babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Strangers talk never comes too early

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Strangers talk never comes too early
shelby9
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2193

posted 15 November 2002 02:30 PM      Profile for shelby9     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I got quite a disturbing phone call yesterday. Seems my niece, who is 6, was approached by some sicko while playing in her schoolyard during the noon hour recess. He tried to lure her away from her friends - something about a puppy. Now, this school has some 200 kids in it, most of whom were outside yesterday afternoon, and this sick f**k chose my niece to target. What scares me the most is this young lady is usually very trusting. We have all told her not to talk to strangers, no matter what they offer her, but she still does. Hazards of growing up in a small town then moving to a large city.

ANYWAY, she didn't go see the puppy, she turned tail and went back into the school and told a teacher who thankfully believed her and called the police. My niece, bless her little photographic memory, gave them a great description. She said later, to the family, that we'd told her to not talk to strangers... nice to know she was listening.

I wanted to share this gut-wrenching experience with you all, and ask that everyone who has kids, or if you knnow people with kids, please please PLEASE start them young with the stangers warning. No matter where you live. Overcaution is far preferable to losing a child.


From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 15 November 2002 02:42 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for sharing. Its a good lesson for children. They really need to be street-proofed young. Here in Victoria kids were sent home from school with the picture of a dangerous sex offender who is likely to re-offend....... My question is not whatta bout his rights BUT what the hell is a dangerous sex offender who is likely to re-offend doing walking around the community??????????????????????????
From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
shelby9
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2193

posted 15 November 2002 02:47 PM      Profile for shelby9     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that's good, show the kids a photo of the guy they should NOT talk to - great incentive for them to DO exactly that. Kids are curious...

What really bothers me is this isn't an isolated incident. There were reports of a guy trying to lure kids away from the same area thhis past summer. He's apparently still on the loose.

By the way, this happened in Winnipeg. Transcona is any of our Babblers live in the area.


From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 15 November 2002 06:14 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nah, I don't think young children would be likely to talk to a "bad man" they saw in a picture - they'd be more likely to turn tail and run if they knew that this was a person who hurts children.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kuba walda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3134

posted 15 November 2002 06:22 PM      Profile for kuba walda        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree..... the "stranger" now has a face and its the bad bad booby man. That stuff scares little kids.And kids aren't dumb. My son whose the same age as Michael Dunahee looked at me one day several years after he disappeared (I think he was 7) and said "Mom you know I think Michael must be dead. Some bad man took him and did something bad to him." Kids hear talk they are much wiser then we give them credit for sometimes.
From: the garden | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 16 November 2002 05:50 AM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just yesterday an announcement went out that a known offender had moved to Thunder Bay upon his release from jail and was expected to reoffend and considered dangerous. His name was given and people can access his picture. I don't care about offending his rights, what about the right of the hundreds of people who have to live around him.

It really upsets me that the law and medical community know that these people will reoffend, there is no way to stop them, but they let them chose where they want to move to. They are supposedly restricted from getting near children but usually have to live in a residential area, which means children are around. I don't really care that they claim "he is being watched". This means nothing. All the offenders learn from this is to be more careful not to get caught and to leave no evidence when they do something.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 16 November 2002 07:59 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know statistically speaking, children don't have to worry about strangers. It is usually friends of the family (or the family itself) that abuses them.

There was a time when 'strangers' looked out for children. Brought them home when lost. Told them not to jump their bike off that ramp. Maybe they gave some kids a couple of Cokes for free. There was a time when strangers scared off more suspicious-looking strangers. But nowadays all the good strangers (the majority we hope) just have to walk away - ignore the children - for fear of being accused of something. This at a time when parents need more help raising children.

Of course, I'm not saying there aren't wackos out there. There are.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 16 November 2002 08:21 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I grew up in Toronto in the '80s-'90s and I was helped by strangers plenty of times. Of course we were taught to be wary, and I was, but to suggest that community values have entirely broken down because we now worry about sickos is silly.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 16 November 2002 08:32 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, I didn't say that they've entirely broken down. But consider what kind of ramifications the anti-stranger message may have. And of course nothing is an absolute. But if you grow up being told by your parents you are a stupid f*king idiot - that has psychological ramifications. So if you are told not to talk to strangers, you may be more likely to distrust others. You may even learn to distrust others enough to lose value for social institutions, ie welfare (why should that crazy/violent stranger get my hard earned money?). And of course that isn't the only message out there. There are others that counter it (church groups etc). But there are some that reinforce it (violence in tv by and against nameless strangers).
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 November 2002 08:37 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was thinking something similar, wei-chi. I know someone who claims she won't let her children outside by themselves or walk to school by themselves until they're 10, even if the school is right down the street. I think that's sad. There were just as many wackos out there molesting children when I was a kid as there are now. And just as now, most of them were Daddy, Mommy's boyfriend, Uncle John Doe, Grandpa, the babysitter, etc. And often Mommy, Aunt Jane Doe, Grandma, etc., had a clue that it was going on, but closed their eyes to what they didn't want to see.

I haven't really stressed the "not talking to strangers" thing with my son, because he's never out by himself, so it's kind of hard to demonstrate. And there's no way, when someone approaches us and talks to both my son and I in a friendly way, that I'm going to tell my son, "Don't talk to her! She's a stranger!" I meet and chat with the most interesting people by talking to strangers when I'm with my son. My son knows he's safe when he's with me, so he feels free to say, "Hi!" to people who pass him, and tell them stuff - and most of them think it's so nice to have a little fellow spontaneously say hello. I'm not squelching that yet.

Of course, probably next summer, for a couple of months before he starts going to school, I'll talk to him about strangers, and tell him that when he's alone he shouldn't talk to strangers, so that he will get the idea. But as for there being too early an age to impress that on them - I think there IS too early an age. The age when they're always with their father and mother is too early in my opinion. I see no reason to tell a two or three year old to never talk to people they don't know. I think it might encourage timidity and give them no practice in approaching new people - which doesn't leave them with many social skills for making friends in the playground, and would also likely make it difficult to leave them with a new babysitter, a new teacher, etc.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 16 November 2002 09:26 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're right Michelle - your son doesn't yet need to be discouraged from talking to people. He's a little young to be asked to distinguish between a friendly encounter and a potentially dangerous situation. It's hard to know when your kids are ready to be street-proofed because it varies depending on the child's level of maturity and where you live.

My eldest was raised in downtown Toronto, and while I walked/cycled her to and from school until she was about 9 years old, she saw enough strange stuff on the streets to know that she needed to be cautious around people she didn't know. I also taught her to never to go anywhere with anyone, even if she did know them, unless I, or a teacher told her it was okay. Her school had a safe arrival program (as I believe all elementary schools do now), as did the after school program at the local Boys and Girls Club.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 16 November 2002 09:28 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We had the same type of thing happen in our neighborhood a few years ago. We made sure our youngest back and to school with supervision while it lasted, and to this day she doesn't walk alone, but rather with her best friend who lives next door.

Yes. We worry about the strangers but statistically it's the people we know we have to watch. When my sister in law got divorced, and started dating again, I watched her b/f's like a hawk. She had four boys under the age of 12 living with her.

To this day, I believe one of her b/f's was after her boys-- and don't ask me how I know because I just couldn't tell you. It was a gut feeling thing. I think my presence in her life maybe discouraged him.

I'll never know and this could be all in my imagination, which is perfectly fine with me.

My ex has moved back to within walking distance of the house. About a 15 minute walk, I'd say. That's good-- it helps me to know that if I'm at work or out, that she's not too far away in case of emergency-- and we do have them. But the girls are fond of walking over there and with the short days, of course it's often dark.

It's a balancing act between prudence and paranoia.

My girls are not much help. A few months after a woman was raped and stabed to such an extent that it's clear the man intended to murder her-- three stone throws from this very computer-- my eldest said, "I think I'm going to take up jogging in the morning." The woman was attacked in the morning while going for her routine jog.

I'm not a "NO" kind of dad. I rather prefer to talk, to get them to ask the same questions that run around in my head, thereby either showing me that I'm wrong, or leading them to come to the "NO" conclusion without me having to play the heavy.

That time was an exception.

--------------------

I was never educated on "don't talk to strangers". But the time I was approached by a guy in a store while I was looking at "Matchbox Toys" (my parents were off looking at beds, as I recal) and offered to take me to a place where they had lots of them "for free", I knew something was wrong, and went off to tell my dad.

I hadn't a clue as to what purpose some guy would attempt to lure a kid away at that time. But from the transformation in my dad, I kinda figured it was something pretty bad.

I think my dad might have killed him, if the guy hadn't slipped away so quick after I left.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 November 2002 09:48 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, Tommy, that thing about dating after a divorce...well, let's just say that I'll be dating a guy for a good long time before he even MEETS my son. You just never know.

On the other hand, in most of the cases I've ever heard of where a child was being molested by their mother's boyfriend (I mean from people I know, not statistically), the mother generally either knew or suspected or should have known. I'm pretty sure that if I had even an inkling of a suspicion, that would be it. And I think that has a lot to do with how women view divorce and singlehood and autonomy. I'm not afraid of being alone, nor do I think it's shameful, nor do I ever plan to be financially dependent on any man, so I don't have any incentive for staying in a relationship where someone could abuse my son. But on the off chance that it could happen without my having any knowledge of it whatsoever, I'm pretty well planning to just date (and not leave people I'm dating alone with my son) until my son is older. After all, it will only be another 10-12 years before my son is "grown up" enough not to be intimidated into not talking or to be attractive to men who like young boys, and I don't think that's too long to enjoy dating and having fun rather than settling down. Heck, I may never get married again!

On the other hand, I get the heebie-jeebies at the idea of male relatives monitoring all my boyfriends with suspicion - that's just one step away from the assumption that a single mother who dates different men is irresponsible or not a "good mother". My ex has made noises about wanting to protect my son from any boyfriends I may have in the future (he's actually said that he worries about me having boyfriends over at night in case they molest my son, even though I haven't dated anyone since leaving him), and that pisses me off - just one more way for him to try and control what I do and who I see. Whereas he doesn't feel his dating behaviour has to be monitored by anyone, and I'm sure he would have no problem with having women sleep over, or marrying a woman after only a short time of dating.

Then again, maybe he is suspicious for a reason - after all, if I had such bad judgment as to choose HIM as a husband...oh now, that's just bitter.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 16 November 2002 10:08 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I once briefly dated someone who, after a time, gave me a really strong pedophile vibe. At a later date, things he said during a conversation clinched it for me to the extent that I asked my eldest - then about 5 or 6 - some careful questions about his behavior with her. He hadn't, but I'm really glad I dumped him, and never took him up on his offers to babysit.

I stopped taking her to the park alone after several incidents of being approached by men at the park who didn't have a child with them and seemed inordinately interested in me and my daughter. Creepy. A friend - also a single mother - said it happened to her often. We started going to the park with our girls together and did so for years.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 16 November 2002 10:48 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
(he's actually said that he worries about me having boyfriends over at night in case they molest my son, even though I haven't dated anyone since leaving him), and that pisses me off - just one more way for him to try and control what I do and who I see.

I can see how you see it that way. But, I've seen it from his side too. Notwithstanding the fact I don't have a lot of respect for your ex, from what you've said about him here, I can identify with his fear, and I woudn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that it's an attempt to control you. Although, the fact that it ends up perhaps doing so kinda makes his motivations beside the point.

When I was looking out for my nephews and my sister in law, I was also labouring under some ignorance at the time. With the experience I had at the time, I honestly couldn't see why a single guy would want to explore a meaningful relationship with a woman who had four children by another man. And, I was concerned that my sister in law, who was lonely and probably, in my mind, perhaps blinded to somethings while she tried to re-afirm her attractiveness to men.

I've learned a lot since then. I was obviously blind to the fact that when two people are attracted to one another, the fact that they have children from another marriage becomes so irrelevant that I startle myself with my previous ignorance. And, I should have given more credit to my sister in law, who though she has certainly had her troubles was very much more deserving of credit than the amount I cut her at the time.

As it turned out, she eventually met up with a guy who has been very good for her. There was nothing wrong with her judgement at any time.

It's not a conscious statement of "Oh, she's divorced, and has impaired judgement, and is desperate for any male attention so we have to look after her" kind of thinking, on the part of ex spouses or your male relatives.

There's just so many horrific news stories, Michelle, that people are understandably just on thier gaurd.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca