Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Kids like Phish-sticks
August 19, 2003 12:50 PM   Subscribe

"The Hell's Angels, who detained Gordon for police, were not, the sources say, gentle with sensitive areas of the rock star's body." So what's the Phish bassist thinking by going with the 9-year-old daughter of a Hell's Angels leader to a secluded area at 1am to take "art photos"? How can this possibly be "an unfortunate misunderstanding" that the girl's family wants to brush aside? Why was a girl that age allowed to be backstage alone at that time?
posted by SiW (84 comments total)

 
What's the deal with hiring Hell's Angels to run security, anyway? Isn't that a bit like hiring Michael Jackson to supervise a daycare center?
posted by clevershark at 12:53 PM on August 19, 2003


Pfft. Total Pete Townshend wannabe.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:57 PM on August 19, 2003


What's the deal with hiring Hell's Angels to run security, anyway? Isn't that a bit like hiring Michael Jackson to supervise a daycare center?

nowhere in that article is it even HINTED at that hell's angels were hired to provide security.
posted by quonsar at 12:59 PM on August 19, 2003


The post appears inflammatory in nature. The article does not indicate that any crime took place - the intimation is that, because an adult was alone with a 9-year old girl, a crime was about to take place. Any time "child" and "picture" appears in a news article, suddenly people shift to "rabid pedophile" without engaging any form of clutch.

The bassist probably should've confirmed with the parents (or invited the parents) for the photo shoot. He's guilty of bad judgment (so far) - until someone actually finds him guilty of some sort of crime, he's innocent.

So far, the only crime that appears to have actually occurred (with the reporter's support, of course) is that the bassist was assaulted.
posted by FormlessOne at 1:04 PM on August 19, 2003


SanctimoniousChildPornBabbleFilter
posted by y2karl at 1:05 PM on August 19, 2003


Fiddlin' with a HA's little girl? Walking definition of a dumbass hippie. I hope he has cycle-boot prints up and down his back.
posted by jonmc at 1:06 PM on August 19, 2003


Jam bands suck. There, I said it.
posted by sharksandwich at 1:09 PM on August 19, 2003


I'm just surprised he still has his sensitive bits intact.
posted by WillieD at 1:13 PM on August 19, 2003


Whatever the facts turn out to show, Gordon's poor judgement is evident, especially when you consider his hairstyle.
posted by tomharpel at 1:14 PM on August 19, 2003


Sounds like he's going to be doing all of his jamming in the state prison from now on.
posted by crazy finger at 1:14 PM on August 19, 2003


When responding to a request for an interview, Phish's manager e-mailed a joint statement from Gordon and the child's parents that reads: "It is now clear to all involved that this was an unfortunate misunderstanding, and we look forward to putting this matter behind us."

Later, in a conference call, the manager said Gordon's trying to "make amends" with the family. The girl's father added that "muckraking journalists should put the story to rest."


As should we, I guess. Definition of a non-story.

jonmc, bruthaman, do you tend to dispense mob justice on your own, or with mates? Just askin'.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:17 PM on August 19, 2003


This goes way beyond poor judgement.
posted by archimago at 1:18 PM on August 19, 2003


This forum thread has a "first hand account" of the night's vents.

FormlessOne - the subject matter itself is inflammatory. I posted this not to be sensational, but to raise the questions of what an appropriate response is to inappropriate behaviour. Are the parents wanting this to go away because compensation has been offered, or because nothing happened and they don't want attention drawn either to them or to Mike Gordon?

The issue of compensation in these situations is an interesting one. If an adult engaged in inappropriate behaviour with you as a child and you received compensation, would that make you feel satisfied? Or would it raise the issue that you had been financially rewarded for something you perhaps didn't want to do? How does that shape your worldview as you grow?
posted by SiW at 1:20 PM on August 19, 2003


As should we, I guess. Definition of a non-story.

The cynic in me says definition of "copious amounts of hush money changing hands".
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:21 PM on August 19, 2003


"endangering the welfare of a minor" is arguably a fair charge for escorting a 9 year old out to some weird industrial location at 1am. Bad call, Mike.

But as dash_slot makes clear, it's obvious that nothing happened. Neither law enforcement nor the parents want to charge Gordon for anything, nor was anything purvy even suspected at any point (except perhaps by the Angels).

But hey, let's not miss a chance to bash a card-carrying icon of a youth subculture.
posted by scarabic at 1:22 PM on August 19, 2003


Sooo.... the actual story here is that a couple of Hell's Angels are allegedly guilty of assault. The police who claim this was "justice being served" plan to get right on that, right? Right? Hello?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:25 PM on August 19, 2003


dash, my friend, I'll amend that part to if he's guilty. But I lived in a town with a big Angels chapter, and my bar in the East Village is right near the New York City chapters clubhouse. A guy I used to work with had an Angel tattoo (I didn't ask if he was a member) I've seen these dudes around, anybody who would even dream of looking crosseyed at a family member of there's has got to be fucking retarded. These are not people to screw with.
posted by jonmc at 1:25 PM on August 19, 2003


art photos. nothing provokes the artistic muse like the gentle lapping of waves against the dock, moonight dancing on the water, and a taste of unripe fruit sampled behind a darkened boathouse, i guess.
posted by quonsar at 1:31 PM on August 19, 2003


What's the deal with hiring Hell's Angels to run security, anyway?

Boy, kill one concert-goer and you never here the end of it.
posted by timeistight at 1:31 PM on August 19, 2003


Hear. Jesus help me.
posted by timeistight at 1:32 PM on August 19, 2003


But I lived in a town with a big Angels chapter, and my bar in the East Village is right near the New York City chapters clubhouse. A guy I used to work with had an Angel tattoo (I didn't ask if he was a member) I've seen these dudes around, anybody who would even dream of looking crosseyed at a family member of there's has got to be fucking retarded. These are not people to screw with.

....again, meaning they commit acts of assault. Still a crime. Sorry. I've seen the NYC Angels too, the fact that they're more prone to committing assault doesn't mean they're somehow allowed to.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:34 PM on August 19, 2003


How can this possibly be "an unfortunate misunderstanding" that the girl's family wants to brush aside?

Maybe because it was a misunderstanding despite the attempts of people to make it into something it's not. The title with which you labeled this, "Kids like Phish-sticks", and your use of "quotes", says to me that you're not happy with the way it's been dealth with and want to make it into something it isn't, despite the follow up post trying to steer it into some thought provoking discussion on compensation.
posted by djc at 1:37 PM on August 19, 2003


It sounds like the Phish guy got beaten up, kicked in the nuts, all that. I'm guessing that the singer agreed to drop the assault charges if the parents agreed to drop the child endangerment charges, you know, a "we handle our own problems" mob/gangland sort of thing. Just a guess, of course.
posted by MrMoonPie at 1:50 PM on August 19, 2003


I'm guessing that the Phish guy is dead and that one of the Hell's Angels is secretly impersonating him until the media spotlight is off.
posted by crazy finger at 2:02 PM on August 19, 2003


Actually, the title was my poor attempt to inject some humor into a topic that's not particularly amusing. The quotes are there because I was, well, quoting.

scarabic, you say "Neither law enforcement nor the parents want to charge Gordon for anything". The parents might not want to press charges, but law enforcement certainly wants this investigated, having "referred the bass player's boathouse rendezvous case to the Nassau County district attorney for prosecution". (Look djc, I used quotes again.)

(Yes, that was sniping.)

(Yes, that was supposed to be good-natured banter).
posted by SiW at 2:03 PM on August 19, 2003


nowhere in that article is it even HINTED at that hell's angels were hired to provide security.

Aside from the fact that a large number (apparently) of them were backstage... or were they just there to provide a hookup for the crew?
posted by clevershark at 2:07 PM on August 19, 2003


- parents say he did nowt

- he says he did nowt

- cops have no evidence he did owt

Fiddlin' with a HA's little girl? Walking definition of a dumbass hippie. I hope he has cycle-boot prints up and down his back....dash, my friend, I'll amend that part to if he's guilty.

Call me a nit picker, jon ole buddy ole friend, but which part will you amend if he's guilty? The part where you say you hope he'll be assaulted for an error of judgement, child endangerment, stuff I'm sure you and I would never let cross our minds, let alone carry out, for obvious reasons. Maybe he was stoned - does any of this mean he loses human rights?

Makes no sense to me.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:17 PM on August 19, 2003


or were they just there to provide a hookup for the crew?

i beleive that if you read the article you will discover that the girl's father was invited, and that the others were friends of his.
posted by quonsar at 2:21 PM on August 19, 2003


Gordon was held for police by theater security "and the victim's father's associates -- which the police report decribes as other Hell's Angels members.

They probably rallied to help find their comrade's missing daughter.

This was very poor judgement on Gordon's part, maybe he was just vying for a Darwin award.
posted by Tenuki at 2:22 PM on August 19, 2003


Well, it gives everyone the chance to talk about sex with children again, hypocritically moralize about it again and drool about pain and torture for the personification of our collective desire again: Sex and violence and America's Love Affair With Children all at once.
posted by y2karl at 2:47 PM on August 19, 2003


It looks like the guy was guilty of both bad judgement and rampant stupidity. Never mind the fact that these were Hells Angels, if I found some guy in a dark boathouse at 1.00 am with my daughter, cycle-boot prints up and down his back would be the least of his worries by a long shot. Anyone who thinks this guy did not deserve at least a mild beating for this is obviously not a parent.
posted by dg at 2:59 PM on August 19, 2003


you think a cash pay-out would help? or dropping the assault charges? seriously? with a club leaders daughter? are you all high?

poor judgment, yes, but if anything wierd was going on i doubt he would have been available for an interview.

i'm just saying, i'd break my own arms before i fucked around with the daughter--of any age--of one. If he is guilty of something other than stupidity then jail is the least of his worries.
posted by th3ph17 at 3:03 PM on August 19, 2003


Jam bands suck. There, I said it.

By god, you leave The Jam out of this!
posted by scody at 3:11 PM on August 19, 2003


Reminds me of an interview I read once with a famous (can't remember his name, tho'...) comic. He was known for his outrageous/over the top jokes about taboo subjects like cancer or pedophilia.
When asked if there was anything one could not joke about, he replied:
"I try, as far as possible, not to joke about Hells Angles."
posted by spazzm at 3:12 PM on August 19, 2003


Art Photos .
posted by alms at 3:12 PM on August 19, 2003


But hey, let's not miss a chance to bash a card-carrying icon of a youth subculture.

ROFLMAO
posted by dhoyt at 3:14 PM on August 19, 2003


Give me a break, people. Why else would a man take a little girl ALONE to a dark, secluded place? If it was all innocent, why would he have not taken the father, or some other person, along as well? What in the hell else would he be doing? I'd agree with Mr. Moon Pie that the Phish guy's lawyers are leaning on the girl's family very heavily to make nice and not press charges, in exchange for them not pressing assault charges. Looks like the police are still investigating and pursuing charges (as they should) since Phish dude's lawyers can't really do anything to them.
posted by Shoeburyness at 3:24 PM on August 19, 2003


alms: excellent!
posted by crazy finger at 3:48 PM on August 19, 2003


"Gordon -- who calls himself "Cactus"

Now that's a reason to beat him up.
posted by ciderwoman at 3:53 PM on August 19, 2003


isn't anyone going to suggest it was poor judgement from the parents to bring a 9-year old to a gig backstage, and party until after midnight? My parents would have gotten a babysitter and there would have been no incident stoned Phish player or not.
posted by dabitch at 4:03 PM on August 19, 2003


Of course! It's the parents' fault. Certainly not poor stoned Mr. Gordon, who only wanted some privacy to take his photos.

Everybody knows if you take your children to rock concerts, they're bound to be spirited away by drugged-up musicians. What were they thinking?
posted by timeistight at 4:12 PM on August 19, 2003


hmm, a family deal doesn't make much sense when you consider that the girl's father is a leader of the Hell's Angels. For some reason I doubt someone of that ... stature would whore out their own children.

If something had happened, or was very likely to happen when the two were found, we'd be reading stories about how Gordon went missing. Then, in a few weeks/months, there would be a story about how his body was found, sans glans.

Why else would a man take a little girl ALONE to a dark, secluded place?

Why would a Hell's Angel want make a deal with someone who molested their daughter?
posted by wah at 4:12 PM on August 19, 2003


and sure, parents, pay attention. old article.
posted by th3ph17 at 4:33 PM on August 19, 2003


Why would a Hell's Angel want make a deal with someone who molested their daughter?

cuz if he's in jail for the crime you can't blackmail/extort him?
posted by cell divide at 4:33 PM on August 19, 2003


Why would a Hell's Angel want make a deal with someone who molested their daughter?

Outlaw bikers/patchholders/1%'ers, whatever you call them, have a credo to never get involved with police. Calling the police, even if you or your family are being shot at, will get your patch pulled immediately in most clubs. The club will handle things their own way.

For a good, detailed look at life as a patcholder, try Daniel Wolf's book or Sonny Barger's books and website for starters. Yves Lavigne writes on the criminal side of the biker culture; if you doubt how brutal their justice can be, take a look at the first paragraph of this review.
posted by TedW at 5:03 PM on August 19, 2003


Turns out, he was in the boathouse, trying to steal a boat to take her onto Zac's Bay, the body of water the Theater is on. The pictures were supposed to be taken on the boat. He wasn't planning on staying in the boathouse, it's just where he was caught. How he got her from backstage to the boathouse is unclear.

from the SiW's link....
posted by Espoo2 at 5:52 PM on August 19, 2003


Non-story. MTV News has a more evenhanded account of what happened. It seems to me that Mike was foolish to take the kid away to take pictures of her on his Segway, but that's about it. I'm looking forward to his album, out next week on Ropeadope. And fwiw, that Dead show was the best I've seen since '95.
posted by muckster at 5:55 PM on August 19, 2003


A cop I knew told me that there are a number of documented cases of a biker standing by while his biker brothers gang-raped his daughter. These aren't normal loving parents who put their children's well-being first. They put loyalty to each other above all else, and yes, as someone else pointed out they avoid calling in the police at all costs. Of course an outsider would NOT have the same privileges and would get beaten to a pulp by the father's buddies automatically. So although we don't have enough information about what happened, my vote is that it's a mutual agreement not to press charges.
posted by orange swan at 6:29 PM on August 19, 2003


my sources...my good friend of 7 years...my friends uncle (head of mounted
police) & jones beach security guard...friend of friend...

mike was giving everyone under the sun (from adults to kids) rides on his IT segway...silly lil scooter...the mother of the 9 yr old allowed this to happen...this "Secluded Boathouse", is neither secluded or a boathouse..there was two normal jones beach secuirty guards there...in case people wanna sneak into the show...(secret entrance)... mike was just taking pictures of the girl on his segway...not good judement , but nothing to get crazy about... ...after ten minutes the girls mother starts freakin out..."were's my daughter"...(mind you the mother was induced with something, eyes bulging, lip biting..typical white trash mom)...mother calls her husband, a hells angel...ten minutes later there are 5 angels making there way through security...mike is confronted...grabbed by the thoat and on his knees getting kicked at...the VIP security guards got in the middle and explained that mike was a celeb, and was a film maker...the funniest part is this...the angels wanted to break his segway, so the one secuirty guard put it in his car and its been sitting in wantagh for the last week and a half...after all of this the daughter explained nothing happended and that was that...long story short...bad judgement, unlucky for mike the girls dad was a druggy/hells angel, a quick rush to judgement, few kicks to the nuts,,,,"my bad"...move on


Phish sucks as a jam band, but please people - don't let the media's bullshit win you over. he may be a dirty hippie, but damn he's no pedo!
posted by shadow45 at 6:33 PM on August 19, 2003


shadow45 - are you quoting someone? or paraphrasing a conversation?

"induced with something"??
posted by erebora at 7:13 PM on August 19, 2003


let's see.... my friend (Phish fan #1) got that emailed to him via his friend (Phish fan #2) and it came from some Phish website.

it matches up with what MTV and 2 other news sources are reporting, and someone else had pasted that onto fark.com i saw 5 minutes ago.

so...
posted by shadow45 at 7:16 PM on August 19, 2003


I was listening to some Shoutcast stream when I came across this thread, Phish was playing,

"Time for the meatstick
Bury the meatstick
Take out the meatstick"

Coincidence? I think not.
posted by cedar at 7:16 PM on August 19, 2003


Phish sucks as a jam band

Just curious -- do you mean Phish sucks because they're a "jam band" (I'd call it rock'n roll), or do find them vastly inferior to other, better "jam bands?"
posted by muckster at 7:24 PM on August 19, 2003


eh.. come to think of it, i've never heard a jam band i liked.

so i guess they all suck :)
posted by shadow45 at 7:30 PM on August 19, 2003


thanks, that clears it up. (smiley face)

Here's an item from, alas, jambands.com:

Gordon and the girl were tooling around on his Segway scooter snapping photographs. “It is well-known that Mike chronicles many events and was taking pictures of the entire concert throughout the evening. None of the pictures that he took, including the pictures with the young girl, was inappropriate.”
posted by muckster at 7:34 PM on August 19, 2003


Look, the parents of the girl say no big deal. Why are so many posters here jumping on he guy? I have an eleven-year-old daughter, and, while I've never left her alone backstage at 1 AM, I know that she would scream and resist at age nine, if someone were to try something untoward with her. Perhaps the Phish bassist was just taking pictures?

As a teacher, I am careful to avoid possible accusations of molestation and try to keep he door open when alone wih a kid, etc., but, I'm inclined to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Presumption of innocence, anyone?
posted by kozad at 7:36 PM on August 19, 2003


Sorry. For "he," read "the." Twice!
posted by kozad at 7:38 PM on August 19, 2003


This reminds me a Toadies song, what was that line? Something like...." behind the boathouse I'll show you my dark secret..."
posted by MikeMc at 7:48 PM on August 19, 2003


Seeing as I posted the thing in the first place I feel it's appropriate to comment on the latest information coming out. It sounds a perfectly reasonable account of what actually happened, and I hope this discussion actually helps save Mike Gordon's reputation. ( Guy 1: "You hear the Phish guy likes children?" Guy 2: "Nah, didn't happen, here's the rest of the story..")

One further thing I would like to comment on though - "(mind you the mother was induced with something, eyes bulging, lip biting..typical white trash mom)". Apart from the questionable wording, this description would fit any normal mother who doesn't know where her child is and is freaking out. Then again, she's taking her 9-year-old backstage at a Phish concert, I'm not sure that's normal.
posted by SiW at 8:23 PM on August 19, 2003


Why are so many posters here jumping on he guy?
Um, because, no matter how honourable his intentions were, he took a 9 year old girl off without her parents' permission?
posted by dg at 8:24 PM on August 19, 2003


There are a lot of people of all ages back stage at a Dead show, so although it's not "normal", it's not as unwholesome as some posters may be implying. Think trays of vegan food, carrot juice and micro-brew beer, as opposed to lines of blow and women with sharks in their vaginas.
posted by 2sheets at 8:26 PM on August 19, 2003


The bassist probably should've confirmed with the parents (or invited the parents) for the photo shoot.

I love the use of "probably" in that sentence, as if there are times when it's appropriate to lead a nine-year-old girl you just met to a secluded area.

That was closed to the public.

And dark.

On a body of water.

For an "art photo" session.

In the middle of the night.

Without the consent or knowledge of her parents.

The story is a big stack of wrongness pancakes.

Though of course we should believe any anonymous source who vouches for this guy's actions, the whole wanna-ride-my-Segway thing doesn't match very well with the criminal charge of trespassing "in an closed area" or being found on a dock. Neither of which would be nearly as convenient a Segway photo shoot location as the big honking parking lot next to the theater.
posted by rcade at 10:31 PM on August 19, 2003


A coinage found posted to the Rolling Stone bulletin board...

PHedophile.
posted by Dunvegan at 12:48 AM on August 20, 2003


To those piling up on the side of the leader of a band of outlaws, here's a question: why not assume that the parents were / are doing a piss-poor job at parenting in the first place? If we are going to jump on assumptions due to the lack of details, why defend the guys with a track record of mob brutality (to say the least)? Is there something among the elements of mob brutality (senseless violence, lack of fairness, general inadequacy, etc. etc. etc.) worthy of passing on to your child(ren)?
posted by magullo at 4:05 AM on August 20, 2003


To those piling up on the side of the leader of a band of outlaws,

Not so much "piling up" magullo, so much as being amazed that this guy, would try anything so stupid with them around. Although, if it came to a brawl between Phish fans and Angels, I'd be rooting for the Angels.
posted by jonmc at 6:38 AM on August 20, 2003


To those piling up on the side of the leader of a band of outlaws

He's not an Outlaw, he's an Hell's Angel. Confusing the two could get you in serious trouble in some situations.
posted by TedW at 8:14 AM on August 20, 2003


Neither of which would be nearly as convenient a Segway photo shoot location as the big honking parking lot next to the theater.
The guy's poor judgement was on his method of procuring a model not on it's location. Think back to all the photos you seen hanging on walls and in galleries. How many of them featured the vast ashphalt vastland that is a parking lot? How many featured expanses of open water? I'll argue that the esthetics of the latter are much better than the former.
posted by Mitheral at 8:39 AM on August 20, 2003


I don't understand the thinking here, magullo. You're not saying that this little girl is fair game because her dad's a criminal, are you?
posted by timeistight at 8:39 AM on August 20, 2003


Mitherall: What kind of open-water aesthetics is a photographer going to capture at 1 a.m.?
posted by rcade at 8:45 AM on August 20, 2003


timeistight What I'm saying is that certain people hear "child with adult" and immediately jump over any and all established facts to propose a doomsday scenario. For instance, in the case of an altercation between a guy with NO criminal record and the leader of a gang with an established criminal record, they grant all credibility to the criminal when there is no evidence one way or another. I find this moronic. I'd also like to point out that a huge percentage of child abuse (not that there was any in this case) is committed by parents, relatives and close friends. Which makes the doomsday scenarios even more tentative. But never mind the facts when we can indulge in our own favorite fantasies.
posted by magullo at 9:49 AM on August 20, 2003


"why not assume that the parents were / are doing a piss-poor job at parenting in the first place"

Well, sure! Kids with lousy parents deserve to be molested!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:52 AM on August 20, 2003


mr_crash_davis above would be a good example of what I was talking about right before he interjected.

Where did the molestation part come from? His fantasy (and let's leave it at that)

Here are the facts: kids with lousy parents do get into more trouble. Ask any social service worker, or for that matter any lousy parent who has had his or her kid yanked away by social services acting precisely on that specific premise.

Now, does anybody want to discuss whether criminals make lousy parents?
posted by magullo at 10:22 AM on August 20, 2003


"Where did the molestation part come from? His fantasy (and let's leave it at that)"

No, let's not. Why don't you explain?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:27 AM on August 20, 2003


There are conflicting stories about what happened. If Gordon gave the child a ride on his Segway and they got out of sight for a minute, I can buy this as an innocent mistake. However, if he transported her some distance to a darkened boathouse with the intention of travelling out on Long Island Sound at one o'clock in the morning, and he did this without either of her parents' knowledge or permission, then that sounds like a criminal act to me, regardless of the innocence of his intentions.

Whether the girl's parents are saints or sinners, fit or unfit, has no bearing whatsoever.
posted by timeistight at 10:27 AM on August 20, 2003


Where did the molestation part come from? His fantasy (and let's leave it at that)

The molestation part came from an adult male leading a child he just met off in the middle of the night to a secluded area, which would lead any reasonable person to fear the worst.

It seems a bit cheesy to call that fear a "fantasy" -- as if we're wishing that to be true -- when you're giving Mr. Wanna-Go-For-a-Ride the most generous interpretation possible of that incident.
posted by rcade at 10:30 AM on August 20, 2003


All the stuff about Hell's Angels and the Grateful Dead is just a distraction from the main issue. If you were having a party at your cottage and you found that your neighbor had taken your nine-year-old down to the water to take pictures of her, wouldn't you consider criminal charges?
posted by timeistight at 11:02 AM on August 20, 2003


I left out "at one a.m., without your knowledge".
posted by timeistight at 11:03 AM on August 20, 2003


Face it, elitist star f**kers, if he wasn't a friggin rocker you'd all be damning him to eternal prison rape.
posted by HTuttle at 11:18 AM on August 20, 2003


isn't anyone going to suggest it was poor judgement from the parents to bring a 9-year old to a gig backstage, and party until after midnight? My parents would have gotten a babysitter and there would have been no incident stoned Phish player or not.

Nope, I was backstage at concerts starting about about 3 or 4 years old. I had a blast. Wouldn't take my infant backstage...but would certainly take a 9 year old.

A cop I knew told me that there are a number of documented cases of a biker standing by while his biker brothers gang-raped his daughter. These aren't normal loving parents who put their children's well-being first.

That is such bullshit. find me one, singular documented case. Just one. I've known HA's for a long, long time. In fact, I caught a ride with one chapter that knew my dad when I was 15...from Florida to New York...and not only was I not subjected to any unwanted attention, they made sure I had a place to stay and cash and contacts when I got there. If you don't know any real bikers, you're not really qualified to judge them as people or parents. This "raping the daughters in a show of unity" bullshit has no more validity than "reefer madness" has to do with pot smokers.

And as to the incident, if someone took my 9 year old daughter anywhere...but especially away from a public venue to a dark and dangerous area where she could be injured (sexually or not)...I can guarantee that a beating would occur.
posted by dejah420 at 12:05 PM on August 20, 2003


dejah420, I can't link to the criminal records of any Hell's Angels, so I can't "prove" it to you. A cop I dated last summer had seen their records and told me these men commit every kind of crime including gang rapes of their daughters at their parties. I have no reason to doubt his word. I don't expect you to give it the same kind of credence because you didn't hear it directly from someone in a position to know as I did, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily bullshit. It's possible that the men in the chapters you've known were a better sort than the ones my friend had dealt with. I'm sure there are as many degrees of good and bad behaviour amongst biker gangs as there are in any other organization or group of people.
posted by orange swan at 7:24 PM on August 20, 2003


It seems a bit cheesy to call that fear a "fantasy" -- as if we're wishing that to be true -- when you're giving Mr. Wanna-Go-For-a-Ride the most generous interpretation possible of that incident.

I tend to give citizens with no background record a wide berth, mostly because I expect the same. Last time I checked, adult meant "responsible" (at least until the contrary is proven). Ergo, if a child disappears momentarily with an adult, my first thought is certainly not sex (which, BTW, is statistically VERY sound). And I'd certainly be much more concerned If a child disappeared in the middle of the night in the company of ... another child. But I still wouldn't think about sex. And I find making the connection by default very troubling, quite frankly.
posted by magullo at 5:46 AM on August 21, 2003


Taking a child away to a secondary location without the permission and knowledge of her parents is rather simply and straightforwardly a criminal act.

The AMBER Alert program operates on the statistic that a child can possibly travel (in the company of an abductor) at 60 miles an hour away from point last seen.

The statistics further state that a very high majority of child murders take place within the first three hours of a stranger abduction. You have to act wicked fast to save them. When a child is missing, who knows what has happened to her?

It's taken forever to get law enforcement to take missing youth seriously, and now if a child disappears, you've got real incident response. This is good. Missing children are children at risk.

Not to mention all the other child endangerment issues:

- Was he going to take her on the water? Did he know if she could swim or not?

- Yes, the gyros make a Segway an extremely stable transportation device, however I don't think it's impossible for a child to either fall and hurt oneself riding the thing, or have it get away from them and carry them into a collision.

- Did the child have any medical conditions that would need to be accommodated before a photo shoot in a remote area, like a bee sting allergy? Did she have any medication requirements (i.e., insulin, etc.)

You never touch a child with out getting parental permission. Period.

This should go without saying (but I'll say it anyway)...Don't walk off with other people's children without consent. The parents must have been put through hell for the short time she was missing. The headlines about missing children are all to often tragic in their resolution.

Move a child without the parent's permission, take them to a photo shoot where they are expected to perch on an experimental device, expect child endangerment charges at the minimum, Take her or him alone to a dark and/or dangerous location and keep them...the charge might just be kidnapping.

We're not talking "bad judgement"...we're talking "criminally negligent judgement."

And this is all without even discussing pedophilia.
posted by Dunvegan at 7:03 AM on August 21, 2003


I can understand your viewpoint, Magullo, but as a parent I carry around a mountain of anecdotal evidence on why you should err on the side of caution.

Often, sexual predators look for ways to ingratiate themselves into children's lives that seem innocent -- when I lived in Fort Worth, one sought out work as a youth sports league photographer -- and I wouldn't trust any adult on the planet who wanted to take children for "art photos."

The approach of trusting adults around kids "until the contrary is proven" seems like a recipe for disaster to me.
posted by rcade at 7:07 AM on August 21, 2003


Dunvegan Thanks for obviating the facts that the possible abductor has at the very least a semi-celebrity status and was widely identified from the beginning. Makes your points shine a lot brighter, doesn't it?

The approach of trusting adults around kids "until the contrary is proven" seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

And I completely understand that as a parent you want to err on the side of caution. However, throwing out a blanket statement like the above does not help: among rape victims less than 12 years of age, 90% of the children *knew the offender*, according to police-recorded incident data and frequently, *the person who sexually molests a child is also a child*.

BTW, Dunvegan , take notice that the above is quoted from the AMBER Alert site. This is the kind of data we have to digest and comprehend before jumping on the much more exciting 60 miles an hour stuff. But hey, don't you worry too much. As the same page explains: Nine in 10 Americans polled regard child abuse as a serious problem, yet only 1 in 3 reported abuse when confronted with an actual situation.
posted by magullo at 8:02 AM on August 21, 2003


« Older Body sushi...  |  Rap Not Music to Whitey's Ears... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments