I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this at all. You would seriously just think to yourself “Meh, I’m sure the kid’s fine. And if not, there are many other people around who could help him. Got to get to Jamba Juice before they close!”
:dubious:
I understand it perfectly. As a single guy, if there’s a lost kid I’m not going to touch it or try to lead it anywhere other than a large group of people. And then I’m just going to hand them off to authorities, their family, or someone else ASAP, and try to get witnesses around me. There’s just way too much risk of me ending up accused of some kind of wrongdoing, as the OP shows. I’ll let women and couples take care of the random kid, they’re not putting their life, livelihood, and freedom at risk by intervening. Kid isn’t in any real danger with all of those people around.
BigT can put the safety of some random kid over his own, but I’m sure as hell not going to risk my life for some random stranger when there are other people around who don’t need to risk their life.
But that’s not what he said at all. He said he wouldn’t even do that. He would just continue on his merry way, hoping the kid is alright or that someone would do something about it.
I’m certainly not advocating picking the kid up, or touching the kid or something like that. Simply getting someone’s attention or, like you said, lead the kid to a large group of people, preferably with women in it.
But just completely ignoring the kid? I’m not understand that.
Other than your last sentence, yeah. Mine would be more, “Not my circus, not my monkey.”
What dangers do you suspect will befall the child if I am not the one to get involved, and instead of physically removing the child from its current location, instead simply informing security or police about its presence?
I’m sorry, but can you point out in your post where you said you would inform security or police? Because I can’t find it. I can find “* am not too concerned about the child not making it back to their parents” and also “Not my circus, not my monkey.”
If your stance is now “Of course I would let somebody know” then that’s fine.
Where in my post? Maybe the part where I said, “If I happened to see an official from security or a police officer, I may try to direct them in the child’s direction. If I hear about someone asking about a child, I’ll volunteer the information as to where I saw them last.” It was deep into the post, second sentence of the second paragraph, so I can understand why you missed it.
The reason that I am not too concerned, is not because I am not concerned about children being missing, as you are trying to imply, but that the circumstances mean that the child will not be missing long. My involvement has very little chance of improving the outcome of the situation, has a decent chance of making the situation worse, and has a higher chance of putting me into a predicament than if I allow the proper authorities to deal with it.
Do you walk around parks and malls looking for lost children to return to their parents? No, why not?
No, I do not. But if I see one that looks lost, with no obvious adult around, I’ll stick around to see if someone comes up or I’ll notify someone. I won’t say “Not my circus, not my monkey” and continue on my way.
Why not? If you are that concerned about reuniting children with their parents, then you should be out on all of your free time, looking for anyone who looks lost, in an effort to reunite them with their loved ones. If you don’t do that, then you aren’t really all that concerned, if it is only when it is in your face and makes you feel guilty does it prompt you to act.
But yeah, if a situation is not of my doing, I do not have the best skillset or other characteristics to be a useful contribution to the solution, and there are others close by who do, then absolutely, I will not take it upon myself to get involved.
Like I said there are other situations. If I encountered a child wandering alone in the forest, for instance, I would certainly feel a need to get involved to help out. In this situation though, the only reason for a bystander to get involved is because they are expecting to be treated as a hero by the parents, and I have no need of such praise.
I don’t have the time to reunite all lost children with their parents, or else I would. If I had the money to not work, and pay for my children’s needs, then maybe I would.
And it wouldn’t be because I feel guilty. Other posts of mine make it clear that I don’t possess empathy. But helping a lost child is the right thing to do, same as helping a lost adult for that matter. If I could travel the country simply helping people, I would. I value spending time, energy, and money on my own children more, so that’s what I do. But if I am out and see someone who needs help, then I try to help if I can, because it’s the right thing to do.
IMHO, saying “Not my circus, not my monkey” is not the right thing to do. YMMV.
If it makes you feel any better, if I saw a lost or injured dog, I would absolutely refuse to help it, and wouldn’t notify anybody. 
That’s where we differ. If I see a lost or injured dog, I recognize that as a threat to public safety. A lost dog may end up biting someone, an injured one is even more likely.
Some kid might come up on that injured dog that you walked by and get mauled.
You should at least report it to animal control or the dog warden, if it is not a situation that you feel comfortable getting involved with.
Nope. If dogs are that much of a threat to public safety, then I should be allowed to just shoot any stray or injured dog I see. Public safety!
I do find it fascinating that you pretend to care about a kid who “may” get bitten by an injured dog, but don’t seem to care about a lost child that you can physically see needs help.
Staying with the kid and making the phone call sounds like a good idea.*
But there’s no way I’m picking up a strange child unless he/she is about to run into the street and get hit by a car.
*onlookers might suspect you were phoning the Pedophile Abduction Service and beat you to a pulp anyway. :(.
If you want to start shooting stray or injured dogs, I would suggest checking your local laws on discharging of firearms and killing of animals. If they let you, then go for it, if killing animals is what you need to do to feel safe. A stray dog, or especially an injured dog can certainly cause injury. In other cases, I would suggest calling the dog warder or animal control. You suggest that you just ignore the dog and go on your way, leaving behind a potential public safety threat.
On the other hand, a girl in a public place, with security, police, and other parents around is phenomenally unlikely to come to harm. I may be able to physically see she needs help, but I can also physically see others who are more qualified than myself to help her.
Why does everybody seem to think the only safe choices for a bystander in this situation are (A) ignoring the child or (B) inconspicuously seeking help for the child from a discreet distance? Since there are other adults around, why wouldn’t you simply (C) make a very noticeable and attention-getting scene, in a caring and helpful way?
A few seconds of inquiring in a loud and carrying voice “Hello there, where’s your mommy?” “Excuse me ma’am, is this child yours?” “Sir, is that your daughter over there?” “Hey, is there anyone here belonging to this child, she really looks lost?” should get the whole crowd paying attention and rapidly morphing into a swarm of well-meaning officious busybodies who will track down the misplaced parent in no time.
If you’re standing near a crowd of people and loudly calling everyone’s attention to the fact that there’s a child wandering around lost, it’s very unlikely that anyone will suspect you of having nefarious designs on the child. Plus, the more people you alert to the problem, the quicker the problem is likely to get solved.
If you’re disinclined to approach a lost child one-on-one because you’re scared you might be mistaken for a molester, that’s understandable. But if you don’t want to make a public scene about a lost child merely because you’re embarrassed to call attention to yourself, IMO that’s kind of being a selfish jerk.
Potentially risking your physical safety and reputation to make sure a lost child gets taken care of may be rationally considered too much to ask, but risking a little public embarrassment shouldn’t be.
That was what the guy in the OP’s story did. He went around, asking if anyone knew the girl’s parents. And kept doing that until one of the parents found him with his fist.
He had plenty of witnesses that corroborated that, but the father did not care. He did not apologize for the assault, and then harassed him on social media. The guy had to leave the city for doing what you just said to do.
In the example, the kid was already at a large group of people, so the ‘get them to a large group of people’ has already been accomplished. At that point, someone who wants to take a large risk can take over. I mean,we’ve got one parent in this thread who says that if I tried to get a kid to move, I’d be wrong, that my only non-beating, non-arrest choice is to stand near the kid and shout for people. Parents today are extremely bigoted against certain demographic groups, if they want me to jump in to help their kid then they can stop being prejudiced against me.
Just read responses in this thread, like TokyoBayer’s. Apparently there’s a whole set of protocols that I would be obliged to follow that I don’t know (and that probably change from parent to parent), and if I don’t get it all exactly right I’m at risk of getting beaten or prosecuted. Note that TokyoBayer said that if someone was leading the kid to another area, there’s a good chance would lose it and hit them! And that my only choice is to call until someone more parents prefer demographically comes to help the child.
I think the people being selfish jerks are the parents who want strangers to take care of their kids, but also insist that the strangers follow an elaborate set of protocols and risk getting beaten or arrested if they make a mistake. Calling someone a ‘jerk’ because they would help but don’t want to jump through a bunch of hoops that you set up in the first place is pretty absurd.
No, not according to the OP’s linked article. He was walking away with the child toward a playground, not standing in the child’s vicinity making a lout attention-getting scene about the child’s being lost.
[QUOTE=k9bfriender]
He went around, asking if anyone knew the girl’s parents.
[/quote]
Maybe he did that at first, but what seems to have freaked the parents out was the fact that he then appeared to be taking the child away from the crowd by himself.
I certainly don’t defend the father’s behavior, but in fact the good samaritan in this case was not doing what I advised people to do. Make your loud attention-getting child-focused scene while staying put where the child and the other people are. Don’t start leading (or carrying) the child away from people on your own.
Making a public scene in order to help ensure the safety of a lost child without having your own intentions misinterpreted is “jumping through a bunch of hoops” and an unfair expectation? That attitude seems pretty jerkish to me.
So, he didn’t follow your advice of staying in one place, but he was trying to bring people’s attention to her plight. If there was not a group nearby, or the group nearby was not helping, then what, just stand there and keep yelling?
Like I said, this is why I wouldn’t get involved, I don’t know all the protocols, and messing them up can get you beat up and run out of town.
I probably actually would not have noticed her plight in the first place, as I make it a point to not even look at children in public, because just that can be enough to get you into trouble with paranoid parents.
The guy also messed up by not pressing charges and filing a defamation suit.