– Mike McCardell

*

It’s unfortunate more parents do not realize the truth in Mr. McCardell’s words, even if he should have added a disclaimer of saying you give someone more opportunity for a good life if you give them a good childhood.

Even though it does not guarantee it, a good, fair and consistent upbringing certainly prepares a child for having a happy, solid and productive adulthood.

For some parents, it is all about appearances: what their friends think, how their children’s school perceives them, what their co-workers believe.  Their perfection is but a thin veneer that cracks easily when not under public scrutiny.

Take, for instance, the call I went to a few years ago.  A neighbour called in about a loud verbal argument in the next apartment, and my partner and I heard the name calling, rude language and shouting between the parent and the teenager.  It was disturbing how the parent was screaming and swearing at the teenager.

The shouts were cut off when we knocked, and the father was smiling and gracious when he opened the door, as if he hadn’t just been telling his son how useless he was and how he wished his son would get out of his sight. The father was very good at concealing his emotions, but his son was making no effort to hide how he was feeling, and he glowered from the other side of the room.

The father went on with how everything was fine, that we did not need to be there, that they were having a discussion over his son’s grades.

But how do you think the fourteen year old son felt, having his father scream at him that he was f****** useless?  I heard the dad yelling, and he really sounded as if he meant it.

Aren’t parents the ones who are supposed to be able to maintain their cool and take a step back if they feel themselves losing it?  Maybe this was a one-off for this father and son, but something about the way they were both acting led us to believe this sort of communication was a regular occurrence.

Or look at what I witnessed this morning, on a day off, as I was out for a walk with my dog.  A mom was loading her kids into her van and couldn’t find her keys nor her travel coffee mug.

She immediately blamed her older daughter, saying, “You little f****** bitch, what did you do with my mug?  How the f*** am I supposed to get you to school on time if you keep taking my f****** keys?”

She did not realize I was coming up behind her and that I could hear everything.  It was a bit awkward when she turned around at the sound of my footfalls, and she immediately gave me an icy smile to let me know she had everything under control.  Okay, maybe her daughter routinely takes her coffee mug, or maybe it wasn’t the first time her daughter misplaced her keys, but to call her daughter a ‘little f****** bitch’ is taking it a bit far.

I can only imagine what the family dynamics are within their home, when they are secure in the knowledge that no one else is looking.  It makes me cringe.

***

There are many more examples of poor parenting, some far worse.  As a police officer, I’ve responded to calls where children have been beaten, sexually assaulted, abused, neglected and even killed by their parents.  Those are the more extreme cases.

But even the two examples I just gave you, where the parents lost verbal control and belittled their kids, have a lasting ripple effect.  It might start out as a small insult, a tiny dart of true cruelty or a moment of loss of control, but chances are the kids will not forget it.

I’m a parent.  I know I have made some mistakes along the way, but I have never disrespected my children like this, and perhaps that is why I find this behaviour so disturbing.

As for the mom in the van, she acts like this on a regular basis as I’ve heard her before.

Does she strike her kids?  Not that I know of.  Does she not feed them or fail to provide a roof over their heads?  No.  By some standards, she is doing all she needs to do in raising her kids.

My opinion, though, is this mom failing to provide her children the stability and security they need to be confident, self-aware and emotionally capable.  She is not setting fair boundaries and is flying off the handle when the kids fail to stay within the ever-shifting family limits.

Raising children is hard and is the single most important job parents have.  There are an unknown number of obstacles between a child and their future well-adjusted adulthood, and it is up to parents to make sure their children are equipped to deal with those challenges.

I’m not trying to turn this post into one on child-raising, but so many of our societal and criminal issues could be improved if parents did a better job of parenting.

What do you think?

*

]]> http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/2011/11/28/an-uphill-battle/feed/ 13 http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/2010/10/02/social-media-and-the-youngest-generation/ http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/2010/10/02/social-media-and-the-youngest-generation/#comments Sun, 03 Oct 2010 04:44:58 +0000 Sandra http://www.behindtheblueline.ca/blog/blueline/?p=3503 Social media is a frequent topic of discussion within my circle of friends, family and co-workers.  A few people have set their heels firmly into their I don’t do those social media things defiance and refuse to entertain the thought that the days of texting, tweeting, blogging and Facebook are already upon us.

The rest of the group falls into three categories: those who do it all, those who do one or possibly two of the above mentioned platforms, and those who accept social media but partake only as observers.  I fall into the middle category with this blog, which I enjoy writing and I hope serves as some type of education and information for readers.  As for the rest of it? I created a Facebook account when to do so was ‘hip’ and I regretted it shortly after because FB is not my style.  My inactive account exists only because I have not figured out how to delete it, and because I don’t care to visit the blank wasteland somehow tethered to my identity (this blog post is linked through the VPD FB page).  I tried Tweeting with the same result.

Then there’s this friend of mine.  She’s very dear and she’s a woman I’m sure most of you would like if you were to ever meet her.  She is funny, intelligent, articulate, motivated, driven and respectful.  She’s fun to be around, you always feel good after having spent time in her company and she makes a killer latte.  She also happens to be mother to two wonderful girls, both of whom have Facebook accounts.

This is where it gets tricky.

When Facebook first exploded on the scene my friend agreed to let her girls get accounts with the following stipulation – she also created an account and both girls had to ‘friend’ her.  This way, she was able to see that her girls used the social media platform appropriately as being their ‘friend’ allowed her access to their accounts.

Now that Facebook has been around for a while, I asked her what she thought of her kids using it and she told me this – if she had known then what she knows now she would not have allowed her children to create Facebook accounts.  Not  because Facebook is an evil entity (it isn’t) but because young people these days have no idea how to use it.   She said the bullying on FB makes schoolyard bullying look like a puff of cotton candy and the lack of etiquette is appalling.

Which brings me to this – Vancouver trustee Mike Lombardi hinted that perhaps schools should be responsible for educating students on appropriate use of social media platforms.  Here, here!  My friend taught her kids how to use Facebook responsibly but what about the other kids whose parents don’t give a hoot about what they do or who they hurt with their virtual mud slinging?  I’m not sure who should be responsible for this type of education if parents opt out , but the schools may be a place to start.

Even adults could use a refresher course on what is appropriate and what is not.

What do you think?

You’ve seen it, read it and heard it.  So much so, that I think many of us don’t even register the real issue behind the message and it no longer catches our attention.

But here is a commercial that will.

It’s meant for the holiday season so consider this as my early Christmas present to all of you and thanks to TAC (Transport Accident Commission) in Australia for creating it.

Usually I’d post a warning about this video not being suitable for the squeamish but frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.  I’ve seen too many people killed by drunk drivers and I want you to cringe when you watch it.

Also, thank you to Global TV for putting me onto this commercial in the first place.  It’s too bad the television networks couldn’t run this commercial on all the channels across Canada.

If you don’t, we will find you. Probably within the block, gasping for air and nursing a sprained foot (see point 2).

Last week’s coverage on the lethal injection execution of the Washington Area sniper John Allen Muhammad featured an interview by Larry King with Bob Meyers, whose brother Dean was shot and killed by Mohammad in 2002.  Meyers witnessed Mohammad’s execution, and while one might expect someone in Meyers’ position to have an ‘eye for an eye’ mentality, he voiced a different opinion saying the entire situation filled him with sadness. 

Another witness, Nelson Rivera, whose wife Lori Ann Lewis was among the shooting victims, said he was glad to watch Mohammad die, as it meant Mohammad could not hurt anyone else.

Another woman interviewed outside of the prison on the night of the execution voiced her opinion that perhaps the condemned killer should have been kept alive and locked away so society could study him and better understand what makes killers like him tick.

____________

Canada does not support the death penalty, having abolished it in 1976, so any conversation and debates Canadians have on the topic are just that – conversations and debates.  We do not put people to death as punishment for their crimes, and I do not see that changing at any time in the near future. 

But it still makes me think – should we keep the Dalmers and the Bundy’s alive in order that we may study them under the microscope like a sample in a petri-dish? 

I’m not sure it can be done.  Look at Canada’s Clifford Olsen.  He is serving a life sentence for the early 1980′s murders of two children and eleven youths. 

What have we learned from him?

• You are driving on a two lane highway, with one lane going in each direction. 
• No passing is allowed due to the turns and hills on the roadway – think of the Sea to Sky highway, or Hwy’s 3 and 5 to BC’s Interior. 
• The speed limit is 80 kms/hr, or 60 kms/hr, or 100 kms/hr.  The actual speed isn’t the issue. 
• You are behind another driver who is travelling well below the posted limit for some unknown reason.  Maybe the driver is not familiar with the road, or is a new driver, or has poor eyesight.  Again, the reason for the slow driving isn’t the issue.
• The road ahead of you opens up with a passing lane, with clearly marked signs that state SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT, followed by another sign that states STAY RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS.
• Your foot itches on the accelerator as you wait for the driver in front of you to pull to the right and allow you to pass.  A quick peek in your rearview mirror shows a long line of cars behind you waiting for the same opportunity.
• Much to your dismay, the driver in front of you finds a sudden burst of confidence at the open road and floors it.  I mean, really floors it, and races forward in the left lane.  To try and pass the car now would mean passing on the right (not a good idea) and would mean driving like an idiot to pass him.
• Then, as your opportunity to pass dwindles with the end of the passing lane in sight, you are again stuck behind the slowpoke as he drastically drops his speed when the road closes in again.

I’m not sure about you, but this has happened to our family on several occasions.  Not only is such driving behaviour dangerous, it frustrates other drivers.  There are various traffic laws and statutes that can deal with this, but I’ve been trying to figure out why this happens in the first place. 

Maybe if I can understand why I will be better able to educate drivers on safe practices.

Have there been any studies on this?  Has anyone made a point of examining the driving mentality of people who do this?  Is it something as simple as our competitive nature to not want to give up the lead even if we are poor leaders (wow – that last line works on a whole bunch of different levels, doesn’t it?  But I digress…sounds like a topic for another post…).

If you know of any studies on this, would you please email me or leave a comment with the link?

My first thought was this was a great idea.  By the law of averages, more random breathalyzer tests = more drunk drivers off the road.

Then, after giving the issue some more attention, I had to bridle my enthusiasm.  Concerns were raised by lawyers on how the proposed law circumvents the Charter of Rights and a persons right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. 

Then again, driving is a privilege.  A person is not born with the ‘right’ to drive, instead a person has to prove they are entitled to the privilege through training, education and responsibility.  With this in mind, is a random breathalyzer test ’reasonable’ in respect to search and seizure? 

Who knows – we’ll have to wait and see what the experts say on this one.

Vehicle pursuits are a heated topic with many pros and cons to both sides of the argument on whether or not to engage in one, so I’m going to leave that topic alone for now.

But to tell your officers they are not allowed to run after a person who is attempting to evade arrest?

I was so taken aback by the video of an interview with the mayor about her decision that I simply could not help commenting (as could over three dozen other people as seen in the comments section of the article).  I’ll let you come to your own conclusions about the mayor’s professionalism.

In a nut shell, the mayor says insurance rates go up if an officer gets hurt running after a suspect.  Funny, that.  Policing is an inherently dangerous profession. 

After consulting with a prosecutor, the foot-chase ban was lifted when the prosecutor believed such a policy would prevent officers from upholding the law.

Thank goodness for common sense.

My iced-latte was soon joined by a treat for the kids.  It ended up being a balancing act between the drink, the weird cake-thing the barrista said the kids would love and my wallet.  I almost dropped the entire production on my way out the door, but I caught it all and kept everything upright – barely. 

Then I looked up and started back to the car, which was parked about a 1/3 of a block away.  Coming towards me and cutting across the street were two hooligans.  Both of them looked like they had been drinking and one of them was obviously high on drugs, probably meth.  They both had me in their sights.  They swaggered, had started to puff themselves up, and were eyeing the fact I was balancing my wallet and wearing flip-flops.  By all appearances it looked like a mugging about to happen.  Great. 

Just try me.

They kept walking and so did I.  They made no secret of the fact they were eyeing my wallet, and they kept trying to stare me down in an attempt to gauge what my response would be.  I eyed them right back, silently telling them they were picking the wrong ‘victim’ and that they should buzz off.  As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, attitude is everything. 

The two hooligans veered away as we got closer together and they dropped their eyes first. 

‘Housewife’ – 1, Hooligans - 0

When I got back to the car and handed the kids their treat, hubby was looking in his sideview mirror at the retreating figures of the two would-be-muggers.  He had watched the entire episode and said he thought the two guys were going to jump me.  He also said they had eyed up the car as well, as if it were theirs for the taking, but had moved their attention to me when I stepped out of the coffee shop.  

Either way, the two hooligans would have been in for a big surprise if they had carried through with what had obviously been their initial intention.  The kids were part of this conversation and they turned around to get a look at the guys.  Then my son cracked us up when he added his two bits.

“Mom, you would have been okay.  Dad would have been all over them, I would have jumped on their backs and she (pointing at his sister) would have kicked them in the nards.”

Kids.  Gotta luv em.

In 2004, The Odd Squad, a non-profit society created by a group of Vancouver police officers, teamed up with the Vancouver Giants and created a project called ‘Stay on Side’ as part of a drug awareness and education program for Junior League hockey players.  There are several teams within the WHL that have teamed with their respective police departments in similar projects.

The goal of ‘Stay on Side’is to bring the young hockey players into the Downtown Eastside so they can witness first hand the reality of chronic substance abuse.  Then, after receiving education on the drug culture and the short/long term effects of drugs, the hockey players go to the schools and give presentations on what they have seen and learned – all in an attempt to prevent future drug abuse/addiction by our kids.

I’ve met the hockey players as they’ve toured the Downtown Eastside, and I’ve had one come out with me for a shift on a ride along.  That young man was the billet of a friend of mine, so I know what the hockey players see leaves a lasting impression.

Last week, CBC’s The National did a story on project ‘Stay on Side’ and I’ve included a link to the broadcast.  At approx 11 minutes in length, it will give you a glimpse of what the Vancouver Giants do and see as they learn about the drug culture in the Downtown Eastside. 

Kudos to The Odd Squad, the Vancouver Giants, and to Sgt. Mark Steinkampf and Det. Chris Graham for bringing this program to Vancouver.