Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget that the kids approached a stranger and asked to pet his dog. That illustrates their poor judgment and underscores that they aren't old enough to wander around by themselves. Just to be clear: they weren't playing at the park...they were wandering around for 20 mins.

Why is this poor judgment?

And, again -- they weren't supposed to be playing at the park. They were supposed to play at the park and then walk home. It is not possible to walk home without leaving the park.

I don't think they were walking straight home from the park. From the 911 call, it seems like they were wandering around and not walking straight home.

How would the 911 guy know if they were walking straight home? He didn't know where they lived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Context is everything!

The point is that teaching kids that some people mean harm is not teaching them that every adult means harm. These kids were either unaware that a man was following them, or didn't know what they should do in that situation. If they had picked up their pace to get home faster, we never would have heard about this. How far away from home were they that they were walking for 20+ minutes and weren't home yet?

What should they have done in that situation? Given that the only reason the man was a threat is because he called 911 on them. And really, what on earth is somebody going to do to two kids in broad daylight in the middle of downtown Silver Spring? As you say, context is everything!

The park was less than a mile away from home.

I'm glad you live in a world where nothing bad has ever happened to you or anyone you know. I know quite a few kids to whom very bad things happened because there wasn't an adult around. Unfortunately, it is reality and our job as parents is both to teach and protect our kids.

I am keenly aware of the downfalls of this parenting style and I wouldn't wish those bad effects on any child, anywhere.

The whole point is that there were adults around! (Including, but not limited to, the guy who called 911.) This was downtown Silver Spring at 5 pm on a lovely spring day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget that the kids approached a stranger and asked to pet his dog. That illustrates their poor judgment and underscores that they aren't old enough to wander around by themselves. Just to be clear: they weren't playing at the park...they were wandering around for 20 mins.

Why is this poor judgment?

And, again -- they weren't supposed to be playing at the park. They were supposed to play at the park and then walk home. It is not possible to walk home without leaving the park.

I don't think they were walking straight home from the park. From the 911 call, it seems like they were wandering around and not walking straight home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Context is everything!

The point is that teaching kids that some people mean harm is not teaching them that every adult means harm. These kids were either unaware that a man was following them, or didn't know what they should do in that situation. If they had picked up their pace to get home faster, we never would have heard about this. How far away from home were they that they were walking for 20+ minutes and weren't home yet?

What should they have done in that situation? Given that the only reason the man was a threat is because he called 911 on them. And really, what on earth is somebody going to do to two kids in broad daylight in the middle of downtown Silver Spring? As you say, context is everything!

The park was less than a mile away from home.

I'm glad you live in a world where nothing bad has ever happened to you or anyone you know. I know quite a few kids to whom very bad things happened because there wasn't an adult around. Unfortunately, it is reality and our job as parents is both to teach and protect our kids.

I am keenly aware of the downfalls of this parenting style and I wouldn't wish those bad effects on any child, anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:What if you turned it around and a story came out that two kids had been living alone, scavenging for a few weeks in silver spring? And when the story broke, everyone said to themselves, yeah, I saw those kids, and something looked off, but I have been taught to mind my own business...

That's a little bit playing devils advocate, but that's why I do think the dogwalker was justified. As someone said above, a mom talking to them instead of calling 911 would have been a much easier decision, but a single guy, meh he did ok. The first case should have been thrown out, and the officers reminded of the rights of children to walk in public, such that when a call came in, the officer could have investigated, perhaps assisted them home to verify they had one, and everyone moved on!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also I, personally, don't make decisions based on "What if I didn't do something, and then something extremely unlikely happened, and then I would feel terrible?" Do you? It's a really bad way to make decisions.

So you don't think about the consequences that may follow after taking or not taking an action that you are considering? That doesn't strake me as a particularly good way to make decisions.

Being able to imagine the effects of choices is part and parcel of good decision making. And yes, one should consider the possibility of unlikely events as a part of the process. Just as doctors learn to consider horses, not zebras when they hear hoof beats, they also know that there will be those times when it's zebras coming down the pike. You can't always assume that bad things will never happen or that they will happen to someone else.

Actually, horses vs. zebras is a very good analogy. Horses is that they will get home safely. Zebras is that they won't. Don't assume zebras.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The earlier incident with this same family was a mile or more. And the 6yo was without anyone old enough to supervise her. If it had been the 10yo by himself, it wouldn't have raised alarms.

Since I used to walk a mile home from school by myself when I was 6, or with my 8-year-old brother, I find it very difficult to be alarmed about a six-year-old walking a mile home with her 10-year-old brother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Wrong. IF it were actually in a neighborhood, then the guy walking the dog would probably know the kids' family and/or at least some of their neighbors. So they could check on them and make sure it was ok. That's what would have happened in my neighborhood growing up. My parents would have called the kids' parents if they thought the kids looked kind of lost or over their heads. But if they didn't know the kids' parents, they would call the police. No one in the world who ever met us would say they (or I) don't have social skills.

But they didn't look kind of lost or over their heads. They were 3 blocks from home -- why would they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget that the kids approached a stranger and asked to pet his dog. That illustrates their poor judgment and underscores that they aren't old enough to wander around by themselves. Just to be clear: they weren't playing at the park...they were wandering around for 20 mins.

Why is this poor judgment?

And, again -- they weren't supposed to be playing at the park. They were supposed to play at the park and then walk home. It is not possible to walk home without leaving the park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to summarize, we live in a world where

1. Children should assume that all adults mean harm.
2. Adults who are worried about children should call 911 instead of approaching the children, because see #1.

There's something wrong here, and it's not two children walking home from the park.

What they should do is not assume everyone means them well! As an adult I make that same assumption. Does not mean I am crazy paranoid or looking at everyone with the side eye, but I do not assume everyone is safe and on their rocker

There is a difference between assuming that everyone means well and assuming that most people do not mean ill. Plus, the fact is that most people do not mean ill. Also, it's not possible to function in public in normal life assuming that everyone means ill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Context is everything!

The point is that teaching kids that some people mean harm is not teaching them that every adult means harm. These kids were either unaware that a man was following them, or didn't know what they should do in that situation. If they had picked up their pace to get home faster, we never would have heard about this. How far away from home were they that they were walking for 20+ minutes and weren't home yet?

What should they have done in that situation? Given that the only reason the man was a threat is because he called 911 on them. And really, what on earth is somebody going to do to two kids in broad daylight in the middle of downtown Silver Spring? As you say, context is everything!

The park was less than a mile away from home.

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Wrong. IF it were actually in a neighborhood, then the guy walking the dog would probably know the kids' family and/or at least some of their neighbors. So they could check on them and make sure it was ok. That's what would have happened in my neighborhood growing up. My parents would have called the kids' parents if they thought the kids looked kind of lost or over their heads. But if they didn't know the kids' parents, they would call the police. No one in the world who ever met us would say they (or I) don't have social skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me so much of the way anti-vaxers rely on herd immunity. Parents send their kids out alone and rely on the trust that there are other good adults around to keep an eye out for anything untoward that might happen to their kids just as some parents choose to not vaccinate their kids and rely on the fact that other parents have chosen vaccination to keep their kids from being exposed to contagious diseases.

Move along. The analogy is just not there. Not even close.

Sorry, it's on all fours for me.

Anonymous wrote:

The earlier incident with this same family was a mile or more. And the 6yo was without anyone old enough to supervise her. If it had been the 10yo by himself, it wouldn't have raised alarms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm after reading the content of the 911 call I have to agree that the call was made cause the kids looked dirty, and frankly I think it was reasonable. The dog walker did a justifiable (maybe not right, but not outlandishly wrong) thing by observing them for a while and making the call. We are supposed to trust our guts and a big part of our perception will be based on the cleanliness/appearance of individuals. So while pp above was being sarcastic, yes! Dress your kids well and they will have less chance of being reported. The dog walker was being part of the village, if you ask me.

No, the village would go up and see if they needed anything, not call 911. That is what paranoid people with little social skills do.

Exactly!