Posted on 06/06/2012 9:50:08 AM PDT by Altariel
C’mon, as several posters have pointed out, everybody on this thread is assuming everything they want to, based on the way that article was written.
Re-read it and you will see, the article is devoid of facts, Caulfield just wrote it using common techniques to provoke controversy by quoting the so-called victim who looks creepy and was hanging around the kiddie section of the store.
But, what fun would there be participating in a thread like this if the story was a real news story based on the reporting of facts?
But it’s still America and people are still supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. You and the store assume the guy is guilty. And it’s a typical assumption, any guy alone where there are kids has to deal with this.
I agree with your statements. Unfortunately I don’t see that anywhere in the story. Nobody in the story said he was taking pics of the kids. And that is not slander to state a fact so they’d have no problem saying that if he did.
I would agree I don’t shop at places like that either.
Bin Laden was about 50. Not 73.
And you can make all the wild assumptions you want, people like me who don’t want to unjustly accuse someone of being something without all the facts but just your wild assertions, will call you out on them.
You can be intellectually moronic, but don’t expect people here to sit back and let it slide.
How’d you like it if you were in a situation where you were presumed guilty by just your mere presence there? How’d you like it if we all made wild assertions about what a evil pervert YOU were?
I just think the concept of a general policy against all men (or women for that matter) not being allowed in a certain part of a store that is open to all customers, just because they are men and are alone, is insane. And illegal. And morally disgusting.
Deal with perverts on a case by case basis, male or female. Don’t broadbrush an entire gender. You know lesbians also scout out areas where pretty young girls are too.
This is just crazy every conservative is not against such a stupid, broad, presumed guilty policy just because a man is a man in a public area of a store. Guess in 21st century america conservatives don’t mind such policies.
If it was me I’d be with my kids everywhere and if I believed there were perverts around I’D get them out of there myself. I would not be for a policy presuming all men alone are automatically presumed to be a pervert and if anyone thinks a guy alone in a part of the store they have every right to be in is strange, then they get tossed out. There has to be something a lot stronger than just because he’s a guy and he’s there by himself.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a principle our justice system assumes to insure fairness to the accused perp.
It is not something we Americans are required to assume when when we see a lurker scooting around on the floor with a cellphone camera and some kiddies.
The guy was an idiot. At best.
We aren’t required to, but we should, otherwise we do stupid things like treat half the population like they must be pedophiles.
The guy wasn’t an idiot, he was trying to buy a book for his grandkid, that’s not being an idiot. Being an idiot is thinking that a guy alone in the kid section must be a pervert. Being an idiot is saying he scooted when there’s no indication of that. Being an idiot is saying he had a camera when there’s no indication of that. YOU’RE the idiot in this.
Wonder why the good doctor thought that sitting down would make his “chatter” less bothersome to other shoppers?
I agree completely!
Perhaps young children have an innate ability to detect good Freepers. Who knows? ;-)
Perhaps he prefers to sit down when he takes a call. Perhaps he wanted to sit for a moment and rest.
Taking a call is not de facto criminal behavior.
The lady has issues if she is paranoid about lone men. Rational conservative women do not see a man and think “child predator” or “pervert” unless his *behavior* warrants it.
Looking at bookshelves and taking a phone call don’t warrant it.
The children's reading area in the average B & N is very small....strange place for a grown man to "rest".
Maybe not a removable offense but still very odd.
people like me who don’t want to unjustly accuse someone of being something without all the facts
<><><><
Well, except of course the woman in question, about whom you have made certain assumptions without all the facts.
If he’d been wearing a dress and high heels, he would’ve been permitted to walk into the ladies’ restroom.
This country’s gone crazy.
Moron, she wasn’t the one kicked out of the store for being a certain gender. Who’s to say HER assumptions were correct? Besides I am talking about the store’s sexist and idiotic blanket policy, she doesn’t work in the store, she’s just another customer.
Mr creeper, ngat,
Do us all a favor and read discostu’s post over and over until you understand it.
It’s large enough for an adult to sit down and make a call. I’m more concerned about why the woman was so panicked about his presence; was she supervising her children so poorly that they weren’t with her at all times in public?
‘suppose you had to be there :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.