*sigh*
Does anyone have access to current statistics on who the abusers are? Strangers or people the kids know or parent know? I thought I have heard it was the people they know more often, but I can't remember.
Let me say it again: unless a you've known a person since your child was an infant (at least), that person will start out as a stranger to your child. "Grooming" is something pedophiles do to gain access: by the time they're actually transgressing, they're often considered a friend of the family...
I'd probably reserve the hissy fit for later, but if a police officer approaches me for no reason and asks me for identification, my first response is likely to be, "Why? Have I done something wrong?" What transpires after that would determine the need for a hissy fit.
You are an attorney, Ned, or almost. Remember Terry vs. Ohio? What did the Supreme Court decide were the minimum criteria for a police officer to conduct an investigatory interview? There must be a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.
So you have a person in a public park on a sunny day with scores of people around, and he has a camera. How can any reasonable person contort that into a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed? What are the "clearly articulable facts"? He has a camera? Whoops -- cameras aren't illegal. Now what? Ohmigawd, he's ... he's ... he's TAKING PICTURES! Hmmm ... taking pictures isn't a crime, either.
Now what? If an officer approaches Mr. Photographer and Mr. Photographer isn't in a talkative mood, he can legally just get up and walk away. Of course, police officers don't take kindly to being ignored, so Officer Friendly would probably then escalate things, probably leading to a violation of Mr. Photographer's civil rights.
And things would continue downhill from there.
But, yeah ... go ahead and call the cops when you see someone with a camera. It's for the children.
Ok... you're saying that confronting said photographer is an over-reaction. Then lay out how the scenario WOULD continue, and going much further out to left field than I am by suggesting that someone taking pictures of kids MIGHT be a pedophile. Wow.
I REALLY want Monkeyleg or Oleg to weigh in on this one. I'm willing to bet that either of them, out taking pictures on a nice sunny day, would react fairly calmly if confronted by a concerned parent. I know *I* would, if confronted in such a manner. This being the digital age, I would also do my best to lay the parent's concerns to rest, by showing them the pictures I had taken, and deleting any that showed their child if they so desired.
You're demanding "civility" from everyone else, yet categorically stating that you will not act in a civil manner (And things
would continue downhill from there.). Consistent much?
Caution is never inappropriate, and many times the only way caution can be allayed is by "checking things out". But it does not need to be a hostile confrontation with the involvement of the cops, or unslinging your discreetly-carried AR-47/AK-15 revolver of semi-automatic destruction or the calling of the cops as the initial response.
Maybe the original scenario wasn't worded well. If *I* were the parent, I would approach the photographer, and ask what they were doing, as it seemed they were taking pictures of my child. I would explain that this makes me uncomfortable, and why.
I can see Oleg being so approached, getting a bit of a deer in the headlights look, then setting the parent's fears to rest. Most pedophiles would try, but would likely use many of the statements that have been made here ("there's nothing against the law about taking pictures!" "Are you saying I'm a pedophile?" etc). Such a person would also likely back off and move away from the confrontation if they made no headway.
Would I right away call the police? Would depend on a LOT of factors. But I DO know that, were *I* the one approached, there wouldn't be any escalation on my part...
