[HN Gopher] I stopped to watch kids playing at recess - security...
___________________________________________________________________
I stopped to watch kids playing at recess - security was called
Author : fortran77
Score : 133 points
Date : 2022-05-12 14:20 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (reason.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (reason.com)
| deleted_account wrote:
| _Lenore paused. She stared wistfully out the window and thought
| of the third graders she watched earlier in the day, "What would
| it take to give every one of them a nice, sharp pin?"_
|
| Yeah, maybe shoo her away from the playground.
| z3c0 wrote:
| I'm sure that framing your comment as a narrative is due more
| to pretension, but part of me wants to see it as a brilliant
| stroke of irony. I mean, sure, you're grossly mischaracterizing
| her quote, but at least it's presented as fiction.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| The actual quote is:
|
| > And so I was shooed along, collateral damage in the quest to
| wrap every child in a bubble of perfect safety. Now I sit at my
| computer, wondering: What would it take to give every one of
| them a nice, sharp pin?
|
| Obviously the pin is to pop the confining bubble "every child"
| has been placed in, thus improving their lives. She follows up:
|
| > (Though some authority would no doubt accuse me of
| distributing weapons to children)
| deleted_account wrote:
| I got the metaphor; it's a dumb metaphor. Ignoring the
| r/thathappened premise of the article, what, specifically, is
| the wall were tearing down here? We should let adults watch
| children for recreation because society imposes too many
| restrictions on child development out of an irrational fear
| of their safety? The dots don't connect.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| As a parent, the answer is yes. I have literally, on
| multiple occasions, had middle-aged women stop their
| vehicles and ask my children in a panicked voice where
| their mother is. This, despite me being ~30 feet away in
| the front year overhearing the whole thing. My neighbor has
| shoed them off on our behalf. It startles my kids. They're
| asking to ride their bikes in the neighborhood and my main
| concern is that someone will call the police to "save" them
| from whatever fantasy they dream up.
|
| This doesn't comprise 100% of our experience of life, but
| it definitely impacts my children's freedoms and my friends
| have conveyed similar experiences. A person wistfully
| contemplating their own childhood experience is different
| than "watching children for recreation" and the punishment
| thereof is a symptom of a greater problem with (U.S.)
| society.
| deleted_account wrote:
| Following the author's "How many men have exposed
| themselves this year?" logic, if nobody's called the
| police on your kids, why are you worried about it?
|
| I know you want to roll your eyes at the middle-aged
| woman as being a hand-wringing looky-loo, but maybe
| that's just what the social safety net that makes free
| range kids a possibility _looks like_.
|
| My elementary school-age kids walk to school. They know
| they might get approached by an adult asking where they
| live; they know how to answer: "I live up the street. No,
| I don't need help." NBD.
|
| A counter example, I pulled over on my drive home from
| work to ask a five year old in pajamas wandering the
| streets near dark what he was doing out. I walked him
| home. Mom was horrified to realize the little dude had
| wandered out of the house.
|
| One final thought on the original article, I think the
| author is willfully ignoring the banal reality of the
| situation to make their point. I'm sure the school
| representative wanted to say, "Listen lady, I've got 30
| kids I need to monitor at recess and while you're
| probably a nice person you're another variable I need to
| keep in the corner of my eye. Take a walk."
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Maybe it's that we shouldn't let fear of a bogeyman be used
| as a justification to weaponize law enforcement and
| collapse social trust in the name of "think of the
| children"?
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| > We should let adults watch children for recreation
|
| Don't you guys (in the US) still have child beauty
| pageants?
| deleted_account wrote:
| Politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| I didn't notice the author until she mentioned founding the
| "free-range kids" movement. For those who are unfamiliar with
| her, she was labeled "America's Worst Mom" in 2008 for a column
| she wrote about letting her son ride the subway alone when he was
| 9. She has been on a crusade against overprotected children since
| then [1].
|
| I always found her advice extremely reasonable, but then again, I
| don't have children.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Skenazy
| t0mas88 wrote:
| I do have children, and from that perspective: She is not
| crazy. What she's describing is what we would call normal life
| in most of Europe. I'm sure it's also normal in more small town
| US. The kind of crazy incident she describes sounds like a New
| York, or other big city kind of thing.
| woodruffw wrote:
| It's difficult to detect a consistent trend in the US: most
| of the anecdotes in this thread are about people being
| accused of endangering their children in small, suburban
| communities.
|
| As a personal anecdote: I grew up in NYC, and was riding the
| subway alone by the time I was 8 or 9. I believe there's also
| around when my school gave me a free metrocard to travel on
| my own, and I believe that program is still in place. Most of
| my NYC friends had similar experiences.
| anotheracctfo wrote:
| Oh yeah its normal in most parts of the world.
|
| She's still crazy though, as evidenced by the fact that she
| posts about children on Reason.com.
| lifefeed wrote:
| Some of the reactions against her were unreal. People were
| wishing for her children to be kidnapped to teach her a lesson.
|
| And 14 years later America is now watching "Old Enough!" on
| Netflix.
| azth wrote:
| What's wrong with some people, honestly no words.
| aksss wrote:
| The desire to control and to punish those who don't comply
| is strong. Used to be religious element of society that did
| this. Now social control doesn't wear the mask of religion
| anymore.
| moistly wrote:
| "Old Enough!" is a cute, amusing, and quite surprising show.
| It follows 3 and 4 year olds as they run their first errand
| for their parents. The kids are generally clueless about the
| cameras, and they're wired with a microphone. They are
| usually sent on a surprisingly long journey, although along a
| familiar route, involving several tasks. FWIW, we're
| childless & in our fifties, and really enjoyed the season.
| justoreply wrote:
| Meanwhile in Berlin you can use public transport alone if you
| are 6 years old, and you can take your younger sibling too
|
| https://www.bvg.de/en/tickets-tariffs/conditions-of-carriage
| layer8 wrote:
| It appears you can use public transport alone even if you're
| just four years old, and six years is merely the minimum age
| to be a "guardian" for under four year olds.
|
| > Children under four years of age may only use public
| transportation if they are accompanied by an individual who
| is at least six years of age.
| waqf wrote:
| An "individual" ... maybe that means it would suffice for
| them to be accompanied by the family dog?
|
| (edit: unfortunately not, for in the German it is more
| specific, "nur in Begleitung einer _Person_ ... ".)
| nicoburns wrote:
| Now that _would_ be neglectful - letting a 3 year old
| wander around town with just the dog!
| layer8 wrote:
| A six year old dog may be a better guardian than a six
| year old human.
| krnlpnc wrote:
| Assuming this was an American school this really surprising?
|
| America has school shootings regularly. Children have to perform
| regular active shooter _drills_ in American schools. Like a fire
| drill.
|
| There are also significant pressures put on a shrinking number of
| underpaid teachers and staff to care for an increasing number of
| children. More kids being cared for by fewer adults.
|
| With this mindset why would school staff not err on the side of
| caution and ask an unknown person to move along?
|
| It's a sad state of affairs, but it is not the fault of the
| teacher or school staff that America got here.
| trashtester wrote:
| > With this mindset why would school staff not err on the side
| of caution and ask an unknown person to move along?
|
| Because instilling this type of paranoia in children is likely
| to cause more harm to the mental health of their generation (in
| total), than those very few bad events that this behavior
| stops?
|
| Also, it seems to me that this has been going on for a
| generation already, as more and more young adults are now
| hyper-fragile, calling for authoritarian responses to anything
| that scares them. The end result may very well be that those
| children will place a "strong leader" in power when they grow
| up, someone like Putin or Chavez.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| > Because instilling this type of paranoia in children is
| likely to cause more harm to the mental health of their
| generation (in total), than those very few bad events that
| this behavior stops?
|
| Nobody gets a finger pointed at them for the slow
| institutionalization of instilling paranoia in children.
|
| But have it come out that you saw the stranger who shot up
| the school and didn't call security...?
|
| It's pure CYA.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >America has school shootings regularly
|
| Get out of your filter bubble. This isn't true anywhere.
| krnlpnc wrote:
| There have been 14 so far in 2022 alone. And the year is not
| even half over yet.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th.
| ..
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| So we're having school shootings at a rate of one per year
| per 11mil people?
|
| When you remove the things like negligent discharge from a
| sports event spectator and drivebys from the list it's even
| less.
|
| In what universe can that be considered "regularly"
|
| Considering the rate at which teenagers have violent
| disputes and that they spend 6-8hr of their weekday in
| school I think we're doing pretty damn well.
|
| You should be more worried about odd cancers, poorly market
| crosswalks, the fluoride making everyone communist or
| something like that.
|
| If I sound like I'm being dismissive it's because I am.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Gun deaths were the leading killer of US children in
| 2020: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61192975
|
| Leading Causes of Death among Children and Adolescents in
| the United States, 1999 through 2020.:
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
|
| Maybe it is not 'regular' if you find a good criteria so
| that it cannot be classified as 'regular', but it is
| shokingly often, also leading case now, and a strong
| upward trend while all else stagnates or goes down
| (except overdose and poisoning, which also increases
| recently)
| krnlpnc wrote:
| > Per year per 11 million people
|
| Oh fun, I can do gymnastics with these numbers too. Let's
| go ahead and switch "people" for "mammals".
|
| Only 1 incident per year, per 18 billion mammals.
| tragictrash wrote:
| There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and
| Statistics -Mark Twain
| pessimizer wrote:
| That would be dumb unless all mammals are potentially
| involved in school shootings. If you think statistics are
| easy to manipulate, I'm not sure that the smarter
| alternative is to ignore them entirely and operate
| through prejudice and fear.
| pessimizer wrote:
| None of those shootings resulted in more than 2 deaths, and
| half of them resulted in no deaths. They would barely
| qualify as a large casualty rate if they all happened at
| the same school.
| krnlpnc wrote:
| Or to put it another way -- Half resulted in deaths, in
| some cases multiple deaths.
| klyrs wrote:
| Just wondering, were there any shootings at your school?
| Because there was one at my high school, the year before
| my freshman year. It was _extremely_ disruptive, and many
| teachers and students carried that trauma for _years_.
| Death is just a number, until it 's close to you.
| hluska wrote:
| Thank you for sharing this story - I feel extremely sad
| for you but also respect your bravery for sharing
| something so brutal. I'm so sorry that happened at your
| school.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| We had a student get beaten to death over drug money
| stuff and another student hang themselves over it shortly
| thereafter.
|
| Death is still a number when it's close to you. Just
| because it's close to you doesn't make it common. If
| nobody got rare forms of cancer we wouldn't have those
| rare forms of cancer but just because those people have
| families who (presumably) care doesn't mean those rare
| cancers should be considered big problems. You might get
| away with running a village on emotion like that but you
| need to run a country by the numbers.
| klyrs wrote:
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-
| sh... United States 288 Mexico
| 8 South Africa 6 India 5
| Nigeria 4 Pakistan 4
| Afghanistan 3 Canada 2 France
| 2 Brazil 2 Estonia 1
| Hungary 1 Azerbaijan 1 Greece
| 1 Kenya 1 Germany 1
| Turkey 1 Russia 1 China
| 1
|
| It isn't true anywhere _but_ the US.
| deathanatos wrote:
| Your link says 288, in the US, for 2022. A sibling's link
| to Wikipedia says 14, in the US, for 2022.
|
| (And I'm going to trust Wikipedia more than a site running
| scam ads for "Liberals Are Furious That Trump Supporters
| Get This Trump Wrist Watch For Free!"...)
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| The link is badly formatted / designed, but if you click
| the show sources, it takes you to a page that says "288
| since 2009".
| anthk wrote:
| The US compared to Europe it's a shithole.
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| It's even less the fault of the kids, who bear the brunt of
| this monumental stupidity-- particularly if their parents face
| consequences that separates them.
|
| Edit: spelling
| mbrameld wrote:
| Those all sound like really good reasons that the teacher
| should NOT engage with anyone they think is up to no good.
| roguecoder wrote:
| Teachers are taught & expected to sacrifice their lives to
| protect their students.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| I still blame John Walsh for this. He scared an entire generation
| of parents and now everyone lives thinking everyone is a
| murdering pedo. Look, what happened to him and his family, his
| son, is awful and I can't imagine what that was like, but he
| fucked America up.
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| Don't forget Chris Hansen!
| mgkimsal wrote:
| Friend of mine runs a local eatery. She told her 9-year old son
| to walk across the street - literally to the candy shop where she
| knows the owner, and told the kid to do some homework for an
| hour. Police brought her son back and threatened to charge her
| with endangerment or abandonment or something similar. This
| was... 2018 IIRC.
|
| They live about 1.5 miles from the eatery. She would let her 9
| year old walk home sometimes in good weather - low crime with
| actual tree-lined suburban streets. Police apparently threatened
| her over that as well - that's somehow endangering the child too
| much, and she might be charged with some misdemeanor.
|
| I don't get it. Really. As someone who grew up in the 70s/80s...
| I can't say 'nothing bad ever happened'. Obviously it did. But
| the pendulum has swung far too much the other way now.
| ozarker wrote:
| My friends and I rode our bikes in a several mile radius around
| my suburban home when I was ~10 in the mid 2000's. I never see
| kids doing stuff like that anymore. Makes me really sad that
| they're missing out on something that I still cherish the
| memory of today. But also maybe kids just enjoy different
| things nowadays
| gregoryl wrote:
| Our instructed range limit was a couple of km's, but the
| practical limit was a calculated "when the streetlights come
| on, can I ride home fast enough that mom won't suspect".
|
| Sadly never crossed my mind to figure out what time the
| lights turned on, and expand my radius further.
| milkytron wrote:
| I did the same thing, and we would go miles just to see if
| other friends were home and increase the size of our bike
| group before going to Dairy Queen or a local pizza shop and
| hanging out there.
|
| > But also maybe kids just enjoy different things nowadays
|
| I think this may be true, but also I think parents might find
| it easier to let their kid play video games in their room
| where they think they are safe compared to letting them roam
| around unsupervised. I had friends whose parents thought we
| were bad kids because we wouldn't know where would go that
| day, so when they asked "where are you going" and we said
| "idk, to the creek or pizza or wherever we find interesting"
| they would think we were up to no good since we didn't have a
| plan.
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| Likewise - Similar age, time, and place. My parent were
| vocally concerned about the danger of cars, as it's a
| Northeast US town with narrow winding roads, but the only
| rule was to be back before dark or call them to pick me up.
|
| The funny thing is back then there were no sidewalks or
| shoulders at all, and kids biked everywhere until old and
| lucky enough to drive. Now, there are extensive sidewalks on
| all the main roads, but the only people using them are middle
| aged dog walkers.
| OliverGilan wrote:
| As someone who grew up in the 2000s I still don't get it. I
| grew up in a time when this was totally fine and normal. I
| cannot imagine being so restricted as a child.
| webmobdev wrote:
| America changed after Iraq war and 9/11 - the US
| administration found it useful to keep their population in
| fear to achieve their goals in foreign soils without
| criticism. Fresh immigrants to the US are trained by the
| media and system to fear the police and never confront them
| (the police can shoot you) and not deviate from American
| culture and rules (the system can snatch your kids away from
| you, the system can deny access to your resources using
| forfeiture laws). Policing and searching in school (now
| allowed because of the school shooting) psychologically
| teaches kids (especially those of immigrants) to fear and
| listen to the police / authority.
|
| Osama may be dead, but the erosion of rights that US has seen
| because of 9/11 did strike a big blow to US democracy and he
| partly achieved his goals.
| joshmarlow wrote:
| We've had moral panics around Dungeons and Dragons, Satanic
| cults, the war on drugs, etc going back longer.
|
| I could totally see the trend being accelerated by a lot of
| things. Sure, 9/11, is one possible trigger, but it could
| also be news sources getting better at optimizing for
| sensational takes and - more recently - the common person
| using the internet/social media to amplify troublesome
| anecdotes to the point where they seem like pervasive
| trends.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| I don't get it either. I've had the police called three times
| on my 3rd grade son because he has been playing in our front
| yard. We live in a bland Californian suburban neighborhood
| built in the 1990s. He doesn't get outside much anymore. The
| plastic holds we put on the tree in the front go unused -
| bleached by the 258 beautiful sunny days we have each year.
| Instead he's learned to occupy his time on screens, but I hear
| people complain about that too.
| gedy wrote:
| I'm guessing you are in a tract home area with HOA? Some
| folks in these neighborhoods are such control freaks.
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| absolutely. HOAs bring out the worst in humanity.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Tract homes, but no HOA in my neighborhood. There is a very
| HOA-vibe in my city, however, if that makes sense. There is
| a type.
| dkersten wrote:
| Wow when I was ten in the 90's I cycled two hours on my own to
| my friends house...
| kodah wrote:
| Things changed in the 2000's I think. That's the first time I
| remember getting rounded up for walking around with my
| friends too late at night.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Ubiquitous cell phones.
|
| Things really were better before them. (Said as part of the
| last generation to experience that world)
| skrebbel wrote:
| Sounds absurd. What country are we talking?
| mgkimsal wrote:
| North Carolina, USA. I've heard some similar stories from
| friends back in Michigan as well, though not quite as severe.
|
| Re 'candy shop' - it was about 400 feet from the restaurant.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| And what kind of neighborhood is this?
|
| I take it's not a "daycare is a cash only business and cops
| know what real crime looks like" type place.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| Picturesque small town America. The sort of place with a
| general store still selling picture postcards of the
| downtown area. 15th-safest city in the state of around 10
| million.
| jkubicek wrote:
| I think we need to acknowledge the reason this town is so
| safe: police are out there rounding up truant 9 year old
| kids.
| ordu wrote:
| This behavior of police seems to me as a lazy way to do
| their job. Even a way to not do their job. To make place
| safe for children they need to keep an eye on kids, not
| to to round them up.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Cell phones mean busybodies can call from anywhere. Used to be
| they would have to stay in your business all the way home to
| make the call.
| donthellbanme wrote:
| pessimizer wrote:
| > I can't say 'nothing bad ever happened'. Obviously it did.
| But the pendulum has swung far too much the other way now.
|
| My counterintuitive mildly-offensive party conversation starter
| is that I think that the ideal number for childhood deaths by
| misadventure or accident is a balance between protecting
| children from stupid accidents and making children stupid and
| timid by restricting them from doing anything that could result
| in an accident. If kids are getting into too few fatal
| accidents, protections for children should be reduced until we
| get the numbers back up.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Does that actually work as a party conversation starter? I
| can't imagine being at a party and choosing to engage with
| someone about a topic like that.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It very much does. I have actually offensive party
| conversation starters that work even better. You don't have
| to enjoy talking with everyone.
|
| edit: shouldn't party conversation be a little spicy? At
| least I'm not talking about party politics, sports events,
| or television shows. Or the weather, or how we all
| individually got to the party.
| I_dev_outdoors wrote:
| So, like an error budget that would exist in the SRE world?
| Robin_Message wrote:
| I make a similar argument for train travel: since the death
| rate is ~10% that of other forms of transport, if trains
| could be made cheaper by compromising safety to say 50% of
| other modes, that would be a net positive as cheaper trains
| would move people off other, still more dangerous forms of
| transport.
| jonas21 wrote:
| And you could certainly make the same argument about
| airliners, which have a death rate <10% that of trains (and
| <1% that of cars).
|
| But if you try to make that argument on HN, a bunch of
| people will yell at you about how Boeing and the FAA are
| evil for putting cost savings over safety.
| antisthenes wrote:
| > And you could certainly make the same argument about
| airliners, which have a death rate <10% that of trains
| (and <1% that of cars).
|
| You can, but it's not a fair comparison. 99.9% of deaths
| of railroad transport is people killed while crossing
| rails - e.g. pedestrians.
|
| If you consider rail _passengers_ only, it is far lower
| than airlines and cars, something on the scale of 2-3
| people /year.
|
| Airplanes are cheating in the sense that there are no
| pedestrians in the air to collide with.
| rdtwo wrote:
| The Safety cost and even the hull cost is simply not a
| major contributor to the cost of your ticket. It's mostly
| fuel gate fees maintenance and overhead
| dreig wrote:
| Heh :) that's similar to the subject of a Mitchell and Webb
| sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYyxvM85zU
| misslibby wrote:
| I don't think there is a correlation between being allowed to
| run around without supervision and deaths of children. For
| example, if you build dangerous roads everywhere and lots of
| kids die in car accidents, maybe something could be done
| about the roads, not the free roaming kids.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > I don't think there is a correlation between being
| allowed to run around without supervision and deaths of
| children.
|
| That sounds like a good case against supervising children
| at all, but I don't believe it's true.
| metric10 wrote:
| In Colorado a law was recently passed to deal with this.
| According to [0]:
|
| "During its initial committee hearing, sponsoring state Rep.
| Mary Young, D-Greeley, said allegations of neglect or lack of
| supervision have been on the rise in Colorado, even as the
| number of substantiated cases are dropping. In 2019, there were
| 3,854 allegations of lack of supervision; 82%, or 3,169, were
| unfounded, she said."
|
| [0] https://www.denverpost.com/2022/03/31/colorado-reasonable-
| in...
|
| edit: more context to quote
| evo_9 wrote:
| Not to toot our Colorado horn too loudly here but I really
| feel like this state, my home state, is one of the few sane
| places left in the US (but seriously please don't move here
| haha).
| indecisive_user wrote:
| A few other states passed similar laws, including Oklahoma
| and Texas. Seems absurd that we need to pass laws that let
| children play outside unsupervised.
|
| https://reason.com/2021/04/29/reasonable-childhood-
| independe...
| [deleted]
| silisili wrote:
| I think it's highly dependent on the area.
|
| Our kid bikes to and from school each way, a little over a mile
| away. She is always hanging out with other neighborhood kids,
| going to the pool or park, and nobody has called the cops yet
| thankfully.
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| I rode my bike all over town as a 8-12 year old in the 80's and
| 90's. My parents would send me to the grocery store and
| hardware store a mile or two away on my bike for random things
| they forgot during their main shopping trips.
|
| But it just goes back to the same question: has the world
| gotten more dangerous or are we just more aware of dangers that
| were always there?
| leephillips wrote:
| So did I, on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the 1970s,
| when the murder rate was 1,000/year. Things have gotten less
| dangerous but people have gotten more fearful.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| Neither: the world has gotten _safer_ , and for whatever
| reason that has made us more concerned about the dangers that
| remain.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Devils advocate: The reason statistics is down is that
| people are taking less risk. If you were to live like
| before the risk would be the same or higher.
|
| Don't know if it's actually true, but it's worth examining.
| causality0 wrote:
| I suspect the reduced number of malicious acts by adults
| has been more than balanced out by the increased rate of
| children killing themselves as we cripple their
| development more and more over time.
| hulitu wrote:
| Safer in which way ? I was playing football on the street
| as a kid with a lot of kids from my neighborhoud. Now you
| see rarely kids on the streets because they risk being hit
| by cars or kidnapped.
| ekanes wrote:
| Safer in a statistical way, not an emotional / subjective
| / how does the news make us feel kind of way.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Now you see rarely kids on the streets because they
| risk being hit by cars or kidnapped.
|
| "Stranger" kidnappings are exceedingly rare. The majority
| of Amber Alerts occur due to custodial disputes between
| divorced parents when one parent takes the kid when they
| are not supposed to[1].
|
| > Children (and parents) are often conditioned to be wary
| of strangers. However, in reality, only a small fraction
| of child abduction cases - around 0.1 percent - involve
| kidnappings by strangers or slight acquaintances.
|
| [1] https://www.protection1.com/amber-alerts/
| heartbreak wrote:
| They're less rare in certain communities. Something like
| 20% of abductions in the US are hispanic girls despite
| that demo being roughly 10% of the US population of
| children.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| Look at crime rates since the 2000s, or the 90s, or the
| medieval period.
|
| This is the safest period in human history, more so if
| you live in a high income country.
| brnaftr361 wrote:
| Well, probably not, no. There's about 286 thousand years
| of anatomically modern humans running around pre-
| historically (unless you're meaning very literal
| history), and numerous illiterate societies which left us
| mundane archaeological records. Your conclusion is
| invariably cherry picked. Not to mention the goalposts
| for the concept of criminal have shifted drastically as
| has the means to enforce law.
| jhbadger wrote:
| There is something to said about the risks of being run
| over especially given the popularity of SUVs which are so
| high up, but kidnapping is and has always been an
| incredibly rare crime for at least the past century.
| People are freaked out these days because of "Amber
| alerts" but these are nearly always cases of disputed
| custody between divorced/separated partners taking the
| kid against the wishes of the other parent, not
| strangers.
| midasuni wrote:
| Conflating two wildly different things seems like it
| should be a formal fallacy. "I don't go out without an
| umbrella because of the risk of it raining or an asteroid
| wiping out my town." for example.
|
| Car drivers kill thousands of people walking on the
| street every year. Kidnappers don't.
| lancesells wrote:
| There's an actual law for that? Or was this an empty sort of
| threat?
|
| I live in NYC and when my son was a 9-year old I would let him
| play out at the park and on the sidewalk. I had some anxiety
| about it at times but never thought there would be any legal
| trouble from letting him be a 9-year old.
| everforward wrote:
| Those kinds of laws are typically very vague.
|
| This is New York's, for example:
|
| > 1. He or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be
| injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child
| less than seventeen years old or directs or authorizes such
| child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk
| of danger to his or her life or health; or
|
| Whether something is "likely to be injurious to the physical,
| mental or moral welfare of a child" is fairly subjective,
| since it's a balance of odds.
| mindslight wrote:
| The worst part is such laws as written would be
| straightforwardly applicable to the police and prosecutors
| that see fit to harass parents and children, but yet again
| they're above the law they purport to uphold.
| hermitdev wrote:
| > "substantial risk of danger" Such vague and objective
| measures shouldn't be in law. I started to drive around
| Montana's unposted "reasonable and prudent" speed limit
| came back and was later deemed unconstitutional because
| "reasonable and prudent" was too subjective for an
| individual to know when or not they are in compliance.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Sending your kid to a store for babysitting is not good
| parenting.
|
| Does the store owner have a license for child care? Did she
| discuss child care with them? Was she expecting her kid to sit
| at a candy store and do homework for an hour absent an
| agreement with the owner for child care?
|
| Seems like pawning her kids off on unwilling people who have no
| responsibility for them.
| danachow wrote:
| >> literally to the candy shop where she knows the owner,
|
| Read.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| It's a small town. The local business owners know each
| other fairly well.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Just because you know someone doesn't mean they've agreed
| to wbabysit your kids or have the business licenses to do
| so.
|
| Maybe think along with reading
| hisnameisjimmy wrote:
| This is a sad way to frame the world. Not all
| relationships are transactional in nature.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| What we need is an app that mints tokens on the
| blockchain for anyone who happens to be near your kid.
| They can claim their tokens by scanning the or code on
| his/her shirt.
| andy-x wrote:
| Did your grandma have a business license when she was
| babysitting you?
| LegitShady wrote:
| If their grandma owns the candy store sure.
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| I guess we need to change the phrase "like a kid in a candy
| store" to "like a kid in a candy store, with a parent or
| guardian, and a legal waiver, and a lawyer present"
| jjulius wrote:
| >Seems like pawning her kids off on unwilling people who have
| no responsibility for them.
|
| No, it seems like someone (read: you) making a lot of
| assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
|
| Edit: Oh man, the absolute irony of you telling someone to
| "think" further down in this thread...
| mirceal wrote:
| Think about the children!!! /s
| jacquesm wrote:
| When I was _6_ I walked all over Amsterdam, Ferdinand Bol
| straat in de Pijp all the way to Amsterdam West,
| Grieseldestraat where my childhood friend lived that had moved.
| Parents were a bit surprised but no real problem, strangers on
| the way there were also a bit surprised because we 're talking
| about quite a distance and yet nobody called the police or
| panicked they just gave me directions and sent me on my way.
|
| I slept there overnight and walked back the next day...
| hprotagonist wrote:
| Now try it as a guy.
| dudul wrote:
| I didn't check the name of the author before reading and was
| surprised when I realized she was a woman and had to deal with
| that. Had she been a man, I can assume the police would have
| been called without first approaching her.
| C4K3 wrote:
| In South Park in San Francisco there's a little playground that
| has a sign saying adults are not allowed without children, which
| if anything feels backwards to me. It's a nice place to sit, eat
| and chat, and I've never seen anybody complain about adults being
| there, but I imagine there has to be some busybody who thought a
| rule like that would be a good idea. Maybe they have the rule so
| they can selectively enforce it against people?
| francisofascii wrote:
| Just last week there was a local news story about police
| investigating a possible child luring incident near a school. The
| news story and Facebook posts had a picture of a white van from
| surveillance video. The teachers saw what was happening and made
| sure the girl was safe. The story was light on details, and there
| has been no follow-up, so it makes you wonder if the interaction
| turns out to be innocuous. The idea of "bad guy with white van"
| is so ingrained in our culture, that maybe we see danger that is
| not always present.
| incomingpain wrote:
| It seems wierd to me where society has gone. In my dad's high
| school, they literally brought rifles to school. There was a gun
| range at the school. Yes, it had to be bagged up and unloaded but
| you literally brought a 22 with rounds to school.
|
| My era? Zero tolerance for mean words. I got suspended 1 day
| because I told people I got a highlighter. They thought I said
| lighter and tattled on me. Teachers never found the lighter but I
| was suspended no less. I got suspended once because a friend of
| mine was planning to come to my house after school. Asked me to
| carry his bag. Unbeknowst to me he was running off to try to get
| into a fight off school premises. Never actually got into a
| fight. But I was suspended for zero tolerance helping/assisting a
| fight.
|
| Now we are in the era where schools have metal detectors, police
| on staff and actively walking around in the schools, and
| harassing people over literally nothing.
|
| It's interesting to me. Obviously lots of science have determined
| all of this was bad. https://supportiveschooldiscipline.org/zero-
| tolerance-policy
|
| But instead of admitting there was a mistake... they just doubled
| down on bad policies? Idiots.
| lbriner wrote:
| Isn't it similar to the "Nobody was ever fired for buying IBM".
| If there is any kind of concern over safety, any incident
| affecting any school, some well-meaning supplier/council/school
| admin suggests adding security whether fences, ID badges,
| maglocks, security guards etc. Why not? Anything is better than
| nothing?
|
| The problem is that no-one would get away with saying, "maybe
| we don't need the fence anymore, it separates children from the
| community". "Maybe we don't need to repair the metal detector
| when it breaks" etc. Sad really. The idea that somehow ID cards
| are a proportionate measure for some kind of security at a high
| school is very worrying.
| incomingpain wrote:
| Oh yes, I'm sure all these efforts have been entirely with
| good intentions. Afterall, fundamentally they are 'protecting
| the children'.
|
| The saying goes though, the road to hell is paved with good
| intentions.
|
| We proactively need to defund the road to hell.
| [deleted]
| blisterpeanuts wrote:
| tattling used to be followed up by a fistfight in the school
| yard. Snitches get stitches. It was one way that children used
| to learn good boundaries. I wonder whether kids are better off
| today, in our anti-bullying world where even a harsh word can
| be punished with detention or suspension, whereas snitching is
| encouraged. What kind of adults are we producing? So far, the
| results don't look too good.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >tattling used to be followed up by a fistfight in the school
| yard. Snitches get stitches. It was one way that children
| used to learn good boundaries. I wonder whether kids are
| better off today, in our anti-bullying world where even a
| harsh word can be punished with detention or suspension,
| whereas snitching is encouraged. What kind of adults are we
| producing? So far, the results don't look too good.
|
| So the context of that kid, he learnt that stuff at home. His
| parents were famous for calling the police and city on their
| neighbours. The peak of it was July 1st, people were firing
| off fireworks. They called the police to say someone was
| shooting/bombing their house. The police obviously show up in
| force big time. They closed blocks of the neighbourhood only
| to later find out they had a history of false police reports.
| False firefighter stuff saying open pit fires of their
| neighbours were illegal. etc.
|
| After the tattle involving me. Me and my friend were taken
| aside and were very explicitly explained to what we should
| do. This is our fathers and teachers in the same room. They
| knew we would want to fight but they said no, you simply
| never talk or be near that kid again. Complete social
| ostracizing, never touch the kid. Except after we started
| doing that... we'd be playing foot hockey and if he'd ask to
| join, we'd immediately stop playing and say we were done and
| walk away from him. A few times he ran to steal our tennis
| ball and demand to be included. The whole class got in on it.
| Literally nobody would talk to him or talk near him.
|
| My brother in a younger grade did the same knowing he might
| tattle on them. Older grades did the same. After a couple
| weeks of literally no one talking to him, he would spend
| recess standing next to the teacher. Then he disappeared for
| a couple weeks. He ended up in the hospital with what I would
| expect to be psychiatric issues. Can you imagine being
| socially isolated in elementary school?
|
| When he got back? We were all evil and should be punished
| blah blah. His new job was to ensure the teachers knew about
| every infraction anyone did. He doubled down on it, didn't
| work out when he went after a 2 grades older bully and got
| quite injured. Nothing major, serious bruising. The teachers
| were even hesitant to help him. Then one day he comes up to
| me like first thing in the morning saying his parents want me
| and my friend to come to his house. I was like hell to the
| no.
|
| Then few days later I didnt even do anything wrong and
| teacher demanded us and our parents be at the school for a
| meeting. We were expecting suspension but ended up they
| wanted to make peace. His parents were very concerned but
| were so angry when I explained what happened. I refused to
| agree to any peace, that I had done nothing wrong. Which got
| most of the room chuckling... but after that day he sure
| stopped his tattling.
| blisterpeanuts wrote:
| That was interesting, thanks for sharing. Those parents
| were quite something. Karma tends to catch up with such
| people. I could tell you stories... :)
| ok123456 wrote:
| Won't somebody please think of the children????
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| Does anyone know which countries are least affected by this trend
| of "safetyism" and less likely to develop it in the future?
|
| I don't think it's healthy to raise children in this environment.
| can16358p wrote:
| I've seen so few people be successful who are grown in a safe
| bubble within perfect control of their families.
|
| Children need to be (controlledly) exposed to the truths of the
| world instead of being raised like Polyannas. There is good and
| bad in this world and if we show them only the good, they will
| have very hard time as grown up adults.
| aantix wrote:
| We host a German foreign exchange student from Hannover.
|
| He talks a lot about meeting friends after school, that the
| late afternoon is his (not taken up by sports or clubs like in
| the U.S.).
|
| That everyone rides bikes or public transit, and it doesn't
| sound like there's much parental oversight (not a judgement,
| just my observations from our conversations).
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I went on exchange to a small town in Thueringen, and can
| confirm that elementary school aged children got to school on
| their own, including Gymnasium students (starts at age 10)
| who had to take public transit to the next town (there was no
| Gymnasium in this town).
| [deleted]
| CuriouKoala wrote:
| I faced this a year back, same thing but this time a cop showed
| up and not the school teacher :P, I just spoke calmly with the
| officer, that I was just having lunch while in the car.... she
| left.
| zwieback wrote:
| I know there are a ton of examples like this but our kids were
| free to roam when they were like 8 or 10 and not a single thing
| happened, ever. There are probably many more cases like mine.
| sleepymoose wrote:
| The way I see it, if they didn't want people to look through the
| fence, then they should replace the fence with something that
| can't be looked through. Change it to a solid fence type, put up
| a wall, or even just put inserts through the chainlink to block
| the view.
| goncaloo wrote:
| Interesting article. I feel this is more a problem in the US. I
| live in Switzerland and you often see kids walking alone or in
| pairs going to and from school all by themselves - and yet no
| kids seem to be kidnapped or exposed to inappropriate behavior.
| mmcgaha wrote:
| As a parent in the US, here is how it feels. If I let my young
| kids roam and something happens to them, there is a high
| likelihood that some goody-goody-holier-than-thou prosecutor
| will decide to make an example out of my "neglect".
| [deleted]
| Miner49er wrote:
| That's how it was in the US until fairly recently. It changed
| in the last decade or two. I'm not sure why. Crime hasn't
| gotten any worse, as far as I know.
| dariusj18 wrote:
| Because people got super freaked over the risk of pedophiles,
| though they should worry more about their family members
| perpetuating sexual abuse than a random stranger.
| aksss wrote:
| To some degree perhaps aggravated by people having less
| kids, therefore the kids they do have are extremely
| valuable to them, driving demands that the world be nerfed
| up.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| I'm not sure it works that way. It's not like you care
| less about your first child after having a second.
| They're all the most loved thing you have in life.
| rendall wrote:
| It started in the 80s, related to the Satanic Panic,
| particularly the McMartin preschool trials. Before that, it
| was expected that even very young children could be outside
| alone even in urban settings.
| greenglass wrote:
| This too was a media driven hysteria. You can see how the
| news amplifying a few rare kidnapping and molestation
| cases, if it bleeds it leads style, is directly correlated
| to the public intrigue. A lot of movies and tv shows took
| on these themes as well. Much like the red scare and more
| recent mass hysterias driven by an unscrupulous news
| industry political complex.
| msmenardi wrote:
| The kids who were raised in that era grew up, had kids, and
| passed the generational trauma down the line. We'll grow
| past it eventually, but it takes time for people to heal
| and the trauma to filter out of the population.
| trashtester wrote:
| > We'll grow past it eventually,
|
| Don't take this for granted. I suspect this behavior is
| actually caused by an inherent anxiety in some subset of
| the population. When they don't have real (and likely)
| dangers to worry about, they will find some kind of tiny
| risk and overamplify it as something to focus their
| anxiety on.
|
| Removing all things dangerous from the environment will
| only serve to amplify their tendency to do so. A mum in a
| high risk high crime neighbourhood is probably more
| likely to let her kids roam free (and less worried) than
| mums in upper-middle-class neighbourhoods where there is
| virtually zero crime.
|
| My hypothesis is that the solution is to let children
| experience activities that are moderately dangerous
| (ideally through risk of pain, minor injury or some
| social stress, with risk of death or permanent injury
| kept minimal). This helps (I think) callibrate their
| ability to estimate risk as they grow up.
|
| This would allow them to ignore imaginary risks like the
| one discussed here, and may help them identify situations
| that come with real danger.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Watch the local news or get on your nextdoor group and it is
| all packed full of crime stories. A lot of people are
| addicted to feeling scared all the time, and the media is
| feeding them.
| somethoughts wrote:
| Conversely - it'd be interesting to investigate whether other
| statistics have improved over the past decade with parents
| being increasingly responsible for their kids after school -
| reduced shoplifting, reduced graffiti, reduced smoking/drug
| use, reduced teen pregnancy, etc.
|
| Its quite possible that increased organized sports and after
| school activities (particularly robotics, math, computer
| science) could actually improve the capabilities of society
| as compared to just leaving the kids unattended after school.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| The problem we have in the US is we tend to placate to the
| vocal minority, rather than realizing that they are in fact
| just a vocal minority.
|
| Say you have 10 parents that let their kids play outside. No
| one has a problem with this until an 11th parent shows up and
| it mortified, think the kids will all get hurt if they are
| allowed to be outside like this.
|
| That parent makes a stink, take it to the city council, and a
| rule is put in place that you can't let your kids go outside
| without supervision. The folks making the rules think to
| themselves "well we had to act, there was such an outcry".
| Meanwhile the outcry is really just the outsized screams of
| one parent, and you've just screwed the other 10 parents.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > The problem we have in the US is we tend to placate to
| the vocal minority, rather than realizing that they are in
| fact just a vocal minority.
|
| I think it's related to trauma fetishization combined with
| child worship.
|
| Trauma fetishization: The person who is most traumatized by
| a thing should be the one who dictates policy about that
| thing. People who have lost children qualify, and we
| literally name the laws after their dead children.
|
| Child worship: Children are without trauma, and therefore
| without neurosis. When you traumatize them or through
| inaction allow them to be traumatized, you have created
| neurosis, which is the source of all problems in society.
| foobarian wrote:
| I think it's more subtle than that. If you are the city
| council member, doing something about it is a lot easier
| than not. Saying "I don't think we should make our children
| safer" is politically difficult. So the rules slowly
| ratchet up.
| kevincox wrote:
| I think the media is the worst. They love any controversy
| so they will pump up whatever side is more dramatic.
|
| Then of course once the rules change they will pump up how
| ridiculous they are.
|
| People think they can win, but they are really just fueling
| the media.
| dudul wrote:
| As mentioned in the article, people don't care about facts.
| Kidnapping is at an all time low in the US. The only instances
| are family members during a nasty divorce or things like that.
|
| "Think of the children" is the main weapon politics have to
| push regulations and more control. It is _important_ that
| everybody thinks that kids are in danger _at all time_
| otherwise it would stop working.
| [deleted]
| tablespoon wrote:
| > As mentioned in the article, people don't care about facts.
| Kidnapping is at an all time low in the US. The only
| instances are family members during a nasty divorce or things
| like that.
|
| I agree that kidnapping is probably at an all-time low, but
| it's an unbelievable claim that it's _all_ "family members
| during a nasty divorce or things like that." I personally
| know a family who's kid was kidnapped (briefly) by a non-
| family member.
|
| > "Think of the children" is the main weapon politics have to
| push regulations and more control. It is important that
| everybody thinks that kids are in danger at all time
| otherwise it would stop working.
|
| That's not what's going on here. It's a cultural issue.
| You've got a longstanding issue with crime, especially
| particularly "worst fear"-type crime, getting
| disproportionate attention in the media, creating false
| impressions and seeds for fear-fantasies. Now, added to that
| is new cultural obsession with abuse and victim-hood; and the
| idea of completely stamping that out is possible, and it
| should be achieved whatever the cost.
|
| You might have a politicians exploiting this cultural issue
| to accomplish other things, but they certainly didn't create
| the phenomenon of hyper-vigalent school paraprofessionals.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| > I personally know a family who's kid was kidnapped
| (briefly) by a non-family member.
|
| Sorry to read that, but it's still a statistically small
| percent that happens to. One can say "but even one is too
| much", and I appreciate the sentiment, but optimizing for
| the .1% isn't always a good path.
|
| > they certainly didn't create the phenomenon of hyper-
| vigalent school paraprofessionals.
|
| "they" probably contributed to the culture that produced
| the current school paraprofessionals.
|
| EDIT: Some interesting numbers at
| https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/nonfamily - of
| abductions reported to them, 1% are by non-family members,
| meaning... 99% of reported cases (to their org) are by
| family members. That may not line up with 'law enforcement'
| numbers exactly - there's not a clear indication as to what
| gets reported to them. But the ~1% matches up with other
| numbers I've seen in the past on missing children. It's
| almost always a family member or someone known to the
| child.
| foobarian wrote:
| Maybe the problem is that communities are weak. Imagine
| saying "We don't need stronger restrictions. I am OK if
| my kid is kidnapped as a result because the community
| will be stronger for it overall due to free range kids
| etc." You really need to care about your community to do
| that.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Maybe the problem is that communities are weak. Imagine
| saying "We don't need stronger restrictions. I am OK if
| my kid is kidnapped as a result because the community
| will be stronger for it overall due to free range kids
| etc." You really need to care about your community to do
| that.
|
| I think that's partly correct. I think the problem is due
| to weakened communities, but I don't _think anyone_ ,
| ever will think "I am OK if my kid is kidnapped b/c free
| range kids are good." If the community was stronger,
| people with more likely think things like "I am OK with
| my kind being free range b/c I trust the community not to
| kidnap and abuse them."
| hermitdev wrote:
| They're OK with the _risk_ of their child being
| kidnapped. I don 't know any parent that would be OK with
| their child actually being kidnapped.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >>> "Think of the children" is the main weapon politics
| have to push regulations and more control.
|
| >> they certainly didn't create the phenomenon of hyper-
| vigalent school paraprofessionals.
|
| > "they" probably contributed to the culture that
| produced the current school paraprofessionals.
|
| The point I'm making is that it's not politicians who are
| driving this. They certainly participate, but they're
| responding _to_ the incentives and concerns of their
| constituents. "Think of the children" implies they
| consciously created this and/or are the main drivers,
| which is false.
| greenglass wrote:
| "they created this and/or are the main drivers"
|
| The media has an incentive to produce emotion inducing
| content and politician will naturally leverage those
| emotions because American politics are pure pathos.
|
| If you cannot see how that leads to gloom and doom
| oriented media and politicians that lean on
| eschatological themes, you aren't woke.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> "Think of the children" implies they consciously
| created this and/or are the main drivers, which is false.
|
| > The media has an incentive to produce emotion inducing
| content and politician will naturally leverage those
| emotions because American politics are pure pathos.
|
| Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't contradict my point.
| This is a hard problem, because there _isn 't_ some
| malevolent agent acting consciously at the center of it.
| It's a bunch of different people acting naturally and
| responding to their environment and incentives.
|
| This sibling comment probably has it part right
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31355482). The true
| cause of this overprotective hypervigilance is probably
| weakened communities, which itself is most likely an
| unintended side effect of a bunch of different things.
| supramouse wrote:
| It's true to a extent, but then there's things like this
| https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/05/11/texas-teen-
| goes-t...
| cortesoft wrote:
| Right, because every case like that is going to be
| written about in an article that gets shared a ton
| because it is so shocking, and then covered on the news,
| and discussed on forums, and turned into a TV movie.
|
| The story is crazy and scary and disturbed, so of COURSE
| it is going to be shared and people are going to remember
| it. The details get seared into your memory. It is a
| nightmare scenario.
|
| The same day that happened, in the US ~90 people were
| killed in car accidents and ~550 kids were kidnapped by a
| family member. Those events won't be seared in our mind,
| though.
| marban wrote:
| Most parts of Europe are fine but Japan's the best by far.
| ido wrote:
| Same for me. I live in Berlin (biggest city in Germany) & have
| 2 kids of my own and haven't seen anything remotely as paranoid
| here as what you read about US cities.
| twothamendment wrote:
| I'm not saying there aren't bad things in the US, but the
| things in the news are not normal everywhere in the US. But
| for big cities? I think I'll take my chances in Berlin.
| roguecoder wrote:
| Switzerland is so much more heavily controlled than the US,
| which is part of what leads to that outcome. Most Americans
| would flip out if anyone told them what weekend to plant their
| flower box or that they aren't allowed to hoard ammo for their
| guns at home.
| thematrixturtle wrote:
| Switzerland actually has a legal requirement for all men to
| store ammo for their state-issued assault rifle at home.
|
| Also, many Americans live in HOA communities with regulations
| that make Switzerland look like libertarian utopia.
| dakial1 wrote:
| It surprised me that it was a woman. Usually people are more
| lenient to them than man.
|
| I was discussing that, some time ago, with a female friend (I am
| a male) who also loves doing street photography. We talked about
| how difficult it is for a man to do street photography, specially
| around places with a lot of kids, as you will always receive
| strange looks or even threats. If you're a woman taking photos?
| Probably a mother or mother-to-be, if you're a man? Pedophile.
|
| I wonder if there are that many people exposing themselves to
| kids as the security lady said in the article. Seems like an
| excuse to justify the action, or something that happened once and
| they are overreacting to it...
| trashtester wrote:
| I suspect there is an element of survivorship bias. If a man is
| treated like she was, it would not be news.
|
| Most (normal) men also know that they may be seen as a threat,
| and would move along quickly if asked to. (If they call
| security over a woman, they may call the police over a man.)
| belorn wrote:
| I guess it similar for people of color. They know that they
| may be seen as a threat and thus they normally act
| accordingly. Otherwise people may call the police.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Times have changed. I have a male friend working as a teacher
| in elementary school. Things that used to be normal 20 years
| ago are a great taboo now. Younger kids long for human touch,
| but this is absolutely unthinkable and the teacher needs to get
| away to avoid any kind of touch. They prefer not to stay in the
| classroom with individual kids (and ask a female teacher to
| accompany them if necessary).
|
| On the other hand, maybe it's better to be safe than sorry.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > They prefer not to stay in the classroom with individual
| kids
|
| Just wondering, is it the case for college professors in the
| US? should they be careful not to be alone in a room with a
| student or is that a myth?
| moistly wrote:
| And this at a time when so many children are raised in a
| single-parent home and lack any sort of positive male role-
| model.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Big surprise. I'm a man, living in the UK, and I would _never_
| stop to watch kids playing in a school like this if I was on my
| own. But I am pretty surprised they would treat a woman in this
| way. Is that bad of me? Is it bad that I 'm slightly glad that
| they would treat women equally, in this way? I dunno, the whole
| thing seems ridiculous though.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I really don't like this attitude of men being anywhere
| around teenagers or children is creepy.
|
| I know a then 14-year-old guy from a game store where I'd
| played D&D with his mom for two years. I was 30~32 at the
| time.
|
| Some people I know thought it was creepy as hell I went _with
| his mom_ to see a high-school play he was in. His acting
| wasn't great but we all had fun.
|
| I don't get it. I really don't. The people I was with and
| quite a few of my friends didn't understand that reaction
| either.
|
| Plenty of teenagers need a good father figure or mentor.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I didn't notice that author was a woman until I read this
| comment.
|
| As a foster and adoptive parent, I have definitely gotten some
| comments when I play with those of my kids that look very
| different from me; I could feel the tension evaporate when one
| of them calls me "dad" and everyone realizes the relationship.
| Never had the police called on me either.
|
| I did have a 12 year old daughter get stopped by a concerned
| adult while bicycling through a nearby neighborhood ("where are
| you going" "where are your parents" &c.). That turned her off
| from bicycling ever since.
| wccrawford wrote:
| When I read the headline, there was no doubt in my mind that it
| was a man. I'm quite surprised, too. I guess the over-
| protectiveness has just continued advancing. Not a huge
| surprise.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| I live in Sweden and it's forbidden for me (or them) to take
| pictures of my kid at school, ever. I have all these great
| pictures of me and my friends in the 80s doing theater plays and
| christmas singing and whatnot from when I was a kid. My children
| will get none of that. Actually, they do send me pictures
| sometimes: of headless bodies, hands or arms in weird angles
| apparently doing something fun (I can't really tell). Are people
| simply too lazy to deal with the responsibility of living in
| human society?
| aiilns wrote:
| I do understand where you're coming from, but I was growing up
| in the 2000s and the (primary & later secondary) school took
| photos that were shared first on official blogs/sites and then
| later posted on facebook/twitter without asking for permission.
|
| It's not the photos that are the problem, it's that people
| don't really understand or respect others' privacy in the
| internet age.
|
| February before covid, I was at a college in Manchester and was
| pleasantly surprised when they asked us to complete consent
| forms on where the photos that were to be taken were going to
| be uploaded. I was very happy to check the "I don't consent to
| photos of me shared on social media", consequently they took
| some photos with me & some without me. No pressure to be part
| of the group & not be left out.
| Shalle135 wrote:
| Not sure where your kids attend but where we have ours it's ok
| for them to take pictures and upload to a private portfolio
| only available to individual kids parents.
|
| Then there's a blog where pictures are allowed for kids where
| the parents pre-approved that they could upload to the blog
| (available to all parents).
|
| However, yes - parents aren't allowed to take pictures - of
| kids other than yours.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| I always faced greater danger from administrators, student-
| bullies, and teachers (in order of descending harm) than
| strangers, ever, at any age.
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| And student-bully parents who excuse & enable.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Strangers are always way less dangerous than people you know.
| People just refuse to accept that fact.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Always is a strong word. I know someone who had a caring
| family and friend group, yet it was a stranger that tried to
| assault them. This was during that idealized era before all
| the modern safety practices. Thankfully they were smart
| enough to escape to a neighbor's house.
|
| Statistics may indicate greatest risk is people you know, but
| that's an average. Ultimately it's best to take reasonable
| precautions and teach kids what behavior to watch for,
| healthy boundaries, and how to react.
| blisterpeanuts wrote:
| I was jogging on the bike trail and passed by a class of
| kindergarteners the teacher was taking out into the park from the
| nearby Waldorf school. A friend of mine's daughter was at that
| school and I thought she might be amongst the kids. However I
| knew better than to slow down and scrutinize them, looking for
| her. I just averted my eyes and ran on by.
|
| It's sad that we have to be like this, but it feels necessary, in
| a world seemingly full of child molesting creeps.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| The world isn't really full of child molesters. And sadly a big
| majority of molesting happens by people the child knows, like
| family and friends, not strangers. So this extreme reaction to
| strangers and people walking on eggs around schools is all for
| very little benefit.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| The other day I was walking my dog and saw a pack of kids on a
| walk from their daycare, and I thought my friend's kid might be
| among them.
|
| I slowed down and started looking through the kids, till the
| proctor(?) woman noticed, at which point I said my friend's kid
| goes to your daycare and then we found him in the group and
| introduced ourselves, joked around a bit with her, and I took
| some pics of his kid to show my friend, said goodbye, and went
| home.
| [deleted]
| roguecoder wrote:
| Maybe parents just don't want strangers creeping on their
| children.
| recursive wrote:
| What constitutes creeping? That might affect whether these
| parents are being reasonable.
| dudul wrote:
| Did the school actually have any legal ground to force someone to
| leave a public sidewalk?
| tssva wrote:
| The school can't force someone to, but they can call the police
| who most likely would side with the school and threaten to
| charge them with loitering if they didn't move.
| baisq wrote:
| Loitering is illegal?
| taylodl wrote:
| Yes. In many municipalities loitering _is_ illegal - and
| has been for several decades. You don 't have to go home,
| but you can't stay here. Too be honest I'm not sure why you
| find that so surprising seeing as how it wasn't all that
| long ago your skin color affected what parts of town you
| could be present in (to some extent this still persists,
| but you're not likely to be jailed for it - unless the
| police engagement invokes a negative reaction on your
| part.)
| dekhn wrote:
| California takes loitering near a school very seriously.
|
| Loitering at or near a school is a misdemeanor that is
| punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 court
| fine. If the defendant is a person who is required to
| register as a sex offender under California Penal Code
| Section 290 PC, the maximum fine amount on a first
| conviction for loitering at or around a school increases to
| $2,000. If the defendant is required to register as a sex
| offender and has a previous conviction under California
| Penal Code Section 653b PC, he or she must serve a minimum
| of 10 days in jail. And if the defendant is required to
| register as a sex offender and has two or more prior
| convictions for loitering in or around a school, that
| person must serve a minimum of 90 days in jail custody.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| It's effectively illegal if the police will prevent a
| person from doing it.
| baisq wrote:
| If loitering is not against the law how can a policeman
| prevent you from doing it?
| klyrs wrote:
| In many US jurisdictions, police will show up if they get
| called with a complaint. They'll harrass the person the
| complaint was about, and if they don't like how the
| person responds, they'll escalate the situation. The
| number of people charged for nothing except "resisting
| arrest" (regardless that the arrest was unreasonable) is
| astounding.
|
| And there's no "right" way to act in those situations.
| Charles Kinsey got shot, lying on the ground with his
| empty hands on the air, because the police were afraid
| when they responded to a complaint. The shooter kept his
| job, retired, and got 100 hours of community service and
| had to write a letter of apology.
| dekhn wrote:
| Uh.... realistically, in the real world, where people
| aren't being obtuse, police exceed their legal authority
| periodically.
|
| Police have a wide range of latitude to determine that a
| situation is an emergency and can do a number of things
| to prevent the emergency from getting worse. Things have
| changed significantly now that many police are required
| to wear recording devices- it's now clear that some
| police abuse their authority.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| It's even worse than that. This stuff can show up in
| background checks. Just being arrested, regardless of
| guilt, shows up and possibly prevent you from getting a
| job.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Legally, they shan't.
| giardini wrote:
| > _spacemanmatt says >"Legally, they shan't."_<
|
| They also shan't use the word "shan't".
|
| The last time I heard "shan't" spoken was by a leprechaun
| some twenty-odd St. Patrick's Days ago.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Did the sentence include Begorrah?
| Miner49er wrote:
| Are you not familiar with how police work in the US? They
| can basically do whatever they want.
| ryathal wrote:
| Police in the US are allowed to enforce what they believe
| is the law, it need not have any relation to actual law.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, do you not live in the US? This line of
| questioning is indicative of a lack of familiarity with
| US policing.
|
| That being said, there are lots of crimes which could
| _start_ with loitering outside a school, even if the
| locality doesn 't have a law specifically against
| loitering in front of schools (which many do), loitering
| with intent to commit a crime _is_ against the law, and
| the police only need "probable cause" to arrest you.
| "Looked suspicious and refused to move on when asked"
| could very well be enough to establish probable cause.
| [deleted]
| baisq wrote:
| I'm not American. That's interesting.
| cortesoft wrote:
| They walk up to you and ask a bunch of aggressive and
| threatening questions. You will obviously react in some
| way, either by getting nervous or upset at their
| questions. It doesn't matter which reaction you have,
| they will then say that your reaction made you
| suspicious, so they detained you.
| taylodl wrote:
| The police can arrest you and take you to jail for a day.
| Then they can release you without pressing charges.
| That's perfectly legal. There's a time limit when they
| have to press charges or release you. They just release
| you before that time limit is reached. That's how the
| police prevent you from doing anything they don't want
| you doing whether what you're doing is against the law or
| not.
| tssva wrote:
| In New York, where this incident took place, loitering is
| illegal in certain circumstances including near a school.
| Section 240.35 of the NY penal code.
|
| "5. Loiters or remains in or about school grounds, a
| college or university building or grounds or a children's
| overnight camp as defined in section one thousand three
| hundred ninety-two of the public health law or a summer day
| camp as defined in section one thousand three hundred
| ninety-two of the public health law, or loiters, remains in
| or enters a school bus as defined in section one hundred
| forty-two of the vehicle and traffic law, not having any
| reason or relationship involving custody of or
| responsibility for a pupil or student, or any other
| specific, legitimate reason for being there, and not having
| written permission from anyone authorized to grant the same
| or loiters or remains in or about such children's overnight
| camp or summer day camp in violation of conspicuously
| posted rules or regulations governing entry and use
| thereof; or"
| dekhn wrote:
| It kind of depends on what your goal is here.
|
| The school doesn't have that, but in california "loitering near
| a school" is illegal and you can go to jail. Even so, how you
| act in the situation determines the outcome. You have several
| options, including arguing with the school staff (guaranteed
| police visit), arguing with the police (likely will make the
| police less likely to sympathize even if you're not doing
| something illegal), behaving suspiciously (IE, not making eye
| contact, not following direct orders from cops, slumping,
| wearing clothes that cover your face, being a member of a
| minority that cops believe are prone to being criminal) will
| get you beaten up, arrested, sent to jail, etc.
|
| How you act in public situations makes all the difference. For
| example, you could set up in front of the school with a protest
| sign that says ("Fund police and schools"), you're not going to
| get the police called on you.
| ddlatham wrote:
| I found that surprising. According to the first Google
| result[1], it is true that loitering near a school is
| illegal, BUT loitering doesn't mean just being there. It
| means being there with an unlawful purpose; they give an
| example of someone waiting to abduct a child. Watching kids
| play isn't otherwise a crime, so wouldn't qualify.
|
| I definitely sympathize with the author. As a male, I would
| expect an even stronger reaction to hanging around watching
| kids with no clear intent. As others have pointed out, even
| if you're not committing a crime you can be in for an
| unpleasant response. It's sad that there are creeps out
| there. It's sad that as a result, certain innocent behaviors
| make others nervous (rationally or irrationally). It also
| gives me a small taste of what it's like to be judged by my
| category/appearance.
|
| [1]https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-
| co...
| dekhn wrote:
| Do you understand that the interpretation of unlawful
| purpose is left to the enforcement agency at the moment of
| possible infraction? Note that many municipalities in the
| US openly publish the names of people who are arrested, and
| what for, but then don't publish that people got off
| because they weren't guilty.
| ddlatham wrote:
| I totally agree that police at the moment would not
| likely respect the finer points of that law and may well
| detain you. I would not advise testing them. However,
| it's not likely that the DA would eventually be able to
| convict you. I was sharing what I found interesting about
| the actual law in question, which was a different
| impression than when I first read the claim that
| loitering at a school was illegal (which is technically
| true!) It's not actually illegal to watch kids play (with
| no other criminal purpose), even if we both agree that in
| practice you're likely to get a negative response.
| dekhn wrote:
| but you're basically just arguing that "intent matters",
| when it's clear (empircally) that it doesn't.
| ddlatham wrote:
| We agree that intent isn't likely to matter for what will
| happen to you that day. No one is arguing otherwise.
|
| It does appear to matter in the law, and the day you show
| up in court (if you're foolish/stubborn enough to test
| it).
| tldrthelaw wrote:
| Whether or not you will eventually win the case will have
| little bearing on how your day goes _that day._ If everyone
| tried just hanging around a school and asserting their
| rights to do so the number of folks that would be the
| rightest person in the morgue would not be 0.
| c22 wrote:
| This is very true. There was a period I had to live in a tent
| on some un-used land that was accessed through a residential
| neighborhood and I managed to live there for several months
| without any problems or complaints. I came and went as I
| wished and whenever I saw anyone whether walking a dog or
| driving a car I smiled at them, waved, made direct eye
| contact, and said "hello" or "good morning" if we passed
| close enough for conversation.
|
| I tried to keep myself clean, but even on my poorly groomed
| days people just assumed I was some random neighbor taking a
| walk and moved on without suspicion. Most people don't want
| to talk to their neighbors so if you look friendly they will
| avoid you.
| technothrasher wrote:
| "I founded Free-Range Kids in 2008"
|
| This story sound either exaggerated, misrepresented, or possibly
| wholly made up. Not that it is that hard for me to believe in
| overeager security at a school, but it is just a little bit too
| convenient an incident for somebody with such a large preexisting
| interest in the subject. I would suspect that she was looking for
| a confrontation, even though she claims to not be
| confrontational.
| [deleted]
| briantakita wrote:
| > I would suspect that she was looking for a confrontation,
| even though she claims to not be confrontational.
|
| Tell me more about your mind reading technology
| dekhn wrote:
| I live across the street from a school. I'd walk my kid in
| through a side door, the only one that was unlocked, early in
| the morning. I asked if the front door could be opened at that
| hour- nope, for "security reasons" they could only have one
| door open (oddly, that door was completely unobserved, while
| the front door had cameras, and was next to the main office).
|
| Even though I live literally next door and standing in my yard,
| I can see kids playing, I am exceptionally cautious. In
| particular, I introduced myself to the staff (they park in
| front of my house every day) so they knew who I was, smiled and
| made direct eye contact, and acted in a non-aggressive way.
| This greatly improved my ability to move about my yard without
| suspicion. They never did unlock the front gate, though.
| Security through theatre.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| I live immediately next door to a school (~6 foot sub-street
| walkway between my building and the school building).
|
| I've lived here for >25 years and am often outside my
| building smoking cigarettes(!). The "play area" for the kids
| is on the other side of my (and one other, total ~100 feet
| distance) building and classes are brought in and out most of
| the day.
|
| No one has ever even looked at me (AFAIK) as a potential
| threat, and no one (school staff, parents or police) has ever
| asked me to "move along," or wanted to know why I was hanging
| around next to a school.
|
| And living in NYC, it's not like folks will recognize me as
| one of the people who live in one of the 20 apartments in my
| building either.
|
| In fact, I've only had positive interactions with school-
| related adults despite the "suspicious" behavior I display as
| an adult male "hanging around" an elementary/middle school
| "watching" the kids.
|
| I can't say whether my experience is more common than that of
| TFA's author.
|
| I do note that many parents (not that it's a bad thing
| necessarily) drop off/pick up their kids at school (this is
| NYC, so mostly not in cars, but to walk them home/wherever
| they need to go) at ages (8+) when I (and most of my
| classmates) walked to/from school (my elementary school and
| and this one are less than a mile apart, but 40+ years
| distance in time) all by ourselves with no issues.
|
| In fact, we'd usually just go straight out to the park and
| play until dark, then go home.
|
| Back then (mid-late 1970s), NYC was _much_ more dangerous
| too.
|
| As such, it seems to me that these changes are less about
| "keeping kids safe" and more about "security theater" to
| appease helicopter parents.
|
| I could be wrong, but it seems like that's the most likely
| driver.
| preinheimer wrote:
| This seems completely conceivable to me.
|
| You're not allowed to use a playground unless you're with a
| child (new york):
| https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1128/705238326_dd2bad6ea5_b.jp...
|
| There's plenty of stories of men being yelled at for taking
| pictures of their own kids, e.g.
| https://www.arlnow.com/2022/04/13/acpd-woman-pepper-sprayed-...
|
| British Airways wont seat an unaccompanied minor next to a man
| traveling alone: https://www.bbc.com/news/10401416
|
| If you look like a dude, and are relatively near children,
| you're a suspect.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Author of TFA is named "Lenore" which makes it rather likely
| that they do not look like a dude.
| [deleted]
| sleepymoose wrote:
| How much expereince do you have dealing with the modern
| educations sytem in America? I graduated from the public school
| system just over half a decade ago, and even then this wouldn't
| surprise me in the slightest. I went to a very small, rural
| school. The "town" consisted of the school, a single gas
| station, and a few churches. We had multiple armed resource
| officers, lockdown drills, locked entrances at all times,
| strict vistitor rules, etc. If someone had stopped to watch the
| playground I have no doubt they would end up in a discussion
| with an officer and asked to move along. Whether I agree with
| that or not is beside the point, but to me, this doesn't seem
| like an implausible situation for anyone to end up in.
| prepend wrote:
| It seems like the author is contributing the problem by avoiding
| a light confrontation and perpetuating the problem.
|
| I think part of the solution is standing up to these kind of
| light idiocies.
|
| If she had time, she should have just let them call the cops and
| been polite about wanting to just watch the kids.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| The author is a long time free ranger kids person and a leader
| in the movement. That she chose not to fight this particular
| battle is a perfectly reasonable thing to do she has done far
| more than most on this score.
|
| Picking your battles wisely is hardly contributing yo the
| problem.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| I'm not sure you read the whole thing but she did go back and
| talk to "security". Also, this author specifically is known for
| her activism. At any rate, I wouldn't judge her if she
| didn't...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-12 23:00 UTC)