That’s not what I picked up from this story, although it’s really hard to tell since I wasn’t there as a witness.
From the OP… “As he was leaning over the fence around the playground and talking to some kids there were other kids playing with the dog. I couldn’t tell if he was holding the leash or not but come on people, keep an eye on your animals when you’re in public!”
Sounds like the kids around him wanted to play with the dog, so he was making conversation.
If nothing else, this is a fabulous exercise in how people read a single situation in different ways.
Here is how I see all of your points, from the impression I got from the OP.
I get that the OP didn’t know if he had a kid there, but the OP also failed to ask the guy if he had a kid, and failed to ask his own kid what the guy was talking about. This makes me suspect that the OP is not very familiar with, or adept at, reading the social dynamics that happen on a playground. I’m not convinced any other parents thought the same thing, other than the OP (and his wife). Essentially, I feel like I have zero information on how present the guy’s own kid was in any of these episodes.
From the OP, it seems like he approached one kid, the OP’s child who was playing on a drum set. I don’t see that he approached any other children, or was the initiator of any other interactions with other kids. Because the OP didn’t ask his child what the man said, I have no information to decide the the approaching was in the “weird” category. Not enough information.
To me, ice cream seems like a normal topic for kids. It’s better than asking if they like craft beer, which is what I often ask other adults when making small talk. Again, we do not know from the OP to what extent the conversations were initiated by this man, or by the other kids, and to what extent they involved the man’s own child. Also not enough information. I feel like my kid and I might talk about ice cream a reasonable amount while at the playground.
Edited: I see that while I was composing my post, k9bfriender was making a lot of same points. I didn’t intend for this to seem like a pile on.
As I read the OP’s description, the fake drum toy was part of the park equipment, so did not belong to his child, and the guy went over to the toy only when the OP’s child did so, and after he’d already been seen hanging around the OP’s child. There’s no mention that any other kids were playing with or near the drum the time.
So visualize this scene: there’s a drum toy off in one part of the playground. No kids are currently playing there. OP’s child decides to head off in that direction, by himself. Guy who was already hanging around OP decides at that precise moment he’s going to follow the child over to the toy (where the OP’s kid is alone and the guy’s kid isn’t around) and engage him in conversation. That doesn’t seem a little bit off to you?
You do realize, I hope, that the overwhelming majority of kids who are sexually molested by strangers are never abducted, so what’s the point of quoting this statistic?
There are three-quarters of a million registered sex offenders in the United States (admittedly not all of whom deserve to be), and still 90% of sex crimes against children involve perpetrators not on the registry. Researchers vary on estimates of what percentage of the population have or will molest children; Gene Abel, for example, is a fairly controversial psychiatrist, but he has published statistics estimating that at least one and perhaps as many as five percent of adult American men have engaged in such behavior. Even assuming he’s off by an order of magnitude, it’s still several orders of magnitude higher than you acknowledge.
Mets fan?! That’s worse than a pedophile!
You are correct in that there is not much information there. First you imply that the guy was hanging around the OP’s child, when it was the child that almost ran into the adult. Then you assume that there is no one anywhere near this drum. The OP didn’t even say that, just that the guy headed towards the drum around the same time his kid did. The OP did not say that there were no other kids near it, and that is the sort of thing that should have been pointed out by the OP if that were the case. I’ll agree that it’d be odd if the guy goes chasing off after the OP’s kid into an area where there are no other kids or people about, but the way I was visualizing the OP’s story had people just mingling about. The guy’s kid could have been there at the drum, and the OP just missed that (as he had no idea what the guys kid looked like.)
You have added a number of details to the story that were not in the OP that I could see color your perception of the events. If Gedd wants to come back and confirm some of the details one way or the other, that’d be great, but he has already admitted to not being the most observant person, so there may not be many more details to be had.
The overwhelming majority of kids who are sexually molested are not molested by strangers, but by family and friends of the family. I am not sure on your stranger statistic. Are you contending that most stranger molestation happens in public?
As Gene Abel is more than just “controversial”, and is more like discredited. His studies are described as unreliable, inadmissible, and of having dubious scientific value. You may as well be quoting Andrew Wakefield. So according to his “Diana screen” 1 to 5 percent of adult males have molested a child? With those statistics, yeah, I suppose that if that were the case, I would never allow children to leave the house. Fortunately, the only person who believes those numbers is him.
I think maybe you are reading more into what was actually said, and I’m probably reading less than what was actually said. There has to be a happy medium, and we have got to find it. LOL!
OP:
**"I’m not the most observant person, but I noticed a guy who went over to play on some fake drum toy when my son did and was talking to him. I had seen him earlier when my son almost backed into him in the “kids under 5” section.
I know what some people are thinking; we are helicopter parents judging other people. Maybe we are?"**
See, I assumed the drum belonged to his child, and you assumed the drum was park equipment. Both of our assumptions could be wrong. And we really don’t know who was headed for the drum first, since we were not there to witness the event. The OP doesn’t say one way or the other. And just because his son almost backed into him, does not necessarily mean the man was where he did not belong, and it doesn’t automatically mean he was acting inappropriately.
I think the biggest mistake made from the park event is not finding out if this man had a child in his care. One simple question could have saved this man from being embarrassed in front of his child & all of the people who were at the park that day. Furthermore, it would have saved the police officers a lot of time, and time is money.
Well unless you think that someone is going to stand there in the middle of the park, surrounded by parents, and sexually assault a child, I assumed that’s what the original poster was worried about.
And you are, like most posters here, equating sexual abuse with sexual abuse by strangers. Nearly all child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows and trusts, usually someone they are related to. Sexual assault of a child by a stranger is extremely rare. That’s what we are talking about here.
Also, most of those registered offenders are not on the list because of anything to do with children. They are there for crimes against adults.
Also, also, most places if you are put on the register you are there for life. So the fact that there are 3/4 of a million criminals who have been put on the register since its inception is actually a pretty small number. How many 90-year-olds dying in nursing homes are part of that big scary number?
Also, also, also, you are relying on the worst statistics that you could find put out by someone you, yourself, admit is a highly questionable source.
The point is you, the collective “you” that is, are painting every adult male in the US with this absurd delusion. Do you realize its estimated that 24% of the adult population used illicit drugs in the last month. MY GOD, don’t leave your child at a day care! There’s a 24% chance the day care workers are strung out on Heroin!
See how this works?
But “you” are willing to make essentially the same argument for something well south of 1% of the adult male population.
Why? Its a public park.
Look, Stranger Danger is so overrated as to be almost non existent. None of the OP’s suspicions were justified.
You just called a bunch of cops off something perhaps more important, maybe let a real criminal get away, maybe endangered some innocent citizens life.
And, you ruined a nice day at a park for a nice dude out for a visit with his kid.
OP, I suggest you call the police on your kids swim coach, their weird Uncle Fred, and their very special teacher that they like so very much. Because there is a 100 times better chance that those guys are messing with your kids than some guy at the park.
No, none at all.
Sure, but you are wasting the taxpayers money, and taking the cops off something which could actually be important.
You know, horrible terrible things happen to kids every year because the police dont have the manpower to check on dangerous convicted sex offenders, as they are supposed to.
So rather than three cars busting the chops of this innocent dude, that could be three dangerous convicted sex offenders checked up on.
Calling the police here just made the world more dangerous for your kids, not less.
Not in a* public park.** In your front yard, yes.
Nothing he did was immoral, unethical or most importantly-** illegal. **
Sexual Offender database.
which is dangerously outdated as dudes like the OP keep calling the police for non-threats.
Exactly.
And the list is outdated and kids have had horrible things happen to them because the police dont have enough manpower to update that list- and one of the reasons is that lots of guys on that list are no danger to others. Flashers, public urninators, gay guys have sex in their cars, etc.
Nobody has said that. You have been imagining that. You are imagining people are behaving in a much worse and more threatening manner than they really are. Yet you call me paranoid?
I’m still not sure how that is supposed to work. If he doesn’t have a kid there he IS a pedophile (see my links in a previous post about how some parks are now no-unattended adults allowed because no one has business in a park without a kid) but if he has a kid there he is NOT a pedophile because of course pedophiles never have kids?
Someone please explain it to me.
Yes, that is indeed the reason why it’s outdated. I appreciate this excellent and well-cited point that is surely 100% correct!
It can’t be explained because it’s based on irrational fear.
I disagree. In a public park an adult going up to a child out of the blue is an issue. Not a call the cops and have them send three squad cars over issue but a keep an eye on them and maybe move to DefCon4 if things get ookier issue.
Perhaps it is outdated because the police don’t have time to update it because the are too busy investigating law-abiding men in public parks doing nothing illegal?