the girl's parents should have known the neighborhood well enough to have known potential sites of violence/attack. if NYC were on high alert fro bombings, a child's parents would probably not let that child sell her goods in areas patrolled by the military. i'd bet that parents in Belfast advised children not to play in certain areas.
shareI would have given the 'yes' decision, also, but I would have saved the second missile for an idiot who would blame the parents for us killing their child.
It's a parent's job to foresee all dangers.
the area where she was selling her bread was constantly patrolled by armed gunmen. The likelihood of her catching a stray bullet is not negligible. would YOU allow your daughter to play or work (outside) in an area filled with trigger-happy armed gunmen?
i can't believe that people don't know who lives around them. they MUST have known that the house in front of which their daughter was selling bread was a safehouse for terrorists. wouldn't you know that about your neighbors?
when i was a kid, the combat zone in Boston (Downtown Crossing) was considered VERY dangerous. My parents would NEVER let me go there. I lived outside of Boston. So, I had no reason to hang out there, but my parents still forbid me ever to go there.
similarly, we were raised to be afraid of
South Boston
Roxbury
Central Square
Dorchester
Mattapan
my parents would never have allowed me to work in any of those areas. and they were just afraid of gang violence. not of armed military confrontation.
I too thought the parents were also atleast partially culpable. But I'm not sure if there is anywhere they could relocate to? Given the extreme poverty and lack of safe areas and assuming housing in a safe area is likely astronomically more expensive to buy/rent a house in a dangerous area, they may have simply had nowhere else to go. In your example, what if south Boston comprised 99% of your country and you couldn't afford to live in the 1%? I think that was likely their dilemma.
share