Under the conditions described in this story? What utter nonsense.
FReepers are starting to sound like nannystaters. It's pathetic.
Maybe so. Most states have laws that require all children under a certain age to wear seat belts. Maybe that is nanny-statism as well, maybe you should have a right to drive with your kids unbelted. He certainly was unbelted.
A trunk is not protected in an accident, most modern cars are built to use the trunk as a crumple-zone to protect the passengers. Putting a kid in the trunk was certainly a risk to the child.
The questions are, does the government have ANY business at all making ANY laws to protect children from being put in harmful situations by adults; and if SO, how do you draw the line to determine if something is “harmful enough” to be covered under the law.
Not sure whether you are in the first group. If so, nothing I say will make sense to you. You know you are in the first group if you’d let the adult allow the kid to ride on the roof of the car.
If not, you are in the second group, and we could ask — what is the most dangerous way to ride in the car would you allow before making it illegal? Would you let the kid ride on the roof if he was tied down? In the trunk? Hanging out the window? In the back seat with no seat belt?
I find most people do want to draw a line, and the argument is over where the line is drawn.