Police Report Made: Man Walking With Daughter In Park!
Just being a man and being in the presence of a child is enough to have people accuse you of criminal activity. Really depressing -- and sick. Via @freerangekids, a father took his daughter hiking:
We proceeded to walk through the park to the first waypoint and noticed nobody playing on the nearby playground and the only people in the park were a man and a woman playing with a tennis ball with their Golden Retriever.My daughter and I talked about the dog and how fast he was as we crossed the park grass about 50 feet from this couple. We went to the side of the park and found the location of the first waypoint immediately. We stood there and talked about a rabbit skeleton that was there nearby. We then sat down on the bench nearby to punch in the next coords. We next headed over to the trailhead at the park and proceeded to walk along it having fun talking about the nature around us and laughing.
...We were approaching my truck when I spotted a police car behind it with no one inside. Hmmm? We had just grabbed the cache behind my truck called "Speed Trap" that is named that because there are always police on that corner busting speeders.
I then am walking my daughter to the truck to head home and another police car drives by very slow looking at us. My daughter asks why all of the police are there, and I tell her it is probably because something happened nearby.
Now I am getting really suspicious the cops were called because of us! We drive home and meet my wife and some family friends at our house to get ready to all go out to dinner. That is when the cops arrive at my home.
They ask to speak to me and my daughter separately! They ask what I was doing with a little girl in the park, and I explain that the little girl is my daughter and we were walking the nature trail for fun and finding local geocaches. They then say they were called because I looked suspicious with a little girl walking on the trail and ask me to wait while they talk to my daughter! She tells them the exact same things as me. They then ask some of the standard procedure questions and say they will be in touch with any further questions if needed!?
This whole experience has been a total bummer on myself and my daughter. I was embarrased and upset in front of my wife and friends. I swear I look like my daughters father, and I am a normal looking 34 year old man (at least I think so). I was wearing a t-shirt, jeans, and hiking shoes.
Now my daughter has said she is scared the cops are going to arrest us for geocaching together! I told her it is OK, and they were just making sure we were safe on the trail. She is smarter than that though, and she has already said "Yeah right Dad!" I looked up on our local police dispatch website and found the notes of the actual call about us.
Cross streets: //PINECREST Landmark: PINECREST PARK NBH: 892E1 92692 33.65108,-117.639325 INF SAW A MALE SUBJ WALKING WITH A CHILD INTO THE REMOTE ARE THAT IS OFF THE TRAIL BEHIND THE SOCCER FIELD...INF NOT SURE IF THE CHILD BELONGS TO THE SUBJ...LS 10 AGO SUBJ IS MW, 30`s, DK BASEBALL HAT, DK SHIRT, DK PANTS CHILD IS FW WEARING ALL PINKI still haven't even logged our 8 finds that day. I have been bummed out on the whole thing. I understand being suspicious of people, but come on!? Oh well, thanks for letting me write my story and feelings about it out. Anybody else ever have anything like this happen to them and their kids?
The whole story is at the link. (They were geocaching, by the way, participating in a high-tech treasure hunt -- which is why he talks about their "8 finds" above.)
Sadly typical.
Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more
Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more
Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
Pick a little, talk a little, cheep!
jerry at March 30, 2011 12:24 AM
The couple playing with the golden retriever were probably the "Double Income No Kids" types for think that middle class family life is abnormal.
Zeitghost at March 30, 2011 4:04 AM
Why is this a story? He was embarrassed? Depending on whether one is a glass half full, or half empty, person you can look at this two ways: Couple concerned that single man with child is in woods. Perhaps he has lured her there looking for secluded spot to rape and kill her? Police did their job and, we notice, he doesn't say they were even impolite to him.
Yes it's sad we live in a world where innocent children are tortured for someones sick pleasure but isn't it ALSO wonderful that we live in a world where two people will go out of their way due to concern for the welfare of someone elses child?
HE was embarrassed? How "embarrassed" would this couple have been if they ignored their suspicion and read the next day of the discovery of a childs body?
Let's not discourage people from getting involved to protect the welfare of others, even if it's misguided.
Sue at March 30, 2011 4:46 AM
Sue, I was originally on the side of the guy - being a mid 30s single guy who frequently looks after other people's kids, and worries about exactly this scenario - but you're right. The police followed standard procedure as sensitively as can be expected under the circumstances. Of course they questioned the father and daughter separately - how else can they be sure she's not being coerced? Then after that they went away. No suggestion of followup action.
The guy needs to get over it. They're just checking. Given that the majority of abusive situations are family/friends it's reasonable for them to get the child alone to see if there's any distress or fear there. It's still rare of course, but they have to check. Sounds like they did their job well in this case.
Ltw at March 30, 2011 5:13 AM
A similar one I remember from a long time ago around here where a mother smacked a screaming child in the supermarket. Someone reported it as potential child abuse and the police turned up at their home to interview the child. They did the same thing, separated the child and interviewed him separately. From memory, he was about 3.
Lot of fuss about intruding on the family, etc - but when they miss one and a kid dies from being shaken or beaten they get crucified. Hard to blame the cops for investigating.
I suppose once upon a time everyone knew everyone in small towns, which wives/kids were getting beaten up, which guys could be trusted, and so on. It's a cost of increasing population I suppose. The local cop can't exercise judgement anymore because he doesn't know everyone personally.
Ltw at March 30, 2011 5:23 AM
Alright, the police have to respond to whatever call they received. However, once they arrived at the house and found that the girl was simply with her family, this event should have ended. It's not like someone reported that the guy was beating the child, or exposing himself to her. If I were him, I would have simply told the officer that I was hiking with my daughter. The request to interrogate my daughter, separately, would have been met with a refusal. I'd love to hear from an attorney as to the wisdom of allowing the police unfettered access to interrogate my child.
Al at March 30, 2011 5:28 AM
So, yeah, this was awful. But what about the many times a kid has been taken right in front of people and they do nothing? Molesters don't grab a shrieking kid and run, they talk the kid into going somewhere quiet and are very friendly. You're rather damned if you do, damned if you don't. The police, having been called, should have talked to them at the park, and been done with it.
momof4 at March 30, 2011 6:00 AM
Your explanation doesn't make sense Sue. Someone obviously got his license plate, which means they saw much more of his interaction with the child than them headed into the woods. They'd seen them arrive together and proceed through the geocaching course. Now it's not reasonable to expect that the informant knew that they were geocaching, but they certainly would have been able to determine that this wasn't an incident of some stranger luring a child in a park. Funny how you'd twisted the story to justify what happened.
mel at March 30, 2011 6:09 AM
I see "for the children" justifies anything.
MarkD at March 30, 2011 6:12 AM
Sue and LTW,
Are you nanny staters, do you expect to go about your time unfettered? Did you read the story? Shouldn't you have resonable suspicion before over-reacting to seeing a man with a child?
If indeed the police thought there was a danger why in the world did they wait till he got home (if they thought there was a problem they would have missed the boat). Why not simply ask him at the park? They could have ended this easily right then and there. This couple watched him and his daughter, followed them in an open area laughing and having fun and came to the conclusion that something was wrong. This never would have happened if it was a mother and child. Dressing normal, looking normal, acting normal and having fun casts suspicion? WTF is wrong with people.
Questioning the daughter was out of line. Why did the police wait till he got home. That seems more suspicious to me than a father and daughter on a day trip to have a good time.
Shame on anyone who thinks anything about this was kosher. I hope this guys daughter doesn't now look at police as the bad guys for this intrusive and un-necessary power play by the police and the actions of this couple who see ever man as a threat to society.....
Ed at March 30, 2011 6:12 AM
It's "the majority of molesters are male" not the majority of males are molesters." I suppose the confusion of these phrases is why it seems to be OK to profile males interacting with children.
Goo at March 30, 2011 6:18 AM
Sounds like there's a paranoid park neighbor, if the comments at the link are true.
I don't blame the guy for feeling embarrassed. WTF does he have announce on a megaphone that he's teaching his daughter how to geocache and how to use GPS?
Whoever was concerned for the kid shoulda chatted them up before calling the police.
Jason S. at March 30, 2011 6:33 AM
Here where I live families are the norm - and there is no a priori reason to suspect that a man with a young girl is doing something untoward.
It's bizarre how things are apparently quite different elsewhere.
Zeitghost at March 30, 2011 6:43 AM
but they certainly would have been able to determine that this wasn't an incident of some stranger luring a child in a park.
That's a good point, and it undercuts the idea that this person was especially brave or civic minded. Because if they were really thinking ..
Perhaps he has lured her there looking for secluded spot to rape and kill her?
They'd did absolutely nothing about it! They didn't even make the man aware that he was being watched. That would have thwarted any raping or killing right there. They didn't even hang around long enough to assist the police in identifying him at the scene. So it's not likely that the informant really believed any of these things. They probably just saw a man with a child, dropped a dime on him, lied to the police, and went about their business. It's as likely that this was an act of malice, more so than the act of a concerned citizen.
norm at March 30, 2011 6:46 AM
Papers please.
Juliana at March 30, 2011 6:59 AM
Anyone who thinks that's even close to reasonable is likely one of the sheeple who also think that the TSA is actually keeping us "safe".
While I have mixed feeligs on the cops being called at all, I have a HUGE problem with the fact that the father and child were questioned after the fact and IN THEIR OWN HOME! This was not a case of suspected child abuse being reported to social services wherein I would support a police investigation, this was a case of over reaction by random people in a park simply because he was a male adult and she was female minor. Period. But, I guess I am the type to take the side of "good intentions" and give whomever called the cops the benefit of the doubt (clearly unable to tell the difference between "stranger danger" and "father and daughter time" but still likely well intended). The argument that "well the police were only doing their jobs" doesn't fly with me at all. If the cops thought there was actually a problem with the situtuation, it should have been dealt with while they were watching the "male" and child at the park. Why would they wait until he got the child into his car and drove away? If they truly thought the child was in danger, wouldn't it have made more sense to prevent the child getting into the car with the "male" at all? Interogating the child in her own home, AFTER it became clear that there was no harm, was an uneccassary intrusion and all for show. Dad could have and should have refused to allow it. (Although, I can understand his reluctance because refusal to blindly cooperate with authority these days automatically makes people suspect you have something to hide.)
Mark D said: "I see "for the children" justifies anything."
But but but... what about the chhhiiiiiiilllddrrreeennnn?! We must protect them from men who want to take them to nature trails and expose them to fresh air and geography! THE HORRORS!
I question any govt action that is justified with "for the children", "for your own good", and "for your safety".
Sabrina at March 30, 2011 7:05 AM
I see "for the children" justifies anything.
Yes, amazing and depressing to see that even on Amy's blog, people are willing to let emotion blind them.
Astra at March 30, 2011 7:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/03/30/police_report_m.html#comment-1979427">comment from normI posted this because I think it's really sad (and horrible) that the mere sight of a man with a child has become a cause for concern. When I see a man with a kid, my first thought is "How sweet...a daddy/daughter or daddy/son outing," and I remember the times my dad would take me somewhere with him, which were really special times for me as a kid. When did man start to equal kiddie rapist -- and why?
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2011 7:11 AM
"When did man start to equal kiddie rapist -- and why?"
Since the the creation of 24 hour news coverage. I mean, there are 1000's of children who AREN'T abused, but all you hear about is the abused ones. When the story breaks, the news stations milk it for weeks so that seems to be all people remember. It's quite poisonous.
Sabrina at March 30, 2011 7:16 AM
Sabrina you should consider that the informants may have lied to the police. Realistically most PD's aren't going to send two cars to canvas an area, and then pursue the suspect to their home for an interrogation with no cause. A report that there's a man walking in the park with a girl just doesn't warrant so much effort. Whoever called the police probably embellished a bit.
mel at March 30, 2011 7:18 AM
This makes me sick, sad, and so scared for our society and for my husband who is a wonderful man.
I actually have a very relevant story that I’ve been wanting to share, but it seemed out of place on the blog posts lately, and I didn’t want to bug you with an E-mail about it. I thought of you immediately when my husband told me about it though, and it’s perfect for this post:
Just to give a little background, my husband and I are 25, but he looks younger, and he’s tall and slim, so not exactly a threatening looking person. So, a few weeks ago he was driving home from work and was only a few blocks away from our house when he saw a young boy on one of those scooters that look like a skateboard with handles. The boy was with a little girl, who was on a bike. Well, the boy came around the corner and completely wiped out, faceplant and all. Then he didn’t get up. The girl didn’t help either, she turned around and started riding in the other direction. So, a couple of cars just drove on by, but my husband pulled over to make sure the kid was okay. As he approached a woman, presumably mom, came around the corner, taking her time, and my husband asked “is he yours? Is he okay?” to which she didn’t change her pace, just kept poking along and said in a nasty tone “he’s fine!” and she seemed angry that husband even stopped.
So he just turned around and got back into the jeep and left because he didn’t want her getting nastier with him. The kid didn’t get up; the mom didn’t seem to care, and seemed more upset that my husband had stopped than anything. Husband wasn’t even within reach of the kid, either; he just wanted to make sure the kid was okay.
When he told me that story all I could think was that I was glad I had such a great man, but that I hoped he was careful in the future because you never know how a crazy mother is going to react.
Angie at March 30, 2011 7:25 AM
Mel... perhaps.... But then I guess I don't understand why they would wait until AFTER they got home to confront them.
According to the call description, the caller suspected didn't know if the girl was his daughter or not. The cops were obviously trailing them in the park. If they thought this was a kidnapping or the like, then why allow her to get in the car with him? If it was THAT severe, why not confront them AT the park instead? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Sabrina at March 30, 2011 7:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/03/30/police_report_m.html#comment-1979460">comment from SabrinaTheir reaction seems to be about calling the police to report somebody for being male rather than actually protecting a child. Oddly, it combines both being meddling with not wanting to get involved. They could have walked over and said hi and talked to the two, and if they were friendly, and they would likely have heard the girl tell them she's geocaching with her daddy.
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2011 7:34 AM
The guy needs to get over it. They're just checking.
Yeah, you're right.
The TSA is "just checking".
Next time he's out with his daughter driving down the road, they should be pulled over. "Just checking".
The first words out of his mouth should have been We're invoking our right to counsel. And then shut up.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 30, 2011 7:40 AM
Oh, and in case any of y'all wonder why I, as a dude, have zero interest in helping lost children, this is it.
Because of the presumption of guilt in these cases. "Just to check." "Just to be safe."
I R A Darth Aggie at March 30, 2011 7:45 AM
Act of malice seems unlikely. Act of laziness... "Eh, its probably fine but let's report it just in case so that if she gets killed we won't feel guilty, but we don't REALLY think he's a murderer so we don't need to stick around. It's just in case".
NicoleK at March 30, 2011 7:58 AM
I bet the man in the story is not only guilty of "male" but is also white. The Oh-So-Concerned people calling the police undoubtedly would not have done so if the man wore a darker skin.
This sort of thing is why I avoid kids while I'm jogging. If I see children playing in the street ahead of me, I turn around and take another route. I not only don't trust any of the adults who may be looking out of their kitchen window but I don't trust the kid who may think it would be funny to call the cops on a fat white guy running down his street.
I see one good thing here though: the daughter has hopefully learned the government cannot be trusted.
Phocion Timon at March 30, 2011 8:03 AM
Goddess: "When did man start to equal kiddie rapist?"
Sabrina: "Since the the creation of 24 hour news coverage."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nope. Better answer: since the rise in divorce - as the like-a-fish-needs-a-bicycle strain of man-optional feminism broke families apart and marked men as "victimizers".
Ben David at March 30, 2011 8:28 AM
'Oh, and in case any of y'all wonder why I, as a dude, have zero interest in helping lost children, this is it.
Because of the presumption of guilt in these cases. "Just to check." "Just to be safe."'
Ditto. A couple of years ago on another forum discussing a similar situation I was called a paranoid wacko for saying I avoid interacting with kids I don't know with no other adults around. Valuing my liberty over some kid is eeevil or something.
This case is just another example I can toss into the file of man=perv if he's with a kid alone. I think its part of the anti-male culture we live in and maternal gatekeeping.
Sio at March 30, 2011 8:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/03/30/police_report_m.html#comment-1979663">comment from SioIf I were a man, I'd sure be worried.
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2011 8:35 AM
I have a friend who works at the huge social services complex in Santa Ana. She has been there for over 2o years and she told me "50% of the cases of child molestation are charges brought about by some woman who had a boyfriend or husband that has left them. Charges that are mostly for retaliation purposes. Another 10-25% to gain some advantage in divorce proceedings" Add another 10% for false child abuse charges.
The actual percentage of real molestation/abuse charges is under 5%, if that high. It's a shame that so much effort and resources are wasted on wild goose chases. Yes we need to protect children, but I think we should prosecute women who make false charges.
JD at March 30, 2011 8:42 AM
I'm less concerned with the people who called to report it than I am with the actions of the police. As Sabrina said, WHY did they wait until the two got home, instead of stopping them and talking to them at the park, if they were concerned? That's insane.
WayneB at March 30, 2011 9:06 AM
On the one hand: I go hiking with my boy every weekend, and have never experienced anything like this, not even a strange stare. Thank God I live in a place where people aren't paranoid.
On the other hand: About ten miles from where I live there was a serial killer, Joeseph Duncan, who killed a random family except for the two young children. He took the children into the woods where I have hiked with my friends, and lived at a public campsite for almost a year with the kidnapped young girl. He killed the little boy in front of his sister at the campsite, burned his body and kept the little girl as his trophy.
Call it Stockholm Syndrome or whatever, but they made regular visits in town just miles from where all 4 murders were comitted. They were eventually caught in the Denny's down the street by some people who thought they recognized the girl and called the police.
The girl is safe now, and the killer\kidnapper\child rapist is enjoying an unlimited legal expense account and room and board at taxpayer's expense while admitting to murders in other states.
Eric at March 30, 2011 9:15 AM
"Your explanation doesn't make sense Sue. Someone obviously got his license plate, which means they saw much more of his interaction with the child than them headed into the woods."
No, the police got his liscense plate from watching him get in the car. I think the police were off in their handling, and the person who reported didn't do the best, but if they really thought there was a problem, should they be expected to risk their life? There are plenty of people in the comments above saying they would never help a kid through fear of having to talk to cops, so I don't think these same people should be expected to confront a potentially armed perp.
momof4 at March 30, 2011 9:26 AM
Story some years ago from U.K.; truck driver saw very young girl alone, didn't bother to pick her up because of fear of false accusations. She drowned in a nearby pond. I also avoid helping. Who does that leave to stop and offer help? The perpetrators, that's who. The fear of a minority has rendered the majority helpless, and women and children die because of it.
tonysprout at March 30, 2011 9:40 AM
I can't believe how many people are saying, "Better safe than sorry." If the cops really thought he might be abducting this child, why the fuck did they let him drive off with her and then show up at his house later? There's no mention that they followed him home, what if he'd gone elsewhere rather than to the address at which his vehicle was registered? Would they have followed the family to a restaurant and questioned them in front of everyone? Why not address the dad right there in the park and get a feel for whether or not something was shady?
Beth at March 30, 2011 10:00 AM
First there was DWB - Driving While Black.
Now there's WWM - Walking While Male.
hadsil at March 30, 2011 10:15 AM
"It's "the majority of molesters are male" not the majority of males are molesters." I suppose the confusion of these phrases is why it seems to be OK to profile males interacting with children." Goo.
Except these ideas aren't the most truthful... Especially If you take the broader subset of "abuse"... because molestation isn't broken out by gender of the perp in this type of report...
"Nearly 40 percent (38.7%) of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone." This is DOUBLE the rate for fathers.
This from Heath and Human Services, and their report on abuse [2007 latest figures]. Here:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/table3_15.htm
Look at that table and see where the vanishingly small numbers are.
Neither the average person, nor the police seem to have any sense of proportion, or ability to understand RISK.
Also? When the police are contacted, there are certain proceedures for the contact, and generally they are an avalanche that you cannot change the direction of. ESP. "whan it's for the children" they err on the side of presumption against the male.
Since I have a school age daughter, and I take her to the library or bike riding or whatever one night a week, these kinds of stories bring a lot of anxiety. If there was any such innocent report, you can bet your bottom dollar my ex would use that to make sure I never see either of my children again. This guy ultimately was lick.
When you get all those gears in motion, there are many bad outcomes.
SwissArmyD at March 30, 2011 10:39 AM
"This guy ultimately was lick"
yeah, I can spell LUCKY
SwissArmyD at March 30, 2011 10:44 AM
To those who are saying the guy should "just get over it" - you really need to go fuck yourselves with a chainsaw. Really.
Your reasoning seems to be you can never be too careful and since most molesters are men (which happens to be false; we just never prosecute female molesters, or if we do, they get a slap on the hand)- well let's go with this. The overwhelming majority of kidnappers of infants are women. So would you be cool with the police stopping every woman they see with an infant, whether at in a department store or grocery store or on the street, just in case? Because there's an equally good chance, or actually a better chance.
Well, I'm not cool with it at all. It's absurd and vile, just like your position and comments.
Jim at March 30, 2011 10:52 AM
Well, this really pissed me off until I realized it is in California. Hey, if you live with all those liberal wackos you get what you deserve. Like Jim above, I think we should start stopping all of the mommies with strollers going around parks and make them show ID's or proof the child belongs to them and has not just recently been cut out of the womb of another woman whose body is lying behind some bushes somewhere...
This is nothing but politically correct discrimination against men. All of you liberals (women) saying "get over it" go screw yourselves.
mike at March 30, 2011 11:46 AM
I did a Google search on the coordinates provided in the report (33.65108,-117.639325) to find that the park is located in Orange County, California, in Rancho Santa Margarita. Funny, I thought that was considered an upper middle class area with a low crime rate. You'd think people would be less suspicious of one another in a place like that as opposed to a crime ridden area. Then again, perhaps not.
MIOnline at March 30, 2011 12:28 PM
Your reasoning seems to be you can never be too careful and since most molesters are men
When men have started avoiding children, leaving them vulnerable to the true predators, you're being too careful.
I do think that there's an element of misandry at play here, and female chauvinism. We're living with several generations of women who've been conditioned to fear men and regard them as morally inferior to women. So their natural inclination is to perceive situations like this as threatening. The same women who'd grown up in the ALL HETEROSEXUAL SEX IS RAPE world of the 90's are now mothers. It's probably difficult for them to put those beliefs aside. When they see a man with a child, they unconsciously assume that he wants to rape the child. That's just the way that they were raised.
salygator at March 30, 2011 12:28 PM
How many who think this is OK are OK with the pastor getting searched (and beaten) 50 miles from the border?
Logical consistency isn't all that easy to find.
MarkD at March 30, 2011 12:33 PM
Wow- from SwissArmyD's link: 80% of all child maltreatment comes directly from one of the parents. That so many are women I am sure is skewed by the number of children growing up in single (usually woman) parent homes, but still very sobering.
Eric at March 30, 2011 1:26 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/03/30/police_report_m.html#comment-1980349">comment from EricStep-parents, per Martin Daly and the late Margo Wilson, are very risky for kids. Now, I'm not saying all step-parents are evil...just that having another biologically non-related (to the kids) adult in the home can prove dangerous or dicey.
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2011 1:27 PM
And the two step-parent families I know are just the opposite- the stepparent is involved while the biological parent is a workaholic who doesn't give a shit! (No abuse suspected in either.) Irony....
Eric at March 30, 2011 1:46 PM
Sue, you really think that every time a man is spotted alone with his daughter in public, the police should be called? Really? WTF? What you are basically saying - the logical conclusion of your argument - is that no man should ever be alone with a child unless 'supervised by authorities'. As a man with a baby girl on the way, who looks forward to being able to do things like hiking with my daughter without being made to constantly feel like a sicko, and recognizing that this forum is generally a civil one, I find myself having some difficulty self-censoring what I'd like to say you should go do with yourself. You are not making society a better place.
Lobster at March 30, 2011 2:23 PM
"Their reaction seems to be about calling the police to report somebody for being male rather than actually protecting a child."
The reaction is so stupid that I find myself wondering if this isn't malicious. Keeping in mind the obvious 'chilling effect' of these oft-publicized cases that lead men to start behaving as if they have a guilty conscience already even if they're innocent, could there be some sub-sect of fundamentalist feminists who hate men so much that they do things like this on purpose to further an anti-male, male-vilification agenda? They say 'don't attribute to malice blah blah' but it doesn't seem implausible to me. Then again, even people on this forum seem to agree it's a great idea to call the police on any male seen alone with a child.
Lobster at March 30, 2011 2:32 PM
"If the cops really thought he might be abducting this child, why the fuck did they let him drive off with her and then show up at his house later?"
I'm guessing they probably soon realized how stupid this all was, but had to follow procedure anyway. Luckily; this sort of thing does create opportunities for abuse though. Moreover, you get all these morons who think "there's no smoke without fire" so now so many rumors will spread about this poor guy just because the cops showed up that this will likely cast a shadow over his whole life - and his daughters - harming them both. As it is, he will never be able to play with her in public again without constant anxiety and worry and wondering, is someone going to call the cops on him, and could it be worse next time. Sue loves this idea, apparently.
Lobster at March 30, 2011 2:39 PM
Lobster hits an important point. How does this affect his daughter's relationship with him? Is she going to worry that her Daddy will get in trouble somehow if they go fo a hike? Or a bikeride? This sort of theing is pernicious, stealthly working into interactions. So her little friends on the block ask why the copcars were there... Even if they go geocaching again, who's watching? Are there satellites watching too?
Kids WORRY over stuff like that, that too is not a good outcome. They'll both overcome this, but the important thing is that it didn't NEED to happen. But this is the laziness of people who invest everything in the police. Instead of looking at a situation directly, they use police as a proxy. Removing that degree of fidelity causes a lot of misunderstanding.
If they were worried about the kid, they could have gone over and asked what they were doing. GeoCaching is an interesting thing. Then you figure out the situation directly.
This is a really subtle situation where the police are a nuke option. It's likely that the person who called this in will never know what has happened, nor do they likely care, and that is a devastating soft power.
There is actually a lot more to this than meets the eye. Getting OVER it doesn't help the problem, and the people who reported this did not follow anything to conclusion. If I was suspicious enough to call the cops, I would also be suspicious enough to keep them in sight in case there was IMMINENT danger to the child, and if needs be I would act.
that's the problem here... Letting the "police take care of it..." means after the fact. What were the people so worried about if they themselves did nothing?
SwissArmyD at March 30, 2011 3:18 PM
I have two sons. I used to regret that I had no daughters. No more.
ken at March 30, 2011 4:34 PM
I posted this because I think it's really sad (and horrible) that the mere sight of a man with a child has become a cause for concern.
I agree, it's very sad. As I said, I have no children of my own and often look after other people's, taking them out for lunch and so on. One day the same sort of thing might happen to me. The couple who called it in obviously overreacted. But given that the call was made the police had to do something to investigate - they can't just sit with their feet on the desk and say "sounds like a guy with his daughter, we won't bother". I agree that stopping for a quick chat when they spotted them at the park would have been more sensible. Maybe they didn't go about it the best way, but I doubt there's much harm done.
It's not like this guy has been charged with anything, and I think he, and a lot of people here, are getting worked up over not very much.
Ltw at March 30, 2011 4:57 PM
Somewhat relevant...I stand by what I've said but this demonstrates though what people have been complaining about the "let the police handle it" attitude.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/young-child-killed-by-train/story-fn7x8me2-1226030970959
Several witnesses saw a six year old kid walking down the road and no one stopped to check what was up? Till he walked in front of a train and they all came forward the next morning.
"Snr Sgt Coles said just one call from the public may have saved the boy's life."
Forget calling - one person with the sense to stop and ask the kid why he was on his own would have saved his life.
So yes, in that sense, the demonisation of interfering with children is very, very sad.
Ltw at March 30, 2011 6:40 PM
So you're OK with warrantless searches because you've got nothing to hide, right?
MarkD at March 30, 2011 6:52 PM
This is yet another reason why I do not interact with children in public unless it's absolutely, no-doubt-about-it necessary. Middle-aged white guy with no children of his own... yeah, I know how that's going to go down.
Cousin Dave at March 30, 2011 7:40 PM
MarkD, I don't live in the US so 4th Amendment rights (is that correct?) don't apply to me in any case. I think you'll find that having received a call from someone who was concerned constitutes probable cause though. Although as I said the complaint was stupid and sad.
But if you're asking whether I would have a problem with cops coming to ask me a couple of questions when I was taking my friend's daughter out for lunch, and check with her that she was ok, maybe call her parents, then yes, I'm ok with it. They've got a job to do, and a big downside if they fuck it up.
If it went any further I'd be pissed off, yes. If they arrested me or even pulled me in for questioning I'd be clamming up till I got a lawyer. But neither happened in this case.
Ltw at March 30, 2011 7:58 PM
Sue, what was the behavior of the man towards his daughter that was any sort of reasonable cause to call the police in the first place?
Walking with her?
Any male that walks with his daughter now deserves to have a police interrogation?
I assume since you have a vagina, that anytime you walk around in public we can accuse you of being a hooker and interrogate you, right?
jerry at March 30, 2011 8:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/03/30/police_report_m.html#comment-1982553">comment from jerryAny one of you could be a bank robber, or a shoplifter or a home-invasion robber. Should we be allowed to stop any of you randomly on the street and search you? What if we have a reason, like that we think you look kind of shifty?
Amy Alkon at March 30, 2011 8:19 PM
There are plenty of people in the comments above saying they would never help a kid through fear of having to talk to cops, so I don't think these same people should be expected to confront a potentially armed perp.
mo4,
You have the same dichotomy of thought as my ex-GF had/has.
I came of age in the mid/late 80's when the Child Sexual Abuse crap was starting. I had a friend who was a caring, sweet father that loved his kids. He ended being a convicted pedophile, that was afraid to hold his kids. You also had the McMartin Pre-school, let alone the other crap cases that occurred.
It wasn't until the last 4-5 years I would be around a child. My ex-GF would let me watch her kids while she went to exercise or do other things. I truly enjoyed it. She had no problem with me watching her kids without a background check.
The dichotomy came in when I mentioned about Amy's blog (want to say December 2008) about needing a background check to attend an elementary school Christmas play.
She saw that as reasonable.
The dichotomy comes in from trusting me as a private person with no background check baby sitting her children in private. But it is reasonable to check everybody who might be near a child in a public setting as if they are a molester.
Once you, and everyone, can solve that issue -- when you speak out on the issue I can respect it.
www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/07/24/why_men_shouldn.html
Jim P. at March 30, 2011 8:27 PM
I don't why the cops didn't just talk to him in the park. Something is fishy there. And I don't blame men at all for steering clear of little kids for precisely this reason. Hell, I'm a woman and *I* won't go near them, either. "OMGWTF there's a strange woman near my child!!!!" There's some damn hysterical people out there.
What cracks me up about this is that there are a lot of people who cry and complain that fathers aren't involved enough in their kids' lives, and then this is the thanks they get for trying.
Sick, stupid, and just plain WRONG.
Daghain at March 30, 2011 9:13 PM
"They ask to speak to me and my daughter separately"
Always a good time to remind everyone: Don't. Talk. To. The. Cops.
They are not your friends. They are not your advocates. They are not "just trying to figure out what's going on." They are collecting evidence. Don't give them any.
Unless you're a criminal. Then odds are you are stupid enough to immediately confess anyway.
Snakeman99 at March 30, 2011 9:13 PM
Jim P, skimming through the comments at your link, I was reminded of the high school tutoring I did while I was at university. Some parents would set up the kitchen table for the tutoring session, others were happy for the student to use their usual desk in their room, door closed and all. And bear in mind in some cases these were 17-18 year old girls and I was 21. I suppose these days I would insist on a visible location to protect myself. At the time I didn't even think about it.
And no, never - before you ask. Never considered it. I'm sticking to that story :)
Always a good time to remind everyone: Don't. Talk. To. The. Cops.
Which is a good way to guarantee yourself a trip to the station in this situation Snakeman. Yes, they're not your friends and you should never think that, but some idiot has called them, and they have to get some answers, just to tick their boxes. You can go through the rigmarole of calling a lawyer, having your daughter dragged down to the police station, questioned and possibly examined, or you can answer a few simple questions and have them go away. Which they did. If they're going to frame you up for something it'll happen whether you consent to the initial questioning or not. I can't see what the police did wrong here, they responded to a call, worked out there was no problem, and went away.
Ltw at March 31, 2011 12:06 AM
Although I'm as disturbed by this story as anyone from a fourth amendment standpoint, I think it also illustrates a societal tragedy that no one has yet mentioned.
It has become rare to see children in America out of doors playing and even more rare to see involved parents interacting with them. Apparently, rare enough to raise eyebrows when it happens.
I experienced something like this (minus the molester angle) while living in one particular neighborhood. The neighborhood was full of children. Everyone for blocks around had children in their house. However, in the hours you would expect them to be out playing, it was an eerily quiet neighborhood. Presumably because they were strapped to video games or television and kept safely indoors.
My kids, on the other hand, were encouraged to go out and play and myself or my wife would often be out there with them. This must have seemed weird to the neighbors and we had the police called for non-crimes several times.
One example was that my son, who was around ten or so, was climbing a tree in his own front yard with me supervising at the foot of the tree. As I was suggesting branches that might make a good foothold, the police pulled up. They had been called to "the scene". Why they responded to a call that said, "there is a boy climbing a tree" is anyone's guess, but there they were.
Other police calls included, "three local children running in their yard without shoes." This was during August in the Southeast!
Here is another one, "Five year old girl running around without a top." Jesus, who is the sicko? She's five!
As in the case of this man and his daughter, no charges were ever filed and nothing untoward was ever discovered. But, while we lived in that neighborhood, my children had a real and daily fear of the police taking them away from the security of their family. That's not something that "isn't a big deal".
I have several other ridiculous examples available upon request.
But, the police were just doing their job and had to respond, right? Bullshit. "Man and girl walking on nature trail" is not something that needs a police response.
I hope this guy doesn't "learn his lesson" and keep his daughter out of all possible harms way by tethering her to an X-box during beautiful sunny days. You know, just to be safe.
By the way, I smiled while reading this and remembering the many fun days I spent geocaching with my children. It's one of those fantastic things to enjoy with your kids and it costs nothing once you've bought the PDA with GPS enabled (I guess people have smart phones now that will do it). For those looking for fun, cheap ways to spend quality time with your kids, more info and 'scavenger hunts' in your area can be found at www.geocaching.com. You'll likely find trails and parks in your area that you never would've found otherwise.
whistleDick at March 31, 2011 2:00 AM
Reading the comments about how men now have to be afraid to help a child they see wandering outside alone brought back a memory.
One autumn when my son was 6 he accompanied his father and his grandfather to the family cabin on a Great Lake to meet with an electrician. While they were talking to the guy in the front yard, my son disappeared. He was a cautious kid never inclined to wander off and his dad was if anything a hoverer, a very conscientious parent. It was one of those things when you speak to someone for a moment and when you turn around the child is gone.
They searched and searched and couldn't find him. The police were called. There was a huge lake on one side and swamp and woods on another side. The police found small footprints that stopped at a muddy area where a vehicle had been parked earlier in the day. Neighbors said the vehicle was a camper with South Carolina license plates. That camper was tracked down on the highway and searched. It belonged to some men who had been up here hunting. The camper was empty and I can imagine how awful that must have been for those hunters. A helicopter flew over part of the lake looking for my son as the cabin was in a bay and the lake is shallow for quite a ways out. A couple came forward and said they had been taking a walk and met a little boy who told them ?something, it't not clear what, and they not realizing the seriousness of the situation told him to run along back to his camp.
About 2 1/2 hours after he vanished a call came in from a woman. Her two daughters, ages 12 and 10, had been out riding their bikes about a mile and a half from our camp and came across a little boy who told them he was lost. They brought him home. When the call came in the police were just about to issue an Amber alert.
It makes my stomach drop to realize that if a man had seen my son wandering he would have to hesitate to approach him or help. It reminds me of a case somewhere out west where a (I think) boy scout got separated from his group and was lost for a couple of days. He actually heard searchers calling to him but hid because he had been taught to be so wary of strangers.
Lizzie at March 31, 2011 5:11 AM
@Lizzie,
Holy crap that must have been frightening. I'm so happy that it turned out alright. Your little boy must have been terribly frightened, too. I'm really glad I never had that kind of a scare when my kids were small. Though, when they were that age, I had recurring nightmares about just that sort of thing. I couldn't imagine going through it and not being able to simply wake up in a sweat.
whistleDick at March 31, 2011 5:31 AM
And all this discussion above reminds me of why, as a second career, I decided against going into teaching. A middle aged white male, becoming a teacher? The HORRORS!
gospace at March 31, 2011 6:06 AM
This sounds like profilling to me. Would the cops have done the same if it was a woman?
Stagger Lee at March 31, 2011 7:32 AM
LTW, I think you'll find that a phone call from some "concerned" busybody doesn't meet any legal definition of probable cause. If it did, why would police need warrants? They are "concerned" and they have phones.
I'm outraged by the whole thing, and had it ever happened to me, we'd be in lawsuit for false arrest territory.
MarkD at March 31, 2011 9:13 AM
As the father of a daughter I'm releaved to know that people are still willing to be concerned for others welfare. The other side of this story is the outrage everybody (Including this girls father) would have had had he not been the father, it NOT been reported and her body was later discovered along the way. Everybody would be pointing fingers asking why nobody bothered to report such. It's a story that happens far far too often in todays world. Instead of being appreciative of the concern by the public and responce of the police the man is offended? The child is now scared of the police? FOR MAKING SURE SHE'S SAFE!?! I'm be more inclined to think that fear has been put into her by the reaction of the parent and his embarrassment. An embarrassement that gives me pause to wonder about what kind of person he must be to get upset of the police checking on the welfare of a young child, his own daughter at that.
The truth of the matter is it isn't a nice world any more. Evil exists and bad things happen. This should be a positive story of a happy ending and an example of how somebody out there is actually concerned and looking out for others nowadays. A story about police doing their job and making sure things are on the up and up. Instead people are offended that it was all ado about nothing when it could have ended in tragedy. A tragedy that happens more than most apparently think.
If you see a man walking into a suspicous place with a small child, female at that, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE REPORT IT. It might embarrass a dumba** but it could also save a young childs life.
Frank at March 31, 2011 9:51 AM
... and conversely, if you see a woman with a small child — especially a worthless male one — do nothing because all woman are morally pure angels who are incapable of evil.
dee nile at March 31, 2011 10:07 AM
@whistleDick
I discovered that denial really is the brain's way of defending a psychic blow. When I got the call and he said "X is missing", I said, "No, he's not missing, he's with you". When he said they were searching the lake with a helicopter I had a strange sensation of my mind almost shutting down and refusing to process what it was hearing. Right before he hung up I actually said to him, "Is this a joke?" Totally bizarre on my part since what parent would joke about such a thing? Looking back now from a distance I can see how those hunters from South Carolina must have felt to be pulled over and searched on suspicion of kidnapping.
For me it lasted only 30 minutes, albeit the longest 30 minutes of my life, since they didn't call me right away. By that time his poor dad was near collapse. Our son didn't seem obviously scared or affected but he wouldn't say much about it either so I think he dealt with it by sort of shutting down.
Lizzie at March 31, 2011 10:45 AM
"If you see a man walking into a suspicous place with a small child, female at that, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE REPORT IT. It might embarrass a dumba** but it could also save a young childs life."
Frank he wasn't taking her into a "suspicous place". They were enjoying a fun day in a public PARK!!! Acording to your logic anyone out in public with a child is suspicous and should be reported. Come on, you are the real dumba**!!
Esther at March 31, 2011 11:35 AM
Frank. So does the same rule apply to women walking with children? Lets say I saw woman walking with a young boy down that same path. Should I automatically suspect her as not being that childs mother and call the cops? Or is it just MEN walking with young girls that is suspicious? Because there's simply no way can a MAN possibly be spending time with a young girl and it NOT be totally innocent right? If so, then you are a fucking hypocrite.
And newsflash... it's NEVER BEEN A NICE WORLD. Bad things have been happening for generations. To children and adults. We only hear about them more because there are more access to news now than there ever has been.
Sabrina at March 31, 2011 12:01 PM
"...117.639325 INF SAW A MALE SUBJ WALKING WITH A CHILD INTO THE REMOTE ARE THAT IS OFF THE TRAIL BEHIND THE SOCCER FIELD...INF NOT SURE IF THE CHILD BELONGS TO THE SUBJ...LS..."
Esther, yes he was. The above was a part of the police report.
Frank at March 31, 2011 12:03 PM
Sorry, but all of you who are stating how wonderful it is that this man was harassed by the police, who were just doing their job, are idiots.
1) nothing suspicious happened that the police should have been called to begin with.
2) At the point that the police showed up at the door and found out from him AND HIS WIFE that this was their child, they should have immediately left - not interrogated a child, nor her father.
This whole "nanny state," "let's involve 'the government authorities' in everything we do" mindset is really, really sick!
Son of Bob at March 31, 2011 12:10 PM
Perhaps in your politically correct world I am a hypocrit Sabrina but statistics say that the danger is far greater between a male subject victimizing a female than a female victimizing a male. True enough it does occur and I surely wouldn't fault the prudence. And it's true enough that it has been a bad world all along, but the indifference aspect is far greater nowday. True, too, we hear about things quicker but the incidence rate has skyrocketed also.
Frank at March 31, 2011 12:11 PM
I wonder what you will think, Frank, when it is YOU under suspicion. Do you have ANY idea how RARE kidnaps are? The public sees every single one, becasue it is a bad thing and is on the news. But what are the ODDs? You don't have a clear understanding of risk. How is a park, a suspicious place? Are you generally suspicious of Women? with children?
dee nile picked a good screen name to comment back to you. you are not JUST in denial, but you contribute to the very problem, because you can't see how your own relationship with your daughter could be misunderstood from somebody elses Point Of View.
SwissArmyD at March 31, 2011 12:25 PM
NO WE DON'T see every one SwissArmyD! Rare it's not! Google how many kids go missing each year. Take a look at the display most WalMarts have at their entrance (it'll show just a small small part of them).
This man had to answer a few questions to clear this up. I'd gladly answer a few questions to clear up somebody checking the welfare of my daughter over ignoring the potential consequence of not following up.
Go ask that Smith girls family if the police should have not followed up and asked questions when they found a "mother" with her and the kidnapper.
If the police were "harassing" this man because they followed up a citizens suspicions that thankfully turned put to be unfounded so be it. It's their job to follow up things like that, for the alternative is to allow an evil person the freedom to carry out evil deeds.
In this case there was a concern raised. We only hear the mans version of what went on, not the version of the events from the other side, and we should remember there are ALWAYS two sides to every story. The police followed up on that concern. That's their job. Had they not done so they would not have been doing their duty. After their concern was satisfied that there was no problem they left and went on their way. This man seems offended that somebody was concerned for the welfare of his daughter, and THAT concerns me. I was always taught it's better to be safe than sorry.
Frank at March 31, 2011 4:47 PM
"Rare it's not! Google how many kids go missing each year."
Got your panties in a knot, doncha?
Yes, it's rare.
Try comparing "go missing" with "out of sight of parents", not what you're thinking.
When you're looking at the wall at WalMart (ahem), count those cases, then count the kids right there in that store.
While you're at it, notice how many were abducted by one of their parents.
Now, how the hell is that reduced by reporting Dad out with his Suzie?
You've just bought the hysteria. Now, repeat one more time, "It's for the chillllldrennn!"
And bend over. I think you have something to hide!
Radwaste at March 31, 2011 5:05 PM
The police dispatch is RIGHT THERE, you can see that their only reason to act is that: "INF NOT SURE IF THE CHILD BELONGS TO THE SUBJ..."
did that person ASK? Did that person actually figure out if there WAS suspicious behavior? Even regular people can proceed on the idea of probable cause or suspicion. Go ask a Dad, even you, if he is having a nice afternoon hike with the kid, and oh, yeah what did you find out there?
He'll be happy to talk to you, tell you pridfully about all the cool things his daughter found.
Right there is the first check. IF the people were concerned about the welfare of the kid, they are concerned right there. IF they have a real concern, they aren't going to let the guy out of their sight. The Police WOULD have contacted right there too.
If anyone was really suspicious, and they had been correct? WERE THEY THERE TO STOP ANYTHING FROM OCCURING?
All this stuff happened after the FACT.
The people that called the cops did NOTHING to prevent a situation from occuring. If they had been correct with their wispy suspicion, this would be in the headlines because they didn't stop it.
The outcome we are discussing is the opposite of a good one, because nobody is safer.
The sombodies that were concerned for the wlefare of this man's daughter IN FACT DID NOTHING to make sure she was safe.
The police are there to clean up AFTER something happens. YOU are the person who prevents something from happening. And if you are wrong you get to apologise.
If you actually want to be safe, you have to work for it, calling the police isn't what helps.
PS, as for rarity of kids missing every year?
The answer you are looking for is:
115.
"800,000 children younger than 18 are missing each year, or an average of 2,000 children reported missing each day. [for all reasons including runaways]
200,000 children were were abducted by family members.
58,000 children were abducted by nonfamily members, and
115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. These crimes involve someone the child does not know, or knows only slightly, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently."
By far the largest number are FAMILY MEMBERS.
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2816
There are roughly ~63 MILLION children under the age of 14 in the US.
and 115 are kidnapped and killed by STRANGERS.
You wanna worry about something, worry about your daughter getting killed in a car accident, and TEACH her how to deal with a stranger, empower her to KNOW what to do. And then you will be worrying over the right things.
SwissArmyD at March 31, 2011 5:21 PM
What I'm worried about is the indifference you show and the fact that this "parent" got bent out of shape because someone was actually concerned about the welfare fo his daughter when they concidered his actions 'unusual' at best. Far too many people don't want to 'get involved' and that leads to sad endings in many many cases each year. They did the right thing.
Thousands of kids go missing each year and yes indeed often parents are involved, sad to say. THOUSANDS of kids... many of whom end up exploited and abused. Yet you believe it would be prudent for the police to ignore that? Sad man. Sad.
Again, here's what the police had to go on:"...INF SAW A MALE SUBJ WALKING WITH A CHILD INTO THE REMOTE ARE THAT IS OFF THE TRAIL BEHIND THE SOCCER FIELD...INF NOT SURE IF THE CHILD BELONGS TO THE SUBJ...LS 10 AGO SUBJ IS MW, 30`s, DK BASEBALL HAT, DK SHIRT, DK PANTS CHILD IS FW WEARING ALL PINK..."
...in a remote area, off the trail... and you wouldn't be concerned?
As far as my daughter goes I've taught her well. And I've taught her to be considerate and concerned for her fellow man. She's grown now but that just changes the cercumstances of life. I hope that if she is ever in any danger people such as yourself won't turn a blind eye and walk on by. Sadly so many would.
Frank at March 31, 2011 7:48 PM
I would take a double take and watch and/or follow if the child was showing distress, against my better judgment.
But I'm also stupid enough to sit on the hood of my car and watch a pair of adults have an animated discussion in a parking lot.
But if I see an unescorted child in Walmart, I don't respond for fear of what can happen to me.
Jim P. at March 31, 2011 8:17 PM
I'm outraged by the whole thing, and had it ever happened to me, we'd be in lawsuit for false arrest territory.
MarkD - Well, he didn't get arrested, so this hypothetical lawsuit would die on the spot. On the other hand, if they had exercised their judgement to ignore the call, they would be up for a negligence suit if they had been wrong. Rock and a hard place. You really want police deciding "nah, doesn't sound like a real problem"?
What on earth were the police supposed to do? They had fuck-all information and a recorded call. Tell the caller to fuck off? Look, I've said the couple who called it in were being dumb, maybe the police didn't handle it so well, but there's no lasting damage here. Perhaps they have some rule that says "don't take someone's word for it when they say in a park this is my daughter". So they went to the residence and checked.
That's hardly nanny state, it's just the police doing their jobs. You sound like Robert Gates accusing the police at his door of racism because they dared to respond to a possible break-in call.
Ltw at March 31, 2011 8:22 PM
Frank, it sounds to me like you drank the "for the children" kool aid.
This was not a child in distress. This was a father walking with his daughter. No one opposes getting involved and helping when necassary. In fact, I believe that most of the posters here would undoubtledly do the right thing if they truly sensed the child was in danger or something was "off".
What we oppose is making phone calls to the police under the PRETENSE of helping. If the person who called the police really truly believed that this child was not this mans daughter, why in the hell did they leave the park? Wouldn't they have at least stuck around to make sure the cops got there? Or followed the man and child? Here's what I believe actually went through the callers' mind, "Hhhmmm... a man waling with a little girl. Well that's unusual. I will the cops so I can clear my concience JUST IN CASE this is something bad but if it isn't then I won't have to face them and won't feel like an asshole. Better safe than sorry."
The problem is the pretense of the "better safe than sorry" mentality involved here because there was no reason for anyone to be suspicious to begin with.
We also all opposse the home visit and interrogation by the cops. The cops had a visual on the "male subject" and "the child" at the park. Yet, they waited until the child VOLUNTARILY got into the car, and the "male subject" drove off with her. How is that the police doing thier jobs? If they believed the child was in distress, then why did the cops confront the man right there at the park?
No, Frank. Your argument doesn't fly becuase the facts don't back it up. This was a case of paranoid busybodies creating suspicion where there was none just because he was a man.
Sabrina at April 1, 2011 5:36 AM
"What I'm worried about is the indifference you show..." Frank.
I'm not indifferent at all... but I AM paying attention to the right thing.
If I had a suspicion, I'd follow it up. I'd go talk to the guy, JUST LIKE I MENTIONED IN MY ANSWER. Find out what he's doing with the kid, and so forth. Find out more about geocaching or whatever. That will tell me a great deal about the situation. If I still have a problem, the cops will be called, but I won't let the guy out of my site, or let them leave.
Because by that point I have made the decision the child needs to be protected.
You can imagine that this is not something to be done lightly for well or ill. If you are wrong you have pissed of parent, police and more. But if you are right?
But I didn't do it from a distance. If I have suspicion I am not a detached actor.
So you might see that the people you are defending in this case were just one step away from disinterest. They called the cops but did nothing to protect the kid in the meanwhile... whereupon ANYTHING could have been done to her.
If they had gotten involved, they would have been able to judge for themselves what was going on...
and either prevented a bad situation or maybe made a new friend.
The people who called this in are the ones who are indifferent, because they did not act, when they thought a child was in trouble, they just called the cops.
In case you didn't get the memo, it is likely that calling the police means you will be waiting some amount of time for them to get there. in some places it may be an hour or more. In a remote location it may be even longer.
So who is this hypothetical child's protector? If this situation had happened the other way, and instead of a father it was a badguy... would what the bystanders did have changed the outcome?
SwissArmyD at April 1, 2011 1:59 PM
So I've looked up the location of that geocache that the author mentioned on geocaching.com. I looked at the sat photos of it. It sure doesn't look like a remote area to me! It's just off of a very wide walking path and about 100' away from a soccer field. There are a few trees at the trailhead area but it is by no means isolated or heavily forested. There is an isolated area of the park but it is some distance away from there.
Cousin Dave at April 1, 2011 5:48 PM
Lets break this down
1.A male was seen with a child, had it been a woman no one would have called the cops even though women are more likley to abduct children
2."Concered" citizen calls cops and leaves, make no attempt to see what is going on beyond the fact that a man was seen in the company of a child.
3.Cop arrives on scene, park behing the fathers truck, and leaves his vehicle(I'll assume to walk into the park).
4.As father and daughter are climbing into the truck a SECOND cop drives by slowly and watches them load up and drive away, does nothing to stop them.
What on earth were the police supposed to do? -Ltw
What were the cops to do Ltw? With a report of a suspected kidnapping? NOT LET THEM DRIVE AWAY FROM THE MOTHERFUCKING PARK!!!!
5.An hour or so later after they got home and changed for a night out the cops show up and demand to speak to the child speratly and find out whether or not she's been kidnapped. As if a kidnaped child wouldnt run strait to the cops back at the park or the minute they showed up in the driveway(and those that wouldnt probably wouldnt say anything to the cops with them less than 5ft away)
Had this really been a gut atempting to kidnap/rape/kill a child it would have been over long before the cops showed up at the park, let alone the house
lujlp at April 1, 2011 8:00 PM
Much as I get that no one wants to hear about a crime committed after the fact and realize they could have done something to prevent it, the diligence is useless if we're not going to be smart about it. Yes, sometimes you're going to have to go with your gut and risk offending someone in the process. But how can you recognize a genuine threat if everyone and everything is a threat? I really feel for this guy.
JonnyT at April 2, 2011 10:42 AM
Frank you are nuts.
The most likely kidnappers of children are: Women (usually a parent)
The most likely abusers AND KILLERS of children are: Women (Usually a parent)
The most likely persons to engage in a sexual relationship with a person below the age of consent are:
Women
The difference is, women don't make the news for it. Men are the bogeyman because we're big and scary, not soft and pretty.
Plus, when we hear about the female teacher screwing herself silly with a 13 year old boy our first reaction is, "That lucky bastard." not "That poor boy."
Robert at April 4, 2011 7:24 AM
Leave a comment