Mike Tang, The Dad Convicted for Making Son Walk a Mile, Responds to Critics AND Offers of Assistance

This goes beyond parenting. We each make thousands of choices each day that affect others, often creating situations where there’s a one-in-a-billion chance of something bad happening. If I have a tree, there’s a slight chance it’ll fall and hit someone’s house. Given my neighborhood it would require a tornado, but that’s still more likely than someone kidnapping my child. If I can be sued for that, the concept of liberty is dead.

I also find the idea of prosecuting someone for something some unidentified and purely theoretical other person might do to be deeply disturbing. First, this places the blame on the wrong person–it’s blaming the (potential, in a purely hypothetical sense) victim, pure and simple. It’s no different, in that aspect, than the brutality of whipping women who have been raped because they were alone with men outside their family. Second, there’s no evidence that there was any real threat. We are elevating paranoia to the level of laws!!! If we do that we give up all pretense at the rule of law. Knowing the law when “I think something bad could happen, so you should be punished” is the law of the land would require mind-reading, something no sane court system can demand.

This man deserves tremendous praise for fighting this nonsense. I have little hope he’ll win, but better to fight and lose than to meekly submit–or to fight in a way that amounts to submission regardless of victory or loss.

Not only in this country is he not free to raise his children they way he sees fit, he is not free at all, it is all an illusion. If anyone can tell you what you can put in your own body then you are difinitely not a free person.

The kids who drive despite being too young for a learner permit should be punished. I pretty sure that they know that they would not be allowed to drive if they asked. Parents teaching their kids right from wrong not unless you end up needing a doctor for the kid.

While Mr. Tang does not exactly have a winning personality, I’m not sure how ‘cruel’ this actually was. He was apparently trying to teach his son that if you take shortcuts in your homework (such as reading an easy book for a report) you might not end up being successful in life. And while that may not be a method that I would personally choose, I think child cruelty is stretching it. Growing up, I knew kids who were spanked and grounded if they came home with anything lower than a ‘B’.

Incidentally, I don’t think we should be “celebrating” an eight year old driving either. I have an eight year old. She’s average height for her age. I don’t see how she could reach the pedals and still see over the dashboard, even in a small car.

And “learning to drive” via You Tube sounds an awful lot like how I “learned to drive” when I was a kid – by playing Turbo. I was pretty shocked (at age 15.5 when I was legally allowed to get my learner’s permit) just how different a real car was. I don’t think it’s “worst first” thinking to imagine the number of ways tragedy could have happened (and not just to those two kids) in that short drive. Thank heavens it didn’t, but there’s still nothing celebratory about that incident.

“I’d like to address, if I could, to the many people who ask: “Well, what would he feel if something DID happen to the kid?” ”

Did anyone actually ask this? I don’t remember anyone asking this.

The question I’d like to see him actually answer is “what if YOUR intransigence causes your son to act similarly, flatly refusing to do the homework he doesn’t feel like doing?

“none of us is free to raise our kids the way we see fit.”
Never have been.

OK so the charge was cruelty. I stand by my belief that the actions of the dad don’t rise to the level of criminal cruelty. I find it no more cruel than telling kids they can’t walk down the sidewalk because if they do, somebody could snatch them. And people tell kids that all the time. People have told MY kids that. :/

Kids often cry when disciplined. Is it now illegal to let your kids cry in public? Do you realize the implications of that?? So now all discipline must be done behind closed doors – do people really think that’s going to protect any child? I think it would be healthier for society for all discipline to be done in public. It would make it much less likely for parents to go overboard and seriously hurt their kids.

” I find it no more cruel than telling kids they can’t walk down the sidewalk because if they do, somebody could snatch them. And people tell kids that all the time. People have told MY kids that. :/”

Did they then actually have the kid abducted to prove it? Telling a kid something like that is one thing (although not a good thing), but following through is another thing altogether.

“I stand by my belief that the actions of the dad don’t rise to the level of criminal cruelty.”

Well, you know what opinions are like and you’re entitled to yours, but the only people whose opinions mattered disagreed with you.

Interesting logic, SKL. So it’s good to punish a kid for reading the wrong book (an action that couldn’t conceivably hurt anyone), but it’s not good to punish kids for an action that could have had catastrophic consequences. Okey dokey.

Incidentally, this eight year old wasn’t driving in a parking lot.

Dienne, no, and he didn’t actually make his kid homeless to prove his point either.

If you seriously think having to start at a place where homeless people live and then walk 1 mile home is equivalent to making him homeless, then ….

I think his son thought so. And I’m betting Mr. Tang made sure to get that point across.

“…the kid did not seem to realize he had done something wrong at first.”

Really???? You believe that? What eight-year-old kid *doesn’t* know that they are never, ever allowed to drive a car under *any* circumstance, most especially not to get a cheeseburger??? My kids knew that by about age, oh, I dunno, two?

You and I must live on different planets.

Dienne, I’m going by what the cops said about how the kid reacted when they talked to him.

I don’t really care one way or the other – it is for his parents to decide if he needs punishment.

“We need to get past the logic that “most people wouldn’t do that” = “that is a crime.””

Except that that wasn’t the logic. There’s an actual statute that he was accused and convicted of violating. James Pollock quoted it in yesterday’s thread.

Do people with our surgically attached wheels (and phones!) even have a concept of what a mile is anymore? It’s not much!, as long as you have a half hour or so (and don’t need instant gratification). It hardly constitures “abandonment”. Several posters have also mentioned that kids DO cry and are upset when being punished. Don’t Dienne and others remember this in themselves as kids?

Dienne needs to realize that the right to raise our children is a human right, even if it might occasionally include spanking (the toddler who keeps running into the road! Or straight at a bitey big dog! Etc.). All the research show that it only works when it is RARELY used (I can attest to this myself with a strong-willed toddler. After a swat or two didn’t work, you realize it’s time to come up with something else, because you can’t just beat your kid! Save it for urgent situations.).

Glad I’m not being judged as a parent.

“Work” to do *what*, Betsy? Instill obedience? Is that your goal for your child?

Again, how is it okay to hit someone significantly smaller than you, especially since it’s not okay (it’s criminal, actually) to hit someone your own size? You can’t think of any other way to keep your child safe? How sad for your child and for you. All you’re teaching is that might makes right; powerful people have the right to impose their will on less powerful people.

As for this particular case, I will say it again: the jury – the only people whose opinions mattered (and people who had access to a lot more information than we do) – agreed with me. The man was convicted.

Let’s not make this about spanking, since spanking has nothing to do with the present case.

If this dad had given his kid a few whacks with a stick on his rear (something I would not do), nobody would know about it and he might appear to be a model dad. So really, the operation of the present case is to encourage parents to ramp up the behind-closed-doors punishments rather than let anyone see their kid sad in public.

Yes, Dienne, thank you for pointing out what I already know.

If we are not allowed to voice an opinion on an adjudicated matter, then why are you doing so?

And you are spouting off your opinions about everything from homework to reading to spanking, which nobody asked for, so don’t tell me to shut up about my opinions. We are all entitled to them.

I think despite him telling the government to mind their own beeswax. Well the government won’t take that laying down. I think if the most likely next step are either cps or jail or both. The government has a how dare you argue with us idea and it very hard to get them off their high horses. He might want reconsider getting a lawyer because they are only ones to more than half a chance to convince of anything. I wish him lots of luck.

“If we are not allowed to voice an opinion on an adjudicated matter, then why are you doing so?”

No one said you can’t voice an opinion. Just do so knowing that you do so without access to the facts of the case, which the jury had. The people who did have access to the facts of the case all agreed that Mr. Tang was cruel to his son. That’s what he was convicted of, that’s what he’s supposed to serve his punishment for. If he wants to make himself out like some kind of martyr, okay, but the next step, as James Pollock said yesterday, is to show up for trash duty.

As for the other stuff (especially the stuff about spanking), that has been in response to other posts. It was Jennifer C who brought up spanking.

Dienne, the whole point of this page is that public opinion is getting poisoned to the point where police, judges, juries, and the court of public opinion are making irrational judgments.

Just because this happened in court does not mean it was insulated from this trend. There have been many other cases where similar has happened.

True, I wasn’t in the trial to hear all the evidence. Were you? If not, your assumption that the deciders were rational is no more valid than anything I’ve said.

There may be more to the story – there often is. In this case, I am going based on what has been reported here so far. If you find that there is additional evidence that, for example, multiple witnesses showed up in court to tell about a history of cruel parenting decisions that this guy has made, post it here and it might change my opinion.

“Remember that program “scared straight”? Is that still done these days?”

That’s a program for middle-teens who’ve had repeated run-ins with the law.

So, if you’re concerned that your middle-teen, who’s had multiple run-ins with the law, is headed for prison, and so you sign them up for a “scared straight” program, that would be “justified” mental suffering.

On the other hand, if you have an 8-year-old who won’t make their bed properly in the morning, signing them up for a “scared straight” program is very likely “unjustified”.

If you have an 8-year-old who won’t make their bed in the morning, telling them they can’t have a piece of cake after dinner, probably “justified”

“Justified” means that it’s a measured response to a child who needs discipline, appropriate in scale and magnitude to the offense that creates a need for it. So… would anyone say that I’m “justified” in pulling out several of my child’s permanent teeth because they brushed for only 1:45 instead of the full 2 minutes they’ve been told to?

How about this one… my kid won’t clean her room, so, on garbage day, I go down five blocks of my street, take all the garbage cans my neighbors have set out and dump them out in my daughter’s room. Or, she makes the mistake of talking to a boy I don’t approve of at school, so I withdraw her from school and don’t let her leave the house again for 4 years. Or… she gets raped, and becomes pregnant as a result. So I have no choice at all but to kill her and the unborn baby, to protect my family’s honor.

Yes, these are all deliberately extreme examples. “Of course”, you say, “those are totally unjustified, and ‘let me raise my child as I see fit’ does not cover cases like that”. True enough, but you’ve just conceded that there IS a line between “stuff that’s OK for parents to do” and “stuff that’s not OK for parents to do”. Well, the jury looked at Mr. Tang’s choice(s) and decided “wrong side of the line”. Some commenters here agree, and some do not. But it’s important to remember that ONLY Mr. Tang’s side has been heard from in this forum.

If i may paraphrase Voltaire, “I may not agree with his style of parenting, but he should defend to the death his right to parent!”

My foster mom locked the front door at midnight, sharp. We all knew that unless we wanted to sleep on the back porch, we had better be home by curfew. No exceptions, even in the pouring rain.

She was a wonderful lady, with a house full of at risk girls, and she knew exactly what she was doing. She was tough but fair, and we all loved and respected her for it.

Today, they’d probably throw her in jail and take away her foster license. I’m happy for her sake that she’s retired now.

I would point out that if the accusation is “too cruel mentally against child” and your argument is that “this was not cruel mentally and definitely not too much cruel mentally” then such argument needs to be made (applies especially in court). This dad seems to be constantly changing topic and arguing that “it was not dangerous”. I do not know whether he is not listening to what everyone around him says or willingly ignores it.

It would be cool if courts could magically see through that and make his defense for him. That is not how it works, not in adversarial court system and I would even argue that it is not possible. If you refuse to hire layer because you assume them all corrupt and then keep arguing against points nobody is making and keep ignoring points your opposition is making, then you will loose.

I would not do this and the more the dads talk the more I understand how he got himself into trouble. I don’t really think what he did should be illegal even through I think it was not good parenting. None of that matters, because somebody would need to make right arguments in court to remotely test where exactly line is. What happened is an instance of somebody not really defending himself against charge and then loosing.

Dienne–
The question of how “well hung” Mr Tang is really made me giggle.

In today’s America, people of quality do not walk. They drive or are driven.
They take Uber or Lyft.
They have chauffeurs for their limos.
Rolls and Jaguars.
Their children live in golden towers and attend private schools with other children of privilege.
Their parents run the government and the police force and the prisons and are very rich and are exempt from taxes and are above the law.
These superior people decide how the rest of us raise our kids.

Push back while you still can.

Cheers for Mike Tang.

Why can’t a child of eight walk a mile?
We didn’t have school buses when I was a kid and lots of us walked miles through trafficky areas.

How about Tiger Moms?
The goal is to produce tough, resilient, competent children able to survive in a world where the cards are stacked against them.
(Unless they are upper middle class and white the cards are so stacked.)

To level the playing field, caring parents must devise strategies to teach their kids self motivation.
So many of the opiate suicides among the youngest of the Baby Boom Generation in the so-called Rust Belt are attributed to “failed expectations”!
Why didn’t they do something? Move on to greener pastures?

My ancestors have been in this country for twelve generations, every generation dying farther West. They moved for jobs. They walked when they couldn’t get rides.
They crossed mountains and forded rivers.

What is a mile?

>>While Mr. Tang does not exactly have a winning personality, I’m not sure how ‘cruel’ this actually was. He was apparently trying to teach his son that if you take shortcuts in your homework (such as reading an easy book for a report) you might not end up being successful in life. And while that may not be a method that I would personally choose, I think child cruelty is stretching it. Growing up, I knew kids who were spanked and grounded if they came home with anything lower than a ‘B’.<<

Jennifer–this jumped out at me. I think that punishing kids for bad grades, might actually make them LESS likely to do things that challenge them in school. I mean, imagine you're eight years old (I'm choosing this age because the boy in the story is eight), and you're with your class in the school library. Your teacher tells everyone in the class to pick out a book to read, and write a book report on. You can't decide between…….let's say, Anne of Green Gables (I'm choosing this book because I read it for the first time when I was eight), and Insipid Tween Sitcom: The Novel. You think Anne of Green Gables is more interesting, and you almost check it out…..but then you remember how you got spanked for getting a C+ on your last math test. You didn't get a C+ because you slacked off, but you're eight, and long division or fractions or decimals are still new to you, and there's a learning curve. This time, with the book report, you get to decide how difficult you want the assignment to be. Anne of Green Gables has some words and concepts that you don't understand, but Insipid Tween Sitcom: The Novel is pretty straightforward. So, you check out Insipid Tween Sitcom: The Novel, you write the book report, earn at least a B, and move on to the next assignment. Your teacher is happy, and your parents don't spank you, but that all comes at the price of reading a really wonderful book, and really learning something.

“If I have a tree, there’s a slight chance it’ll fall and hit someone’s house. Given my neighborhood it would require a tornado, but that’s still more likely than someone kidnapping my child. If I can be sued for that, the concept of liberty is dead.”

RIP, concept of liberty. You can, indeed, be sued if your tree injures someone or damages their property. If you live in the city, a city inspector can drop by and give you an order to trim it, too.

“I also find the idea of prosecuting someone for something some unidentified and purely theoretical other person might do to be deeply disturbing.”

You’ll find this concept in landlord-tenant law. If the landlord fails to maintain the property in a safe condition (including things like not fixing a broken security door at the entrance) they can be prosecuted. Details vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are cases involving inadequate lighting in parking lots, for example.

“Knowing the law when “I think something bad could happen, so you should be punished” is the law of the land would require mind-reading, something no sane court system can demand. ”

This will come as a surprise to courts that handle cases of reckless endangerment, reckless driving, driving while impaired, speed racing, various occupational safety laws, and the like are handled. (Sanely).

>>Excellent illustration, Emily. When kids are punished rather than supported (especially when punishments are based on something as arbitrary as grades), they simply become risk averse. The questions in life are no longer things like “what do I want to do with my life?” or “what kind of person do I want to be?” or “what do I want to learn/accomplish?”, but simply, “How the hell do I stay out of trouble?” They learn to take the easy way, even if it’s less intrinsically interesting simply because it’s safe. I’m guessing that’s the lesson Tang Jr. has learned quite well.<<

Exactly. Now, I'm not Mr. Tang, but I can't help but think, is it possible that Isaac chose a book that was too easy, not because he was being willful, but just because he was trying to pick something he KNEW he could do, and miscalculated in the other direction, and ended up choosing a book that was written for readers far below his ability level? For all we know, maybe Isaac was punished for doing poorly on a previous school assignment, and he was simply trying to avoid a repeat of that. I remember, a long time ago, I read a theory of moral development by…..I want to say Vygotsky, but don't quote me…….who postulated that the very first level of moral development was "fear of punishment." Later on, children (hopefully) progress through several other stages, until they finally want to do the right thing, because it's right. But, this is an area where the waters get a bit murky–pick a book for a book report. That's not exactly a "moral" choice, but picking the "wrong" book carries moral consequences. Picking a book that's too easy = punishment for not trying hard enough, and picking a book that's too difficult = possibility of a poor grade = punishment for doing poorly. A child in the "fear of punishment" stage may well try to find a book that's the "correct" level, but it's a bit more complicated and abstract with books. I mean, everyone knows that, in math, we learn addition and subtraction before multiplication and division. We learn to walk before we run, and we learn to jump off the side of the pool before diving off the diving board, but most books aren't clearly labelled as a "grade three book" (or, whatever the reading level is). So, it's easy to get it wrong, especially when you only have eight years of life experience, and might not even be able to articulate what you're looking for, or why. Also, an eight-year-old boy is going to have eight-year-old boy preferences–he might be taken in by a book about baseball or Pokémon or outer space, and not bother to check the reading level of that book.

Obviously, the "adult" answer (that might not be so obvious to an eight-year-old) is to choose a book that's appropriately challenging (again, abstract concept to a child), and ask for help if it's too difficult, or ask to swap that book for a more challenging one if it's too easy. But, a child who fears being punished for choosing the "wrong" book in the first place, isn't going to feel safe doing that, and that's not a good thing, because in a few years, Isaac is going to be facing decisions that are much more consequential than which book to check out from the library for a book report.

Not sure how people have decided that only the cruelty charge was relevant and the safety issue was not.

I mean, the only witness statement quoted by Lenore was about the cop not allowing his 20yo to walk. That couldn’t be about cruelty, it has to be about safety.

Perhaps we should have a separate discussion about educational philosophies for parents who believe in free-range principles. I think we probably fall along a wide spectrum. I don’t let my kids just do whatever they want when it comes to education. One of my kids has more freedom than the other. My parenting is different from the way I was raised. I do find it an interesting discussion, but I still don’t think any of us has any business weighing in on what is best educationally for Mr. Tang’s son.

@Dienne – I don’t remember ever specifying to my kids at age eight that they weren’t allowed to drive. It isn’t something that probably crosses the minds of most urban parents to spell that out. It is well within the realms of the possible that an eight year old who considers that he knows how to drive might take off in a car without thinking that he’s done anything overly naughty.

In the meantime, outback Australian kids are often taught to drive younger than eight, and Kiwi farm kids are often (illegally till 12 ☺) learning to drive tractors around then. So I am with SKL – this kid’s antics were mostly funny ☺.

Really, “All’s well that ends well” needs to make a comeback in the Western world.

“I mean, the only witness statement quoted by Lenore was about the cop not allowing his 20yo to walk. That couldn’t be about cruelty, it has to be about safety.”

Back in the original thread, we learned that the judge sustained the prosecutor’s objections over admission of evidence about safety as “irrelevant”. If safety was an element of the crime charged, then evidence as to the actual safety of the streets at that time and place could hardly be irrelevant.

As for Mr Tang, for a perspective on his parenting methods, try watching Fresh Off The Boat. Or the many ‘parenting’ videos from teens in Singapore ☺. Hilarious!

Chinese parents are famous for having very high standards for their children, and for going the extra ‘mile’ (quite literally in this case ☺) to ensure their children reach those standards. Mr Tang has nothing on the parents of my husband’s classmate, who used to beat him and then chain him to the clothesline on results day. Now THAT was abuse.Getting a kid to walk home a mile after a lecture on his possible futures . …not so much.

@SKL – yeah, that Maccas will kill you. Should have been driving to the organic wholesalers ☺☺.

“OK, so James, you assumed what the charge was based on some pieces of evidence or testimony that the judge decided were irrelevant?

May be logical, but do you actually *know* what the dad was charged with or not?”

Hang on, let me go pop the popcorn. This ought to be entertaining.

P.S., I forgot to mention, what I meant before was that, while children’s books may be labelled by ability level, most really good, classic literature, isn’t. I read Anne of Green Gables in grade three, but that doesn’t make that book a “grade three book.” Lucy Maud Montgomery wasn’t aiming to write a “grade three book,” or a “grade whatever book”; she was simply telling a story. Books that are written for specific ability levels (rather than simply being written, and assessed for difficulty level later) tend to be formulaic, because there are certain requirements that the author has to fulfill, to tailor that book to the appropriate difficulty level. They might come packaged in something with kid appeal (like, say, a beginning-reader book about Dora and Diego playing a game of soccer), but they’re “packaged” nonetheless, and they’re about as good for the brain, as pre-packaged food is for the body. But, this discussion isn’t primarily about children’s literature, so I’m off-topic.

It wasn’t walking the mile, it was threatening him with homelessness and then abandoning him to prove it. We all understand that the father meant to teach a lesson that if you don’t work hard, you might end up homeless in the future. But eight year olds are very literal. What the kid probably heard was “See these homeless people? That can be you right now. Let me show you.”

“OK, so James, you assumed what the charge was based on some pieces of evidence or testimony that the judge decided were irrelevant?”

Yes.

“May be logical, but do you actually *know* what the dad was charged with or not?”

Still yes.
How many more times do you need to see it?

People stop letting this man drag you into his crazy town. He never made the slightest attempt to help himself because he has some belief that the worst this situation gets the more of impact he will make.

This was a case that was extremely poorly litigated from the beginning. In fact, Mr. Tang has stated previously that he didn’t even care about winning the trial. He doesn’t want to win the appeal. He just wants to blow things up. We can make no determination as to whether these cops, prosecutors or jury would have made the same decisions if they had dealt with a sane, rational person who presented a coherent and on-point statement as to why he made the choices he made.

Arguing in circles when the only person we are getting any facts from is a person who has proven to be completely irrational about this subject – Mr. Tang – is ridiculous.

“So now we’re assuming the poor kid isn’t capable of getting better grades than he did?”

Who’s assuming that? One speculation is that the kid chooses “baby” books because he’s a struggling reader. Maybe he is, maybe he’s not. But if he is, how is punishing him going to help? For that matter, if he’s not, how is punishing him going to help? Especially when punishment means, in this case, threatening him with homelessness.

If he is struggling, then get him the help he needs. If he’s just a reluctant reader, figure out why – are the books he’s allowed to choose from boring? Would he be more interested in graphic novels or some other form of literature? But in any case, people, including and especially kids, respond best to being understood and worked with respectfully, not controlled and done to. Unless Mr. Tang’s sole goal in raising his son is to teach him who’s boss, he should really look at other means of accomplishing his parenting goals.

Sadly, though, based on what we’ve seen of Mr. Tang here, patiently working with a struggling and/or recalcitrant kid just doesn’t seem likely.

I think the jury disagreed with you. That’s why they convicted him.

From the original article: “So to put the fear of failure into his son, Tang drove him to the local shopping plaza at around 7:40 pm and showed him, “This is where homeless people sleep.” (There were no actual homeless people present.) Mike then told the boy that he had to walk home, which was about a mile, along the same route that he walks to school. And off dad drove.”

“I think the jury disagreed with you. That’s why they convicted him.”

Yes, Dienne, everyone who is disagreeing with the jury is aware they’re disagreeing with the jury.

And they disagree. Simply stating that neither adds information nor changes anyone’s opinion.

“Yes, Dienne, everyone who is disagreeing with the jury is aware they’re disagreeing with the jury.

And they disagree. Simply stating that neither adds information nor changes anyone’s opinion.”

I find it amusing that you believe that your disagreement with the jury has any validity whatsoever. The jury actually made its decision after hearing ALL the evidence, while you have formed your opinion based on a few pieces of information provided by the accused.

As someone who deals regularly with criminal defendants, I assure you that their version of the evidence almost never matches the actual evidence. In fact, they generally insist that there is no evidence against them despite the fact that there were 25 eyewitnesses, they left their DNA behind and the whole thing was on video. For example, I spent part of my day answering a bar complaint from a client insisting that I forced him into pleading to a crime he didn’t commit, although he was clearly involved per the recording of the crime and I wasn’t even the attorney who represented him during the plea.

I’ve had a few episodes. One time:

My car broke down and I was stranded without any money
I lived with a rude roommate that played loud music until 3 am
I had a boss that bullied most all the employees so that he could feel superior.
I had a financial setback and couldn’t pay my rent.
I moved. During the move, it started raining. All of my furniture got ruined.

These are common adult problems. Children will also face situations like this when they become adults. THIS WILL HAPPEN WHETHER THEY ARE PREPARED FOR IT OR NOT! It’s short sighted to keep a child from learning about life. I don’t believe it was ‘cruel’ to make the child walk home past homeless people.

What I think is cruel is to force children into adulthood without letting them practice with smaller problems first.

“Tang’s son is not a teen, but he’s not far off.”

Do you have children? There are MILES between 8 and teenager. Their brains aren’t even organized the same way. An 8 year old should not be treated as a small teenager or a small adult. A teenager should not be treated as an adult. Brain composition and functioning changes dramatically from childhood through the teenage years and into adulthood.

That doesn’t mean that I think an 8 year old would automatically feel abandoned in this situation. That is going to depend highly on the individual child. My kid would be devastated if I did something like this. I doubt that her best friend would care one bit.

“People don’t do this to adults. I think that many people forget that a parent’s job is to help children get ready for adulthood.”

Children are not adults. A parent’s job is to help children get ready for adulthood, not treat them as adults 10 years before they are ready to be there. 10 years is more than half the maturity to adult. To expect a child to function, feel and respond as an adult when they are less than half way there is ridiculous.

Skl that is unfortunately how the world works. Idiots got the power. So a lawyer may be a necessary thing even when we hate it.

“The jury actually made its decision after hearing ALL the evidence”

It doesn’t mean the jury was correct and I think that is what we’re all debating here. A few short weeks ago, there was an article on this site about parents who were convicted of child neglect by a jury because in the middle of the night while a 14-year-old girl was babysitting their 3-year-old, the kid snuck out of the house and was found walking down a highway while the girl was sound asleep (It was in the middle of the night). A jury found the parents neglectful because they left their child alone with a 14-year-old.

But the state of Maryland (think it was Maryland) reversed the verdict and acquitted the parents saying that the jury did not consider hindsight in this matter. The state said that leaving a 3-year-old in the presence of a 14-year-old was not unreasonable (14-year-old girls, and boys for that matter, have been babysitting toddlers for centuries) and that the kid sneaking off in the middle of the night was not something they could have predicted.

Now granted, the jury in the Michael Tang case obviously was afforded more evidence than what we’re seeing here but they very well could have convicted him based on a police officer’s loony opinion and not the actual evidence and perspective of this case. I can’t say that for sure but it wouldn’t surprise me mainly because a child was involved.

“I may not agree with his style of parenting, but he should defend to the death his right to parent!”

BINGO!

“It doesn’t mean the jury was correct and I think that is what we’re all debating here.”
This is true. The jury system is the best available, but it is not perfect, and sometimes, mistakes are made.

Has anyone brought up any evidence that THIS particular jury was NOT correct? (Note: “I don’t like the verdict” is not evidence that the jury got it wrong… it’s far more likely a sign that the jurors knew something that you do not.)

Show me something that shows that the jury got it wrong, and I’ll consider it.
Keep saying “well, they COULD be wrong” WITHOUT any evidence that they in fact ARE wrong, and that’s a different story.

Some other things that are NOT evidence that the jury got this one wrong:
They didn’t like him.
We used to walk home by ourselves all the time.
My kid walks home alone all the time.
It wasn’t even curfew yet!
Officer Knucklehead is overprotective of his adult daughter.

The Metievs were free-range parents oppressed by an unjust system. This guy keeps shooting at his own foot, and then blames everyone else BUT NOT himself for the resultant limp.

@James Pollock opinion of lawyer seems to be that father defended himself poorly and someone with nicer personality and better skills could end up much better. Adversarial system is not fair when your defense sux and even you said som

Which means that it is perfectly likely there was not as much cruelty and that large part of punishment is for personality (not act itself).

@Dienne – and therein lies the problem. You’re taking both of these issues much too seriously.

In no way could the boy who drove the car have been stopped prior to having driven the car, because who in the world would have guessed he was going to do it? And what do we do about it now? Jump up and down and wring our hands and start actively telling 8 year olds that they cannot drive? You can if you want. I’m going to have a laugh about it and carry on, because all IS well that ends well, so let’s laugh and move on.

About Mr Tang, he sounds like a momentous jerk, but he also isn’t actively abusing his child, and who are you to analyze his method in this case? You seriously need some perspective on this. Sounds like you are trying to tell minorities that their methods aren’t yours so they aren’t good enough. Well, frankly, bugger that.

And as the famous Aperehama Tipae would write: That is all.

“@James Pollock opinion of lawyer seems to be that father defended himself poorly and someone with nicer personality and better skills could end up much better. Adversarial system is not fair when your defense sux and even you said so”

I hope it’s not all that controversial an opinion that hiring someone whose job it is to defend people accused of crimes is a better choice than using an utter amateur, or that having someone emotionally involved handling the case is less likely to produce desirable results than having someone objective do it.

That said, even the best lawyer SHOULD lose when the client is actually guilty, right? That is the desired outcome of everyone but the criminal who hoped to get away with it? Mr. Tang says he did it. He even says he’d do it again.

As to having the system be “not fair”… if you choose not to mount a defense, later complaining how the trial was “rigged” is a bit… deceptive, isn’t it? It’d be like the 1919 White Sox complaining that the World Series was rigged….

“Which means that it is perfectly likely there was not as much cruelty and that large part of punishment is for personality (not act itself)”

This word, “likely”… do you know what it means?
It is perfectly likely that there was cruelty, and the jury saw evidence of it, and decided to punish it.
Mr. Tang has literally NEVER said there was no cruelty… rather, his argument was and is that it is his right to be cruel to his son.

(By any chance, were you aware that if a jury votes to convict because they just don’t like the defendant, but there’s not enough evidence to support a conviction, the judge will issue an acquittal despite a jury vote to acquit? Did you know this? The technical term for this is “JNOV”.)

You can choose to believe that A) the cops decided to arrest despite little to no evidence of cruelty being present AND B) the prosecutor decided to pursue the case despite little to no evidence of cruelty being present AND C) the jury voted to convict despite little to no evidence of cruelty being present AND D) the judge allowed the verdict to stand despite little to no evidence of cruelty being present.
Note that A) requires collusion amngst the 4 police cars’ worth of cops who were on the scene, and B) requires a grand jury buying into the prosecution. Oh, and the prosecutor at step B) would have been making this determination before meeting the defendant, so you’re REALLY going to have to want to believe, in order to decide that step B was caused by the defendant’s personality.
Cops have a good reason to let something that is borderline slide… if they make an arrest, they have paperwork; if they let it go with a warning, much less paperwork. Prosecutors have a good reason not to push a case that lacks evidence; prosecutor’s job performance reviews feature a key measurable… conviction rate… which goes down if they push cases based on personal animosity rather than on evidence of guilt. Judges don’t like being overruled by appeals courts. We have all these things in place to keep a person from being convicted based on their unpopularity rather than their guilt. But, says you, it is LIKELY that all of these unlikely things happened.

Right.

I think it is LIKELY that Mr. Tang didn’t build up any goodwill, or earn himself any breaks, with his personality. That’s a LOT different from saying that it’s LIKELY all these different people colluded to single out Mr. Tang for undue punishment just because they think he’s an asshole.

No, what is LIKELY is that the guy punished his child in a way that was obviously cruel to the people who knew the details… the “busybody” who called the cops, the cops who responded, the prosecutor who reviewed the facts and decided to charge, the jury, and the judge who oversaw the case. That’s what is “LIKELY”.

OK, back to the first point.
When you choose to use an affirmative defense (which is, ultimately, what Mr. Tang’s line of argument amounts to), the burden of proof shifts to you to prove it. The state has to prove you did it; an affirmative defense is “yeah, I did it, but there’s a legal reason why it should be excused in this particular case.” The affirmative defense most people are aware of is self-defense, but in this particular crime the affirmative defense is “reasonable parental discipline”.

So… compare these two possible approaches to proving that, although the discipline applied might look like cruelty to an outsider, it’s actually reasonable because:

A) Fuck you. Who are you to tell me how to discipline my child? It’s my right to discipline my child in any way I see fit. (Implied: Any discipline I choose is “reasonable” because I chose it.)
-or-
B) This discipline was reasonable because I needed to correct this behavior (details). I’ve tried (previous discipline attempts) with these results (bad or inadequate results). I also considered (alternatives), but didn’t like any of those because (reasons).

It’s fairly obvious that B has a better chance of convincing jurors that the discipline applied is not unjustifiably cruel, but rather, is a measured and considered response to the child’s misbehavior.

Mr. Tang, however, chose (and sticks with) A). You can look at that and say “the jury didn’t like him because he’s abrasive”, and that’s probably true (both halves of it). But the fact is, A) does nothing whatsoever to prove what Mr. Tang needed to prove to escape conviction. It was HIS OWN CHOICE.

I was doing a little research yesterday and found that a cop in that same county was arrested for beating up his minor son, in public, over a minor car accident on his property. The beating included not only hitting and knocking him down, but jumping on his rib cage with his knee, knowing his rib cage was already injured. Someone called 911 because the teen was having a lot of trouble breathing. There were 5 witnesses to the physical assault, but the dad was not arrested until months later. He was charged with a felony, but got off with only a misdemeanor – the exact same level of offense that Mr. Tang has been convicted of.

So, a little perpsective. Dad gives naughty 8yo a tongue-lashing and makes him walk a mile = dad (who happens to be a cop) assaults son enough to put him in hospital.

I know, some of you will say that’s perfectly understandable since the cop presumably had a lawyer and Mr. Tang did not.

“I’m just assuming that based on the fact that he said, in court, under oath, that he wouldn’t “let” his 20-year-old daughter take that walk.”

You also only know that through information provided by the the defendant. That may be a direct quote. That may not be a direct quote. That may have been a direct quote taken completely out of context and if heard in conjunction with the other testimony it is clear that the officer doesn’t truly believe that a 20 year old can’t take that walk.

See my clients do that all the time too. They have a tendency to hear what they want to hear. One of their favorite games to play with me is to take a couple words that someone said completely out of context, twist them in their favor and then spend months arguing with me about what was actually said.

dienne if you’re going to equate walking 1 mile [NOT a long distance,even for an eight year old] being as bad as standing naked in the snow for hours[ yes I am aware you aren’t serious] you might want to come down out if orbit and back to reality. there are degrees of punishment as you just pointed out and I don’t think this crossed the line into cruelty or endangerment or whatever. and yes NONE of us know all the facts, we are all inferring what we will from this. and yes juries vote to convict on emotional basises even though they should just judge the facts, and yes a good percentage of officers[not the majority] are self righteous bullies who live to make life miserable for those who “cross” them, even though in a perfect world they would be impartial. does the dad come across as a jerk? yes. does that make him an abuser? no. until one of us goes out to interview the dad, the kid the arresting officer and the judge all opinions are just that. don’t resort to unrealistic comparisons claiming they are equal.

Dienne STFU you stupid moron. Good Lord you’re an idiot.

@SilasJ
“Dienne STFU you stupid moron. Good Lord you’re an idiot.”

And someone named Denise stopped reading this blog because there was too much debating.

Maybe she’ll hear that we now call people idiots and morons and come back!

Well the children of hard-headed people deserve the same amount of rationality in the justice system as the children of complacent people.

I find it easy to believe that this “incident” was blown out of proportion and wrongly escalated, because that has happened to me personally. And you won’t easily find a more quiet and mousy person “in real life” than me. I am not running around butting heads with cops or trying to change the world. I just want to be left alone. But people don’t leave parents alone to provide their kids with the parenting they individually need, and that is the whole point here.

“But people don’t leave parents alone to provide their kids with the parenting they individually need, and that is the whole point here.”

Actually most people do in fact leave parents alone to provide their kids with the parenting that individually need. The belief that cops are arresting parents left and right for parenting decisions is as overstated as the belief that kids are being kidnapped left and right. Both happen, but neither are happening at a massive rate.

“I know, some of you will say that’s perfectly understandable since the cop presumably had a lawyer and Mr. Tang did not.”

Well that is certainly one reason. There are a myriad of other reasons as to why this would have occurred. The most obvious one is that cop benefited from being a cop. The world is far from perfect and people are treated differently based on their status.

But trials are not just a matter of facts and what we would all like to see occur in a vacuum. MANY, MANY things come into play that lead to less than just resolutions that have nothing to do with facts or lawyers or bias or status.

@Donna
“A free internet news source for an opinion piece? Possible, but not likely.”

Also a dead-tree magazine, and with the backing of a non-profit called Reason Foundation.

Here’s a recent asset statement. It’s not a laptop in somebody’s basement:

https://www.reason.org/files/2015-reason_financial_statement.pdf

I think they can shell out for a court transcript.

@Dienne

Hyperbolic much? Do You really think that making a child walk a mile home alone is the equivalent of making a child stand naked in the snow for six hours? Let me give you a hint–one is life-threatening, the other is not.

I believe in the Free Range outlook on raising children. Not all agree with my views and that’s ok. I have some views that I feel very strongly about. I try (fail sometimes) not to cram my opinion down another person’s throat. I like this blog because, for the most part, we’re civil to each other. However, we sometimes fall down in that area.

“Dienne STFU you stupid moron. Good Lord you’re an idiot.”

I really hope that sort of rudeness doesn’t continue.

The whole business about where the quotes from the transcript came from was started because I said those quotes indicated the cop likely overreacted (paraphrasing “I wouldn’t let my 20 year old daughter walk that”).

If that was a true quote from the court transcript, then I really don’t care where the copy came from. I really don’t care if it’s just a fraction of the testimony. Unless you’re arguing that it’s a forgery, and the cop never said those words in court, then my point stands. It seems unlikely that multiple outlets would be so irresponsible as to post an outright forgery, but who knows ….

But if anyone does have a copy they can share with us, I would love to read it. I checked online and I’m not willing to pay for it myself.

Well I’m not sure where you get the “fact” that he didn’t provide any defense or any evidence in his defense or whatever you keep saying. I’m just ignoring your comments about that because I don’t know where they are coming from. As far as I know you weren’t in court and don’t have the court transcript.

If you believe that a conviction is the last word, well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

“Actually most people do in fact leave parents alone to provide their kids with the parenting that individually need. The belief that cops are arresting parents left and right for parenting decisions is as overstated as the belief that kids are being kidnapped left and right. Both happen, but neither are happening at a massive rate.”

This!

“Here are some excerpts from the trial transcript, which was obtained by Reason” I would read that sentence as indicating that Reason obtained what it considered a complete trial transcript given where the comma is.

As you well know, James Pollock, that’s the only way to deal with you; which is, of course, your intent.

dienne I also hope that if you are ever to face a jury, that they take into account not only what one side claims is the truth and not just ignore your side because its the policeman’s job to arrest you and the da’s to prosecute and the juries to convict and gee whiz golly that’s their job and they never ever get it wrong! if that’s the case why have a trial? or an appeal? or good forbid someone is actually is found innocent after years in prison. at that point I’m sure you will be questioning and second guessing those who convicted you.

Let’s say that in my example of Billy above, Billy’s parents ask him, “Did you throw food at your little brother?” Billy could:

(a) deny it: “No I did not.”;
(b) admit it and make a case to defend himself: “Yes, I did, but I think I was justified and here’s why”; or
(c) just keep his trap shut and take the Fifth.

But instead, Billy chooses to yell, “There’s nothing dangerous about throwing food and anyway, I’d do it again if I had to!”

If you are Billy’s parent, what do you conclude about his guilt and culpability in the situation?

no I don’t have “factual information” any more than you do but it seems that you however much you deny it are of an opinion, the one that says since he was convicted he’s guilty.. yes he was convicted, nobody it arguing that, what the disagreement is about is should he have been convicted. can you see that? yes he comes off as a jerk and yes I believe that a person who defends themselves in court have an idiot for a client but.. the legal system is weighted for the defendant? are you kidding me? everything in our system is biased towards conviction. innocent til proven guilty is what it should be,but what it often is everyone including juries figure” hey he was arrested, they wouldn’t do that if he wasn’t guilty” even though they are told to weigh both sides.
let’s take your example of the food fight. billy runs to neighbors upset. in a sane world the adults would call billy’s parents to ask what happened. however let’s pretend you’re billy’s mom. neighbors call and you’re upset with billy for food fight and then running off and being upset with them you’re short with them. they decide there is more to the story and to be safe call the police. who come and question billy. who is now scared to admit he may have stretched the truth and tells the same story to the police. who question you and seeing you are upset “for no good reason” decide you are lying [because children NEVER lie]. the police now call cps who remove billy from the house along with his brother for their own safety.
you are arrested , the da investigates and decides since children NEVER lie,to charge you. after all you were upset and defensive about the police when they questioned you so you must be hiding something. it is now up to you[and hopefully your lawyer] to prove you did nothing.. you may be innocent but you now stand a really good chance of a long and expensive trial. let’s hope the jury believes you and not billy, the police ,the da and cps.
I realize this is an extreme example but so is the standing naked in the snow example.

The point I was making is that I agree with common sense. Some juries figure that “hey he was arrested, they wouldn’t do that if he wasn’t guilty”. I was pointing out the flaw in this belief.

james..good points but the defendant doesn’t get to exclude every juror otherwise there wouldn’t be a jury trial. also what if those beliefs aren’t known or stated before selection. 1 or 2 biased juror can sway an entire jury who just doesn’t really care but can be convinced. and if you were raised to believe every one involved only is concerned with justice you would believe that they wouldn’t show a biased part of the evidence only. or do you think all the times a conviction is reversed to due evidence that would have cleared the defendant being withheld are are just made up.

“the defendant doesn’t get to exclude every juror”

No, just the ones biased against them, and a small number “just because”.

“what if those beliefs aren’t known or stated before selection”
DURING selection, however, there is a process called “examination” during which the defendant (and the prosecutor) may ask questions of each potential juror, to determine if they are biased or not.

“1 or 2 biased juror can sway an entire jury who just doesn’t really care”
So… and here’s this question again… why would you let people who are biased against you sit on your jury?

“if you were raised to believe every one involved only is concerned with justice you would believe that they wouldn’t show a biased part of the evidence only. or do you think all the times a conviction is reversed to due evidence that would have cleared the defendant being withheld are are just made up.”
Please excuse me if I continue to believe that I know more about how juries work than you do, and ignore your attempt at condescending snark as being ill-advaised. (Among other things, I’ve been a jury foreman.) One of the advantages given to the defense in criminal trials is something called the Brady rule. In a nutshell, it means that the prosecution has to reveal to the defense any information they find that would be exculpatory to the defendant, and failing to do so gets the defendant a new trial (and takes away a successful prosecution from the prosecutor who does so. (Repeated violations can lead to losing one’s license to practice law, although there IS a general reluctance to apply this penalty, for other, non-related reasons.) Yes, there IS a scandal involving systematic violations of the Brady rule, lasting for decades… involving one, specific jurisdiction’s prosecutor’s office. Outside of that jurisdiction, violations are quite rare.

The system we use isn’t perfect… no system involving human beings is or can be. But we’ve built in as many protections as we can. The claim isn’t that the system always gets it right the first time. The claim is that the system usually gets it right the first time, so if you want to argue that the system got it wrong on any specific individual case, you need some evidence that shows how and why it is wrong… arguing “well, they COULD have gotten it wrong” is true but not particularly helpful… maybe Manson was innocent, too. And Capone. Some people aren’t convinced the holocaust really happened.

Apply Occam’s Razor.
Either a very large conspiracy formed, with the goal of requiring Mr. Tang to pick up trash for one day a year, or he actually did things that convinced an honest jury to decide he was guilty of a crime. You’re welcome to stick with the conspiracy side, if you like… Mr. Tang certainly has, and will be happy to have you… but there’s going to be questions. Like… why has this conspiracy targeted Mr. Tang, specifically, and yet not targeted anyone else in the 15 months since they railroaded poor Mr. Tang?

“Do you think that some jurors are incapable of being lazy and will agree with whatever verdict will allow them to go home quicker? ”

This one deserves special derision.
If a person wants to go home quicker, the fastest way is to claim bias when examined during voir dire (look it up.) So… the people who are lazy and just want to go home are not on the jury.
(Also note that while some trials do take a long time, most jury trials end the same day they start.)

Now you’re going to go with attacking me instead of answering the question?

I’ll just go ahead and assume it’s because you can’t answer the question, then.

“For James Pollock, Donna, and the other helicopters on here who cry foul for my parenting choices, “wonderful personality” and/or language, your comments are just a tired and distracting sideshow I would choose to ignore, if you have the balls to debate the true core issue at hand (which is: what danger did I put my son in?)”

For about the fifth or sixth time, sir, literally NOBODY is arguing that you put your son in danger. So, with that “true core issue” settled, it’s (still)(well beyond) time to move on.

” (The judge didn’t allow me to present any of those things as evidence, btw).”
Because, AGAIN for the fifth or sixth time, those things are not relevant evidence. You were charged under the statute that expressly DOES NOT REQUIRE the prosecutor to prove that your son was in danger. The prosecutor had conceded that your son was not in serious danger BEFORE YOUR TRIAL EVEN STARTED, by charging you with a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

“Some people on here obviously have been sitting at home on the computer too long to recall from their childhood what is a risk and what is a true credible danger.”

I think it’s WELL past time you stopped pretending you’re arguing with anyone who claims your son was in danger. Continuing to argue this point long after it was conceded just makes you look (more) foolish.

Which is why I am 100% convinced that you will continue to do so.

(PS – continuing to label anyone who disagrees with you a “helicopter” also isn’t fooling anyone.)

“And also, walking home a mile is not suffering”

And, AGAIN FOR THE FIFTH OR SIXTH TIME, nobody says it is.

(Refer back to previous comment re: repeatingly arguing things nobody is contesting.)

“Forcing him to walk a mile as a disciplinary measure is no more dangerous than…”

Called it!

@James Pollock

“is there any chance he could get his conviction set aside by reason of mental illness?”

Really? So besides openly heralding yourself as a legal expert and obviously a “refresh button” expert, you’re now claiming to have medical expertise as well? Are you going to write me a doctor’s note, pretty please?

It’s a true detriment to society you’re not putting your talents to good use at your local D.A.’s office. If you ever apply, be sure to use me or this case as a reference, I’m sure they’ll hire you. Your boundless expertise and around-the-clock dedication puts to shame the D.A. currently involved in this case.

Until then, I’m going to leave you comments at odd hours in the evening just to piss you off. Just gotta keep hitting refresh. Wait for it….wait for it…..

“Are you going to write me a doctor’s note, pretty please?”

Sure.
It says “get help”

“Until then, I’m going to leave you comments at odd hours in the evening just to piss you off.”
If you think that’ll help you , go right on ahead. It can’t be any worse than your previous choices…

And if it cuts down on your free time, leaving you less time to abuse your kid, that’s a win-win!

“But pro se litigants are often afforded some procedural latitude.”

They are generally afforded fairly wide procedural latitude at the trial level, but I don’t believe that the appellate courts generally give them much latitude at all. Most of the procedural missteps would have to be attacked under ineffective assistance of counsel, and alas, you lose that grounds for appeal when you are your own ineffective counsel. Otherwise, we give everyone two bites at the apple. Try it yourself first, screw things up, claim your own ineffectiveness to get a new trial and then hire an attorney who now has a transcript from the first trial.

Competency, however, can be questioned by the judge or the DA so representation doesn’t matter. Nor does the wishes of the defendant for that matter. If the judge felt that Mr. Tang was mentally incompetent, he could have stopped the trial, ordered a psych eval and held Mr. Tang in jail on contempt charges if he refused to comply. If the DA felt he was incompetent, he could have asked the judge to have him evaluated.

@James Pollock

Here’s some news that might interest James Pollock. None of the parents in the story got arrested. None of the bus company’s employees were arrested. None of the school officials were arrested.

What was the point you’re trying to prove to me again?

Mike Tang is doing the right thing. As long as people are willing to tolerate this kind of abuse from over zealous public officials, it will only continue. I hope the supercilious government employees throw Mr. Tang’s ass in jail and bring national attention to this fiasco. Let the state demonstrate their deep concern for Mr. Tang’s son by throwing dad in jail, because every family needs a little more stress in life, especially from officious people who have no idea what they’re doing.
Thank you, Mr. Tang, for being willing to fight on behalf of all of us.