$1000 Fine For Sitting In A Park

[+StarBrand]

drifting.....................

[+Ambrosia]

93% of juvenile sexual assault victims knew their attacker; 34.2% were family members and 58.7% acquaintances. Only seven percent of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim. [sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2000]

 

So, yeah. I think that this law is unnecessary in light of all the other things that could occupy police personel's time in keeping our cities safe for everyone.

[+briansnat]

There are many days when I go over to the local park and watch kids play. I love to sit and watch them play in the play fountains.

 

Sicko! I'm reporting you.

 

Seriously, its sad that the weirdos have ruined it for everyone else. For years I've coached a girls traveling soccer team. They have reached high school and most of them tried out for the school team. I was curious as to how they looked in practice against the varsity girls and in particular wanted to see how my stepdaughter was doing.

 

I'm also curious about other coach's drills and methods and this HS coach is one of the most respected in the state, so I would go down to the school and sit on a small hill that overlooked the soccer field and watch the practices.

 

Anyway. after doing this for a few days my stepdaughter comes home and asks me not to do it anymore because I was making the coaches and girls (the ones who didn't know me) uncomfortable.

Edited September 28, 2005 by briansnat

[+mini cacher]

93% of juvenile sexual assault victims knew their attacker; 34.2% were family members and 58.7% acquaintances. Only seven percent of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim. [sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2000]

 

So, yeah. I think that this law is unnecessary in light of all the other things that could occupy police personel's time in keeping our cities safe for everyone.

wow.. that is actually a bit shocking. I imagine that does not include the plain old kidnapping (without sexual assault) but I doubt that would change the overall numbers that much.

 

And yes the police have far better things to do...

 

(... like blowing up suspicious looking tupperware. )

 

A law like that is totally misguided if they think it will deter crimes against children.

[tossedsalad]

The point is that with the problems with child predators, people don't feel safe with strange adults hanging around playgrounds.  I have cached in or near playgrounds before and I feel weird and I can see that some of the adults feel weirder about my presence.  I have seen some leave although I can't say for sure it was because of us.

Let them feel weird. A lot of people are uncomfortable around people of a different race or who speak a different language. Would it be ok to make a park rule that says you are not allowed unless you speak spanish or are with a spanish speaking person? It would be just as easy to learn spanish or "borrow" a spanish speaking person to abide by that rule, but it is just plain stupid.

mini,

 

First, there was a reason that I sent you a private email. But that aside, you did specifically mention race... see the quote above.

 

There is a valid reason to have this law. I personally would not support this law in my area and I don't think it would be especially effective. But there are many places where an "unattended" adult can not go to provide safety to the childern. In fact, I read recently about a school district that did not even allow "parents" to walk their own childern to the classroom the first day of school (or any other time).

 

We can argue this all day and night. But the bottom line is that this is a valid law with no grounds to fight it (other than perhaps needing to post clear, unambiguous signs).

[+Yamahammer]

But the bottom line is that this is a valid law with no grounds to fight it

No grounds to fight it? Okay John Roberts.

 

[tossedsalad]

I appreciate the horrors of todays society and the fear of predators. We had one in our neighborhood. All of us watched the kids here, and watched out for him before he moved away.

I am curious. Did you ever talk to the sex offender in your neighborhood? I don't really know much about this sort of thing, but I don't think many people really do, including the experts.

 

I am sure that it is a horrible thing to be abused. It must also be horrible to *be* a sex offender and know that you are compelled to do terrible things to children. How can a God allow this sort of thing to happen?

 

Sortof makes geocaching problems pale in comparison...

[+Gorak]

LOL - if I were 15 and living in New York I would hire myself out as an "adultsitter" to childless adults who wanted to enjoy the park.

[+mini cacher]

First, there was a reason that I sent you a private email.  But that aside, you did specifically mention race...  see the quote above.

YOU read the post... I said "A lot of people are uncomfortable around people of a different race". That in itself is not discriminatory. I've already exlained the rest.

Edited September 28, 2005 by mini cacher

[+mini cacher]

LOL - if I were 15 and living in New York I would hire myself out as an "adultsitter" to childless adults who wanted to enjoy the park.

I can see the headline already.... "Man caught with "hired" boy in park! Fined $1000"

[+Ambrosia]

I am sure that it is a horrible thing to be abused. It must also be horrible to *be* a sex offender and know that you are compelled to do terrible things to children. How can a God allow this sort of thing to happen?

 

Sortof makes geocaching problems pale in comparison...

Well, now that gets into an entirely different issue.

[+Gorak]

How can a God allow this sort of thing to happen?

Why wouldn't God allow it to happen? Didn't God create the pedophile in the first place?

[tossedsalad]

First, there was a reason that I sent you a private email.  But that aside, you did specifically mention race...  see the quote above.

YOU read the post... I said "A lot of people are uncomfortable around people of a different race". That in itself is not discriminatory. I've already exlained the rest.

I have no idea what you talking about now. We are discussing this law. I said it is justified because people are not comfortable with other strange adults around their children. You compared this to race. You again compare it to anti-discrimination laws in your post at the bottom of page one.

 

I have no idea what how you can compare race issues to this law or to handicapped parking. They have nothing in common. There are many situations where not everyone is given equal access to a publicly paid facility.

[+mini cacher]

I have no idea what how you can compare race issues to this law or to handicapped parking. They have nothing in common. There are many situations where not everyone is given equal access to a publicly paid facility.

That is what they have in common. Laws like this one in the park say that it is ok to deny access to something based on some very broad generalizations that, when closely examined, don't really have any merit. "An adult alone at the park" does not equal "child preditor". So if a lot of people are uncomfortable with the lone adult at the park, its ok to ban them from the park. If a lot of people are uncomfortable with people with long hair at the park, is it ok to ban them? Being "uncomfortable" about it is their problem. Where do we draw the line about what you can and can not be "uncomfortable" about?

 

Sorry I used one rediculous profiling example (race) when I could have just gone with the other just as rediculous profiling example (long hair). But it all the same thing when you look at it terms of "profiling" and "generalizations".

 

And you brought up the handicap parking issue. I suggested we stay clear of it so I won't speak of it further.

[+geekster]

Here's a thought, if something about the park makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, go home, pretty simple, and if you are worried about your kids watch them instead of reading a book while they run wild, banning everyday tax paying citizens is ludicrous, how about banning the people with kids so the rest of us can enjoy a peaceful day, sounds just as fair to me.

[+TeamAO]

This law is quite pathetic on many levels.

 

Appreciation of nature and the outdoors cannot and should not be deprived from someone because "they don't have children".

 

Pure nonsense.

 

I hate politicains.

[Jeremy]

The city parks department says the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks, but a parks spokesman told the Daily News that the department hoped police would use some sense when enforcing the rule.

I would think this would be more effective for keeping vagrants out of playground areas, or young adults from congregating there.

 

I don't have any issues with keeping adults without children out of areas that are designated for children. I do, however, expect that a warning should be given before a ticket is issued.

 

I also expect that there is more to the story than what is revealed in the short article about it. I don't have children but an area that is designated for children should be designated for children and their parents. If a 4x4 track was designated for 4x4 vehicles you shouldn't be able to have a picnic in the middle of the road no matter how pretty the location is. Use a designated picnic area.

 

Re: caching in playgrounds, I personally just avoid them. I'm sure there are plenty of parents that can enjoy these kinds of caches with their children. I neither find a playground particularly interesting, however, so I suppose I'm biased by my interest in cache locations to seek out.

 

Pointing out examples of race, religious and sexual discrimination and comparing it to this incident is pretty poor debate skills, IMO.

[+mini cacher]

profileing is profileing no matter what the basis is... race, religion, car you drive, clothes you wear, length of hair, number of toes you have. If you are ok with one kind of profiling and not with another then that is your right to have that opinion. People get descriminated against everyday for one thing or another. But I guess only certain ones get enough attention to make it bad when the others are ok. Banning people without children from a park sounds about as arbitrary as banning people named Bob. I'm sure in the history of crime, there have been enough violent offenders named Bob to make an arguement that people named Bob pose a moderate risk to our children and should not be allowed in the playground. Sorry Bob!

 

I'm still waiting for someone to say the age at which we are no longer allowed to ride the swing or slide.... two activites I still enjoy at 32... with or with out my daughter. We don't have any parks with that stupid rule around here (though I think I recall seeing one if San Fran. and commenting how lame that was) so its not an issue I would have to avoid. But if I did see a park with that rule I would probably go away since I am generally not looking to get into any legal trouble. But I certainly would not vote for such a rule nor would I knowingly vote for someone who endorsed such a rule.

[Jeremy]

Meh. Profiling is a poor reasoning to argue against designating an area for children and enforcing that designation. If you like to swing on the swing and slide on the slide then do your part to change the park to allow adults to do so.

 

Sorry Bob but this park wasn't designated for your use. Your 32 year old butt wasn't designed for a kids playground swing. Let the kids use it instead. That is why it was built in the first place.

 

(edit: clarification)

Edited September 29, 2005 by Jeremy

[+JimmyEv]

Thought I'd add my 2 cents about this stupid law while filling out three forms in triplicate to get Tylenol Sinus non-drowsy for my cold. This law sort of encourages the stealing of children. If you wanna use the park, steal a kid... Back on topic, the only time I'll go after geocaches in playgrounds is if they're empty. Unless there's a kid with me, of course.

[Jeremy]

Thought I'd add my 2 cents about this stupid law while filling out three forms in triplicate to get Tylenol Sinus non-drowsy for my cold.

 

It contains pseudoephedrine, one of the key ingredients of meth. Deal with it.

 

This law sort of encourages the stealing of children.  If you wanna use the park, steal a kid...

 

 

Hope you feel better.

[+mini cacher]

Meh. Whether my 32 year old butt was designed for a kids playground swing is a poor reasoning to argue for profiling.

 

And since I learned to share like most everyone else, I don't prevent the kids from using it. And for the most part, I wouldn't hang out when there were many kids anyway... some may enjoy watchin kids play but I don't really like to be around any more annoying kids than my own.

[+Harry Dolphin]

These rules, IMHO, and as I've posted in other fora, are a very misguided attempt to rectify a problem, painting with a very large brush. (Now that I've mixed my metaphors, may I be excused?)

I've paid more attention to the miniscule lettering on the signs, and have found several playgrounds in NYC that exclude 'adults without children'. These are not parks in which I would sit on a bench to enjoy nature. These are basketball courts, and soccer courts. We were asked to leave one in SOHO. We were benchmarking, not caching. If the NGS can put a benchmark there, why can't we go searching for it? Oh, well, I can't go searching for a lot of benchmarks (the ones on private property, for instance). We were questioned at the Manhattan Asphalt Plant (which is now a playground), but not asked to leave. (We did not find the benchmark.)

Are these laws misguided and discriminatory? Definitely! Do they really serve any useful purpose? In a pig's eye. Are there any geocaches in these parks? I certainly hope not, though I've done a few in playgrounds in NJ.

Are there placed paid for with our tax dollars that I am restricted from? I can think of many.

Unfortunately, the only way to change these misguided rules is to challenge them in court. This one seems to me to be a sadly misguided rule that serves absolutely no real purpose than to try to make the enactors of the rule seem like they did something.

Oh, well.

[Jeremy]

Meh. Whether my 32 year old butt was designed for a kids playground swing is a poor reasoning to argue for profiling.

I don't think you understand what that word means.

[Jeremy]

Are these laws misguided and discriminatory?

No. There is no prejudice here. You're trying to use the word "discriminate" in an incorrect context.

 

Do they really serve any useful purpose?

 

Yep. They allow a kid to swing on the swing dedicated for the child instead of Bob. Bob, go get yer own swing!

 

Are there placed paid for with our tax dollars that I am restricted from?  I can think of many.

 

Yes. So are handicapped spaces. As an able bodied american you are not allowed to park there. By your definition that is discrimination. Military bases are also off-limits to many civillians. did you know their commissaries are tax free? You're missing out.

 

Unfortunately, the only way to change these misguided rules is to challenge them in court.

 

Well you're not going to accomplish much here.

 

This one seems to me to be a sadly misguided rule that serves absolutely no real purpose than to try to make the enactors of the rule seem like they did something.

 

It keeps Bob off the swing. That's worth something.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Jeremy

[+mini cacher]

Sure I do.

 

Butt: my rear end

 

Edit:

 

Oops that is probably not the word you meant.

 

Profiling: recording a person's behavior and analyzing psychological characteristics in order to predict or assess their ability in a certain sphere or to identify a particular group of people.

 

the key here is "to identify a particular group of people" like those who are alone at the park have been observed over time and determined to be a risk for the children.

 

Or was it another word that I might not know the meaning of? you did not specify.

Edited September 29, 2005 by mini cacher

[+mini cacher]

It keeps Bob off the swing. That's worth something.

Poor Bob.

[+Team Torque]

I'll bring my 20 year old son. He is still my child.

 

I would say the law may be too vague to be enforceable. Also if I could prove that they didn't ticket women but the did men I would argue it was being enforced in a discriminatory manor. Profiling me because I am a man. They can't use common sense or the law would be unenforceable.

[Jeremy]

Profiling: recording a person's behavior and analyzing psychological characteristics in order to predict or assess their ability in a certain sphere or to identify a particular group of people.

Ah. Sorry. I was confused as I thought you were commenting on what I was saying. I believe designated areas for kids should be designated places for kids and there are good reasons (sorry Bob) for having these places. Whether a city official decided to opine that they thought it was to keep pedophiles out was irrelevant for me. I saw the need to designate areas for kids and one easy way to do this is to require that adults should be there with their kids. If you don't have a kid with you and you're in one of these areas you aren't being profiled. You're just breaking the law.

 

Having a kid with you is not a "behavior" or some "psychological characteristic" that identifies you out of a group of people. You either have a child with you or you don't.

 

The fact that the law is on the books is pretty reasonable to me for the reasons outlined above (deter vagrants, unsupervised children, young adults). The pedophile reasoning is just icing on the cake. It only takes a short distraction to have your child abducted.

[Jeremy]

I'll bring my 20 year old son. He is still my child.

But you're both adults. D'oh! Where are your kids?

 

I would say the law may be too vague to be enforceable.

 

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. They probably have a legal description of a child to back it up. Parent or legal guardian is also well defined.

 

Also if I could prove that they didn't ticket women but the did men I would argue it was being enforced in a discriminatory manor.  Profiling me because I am a man.

 

I agree with that. If they aren't dually enforcing the rule then you may have a case. Hard to prove though (and you're still violating the posted law).

 

They can't use common sense or the law would be unenforceable.

 

It still seems crystal clear to me.

[+mini cacher]

but saying that "if you don't have a kid with you then you are up to no good and must not be there" is profiling. There could have been better ways to make rules to handle those more "reasonable" situations.... like:

 

"Anyone under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian." This would eliminate most of the "congragating youth" AND insure that ALL children are being supervised.

 

Detering vagrants is an issue that they have not yet done a very good job of addressing anywhere. The closest thing that would probably work is a "No loitering" but that in itself is prety vague. Just hanging out there is probably loitering... but actually using the swing and slide would not be.

Edited September 29, 2005 by mini cacher

[tossedsalad]

I have no idea what how you can compare race issues to this law or to handicapped parking.  They have nothing in common.  There are many situations where not everyone is given equal access to a publicly paid facility.

That is what they have in common. Laws like this one in the park say that it is ok to deny access to something based on some very broad generalizations that, when closely examined, don't really have any merit. "An adult alone at the park" does not equal "child preditor". So if a lot of people are uncomfortable with the lone adult at the park, its ok to ban them from the park. If a lot of people are uncomfortable with people with long hair at the park, is it ok to ban them? Being "uncomfortable" about it is their problem. Where do we draw the line about what you can and can not be "uncomfortable" about?

 

Sorry I used one rediculous profiling example (race) when I could have just gone with the other just as rediculous profiling example (long hair). But it all the same thing when you look at it terms of "profiling" and "generalizations".

 

And you brought up the handicap parking issue. I suggested we stay clear of it so I won't speak of it further.

What you are ignoring is that no one is being "excluded" from public services. The area is specifically designed and designated for use by children. Adults can use other areas designed and designated for mixed or adult only use. And we are not talking about hair or any other irrelevant issues. We are talking about excluding anyone who has no business in a children's play area in order to keep the children safe.

 

No discrimination.

 

What about areas within a public pool that small children are not allowed in? Likewise, there are areas where adults are not allowed unless supervising children.

 

Is that so terrible?

[+mini cacher]

The pedophile reasoning is just icing on the cake. It only takes a short distraction to have your child abducted.

yes... too short for the offender to even have been ticketed by the cop. In... Out... no one knows what happened...

[+Harry Dolphin]

{QUOTE]Are these laws misguided and discriminatory?

No. There is no prejudice here. You're trying to use the word "discriminate" in an incorrect context.

 

Definitely discriminatory. Word used correctly. I'm not sure that 'childless' is a protected minority in any jurisdiction, though I could probably argue it in a New Jersey court of law, though not in New York. Discriminate: to make a distinction in favor or against one person or thing as compareed to others. As a childless person, I may not search for that benchmark, while someone bringing a child along could. Sounds like a valid example of discrimination to tme.

 

Do they really serve any useful purpose?

 

 

Ah! I must give the New York City lawmakers more credit for perspicacity than I previously had. I was just searching for a benchmark. Didn't want to push a parent of a child off a swing!

 

Are there placed paid for with our tax dollars that I am restricted from? I can think of many.

 

Yes. So are handicapped spaces. As an able bodied american you are not allowed to park there. By your definition that is discrimination. Military bases are also off-limits to many civillians. did you know their commissaries are tax free? You're missing out.{/QUOTE]

 

And you are missing the point why? Jeremy, you are hardly that ingenuous. Don't pretend to be so. Simplistic analogies? I do not see how ADA applies. I can walk across a restricted parking space. I just cannot park there. I cannot walk across that playground. I seem to have lost the relevance here.

 

This one seems to me to be a sadly misguided rule that serves absolutely no real purpose than to try to make the enactors of the rule seem like they did something.

 

It keeps Bob off the swing. That's worth something.[?quote]

 

And, how do we know that Bob is not a child at heart? Or qualifies under ADA? Perhaps he's a Jespy? Would that not qualify him as a a 'child'.

 

If you have any serious arguments, I shall consider them. I do know that,, as a childless adult, I am prohibited from searching for a benchmark that adults, accompanied by children are free to search for, even though they are not making use of the playground for the purpose for which it is intended.

[tossedsalad]

profileing is profileing no matter what the basis is... race, religion, car you drive, clothes you wear, length of hair, number of toes you have. If you are ok with one kind of profiling and not with another then that is your right to have that opinion. People get descriminated against everyday for one thing or another. But I guess only certain ones get enough attention to make it bad when the others are ok. Banning people without children from a park sounds about as arbitrary as banning people named Bob. I'm sure in the history of crime, there have been enough violent offenders named Bob to make an arguement that people named Bob pose a moderate risk to our children and should not be allowed in the playground. Sorry Bob!

 

I'm still waiting for someone to say the age at which we are no longer allowed to ride the swing or slide.... two activites I still enjoy at 32... with or with out my daughter. We don't have any parks with that stupid rule around here (though I think I recall seeing one if San Fran. and commenting how lame that was) so its not an issue I would have to avoid. But if I did see a park with that rule I would probably go away since I am generally not looking to get into any legal trouble. But I certainly would not vote for such a rule nor would I knowingly vote for someone who endorsed such a rule.

Yes, profiling is profiling. And profiling is not unreasonable or illegal except if a cop uses it to stop you in your car.

 

We are not talking about police stopping people or people being denied rights. You do not have a right to go to every public facility or to use every public service. Qualifications can be applied and in this case it is age or purpose. The only allowed purpose is supervising children or being one.

 

Which are you?

[+mini cacher]

We are talking about excluding anyone who has no business in a children's play area in order to keep the children safe.

So you are telling me that because I don't have my child with me I can't ride the swing? What if my business there is to ride the swing? How does me riding the swing endanger the children any more than a child riding the swing? With law suits as they are and child obesity as it is... I have no doubt that the swings in the playground are designed to handle a heck of a lot more weight than I throw at it. So I can't think of any other safety issue that I present that any other child doesn't.

 

How does me sitting at the bench endanger the children?

 

Unless that you think I am going to do something to the children... which means that you have some reason to think that anyone sitting alone at the park is going to do something to the children. But where does that idea come from? Is it because at one time there was a person alone at the park that did do something to a child? One out of how many people alone at the park that did not do anything? It seems that from the earlier posted stats, it is not very likely that the offender is some random person sitting alone at the park.

Edited September 29, 2005 by mini cacher

[+geekster]

To be honest it doesn't matter much to me, childrens parks are largely boring, and children in general are largely annoying, let them ban adults without children if they wish, but they better not be using my tax dollars to build those parks, if I wanted to spend money on children I'd have my own

[+mini cacher]

Qualifications can be applied and in this case it is age or purpose.

Some might call that descrimination based on age... If I'm not mistaken that is illegal in many areas of life... just not the park I guess.

 

I switched to the word profiling because it seemed people were not taking kindly to the word descrimination... although denying access based on a person fitting into a profile (alone at the park) is pretty much descrimination...

[+geekster]

No matter what you call it, profiling or discrimination, it is only acceptable until one day you wake up and it applies to you.

 

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. - William O. Douglas, judge (1898-1980)

 

This country is in the twilight

[Jeremy]

We are talking about excluding anyone who has no business in a children's play area in order to keep the children safe.

So you are telling me that because I don't have my child with me I can't ride the swing? What if my business there is to ride the swing?

Then show your work order as the swing rider to the police officer. Otherwise you can't ride the swing. There's a kid waiting to use it you inconsiderate clod*

 

* joke

 

How does me riding the swing endanger the children any more than a child riding the swing?

 

I don't know. Seems irrelevant anyway. That swing wasn't made for your use. They call it a "child playground" for a reason.

 

How does me sitting at the bench endanger the children?

 

You're getting repetitive about the profiling thing. It doesn't matter whether it does or not. You aren't supposed to be there because the park was built for kids and the parents that supervise them.

 

Unless that you think I am going to do something to the children... which means that you have some reason to think that anyone sitting alone at the park is going to do something to the children.

 

You have no business being there. You're taking up valuable space which could be used by someone who should be there.

 

But where does that idea come from?  Is it because at one time there was a person alone at the park that did do something to a child?  One out of how many people alone at the park that did not do anything? It seems that from the earlier posted stats, it is not very likely that the offender is some random person sitting alone at the park.

 

You're still latching onto the whole pedophile part. There are various reasons other than some weirdo scoping out kids. Vagrants is one specific one you were unable to address but this rule fits it nicely. I also considered 18 year olds as young adults which have no business there without children to supervise.

 

Here's what I think - Something was seriously up for the lady in this article to get into trouble with the police and I expect there's another side to this story. I also think there are some great reasons for creating designated areas for children and their parents that can go beyond protecting children from pedophiles. If you don't like it you can go and try to change the laws that protect children and designated areas for them. Good luck but I doubt you'll make much progress. Sorry Bob.

[Jeremy]

Qualifications can be applied and in this case it is age or purpose.

Some might call that descrimination based on age... If I'm not mistaken that is illegal in many areas of life... just not the park I guess.

Age discrimination (with an "i") is generally related to older ages. Children are a special class of citizen and have broader protections under the law. It's not a terribly good argument either. I doubt I'll see a toddler driving past me on my way to work.

 

I switched to the word profiling because it seemed people were not taking kindly to the word descrimination... although denying access based on a person fitting into a profile (alone at the park) is pretty much descrimination...

 

It's the first time I have heard of "not having a child with you in a designated child play area" as discrimination. It's more like "not having any business being in a designated child play area because you don't have a child to play in the area."

[Jeremy]

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. - William O. Douglas, judge (1898-1980)

 

This country is in the twilight

It must have been nighfall in the years past when our nation was filled with a lot more gender and race discrimination. Perhaps some day it'll be noon.

[+fizzymagic]

Have the society become so much more creepy these days that common sense is no longer effective?

Reality has nothing to do with this. The rate of most violent crime is way down in our society, especially compared to earlier times, yet we perceive it as higher. Pedophilia, in particular, has been massively publicized in the last 20 years or so, leading parents to fear unrealistically for the safety of their children. In my town, most parents seem to drive their kids the 2 or 3 blocks to school, in their big SUVs.

 

In reality, the actual chances of a child being abducted by a stranger today are substantially less than they were even 20 years ago. But our ever-sensational news media makes us believe the problem is worse than it is. So we end up with bad laws like this one.

[+geekster]

" It must have been nighfall in the years past when our nation was filled with a lot more gender and race discrimination. Perhaps some day it'll be noon."

 

 

 

Hmmm, not sure what country you live in, but I wanna move there !!

Edited September 29, 2005 by geekster

[+El Diablo]

Once again common sense should prevail here. Don't place caches where it might cause concern among the general public. Which means that placing a cache under a bridge, near a school, close to an airport...AND A PLAY GROUND...etc...

 

I don't care how much taxes you pay. If you cause alarm by wandering around a childrens play ground or any other public place, then the cache is ill placed.

 

El Diablo

[+budd-rdc]

After reading some more thoughts here, it seems I see two things regarding this law:

 

Apparent motive: protect children at playgrounds

Secondary motive: gives law enforcement more authority to question people

 

In a hypothetical scenario, the police officer will have to ask the lone adult in a playground to determine if he or she is a parent, or alone. This law could protect the officers from complaints of "police harrassment" by individuals being questioned.

 

In California, the lawmakers will have to ban lone adult drivers from driving near schools and playgrounds in order for the spirit of the law to be effective, since many notable child kidnappings in the state in the past decades have happened that way.

[+mini cacher]

How does me riding the swing endanger the children any more than a child riding the swing?

 

I don't know. Seems irrelevant anyway. That swing wasn't made for your use. They call it a "child playground" for a reason.

 

How does me sitting at the bench endanger the children?

 

You're getting repetitive about the profiling thing. It doesn't matter whether it does or not. You aren't supposed to be there because the park was built for kids and the parents that supervise them.

 

Unless that you think I am going to do something to the children... which means that you have some reason to think that anyone sitting alone at the park is going to do something to the children.

 

You have no business being there. You're taking up valuable space which could be used by someone who should be there.

All of those things still mean that they say its ok to deny acess to the park because I'm over the age of 18 and did not bring my child.

 

But where does that idea come from?  Is it because at one time there was a person alone at the park that did do something to a child?  One out of how many people alone at the park that did not do anything? It seems that from the earlier posted stats, it is not very likely that the offender is some random person sitting alone at the park.

 

You're still latching onto the whole pedophile part. There are various reasons other than some weirdo scoping out kids. Vagrants is one specific one you were unable to address but this rule fits it nicely. I also considered 18 year olds as young adults which have no business there without children to supervise.

I'm trying to address all the issues. tossedsalad seems to only be interested in the child endangerment issue so my response to that post focused on that. Deeling with vagrants is an issue that needs to be addressed all over, not just at a few parks. This type of rule adversley effects a lot more "regular" people that it does those it was poorly designed to deter.

 

Here's what I think - Something was seriously up for the lady in this article to get into trouble with the police and I expect there's another side to this story. I also think there are some great reasons for creating designated areas for children and their parents that can go beyond protecting children from pedophiles. If you don't like it you can go and try to change the laws that protect children and designated areas for them. Good luck but I doubt you'll make much progress. Sorry Bob.

For the record, my name is not Bob in case any one thought so. I had actually put in Jeremy name but thought otherwise for fear of someone thinking I was marking him as a criminal.

 

Qualifications can be applied and in this case it is age or purpose.

Some might call that descrimination based on age... If I'm not mistaken that is illegal in many areas of life... just not the park I guess.

Age discrimination (with an "i") is generally related to older ages. Children are a special class of citizen and have broader protections under the law. It's not a terribly good argument either. I doubt I'll see a toddler driving past me on my way to work.

sorry for the typo in my haste. Where is a good spell checker when you need it? So only the elderly are protected from decisions made based on age. A 32 year old has no protection. Good to know.

 

I switched to the word profiling because it seemed people were not taking kindly to the word descrimination... although denying access based on a person fitting into a profile (alone at the park) is pretty much descrimination...

 

It's the first time I have heard of "not having a child with you in a designated child play area" as discrimination. It's more like "not having any business being in a designated child play area because you don't have a child to play in the area."

Again assumes its ok to deny me from playing on the equipment or even sitting on the bench because I don't have my child with me this time. I still think that is wrong to do.

[Jeremy]

" It must have been nighfall in the years past when our nation was filled with a lot more gender and race discrimination. Perhaps some day it'll be noon."

 

Hmmm, not sure what country you live in, but I wanna move there !!

I'll do some profiling of my own and assume you don't fit the gender or the racial characteristics that would make your response ludicrous.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Again assumes its ok to deny me from playing on the equipment or even sitting on the bench because I don't have my child with me this time. I still think that is wrong to do.

That's fair, it's just not the law. There is often what they intended to accomplish and what they really accomplished. The law may be worth fighting but in the meantime it's the law.

[tossedsalad]

Mini,

 

No one is saying that everyone who might go into a park without a kid is a danger. There are laws that say I must have a license to drive a car. I don't think having that license makes me a safer driver. But it is still illegal to drive without it.

 

All of your arguments are emotional and specious.

 

It is entirely reasonable to have an area dedicated to kids.