"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Gloria P wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> Food Snob® wrote:
>>>
>>>> Coincidentally, tonight is our block's walk and talk with a police
>>>> officer night. We are going to ask the police to talk to the woman
>>>> and tell her that as far as children are concerned, "No means no."
>>>
>>> Bryan, wouldn't it be better to just go and talk with the woman
>>> yourself? I don't see the need to have the police do anything; I see
>>> this more as a neighbor to neighbor discussion of expectations
>>> concerning what happened to your child. I would also believe that
>>> from and adult point of view, this neighbor may not have recognized
>>> coersion in the same manner that you feel occured. Again, that is
>>> why a friendly, but firm, talk would be the way I would approach it.
>>> Dragging the police in seems to me to be creating a far more
>>> polarizing atmosphere when there were no threats or other breaches
>>> of the law. Just sayin'.
>>
>>
>> It depends on whether you just want her to stop with your child or
>> want to save others the hassle of her efforts. If she is a "true
>> believer" she won't stop proselytizing until she is scared into
>> stopping by some authority figure.
>
> Proselytizing is not against the law. It is up to each parent to decide
> what they wish to do for their own child. Each parent can talk to this
> person should they wish. There is no reason to drag government authority
> into a neigbor-to-neighbor dispute.
>
> --
> Dave


Who is to say this is an innocent woman who is simply proselytizing? She's
a "new neighbor" according to the OP. If so, who knows but that she may be
trying to induct children into a cult. Then again, probably not. The whole
tale is suspect if you ask me.

Jill