If they had called him a "retart," that really would have been offensive
Tim Cavanaugh | July 24, 2006, 11:43am
Be thankful you don't live in Nephi, UT, where there's no thin blue line standing between you and the walking mentally challenged. A local family gets a top-story TV news beatdown for posting a sign reading "Caution Retard's in area" in their yard:
The sign is directed at a 13-year-old mentally challenged neighbor, whom the signmaking family charges assaulted their daughter with a rock. It's pretty stupid to assume the sign is going to do anything about it (although the wife in the video clip claims it's already working as effectively as the Bear Patrol). But what's interesting is that no local authorities, including that ultimate local authority, KSL News, has bothered to investigate the assault charge, while the stupid sign has the county's district attorney "researching" his legal options...
Neighbor: "The young boy, we got pictures and everything and they would not press charges because he is handicapped."
The neighbor claims Colton threw a rock at his young daughter. Other neighbors told us they have frequently found Colton wandering onto their property.
Still, the Disability Law Center says using offensive words is the wrong way to handle a difficult situation.
Fraser Nelson, Executive Director, Disability Law Center: "People with disabilities are probably the last group for whom we continue to use language that is hurtful and offensive. Instead of being someone who is mentally retarded, you are a person with a developmental disability and that means really what we are valuing is the person."
What can I say? I'm not without sympathy for the ignoramuses who put up the sign. Not for putting up the sign, but for feeling menaced by this child. (Presuming that the charge about the rock is true.) Every small kid knows there's nothing scarier than a big retard—that's one of the reasons the mentally challenged get so much abuse from other kids. The abuse is not right, nor is the sign, but the solution in this case was for the family of the 13-year-old to have kept him under control in the first place (a slam-dunk conclusion given that his mother says he's got the mental faculties of a three-year-old). This isn't a matter of the essential rights of the handicapped, but of respecting the rights of your neighbors.
Stevo Darkly | July 24, 2006, 3:39pm | #
I'm sure that many or most developmentally challenged teenagers are fine, warm, loving and lovable people. I am also inclined to accept that mentally challenged teens statistically commit fewer crimes than other teens on average. (Assuming it is not the case, as was hinted by someone above, that the cops have a tendency to ignore crimes committed by developmentally handicapped teens
because they are committed by developmentally handicapped teens. In which case, we have an under-reporting problem and the statistics might be skewed.)
I have already indicated my opinion of the illiterate sign at July 24, 2006 12:21 PM.
However, the kid in question is not a statistical average, he is a specific individual person, and I am even more alarmed about him -- and for him -- after reading the additional info provided by Tom Paine's Goiter. The kid goes into into people's houses and goes through their stuff?
What happens when the kid stumbles across somebody's chainsaw and decides to play with it? Or matches? Or gun?
What are the odds that if they kid finds something dangerous in another person's house, and hurts himself or someone else, that the burgled homeowner will end up being sued? In the case of a gun, I'd bet it's a foregone conclusion.
I feel sorry for the kid, but I'm getting angry at his parents. How hard are they working to make sure their child doesn't leave their property unattended? I'm no developmental pyschologist, so I help someone educates me -- is it possible for a child at the stage of a 3- or 4- or 5-year-old to be taught not to leave the yard? Can such a child be depended upon not to do so?
PS: It occurred to me that the neighbors could lock their places up at all times, but for families with young kids of their own, who might be in and out of doors all the time in the summer, that's not practical. Nor should it be required. Assuming that boundaries are clear, the burden of preventing trespass is not upon the property owner.
Stevo Darkly | July 24, 2006, 7:24pm | #
And this isn't a football game. One set of parents can be negligent and the other can be assholes at the same time.
It's Cathy Young's evil twin!
Actually, you are quite right. But for some reason, I am less concerned about the illiterate assholes who put up a sign that their would-be-offendee can't even read, than about the parents of the Unattended Little Wanderer.
To all of you who find retarded people so scary, I'd suggest you do some research about the (non) likelihood of violence among the retarded.
I made this point before, but it was apparently overlooked, so I'll make it again with slightly more emphasis:
The statistically low incidence of crime and violence among generally sweet, mild-mannered and gentle developmentally disabled folks is
abso-bum-buggering-lutely irrelevant to this discussion of a particular and specific, rock-throwing, wandering-unsupervised-into-people's-homes-and-taking-stuff individual.
If we could only say to him, "You know, statistically, most developmentally disabled people don't exhibit the kind of troublesome behavior that you do," and this caused the kid to say, "Okay, I'll change my ways to conform to the statistical norm," then it would be relevant. But I don't think it works that way.
All that aside, I think it's obvious the parents are falling short here. And I applaud any parents who have a developmentally disabled kid to raise, and who do a proper job of parenting under what can be very challenging circumstances. Not to say it's without rewards; I'm not blind to the joys a child can bring, with or without disabilities, either. I used to know a woman with an autistic daughter. This particular girl was eventually able to make tremendous, almost miraculous progress. The mother wrote a short essay about it, and I kept telling her to get it published.
Davidsmom | July 24, 2006, 9:58pm | #
Wow, just got back to my computer and I guess I should respond to some responders:
Jennifer- my son did not throw rocks but he did occasionally wander onto other people's property despite out attempts at eternal vigilance, and he could never resist grabbing any unattended soda, anytime, anywhere. We were fortunate to live among people who were fond of David and accepted his eccentric and occasionally disruptive behavior with good humor. You are right that these neighbors might have cause for complaint, but I have a strong visceral response to the word "retard". Imagine that your kid (or any kid you happen to love), had an accident that resulted in brain damage and retardation- it happens. Now imagine other kids calling your kid a retard, or taunting his siblings about what a retard their brother is. NOW imagine scrolling through a series of comments from adults who apparently are in love with the word, or occasionally offer alternative insults, fondly remembered from their school days. Pissed me off, that's all.
Stevo--My comment about non-violent retarded people was a reponse to those posters who cited anecdotes about scary (and strong!) retarded people they had encountered-- I make no judgment about the particular guy in this story.
Ayn Randian-- No, I am not entitled to hit someone who insults my kid. That's why I called it "assault" and mentioned jail time. Also, I do not support interference with anyone's smoking, drinking, eating, purchasing, or drug-taking habits, would throw almost no one in jail, and prefer my smoke first-hand, thank you. And your profanity is okey-dokey with me (obviously).
Anyway, my remarks were not about the specifics of this case, just a gut reaction to a bunch of people throwing around a word that makes me nuts.
Jennifer | July 24, 2006, 10:33pm | #
my son did not throw rocks but he did occasionally wander onto other people's property despite out attempts at eternal vigilance, and he could never resist grabbing any unattended soda, anytime, anywhere. We were fortunate to live among people who were fond of David and accepted his eccentric and occasionally disruptive behavior with good humor. You are right that these neighbors might have cause for complaint, but I have a strong visceral response to the word "retard".
For the record, I doubt I'd have a problem with a sweet-natured but 'off' kid who took any open soda cans I happened to leave outside, but such petty thievery (if I'd even deign to call it
that) lacks the nasty undertone of breaking into a house or throwing rocks.
Amendment: I doubt I'd have a problem with the soda snatcher
if his parents at least tried to make him stop it. A good-faith effort, is all I'd ask. It sounds like these parents didn't even do that, and furthermore this kid's behaviors are wildly different from yours.
I don't think anybody here has an issue with an autistic neighbor; it's that the autistic neighbor is causing
serious problems, not petty annoyances, for those around him.
Even if the kid can't help throwing rocks and breaking into houses, from his victim's perspective that doesn't change the fact that he's throwing rocks and breaking into houses. This must stop.
As for the "retard" language: no, I don't like it either, and if ever I did post a sign I wouldn't use that word. But I suspect these people have somewhat less linguistic refinement that most posters here. Hell, there are still places where people
honestly don't know it's considered unacceptable to say "nigger."
And I imagine these people were at the end of their rope. Bad cliche, I know, but I'm tired.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
