.
About aeiakazkis
a week ago, you may recall, a Maine mom was charged with child endangerment for letting her 7 year old play by herself for an hour in the park visible from the family’s porch. This is a letter by a Free-Ranger to the Police Chief there, who defended the summons as well as the fact the girl was taken by cruiser to the precinct, instead of back across the street to her home. It’s everything a letter should be, and everything our country should be, too: Smart, sane, and unwilling to buy into child safety hysteria.
Chief Janine Roberts
Westbrook Police Department
570 Main Street
Westbrook, ME 04092
Dear Chief Roberts,
    Good day, I hope all is well with you.  My name is Brian Wetzler, a retired military officer (and New England native!) currently living in Michigan.  I felt compelled to contact you after a friend sent me a video file of a recent WMTW television report on the case of Ms. Nicole Jensen, a Westbrook resident. She was apparently cited for child endangerment after allowing her 7-year-old daughter, Brooklyn (I believe) to play at a local park unsupervised.  I found the TV report deeply disturbing. Â
    As a former operator myself, I know the potential pitfalls of judging on-scene decisions after the fact.  However, this particular case seems to lend itself to some genuine after-action questions and critiques.  I suppose the overarching question would be: “What was the particular and specific danger that prompted law enforcement action?”  An unsupervised 7-year-old playing in a park (or anywhere, for that matter) does not, in and of itself, represent a threat of any kind.  In fact, the idea that a bystander thought it better to call 9-1-1 than to directly assist a child whom he deemed to be in “danger” seems to speak directly to the level of genuine peril on-scene.  Namely, none.  Did anyone think to ask the reporting source what the danger was?  Did anyone try to ascertain any actual danger?  What evidence will authorities carry into court to make their case?  The 9-1-1 call, though probably well-meaning, was simply an ill-considered action and, in plain terms, a false alarm.  Did any of your officers discuss with the reporting source the fact that the 9-1-1 network is for actual emergencies? Â
   So, absent a verified and demonstrable hazard, the rationale for police action would seemingly have to fall to, in essence, “something bad could have happened.”  This is an empty argument, and folly of high order.  Something could “happen” anywhere.  But, following that logic for a moment, law enforcement might take notice that, statistically, the most dangerous place for a child to be in the United States is riding in a car. Would it make sense, then, to pull people over and cite them for endangering their child passengers?  The logic applied in this case would demand that you do.  After all, children actually DO die in cars – thousands of them.  So, if we can ignore thousands of deaths that occur in automobiles, does it make any sense at all to then create artificial danger and, in doing so, entangle a family in a legal maelstrom, based on…nothing?
   In your on-camera interview you stated that “(an hour) is a long time for a 7-year-old girl to be by herself in any location, let alone a public park.”  In the case of a competent child, playing outside with full sanction of her parent(s), in no distress, and fully capable of finding her way home, that is simply not a true statement.  However, I would be very interested in learning of any fact-driven, research-based data that you utilized to substantiate that particular threat assessment.  Since you singled out “public park” as a particularly worrisome place to be alone, I suspect that you have perhaps embraced the idea of “stranger danger.”  If that is the case, I invite you to peruse the national statistics on child abduction, as they powerfully, and incontrovertibly refute that particularly worrisome myth.  The facts speak for themselves.
   As to the actions of the responding officer(s).  If Ms. Jensen’s account proves accurate, your officers opened their dialogue with: “Do you know where your daughter is?”  How dare they.  They had absolutely no business trying to shame a parent in that fashion; I can see no other explanation for that particularly callous line of questioning.  In many households in this country, a knock on the door by a uniformed officer, speaking of a loved one, represents the most tragic scenario imaginable.  Your officers risked grave psychological damage upon the Jensen family, simply by playing an utterly unprofessional game of “gotcha.”  All of this, mind you, when there was no real danger whatsoever, nobody was at risk, no crimes had been committed, and your officers were fully informed of the situation.  How dare they.  I invite you to revisit their conduct, and perhaps reconsider their level of training in managing such situations.
   If we continue to criminalize reasonable, responsible parenting in this way, we risk doing untold harm to a whole generation of American children.  Unsupervised play is a natural and important part of developing independence, breeding self-sufficiency, and honing risk-assessment.  Sensational, tragedy-centric news coverage aside, our children are simply not constantly “at risk.”  Again, we need to look at the facts.  Parents who understand them should not be legally held to account for doing so.  They are in the right.  Those who believe otherwise are simply perpetuating a corrosive fiction; one that actually IS dangerous to the long-term welfare of our children.  When I hear of cases like this one in Westbrook, I realize that I am moving ever-closer to the belief that the actual dangers to our children are not accidents or “strangers”, etc., but meek bystanders with phones.  The Jensen family now faces an uncertain future:  community reputation, threats to employability, legal costs, mental trauma to their children, and a range of other unpredictable factors that come with this sort of pointless legal action.  And to what end?  How are you bettering the community by supporting this?  On your website you say that you are “dedicated to working in partnership with our citizens.”  I urge you, then, to begin partnering with responsible parents, rather than punishing them for simply letting their children play outside. Â
   Let the children play.
   I would be happy to receive any expanding or enlightening information you may offer regarding the particular merits of this case.  As I mentioned at the beginning, I was not on-scene.  In the meantime, please accept my thanks for all the good work that you do.  Though I may have come across as rather brash in my opinions here, trust me when I say they are case-specific in their scope.  My hat is off to all of our law enforcement personnel, wherever and whenever they stand tall in the line of duty.  Thank you very much.
Â
Best regards,
Brian Wetzler
CC:Â Westbrook Public Safety Commission
.
When there are no kids on the playground, no kids can get hurt!
.
Brilliant.
The caption is soo true. probs on every cps worker’s mind
good letter, too bad it will be promptly deleted 10seconds into reading it or put into the shredder if it was sent via Post Office.
Wow. Well said. Bravo.
I hope he didn’t sent this letter on nice letterhead. Paper cuts are a leading cause of death amongst police chiefs..
Draft Wetzler
Mr. Wetzler – thank you!
we want kids to stop sting around getting fat but if we send outside some nosy busybody calls 911 without ever talking to the kid. I highly doubt the cops tried to contact mom before the shaming call considering the fact that mom lives across from the park and it would be easy to go knock on the door. we send kids to school to learn but yet as adults we don’t seem know how to talk to kids even though we all were once kids.
WHY IS IT SO FOR PEOPLE TO TALK TO KIDS? MOST OF THE TIME THEY AREN’T DEAF OR MUTE SO WHY NOT OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND EARS?
two kids managed to save their baby brother from a would be kidnapper while the babysitter who had the job of watching them was not doing her job even a bit. if 2 little kids can handle it then most kids can!
On a related note, I wanted to bring this story to your attention. This alleged attempted abduction happened in Dennis, MA, which is on Cape Cod
http://dennis.wickedlocal.com/article/20150706/NEWS/150708254
Frankly I’m surprised it hasn’t led to more hysteria but the story came out a few days ago and since then – nothing. I personally don’t look at this story as a reason to change my behavior or to suddenly be afraid of letting my kids roam free. Instead I see a teachable moment for my children and a reminder to arm them with some skills should they be approached by someone suspicious. I hope it does the same for Dennis residents.
@That 70s Mom – Interesting. I read the article and it doesn’t even sound like an attempted abduction (nothing states that he tried to get the kids to go anywhere). It reads like some guy messing with some kids. If he WAS trying to kidnap them, he needs to work on his technique.
I could not have written a better letter. Bravo, Mr. Wetzler!
Please, Mr. Wetzler, copy this letter to the Westbrook press! And maybe the New York Times, since it seems to be a recurring theme across the country. Please let us know if or what kind of response you receive from the police chief.
Well put, Mr. Wetzler!
Having looked up Westbrook’s crime stats, it seems that it suffers mostly from crimes involving property (which I assume means theft, car theft, burglary and vandalism.) There doesn’t seem to be a lot of kidnapping going on, which makes me wonder if the police force would be better occupied in investigating real crimes rather than imaginary ones.
How come no one ever mentions that it IS the police officer’s fast response time and the 9-1-1 caller who, in essence, are the ones making the park safer in the first place – and just leave it at that! It’s rad we have watchful neighbors. It’s cool that there IS a 9-1-1 system that can respond when there is a real threat, The coordinated efforts and system are what makes the whole thing work in the first place. The cop is there to keep predators out of the park and to respond to complaints. Thanks for keeping an eye on our community’s kids.
The problem is when people cry wolf – using 9-1-1 when there is no actual emergency and diverting resources and creating ill will in the system. And then the follow-up problem here – feeling the need for someone to be charged with a crime after the system is utilized – even though no crime had occurred.
The police don’t need to charge the parents with neglect. They need to say, “Good thing someone was watching the park. I came right over to see what was wrong. Is anything wrong? No? Well, I’m in the neighborhood, so I’ll cruise around the park and make sure it really is safe.” Then everyone feels more happy and invested with the police presence, instead of feeling like no matter why the police are around you could get in trouble.
@Lisa, why is it a “good thing” someone was watching the park? Nothing was happening except a child playing (which, isn’t that one really good use of a park?) and chances are gigantic that nothing was *going* to happen. Her mom deemed her responsible enough to do this, and no one needed to second-guess this. So why do we need all these eyes watching the park and making reports to the police? Nope, in my opinion that’s not a good thing at all.
Awesome letter. THAT is common sense and logic, and true rational. Sadly, I would not doubt that Chief Roberts would even head this very real response. And will stick to her fear based, made up scenarios, “what if” reasoning. As an officer of the law, the reasoning is extremely dangerous for everyone. It ingrains fear in people’s heads. And ask any psychologist or psychiatrist, fear makes people do very dangerous and irrational things. That’s not a good thing.
I hope that the police Chief replies, and Brian posts back her response.
“why is it a “good thing†someone was watching the park? Nothing was happening except a child playing”
I believe the suggestion is that this is a direct cause and effect… nothing bad was happening in the park because it was closely watched.
Speaking as a young escape artist, who repeatedly escaped the confines of my back yard, who had to be returned home by Johnny Law, you cannot assume that a child playing by him- or herself has parental authority to do so.
I don’t object to a neighbor calling the police to check out a small child, alone, even on an age-appropriate playground. (911 isn’t the right way to do this.) I don’t fault the police for rolling an officer to investigate. That’s where the incident goes off the rails. Taking the child into custody is inappropriate. Pursuing charges based on nothing more than “the child was on the playground but not directly supervised” is inappropriate.
Because talking to kids makes you a pedophile. That’s the first step in “grooming” them!
Where is the like button!?
@Gary: I totally agree. But if the Chief Roberts was truly competent at her job, she would heed this letter. As her current ignorant mentality reflects on her as a police officer. Which directly reflects on the Westbrook PD as a whole. But, imo, she’s a woman, and probably a mother. Those maternal instincts is like PMS, you can’t help it. The body and mind acts automatically to it. One can control those thoughts, but only if they are willing to. Common sense and rational.
@Lisa: I get what you are saying. It’s good that the response time of the police was quick. But that is all that was good about this situation. What happened after that was unnecessary, and obviously detrimental to the child and her family. Not one of the cops or the Chief, will ever come to their aid when the shit storm comes for the family, caused by sanctimonious neighbor, and ignorant law enforcement. They will simply wipe their hands clean. Is this TRULY caring for that child (who was never in any danger at all), and her family? Or is it some excuse to give themselves a pat on the back, and feel good. No accountability.
@Lisa, No matter what any of these other people say, you are the only sane person who has left a comment.
@Beth, You state that “chances are gigantic that nothing was *going* to happen.” What chance are you willing to take NOT to worry then? You also say that her mom deemed her “responsible enough” to be in the park alone. Who takes responsibility for those strangers that do not have good intentions? Even when they showed the mothers view from her porch, her view was obstructed by a large tree. Maybe she has X-Ray vision like Superman.
@Andrea, What part of having a grown man leave his car, approaching 2 boys, and asking them if they wanted some candy doesn’t seem suspicious to you?
If you listened to the police chief in the link, she said they did try to contact the mother. If the mother was so attentive, where was she?
I agree, that we have become somewhat of a Nanny state, but we have reason to feel that way. When I was a kid we went out in groups to play baseball or cops and robbers, but there were also always a number of us playing. Usually it was in the general neighborhood in someones back yard. The school yard was just around the corner and there was always a mother or father within shouting distance. When it came time for dinner, I was always within hearing distance of my fathers distinctive whistle to know when it was time.
I wonder what every ones feeling was about the family in Maryland that let their 10 and 6 year old kids walk over a mile from home alone. Is that OK? I’m sure the people on this forum, felt that was fine. How about if it was 2 miles or 5 miles?
Bravo, sir.
@ Steve: “I wonder what every ones feeling was about the family in Maryland that let their 10 and 6 year old kids walk over a mile from home alone. Is that OK? I’m sure the people on this forum, felt that was fine. How about if it was 2 miles or 5 miles?”
That’s really the point of free range parenting, being able to tell what situations your kid is ready for an allow them to handle as much responsibility as is appropriate. Of course there’s a difference between 1 mile and 5 miles. Having the confidence that a 6 year old can walk a mile doesn’t mean you’d send them on a day-long hike alone, just like a kid who’s old enough to make himself a bowl of cereal maybe isn’t up to making a croquembouche. But if a child is never allowed to walk a mile, he won’t gain the skills to handle that five mile walk in the future. Parents, not the state, not neighbors or busybodies, need to be able to decide what level of responsibility their kids are ready for. In nearly every case, the parents are the most qualified to make that decision, as the people who know and love the child best.
Of course there are genuinely abusive and neglectful parents, but since most of these decisions are subjective, the state (police, CPS, etc) should be very careful that they aren’t disrupting or ruining a family’s life just because they themselves would have made a different choice. If there’s no demonstrable harm to the child, there’s no case for removing him from parental care.
It does remain subjective, but there’s a simple rule to explain the difference between free-range parenting and neglect. If you’re leaving your kids to solve their own challenges because you think it’s best for them, that’s one side, and if you’re doing it because you want to do something else, it’s the other.
Now, PROVING one or the other, as is sometimes necessary, is a tougher challenge. If you’re doing free-range parenting, there’s usually a progression. Kids are allowed to play in the yard unsupervised, then, having proved responsible in that, are allowed to play in other peoples’ (nearby) yards, then in other peoples’ yards who live farther away, then to parks or schoolyards… expanding the child’s zone of self-responsibility as the child proves capable of handling what’s already been granted.
For comparison… a young mother who lived near us when our child was an infant left her 4-year-old at home, alone, while she was at work. This was not because the child had proven capable of self-sufficiency (although the child was quite capable, by necessity). The child was left alone because the mother refused to apply for government childcare assistance programs until the option not to was removed from her.
Wow, wow, wow! At the National Association of Parents, in radio and press interviews, we have advocated for a triage of calls reporting children alone: (1) Does the child appear to be hurt? (2) Does the child appear to be in distress? (3) Does the child appear to be in imminent danger of harm from an identifiable source of harm? If the answer to all three questions is “no,” then law enforcement has no business getting involved (other than MAYBE to drive by to confirm that the answer indeed is “no”). Otherwise, the misuse of finite resources and the misapplication of authority becomes routine. Mr. Wetzler is to be commended for his articulate and complete dissection of the situation in Maine and the ones that come up all-too-often across America, the land of the free! It is our mission to push back against the infringement of the fundamental Constitutional right of parents to decide for their own children – including acceptable risks of harm, so long as not causing harm to them or putting them in imminent danger of harm from an identifiable source of harm. Please join us so that we become stronger and more able to push back: https://www.parentsusa.org
Steve,
Think you took a wrong turn.
First if you wonder about how we feel about the Metiv’s case, there are numerous articles with hundreds of comments, on this site.
As for the “Do you want candy?”. First I cannot see a kidnapper approaching two boys. Too hard to control, or leaves a witness. I cannot see a kidnapper moving that far from the vehicle, just too wide open to witnesses and such. “Do you want candy?”, is straight out of the Stranger Danger handbook. Most of all, had he truly been there to take the boys, he would have. Nope, these boys probably had to explain why they were late, or somewhere they were not supposed to be.
All the rest of your crap about the girl in the park, is just that. What if paranoid crap.
And as much as I hate to comment on James’ stupidity, I have to.
You say you cannot assume that kids have their parents permission to be in the park? Why? Because you were a jerk as a kid, and still are?
Kids playing in the park having fun are kids in the park having fun. And this is for everyone.
1. It is none of your business if they have their parent’s permission.
2. You have no right nor business stopping and questioning them.
3. You have no right nor business calling any authority on them.
4. Mind your own bloody business.
“If you’re leaving your kids to solve their own challenges because you think it’s best for them, that’s one side, and if you’re doing it because you want to do something else, it’s the other.”
The examples and explanation that you give after this seem reasonable, but I think this principle alone is too purist, if not a bit sanctimonious.
I went to the park and library alone by 8 or 9 – often with younger siblings in tow. Everyone did that then; in fact, my parents were more protective than most. Yes, my mom strongly believed it was best for us kids to learn to play on our own and did not consider a trip to the park or library unduly risky. But does that have to have been her ONLY reason? I’m pretty sure it was a factor that she had no desire to hang out at playgrounds or the children’s library, and yes she had other things she wanted to do.
Just as when I take my 3-year-old to the playground, I honestly believe it’s better for him that I don’t hover or follow him around (as all the other moms seem to), but guess what: I also prefer sitting on a bench with a cup of coffee and my Kindle to standing in the sun shouting out encouragement to my son to try the slide.
Kids have stuff to do and so do we, their parents. There’s no need to scrutinize our consciences to make sure we’d be willing to spend every waking moment together.
“The examples and explanation that you give after this seem reasonable, but I think this principle alone is too purist, if not a bit sanctimonious. ”
Are you using this word in a meaning other than it’s usual dictionary meaning? Because I can’t see how it applies.
In any case, the fact that the rule is simple does not mean that the application of the rule is simple, as I noted.
I”t’s rad we have watchful neighbors. It’s cool that there IS a 9-1-1 system that can respond when there is a real threat, The coordinated efforts and system are what makes the whole thing work in the first place.”
Watchful neighbors get off their asses if they sense “true” threats and don’t dial 911 anonymously to ease their paranoid thoughts. A child playing in a park is a GOOD sight! Always. Kids should be out playing in safe communities with public parks designed FOR THE CHILDREN. Why build them in the first place if we are going to criminalize basic free play and lure them with primary colored plastic nirvana only to play gotcha with the parents? She was SEVEN, not a drooling toddler. Yes, use 911 for true emergencies!, what a wonderful safety net for our society. Reporting a child playing alone in a park is abuse of the system. A truly concerned citizen would not call the police, they would get involved.
@Steve-
“I wonder what every ones feeling was about the family in Maryland that let their 10 and 6 year old kids walk over a mile from home alone. Is that OK? I’m sure the people on this forum, felt that was fine. How about if it was 2 miles or 5 miles?”
First, they weren’t alone, they were together. Second, my kids have walked and biked to school *alone* since they were in kindergarten. 3 miles. It’s called commuting and it’s a very normal part of childhood in most of the world but decreasingly in our drive-thru delivery of children United States. And we wonder why we have obesity exploding and turning into the number one health threat of our youth.
@Steve-
“I wonder what every ones feeling was about the family in Maryland that let their 10 and 6 year old kids walk over a mile from home alone. Is that OK? I’m sure the people on this forum, felt that was fine. How about if it was 2 miles or 5 miles?â€
To you and everybody else who says this: I’m guessing you don’t walk much. A mile (or even two – horrors!) is not nearly so far as you seem to think. (Five is probably a bit long to go to a playground; not that it’s inherently dangerous to walk five miles, but it would take an awful long time. Though our ancestors not so long ago would have thought nothing of it.)
Agreed 150%! Thank you Brian Wetzler for your very well written and perfectly stated letter. More American Citizens Need To Use Their Voice Many Died Fighting For Instead of Not Speaking Up. Not Speaking Up means our Veterans and Soldiers Risk their lives and died in vain. . . . .
BE AMERICAN AND FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! GOD BLESS YOU AND YOUR FAMILY 🙂
“Are you using this word in a meaning other than it’s usual dictionary meaning? Because I can’t see how it applies.”
I’m confused. If you mean “purist”, yes I’d say parents feeling they need to examine their motives to make sure no tinge of desire for a life of their own affects their parenting decisions at all is a perfect application of that word.
“I’m confused. If you mean “puristâ€, yes I’d say parents feeling they need to examine their motives to make sure no tinge of desire for a life of their own affects their parenting decisions at all is a perfect application of that word.”
Well, first, off, no, the word I was referring to is “sanctimonious”. I’ve made no reference to either faith or religion.
Secondly, “parents feeling they need to examine their motives” is fine. I think parents should be examining their motives. but “to make sure no tinge of desire for a life of their own” is, well, supplied by you, not me.
Motives? I don’t care if the parent is letting the kid go to the park as a way of progressive training or if Dad is kicking them out to go to the park so he can watch the race with his buddies, or if mom and dad are sending them to the park so they can have a nooner.
The motive does not matter. What matters is that there is nothing wrong with a 7 yr old being in the park across the street from their home. And it is not up to anyone to assume or second guess the parent’s motives.
I just got around to watching the video, I want to know what law was broken? Small town, police have nothing to do? at this age my younger brother used to wander around the campus of the college we lived next to.
I only came to this website, because I saw a “Like” from one of my FB friends who I know is very anti-police and wanted to see what he hated about the police this time.
To all those responding to my single comment. I do not believe that this mother should be brought up on charges. I do believe she loves her daughter, and didn’t see a problem with her knowing her daughter was across the street. I have an issue that the police woman interviewed said, she tried to contact the mother and wasn’t able to. Are we calling the police officer a liar? If it was the neighbor that called 9-1-1, and they knew the child, wouldn’t you think that they would call the mother first also? The police when they arrived do not know where the child lives. If this child was so “responsible”, why couldn’t she direct the police to her house across the street?
@Anna, I do know how far a mile is, and I actually run about 9 miles every morning. The mention of distance wasn’t meant to bring up the notion of distance in relation to health, it was more a measure of how long/far the kids would be away from their home and parent(s). I am a strong believer in exercise and health and believe it or not, teaching kids independence. But, within reason.
@lollipoplover Your response to me that the 10 and 6 year old were not “alone”, they were “together”… I guess you consider 2 children not being alone would also be true if they were with a stranger, since in that case they truly wouldn’t be alone using Websters dictionary definition.
@James Pollock, You say “I don’t object to a neighbor calling the police to check out a small child, alone, even on an age-appropriate playground. (911 isn’t the right way to do this.)” What number should the neighbor have called to contact the police?
@Warren Regarding your message/rules for everyone… and reading through the rest of your “Motives” comment… Please don’t take this the wrong way… You are an idiot.
Don’t bother leaving additional comments directed at me. I won’t be back. I think the whole gist of this forum is nuts.
” What chance are you willing to take NOT to worry then? You also say that her mom deemed her “responsible enough†to be in the park alone. Who takes responsibility for those strangers that do not have good intentions?”
Maybe, just maybe, the mom decided that the risk of strangers with bad intentions was just too miniscule to worry about, and the benefits of her child playing on her own far outweighed this miniscule risk.
I’m truly amazed that on a site dedicated to free range kids, so many still think that decisions such as staying in the car, playing in the park, etc are made with NO thought, NO preparation, NO practice, and NO planning, and it’s up to everyone else to “take responsibility” since the mother so obviously didn’t.
i agree with wetzler. there were 2 parks, a library and a public pool in the town i grew up in, and my mother had no problem with me and my siblings, who were older than me by only 1 or 2 years, going to these places by ourselves to play. i honestly feel bad for kids today, from the time i could walk to the time i finished middle school i was never inside. i had an imagination and i had fun. my mother trusted me that i knew what time to be home and what to do if i got into trouble. that should be enough. if the parent trusts that the child is fine playing by themselves, that’s their call. not the police, not the neighbors.
“@James Pollock, You say “I don’t object to a neighbor calling the police to check out a small child, alone, even on an age-appropriate playground. (911 isn’t the right way to do this.)†What number should the neighbor have called to contact the police?”
Duh. the police department’s telephone number.
“Don’t bother leaving additional comments directed at me.”
So you come to this site, leave a giant turd in the middle of the carpet, and then leave when you sense that people don’t appreciate the turd you left in the middle of the carpet.
Frankly I’d be more concerned about your emotional maturity to be able to walk from the playground than a 10-year old child’s.
Chances are this dipstick of a police “chief” will file the letter in the dustbin. Either you have common sense or you don’t — she apparently doesn’t. Another mindless “helicopter” police chief.
I would love a follow-up, if they respond.
Paul,
Well said Sir, well said.
I’d also like to hear if there’s any follow-up.
This BTW is a great candidate for a letter to the Editor of the local newspaper.
Steve,
I know you have come back to look. Arrogant people like you can’t help yourself.
As for the motives of the parents, it is none of your damn business.
As for my rules, better follow them.
At least this family lives in a community where the police don’t arrive and start immediately gunning down a kid playing with a toy gun in the park. It could be worse!
I think I just solved the problem of identifying free range vs neglected kids. Free Range kids will wear neon safety vests emblazoned with the words “Free Range Child”. Neglectful parents won’t bother to acquire the vest or ensure their child wears it. Any concerned citizen can call 911 the second they see an unaccompanied minor without a vest and be at ease and mind their own business when they a child with the vest. Win, win!
@Warren
Overall i agree that people who want to be left alone should be left alone. But i also think that a community should be able to stick together, and that people should simply communicate with each other.
So if someone observes something that seems odd to him or her and in a friendly tone asks, “hey that looks odd, what are you up to”, then i feel that it would be nicer to answer, “oh don’t worry, everything is fine” than “mind your own bloody business.”
Of course it’s circumstancial. There is a fine line between genuine concern and curiosity, and intrusiveness. But i tend to give people the benefit of doubt if i’m not sure about their motives, and most really are just well-meaning after all.
Extremely well written, Mr. Wetzler.
WONDERFUL LETTER – shame, shame , shame on the officer – AND he still does not see that he is wrong in any way??? This should not even make it into the courtroom!
I mean -yes, we should make our children aware of danger, but in this case its the law enforcement that is bringing the VERY STRONG NEGATIVE ATTITUDE into this innocent fun day at the park for this sweet girl. Interrupting her awesome day and scaring her for life, her families life and wasting time that family could be spending together as quality time – not courtroom crime.
Law enforcement wanna be respected???? WOW – your not gonna get any acting this way. (BAM-BAM)
There’s a non-emergency number right there on the website.
http://www.westbrookmaine.com/city-departments-boards-commissions/public-safety/communications-division
Jen W.
Sorry, but what is it about kids playing in a park and having fun would appear odd to you?
Is anyone born with or taught common sense anymore? Unless there is obvious signs of distress or injury, leave them alone.
Do you walk around the mall, park or wherever randomly asking strangers if they are okay, does your husband/wife know where you are, do you need assistance? No you don’t. So why would you do it to kids?
What if the Meitivs had let their kids walk 2 miles, or 5 miles?
But they didn’t, and the park couldn’t suddenly have moved five miles away from home while they were there.
What if the park had been Jurassic Park? But it wasn’t, and it couldn’t have transformed into that.
What if the kids had been barely able to toddle? But they were older, and couldn’t have regressed.
What if the parents had plied them with brandy before they set out? But they didn’t, and that wouldn’t have happened just because you imagine it could have.
Counter-factual what-ifs on the fixed circumstances of the situation are worse than useless as ways to judge what did happen.
Warren,
I agree with you more often than not. However, kids do get kidnapped when they’re not alone. The most famous case was the Jacob Wetterling case. He had two other boys with him at the time. This is one of those rare stranger abductions, but it shows that even having two other friends with you isn’t necessarily a deterent.
In the Wetterling case, the perp had a gun and was masked. I agree with the poster that said that if this was a kidnapping attempt, it was an incompetant one. The guy wasn’t covered or obvisouly armed. I doubt it was a kidnapping, myself.
Oh my God, just imagine what could happen to a seven-year-old girl alone in a park. Her head could be smashed to pieces in a car crash. No, that could happen even with mom or dad driving. But she could drown. No, that could happen even in her own backyard pool. But she could be beaten to death. No, that could happen in her own living room. In fact, all of those tragedies are much more likely than any cause of death or serious injury in a public park.
@Warren,
To me there is nothing odd about it. But i can understand that a neighbor who is only accustomed to seeing accompanied children may find it odd. And if someone does genuinely find something odd, then what should be wrong in just asking a harmless question?
Hence i don’t see any problem with such a neighbor asking the kids if they’re ok and if their parents know where they are.
Once unaccompanied children became a common sight at that park he won’t find it odd anymore.
By the way, my name is Jens, not Jen. It’s the Scandinavian version of John.
“Don’t bother leaving additional comments directed at me. I won’t be back. I think the whole gist of this forum is nuts.”
You know what’s nuts?
This:
“Your response to me that the 10 and 6 year old were not “aloneâ€, they were “togetherâ€â€¦ I guess you consider 2 children not being alone would also be true if they were with a stranger, since in that case they truly wouldn’t be alone using Websters dictionary definition.”
According to Websters, the definition of alone is: without anyone or anything else : not involving or including anyone or anything else : separate from other people or things.
So two children walking…is most definitely not alone. They have each other and look out for each other. Siblings do this frequently in healthy families all over the world.
I think Steve’s whole gist of coming to this forum was to feel morally superior, just like the busybody caller who dialed 911 probably felt because they would never let THEIR child play at a young age at a park so they want to call out other *bad* parenting behavior.
And it hurts kids. Big time.
Being a good neighbor means looking out for children in your neighborhood just as you would your own, not trying to get others in trouble with the law for a basic childhood freedom. I love my community and how my children can play at so many of our public works WITHOUT ME. They can bike to swim practice with their friends, bike back to the pool or basketball courts to meet friends again, and walk to the fishing holes and wild places of our neighborhood…and it’s perfectly normal.
We need a public service announcement (kind of like the one with the indian with tear weeping for the environment) with empty swings and 911 calls about kids playing in parks to highlight the destruction of childhood as we know it.
.
Kids SHOULD be playing in parks. They are not in danger. Play is healthy. Sitting indoors eating Cheetos and Mountain Dew from your Snackeez is not.
“Being a good neighbor means looking out for children in your neighborhood just as you would your own, not trying to get others in trouble with the law”
I think you’re making an assumption here.
Jens,
Sorry on the name. Must be automatic for me, have 5 Jennifers in my life so to speak, and all get called Jen.
What I am saying, is unless there is actual evidence of distress, tears, screams, blood or whatever, why would anyone feel the need to question kids playing in the park?
Like I said, do you walk up to people on the street and question them if their spouse knows where they are?
Okay, you ask kids if their parents know where they are, and they don’t want to answer the stranger coming up to them. What are you going to do then? They do not cooperate, what then, you call the cops, cps?
How many times will it take for the kids to be stopped and asked each day if their parents know where they are, before they start getting a sense that maybe they shouldn’t be at the park. That maybe they are doing something wrong.
I think it is odd for women to be completely covered in cloth, on hot days in high humidity. To me that is extremely odd, but none of my damn business.
If someone thinks it is odd that kids are playing in the park without their parents, that is fine, they have every right to feel that way. But they have absolutely no right to act on that feeling. It really is that simple.
well -written
@Warren:
If a child replies, “i don’t talk to strangers”, then i suppose most people would take that to mean, “everything is ok, please leave me alone”.
Of course, if the child simply runs away as it was taught to stay away from strangers, then that’d be a somewhat undecided situation. But i think that just in that case the asking adult should be left in the dark and let the children mind their own business. Other than that i think there is no harm in asking.
For the child itself, it knows if its parents know where it is. So if an adult asks, “do your parents know where you are”, and even if that child refuses to answer, i don’t see how the child would get the impression of doing anything wrong if it knows that its parents know where it is.
If the parents indeed don’t know where the child is and the child knows this too, then the child will have to do some thinking. “No, my parents don’t know where exactly i am, but i am allowed to be outside alone up to three blocks away from home. Therefore everything is ok.”.
If the child is too young for that kind of thinking then i think that the parents really at least should know where it is, as it apparently doesn’t have a concept of where it’s allowed to be and go and where not.
I respect your opinion that people generally should mind their own business unless there is an obvious case of distress. Myself, i wouldn’t feel bothered at all if anyone found something odd about me and then approached me about it in a friendly, belevolent manner – in fact i would appreciate it.
I guess we both have very different preferences there and just have to agree to disagree.
I agree with Warren, about not intervening unless you see a child who’s injured or in obvious distress. It seems like common sense, but this new trend of people calling the police every time they see a child out in the world (or even in their own yard) NOT tethered to an adult, reminds me of this:
http://rense.com/general92/deathof.htm
Jens,
The harm in asking is that you are not doing it for the child. You are doing it to ease your own feelings and nothing else.
It is none of your business if they have their parent’s permission or knowledge.
If you don’t like the sight of kids playing in the park without parents there, and think it is odd? Keep your mouth shut, leave the kids to play, and deal with your issues on your own.
What are you going to do it the kids answers no to your interrogation? Restrain them, march them home, call the cops? What are you going to do? Because other than mind your own business, there is no right answer.
Lying to mom about where they are, sneaking out to play with their friends is still no reason for a stranger to intervene.
@James-
“Being a good neighbor means looking out for children in your neighborhood just as you would your own, not trying to get others in trouble with the lawâ€
I think you’re making an assumption here.”
I most definitely am.
I’m assuming my neighbors AREN’T assholes. The reason my fellow neighbors and I live in our suburban neighborhood that is filled with swim clubs, parks, golf courses, bike trails and other social meeting places is because we find this appealing. And I think most people in society will look out for younger kids, it’s the chosen few who need to validate their paranoid belief that kids are being snatched up all the time and see children playing *alone* the same as a child juggling knives in traffic.
When we first moved into our house 15 years ago, the couple we bought from warned us about our next door neighbor (think Mr. Mitchell from Dennis the Menace) who was a bit of a “Get off my lawn” type and complainer. We put up a fence to keep our dogs (and kids) from bothering him. We invited him to our neighborhood parties. He still had complaints and was always bringing something up, but we won him over and now consider him a friend. When he was sick this winter, my kids shoveled his driveway and cleaned his car. I sent over soup. There will always be difficult people we encounter in life, but teaching my children to find commonalities and look for the good in people over being judgmental and right all the time is a much more important life lesson.
Now, let’s take a look at how safe people are when adults ARE close by and do nothing to save a person from being killed:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/07/10/manhood-honor-christian-charity-dead/
Let the children play indeed! This is a great letter. Thanks for sharing. I’ll share too.
I completely agree with Brian! That was well said and very true. Although many people are trying to help in these situations with child involment most of them turn out to be nothing to worry about. It saddens me that we live in a world of fear and having two kids of my own, i would like to raise them to be independant, problem solving, fast thinking, self-sufficiant and able to survive the real world individuals. Which is becoming almost impossible these days thanks to the quick imporperly assessed situations by people faster to dial authorities rather then taking time to really determine the danger
Steve,
Thought you were not coming back. Just as predicted, people like you can’t help yourself.
Really a story from 50 years ago? Not relevant. Things have changed a lot since 1964. Safer now than then for one thing. People are more educated on what to do. 911 has been implemented, instead of having to know the number for your local police station. There are more police on the streets than then.
And when you can come up with a story where a 7 yr old was stabbed to death in a park, surrounded by other people that did nothing, in the middle of the day, then maybe we will listen to you.
And just because you are one of the cowards that would stand by and do nothing does not mean we are all like that. I know I would jump in with no thought, and I know a lot of men that would.
Please try to find stories at least close to kids in a park.
@Warren:
“The harm in asking is that you are not doing it for the child. You are doing it to ease your own feelings and nothing else.”
To a certain extent, certainly. And what is supposed to be wrong with that? After all, adults still learn as well. An adult that asked such a question three times or so will learn that there is nothing to be concerned about the observation that made him ask the question.
Saying that someone who is genuinely and benevolently concerned shouldn’t be granted to find peace of mind by simply asking a friendly question is an extremely hostile attitude, IMHO.
There however also is a certain chance that they may say something like, “no, we ran away because dad yelled at mom and hit her and we’re so scared!”
I already answered before what the situation would be if they don’t answer. I find it odd however that you describe a friendly question as an “interrogation”. If the kids indicate that they want to be left alone or not want to answer, they would be left alone.
Thus it cannot be an interrogation by definition, as being required to answer is a necessary criterion of an interrogation.
Warren,
I usually agree with your point of view,
but…
you stopped reading that article BEFORE you got to the Kevin J. Sutherland story which happened on July 4th of THIS YEAR. 2015
My point is that adults, even when present, can be too frightened to act. Period. You might remember that I have, more than once, mentioned a TV show in which Adults were lured out of a shopping mall and into the car of strangers before they were told what was going on.
My message is: Give kids credit for having some sense and God given ability to navigate the world on their own. Nobody can stay safe 100 % all of the time.
Jens,
Asking someone something that is none of your business is not a friendly question.
Why must the kids answer to you to make you feel better. Not their problem if you are uncomfortable.
Again, what is it about kids playing and having fun that you find odd? What concern could you possibly have? That is not a paranoid what if? Are you serious, that you think kids in the park are their because spousal abuse is taking place? Come on get real.
You never did answer what you would do if the kids said that they didn’t have their parent’s permission and or their parents didn’t know where they were.
If you were to ask my kids more than twice, one of two things would happen. Either they would tell you to get lost and leave them alone, or they would tell me about the guy bugging them at the park, and that is not what you want to happen.
I don’t care how uncomfortable you are. You have absolutely no right to know why those kids are playing and having fun. Unless there is obvious signs of distress, asking kids those questions just makes you a nosy busybody. Leave them alone. They have no responsibility to put your mind or fears at ease. You do not have the right to make them make you feel better.
If kids at the park playing and having fun with no parents makes you uncomfortable, stay the hell home.
Steve,
No I read the whole thing. Just that we all already know and accept that 100% safety is unattainable. And I assumed you posted the article to highlight the stabbing and inaction.
As for the adults being lured, well that is just natural selection. If you are dumb enough to allow yourself to fall for that crap, and get yourself killed…………well just less stupidity in the gene pool. Natural selection so to speak.
Warren,
If you read the entire article, why did you pick on the 1964 story instead of the one that happened this year? Strange.
My point was clear, and it is a Free Range concept:
Adults CANNOT always protect kids. Kids have more insight and sense than many parents give them credit for.
“You have NO RIGHT to try to talk to my kids if I’m not there!” (paraphrasing).
Not actually true, and sounding a bit paranoid.
Basically, I agree with Warren. I don’t want my kids play to be frequently interrupted by adults asking them personal questions like “Do you know where your mommy is?” “Where do you live?” “Do your parents know where you are?” If the child/children is not in obvious distress, it IS none of the passerby’s business, sounds a little creepy to say the least, and the kids are playing on their own, a time during which (unless their behavior is somehow out of control) they don’t have to answer to adults.
James as usual you are wrong.
Not once did I say you cannot talk to my kids. What I said was you have no right to question my kids. Even someone with your limited intellect should be able to see the difference.
“Hi, nice day huh?” Is completely different than “Does your parent’s know you are here?” “Are you allowed to be here by yourself?”
One is talking and chit chat, the other is none of your damn business. One is polite, the other intrusive.
Again, if there is no obvious sign of distress, mind your own business. I don’t care whether that makes you uncomfortable or not. The way you feel is your problem, and not anyone else’s.
And you will run into confident kids, like mine were at that age, that will tell you it is none of your business.
” I don’t want my kids play to be frequently interrupted by adults asking them personal questions”
I don’t, either. There’s a world of difference between being “frequently” interrupted, and EVER being interrupted.
Anyways, one of the hazards of doing things in public is that random members of the public may (gasp) attempt to interact with you.
James,
Your last two comments have proven what we see in here. You have very little social skills. Interacting is one thing. Questioning is completely different.
So what would you do if the kid told you to take off it is none of your business?
I didn’t really ask your opinion James. In fact, it might actually be fun to hear other people’s opinions and thoughts. I know, unbelieveable that someone might not be waiting with baited breath for your contributions.
“I didn’t really ask your opinion James. In fact, it might actually be fun to hear other people’s opinions and thoughts.
Gee, I’ll try to stop somehow preventing you from hearing other people’s opinions and thoughts right away..
“I know, unbelieveable that someone might not be waiting with baited breath for your contributions.”
bated. “baited breath” means you’ve been eating worms.
May i suggest, that, if you find my words so displeasing, you put for the nominal effort of not reading them?
James,
I can see why your wife left you. You are rude and ignorant with absolutely no manners. Had you spoken to Beth or any lady like that in person, you would have been taught some manners real quick.
Oh, no! Not another imaginary beating!
James,
I’ve refrained from addressing comments to you, and usually I skip reading them anyway, but I just gotta ask what it is you do with your day. I’ve never seen someone who feels the need to make nitpicking comments literally all day long on a blog. You seem to make about 20 comments per thread, and you pretty much treat everyone else like a putz that is beneath contempt. Why don’t you spend a day – I don’t know, doing something else. Anything else. Take a break from the blog. Enjoy life. We’ll be here when you get back.
“I just gotta ask what it is you do with your day. I’ve never seen someone who feels the need to make nitpicking comments literally all day long on a blog.”
I’m an IT administrator. I make sure that everything is connected to everything it needs to be connected to, and not connected to things it shouldn’t be connected to.
This frequently means I’m parked in front of a screen, waiting for something to happen. This leaves a LOT of opportunities to spend 3 minutes or so reading something-or-other on the Internet while something finishes.
“you pretty much treat everyone else like a putz that is beneath contempt.”
There are very, very few people I treat like a contemptible putz. He knows who he is, and revels in it. Disagreeing with an opinion is not at all the same thing. Pointing out holes in an argument is not the same thing.
I do tend to return the tone that I’m addressed in, however.
I agree with Warren and Beth. My child should not be questioned about her comings and goings by strangers any more than I should be. I would be annoyed if someone came up to me for no apparent reason with what is basically “are you where you are supposed to be?” I would think it rude is someone asked my child that.
Like Warren I wonder what you would do if the kid actually said that his parents didn’t know he was at the park. Do you call 911? Try to force him to leave the park? Try to make him take you to his house?
To take offense that someone wants to take an interest in your child’s safety and well-being? That still seems hyper-sensitive to me. If your kids are good to be by themselves, they’re good to deal with nosy people, people who mistakenly think they’re in danger when they are not, people who badly mis-judge the age(s) of the kids they saw, or just people who have vastly different ideas of how old a child should be before being unsupervised. Ideally, they do so politely, patiently, firmly, and decisively. And if they run into a situation where they really do need help, they’ll be willing and able to ask for it.
Anyway, this type of reaction (“How DARE you talk to my kids!”) is why people concerned for the kids’ safety (rightly or wrongly) are going to call the cops instead, and let THEM deal with parents..
James,
How many times must you be smacked in the head with a brick before things sink in?
No one has ever said not to talk to our kids. You want to chit chat, say hello or tell a joke that’s great. Well for most people it would be great. Someone as off their rocker as you…not so much.
Questioning them on what they are doing, questioning them on their parents is not the same thing. That is not the same thing. If you came up to me, an adult, and started prying into why I was there, what I was doing and such, you would be told to F— Off.
You have no reason to be concerned for anyone’s safety or well being if they are not showing signs of distress. Doesn’t matter if it is a kid or an adult.
And go for it. Bring my kid home and tell me you didn’t like the answer you got in the park. Because you won’t like the answer you get from me. Not your kid, not your call, not your business.
Distress………..yes help.
Having fun…..leave them alone.
Not hard to understand, if your IQ is higher than your shoe size James.
James,
I wonder how your employer would see it, you spending all that company time, on company equipment, to be here with your comment after comment after comment. Also since you are on company time, the fact you act like a total goof.
Personally, if I caught you, your ass would be fired.
“How many times must you be smacked in the head with a brick before things sink in?”
Do you obtain some kind of sexual release from imagining violence? Does it give you kind of deep, emotional satisfaction you’re somehow unable to obtain any other way?
Anyway, thanks for firmly establishing my point.
This type of reaction is why people concerned for the kids’ safety (rightly or wrongly) are going to call the cops instead, and let THEM deal with parents..(because some of them are assholes). (Not the cops, although some of THEM are assholes, too.)
“I wonder how your employer would see it, you spending all that company time, on company equipment, to be here with your comment after comment after comment.”
What a surprise. The guy who likes to lecture people about what is and is not their business, taking an interest in what is LITERALLY someone else’s business.
It isn’t a matter of not talking to my kid. You can do that all day. Please do since it might mean that she will talk my ear off a little less when she comes home.
But my child deserves to be treated just like anyone else while out in the general public. I expect to be able to hang out in a public park without anyone questioning me about my permission to be there. In fact, it would be considered extremely offensive in the US for someone to ask me if I had permission to be out in public alone. My child deserves the same respect.
Nor do I believe that the questions really have anything to do with concern over my child’s safety. They are all about the asker, not the askee.
Wow James, you really have no social experience do you. Hit in the head with a brick, in regards to getting a point across is not about violence, it is an old saying.
As for your employer, you brought it up.
Just to clarify, there is no fantasy of violence no dreaming. I like a lot of other people I know have a certain code. And the way we deal with smart ass punks like you is pretty much standard across the board.
“Nor do I believe that the questions really have anything to do with concern over my child’s safety. They are all about the asker, not the askee.”
That’s painting with a broad brush. You’re sure that NO adult looking into unaccompanied kids is EVER concerned for the kids’ safety? I do not share this belief.
Anyway, even if the person is doing it out of 100% selfish busybody reasons, you still don’t have any sort of right never to be asked questions..You don’t have this right now, you didn’t have it when you were a child, and your child does not have it now. Teach your children to respond to questions as you see fit…. politely, rudely, by just ignoring it, or by blowing whistles and shouting “THIS STRANGER TRIED TO TALK TO ME!”, or any combination or intermediate of these.
I still won’t reflexively condemn someone for worrying about someone else’s kids, even if it’s entirely needless. You have a valid complaint if you’ve told them “the kids are fine, they don’t need your help, leave them alone” and they keep trying to “help”. If your default approach to this is to directly to confrontation, well, you’re going to have a lot of confrontation, which is more likely than not going to be counterproductive..
” I like a lot of other people I know have a certain code. And the way we deal with smart ass punks like you is pretty much standard across the board.”
It must be SO frustrating to a bully to have a “victim” who is utterly unafraid of him. All your talk of the violence you’d direct at me if only you got the chance…. is talk. The frequency with which you turn to beating me up in your imagination is entertaining. It’s a sure sign of masculine insecurity. I assure you, I take it as seriously as it deserves to be taken, which is not at all.
Having exposed it as the pathetic attempt at dominance that it is, I’m going to go ahead and start ignoring it, mostly, unless and until it amuses me to mock it further.
We are not saying we have a right not to be questioned. We are saying that idiots like you James do not have the right to question us or our kids.
And James, I am the furthest thing from a bully you can find. Standing up to obnoxious goofs like you is not being a bully. It is just not putting up with crap from goofs. Big difference.
I know people like you. You provoke others and hide behind a keyboard. Online you are very brave. In person, you are a coward. I know guys like you. I have dealt with goofs like you. And they always lose.
“Online you are very brave. In person, you are a coward.”
I post under my real name. (James Pollock) I tell people where I live (Portland, Oregon). As I said, utterly unafraid of your bullying.
(Do you just not know what a coward is? Hint: The coward is the guy who is too afraid to post under his own real name, or tell people where he lives. Don’t you agree, Warren Noname of noplace-in-particular?)
“the way we deal with smart ass punks like you is pretty much standard across the board.”
If you’re using the standard method, it’s apparently making lame insults, talking fake-tough, and declining to back up anything you say..
Actually the one that posts arrogant smart ass comments and then posts his full name and location is a moron. For an IT guy you really are stupid. There is no way in hell I would allow a disturbed individual like you the chance to get my email, phone number, and address. I have a business to protect, and I don’t trust you as far as I can throw you. And trust me Little Man, I can throw you a good distance.
“There is no way in hell I would allow a disturbed individual like you the chance to get my email, phone number, and address.”
If only there were some word that could be used to describe someone who wants to post insults towards people, but is afraid to have anyone find out who he really is. A word to describe someone who feels confident enough to make threats (or, at least, write things that are supposed to be threatening), but only as long as he can hide behind the Internet. Wait, there is one, and that word is “Chickenshit”.
The best part is that, even after your sad little tendencies are pointed out to you (you can’t seem to avoid writing messages without the words “moron”, “idiot”, or “stupid”. You keep making threats of imaginary violence. You keep making massive projections of insecurity.) you Just.
Can’t.
Stop.
You’re a bully. I have no fear of bullies. This seems to cause you no end of aggravation.
Good.
“You’re sure that NO adult looking into unaccompanied kids is EVER concerned for the kids’ safety?”
The issue was not ANY adult looking into unaccompanied kids. In fact, most stated repeatedly that if the child is in actual danger or distress that people should interfere (as I would for an adult in actual danger or distress). The issue presented was people asking unaccompanied kids in no danger or distress essentially if they had permission to be unaccompanied. THAT information has absolutely nothing to do with child safety. It is about sticking your nose into business where it doesn’t belong. It simply isn’t anyone else’s job to police the comings and goings of children not their own responsibility. Jens answer of if they told me to bug off, I would do nothing else also indicates a total lack of true concern for child safety. If I thought someone, child or adult, had a genuine safety issue, I would not be so easily dissuaded from trying to resolve the problem.
“Anyway, even if the person is doing it out of 100% selfish busybody reasons, you still don’t have any sort of right never to be asked questions.”
And where I said there was some right to never be asked questions is …?
I simply said it was incredibly rude and not behavior that I am ever going to agree is okay. If someone presents to me that they are doing this, I have no problem telling them that I think they are being incredibly rude and encourage them to stop. Obviously, they are not obligated in any way to stop doing it, but they really should.
” It simply isn’t anyone else’s job to police the comings and goings of children not their own responsibility”
I’ll take it one step further- don’t try to enforce leash laws on children. They are not stray animals and we don’t need to called animal/child control when we see them without a leash or an owner/parent in public.
@Steve said, “I wonder what every ones feeling was about the family in Maryland that let their 10 and 6 year old kids walk over a mile from home alone. Is that OK? I’m sure the people on this forum, felt that was fine. How about if it was 2 miles or 5 miles?
Late in the school year my mom encouraged us to walk home on Fridays because she had a teacher’s meeting (we drove to school with her). It was better than having us hanging around the school bored. It was about 9 miles through farmland, across a river, several creeks, and a railroad track. We started doing it when I was 8 and my brother was 9 or 10.
The goal was to get home before mom did – she would stop and pick us up along the route if she saw us. More often than not we could mix running and walking and cover the distance before she caught us.
I just noticed there’s another STEVE who was the first to comment on this post who said:
—————–
“I only came to this website, because I saw a “Like†from one of my FB friends who I know is very anti-police and wanted to see what he hated about the police this time.”
——————-
The fact that two different Steve’s are commenting here has caused some confusion.
The other Steve sounds like he has not read Lenore’s book.
“There are very, very few people I treat like a contemptible putz.” James, you’re not very self-aware, are you? Because that’s how you treat everyone here. You can hide behind “poking holes” in arguments all you want, but I’m sure you’re plenty pleased with how you’ve taken over and ruined the comment section of this site.
Thank you FRK pals, for understanding that I never said, nor implied, that I didn’t want my kids interacting with (gasp!) random members of the public.
what i can’t understand is why does everyone here keep feeding james the troll?
>>what i can’t understand is why does everyone here keep feeding james the troll?<<
@Common Sense–I was actually just waiting for someone to say that. Can we go back to talking about the article, and kids playing in the park in general, like this thread is actually about?
Well said, but misdirected. The true addressee should be not police chief, but AG who did not dismiss the case and actually decided to file the charges. It’s not cops’ job to assess a danger (““What was the particular and specific danger that prompted law enforcement action?â€) – their job is to find an opportunity for an arrest and to build a successful criminal charge that AG can pursue, which they apparently did. Note, I’m not saying that this state of affairs is something to cheer about – but it’s the reality, and expecting that a cop will pass an opportunity to make an arrest is as naive as to expect a salesman to skip a sale because the customer after all might not need the stuff.
Besides, perhaps instead of thanking the police chief for “standing tall in their line of duty”, a question should be asked if it’s believable that the cops “tried to contact the parents” before taking the kid to PD – given that child’s home is right across the street and certainly would be pointed out by the child.