> Then do it. Call 911, say there's an injured, unattended child at the playground, and you're getting a hostile response from folks as you try to locate the guardian
That is the same thing, though! ... very quickly escalating a probable mundane situation to very serious accusations!
I'm the father of a 3 year old daughter, who I take to the playground multiple times per week. This is in Brooklyn, NYC. I haven't had any issues. But I believe the horror stories, there are just a sufficient number of crazy people out there, overly concerned "karens", or reddit warriors, or whatever. People overly confident in their judgement based on a cursory one-sided description of events. It seems you want to "fight fire with fire" or "play hardball" because that seems fair or necessary, but ... jeez. This is why guys are cautious and disengage.
Absolutely, 100%, no.
A child could be playing out of sight of a parent, maybe a block away with friends, and get mildly injured in a way that requires minor treatment. Or just crying because of a negative interaction with a peer.
This DOES NOT mean children at a certain age and maturity level cannot be trusted to gain some independence and leave their parents line of sight for short but increasingly longer periods of time.
Once he reached 5 and showed they understood the boundaries and requirements, to go out there by himself.
And once he reached 6, he was trusted to look after his 4 year old brother in this space.
And these restrictions seem very strict compared to how I grew up and especially compared to how those older than me grew up. Or in some other places in the world, where e.g. in Japan it's not rare for 6 year olds to ride the subway and do errands and downright common for 7-8 year olds.
Perhaps the parents had clocked-on to this, and were just letting the girl self-soothe so she could learn resillience. Then, on-cue, in steps some member of the public with their own opinion on the child they're trying to raise. This would be kind of tiring for the fatigued parent of a toddler, and the frustration of the parent in the above scenario is justifiable, particularly as encounters like this could happen multiple times daily with a child like that.
Now they could also just be a shitty parent. There's plenty of them. But it's difficult for us to judge and make hard rules in cases like this.
Our society is not as safe as I would like, but it is probably safer than ever before, when children roamed, played, and did errands over wide ranges.
My world was orders of magnitude smaller than my parents'; despite my efforts, my children's world is orders of magnitude smaller than mine. In part, this is because of attitudes like yours, where a child being unwatched is not okay under any circumstance.
When I was a child, me and my friends were gone unattended all day every day.
What a terrible way to live life, always watched over.
I agree. If you think the child is in danger and you’re unable to find their parents after looking around then do what you need to do for the child.
But the other parent’s reaction shouldn’t be a factor. There’s no reason to call 911 and tell them you’re getting a “hostile reaction” from someone who isn’t involved.
This isn’t how serious people operate in the real world. It’s keyboard warrior talk and it’s very unhelpful.
Don't try to out-crazy a crazy person. That's not a game I'm going to play.
That's factually incorrect.
The recording device in my pocket comes into play, and afterwards my attorney seeks damages and fees.
Because these days with anything digital there's a risk of the other side claiming it's a genML fake.
Are there analog recorders with an "infinite" loop of tape so you get automatic overwriting without manual intervention?
> Because these days with anything digital there's a risk of the other side claiming it's a genML fake.
I think this type of thinking is quite cynical and overlooks an important factor: we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and these types of situations are adjudicated by reasonable, typically-intelligent, honest jurists - not computer programs.
If one party is asserting something is fake, they need evidence to do so: mere supposition isn't good enough, and if unsubstantiated, typically removes credibility from the accuser.
In this situation, no reasonable person is going to believe that believable video footage is going to be able to be fabricated on the fly - and to what end? Nobody was physically harmed, no property was damaged, and there are numerous witnesses who are very realistically risking their freedom and finances if they choose to corroborate an inaccurate restatement of facts.
If you never found the child's parents, you'd have to call CPS. Being prevented from finding the child's parents, just necessitates you move that step forward.
Of course, it's not 'your job' so technically you could abandon the child at any point but it does feel a bit heartless to give a kid hope, then say 'meh you're on your own, this is too troublesome'. As for just leaving the child with others who are complaining, I doubt that's a good idea. They were making no move to help, and bystander effect will probably keep them from ever doing a thing.
I'm not even saying you're wrong necessarily, but the whole situation is fucking cooked.
How do we learn to trust each other again?
The effects only get more pronounced in a society where literally every lunatic could have a gun and could therefore murder you at the drop of a hat. Trusting a strange situation will mean your death, eventually. It's inevitable.
This is therefore not a matter of distrust, because you don't need faith or trust to know certain things about the transformative effect this would have on people. They live under mortal threat every second they're outside in uniform. They're going to be monstrous.
They're ultimately good guys (well, as good as any random guy is, not worse not better) but their experience of the society turns them into distrustful, clanic semi-sociopaths. The fear of other people reactions is ingrained.
The one that marked me is that they were afraid of local teens chatting up with our teens and learning they were police children, and passed that fear to all kids by saying extremely weird and violent shit they probably believed, but were ultimately lies. They wanted the children, most of them orphans, to avoid talking to regular kids outside of the camp, and lie if they did.
Not bad guys inherently, but clearly fucked up by their job.
In the original post they had confirmed that they were the parents, and were aware of her situation. While their response was rude, that's not a reason to threaten them to call 911 with lies, or to actually do it. I suggest you reread the original scenario.
Then do it. Call 911, say there's an injured, unattended child at the playground, and you're getting a hostile response from folks as you try to locate the guardian so you'd appreciate it if a social worker collected the kid until the parents can be found.
There is nothing illegal about speaking to a child, and when you soft play people like this you empower them. Let them have to show a cop a DL to get their kid out a squad car to learn their lesson if they can't handle polite help.
(Also, what is this narrative around HN about being accused of nefariousness at playgrounds? I used to eat my lunch at one near me because it was the only park with a trash can nearby and I didn't want to lug my trash back to my apartment before going on my way towards the city -- nobody ever said a word to me aside from asking for a ball if it rolled over.)