.com/63axrk7

and

http://mychristianfamily.wordpress.com/201...inals-arrested/

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/kids-r...obbed/17yyrs3nu


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

So... 2  examples make it the rule rather than the exception? By the law of averages alone, that's a very, very low chance.

I might as well link to cases of people struck by lightning and declare that people get hit everywhere everyday... Come on, really?


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 17, 2011)

Anyone anywhere carrying something of value can be robbed. It's not a valid argument. Just because someone could, doesn't mean someone would. Also if the cop wasn't so busy shutting down lemonade stands, he could catch lemonade stand thieves instead.

You might as well say running a lemonade stand is dangerous because they could get trampled by a runaway zoo, caught in a flash flood, or hit by lightning.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

Anyone saying "the law's the law," is just ignorant. If you honestly think laws are meant to make people safe and that police officers enforce laws for the sake of justice then you are sadly mistaken. Laws should be questioned, not taken as the word of god. IMO, if a crime has no victim (such as this one) then how can you even call it a crime? Somebody gets punished not because they are causing problems for others, but simply because "it's the law." Do you really not see the major flaw in this way of thinking?




			
				Johnny_Drama said:
			
		

> Oh god, it's called* SAFETY*, ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> How many psychos do we have on this world right now? Do you think it would be safe for those kids to just sell those things on the street? Do you think we don't have psychos who could rob the complete lemonade stand and give the child a fucking permanent trauma for the rest of her fucking youth? These traumas cost the government and parents money, a lot of money.
> And having a permit which would have made their lemonade stand legal would also protect them from these dangers?
> ...


The problem with what your saying is it's how YOU think others would feel. You don't know how they would feel, so stop acting like your feeling about it are how most people feel because chances are, they aren't.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> Anyone saying "the law's the law," is just ignorant. If you honestly think laws are meant to make people safe and that police officers enforce laws for the sake of justice then you are sadly mistaken. Laws should be questioned, not taken as the word of god. IMO, if a crime has no victim (such as this one) then how can you even call it a crime? Somebody gets punished not because they are causing problems for others, but simply because "it's the law." Do you really not see the major flaw in this way of thinking?
> 
> Then you campaign to CHANGE THE LAW, not just decide on a case-by-case basis depending on how society views the people who are breaking it.
> 
> ...



I never said they were my feelings about it.  I'm convinced if it was grubby foreign kids selling stuff on the street that were told they needed a license that it wouldn't have made the news and they wouldn't have had thousands of keyboard warriors demanding they be exempt from laws that apply to everyone else.  If a law's on the books you apply it to everyone, you don't just say "Off you go coppers, arrest anyone you don't like the look of and let people off if they seem like a nice chap. Let's be careful out there."


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> DeathStrudel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point is you don't know how others would react, but you keep assuming that you know.


----------



## Assax (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Then you campaign to CHANGE THE LAW, not just decide on a case-by-case basis depending on how society views the people who are breaking it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It makes me sad that people need a law for everything instead of using their common sense.
I'm sure if someone is going to campaign to change the law for children selling stuff on the street e.g. in this case lemonade people would laugh because thats just ridiculous.
Why would you even feel the need to change laws for something - for me atleast - so obvious, I think thats pathetic, as if humanity cannot decide such simply and trivial things without the law.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 17, 2011)

Several thoughts on this

First you will not get any argument from me for a statement along the lines of "US tax and business law along with the things that inform it are a mess".
To this end I find the concept of a business license amusing although most places I find myself do something similar and require you to put effort in to get out of it (national insurance seems to mirror this somewhat in the UK- making it something of an opt out affair should you start a business).

Police often seem measured on stats down to the officer level. Does not make it justified I agree and even without press I am sure words would have been had but I wanted to leave it out there. Granted it would have been preferable to either turn a blind eye or not jump right to the "full sanctions" ("you can not do this, should it still be going on in the morning/this evening.....").

Ages- some terms that probably need to be looked up "age of criminal responsibility" (granted this is a UK version of the term but something similar exists stateside) and purpose of "family court".

"toxins"- this would probably be a foodstuff prepared on site rather than a packaged foodstuff (making the door to door and such like analogies somewhat weaker). Not saying I would not laugh at someone that urged caution on such grounds but there is a line of logic at least now polio is a thing of the past (or should be).

The water park prices.
http://www.lawncare.net/lawn-watering-restrictions/ seems to include Georgia. So an arguably seasonal ( http://www.wunderground.com/history/airpor...eq_statename=NA - granted going by that I would consider opening in March or possibly earlier but having some amusing stories on similar matters* I can see it being a shorter season) business in a state with water restrictions and presumably high insurance rates (I am basing this off discussions with skate park owners and such like over the years- I consider it unlikely but I am prepared to be wrong here).

*California late October one year- temperature is about 20 degrees C (aka a nice Summer day in the UK) so my dad lets us jump in the pool of the hotel we are at. Receptionist comes screaming out worried about it being too cold, things get explained and she wanders off shaking her head like we are mad, odd looks from passers by on similar grounds being one example of such things.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> So you think it's ok to punish people when what they have done hasn't hurt anybody? If you answer yes then I am done talking to you because that's just ridiculous.



So do you think it's OK to just decide laws don't apply to people on a whim, when other people are going to have to follow them?  The law is on the books.  This cop decides not to enforce it, a different cop decides to enforce it on someone else.  You're fine with that?  Who got punished?  You're going on like the kids were thrown in jail, stop having a tantrum and just look at the situation without getting over emotional.  You need a permit to sell on the street.  People sold stuff on the street without a premit and were told they needed a permit.  What's the problem?  I don't think smoking a joint hurts anyone else, but I don't think the right way to deal with that is for everyone to walk down the high street lighting up and then act shocked and appalled if they get told not to by policeman because they think the law doesn't apply to them.

If you have these laws on the books, but decide they generally shouldn't be enforced in the kind of wooly, idealistic fashion people are talking about (That you just know when it's something that's OK even though it's technically against the law and everyone has the same standards on this), how do you make sure that is done fairly?  Won't police just enforce laws based on if they think there'll be publicity about it or not?  "Hmm, lemonade stand, the kids are cute, the mother's a journalist, I'll let it slide.  Hmm, these kids won't kick up a fuss, no-one cares about kids in this neighbourhood, I'm bored, I'll close their stand down."

At what age do you stop having this right to sell stuff on the street without a permit?  What if one officer decides 14 and 10 is OK, but 16 and 14 isn't, but another officer one street away decides 18 year olds running a lemonade stand is fine?

People are just taking the easy stance without even thinking about wider implications.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> DeathStrudel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not what I'm saying at all, learn to understand what people are saying, there's no point in even trying to explain because I highly don't you'll be able to grasp it based on the level of intellect you have shown


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> That's not what I'm saying at all, learn to understand what people are saying, there's no point in even trying to explain because I highly don't you'll be able to grasp it based on the level of intellect you have shown
> 
> And
> 
> QUOTEyou think it's ok to punish people when what they have done hasn't hurt anybody



Wasn't what I was saying at all.

Seems that what you mean by "There's no point in trying to explain" is that you can no longer back up your own argument and you want out.

So, people of GBATemp "It's just common sense, it's _*obvious*_ that kids should be allowed to run a lemonade stall without a permit."

Come on then, at what age do you stop being allowed to sell on the street without a permit?  Is it just lemonade, or can you sell anything?  Are there some things you shouldn't be allowed to sell, or some places? Seeing as it's just common sense I presume you're all going to give the same answer.


----------



## Schlupi (Jul 17, 2011)

For those of you who say the law is meant to only protect people...

Here in Chicago, we have a law saying that you can NOT record a conversation with an on-duty police officer or you will be arrested for it. One lady recently was raped by two cops, and she went back to the station they were posted in and tried to reason with them and talk to them about it. She said she wanted to talk to them, and she asked permission to record the conversation. They consented verbally. After she talked to them and they supposedly admitted their guilt on tape she was immediately arrested on the "recording" charge, as well as several other things. She got 15 years in jail just for trying to get the proper punishment for these assholes that they deserved. Apparently cops cannot held responsible for what they say.


Anyways... point to the story is, you guys who are all uptight and righteous saying laws are just meant to protect people are silly. You say, "What if something happened to somebody who drank the lemonade?" What about STREET FAIRS? FLEA MARKETS? These people don't have permits. Their sales are EXTREMELY loosely regulated. They just sell shit for 20 bucks a week and they can do whatever they want to their food/merchandise. Should they NOT be permitted to sell just because they don't have a permit too? What if they are legit and not causing any harm? If so, why stop them?

With the corruption and grey areas of legality in our world nobody can truly judge what is right or wrong sometimes. I agree with you all to SOME extent; there are in fact many laws to keep the peace and protect the well being of citizens. However, not all of them are just or reasonable. If you think laws were only meant to protect people, you're dreadfully mistaken.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> DeathStrudel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I want out of an argument with somebody that isn't going to change their mind and keeps replying with things unrelated to what I'm saying

edit: "It's just common sense, it's obvious that kids should be allowed to run a lemonade stall without a permit."


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

@Blue Star

If you understand that the law was indeed upheld, then *why so butthurt* about it, then? The law, shining example of societal responsibility that it is, was upheld. Why you go out of your way to even link things that don't even have any bearing on this?

Yeah, we get it, you hold the opinion that the law should cover everyone. I don't think anyone in their right minds would deny that. Our point all along is simple: what fucked-up kind of law would require something so insignificant as a lemonade stand to get a city permit to set up? That's bloody ridiculous.

In any case, it isn't a capital offense. Like I said [as as you've acknowledged] the 'case' ended with a slap to the wrist, informing the children of the law/rules regarding the permits, and then they were ordered to pack up. Story done.

Also, to everyone going gaga over these [non-existent in this case] "toxins"

1. I think I said a while back - no kid who genuinely wanted to earn money would sell something that turns customers away. It's common sense.
2. These kids have parents. Obviously, they knew one way or the other that their daughters would be setting up shop. You really think they won't at the very least supervise in making the lemonade?



@FAST6191 - Criminal law now covers business permits? I thought that was under commercial law or something.


----------



## Jamstruth (Jul 17, 2011)

Here's what I think having thought about it.
If the kids were in the middle of a city park or whatever then fine, shut them down.
If they were in a suburban street or something then leave them be.

Also since the kids won't have Social Security Numbers yet (assuming its similar to National Insurance Numbers in the UK) they would never be able to get these permits. Hell they can't have jobs but you expect them to get permits before having fun and selling something on their street? Some allowances have to be made for things such as this.

As for your analogy with gurbby kids selling. If they were just kids selling outside their house and from a poor family hell I'd sympathise with them. The problem is that we're all invisioning some kids sitting on their front lawn trying to sell to passing neighbours. We are in no way imagining any kind of serious enterprise here which would require a permit.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

I'm not the one who's butthurt about it, I'm not the one that's bawwwwwwwwwwwing about the situation.  And I don't see anyone going 'gaga' over toxins, I'm certainly not.  That's not the issue here at all.

If you think there should be a change in the law, campign for permits to not be needed for kids.  But like I say, I don't think it will be as simple as people think.  You can't write a law saying "People can't sell on the street without a permit unless they're kids doing something cool like lemonade stands and stuff."  You need to define what a stall is, what a kid is, where they can set it up.  And if people answer the questions in my last post, you'll suddenly find it's not all "common sense" after all.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> edit: "It's just common sense, it's obvious that kids should be allowed to run a lemonade stall without a permit."


----------



## Jamstruth (Jul 17, 2011)

Actually its you that's gotten so worked up about our attitude that. "Yeah, law was upheld like it should be but..c'mon! Its just some kids on their front lawn!"


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> Actually its you that's gotten so worked up about our attitude that. "Yeah, law was upheld like it should be but..c'mon! Its just some kids on their front lawn!"



People went absolutely apeshit at the beginning of this thread talking about socialism and acting like SWAT swooped down in riot gear and smashed their glasses with batons.  Now we're talking about the punishment fitting the crime, as if they've been given the death penalty.  The 'punishment' being that they were allowed to keep their takings, politely told they'd need a permit to keep on selling stuff by the side of the road like everyone else and given the opportunity to get one. How could the 'punishment' be any less?


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> I'm not the one who's butthurt about it, I'm not the one that's bawwwwwwwwwwwing about the situation.  And I don't see anyone going 'gaga' over toxins, I'm certainly not.  That's not the issue here at all.
> 
> If you think there should be a change in the law, campign for permits to not be needed for kids.  But like I say, I don't think it will be as simple as people think.  You can't write a law saying "People can't sell on the street without a permit unless they're kids doing something cool like lemonade stands and stuff."  You need to define what a stall is, what a kid is, where they can set it up.  And if people answer the questions in my last post, you'll suddenly find it's not all "common sense" after all.
> You shouldn't have to get a law changed, the cop could've just stopped and thought, "hey, these kids are not harming anybody in any way so why should I force them to shut it down?" People seem to use the law as an excuse to not have morals. Laws are made for a reason, to protect people; if the cops are clearly not protecting anybody by enforcing a law then I see no reason as to why it was enforced.
> ...


umm, to let them continue since they were doing no harm?


----------



## Magmorph (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> Anyone saying "the law's the law," is just ignorant. If you honestly think laws are meant to make people safe and that police officers enforce laws for the sake of justice then you are sadly mistaken. Laws should be questioned, not taken as the word of god. IMO, if a crime has no victim (such as this one) then how can you even call it a crime? Somebody gets punished not because they are causing problems for others, but simply because "it's the law." Do you really not see the major flaw in this way of thinking?


It is a crime because there is a law against it. That is the very definition of a crime. There is a victim to this crime too. That 50 dollars would have gone somewhere had it been payed. If you don't like the law there are ways to get it changed.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> DeathStrudel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So somebody didn't get money that shouldn't have to be paid in the first place, I feel so sorry for them


----------



## Domination (Jul 17, 2011)

You know, I feel sorry for the kid, but the basic doctrine of _Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat_ still applies, even if its a kid who doesn't know anything, the law still applies. First thing we learnt was that legality and morality are not essentially the same. Adultery is not illegal in Singapore, whereas importing of (bubble/chewing)gum is. Not everything in the law is correct and logical, but it still must be upheld by the commissioned enforcers.

And besides, its not the law's fault: if the government  that enacted the statute(and the relevant subsidiary legislation) didn't specifically state small stalls like these were exempted, it should be expected to be taken at face value. I'm not really sure about that though, which act were they in offence of?


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 17, 2011)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> If you think there should be a change in the law, campign for permits to not be needed for kids.



This wouldn't need to happen if the masses of society weren't as brainwashed as you are. Common sense should be applied to the law. It always should. It makes no sense not to do so. Unfortunately so many people in society can't comprehend free thought unless it's written in the law for them to blindly follow.

There are tons of laws that make no sense, but exist anyways since it isn't written anywhere that people should question the laws, so they don't, because they can't think independently. Just as much, there are laws that really don't make sense when applied to specific groups of people, typically age groups. Such as this permit thing. It makes no sense to enforce it against CHILDREN. That's asinine.


Also DeathStrudel, there's not much point arguing any more, really. Unless you get your opinions written into the law, BlueStar can't comprehend them.


----------



## Schlupi (Jul 17, 2011)

@ Jamstruth: Here in the states I believe you get a SS number as soon as you're born.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

Domination said:
			
		

> Not everything in the law is correct and logical, but it still must be upheld by the commissioned enforcers.
> You seem to understand that the law can be unfair and illogical, so I respect you for not being as ignorant as some others, but I still don't see why you would think they should still be upheld. I don't think people realize that laws are often made because of exceptions rather that rules. People like to assume that they are being protected by laws, but they usually fuck more people over who haven't done much of anything, then protect us from real criminals that may actually cause you harm
> 
> 
> QUOTE(Hells Malice @ Jul 17 2011, 11:40 AM) Also DeathStrudel, there's not much point arguing any more, really. Unless you get your opinions written into the law, BlueStar can't comprehend them.


lol, you're right, I was bored


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

LOL @ the "I'm not bawwwwwwwwing over it" comment. Really? Yeah, you weren't "bawwwwwwwwwing" over it - you were making up scenarios in your head and forcing them onto us as though that was the issue. Which it isn't. In fact, the whole thing is cut and dry, but obviously, you want to read so much deeper into it. Geez.


----------



## Magmorph (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why shouldn't it have to be paid? What sum of money not being paid constitutes someone being hurt? Can we evade taxes because they shouldn't have to be paid? If you are breaking a law and get caught you can't expect it to just be ignored. The police are supposed to uphold the law, not decide which laws they find to be worth upholding.


----------



## shortz1994 (Jul 17, 2011)

damn, didn't meen to turn this into a big debate. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




I think it's messed up, it showes how far we have come, from my generation (1970's) to the new genaration's (1990's- now)..
So if this happens to a inoccent lemonade stand set up by kids. what about yardsales, garagesales. the same rules should apply. me i think it's just big,local goverment sticking their nose were it doesn't belong. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



it was a local store( buisness). that complained to the cops.( tourist season here) an this is the reason it was shut down in the first place. (not in the story). i live two blocks away from these girls. an yes i bought a 1$ lemonade from them an it was the best i had in awhile.(fresh squeezed,mmm).


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

edit: nvm, there's no point in trying to reason with you I'm not even sure why I replied


----------



## Magmorph (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> edit: nvm, there's no point in trying to reason with you I'm not even sure why I replied


Calling someone stupid, ignorant, or impossible to reason with doesn't invalidate their argument.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

It doesn't validate it either. It only means one side has the sense to stop when their earlier efforts have been for naught.


----------



## Magmorph (Jul 17, 2011)

Shinigami357 said:
			
		

> It doesn't validate it either. It only means one side has the sense to stop when their earlier efforts have been for naught.


I never claimed it did validate it. When someone has resorted to using insults it usually means they don't have a very strong argument. Someone can easily stop arguing without remarking on someones intelligence.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> Shinigami357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please direct me to the post where I insulted you. Oh yeah, I didn't. Why are you making stuff up?


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 17, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> DeathStrudel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Instead of asking "Why shouldn't it be paid?" you should be asking "Why do 10-14 year olds girls need to spend $50 on a permit to earn $81 or so for tickets to a water park?"  (or more general, "Why do children need to pay a permit for something as trivial as a lemonade stand, that likely never earns more then $50 a day (and that doesn't include the cost of materials. $50 being a very generous number. Very, very generous).

Frankly, question 2 makes a hell of a lot more sense. I'm not sure why you decided to compare this to tax evasion. Taxes exist for an actual reason. The permits do too, but not when applied to incredibly low-income "business ventures" like a freakin' lemonade stand.

Also you can say what you want about DeathStrudel, but he's probably just tired of debating with societies bitches. It's really annoying arguing with people who can't comprehend common sense. Trust me, i'm doing it right now. Very annoying.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

Can't we all just get along? Wait, no? Oh, ok, then...


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 17, 2011)

Getting along is nowhere near as entertaining.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

Hells Malice said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

It would seem my earlier posts got ignored. Hmmm... Well that's fine, considering that I've grown tired already [that, and it's half past midnight here... yaaaaaawn].


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Hells Malice said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did form an argument but you ignored practically everything I said and kept talking about age and other things that had nothing to do with what I said, you also were taking things I said out of context, therefore, I consider you unintelligent. At least some people will admit that laws are unfair and illogical, but you've just been saying "It's a law so it doesn't matter if it's unfair because it's a law."


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Age is absolutely crucial to the debate, if you're not willing to even consider it then there's ltitle point in having the debate at all.


----------



## Aeladya (Jul 17, 2011)

The cops were just doing their job and we should all take the time to thank the Georgia police. Without them, we would have kids learning responsibility and kids learning they must earn money to get what they want. What audacity these parents have for teaching them that instead of teaching them to be spoiled brats. Bad parents...you should know better...


----------



## koimayeul (Jul 17, 2011)

sick news.. poor kiddo


----------



## shortz1994 (Jul 17, 2011)

Aeladya said:
			
		

> The cops were just doing their job and we should all take the time to thank the Georgia police. Without them, we would have kids learning responsibility and kids learning they must earn money to get what they want. What audacity these parents have for teaching them that instead of teaching them to be spoiled brats. Bad parents...you should know better...


That about sums it up. Welcome to Georgia, (If......{insert your higher power}, had to take a dump, this is were it comes out).


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> No, not what I'm saying at all.  But nice attempt at a straw man.
> I honestly don't think you even know what you're trying to say.
> 
> 
> ...


You replied to what I said, and what I said had nothing to do with age, so when you brought up age it was unrelated and certainly not "crucial to the debate." This is just getting silly, do you really think I'm the one grasping for straws? You have made no logical arguments and when questioned (by both me and others) you have failed to explain. You don't know what you're talking about and you're a troll, it's as simple as that. Good day sir.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait.. You think people are trying to say that no permit should be needed for anyone to sell goods by the side of the road _at all_ and it's just coincidence that the cause celebre for this grass roots campaign happen to be kids?  

Age is crucial because the main argument is they're just kids.  If you haven't seen that argument, you've been reading this thread with a blindfold on, which might explain some of your posts.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Wait.. You think people are trying to say that no permit should be needed for anyone to sell goods by the side of the road _at all_ and it's just coincidence that the cause celebre for this grass roots campaign happen to be kids?
> 
> Age is crucial because the main argument is they're just kids.  If you haven't seen that argument, you've been reading this thread with a blindfold on, which might explain some of your posts.


"my point is people(by people I mean everyone not just little kids, you really dont seem to grasp this) should be punished based on the severity/outcome of their crime, not just because it is a crime"

This was my point and I said it over and over to you and you still don't seem to be able to understand. *My* argument has nothing to do with this so called "main argument," of them being kids, i never said it did, and I didn't reply to somebody that did, you replied to me and brought age into *my* argument.  It may have been crucial when responding to somebody else, but it is certainly not crucial when it was no factor in what *I* was saying. You've been trying to argue against something you don't even understand.

Also, I said Good Day


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then your argument has nothing to do with the actual topic.


----------



## Nujui (Jul 17, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This, definitely this.


----------



## thela_kid (Jul 17, 2011)

I'm sorry, but Bluestar, no offense but DeathStrudel is right in that your sight is not lucid to the fact that deathstrudel doesn't want to state his opinion without you sparking a flame. He even tried to call it quits but you dragged him back in. This is what my father does so that explains why it is a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

Oh, I'm sorry, so if I have a go at someone and then say "good day" it means they're not allowed to counter my argument? Or if I say 'you don't understand so don't bother to reply'? 

If he doesn't want to continue the thread he can simply not press the post button.


----------



## thela_kid (Jul 17, 2011)

I don't even understand what your last post means and frankly I don't think you know either. Just call it quits man, don't be an immature politician. We have too many in the states


----------



## Nujui (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm sorry, so if I have a go at someone and then say "good day" it means they're not allowed to counter my argument? Or if I say 'you don't understand so don't bother to reply'? If he doesn't want to continue the thread he can simply not press the post button.


It doesn't mean they don't want to counter it, it means they don't want to argue over it anymore.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> DeathStrudel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Umm, yeah, it really does, I was saying the law is unfair which is definitely related to the topic


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

They were not forced to shut down, they were told they needed a permit and then they could continue. They were not punished for their previous violation at all. If the permit is too much, that's another matter. Maybe we could campaign for there to be a sliding scale, with stalls that make lots of money paying more and a two-bit lemonade stall paying a nominal fee. But then that's seen as communist and 'punishing success'.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> They were not forced to shut down, they were told they needed a permit and then they could continue. They were not punished for their previous violation at all. If the permit is too much, that's another matter. Maybe we could campaign for there to be a sliding scale, with stalls that make lots of money paying more and a two-bit lemonade stall paying a nominal fee. But then that's seen as communist and 'punishing success'.


“It was fun, but we had to listen to the cops and shut it down."
Did you read the article? How can't you say they weren't forced to shut it down? They were told they couldn't continue selling lemonade, how is that not shutting them down? If they got a permit, then they could reopen but that doesn't mean that they weren't shut down in the first place. Wow, go read a dictionary, you have very strange definitions of words.

And when I say good day, I'm not saying you can't reply but just know if you do you will look incredibly childish cause I have nothing else to say to you

This time, for real, good day sir, I've got some stuff to do so I couldn't even stay if I wanted


----------



## thela_kid (Jul 17, 2011)

Just saw your edit.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

Wow... Seriously? Dude, why are all your posts laden with "what if"s and "it's seen as" assumptions? The case is clear-cut, why put your own twist into it? You're making a mountain out of a molehill and expecting all of us to treat it like it's frigging Everest. Damn.

Also, you say they weren't forced to shut down. A bunch of BS. They told the kids that they needed to pay for the permit or shut down - those are their only two choices. Even a 7 year-old should be able to grasp the concept that if you're required to do something and you can't, then you will be forced by the authorities to stop. That right there, is more than enough to say that they were forced to shut down - directly or indirectly.

Again, nothing against you, but please, for the love of everything good and holy, stop pulling things out of your ass and making it out like they matter in this discussion. Because that doesn't make your argument better- it makes it confusing and frankly, irrelevant.


----------



## Jamstruth (Jul 17, 2011)

Can I be the first to suggest we give up? Bluestar is not going to see past his black and white view of the law even when applied to a 10 year old on their front lawn selling some lemonade. You gonna make them pay tax on the lemonade they sell if they did pay the permits well?

There's a measure of common sense that needs to be applied. The argument about toxins in the lemonade given by the police holds the most weight in stopping the kids in my opinion but when its just some neighbourhood kids nobody's going to complain about shoddy lemonade... I hope. *now awaits someone suing a 10 year old for terrible lemonade*


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> Can I be the first to suggest we give up?



Well I tried the "can't we all get along?" route but that did jacksh*t, so... Well, good luck to you guys, anyway.


----------



## thela_kid (Jul 17, 2011)

i suggest this thread be closed now. what ever needed to be said has been.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

Oh, give over. They didn't have their stand shut down as a punishment, they were told they needed a permit before they could continue to sell the stuff. If they couldn't afford it, then your issue is with the people who set the permit costs, not the cop.

If you're walking through a park and you're told, perfectly reasonably "Sorry, there's a charge for entering the park. You didn't know, so we won't charge you for the time you've been here or arrest you or anything, but if you want to stay you have to pay the admission fee" are you being 'punished' if you can't afford it? No.

If you've got issues with the law or permit costs, take them up by all means, but don't cry about a cop doing his job.

Hey, actually, if you cry any more maybe the kids could swim in your tears?


----------



## Narayan (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar. 

yes i see your point, but you don't see their point. 

you're right about the kids having an option to get a permit. 
however if they don't get a permit(which they didn't bother getting) they will be shut down which is what happened. 




			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> If you're walking through a park and you're told, perfectly reasonably "Sorry, there's a charge for entering the park. You didn't know, so we won't charge you for the time you've been here or arrest you or anything, but if you want to stay you have to pay the admission fee" are you being 'punished' if you can't afford it? No.


the punishment in that case would be you leaving the park. or rather 'consequences' 

also about them 'crying' about about the cops, is taking it a bit too far. it may be considered an insult.

if you think about punishment as the consequences of an action you take then you will get what the others are telling you. 

though my argument is not perfect since i've only read pages 9, 10 and a few of 8.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

I'm perfectly happy with it being described as a "consequence". If I can't afford a car, rent on a large house, a fishing permit or a sales permit, me not having those things and the benefits I bring isn't a punishment meted out on me by the state.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

What I will say is that I think kids *should* be allowed to do these things without paying that much. But I'm sure you'll agree common sense isn't common. Making an exception here is fine for these kids, but what about the next ones? To ensure consistency its regulations that need changed, not outcry over one incident.


----------



## Narayan (Jul 17, 2011)

yeah, those are really consequences but in this case, it can be called either punishment or consequence. 

you're understanding of punishment is just limited, though there's nothing entirely wrong with that. it's just better if you have the ability to better understand what the other person meant. 

your example with the car and stuff isn't really relevant to what i'm saying.

let's break it down like this. 

a[if you don't have a driver's licence] means [you can't drive] 
b[you don't have sales permit] means [you can't do business] 

a[you try to drive] when caught [you'll need to pay a fine or something]
b[you try to sell] when caught [you just get shut down, no fine since it's not that extreme]

there. understand?

EDIT: 





			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> What I will say is that I think kids *should* be allowed to do these things without paying that much. But I'm sure you'll agree common sense isn't common. Making an exception here is fine for these kids, but what about the next ones? To ensure consistency its regulations that need changed, not outcry over one incident.


i see you're making a different argument.  please wait for a moment while i reread some things.


----------



## Densetsu (Jul 17, 2011)

I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but in the US (at least in my area) we have garage sales or yard sales where people (read: _adults_) sell old things that they want to get rid of right in front of their house.  It's common in my neighborhood and they even put up cardboard signs on the main streets to let others know about the yard sale.  I have never heard of a yard sale being shut down by police, so why should a lemonade stand run by kids be shut down?  

The fact that this thread even exists blows my mind.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

I'm sure that a small change in the city law could be done with little fanfare. Certainly there are many of pre-existing ones that go through such modifications as seen fit by whoever has the authority to change them. It's really all just a matter of wills, and it seems in this case, the city isn't budging any time soon. Too bad for the children, then. LOL, back to mowing lawns or whatever it is kids do.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

Narayan said:
			
		

> yeah, those are really consequences but in this case, it can be called either punishment or consequence.
> 
> you're understanding of punishment is just limited, though there's nothing entirely wrong with that. it's just better if you have the ability to better understand what the other person meant.
> 
> ...



Not being able to drive is the consequence, not a punishment. The punishment is for breaking the law by driving without a license.

While the law is you need a permit, sorry, you need a permit. If we make a law and think 'oh, apart from if you think it would be mean to enforce it' cops can go around making the expected exceptions for people they like and enforce the law for people they don't.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> I'm perfectly happy with it being described as a "consequence". If I can't afford a car, rent on a large house, a fishing permit or a sales permit, me not having those things and the benefits I bring isn't a punishment meted out on me by the state.




I think you have mistaken this. I assure you that indeed, you not owning things because you are not allowed to/can't afford them is not a punishment. That is because, in that case, you have not yet tried to acquire such things [the fact that you can't is irrelevant, it is the act of trying to acquire them that matters]. In this case, you have not broken any conceivable laws or rules whatsoever [not owning anything is not a crime, after all] and therefore you cannot be punished.

There's a fundamental difference because in this case, the children were clearly caught in violation of an active city law/regulation/statute [what have you, call it what you want]. In your example, you had not broken any, and thus any consequence toward you is not in any shape or form a 'punishment'. And yes, making them take their lemonade stand down is a punishment - depriving someone of their chosen form of income, in this case.


----------



## Narayan (Jul 17, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Not being able to drive is the consequence, not a punishment. The punishment is for breaking the law by driving without a license.
> 
> While the law is you need a permit, sorry, you need a permit. If we make a law and think 'oh, apart from if you think it would be mean to enforce it' cops can go around making the expected exceptions for people they like and enforce the law for people they don't.


lol, sorry but you're really funny. 

a[if you don't have a driver's licence] means [you can't drive] 
b[you don't have sales permit] means [you can't do business] 

a[you try to drive] when caught [you'll need to pay a fine or something]
b[you try to sell] when caught [you just get shut down, no fine since it's not that extreme](only in this case)

consequence penalty

is this better? 

also, can i ask you.

what would you do if there was an accident where the drunk driver hit another car. the drunk driver died but the person in the other car didn't? what would happen?

i've seen some of this cases fall under 'reckless imprudence resulting to homicide' where's justice? cops can't do anything but charge the other driver because the drunk driver died.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 17, 2011)

Narayan said:
			
		

> what would you do if there was an accident where the drunk driver hit another car. the drunk driver died but the person in the other car didn't? what would happen?
> 
> i've seen some of this cases fall under 'reckless imprudence resulting to homicide' where's justice? cops can't do anything but charge the other driver because the drunk driver died.


In all cases there would have to be other factors at work- if the other driver despite being sober was driving the wrong way down a one way street or something- to say nothing of what is considered drunk as far as driving is concerned ( http://www.drinkdriving.org/worldwide_drin...ving_limits.php not to mention tolerances ) simply being drunk does not necessarily mean you are physically incapable of handling a vehicle.

As for "law applies" I thought one of the main aspects of case law (or indeed the court system) was to discuss cases (be they fringe cases or otherwise) where the law might not be quite so well worded. To spin it again there are cases (and now defences) in patent/IP law where you can be in what amounts to a direct violation but there are mitigating circumstances.

@ Densetsu9000 such things are common enough everywhere I have been (although around here car boot sales are a more common method) there might well be exceptions for such activities.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 17, 2011)

Shinigami357 said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, punishing them would be starting criminal proceedings against them for the time they had already operated without a permit.

As for the drunk driver thing above, I think you must have different laws over there. If you're in a crash with s drunk driver and he was at fault and dies you're not going to be charged with anything. Not sure how it relates to this case.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 17, 2011)

I love how everyone who's against the lemonade stand keeps bringing up "What if...?". 
*If the girls were on the sidewalk playing with chalk or something, any number of those things could have happened anyway.*


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 17, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> I love how everyone who's against the lemonade stand keeps bringing up "What if...?".
> *If the girls were on the sidewalk playing with chalk or something, any number of those things could have happened anyway.*



Certainly that applies to some but I am going to accuse you of missing the point and it also seems the discussion has branched into a more general discussion on law.

"against the lemonade stand"
An interesting choice of words although I am not going to read anything into it just yet but I will say people do not seem to be "against the lemonade stand" so much as arguing that legally speaking the actions of the police could well be justifiable.

As for what if that seems to be the foundation of many of the "good" laws we have- reactionary laws do exactly have a sparkling history. I will agree though some of the examples and analogies are speeding very quickly into ridiculous country.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jul 17, 2011)

Psssh. Your definition of punishment is too narrow.  For chrissakes, have it your way then.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 18, 2011)

idk I may have to agree with Hells Malice on this one.


----------



## hundredhead (Jul 18, 2011)

From what i can see The kids were doing something against the law, mainly selling lemonade and setting up a business without a permit. It wasnt the cop's fault at all he was just doing his job. Most people or cops would pay no attention to it or turn a blind eye, but no he did his job and shut it down because they were breaking the law.

Let me put it this way. If you live in New york city and take the bus you see kids getting on all the time without a metrocard because they lost it ( me included). Now are the bus drivers supposed to let them on without a metrocard? No, but almost all do let them on. Is the bus driver who doesnt let them on evil because of that? No he's just doing his job and following the rules. Of course it would be nicer if he did let them on but then that would be breaking the law and the rules.


----------



## koimayeul (Jul 18, 2011)

right doing his job.. over zealous or he just hate on little girls, or lemonade, or all at once


----------



## shortz1994 (Jul 18, 2011)

hundredhead said:
			
		

> From what i can see The kids were doing something against the law, mainly selling lemonade and setting up a business without a permit. It wasnt the cop's fault at all he was just doing his job. Most people or cops would pay no attention to it or turn a blind eye, but no he did his job and shut it down because they were breaking the law.
> 
> Let me put it this way. If you live in New york city and take the bus you see kids getting on all the time without a metrocard because they lost it ( me included). Now are the bus drivers supposed to let them on without a metrocard? No, but almost all do let them on. Is the bus driver who doesnt let them on evil because of that? No he's just doing his job and following the rules. Of course it would be nicer if he did let them on but then that would be breaking the law and the rules.


dude, bus tickets, an this ten year old girl an 14year old girl, selling lemonade are two different things. Wifes from up state, an My family is kingston.N.Y.so i know n.y. if your cool the diver will be to, besides if a ten yr old forgot her ticket, my nice would let them on. This is just one of the rules (laws)in georgia that are screwed i could post more. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  But here's one.  girls scouts can not sell girl scout cookies, in front of the Juliet Moore house (the founder of girl scouts). Cause why? The hotels an the little restaurant/bars,  are scared that people will spend their money on the cookies(samoas 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) an not in the buisness. now that's messed up. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I didn't know  this little article was going to turn into a bitch(political) fight,( tea party if that person (women) running for president . wins, the country is done!(screwed).Or What laws are right or wrong.(race card down here gets pulled 85% of the time..)I've seen it. I put up here for people to just say "oh sh-- thats messed up. an move on.


----------



## Waflix (Jul 18, 2011)

shortz1994 said:
			
		

> hundredhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude, ever heard of a metaphor?


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 18, 2011)

Waflix said:
			
		

> Dude, ever heard of a metaphor?


Isn't that more like a (bad) analogy?

Anyway, does washing cars need a permit? Just wondering.


----------



## Waflix (Jul 18, 2011)

KingVamp said:
			
		

> Anyway, does washing cars need a permit? Just wondering.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## lemmymet (Jul 18, 2011)

Waflix said:
			
		

> KingVamp said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The permit costs in netherlands €250 for a day


----------



## Recorderdude (Jul 18, 2011)

The cops had to protect the public from that lemonade. Ever since those aperture people made those new lemons, there's been quite a lot of lemon and lemonade-related deaths.

...But, in all seriousness, be the lemonade stand legal or not, I wish cops would be this vigilant more often with real crimes.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 18, 2011)

lemmymet said:
			
		

> The permit costs in netherlands €250 for a day
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reported that all victims strangely died by combustion.


----------



## Serina (Jul 19, 2011)

it's official.

the world is full of morons.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jul 19, 2011)

FAST6191 said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand that this is more about the permits and what not, I was just tired of people posting about sickos in the world and what could have happened to the girls had they not been stopped. It may appear I missed the point, but you missed my point. Of course it's a discussion on law, derp. It's a topic about legal action.

In an attempt to find something wrong with my post, you read too far into a choice of words I used to sum up the topic... Way to go.
And what do you mean by "just yet"? It's been two days without a follow up.


----------



## shortz1994 (Jul 20, 2011)

update for you. someone went gansta on the police chiefs house.. lol..  all over some lemonade. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . http://www.wtoc.com/story/15115427/midway-...-stand-backlash


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 20, 2011)

Um...relocated because a kid shot at the house with a very non-lethal weapon.

_Really?_


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 20, 2011)

I can't help,but smile at that. Either at the silliness or the fact they moving away and made to stop messing with the kids. 

I didn't see that coming tbh. I thought it was over.

This whole situation is silly.


----------



## GeekyGuy (Jul 21, 2011)

shortz1994 said:
			
		

> update for you. someone went gansta on the police chiefs house.. lol..  all over some lemonade.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow...is this news story for real?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The initial story is just hilariously ridiculous, but then retaliation? And the chief relocated out of fear from pellet-gun fire? Not exactly Al Capone shooting up her house there.


----------



## Nujui (Jul 21, 2011)

Oh god a pellet gun! Run for you lives!

Give me a break.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 21, 2011)

KirbyBoy said:
			
		

> Oh god a pellet gun! Run for you lives!
> 
> Give me a break.


It all fun and games until someone pokes a eye out.


----------

