If a neighbor was watching your child undress.....

[Uncle Remus]

oh, come on.....somebodys always trying to start a fight.....i did not even hint at that....parents must practice due diligence. the best way to handle something like this is to prevent it from happening.

I'm truly not tryin' to start a fight with you dalt, I just don't understand why a grown man, a pediatrician peeps in on a li'l girl 4 times when she's undressin'.

 

[indimom]

What about the other kids in the world??

Shouldn't we protect them too??

Yeah, once mom knows what's going on, she can probably protect her own. She can close her curtains or move or get a new ped.

But, what about other kids? Don't we care?

This isn't a teenage boy peeping at a grown woman who doesn't close her curtains. This is a PEDIATRICIAN peeping at a PRETEEN GIRL!!! Her own pediatrician and neighbor who clearly new how young she was. Any decent man would have looked away. And a PEDIATRICIAN!!! This is not an innocent peek.

I have yet to hear a solution BETTER than what this mother did.

 

[scrapquitler]

I have yet to hear a solution BETTER than what this mother did.

You think that using the child as bait was a good solution? If he had physically injured the child, should the mother have allowed him to physically injure her again just to prove it?

My main goal as a parent is to protect my own children FIRST. If I can protect another child in the process, that's great, but I'm not willing to sacrifice MY child's well being right now (like this mother did) to possibly protect another theoretical child later.

 

[Ciciwoowoo]

I applaud that mother. She was brave enough to stop this monster from committing further atrocities.

Yes, it was horrible that she had to use her daughter for bait. But her daughter was not being touched and relatively safe from harm. If the mother had done nothing, who is to say that the behavior of the doctor would not have accelerated into touching and worse with another young girl or boy.

I can't believe the article, however. Did you read it? It sounds as if the author is saying because he was just a peeping tom, the mom should have kept her mouth shut rather than ruin his life.

 

[indimom]

You think that using the child as bait was a good solution? If he had physically injured the child, should the mother have allowed him to physically injure her again just to prove it?

My main goal as a parent is to protect my own children FIRST. If I can protect another child in the process, that's great, but I'm not willing to sacrifice MY child's well being right now (like this mother did) to possibly protect another theoretical child later.

No I wouldn't agree with letting them physically injure a child a second time. Obviously, the first time would give you evidence.

But, this is a situation where it's word against word and I just can't find an alternative that protects everyone. This man should NOT be a pediatrician. I don't know how else you could achieve that result.

I don't know that I would have it in me to do it either. But, I also don't know how I could go through every day of my life knowing that a man who peeps on young girls is working with children in a very trusted and hands-on profession . My child being seen naked seems the lesser of two evils.

 

[RitaE]

I applaud that mother. She was brave enough to stop this monster from committing further atrocities.

Yes, it was horrible that she had to use her daughter for bait. But her daughter was not being touched and relatively safe from harm. If the mother had done nothing, who is to say that the behavior of the doctor would not have accelerated into touching and worse with another young girl or boy.

I can't believe the article, however. Did you read it? It sounds as if the author is saying because he was just a peeping tom, the mom should have kept her mouth shut rather than ruin his life.

I agree with you about the article. There are places in there that the author sounds upset that the Pediatrician's career was ruined. Seriously? If the facts are correct the guy shows major signs of being a Pedophile and she's in a fuss that he won't have a career as a Pediatrician anymore?

I don't know if the Mother was brave though. Bravery is sacrificing yourself, not allowing your 11 year old daughter to be used like that.

I think everybody is probably glad that there is proof to prosecute this creep and prevent him from further abuse of his patients and other neighborhood girls. The cost of this proof though ..... I just don't know many Mothers who would let their little girls be used that way, much less be the ones in charge of sticking her out their as bait.

 

[indimom]

I applaud that mother. She was brave enough to stop this monster from committing further atrocities.

Yes, it was horrible that she had to use her daughter for bait. But her daughter was not being touched and relatively safe from harm.

THIS IS WHAT I KEEP COMING BACK TO.

If the mother had done nothing, who is to say that the behavior of the doctor would not have accelerated into touching and worse with another young girl or boy.

HONESTLY, WHO IS TO SAY HE HASN'T DONE THAT ALREADY?? AND JUST TOOK AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO PEEP AS WELL.

I can't believe the article, however. Did you read it? It sounds as if the author is saying because he was just a peeping tom, the mom should have kept her mouth shut rather than ruin his life.

I got that impression too. Nuts!

 

[mrodgers]

Sure it is disgusting, but..... He was looking out his own window and the child's window happens to be across from it. There is proof of nothing other than someone was looking out their own home's window. Where is the law that states you are not allowed to look out your home's window?

Thus, they have nothing.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Neighbor is a well respected pediatrician.

Wait... don't we know who this guy is? Wasn't there someone on here with a creepy pediatrician in the neighborhood?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Some interesting, if less complete or accurate, information if one searches deeper: this http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/ann-arbor-pediatrician-accused-of-peeping/ report claims not that the doctor was a neighbor but that he went to the victim's house. It also declines to identify the witness.

While it appears the original link in this thread is overly sympathetic to the accused, it appears now that writer simply provides balance. As stated by mrodgers above - isn't a person allowed to look out the window of their own residence?

Regarding the self-designed trap - that sounds shaky, almost like entrapment. How does the mother know exactly what the daughter was doing at exactly the times the doctor/neighbor(?) was looking out his window, and how does she "know" he was watching her daughter, and not just gazing out the window? Was she in the room (bathroom? bedroom?) with her daughter?

And WHAT ever happened to innocent until proven guilty???

 

[hereyago]

Sure it is disgusting, but..... He was looking out his own window and the child's window happens to be across from it. There is proof of nothing other than someone was looking out their own home's window. Where is the law that states you are not allowed to look out your home's window?

.

True. but there is a difference in looking out your window seeing the neighbor's window and have them perhaps walk by naked as a jay bird or undress, but normal people look away as soon as they see it. he watched this child ,it wasn't a oops glance, it was a big ol peeper.

 

[RitaE]

Was he looking out his window or did he go to her house and look in? I agree there is a difference.

The linked article says

is accused of going to a 12-year-old girl's home in Ann Arbor on four occasions and looking through a window, watching as she changed her clothing.

Dr. Howard Bruce Weinblatt, 65, who works at IHA Child Health - Ann Arbor, is charged with four counts of surveilling an unclothed person and two counts of window peeping.

 

[Ciciwoowoo]

Oh my gosh... I take my teenage son to IHA... we visit a different office, but what if this sicko travels to that office as well?

Now, I'm even more sick, and even more glad that this mom took these actions.

 

[disykat]

I agree it is disturbing behavior that needs to be addressed, but I fail to see how looking through your own window at something going on within view of it can be considered window peeping.

Although different in the fact that it involveds a minor, this reminds me of the fictional situation in the show "friends" where they often see "ugly naked guy" in his apartment.

 

[RitaE]

Another article

His bathroom window looks toward the girl's bedroom closet. He wasn't just looking. Go read the article for what is supposedly recorded because it is not DIS appropriate.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/...atrician-peeping-on-her-12-year-old-daughter/

 

[sam_gordon]

I agree it is disturbing behavior that needs to be addressed, but I fail to see how looking through your own window at something going on within view of it can be considered window peeping.

Going along the same lines, I thought it was legal to videotape anything that your eyes could see from areas you're allowed to be in. That sentence doesn't sound right, but my point is if you can see into someone's home (for example) from the sidewalk, the responsibility is on the homeowner to prevent that (if they don't want anyone looking in).

I'm not talking about morals here, just legality.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Another article

His bathroom window looks toward the girl's bedroom closet. He wasn't just looking. Go read the article for what is supposedly recorded because it is not DIS appropriate.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/...atrician-peeping-on-her-12-year-old-daughter/

That article does put it on another level entirely. Quite disturbing.

 

[Uncle Remus]

That article does put it on another level entirely. Quite disturbing.

If she got him doin' that on video while he's "peeping," he's gonna have a hard time explainin' that.

 

[OceanAnnie]

If she got him doin' that on video while he's "peeping," he's gonna have a hard time explainin' that.

Indeed. His goose is probably cooked.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Definitely NOT how I would have handled it. The very FIRST thing that would have happened in my house would have been a reminder to my Daughter that she should have closed the blinds or curtains in her room!

Then again, in our house we close the blinds or curtains if we are getting dressed near the window. Actually, as soon as it gets dark we close the blinds in the bedrooms regardless of if we are getting dressed in that room or not. Isn't that just plain old common sense????

The child should feel violated. And I don't just mean by the peeping Tom pediatrician...the Mom violated the daughters privacy as well by using her as bait!

You'd think so, about closing blinds. And she was getting changed in her closet? There's no reason for that window to ever be uncovered, and every reason why it should be.

he should not have been able to see in in the first place.............................................

parents must practice due diligence. the best way to handle something like this is to prevent it from happening.

Sure it is disgusting, but..... He was looking out his own window and the child's window happens to be across from it. There is proof of nothing other than someone was looking out their own home's window. Where is the law that states you are not allowed to look out your home's window?

Thus, they have nothing.

Gotta agree.

Regarding the self-designed trap - that sounds shaky, almost like entrapment. How does the mother know exactly what the daughter was doing at exactly the times the doctor/neighbor(?) was looking out his window, and how does she "know" he was watching her daughter, and not just gazing out the window? Was she in the room (bathroom? bedroom?) with her daughter?

And WHAT ever happened to innocent until proven guilty???

Going along the same lines, I thought it was legal to videotape anything that your eyes could see from areas you're allowed to be in. That sentence doesn't sound right, but my point is if you can see into someone's home (for example) from the sidewalk, the responsibility is on the homeowner to prevent that (if they don't want anyone looking in).

I'm not talking about morals here, just legality.

I agree. I'm not saying that I don't find what this guy did creepy, but this is a legal issue, and legally, I think the accusations could be a bit iffy. Especially after the mother set her daughter up to be watched.