Lemonade Crackdown: Cops Would Do It Again

Back in April, a mildly alcoholic drink got this dad in trouble.

Chris Ratte, an archeology professor at the University of Michigan, had bought the beverage at a ballpark for his seven-year-old son, not realizing that although the refreshment was advertised as a lemonade, it contained 5% alcohol. At the behest of ballpark security guards, police officers intervened. After transporting the boy to the emergency room, in an ambulance, they took young Leo Ratte into protective custody, then turned him over to Child Protective Services.

Chris Ratte was reunited with Leo after six days and two Family Court hearings.

But get this: Today, the people involved in whisking Leo from his rightful home say they wouldn't do anything differently.

We had no discretion, say the security guards, shrugging.
Our hands were tied, say the cops, sounding bored.
Rules are rules, say the social workers, studying their nails.

So yes, they would do it all again — even though, arguably, if any lasting damage was done to the boy, it occurred on the part of these automatons, shells of rational human beings who substitute rule books for judgment and common sense, and who think nothing of stealing a scared, uncomprehending seven-year-old from his parents.

Disgusting and disheartening.

[thanks, Elayne!]

Comments

[D]

I'm surprised nobody said, "We were just following orders."

[Hermes Ten]

Disgusting? Yes. Disheartening? Yes. Expect lots more of this kind of stuff? Absolutely.

They didn't say "we were just following orders" because that's an after the fact defense when people are held accountable for their behavior. These people are still at the "we'd do it again stage." We're a very long way from accountability and the necessity of the following orders defense.

[buzz]

All of them are also full of crap. Their paid to exercise discretion. Yes, someone should have intervened when they saw the kid drinking that stuff. But somewhere along the following chain of events, someone should have figured this out and stopped all that nonsense.

[Marty]

hermes ten-

The kid was with his father- why do you say 'Yes, someone should have intervened...?'

Unless the child's in danger, why would anyone interefere?

[SOBer]

I am livid over this story. I am tired of the psychological abuse of our children by the government in the guise of "protecting" them. Obviously parents are considered only babysitters of the governments children given the enthusiasm shown when they swoop in and take them away. My child has been taken from me for over a year because of a "questionable" act. Initial investigation = no wrong doing. 10 month investigation = no wrong doing. I'm still trying to get my daughter back from these evil a**holes. Every one of the CPS agents involved in Ann Arbor case should be found guilty of child abuse and never allowed to deal with children again.

[benpal]

"We had no discretion, say the security guards, shrugging. Rules are rules, say the social workers..."

And brains are brains, but there is no legal obligation to use them.

[benpal]

Oh, I overlooked a detail: did you say _social_ workers?

[Hermes Ten]

Marty, the names are at the bottom of the posts; I didn't say that, "buzz" did. I'm more like SOBer on this: I think the little authoritarian fascists that took this child away from his parents should be in prison on a number of charges, including abuse of authority, kidnapping, and assault. But we're a long way from being a country where we're going to see Justice applied to agents of the State.