My brother is the voice of the kid who can walk like a penguin. My father was an audio engineer, and the original recording of the on-screen kid was unclear, so he had my brother overdub the line.

I still tease him with it.

What are you talking about? There was a story just a couple weeks ago about a city that diverted police funds to an unarmed mental health/social work team that had successfully handled several hundred calls without violence, and cheaper than the cops could do it.

If this is real, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Let's you're telling the truth and your ex - in Massachusetts - really has strong connections to the police - presumably also in Massachusetts... So you're going to leave the UK, where your ex doesn't have connections to the bobbies, and going to a place where your ex has all the power, and you're likely going to be committing several crimes by endangering your child. Shit, why not just show up at your ex's house, throw a kilo of coke down like a smoke bomb, and hand him a pair of handcuffs?

Again, if this is real, here's some real advice - talk to a lawyer before you move back. There are free services for people in your position, both in the US and the UK. Heck, there's a dozen law schools in the Boston area that all have free clinics.

Or, alternately, just send your son to your ex. Because that's effectively what you're doing, and at least that way you'll stay out of jail.

But this probably isn't real, because at this point, it's just too stupid to be believed.

Why are you not replying to any of the people who pointed out how this path almost certainly will cause you to lose custody (and potentially face charges of neglect and child endangerment) and that talking to a lawyer is the best course of action?

She may…. We don’t have all the facts, hence why OP should talk to a lawyer.

But OP has ignored that advice every time it’s been given. I wonder if the kid wouldn’t be better off with the father.

Staying in the UK where the child is not homeless would likely not be considered intent to deprive the father of parental rights though. OP would also have a necessity defense.

Then your notarized agreement means nothing, and you can’t get kidnapping charges. If he ex tries, the cops will say it’s civil, not criminal, and to take it up with the court.

If you come here and endanger your kid by sleeping in your car in a New England winter, you probably will lose the kid though. If they survive, that is.

I don’t know about your situation, but I am a Massachusetts lawyer. Everything you’ve said suggests that you’re wrong about the possibility of kidnapping charges, but that you will be putting your child in danger and likely lose custody if you do come to Massachusetts and live in your car.

If your son’s dad doesn’t have full custody, then the cops won’t bring kidnapping charges for your son staying with you.

Additionally, bringing your son to Massachusetts and having him stay in your car in winter is so stupid and dangerous that your ex could use that to argue in court for full custody of your son. You really need to talk to a lawyer, or you’re going to end up both homeless and sonless.

There won’t be kidnapping charges unless your son’s dad has full custody and a court order. He’s put this fear in your head, but it’s not true. Talk to a lawyer.

That agreement may be unenforceable. Rather than coming back and being homeless, you may want to talk to a lawyer.

ETA: I'm starting to wonder if this is a creative writing exercise, given that OP hasn't responded to anyone pointing out that the "notarized agreement" is unenforceable and that kidnapping charges are highly unlikely if not impossible, while child endangerment charges and loss of custody are far more likely.

Good point.

That may have more to do with repeated illness and absences, both their own and their teachers', than wearing a piece of fabric over their mouth.

… got awfully quiet in here…

Sorry, I only need spying and crop spraying. Dastardly varmints…

From the article, staffing is down in part because the town created an unarmed response team that can handle non-violent emergencies. That seems like a good idea, particularly if the police are unable to handle such things professionally.

I just had an arborist come out and remove three trees at the edge of my property that were in danger of crushing my neighbor's fence (one was dead and had fallen onto another tree supporting it, one was almost dead, and one was waaaay leaning). $3k is not cheap, but cheaper than a $10k fence.

Then what do they do when you refuse to speak with authorities or answer questions, like you said you are "obligated to"? Do they say "oh, gosh, you got us," and walk away? Or do they arrest you? At which point, aren't the first seven words they say "you have the right to remain silent"?

Do you think that we don't have the right to remain silent until we're arrested? Like, the Constitution says "the government can compel your speech as long as you haven't actually been arrested yet"?

Natick also. Not sure if Lynn is closer.

Okay, Officer, I suppose people should just confess to murder or heroin possession or whatever false accusation you want too, just because “saying no to an officer isn’t the greatest idea”?

No. Sorry if that’s the first time you’ve heard that in a while. But the right to refuse FSTs and the right to refuse to answer questions are so clearly established that there would be no qualified immunity to civil suit if a cop were to arrest someone for refusing.

The downvotes are because you’re not distinguishing between the breath test, which is mandatory and can result in a license suspension for refusal, and the field sobriety test, which is entirely optional, has no penalty for refusing, and should not be performed by anyone.

Yep. Technically, random stops work too - every 4th car, or "we flip a coin", or something similar, as long as the cops aren't using their discretion.

Though true, you may also be able to make $30k off such an egregious violation of your civil rights, like this woman who was arrested for remaining silent.

>That is not true. Commonwealth v. Shields. MA has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutionally legal.

Yes. Here's the case for anyone interested.

But:

>If you enter one, you are obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions. If you refuse, you may be subjected to a field sobriety test. If you refuse that, you will lose your license automatically.

No, no, no, no, 100% no. You are never obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions. You are never obligated to perform a field sobriety test (the stand on one leg, recite the alphabet, poke your finger in your eye, etc.). You can be subjected to a breathalyzer or blood test, and refusing those will result in loss of license, but that does not apply to not answering questions or refusing to dance like a monkey for some cop's amusement.

"Obligated to speak with authorities and answer questions"? Sheesh. This is why cops need more than 6 weeks of training. What are the first 7 words of a Miranda warning?

>Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to answer any questions at checkpoints
>
>Certainly true but also a great way to make sure you get pulled over to the side of the road and subjected to a field sobriety test.

Friendly reminder you're under no legal obligation to perform a field sobriety test (i.e. the 'dance like a monkey', 'recite the alphabet backwards', 'stand on one leg while singing My Country 'Tis of Thee' tests), and should never do so. You are required to take a breathalyzer or give a blood sample and can temporarily lose your license for refusing, but that does not apply to the sit and spin tests.