Police State?

[SEC=UGA]

A Georgia mother who was arrested for allowing her 10-year-old to get a tattoo said she had no idea it was illegal for him to get one, even with her consent.

 

When Chuntera Napier’s son Gaquan Napier asked her if he could get a memorial tattoo for his 12-year-old brother Malik who died after being hit by a car, Napier was touched by the request.

 

“My son came to me and said, ‘Mom, I want to get a tattoo with Malik on it, rest in peace,’” she told ABC News’ Atlanta affiliate WSBTV. “It made me feel good to know that he wanted his brother on him.”

 

When Gaquan Napier was asked why he wanted the tattoo, he said, “Because it represents my brother.”

 

“What do I say to a child who wants to remember his brother? It’s not like he was asking me, ‘Can I get Sponge Bob?” Napier said. “He asked me [for] something that’s in remembrance of his brother. How can I say no?”

 

Gaquan got a tattoo on his right arm of his brother’s name and his former basketball jersey number. Napier also has memorial tattoos for her son on her right arm.

 

When someone at his school noticed the tattoo and contacted authorities, Napier was arrested on Tuesday and charged with misdemeanor cruelty and being a party to a crime, according to WSBTV. Napier bonded out of jail on Wednesday but is shocked that her consent was not enough for her son to get a tattoo.

 

“I always thought that if a parent gave consent, then it was fine,” she said. “How can somebody else say that it’s not okay? He’s my child, and I have the right to say what I want for my child. I can’t go tell anybody else what I want for their child.”

 

A Georgia law from 2010 states, “It shall be unlawful for any person to tattoo the body of any person under the age of 18, except a physician or osteopath.”

 

The Acworth Police Department did not respond to request for comment and the Smyrna, Ga. artist who did the tattoo is also under investigation.

 

There is a video of the mom's and kid's rationale behind the tat here

Edited January 20, 2012 by SEC=UGA

[matt770]

Certainly the police and state's attorney have more important cases than this.

[i_am_the_swammi]

“I always thought that if a parent gave consent, then it was fine,” she said. “How can somebody else say that it’s not okay? He’s my child, and I have the right to say what I want for my child. I can’t go tell anybody else what I want for their child.”

 

What an idiot. So by her reasoning, if she gets her child involved in drug or prostitution ring, as long as it has parental blessing, it should be OK?

 

There are reasons why children are protected under various legal provisions, and are not considered capable of making decisions that will potentially affect them for life....she shouldn't go to jail, but she should be delivered a message: "Uh, Ms. Mom....its not really solid parenting to go out and tattoo your kids, regardless of your 4th-graders wishes".

[detlef]

What an idiot. So by her reasoning, if she gets her child involved in drug or prostitution ring, as long as it has parental blessing, it should be OK?

 

There are reasons why children are protected under various legal provisions, and are not considered capable of making decisions that will potentially affect them for life....she shouldn't go to jail, but she should be delivered a message: "Uh, Ms. Mom....its not really solid parenting to go out and tattoo your kids, regardless of your 4th-graders wishes".

Gotta agree with this, hyperbole not withstanding. There are certain provisions in the law that allow minors to do certain things earlier than normal with parental consent. Others, not so much. I don't see this as some new way the government is interfering with our lives. Mind you, tattoos are not a place that I would personally draw the line, but I don't feel so strongly about it that I'm going to fight to move the line if it's already there.

 

I understand their motives and they certainly seem noble. But she might have wanted to check into the law before allowing her kid to do this. The parental consent trumps the law bit is, indeed, a slippery slope.

[Caveman_Nick]

Seriously guys?

 

We aren't talking drugs or committing crimes here. We are talking about a kid getting getting aprental consent for a tatoo memorializing his dead brother. While it might not be a choice I would make I hardly label the mother an idiot or a criminal. There is no reason for this law, an arrest or any kind of prosecution here.

 

Stoooopid over governing at work. Amazing that anyone would support the state in this case.

[Brentastic]

What an idiot. So by her reasoning, if she gets her child involved in drug or prostitution ring, as long as it has parental blessing, it should be OK?

 

There are reasons why children are protected under various legal provisions, and are not considered capable of making decisions that will potentially affect them for life....she shouldn't go to jail, but she should be delivered a message: "Uh, Ms. Mom....its not really solid parenting to go out and tattoo your kids, regardless of your 4th-graders wishes".

REALLY?!?!? REALLY?!?!? Man, your thinking, which happens to be the norm unfortunately, is exactly the sort of the thing that's wrong in this country. Government should not be telling its citizens what it can and cannot do as long as those actions aren't harming others. As long as the parent is not harming the child, the government should stay out of her business.

 

In this case the mom is not talking about drug or prostitution rings, she's talking about a tattoo. That's a ridiculous leap you made there.

 

Government is going too far but all you Sallys need the protection. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like this: "Those who need protection at the expense of liberty deserve neither".

Edited January 20, 2012 by Brentastic

[Savage Beatings]

I think that the law is probably fine, but I also think that once the authorities heard the explanation of this instance, that they should have dropped the matter completely.

[detlef]

I guess my issue is that, and this happens pretty often actually, a story comes out about someone breaking the law but for reasons that we think are cool. So, now anyone who doesn't agree that the law should be retro-actively changed or ignored in this instance wants a nanny state.

 

I don't like the precedent that sets. For generations, people have fought to change laws that they thought were unfair so the next time someone wanted to do whatever it was they thought was unfairly illegal, they could. That's how it works. Otherwise, laws are meaningless.

 

And the, "it's only a freaking tattoo" card can be played both ways. Sure, it's just a tattoo, so why does the government care so much. On the other hand, "it's just a tattoo", so why is it the end of the world if just wait until we've changed the laws. When someone is being denied a job unfairly or some such, that's a great time to say, "screw this, I'm taking what's mine and forcing the issue." Because someone is truly messing with something they need. The reasons for why this kid wanted to get inked up are noble, but let's not pretend that it was a basic need. That's not the only way he could celebrate his brother.

 

Again, if it came to a vote, you can be sure that I'd vote in favor of lifting the law. However, I also realize that there's a lot of things that I think should be legal that others don't. And letting kids get tattoos is not high on my list of things we need to fix, so I'm not going to go to the mattresses over this one. I'll save my beef for other concerns.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Government should not be telling its citizens what it can and cannot do as long as those actions aren't harming others. As long as the parent is not harming the child, the government should stay out of her business.

 

I guess your definition of "harm" is relegated to actual physical or mental abuse....which is sad, and a huge part of what is wrong with much of our youth today. Suppose this was a baby...would you still be OK with it? is it because the child was ten-years-old, and the gesture was touching, make it seem OK to you? Thats pretty pathetic.

 

Almost every law in our country is established to ensure the very small minority act in a way that serves society. Most people don't rape, murder, steal, speed, shoot heroin, endanger kids....but there are laws that are in place to make those acts illegal so that those that do wish to do these things pay a price. That's not "Sally"...that's common sense. The reason you don't see many elementary school kids with tats is pretty simple....almost all parents would restrict their kids from making this decision so early in life. The fact that this lady made this horrendous call is the exact reason why some states need a law in place to prevent it.

 

If you don't have the kahunas to say to your kid "I think the thought behind what you want to do is a wonderful gesture, but you need to wait until you are a little older to so something to yourself that will be on your skin forever. Maybe you can wear your brother's necklace, or carry something of his, as a reminder of how much he meant to you. Mommy is an adult, which is why I have a tattoo...when you are an adult, you can make that decision yourself."....then, IMO, you've pretty much proven your parenting skills and decision-making are worthy of a look.

[Brentastic]

I guess my issue is that, and this happens pretty often actually, a story comes out about someone breaking the law but for reasons that we think are cool. So, now anyone who doesn't agree that the law should be retro-actively changed or ignored in this instance wants a nanny state.

 

I don't like the precedent that sets. For generations, people have fought to change laws that they thought were unfair so the next time someone wanted to do whatever it was they thought was unfairly illegal, they could. That's how it works. Otherwise, laws are meaningless.

 

And the, "it's only a freaking tattoo" card can be played both ways. Sure, it's just a tattoo, so why does the government care so much. On the other hand, "it's just a tattoo", so why is it the end of the world if just wait until we've changed the laws. When someone is being denied a job unfairly or some such, that's a great time to say, "screw this, I'm taking what's mine and forcing the issue." Because someone is truly messing with something they need. The reasons for why this kid wanted to get inked up are noble, but let's not pretend that it was a basic need. That's not the only way he could celebrate his brother.

 

Again, if it came to a vote, you can be sure that I'd vote in favor of lifting the law. However, I also realize that there's a lot of things that I think should be legal that others don't. And letting kids get tattoos is not high on my list of things we need to fix, so I'm not going to go to the mattresses over this one. I'll save my beef for other concerns.

The problem and point - something you seem to not get - is that the law (many laws at that) is a bad law. Government has too much control over our liberties and it's getting worse. We keep making new laws that eliminate more liberties.

[detlef]

The problem and point - something you seem to not get - is that the law (many laws at that) is a bad law. Government has too much control over our liberties and it's getting worse. We keep making new laws that eliminate more liberties.

No, I get it, which is why I would be in favor of changing the law. What I don't "get" is the notion that people should just decide which are the good laws, which are the bad ones, and not bother to follow the ones they think don't make sense based on their specific situation.

 

None the less, since you were so predictably on time with your "they're eliminating more liberties" deal, let me ask you this. Is this a new law? Did someone see the kids tat and decide, there and then, that he shouldn't have been allowed to, so they just instantly enacted a law that said he couldn't? Because that would be as messed up as people just deciding that laws should be ignored or retroactively repealed the first time someone breaks them for a reason we think is cool.

 

Like I said, I think it's a dumb law. I think lots of laws are dumb laws. And, to be honest, most have been on the books for some time. Right now, I'm helping to fight against what I feel to be an immoral set of laws against allowing consenting adults to enjoy the same married status that I get to enjoy. If someone wants my signature on a petition to let kids get tats if their parents say so, count me in. I'm just saying it's not high on my list right now.

[wiegie]

I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I do understand why the parent would think that as long as she gave her consent it would be ok. It's not illegal for parents to have their baby daughters get their ears pierced. It's allowable for parents to consent to their daughters having abortions. It's allowable for parents to consent to their kids having cosmetic surgery. Why would any parent think a tattoo would be different from these other things.

 

I think the person who was running the tattoo shop should be held more to blame. They should know the laws concerning their industry and when the mom brought the kid in to the shop, the guy should have said, "I'm sorry, but it's illegal for me to give a kid a tattoo even with parental consent."

[Yukon Cornelius]

anyone can have kids...

[delusions of grandeur]

The libertarian in me is just begging to agree with Brent that laws like this overstep bounds, but we need to remember that libertarianism should not equal anarchy; So to act as if children should have the exact same rights as adults is to neglect what it means to be a kid....

 

I was 13 when I started smoking, an addiction I never considered that I'd be dealing with for decades, like I might have if I'd become an adult (or close to it at 18) before considering starting. That's not to say that the law deterred me that much from doing it anyway, but that's not the point... You can say the same for driving, voting, and (though it might not be as consequential) tattoos in this case, because every single one of them are decisions that can affect you for the rest of your life, and should not be taken lightly by a minor that doesn't fully understand the impact of these decisions.

 

For example, I've gotten 2 tattoos since I turned 18, both of which mean a lot to me and tell a narrative about key times in my life. If I had the ability to get a tat before I was 18, however, I easily could have been foolish enough to have something like a Dead stealie or whatever was popular draped across my arm...

 

In this case, I think they could and should have used to discretion to not prosecute this woman, but as was said above, laws are not designed to protect the few contingencies where it might be okay, the law is there to enforce all of the instances where it'd be extremely irresponsible and a slippery slope when parents can say it's "okay" for their kids to get some tats they want... You could easily open up a pandora's box, because when it becomes a trend for parents to let their kids get tattoos, you only make it more difficult for the parents with less will-power to say no to their kids... But let me stop there, because it's not about protecting the irresponsible parents. It's about ensuring protection of a group that usually cannot comprehend the long-term consequences of their current actions, and thus, I refuse to believe that they deserve the same rights as consenting adults.

[Furd]

Given that: 1) getting a tattoo is an invasive procedure that involves health risks and pain, among other things; 2) a tatt0o is more or less a permenant disfigurement/modification of the body; and 3) there is a social stigma attached to those who sport a tattoo, at least in many circles, I think that there should be a law that prohibits a minor from getting a tattoo.

 

The reason for the tattoo is irrelevant.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Furd

[delusions of grandeur]

you are quick to assume that a 10 yr old can not think in a rational manner on any topic. Society continues to coddle the

Show me one behavior psychologist, sociologist, or whatever source you feel that is qualified, that says that a 10-year old is capable of making a rational long-term decision... Do you realize how absurd that sounds? A 10-year-old (or even teenager or adolescent) will whine for what he wants, even if it is clearly not what he needs... What you're proposing is like saying that if Johnny doesn't want to do his homework, well, Johnny knows best... That might be alternative, but it's as far from open-minded or rational as you can get.

 

Of course the degree to which the government should impose morals or grant parents discretion is certainly debateable when it comes to children, I will concede that, but when you pretend as if children are to be treated like mature adults, well, you're not doing the libertarian stance any favors...

Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[i_am_the_swammi]

if this was a baby, I am not sure of any infant on the planet that can formulate thoughts into words let alone have the desire to get or even know what a tat is....The gesture was touching, but the mother should be able to determine if the thought was well conceived or just an attempt to copy what the mother did and get the same tat.... you are quick to assume that a 10 yr old can not think in a rational manner on any topic. Society continues to coddle the masses.

 

uh, ok

 

I weep for those that are closed minded and ignorant

 

as do I

[detlef]

uh, ok

That one sort of stuck out as a bit of a stretch.

[Clubfoothead]

If you are willing to let your 10 year old get a tatoo, I think you've proven you need someone to intervene and do the thinking for you.

[rajncajn]

Shouldn't the tattoo artist have known that he wasn't allowed to tattoo a 10yo?

[delusions of grandeur]

Shouldn't the tattoo artist have known that he wasn't allowed to tattoo a 10yo?

Good point.... I think the law should be set up to forbid him from tattoing someone without proof of age (and in this case, do you really even need proof of age?), just the same as you'd prosecute a liquor store for selling to minors. I don't think they're covered legally there if a parent says it's okay to ring Johnny up for a 40, so why here?

 

When you put it like that, it does seem pretty bad to prosecute the ignorant parent, rather than the artist who's supposed to follow protocol.

Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[rajncajn]

Good point.... I think the law should be set up to forbid him from tattoing someone without proof of age (and in this case, do you really even need proof of age?), just the same as you'd prosecute a liquor store for selling to minors. I don't think they're covered legally there if a parent says it's okay to ring Johnny up for a 40, so why here?

 

When you put it like that, it does seem pretty bad to prosecute the ignorant parent, rather than the artist who's supposed to follow protocol.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Joessfl]

Gotta agree with this, hyperbole not withstanding. There are certain provisions in the law that allow minors to do certain things earlier than normal with parental consent. Others, not so much. I don't see this as some new way the government is interfering with our lives. Mind you, tattoos are not a place that I would personally draw the line, but I don't feel so strongly about it that I'm going to fight to move the line if it's already there.

 

I understand their motives and they certainly seem noble. But she might have wanted to check into the law before allowing her kid to do this. The parental consent trumps the law bit is, indeed, a slippery slope.

 

+1

 

TODAY = "Mom, I dont think I like my friend Mike anymore, he climbs the monkey bars when I do and I dont like that"

NEXT WEEK = "Mom, Me and Mike had a great time playing kickball. He is a friend"

 

TODAY = "Mom, I like salami and cheese sandwiches"

NEXT WEEK = "Mom, I dont like those sandwiches anymore"

 

TODAY = "Mom, I love the DIsney channel"

NEXT WEEK = "Mom, THose shows are so old, I watch CloneWars now"

 

TODAY = "Mom, Id love to have a tattoo of my brother on me"

NEXT WEEK = "I dont watch clone wars anymore, but I have to look at this tattoo for years to come"

 

Show me a kid that can make life altering decisions and stick to them at that age. We are parents. "Son, that is a nice gesture, why dont we find something to memorialize him but a tatoo is a big person's right. I am sorry, you are too young. But as you get older we can discuss it" Then again, maybe that discussion is a bit too much for some to handle.

 

The law is the law, and now its itoo much for the USA to handle after years of being on the books? Could it be becuase no one was ever ignorant enought to do this to a child? Now all of the sudden its an over-reaching law?

Edited January 20, 2012 by Joessfl

[wiegie]

Shouldn't the tattoo artist have known that he wasn't allowed to tattoo a 10yo?

Good point....

yes, a very good point. In fact, it was so good that I made it two hours ago.

[i_am_the_swammi]

yes, a very good point. In fact, it was so good that I made it two hours ago.

 

well, rajn is taller, so there's that.