Journalist Arrested for Telling Son to Walk Home from McDonalds

Dave Lieber is a columnist for Fort Worth Star-Telegram who has found himself in a bizarre situation where he has been criminally charged for telling his 11-year-old son to walk home a few blocks from McDonalds. It began with an argument in McDonald’s and Lieber leaving his son to walk home. Lieber would return a short time later to find police speaking to his son and thought that the matter was closed by an amicable reunion and mutual apologies of the father and son. It wasn’t.

Lieber wrote about the experience in an August 15th column, describing how he returning after cooling off to find officers speaking with his son. He described his actions as “stupid and quite serious mistake” despite support from his readers who said that they have taken the same approach with disrespectful kids. That is when it got weird. Lieber, 51, was arrested by detectives of Watauga, Texas for child abandonment and endangerment, according to Detective Tiffany Ward.

State law defines abandonment as intentionally leaving a child younger than 15 “in any place under circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm.” Walking home a few blocks from McDonald’s is exposing a child to unreasonable risk of harm? How dangerous are the streets of Watauga? Yet, Lieber (who has been suspended by the newspaper) accepts that his actions “could have exposed my son to grave danger. I do know that. But in the moment of anger, I didn’t think clearly.”

I am probably the most protective, risk-adverse parent on Earth. My wife accuses me of wanting to turn the four kids into bubble babies. I would not use this type of punishment or scared straight technique. However, it is an example in my view of how we have criminalized every aspect of our lives, here.

For the full article, click here.

89 thoughts on “Journalist Arrested for Telling Son to Walk Home from McDonalds”

  1. Has anyone considered that the entire issue of endangerment may lie in the fact that he was feed his son at a McDonalds??

    Sorry – I thought it was fitting with the food fight that occurred surrounding this article.

  2. Mike Spindell said..

    Choose whatever inference you want that will make you feel good about my lack of interest.

    I don’t need to “choose” Mike. The truth is evident.

    Or did you think no one notices your “lack of interest” has kept you addressing me since the day you first engaged me in debate?

    When someone continuously addresses someone over a period of a week, all the while claiming “boredom” and “lack of interest”, its clear to anyone who speaks English that he is neither of the two.

    The word you are looking for, is “frustrated”.

    Frustrated at losing the debate and frustrated by your own inability to admit when you’re wrong.

  3. “I still see some people who might be good for “” (coming soon) and there are some smart folks in here, to be sure.”

    Have fun and Godspeed! You’re correct it wouldn’t interest me. Choose whatever inference you want that will make you feel good about my lack of interest. I would cite boredom, but then I’m such a poor debater, what would I know. You’re The Man!

  4. Mike Spindell said..

    I don’t do debate sites for just the reason that you exasperate and bore me simultaneously, they’re all about ego and less about actual issues.

    Well I can certainly understand why they exasperate and bore you.

    After all, being unable to coherent state your position and instead turning to strawmen, lies and boasting of your external achievements to shore up crumbling positions must be tiresome.

    As far as about them being about the “issues”, thats exactly what real debate is about, and the kind I engage in.

    Real debate, involves “drilling down”, and focus on key specific pillars and points in a persons argument, so as to either dismantle it, or be dismantled by it.

    Your argument on A-THEISM I dismantled quite readily. So, you in turn turned to strawmen, and when you got exposed doing that, you turned to lying about ever saying the words you just said a moment earlier, trying to wiggle out of your strawman.

    So, given my experience debating with you, it is easy for me to see why you’d find it “exasperating”.

    I however find it exhilarating.

    I am working on developing a website, designed specifically for those wishing to engage in specific debates on specific social, religious and political issues.

    The site will be called “The Debating Room”, on the same domain name, and will be a place where two parties who have a debate from other blogs, can come to and have it settled, using a point system and judges.

    I came to Professor Turley’s blog, hoping to find seasoned, experienced debaters who can deliver a position in a specific and detailed manner, hopefully asking some of them to act as judges for debates hosted in the new site.

    So far however, other than a few bloggers who seem to engage in specifics, I’ve found bloggers like you and patty, who are more concerned with hosting a nice friendly “chatroom”, than actually debating over issues. And when they find anyone not falling into line with their ideas of what blogging should be, they harrass and hound any bloggers who like debate, until they either drive them away or push them into responding to their attacks.

    I still see some people who might be good for “” (coming soon) and there are some smart folks in here, to be sure.

    But folks who like you, turn to lies, denial of those lies, then more lies trying to paint your opponent as an Anti-Semite merely because you cannot beat them in a debate, are the kind of people we hope will bring their debates to the debating room to be decided, for all too see, so they too can learn what it means to be specific with a point, and not turn to vain insults, name calling and lies when they find themselves bested in a simple debate.

    Anyway, Gyges said it right. I am not Zakamir, never have been.

    When the debating room is up, you will all be welcome to schedule a live debate with your opponent, and have it hosted by our moderators and judges (once we have more than the three we have so far, lol).

    And if Mike, you want to “reach out to me” as you keep suggesting, then I suggest you can start by admitting to the straw position you created a week ago, and never recanted, and then apologize for lying about ever saying those words.

    Once you’ve done that, you can apologize for trying gleefully last night to help your friend mojo paint me as the possibly psychotic , definately racist, “Zakamir”.

    Those would be a good start for your “reaching out” efforts, and I will at that point, gladly accept your apologies and move forward.

  5. Mike Spindell said..

    So this is the same manner of “lie” that you accuse me of.

    No Mike, this is not in the same manner of the LIE you told.

    The lie you told invented a POSITION for me in a debate we were having that I never took, which is called a “Straw man” argument.

    Then, you lied again, denying you ever said those words.

    This was an off the cuff remark that has nothing to do with any debate we are having, merely a comment that IF you are a member of the bar, then shame on them for allowing such a dishonest person as yourself in.

    So since I said IF, you cannot accuse me of saying you were a member of the bar.

    And even if I had thought you were a member of the bar, it would merely constitute a mistake, as it is not a derogatory thing to elevate you to the bar, nor is it designed to produce any misleading positions.

    It was simply a mistake. I assumed when you started bragging about your experience like your friend patty does, (my eyes glaze over when you guys start boasting of your acheievements) that you were saying you were a lawyer.

    So trying to compare your out and out strawman, then your outright lying denying you ever said those words, to my simply mistaking you for an attorney, is further evidence of why its a good thing, you are not a member of the bar.

    In any state.

  6. Mojo,

    I’ve got to disagree with you on this one. I don’t think that CroMM is Zakimar. There’s just some big differences. If he is he’s a VERY good writer and deserves are respect for pulling it off. Other than the style and content issues I’ll address, CroMM’s already tacitly admitted to being BartleBee, who I seem to remember being here at the same time as Zak (that doesn’t prove anything, but does address one of your points).

    Most importantly, there’s the difference in Z’s obsession. Z was fixated on race and Zionism, we don’t see any of that mentioned with CroMM. CroMM on the other hand doesn’t have a single thematic fixation, but seems to jump from whatever debate happens to strike his attention to the next. I think Z was genuinely obsessed to the point of possible mental problems, there’s really no indication of that with CroMM.

    As far as style goes, there are some similarities, but they’re far outweighed by the differences. Z tended to respond with a 1:1 ratio to others’ posts, CroMM is about 3:1. While Z very wrote in a more structured form, CroMMs posts tend to be a little more creative in their formatting. CroMM is generally a pretty witty guy with some really interesting comments on most subjects, as long as you don’t get him in debate mode. Z started out in debate mode and very rarely offered any true insights into the situation.

  7. “Yea, tsk tsk tsk for the New York Bar, if they let the likes of you in.”

    Pathetically, you again prove one of the points I’ve made about you. In your haste to find a debating point you only read comments looking for lines of attack. I’ve made clear to you in many of my comments directly to you and in general on this site, that I am not and have never been a lawyer. So this is the same manner of “lie” that you accuse me of. You’re logic is silly, to be charitable.

    Many of those comments, such as my last one at the “Gay Jesus” thread were attempts to reach out to you to see if we could develop common understanding. Those attempts failed miserably because all you want to do is attack something….anything. You have stated on the “Gay Jesus” thread that you like to debate and have done it at other sites. I don’t do debate sites for just the reason that you exasperate and bore me simultaneously, they’re all about ego and less about actual issues. Discussion is much more educational and fun. Yes discussion sometimes leads to debate, but even debate must be tempered by civility and logic. Your debating technique lacks both. When you are in the “heat” of your debating loop, you do set up “straw men,” fail to read peoples comments in context and deliberately misconstrue what the other person is saying.

    As you have alluded to elsewhere this is how you get your “fun.”
    Your getting your “fun” is an annoyance, distraction and finally intellectual masturbation on your part. Finally, I have no idea if you are Zakimar, but as Mojo points out there is grounds for suspicion. This is because, as he more aptly put it, the two of you share the same style. Zakimar indeed may have morphed into you without the anti-Jewish rant. Whether you are or not though is immaterial, the salient point being you’re both annoying and like john McCain don’t get it.

  8. When you two kids have something to refute any of the positions I’ve defended let me know.

    But if you all you have is random personal attacks and false accusations, trying to turn your impotence at being able to debate me on a topic into nothing but mere personal attacks and accusatuions against me, then don’t bother.

Comments are closed.