I turned on my computer just now and saw this headline.
Abandoned Child Found, Police Seek Guardians
Here’s a picture of the kid.
Here’s the article in its entirety.
[quote]ST. PAUL – St. Paul Police were notified of a child wandering the halls of an apartment complex at 175 Charles Ave. Tuesday. Officers extensively searched the complex and surrounding areas, but did not find anyone who identified themselves as the 2-year-old’s parents or guardians.
The 2-year-old boy, possibly Somali, is in need of the public’s help in identifying the young boy or his parents.
As of 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, no one has reported the young boy missing.
The boy is 3’ tall and 30 lbs. and was found wearing the same clothes as in the image[/quote]
It’s my understanding that “abandoned” means, or at least suggests, willful or purposeful desire to drop him off and leave him. Isn’t that correct?
As you can see in the article, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence whatsoever to support that. It’s equally possible the child may be “lost” and the parents may be frantically looking for him. He may have “strayed off.” Or perhaps he was “abducted and taken from his parents.”
At this point it seems anything is possible. Weren’t they wrong to refer to the kid as “abandoned”? He is a cute kid. But he’s black. Would they (Fox News) have used that word if it were a cute blond haired girl with blue eyes and curls?
Don’t accuse me of being a hypersensitive liberal. I’m just asking.