Viral Social Media Story of Attempted Child Luring Turns Out To Be Nothing
"You could hear they were trying not to laugh."

"Child luring incident!" read the warning that appeared last Friday on several Teaneck, New Jersey, social media pages.
"A man in a car pulled up and tried to get a child in around 11 am on 12/31/21," it said. "You can clearly hear the child say, 'I do not accept rides from strangers,' and 'no' several times before walking away. Then the driver laughed and said, 'I will follow you then'. Teaneck police have already been informed and are looking for any information on identifying the child, so please reach out to Teaneck police asap with any information."
The post was accompanied by footage from a Ring camera, the popular security cameras watching over much of suburban America. It showed a boy walking down a quiet street when a car slows down and someone talks to him.
If you listen very closely—more closely than you would have to listen to hear a worm breathe—perhaps you can make out the boy defying the driver. ("Clearly hear the child" seems to overstate it.) Then someone in the car adds, "We have candy!"
"I said, 'Don't put it on the site! I bet you a dollar it's nothing,'" recalls Keith Kaplan, a Teaneck town councilman who runs the Teaneck Today website in an unofficial capacity. But another one of the site's administrators, his friend, Deputy Mayor Mark J. Schwartz, pressed publish—and the news went viral.
"Then it was on, like, 10 different Facebook groups within ten minutes," says Kaplan.
The police got right on it.
But it took a few days for Debra Passner to notice it—and gasp.
"Oh my God, oh my God!" she recalls telling her husband. "Because there was a video of our car and our son!"
The Passners had been at a family celebration with their 14-year-old, who wanted to leave early (as 14-year-olds often do). He started walking home, with his parents' blessing. Later, when they were driving home themselves, they saw him on the street and slowed down to offer him a ride.
"My son, being a wiseass, says, 'I don't take rides from strangers,'" Debra Passner recalls. So she leaned over and called out, "Don't you like candy? We have candy!"
When their son shook his head, his father said, "Okay, then I'll follow you." But moments later, they drove on.
Once the Passners saw this online, they immediately called the police. "You could hear they were trying not to laugh," says Debra Passner. The Passners also posted under the video that this was their child, and no one should worry.
The police paid a visit, were satisfied with the Passners' story, and issued a press release stating: "Detectives identified the child and the suspects in the vehicle and determined that the child and the individuals in the vehicle were family members and no attempted luring had occurred."
This got shared online as well. "But then of course there's all the better-safe-than-sorry comments," says Kaplan, who recalled two similar times his town erupted in fear, only to learn nothing nefarious was going on.
Once was when some men in a van spoke to a child. They were out of town painters who couldn't find an address. Another time a woman gave a child a note. Kaplan can't recall the details, but it too was nothing.
Why was he so sure that this incident would turn out to be something mundane?
"Because experience tells me it's not the best use of people's time to go up and down streets with people standing on them if you want to find children to abduct," he says. "If it were, I would likely have offloaded one or two of mine."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Authorities can go back to investigating parents using wrongspeak at school board meetings.
Keith Kaplan evidently has a brain, and a sense of humor. What an unusual combination in the People's Republic of NJ. 🙂
I'm Karen, and I approve this message.
The most pathetic part of this story is that someone thought it would make an acceptable article subject.
Wtf
And the city media accounts were cancelled for misinformation?
Well I am sorry, but the Passners have to learn that we live in a post-modern, post-truth America now. Reality is socially constructed, and truth is determined by consensus of one's social circle, including social media.
So it is simultaneously true that this boy was very nearly the victim of kidnapping at the hands of despicable child predators, AND that this boy was simply walking home while chatting with their parents in the car nearby. It is not a contradiction, because different social circles have determined that each separately is true.
Just like it is simultaneously true that COVID is a horrible disease that one should take great precautions to avoid, AND that COVID is a very mild disease, no worse than a common cold, and there is no reason to disrupt one's life to do much about.
Just like it is simultaneously true that the COVID vaccines are valuable life-saving medical interventions, AND that the COVID vaccines are despicable poisons that will most assuredly harm you if you take them.
Just like it is simultaneously true that Biden won the 2020 election fair and square, AND that Trump won the election but had it stolen from them. Both statements are true.
Just like it is simultaneously true that the Jan. 6 protestors were seditionist traitors trying to undermine American democracy itself, AND that the Jan. 6 protestors were merely tourists in the Capitol building taking an unguided tour in the property that, after all, they themselves owned.
It's all true because truth is determined by social consensus, not by measurements of objective reality. Because there is no objective reality. Welcome to America 2022.
Are you ironically talking about post modernism and subjective reality as a form of gaslightinh? Your entire ethos is post modernism and anti objective reality. From CRT is valid and simply teaching racism, 2+2=5, masks and vaccines work, bears on trunks, trespassing is a capital offense, j6 was an insurrection, etc.
You are literally THE glowing example of your first paragraph. You deny study after study cited by well renowned doctors because they gi against government narrative. Joe biden is a moderate. Democrats have good intentions so their authoritarianism doesn't matter. Trump russia is real despite the debunking of the dossier because it just feels real.
The irony of your idiocy is palpable.
Right-wing media has done pickled your brain.
Can you show where he's wrong? You didn't do that, Tony.
A “truth” is now just anything posted on TRUTH Social.
And thanks to TRUTH Social, we now have “re-TRUTHs”.
Their ToS is a fascinating read, by the way:
https://truthsocial.com/terms-of-service
“WITHOUT LIMITING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO, IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY, DENY ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SITE (INCLUDING BLOCKING CERTAIN EMAIL AND/OR IP ADDRESSES), TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR BREACH OF ANY REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY, OR COVENANT CONTAINED IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE OR OF ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION. WE MAY TERMINATE YOUR USE OR PARTICIPATION IN THE SITE OR DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT AND ANY CONTENT OR INFORMATION THAT YOU POSTED AT ANY TIME, WITHOUT WARNING, IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION.”
Gee, that sounds like the ToS clauses at places like Twitter or Facebook that gets the right-wingers so upset because it is supposedly 'unconscionable'.
But it's an undeniable reality that any large-scale platform like Twitter or Facebook or TRUTH SOCIAL or whatever has to moderate and censor to an extent, otherwise it gets overrun by trolls and Nazis and it turns into a cesspool that no one wants to visit.
So jeff doesn't have me on mute. The fucking liar.
What is sad is that I consider all vague contracts the same regardless of who is promoting the ToS. Do you?
I'll state clearly again. When the knitting site plainly said "we don't allow Trump patterns" i had no qualms. When Twitter utilizes vague rules, applies then haphazardly and inconsistently, and bans people for posts they themselves admit was not against previous terms when posted, it is a contract violation.
It is application of their words and actions that is the issue.
But you're such a dumbass you can't understand that.
When Twitter utilizes vague rules, applies then haphazardly and inconsistently, and bans people for posts they themselves admit was not against previous terms when posted, it is a contract violation.
And, more key, when they invoke vague emanations and penumbras to ban one person while taking no action against others who are prima facie violating both the letter and the spirit of the ToS, they are, at the very least, acting in bad faith and, quite arguably, violating equal protection.
And *and* (again!), none of the above is an issue unless you've written and claim to uphold laws that offer protection for good faith efforts and otherwise willingly void private ownership to ensure public accommodation/equal protection. Have your cake. Eat it. Claim you didn't get any cake. Honest people said you couldn't do the first two. Exceedingly tolerant people are willing to let you do two of the three. Insisting you have a right to all three inherently causes people, even people who think you should be able to have cake and claim you didn't get any, to want to shoot you in the face. Justifiably.
They are quite arguably violating the Treaty of Vienna, too, if by "quite arguably" you mean "someone who doesn't know what he's talking about could make the argument." There is no "equal protection" for a private business; that's a concept that applies to the government.
So not a leftist?
Because there is no objective reality.
You whine and cry like a little bitch. Why don't you walk away? Oh, right, when you are just doing it to get attention, even the negative comments are reinforcement.
Hey look, it's just Liz letting us know who the real victims of today will be.
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/1479045896981598208?t=uZ8eHrSAiKkqX10Z9eKgJA&s=19
Today is gonna be one of those days when large swaths of media are absolutely unbearable & I am … not psyched
The capitol riots can be bad without us cosplaying “heroes of democracy with pens instead of capes” a year later, xoxo
A window was broken. And there were feet on a desk. What a riot…
Every reporter in a blue state almost died that day.
The media is pissed that nobody outside of political reporters and biased asses like jeff don't think this was an unarmed insurrection.
80% of convictions so far are for entering and remaining in a government a building. Something Americans have seen the left do for decades at this point. They saw no weapons. They've seen the Capitol pretend it was pearl harbor part 2 after a summer of riots where the media mocked and cheered trump being forced to a bunker while buildings burned. And it infuriates them.
Theyve watched the media make excuse after excuse for Biden and saying inflation is a myth as they feel it in their wallets. They are finally waking up yo the fact that covid is endemic and the government asks around it are bullshit theater. Watching fauci change guidance daily and teachers ignore they were given front of the line vaccines and billions to keep kids in school, then still strike.
A window was broken, feet were put up on a desk, and out there, in the far and distance corners of the land somewhere, a fire extinguisher was used for something. It was a mostly peaceful riot.
Does she realize she is often unbearable?
The best thing about ENB's Twitter feed is all the more entertaining, more even-handedly libertarian people who follow her/post there. It's almost like that's the business model.
"If it were, I would likely have offloaded one or two of mine."
I would not be surprised if this offhand comment costs Kaplan his job.
"One or two of mine" would suggest he has at least three kids. I wonder if his kids know into which camp they fall.
However does the most chores gets to go the Disneyland. Second place gets a set of steak knives. And last place gets sold for scientific experiments.
Whomever does the most chores without being asked gets to go the Disneyland. Second place gets a set of steak knives. And last place gets sold for scientific experiments.
WTF house did you grow up in where the Lord Of The Manor goes around begging the help to do their fucking job and clean up after themselves?
I wonder if his kids know into which camp they fall.
Not entirely sure of his kids' maturity levels, but, yes. Everyone is Mom's favorite and all those other siblings are on the naughty list.
' "But then of course there's all the better-safe-than-sorry comments," says Kaplan, who recalled two similar times his town erupted in fear, only to learn nothing nefarious was going on.'
What do we do when a large part of our society, and official policy of a major political party, believes that fear is a virtue?
Both parties thrive on fear. One says you should be afraid of climate change and the end of democracy. The other thinks you should be afraid of trans women and history books.
Again, two doors/two guards, both may lie, figure out which one is the (more) oppressive fearmonger:
Which one of you thinks we're all gonna die if the other doesn't do something? Guard on the left, "I do!" guard on the right, "She does."
It must be tough to live in a world where self-evidently truthful statements are scary.
So all this time Totalitarian Tony thought he was trolling a Republican website and that the only other alternative is a Dem site. Or did he mean both LOOTER parties?
Serious question.
Under New Jersey law, it is considered an illegal wiretap to record a conversation in which the recording party is not participating. That is why surveillance cameras record only video but not audio.
In this case, someone‘s recording device recorded a conversation in which that person was not participating. Why would this not be an illegal wiretap under New Jersey law?
I'm no New Jersey Lawyer, but I'm familiar with the topic as IL, which has a similar eavesdropping/surreptitious recording law, and I've overseen/participated in events that skirt the issue. Parents and children don't have an expectation of privacy on a public street/sidewalk. If the child got inside the car and the Ring recorded audio from inside the car, there could be a case if the parents decided to press charges.
Yet the cops in their press release could not break free from cop-speak, and despite full well knowing otherwise referred to the parents as "suspects".
Not just the cops, the Karens were going beyond deeming them suspects and acted like guilt was strongly likely.
So a family was joking around about kidnapping, and it went viral as if everyone was being serious.
Poe's Law has escaped the Internet and is now infecting meatspace.
I remember hearing about a town in Colorado where the residents got so paranoid about abductions that they hired a local businessman to build a City Wall around the town.
And, I'm no lawyer, officer of the law, or otherwise required as part of my job to report the facts as I know them, but just because it was the parents in the car doesn't make "no attempted luring had occurred" a factual statement. No illegal luring or attempted abduction occurred, but attempted luring definitely took place.