I would say that a bit more diligence on your part before calling the authorities may have been a good thing.
There is a good chance that you will not see this guy again. He is probably afraid of going out to the park, now, if this is the type of reaction he gets for taking his kid out to play. He and his child will stay inside, away from you and your children. You can feel safer.
Meanwhile, the actual pedophile knows not to stand out like that, you won’t see him coming.
Yes, but she felt “ooky” so apparently, it’s okay to call the police on the guy. “ookiness” trumps law-abiding citizen any day of the week.
What diligence, exactly, would you suggest?
Even if the OP knew this guy had a kid at the park, the part about going up to and initiating conversations with other people’s kids would not have changed. This is what at least some actual pedophiles do: they try to gain the trust of vulnerable kids, which means first off figuring out what kids are vulnerable and trusting and not being watched all that closely.
That doesn’t mean this guy was a pedophile–most likely, he was a socially awkward dad or step-dad who didn’t know the conventions. However, how do you distinguish between socially-awkward parents and real threats?
Maybe, because almost all men are NOT threats to children, you shouldn’t stereotype based on sex?
Unless you can honestly say you would feel the same threat if a woman was talking to the children?
Note the difference: in this case, the man was doing nothing other than existing. In the OP, it was the man’s behavior, not his appearance, that was unsettling.
Calling 911 and screaming about a terrorist would be a douche move and extreme over-reaction; saying something to the clerk lets somebody who is presumably better-informed (e.g., who knows who the regular customers are and how they behave, and what the store’s policies are) decide whether there is a problem or not, and if there is, how to deal with it.
The lady’s radar may be seriously miscalibrated; it is also possible she was picking up something you missed. I know which one is probably more likely, but discounting “ooky” feelings has gotten me in tough spots before.
A woman is statistically less likely to be grooming a child for abuse, so probably not the same threat, but yes, I would be concerned about a random woman hanging around my child too.
While most men are NOT threats, there are men (and a few women) who are. How do you distinguish between them? “Most men are not threats, so it is safe to ignore this particular man who is behaving atypically” is not sound logic.
Guy had a kid with him. Now, I will agree that that does not mean that he is absolutely no threat whatsoever, but it does seem that it decreases the threat level tremendously.
I can kinda see if you just see some guy hanging out at the park by himself, keeping a bit of an eye on him, but are you really telling me that you need to keep an eye on all the parents too? I mean for all you know, the cops that got called could be child molesters too, and you invited them to the party.
You know how you distinguish between threats and non-threats? You observe. As the OP wasn’t observant enough to tell that the guy had a kid with him, I don’t know that I trust any of his other observations about the day. It really sounds like he had made up his mind that this guy was trouble on first impressions, and then went about confirming those suspicions rather than effectively investigating the situation.
Maybe the fact that she has “ooky” feelings SIMPLY BECAUSE THE GUY IS WEARING A TURBAN is something that should be worked on?
I fail to see the difference between your sentence and “Most black people are not threats, so it is safe to ignore this particular man who is behaving atypically” is not sound logic"
or “Most Muslims are not threats, so it is safe to ignore this particular man who is behaving atypically” is not sound logic"
Reminds me of the lady who reported the “brown” guy on her airplane who was “behaving atypically” by simply “doing math” I’m sure you would praise her innate sense of what is “ooky” :rolleyes:
As amended in the related thread, I should have included “unaccompanied” to the ‘child’ in that statement.
There is no difference. If a black man is behaving in an atypical manner that might be consistent with a threat, IN A NORMAL SOCIETY it’d be reasonable to call the cops, just like you’d call the cops on a white dude doing the same thing.
(In our society, such a call has a nontrivial chance of getting the black dude shot, so it’s a bad idea. That doesn’t hold true for middle-aged white dudes at a playground.)
As a middle-aged white dude, if someone called the cops on me because they thought I was a threat, ultimately I’d be delighted with the fun story I got to tell people about my absurd encounter with the popo. That’s the difference between being a middle-aged white dude and being a young black man.
And when the cops recommend that you not return to the playground, because you are upsetting the other parents, is part of your fun story explaining why you don’t take your kid to the park anymore?
Having and INTERACTING with a kid at the park reduces the threat level; having a kid at the park and ignoring him/her to focus on other people’s kids does not. (And if multiple people don’t realize that he even had a kid with him, then I don’t believe it is the OP’s observational skills that are the problem.)
Sure, if that is indeed the only reason she had ooky feelings, it does demonstrate a lack of common sense (among other lacks).
I don’t think there is any difference. If this particular man is behaving atypically or suspiciously, why does (or should) it matter whether he is Muslim or Christian, native or foreigner, white or black or green with purple polka-dots?
No, I would not praise her innate sense of what is ooky, or indeed most aspects of her sense. Doing math, or sudoku puzzles, doesn’t meet my definition of atypical. An adult hanging around a playground and devoting his attention to other people’s kids does. YMMV.
Any reason to believe the cops did or would recommend this?
There was a guy in my neighborhood who roamed around at all hours of the day and night with an axe handle dangling from his hand. He would not speak to you, and would cross the street to avoid you, but then would just stand there with that big handle swinging back and forth.
I’m sure the cops got lots of calls about him over the years; they all knew him. They all knew where he lived with his mother, and what sorts of mental problems he had. They’d investigated him, decided he was weird but not dangerous, and were perfectly happy to reassure newcomers (“oh, that’s just So-and-So, don’t worry about him. You leave him alone, and he’ll leave you alone.”). I saw him regularly for probably a dozen years, and for all I know he’s still roaming around swinging that big axe handle.
The cops I know (admittedly not many) generally fall into this same line of thought; they want to know what’s going on and who’s hanging around, but having reassured themselves that there is not a problem, they’re fine with live-and-let-live, and yet another call about the same person is just another way to break up the boredom.
The fact that this guy was white may well have had an impact on how he was treated, and of course the law enforcement community in your locale may be quite different. However, what I’ve got to go on is my own experience, and in my experience the cops don’t really care if you upset the other patrons, as long as they are confident that they know you’re not going to be a problem for them.
Because that’s what cops normally do. They don’t want to get called out again for this guy. They don’t really care about this guy. It is easier for them if he doesn’t go to the park anymore.
They can either do that, come out every day when the guy brings his kid to the park, or educate the parents on how to spot actual predators.
Which is the least work for them?
And did the OP watch the guy from the time that he got there to the time the cops showed up? He may have been interacting with his kid the whole time, but as the OP didn’t know what kid that was, he wouldn’t have known. If he was interacting with his kid, while his kid was playing with other kids, then he would have been interacting with all the kids. This is not abnormal behavior.
The op mentioned his friend that he spoke to, and a couple other people that may have been looking at the guy, or they may have been looking at the dog, or the drum, or watching their kids, or staring into the sky. It was really only his friend who gave confirmation to his incorrect suspicions.
Just saying, I believe that harm was done to this man and his child that they did not deserve. A bit of care in the future could avoid such hurtful misunderstandings.
In my experience, that’s not what the cops normally do. Your experience may differ, but in mine, cops like having easy stuff to do. Sitting around doing nothing is boring. Dealing with known, predictable, easy-to-solve situations breaks up the boredom while not exposing the cops to danger. Coming out to the park every day, if necessary, is a pleasant break from otherwise tedious work.
Read the OP again. The guy was going up to other kids, kids known not to be his own (including OP’s own kid), and engaging them in conversation. “a guy who went over to play on some fake drum toy when my son did”–there’s no mention there of any other kid playing on the drums or in the vicinity at that same time, so you are reading into the story that the guy was interacting with a whole group. I’m reading it that the guy singled out a child not his own for attention, which also meant he was ignoring his own child. To me, that’s not normal or typical behavior.
What specific actions do you think would constitute this “bit of care”? Even if the OP knew that the guy had a kid there, ignoring his own child to zero in on others still isn’t normal. Had the OP talked to some of these other parents and collectively they concluded that they were all indeed watching the same guy with suspicion, then what? What should happen next?
This is basically third-hand info, so please read it as such.
A good friend of the family works with group homes, where many residents have developmental challenges. She says that it is actually fairly common for police officers to be called because a resident is acting suspiciously in a public place. The individual may simply identify better with children and start talking with one, not realizing that it could be viewed as inappropriate. It can take the responding police officers a little while to understand that they are dealing with someone who, in developmental terms, may be on exactly the same level as the child. As you can imagine, this type of situation is probably more distressing and confusing to the group home resident than the child.
Let me emphasize that these residents normally hold jobs, behave very well, and do nothing at all that could be construed as harmful. They are just friendly and a bit naive about the world in general.
No, but when they buy me a pony and take me out for ice cream, that’s totally part of the fun story. Ooh, adding imaginary details to the situation is FUN!!!
Because you just *know *there’s going to be a next time.