No, it’s not, assuming it’s a *public park. * You may not like it, but it’s not “suspicious”.
I dont think you guys understand the concept of “public park”. There are indeed parks only for kids with parent(s). * There *a single visitor without a kid could have the cops called on him.
Anyone, even a sales clerk at a toy store you took your kid to to look at the toy drums?
Yes. I agree, a good % of those unaccounted for are not 'dangerous". But that’s the issue. Keeping all sexual law violators in the same database is crazy and dangerous.
I mean, there’s a huge difference between a guy who violently raped a 5yo and a guy who was having sex in his car in “lovers lane” with another guy. *
If I had a kid, I’d want the police to watch offender #1 like a hawk, and I wouldnt give a damn about #2.
Ha ha, nice out. :dubious:
Given that nothing you wrote suggests you’re seriously confused, I’m not sure what’s to be gained by explaining it to you. You appear to be looking for the least charitable interpretations you can of what people say, and then exaggerating those into incoherence. Why would you do anything different if I explained things directly to you, instead of explaining the exact same things to a different person?
Two things you are wrong about.
And their parents, yes?
*Talking to kids *isnt “inappropriate.” It’s certainly not “suspicious”.
FWIW, while I see a lot of parks with signs with recommended ages for playing on the equipment, I haven’t seen ones that actually restrict play to folks in the given age range. Is this something that happens elsewhere?
We have those in some playgrounds in NYC. I’m not familiar with every single one of them, but to make some generalizations, the playgrounds are in fenced off areas (with a gate, which is more to keep toddlers in than to keep people out) within a larger park. Signage is clear that this is for children, and their caregivers only. While there is some seating inside the playground, there is plenty of other open use stuff in the park at large, including seating, so an adult w/o a child would be hard pressed to claim that they needed to be in the fenced-in area.
Because these are old parks, with the fenced playgrounds added later, some of them do have design flaws. In one near me, playground is across from the basketball courts, but the water fountains ended up inside the fenced area. The (adult) basketball players just come in and fill their water bottles, and then leave – I cannot imagine that anyone would complain, and if they did, I don’t think the complaints would be taken seriously. There are a few others where the fence placement is just dumb, cutting off access to things adults use, and as far as I know, adults continue to cut through the playgrounds to use those things. A friend lives near one that fenced in the chess tables along with the playground (chess in NYC parks is a serious adult business) and she reports that there are grumbles from some parents about adults using the tables, so this seems like a situation that is going to get ugly.
Note that not every playground is like this, some (most?) of them are more open and integrated with general park use.
I have never seen any sweeps by police or park personnel to enforce this, I get the impression it’s used more as an “after the fact” measure for authorities to tell someone to leave if necessary.
And that is probably more than you wanted to know about “kids and caregivers only” playgrounds in NYC.
Nah, this sort of stuff is interesting to me, in a way somewhere between “profession” and “parent,” so thanks!
Specifically, though, do these fenced-off areas mention ages? Do they say, “for children and caregivers only,” or “for children under 5 and caregivers only”? I’ve heard of the former, but not the latter.
FWIW, my local library used to have a sign on the children’s area saying something like, “Adults must be accompanied by a child,” a clear effort to keep creepers out of the kid’s section. I was once looking for a book for my class, and awkwardly asked the librarian if that was all right; they gave me the “Pfffsht!” handwave and told me it was fine. The sign later changed to something like, “Adults must be supervising children or checking out children’s books.” I don’t know if they even have the sign any more.
That’s the closest I’ve come to such a restriction.
The Parks Department defines a “child” as 12 and under. Additionally, there are a number of playgrounds specifically designated as “tot lots” (actual name) but my recollection is that while they provide recommended age ranges for the equipment, there’s no actual age restriction on the playground.
Makes sense–thanks!
I’m not quite understanding how, finding out if he has a kid with him, is a ‘get out of suspicion’ card. Lots if predators have kids (you know that right? ) AND, no doubt, take them to playgrounds. How does, he had a kid with him, make him NOT a danger, exactly?
Is it that he’s not going to molest anyone with his kid there? But there were numerous kids and parents present at the time. So he wasn’t going to molest anybody right there anyway, right? So, like, where exactly was the danger?
Also, I’m seriously confused about how the OP, (and many of the commenters) know when he was ‘initiating conversation with other children’, that he was unfamiliar to those children? How do y’all know that? How did the OP know that? Could he tell from looking at them? If he has a child, that child must have friends, acquaintances, school mates, neighbours, surely.
Like, how does one know whether or not he already knows those kids because he comes to this park often?
Looks like lots of jumping to conclusions based on zero evidence, plus projection of the OP’s fears. He ruined this guys nice time in the park with his child. He humiliated an innocent person in front of his neighbours. And in front of his own child.
When, in fact, there was never any danger anything was going to happen, with so many parents there. And if he’d just bided his time, it would have become obvious this man was there with his own child, and there was nothing untoward going on at all.
The guys only sin being, the OP didn’t see his kid or understand he knew those other kids, and he was being openly friendly. Everything else was nothing more than projection of the OP’s fears.
I hope the OP feels ashamed of himself. For a long time. He deserves to.
(And he’s the one that should be told to stay out of the park!)
This is another example of treating things here like they’re binary: either the dude’s actions are perfectly normal and unremarkable, or else he’s a serial kidnapper/murderer, with no possibilities in between.
No. It’s a continuum. Certain things make a person more suspicious; certain things make a person less suspicious.
More suspicious actions include:
-Going to a playground by yourself, as an adult
-Approaching children you don’t know for chatty conversation
-Approaching children when they’re not near an obvious guardian
-Not looking around to make eye-contact and wave with the kid’s guardian
None of these mean “call the cops,” but each of them is slightly unusual, and might raise an eyebrow or two.
Less suspicious actions include the opposite of each of the above. None of them mean “this guy is clearly innocent of anything,” but each of them lowers the level of suspicion for me.
For the record, I have never been suspicious of anyone when I take my kids to the park. Accusations that I’m some sort of paranoid helicopter parent are idiotic, and I’d be offended if it weren’t so obviously dumb.
The idea that sexual assaults/exposures (I see that “exposure” isn’t a subcategory of “assault”, but there needs to be an umbrella term) don’t happen in crowded places is wrong. Happened to me in a crowded arcade, mostly kids but also some parents [edit: guessing on the parent thing, I don’t actually remember adults other than the dude who assaulted me being there, I was a kid and not paying attention to that]. I’ll wager there are several people on this board who can attest to similar incidents, far more than one in 25,000.
Sure, sure, …now please explain how you determine whether or not the children he’s striking up conversation with, are familiar with him? How exactly are you determining that? Or are you just not bothering because your assumptions will do?
Ditto for:
Approaching a child where no obvious guardian is present. How are you determining that? Can you tell by looking, which child is with which guardian? Are you asking? Or just jumping to conclusions based on your own fear?
Not making eye contact with parent when nearing a child. Again, if you didn’t see it happen then the guys suspicious? Really? There’s no room for he made that eye contact and I missed it? Or, it wasn’t necessary because the child and parent know him? Are these people responsible for informing you of all of this so you DON’t jump to conclusions?
The truth is no one KNOWS whether he made eye contact and they missed it. No one KNOWS he isn’t familiar to every child he spoke with. But that isn’t going to stop them from projecting their fears onto an innocent man.
Exactly how enraged would you be if your very innocent actions caused this public humiliation in front of your child and neighbours, on Thsnksgiving weekend? You’d be spitting mad, I’m pretty sure. And rightly so, in my opinion.
I’ll answer this question once you’ve reassured me that you’ve reread through all the posts in this thread, but I’ll only answer it by linking you back to the posts in this thread where I’ve already given all the information you need to answer these questions. I mean, c’mon. What are you trying to achieve here, real discussion or death by a thousand vaguely accusatory questions?
None of these are “suspicious”.
I stand corrected. Thanks!
So…I’ve read the entire thread, and I’m guessing you don’t want to answer these questions because they reveal what you didn’t actually KNOW, but readily made assumptions about.
Got it!
(And they are just questions. Like everyone else’s. But clearly they make you uncomfortable so you view them as accusatory. )
Assuming you genuinely can’t figure this out, I’ll explain this one thing, and then you’ll just need to extrapolate. Here goes:
Most of the time, I can’t, and I don’t care. If someone comes up to my children and talks with them, if I don’t recognize them, I’ll go join in the conversation. Later, I’ll ask my kid how they know the person. If my kid tells me they’ve never met the person, now I’ve made the determination.
Now, extrapolate from that. This is not rocket science, nor is it Paranoia 101.
Again, the irony in this one sentence is thick enough to cut with a knife :).