The real danger in stranger-danger

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    • #45706 Reply

      By Lenore Skenazy . . . This summer in India, two dozen innocent people died at the hands of mobs convinced that they were meting out justice to kidna
      [See the full post at: The real danger in stranger-danger]

    • #45717 Reply

      …so Lenore, have you sent this article to all politicians, local and mainstream reporters, law enforcement agencies, legislatures and judges? The shepple public does not care and will not care nor do they come here to read and educate themselves on these facts or any other sex offenders’ facts unbenefiting to them for that matter. Good effort, but pointless it seems. Look at the communities around you! We are freaks to them!

      • #45748 Reply


        Did you ask her at her websites?

      • #45757 Reply
        Timothy DA Lawver

        All registrants have the right to trial. All registrants we’re blessed with a power of a king of trial insues! Our founders knew! What if King George had a database?

    • #45709 Reply

      While I don’t watch or check out Lenore blog that much, she was voted at one time worlds worst mom but do we always judge a book by its cover. While their are many seneiro’s that could of happened it seems the public was worse as the mom. So should we all say stranger danger. It depends on the situation. Even women and men meet could turn on one in a minute let alone the relationships of age groups.

      Look at these internet things and how some of those go. Should we all avoid women or the people we confront? I don’t think we have to go that far. Of course when police is involved they seem to want to lay down the rules of who you can talk to and who you can’t. Church one might as well forget about that.
      I didn’t really learn stranger danger growing up in the lat 50’s or early 60’s. Yes,ttacks could come by anyone today, from these internet encounters to these actual physical encounter or the girl getting upset with her lover or sposual abuse.

      One can’t judge people just because they don’t have their hat on straight or ears open. Now kids should be response for themself and show some responsible just like adults. Remember someone once said it takes two to tango.

      Now abuse is abuse. Even those people in india that were attacted and abused. Was there a reason behind this racism thing. Are we all getting to a degree of hate crimes such as they dabbed Lenore or do we dab things sex crimes If it had been a girl would it have been a different circumstance all together. See there ya go so who’s the judge. I wonder who actually picks up children and turns them into sex slaves or traffic’s them today.In big city’s this might actually happen but speculating is a who different ballgame. Should we all be talking about prostitution than. I am sure those in social circles wanted to bust Lenore at that time her kid in NY rode the subway by himself.

      Was it a learning lesson yet to be understood by others. Safeguarding is good but it can also go and be stretched to the limits. Maybe Lenore should of gave her child a can of mace when he ventured out just in case something should of happened. or maybe we should just spray our PO with a can of mace when they come to visit or put a muzzle on them, and remember we have the right to remain silent.

    • #45739 Reply
      Old offender

      It’s not always the truth that sells news. Make it sensational enough and the gullible public will watch it, believe it and convince the lawmakers they need to act on it.

    • #45756 Reply
      Timothy DA Lawver

      What the author describes here is another reason why social media frightens our American political establishment. She makes reverence to the last portion of the video being chopped off thus distorted perceptions lead to unwanted persecutions. I’ve heard this group behavior referred to as “mob mentality”. It’s kinda the same as digging up statistics to fit your agenda while ignoring purposefully the bits that detract from the agenda’s weak points. It also creates a market, or audience. IMO this occurred in Smith V Doe.
      She describes a mob’s mentality to overreact, when a market is created by a truncation of facts, gee sound familiar? The decent in DOE pointed to the regime’s one sided disclosure, “all of the bad and none good.” It seems like we are experiencing an up tick in mob mentality as of late. The people follow their leadership, who set a poor example. I’m not so sure that liberty survives it.

      • #45795 Reply

        Isn’t KNOWINGLY AND SELECTIVELY ignoring empirical scientific facts par for course when courts hear challenges to the S.O.R. and the related restrictions?

        In McKune v Lile the “frightening and high” myth was injected into American jurisprudence by “Justice” Kennedy. The LIE states that 80-85% of untreated sex offenders will re-offend. There was no empirical evidence upon which Robert Freeman-Longo based that assertion in a layperson’s popular magazine “Psychology Today”. Several states have studied the issue of sex offender recidivism and uniformly found them to have the lowest recidivism rates of any other class of felons, yet the courts keep going back to the McKune v. Lile ruling to justify the ever-lengthening list of life-crippling restrictions that just keep getting tacked on. The phrase “frightening and high” is in the preamble of every new piece of sex offender legislation. The courts show deliberate indifference to the scientific empirical truth because it clashes with the agenda of preserving the registry regardless to the cost of constitutionally protected rights and liberties.

        My question is this: What can we do to force the noses of our judges and justices into the truth of the matter and make it where they have NO OPTION to ignore the facts? Judges have way too much discretion when they can willingly and knowingly ignore scientific empirically proven facts.

    • #45789 Reply
      1. You know Lenore’s article on here should impress all. Actually one could say stranger danger but honestly its about understanding and its about responsiblity and trust.. Even Timothy has the right idea when he talks about social media or this internet transparency. While Lenore got a bit bad lecture from critics about not being responsible. Like she said she and her husband made a decision or decided. See people want to hear the negative before the positive result.
        Its almost like the man that walked a tight rope over the grand canyon, was he thinking the negative first and formost. When we all say stranger-danger I wonder who’s in danger? Could it be the one on an adult site or the wrong person that goes into the women’s bathroom at Hardiee’s. Everyone I’m sure uses common sense. Authorities seem to want to weild the sword of justice a bit too much and it cause intimidation. I am sure Leonore was intimided a bit in her situation but two wrongs don’t make a right and in the end who’s responsible. Should we say hindsight is better than foresight or speak out when others abuse others and in media traps we do need to speak out. Evnn in a lot of internet traps also.
    • #46357 Reply

      The real danger in teaching “stranger danger” to children is to the children themselves. According to NCMEC, most (95%) of missing children are runaways, 5% are family abductions and only 1% non-family, i.e. stranger, abductions.

      Children should be taught that if they feel threatened by a stranger, they should run to ANY other adult. Yes, a policeman is best, but is generally unavailable. Given the incredibly low odds that a child will be abducted anyway, the odds that two kidnappers would be in the same location are infinitesimally small.

      I believe everyone reading this article would not hesitate to aid the child, although an SO would invariably experience some suspicion and perhaps harassment. Despite that, I would help without reservation.

      • #46473 Reply

        Pardon my typo. The first figure should be 91%.

Viewing 6 reply threads
Reply To: The real danger in stranger-danger
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">