Autistic Man in Jail for Talking to Some Kids

[Ste11aeres]

I don't think that means there is no risk. Caution should still be taken.

I didn't mean that risk is non-existent. That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was that the greatest degree of risk sometimes lies in places where people aren't looking.

 

[Judge]

Here's a recent news article that sort of puts this into perspective on a local level when it comes to thoughts of "paranoia or overreactions". Where state and federal authorities seem to reinforce such concerns to the public. But then when you look on "Family Watchdog" maps to see where all these offenders live in your community, suddenly- and sadly it may make more sense depending on where you live.

(KTVN) While children will be roaming their neighborhoods in search of candy on Halloween night, authorities are putting restrictions on child sex offenders, ensuring they won't be a part of the festivities.

The Nevada Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Marshals Service are conducting Operation Scarecrow and Operation Trick-or-Treat to make sure more than 300 offenders are following the rules and being checked up on during the holiday.

That means no passing out candy, no Halloween parties, and no decorations. Just a few of the rules for sex offenders with crimes against children. "It's that much more important that we enhance their supervision during this event because it's mainly about children and they'll be out in droves," said Sgt. Lisa Pierrott, with the Nevada Department of Public Safety.

Certain offenders have to sign off on a memo, called Operation Scarecrow, making them agree to stay away from trick-or-treaters. "They will post signs outside their doors, saying no candy. They're directed to turn off their light so it won't further attract children to their home," said Pierrott.

Offenders also have to follow a curfew from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. so they can't leave their home. With Operation Trick-or-Treat , they can't answer the door unless it's for law enforcement, who's a visitor guaranteed to stop by. "Checking on compliance, making sure to hold them accountable for any issues," said Pierrott. "It should give parents some confidence in the fact that we are out there, and we're watching the offenders that need to be watched all year round, but especially during Halloween."

If you want to make sure you know who sex offenders are and if they live near you, you can use resources like Alert ID or Family WatchDog, that will pinpoint a neighborhood, showing the name and crime of an offender. Law enforcement also says you can help ensure safety in your neighborhood by reporting any suspicious activity.

"If they see anything, hear anything, tell a parent. Make sure that they prompt them before going out trick or treating. If they see anything, let someone know so that can be reported to police," said Pierrott. Officers also recommend you know where your kids are at all times, stay in groups, and don't approach a home with the lights off, it may be for a good reason.

http://www.ktvn.com/story/30357070/halloween-restrictions-keep-child-sex-offenders-away1

http://www.familywatchdog.us/Search.asp

 

[Ste11aeres]

Hmmm, the whole situation sounds a bit off. While I am inclined to believe it was in fact a misunderstanding, I can understand the parents concern. We unfortunately live in an age where attacks on children are so prevalent, that I am not surprised by this outcome. Also, we can't just assume he is innocent either just because he's an aspie. Ill-intent does not exclude any type of person.

Re-reading the articles you posted one clearly says, he knew he it wasn't good to be talking to children under 10, also it says he'd gotten in trouble for similar even before. So we have to take everything with a grain of salt. I don't think he meant any harm, but I don't think the children's mother's concern is unfounded either.

The thing is, talking to children isn't wrong.
And yes, the mother was right to be cautious. But such caution can be exercised by not leaving your children unsupervised, and by coming right up there and making yourself part of the conversation when a stranger talks to your children. It doesn't have to mean calling the police, unless he actually does try to make your children go someplace with him.

However, the mother in this case thought that the guy was trying to get her children to go someplace with him. Why?

I feel like part of what happened was an example of the miscommunication that occurs every day between NTs and Aspies. An Aspie says: "I have a cabin." He means: "I have a cabin."
And NT says "I have a cabin". He (often) means "Come with me to my cabin."
That is why his being an Aspie is relevant.

 

[MEDL86]

When it comes to children, yes men are singled out as being monsters. I

I'm not sure what you mean by "everywhere" or "regardless of the situation". There are plenty of places and situations in which men are not considered monsters. But in places and situations where there are children, what you have said is true.
http://www.freerangekids.com/attempted-child-abduction-or-wait/
http://www.freerangekids.com/ban-children-from-santas-knee-says-child-safety-expert/
http://www.freerangekids.com/greeter-at-walmart-calls-911-on-dad-she-thought-was-a-kidnapper/

You're third link highlights what I meant, but it's that way with just about anything, but it's more common in the following situations: Kids, Crimes (even simply accusations), and even Relationships.

Society tends to view men as being these primal, uncontrollable 'things' that are more prone to violence and heinous acts, even though the reality is that's just not true. Should we be careful who our kids are around? Absolutely! But suspecting only men of wrongdoing is sexist and foolish. Women can become predators just as easily, and yet women are never suspected until after the fact, at least, I've never heard of a woman being arrested under pure suspicion of wrongdoing in the matter.

 

[MEDL86]

The thing is, talking to children isn't wrong.
And yes, the mother was right to be cautious. But such caution can be exercised by not leaving your children unsupervised, and by coming right up there and making yourself part of the conversation when a stranger talks to your children. It doesn't have to mean calling the police, unless he actually does try to make your children go someplace with him.

However, the mother in this case thought that the guy was trying to get her children to go someplace with him. Why?

I feel like part of what happened was an example of the miscommunication that occurs every day between NTs and Aspies. An Aspie says: "I have a cabin." He means: "I have a cabin."
And NT says "I have a cabin". He (often) means "Come with me to my cabin."
That is why his being an Aspie is relevant.

That actually highlights a fantastic point, and one that is yet another failing on society: Reading too much into something when there is nothing to suggest anything more than what was stated.

Normal people communicate with their emotions, and they use their emotions to "translate" communications to them. This is a severely hindered way to communicate ideas, and can lead to paranoia (as was the case here in the article).

As Sigmund Freud said: Sometimes a cigar, is just is a cigar. (not everything has a hidden meaning, in other words)

 

[Judge]

The thing is, talking to children isn't wrong.

Unfortunately more often than not, perception is reality. Despite the logic of the situation.

It isn't wrong. But clearly it can be precarious in some circumstances. Tensions run high here when it comes to crimes against both children and the elderly. And our judiciary tends to act accordingly.

 

[MEDL86]

Unfortunately more often than not, perception is reality. Despite the logic of the situation.

It isn't wrong. But clearly it can be precarious in some circumstances.

Yes, perception is the bane of reality, the two are opposite, yet applied in the same way, to the same situations, and passed as reality, regardless of which concept is dominant.

 

[pax]

Statistically, usually the parent. But those instances where it was a priest, (and only some of those accusations were ever proven)...those got lots of media coverage. Never has a pederast parent gotten that kind of coverage.

Probably because it wasn't scores of kids, over several decades. I'm not sure what country you are from, but here it's been proven, case after case, ad nauseum.

 

[ancusmitis]

I know how frustrating it is to be suspected of something you didn't do. I think it does tend to happen to us more than to NT's. Nevertheless, I suspect that people on this forum might actually be overreacting. I have spoken to strange children before myself, but I never got in trouble for it. And I'm odder-looking than most.

And then there's this:

"He walked off then found and talked to the kids again 20 minutes later near Wayne Elementary School, whereupon the children’s mom saw him and called the police. The police found the man in just two minutes."

Why the repeat encounter? It's certainly possible that it was pure chance, but I'm not taking it for granted. I'm sorry. I know some people want to just talk to kids, but children by virtue of being children are more vulnerable in nearly every way. Even if it really is an overreaction to something innocent but peculiar, on balance I think that it is better to have it than not. Anywhere else, I would say no, but children are a special circumstance. A little bit of discomfort on the part of adults to prevent a lifetime of trauma for a child is a fair enough exchange in my opinion. Be indignant at me all you want to. No one who gives a **** about their kid is going to entrust its life to a complete stranger and there is no reason we should expect them to.

 

[MEDL86]

I know how frustrating it is to be suspected of something you didn't do. I think it does tend to happen to us more than to NT's. Nevertheless, I suspect that people on this forum might actually be overreacting. I have spoken to strange children before myself, but I never got in trouble for it (1). And I'm odder-looking than most.

And then there's this:

"He walked off then found and talked to the kids again 20 minutes later near Wayne Elementary School, whereupon the children’s mom saw him and called the police. The police found the man in just two minutes."

Why the repeat encounter? It's certainly possible that it was pure chance, but I'm not taking it for granted. I'm sorry. I know some people want to just talk to kids, but children by virtue of being children are more vulnerable in nearly every way. Even if it really is an overreaction to something innocent but peculiar, on balance I think that it is better to have it than not. Anywhere else, I would say no, but children are a special circumstance. A little bit of discomfort on the part of adults to prevent a lifetime of trauma for a child is a fair enough exchange in my opinion. Be indignant at me all you want to. No one who gives a **** about their kid is going to entrust its life to a complete stranger and there is no reason we should expect them to.(2)

(I number my responses from time to time, in order to make it easier to respond to specific points)

1. It only takes once, you could interact a million times and not encounter the problem, only to one day encounter that one single instance where you do, and once that happens, then you're labeled, and once a suspect, always a suspect (society's words).

2. No one who gives a **** about their kid is going to leave them alone long enough for a stranger to get anywhere near the point of doing harm, if that's what they intend, in the first place. And if the parent in this case had stayed close their kids and confronted the guy or pulled their kids to what they felt was a safe distance, the whole mess could've been avoided. But no, this parent did not do that, they were far enough away from their kids to where they felt uncomfortable with other people interacting with their kids (that's parenting no-no number 1), then instead of immediately going and confronting the guy while simultaneously pulling their kids to what they consider a safe distance, she calls the cops and obviously remained at the same distance until they arrived (that's parenting no-no number 2). If you're a parent, and you see your kids with someone you don't trust, your immediate instinct is going to be to reach them and get them the h*ll out of there while making as big a public scene as possible to draw attention to the situation. If you care about your kids, you're not going to wait for a cop to get there before you react, and you certainly would not be calling a cop before you go get those kids, you're going to be in someone's face if you think something's going on. And that's only on the off-chance that you let them out of your sight long enough for this to transpire (again, parenting no-no number 1).
As far as I'm concerned, if you're doing your job as a parent, to protect those kids while in public (or anywhere), then no-one, not even the invisible man, is going to have the opportunity to get close to those kids for anything, even a tiny little unsupervised conversation.

 

[Ste11aeres]

And then there's this:

"He walked off then found and talked to the kids again 20 minutes later near Wayne Elementary School, whereupon the children’s mom saw him and called the police. The police found the man in just two minutes."

Why the repeat encounter? It's certainly possible that it was pure chance, but I'm not taking it for granted.

You're right about a repeat encounter being more disturbing. A parent might at that point wonder if the guy was following the kids around. It does add a different dimension, one which I missed the first time I read the story.

I think the truth is that none of us know enough detail about the scene/s to really make a judgment on this.

 

[ancusmitis]

1. It only takes once, you could interact a million times and not encounter the problem, only to one day encounter that one single instance where you do, and once that happens, then you're labeled, and once a suspect, always a suspect (society's words).

If you act creepy around children one time, yeah, people are going to remember that. I think that's a good thing. If someone does not know how to act appropriately around children, but still wants to be around them, it's good to be able to check up on that. Because some people just don't need to be around kids. This guy in particular has already had a complaint filed against him:

The police say Lee acknowledged he knows it's inappropriate for him to strike up a conversation with young children.

They say they are aware that Lee may have some cognitive issues, but say he scared the children and indicated he wanted to take them to a cabin in the woods.

They say they're glad the children and their mother called them as quickly as they did.

Other parents say this is a unique situation and no one is hitting the panic button.

Police had a prior complaint about him talking to children four years ago, but decided that was a harmless encounter.

http://6abc.com/news/man-charged-in-attempted-luring-near-wayne-elementary/1045847/

It sounds to me like he has a really bad habit that he needs to break. The children were frightened of him and told their mother about it:

Lee was arrested Wednesday after he allegedly approached a boy and his two sisters at the intersection of West Wayne and Arbordale avenues.

They say he started asking them about their school and teachers. He also allegedly asked them about finding an abandoned cabin in the woods.

The children continued to walk to the Wayne Elementary School playground area.

Shortly after arriving at the playground, police say Lee reappeared from the wooded area near the school. He again spoke to the children.

At this time, the children's parents arrived at the playground and were informed by their kids of the encounter.

This is all very creepy to me, and I don't understand why people feel the need to defend him. Even if he's not a pedophile, his behavior is still inappropriate and needs to stop.

 

[ancusmitis]

You're right about a repeat encounter being more disturbing. A parent might at that point wonder if the guy was following the kids around. It does add a different dimension, one which I missed the first time I read the story.

I think the truth is that none of us know enough detail about the scene/s to really make a judgment on this.

All I know is that this is what the articles are saying. Any or all of which might be wrong, but there's nothing in there that makes me sympathize with him. Maybe the bit about him being autistic. If that. But nothing else.

 

[MEDL86]

If you act creepy around children one time, yeah, people are going to remember that.

I'm not talking about 'acting creepy', I'm talking about normal interaction. It only takes one person's deluded/false perception to criminalize someone, and they don't even have to do anything wrong. As I stated, if parents would stay closer to their kids and pay more attention, it could be avoided altogether.

 

[ancusmitis]

As I said before, people certainly do get unfairly suspected of things, but I don't see that happening here.

I'm not talking about 'acting creepy', I'm talking about normal interaction. It only takes one person's deluded/false perception to criminalize someone, and they don't even have to do anything wrong. As I stated, if parents would stay closer to their kids and pay more attention, it could be avoided altogether.

I'm sorry, but I am having a really hard time understanding what you mean to say here. If people are as suspicious of normal interaction as you say, then surely the whole thing is getting blown out of proportion? In that case, 24-hour surveillance of your own children would also be an overreaction, just as much as calling the police would be. But if danger lurks everywhere, then you really can't be too careful and the government has every reason to get involved.

In any case, pedophiles are documented to be a small proportion of the population. Why shouldn't we behave otherwise? A small number of dangerous people is no reason to stop going outside by yourself forever, but if one of those people seems to take an interest in you, then yeah, that's a good time to react.

Also, with respect to this fellow in particular, his previous interaction, where the first complaint was filed, the police decided it was innocuous. This time around, it's being taken more seriously, but he's still being released. It doesn't seem like the thing you're worried about is happening to this guy.

 

[MEDL86]

As I said before, people certainly do get unfairly suspected of things, but I don't see that happening here.



I'm sorry, but I am having a really hard time understanding what you mean to say here. If people are as suspicious of normal interaction as you say, then surely the whole thing is getting blown out of proportion? In that case, 24-hour surveillance of your own children would also be an overreaction (1), just as much as calling the police would be. But if danger lurks everywhere, then you really can't be too careful and the government has every reason to get involved.

In any case, pedophiles are documented to be a small proportion of the population. Why shouldn't we behave otherwise? A small number of dangerous people is no reason to stop going outside by yourself forever, but if one of those people seems to take an interest in you, then yeah, that's a good time to react. (2)

Also, with respect to this fellow in particular, his previous interaction, where the first complaint was filed, the police decided it was innocuous. This time around, it's being taken more seriously, but he's still being released. It doesn't seem like the thing you're worried about is happening to this guy. (3)

(again, I sometimes number my responses with the numbers bolded in the quotes for clarification and ease of addressing posts, it's not meant as a driving point as some might think, nor as an "aggressive" means of response, it's just easier)

1. No, see, my point is, it's the job of the parent to watch their kids and make sure they're safe, especially when in public, and if that had been the case here, there wouldn't have been any opportunity for this guy to fall under any suspicion, regardless of what it was, because the parent would have been literally right there to tell him to back off or some other thing.

2. But, I'm not talking about acting like it's this huge issue, I'm talking about watching your (not you personally, just anyone) kids to make sure stuff doesn't happen, because this is not the only danger out there, and it could just as easily been a car or some other thing that kids could be hurt by, that's being a parent, knowing that you're responsible for the well being of that child, and if you're worried about them being hurt at some point, then you're not physically close enough to them to do the job and make sure they are going to be ok. It's the job of a parent to use some common sense, and common sense should tell you that kids should not be wandering around on their own without proper supervision. All of which is only a small fraction of what I've been talking about. (which brings me to point 3)

3. I worry about guys being singled out and labeled as a threat to kids, because they're men. It has happened, it did happen, to this guy, who did nothing wrong, but he was treated as though he had, to the point of being arrested, all because he's a guy, and the kid(s) was(were) too far from the parent, far enough to where the parent thought they had cause for concern (parent not close enough to kid to hear the conversation, obviously, and could not judge the situation in any capacity aside from emotion, and sexist speculation).

(I apologize if reading this sounds like I'm responding in a specific tone, I know people tend to read the wrong tone in text, which honestly has none)

 

[ancusmitis]

3. I worry about guys being singled out and labeled as a threat to kids, because they're men. It has happened, it did happen, to this guy, who did nothing wrong, but he was treated as though he had, to the point of being arrested, all because he's a guy, and the kid(s) was(were) too far from the parent, far enough to where the parent thought they had cause for concern (parent not close enough to kid to hear the conversation, obviously, and could not judge the situation in any capacity aside from emotion, and sexist speculation).

Did you read the same article I did? This dude was following kids who did not wish to talk to him. The problem is not that he's a guy; the problem is that he's creepy. You don't follow people. That's not normal. And you especially don't come out of the woods at them. I would have called the police myself if he did that to me, and I'm five feet eleven inches tall. And he's doing this to little children. It doesn't even matter at this point if he's a pedo, you don't do that kind of stuff. It's aggressive, threatening behavior.

 

[ancusmitis]

You know, I'm coming closer to an agreement with you. None of us know for certain what this guys intentions were, and none of us know all the details. But the persons involved (the kids who told their mom, and the mom who called the police) they were the persons who did know all the details. And, just as people can't jump to a negative conclusion based on insufficient evidence about this man and his intentions, neither can we jump to a negative conclusion based on insufficient evidence about these kids and their mom and their judgment.

This is very true and I'm sorry I didn't think of it. Even with forms of discrimination that are documented to exist, you still have to prove that the animus was held by these particular people. If you want to establish that a person was arrested because of sexism against men, it requires a lot more than just "the one getting arrested is a guy." Especially in a country which has never had a president who wasn't a man.

 

[MEDL86]

Did you read the same article I did? This dude was following kids who did not wish to talk to him. The problem is not that he's a guy; the problem is that he's creepy. You don't follow people. That's not normal. And you especially don't come out of the woods at them. I would have called the police myself if he did that to me, and I'm five feet eleven inches tall. And he's doing this to little children. It doesn't even matter at this point if he's a pedo, you don't do that kind of stuff. It's aggressive, threatening behavior.

Gee, I don't know, maybe I'm just taking into account that he was apparently autistic and doesn't necessarily act like other people. For that matter, the idea that he was following them was only that, an idea, an unproven fact that undoubtedly spawned from the same source of the over-reaction of calling the cops.
But regardless of any of that, the argument remains that the parent should've been closer to the kids, if she had been, no-one with, even with ill intent, would have gotten anywhere near them. It's just that simple.
No, we don't know all of the facts, but we do know that the guy was released, and regardless of what we don't know, that means that the cops found no real evidence that he meant any harm whatsoever.

Picture what you think the situation is, and how it went down, in your mind. Now imagine instead of a guy, it's a woman. Do you call the cops? If you say no, then it's clear sexism, and most people would not call the cops on a woman who was seen talking to some kids, twice.

 

[Ste11aeres]

I had to delete some posts because things were getting out of hand, and this thread was turning into a battleground between two members. It seems that everything that can be said on this subject has already been exhausted, and if there are more posts written which are worthy of being deleted, I will not hesitate to simply close the thread.