Child Welfare called in on Father who gave Son a Gun

[MARIS61]

Look if CPS doesn't handle it the way they did and something bad happens they will get barbequed for it.

As opposed to getting fired, the taxpayers being sued for damages, which is how civil rights infringements end up being settled.

 

[MARIS61]

[video=youtube;j-q2zHIovOE]

 

[MARIS61]

[video=youtube;pkWgp2abM2w]

 

[MARIS61]

[video=youtube;4g1n8cmwhIY]

 

[MARIS61]

[video=youtube;wcLo_TGy7pA]

 

[jlprk]

Know your audience. Know who your friends are. If the dad were smart enough to protect himself and his kids, he would have a very limited following on FB, or he would be aware of the consequences of his own actions. That's what's so f***ing funny, these days. People think they can do whatever they want and there's no consequences.

As little and as petty of some of these issues are that blow up, be wise, think before doing something, consider the consequences. And when the consequences come, own it and accept it. That's something that was instilled in me from the day I was born. I still did plenty of dumb shit, but I accepted the punishments, and if I disagreed with the punishments, I looked within myself to try to discover why I was punished. This dad should do the same thing. Don't blame the system here. Blame yourself for not considering the results of your own actions. Blame your "friends" for reporting you. Blame yourself for adding your FB "friends". Don't blame the system for doing what it's designed to do. And don't be upset when the system checks in and then doesn't punish you.

That's quite an argument against freedom.

This. I'd rather CPS over-investigate than under-investigate. Whoever called them should be thoroughly, mercilessly, and very publicly ridiculed.

And that's a quickie in favor of a police state.

...If it's legal for a kid to own a gun, then why does CPS investigate legal activity?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

That's quite an argument against freedom.



And that's a quickie in favor of a police state.

...If it's legal for a kid to own a gun, then why does CPS investigate legal activity?

Police investigate activity that may be illegal. CPS investigates if they believe a child is at risk.

 

[oldguy]

^Terrible comparison.

Every child I know growing up had a bike. Or at least rode bikes. At age 4 even.

Very few ever had a gun before the age of 18.

Let's play a game. We find a big area in Bend, or wherever else in Central, Oregon. A couple of acres. You and me, but we have to stay within the specified area. You get a bike, I'll get the gun. Last man standing wins. I mean really? There's bad comparisons, and there's BAD comparisons.

That may be true of kids raised in the city. I grew up in the country. I had a gun (.22) when I was 12. I was thoroughly checked out on gun safety before I was ever allowed to shoot it. I was also thoroughly checked out on the issue that you don't get to make a mistake with a gun. Most of the kids I knew had a gun by the time they were allowed to hunt big game, about 14 years old.

Go Blazers

 

[donkiez]

I grew up around cops and have worked closely with law enforcement throughout my life. I have known dozens upon dozens of cops, some for many years.

All cops lie and intimidate. They are trained to and instructed to and are required to. It's in the job description.

This is one area I totally agree with you Maris. A cops job is to ENFORCE THE LAW, lieing and intimidating people into giving up information is a tool they use. I have met some very nice officers over the years but I have never made the mistake of believing any of them are ever on MY side.

Little offnote highschool story to emphasis this point. In HS a couple of buddies who were both 18 were at a party. One was drunk the other not. After the party the sober guy gave the drunk guy a ride home, thinking he was doing the responsible thing, and got pulled over. The cop smelled alcohol asked if anyone was drinking, the driver said his passenger was drunk and that he was giving him a ride home. The cop gets all buddy buddy, shooting the shit etc, asks the driver if he had anything to drink all night. Driver responds one or two a long time ago. BOOOM! DUI for driver and MIP for passenger, even though the driver blew and registered about as much alcohol as he would have if he had swallowed some mouth wash. His admission of drinking anything was enough for the DUI as under 21 there is zero tolerance. Point being a cop will do anything to get the info out of you and then they will enforce the law and leave any interpretations to the judge.

In relation to this thread, the Dad is an idiot and so is whoever turned him in. CPS has to investigate everything and some people use that to their advantage. Dad did nothing wrong, except blame the system and cry about 2nd ammendment rights. Seems like everyone is being oversensative these days. Im careful about what I post on facebook, not because I do anything illegal, but because I know that everything on there is for the world to see and Im carefull how I portray myself to the world.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

This is one area I totally agree with you Maris. A cops job is to ENFORCE THE LAW, lieing and intimidating people into giving up information is a tool they use. I have met some very nice officers over the years but I have never made the mistake of believing any of them are ever on MY side.

Little offnote highschool story to emphasis this point. In HS a couple of buddies who were both 18 were at a party. One was drunk the other not. After the party the sober guy gave the drunk guy a ride home, thinking he was doing the responsible thing, and got pulled over. The cop smelled alcohol asked if anyone was drinking, the driver said his passenger was drunk and that he was giving him a ride home. The cop gets all buddy buddy, shooting the shit etc, asks the driver if he had anything to drink all night. Driver responds one or two a long time ago. BOOOM! DUI for driver and MIP for passenger, even though the driver blew and registered about as much alcohol as he would have if he had swallowed some mouth wash. His admission of drinking anything was enough for the DUI as under 21 there is zero tolerance. Point being a cop will do anything to get the info out of you and then they will enforce the law and leave any interpretations to the judge.

In relation to this thread, the Dad is an idiot and so is whoever turned him in. CPS has to investigate everything and some people use that to their advantage. Dad did nothing wrong, except blame the system and cry about 2nd ammendment rights. Seems like everyone is being oversensative these days. Im careful about what I post on facebook, not because I do anything illegal, but because I know that everything on there is for the world to see and Im carefull how I portray myself to the world.

Out of curiosity, Which state did you grow up in?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Can't believe I agree with everything Maris has said in this thread.. Cops are the worst, CPS had no right or reason to investigate shit.

 

[donkiez]

Out of curiosity, Which state did you grow up in?

Oregon in the 90's

 

[Sedatedfork]

Can't believe I agree with everything Maris has said in this thread.. Cops are the worst, CPS had no right or reason to investigate shit.

Scenario: He gets reported to CPS. CPS doesn't do shit. Son takes gun and shoots up school, or dad shoots son, or dad and son become the new DC snipers. CPS gets sued for tons of money. There was no way that CPS was going to disregard the complaint. They do that and something bad happens, and lots of people lose their jobs, the agency gets sued, people are criticized, etc. Now they could have handled it differently, but your suggestion that they shouldn't investigate shit is not very practical.

They could also have been investigating whether they had violated this law

 

[MARIS61]

Scenario: He gets reported to CPS. CPS doesn't do shit. Son takes gun and shoots up school, or dad shoots son, or dad and son become the new DC snipers. CPS gets sued for tons of money. There was no way that CPS was going to disregard the complaint. They do that and something bad happens, and lots of people lose their jobs, the agency gets sued, people are criticized, etc. Now they could have handled it differently, but your suggestion that they shouldn't investigate shit is not very practical.

They could also have been investigating whether they had violated this law

You're falling into the trap of excusing tyranny due to a baseless "complaint" of a non-threatening, perfectly legal and responsible everyday part of parenting in America.

No different than if the photo was a girl with a Barbie doll.

That is how the law stands today. The government must obey the law, and never over-reach it.

If you fear guns, lobby to amend the 2nd Amendment. Or move to Britain.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Scenario: He gets reported to CPS. CPS doesn't do shit. Son takes gun and shoots up school, or dad shoots son, or dad and son become the new DC snipers. CPS gets sued for tons of money. There was no way that CPS was going to disregard the complaint. They do that and something bad happens, and lots of people lose their jobs, the agency gets sued, people are criticized, etc. Now they could have handled it differently, but your suggestion that they shouldn't investigate shit is not very practical.

They could also have been investigating whether they had violated this law

I don't see how it would fair to blame CPS for your scenario in any way. Are they not going to be criticized if your hypothetical happens, after they've "investigated"?

Seems like a lot of you don't value true freedom.

 

[donkiez]

I don't see how it would fair to blame CPS for your scenario in any way. Are they not going to be criticized if your hypothetical happens, after they've "investigated"?

Seems like a lot of you don't value true freedom.

Its not about freedom, its about child safety. ANY claim made about the safety of a child needs to be looked into. Right, wrong, truth or lies it doesnt matter. Problem is that many people abuse the system by making false or exaggerated claims to mess with others they dont like, but thats just how it is and those claims are usually figured out pretty quickly.

This whole thing has nothing to do with 2nd ammendment rights, its just two idiots on facebook who somehow managed to make their dissagreement a national conversation because it involved guns.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I don't agree that all random complaints from a random person warrant a government agency investigating you and your parenting.

 

[RR7]

I don't agree that all random complaints from a random person warrant a government agency investigating you and your parenting.

how do you propose they weed them out? Just whatever they feel like looking in to?

 

[KeepOnRollin]

I don't agree that all random complaints from a random person warrant a government agency investigating you and your parenting.

You can't look at some and not others. Whatever formula you come up with will invariably miss 1 and all it takes is the one you miss for the shit to hit the fan. You have to look at all or none no matter how ridiculous they sound off-hand. Obviously you can't ignore them all either so that leaves you with...

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Oregon in the 90's

Story can't be true. There is no zero tolerance for those under 21 when it comes to the crime of driving under the influence in Oregon.

Sounds like one of those urban legend stories that get circulated and leads to citizens not trusting police. Personally it sad to see some of the opinions of police officers on this board . . .

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You can't look at some and not others. Whatever formula you come up with will invariably miss 1 and all it takes is the one you miss for the shit to hit the fan. You have to look at all or none no matter how ridiculous they sound off-hand. Obviously you can't ignore them all either so that leaves you with...

Shit hits the fan all the time. It doesn't give the government the right to interfere with the lives of any family they so choose based on an anonymous complaint.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Story can't be true. There is no zero tolerance for those under 21 when it comes to the crime of driving under the influence in Oregon.

Sounds like one of those urban legend stories that get circulated and leads to citizens not trusting police. Personally it sad to see some of the opinions of police officers on this board . . .

So if you're under 21 you can drive drunk in Oregon as long as it's under the legal limit for 21+ year olds?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

So if you're under 21 you can drive drunk in Oregon as long as it's under the legal limit for 21+ year olds?

No one can drive drunk in Oregon.

The standard is the same for everyone, regardless of age.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Shit hits the fan all the time. It doesn't give the government the right to interfere with the lives of any family they so choose based on an anonymous complaint.

You didn't answer the question. How do they determine which ones to check up on and which not to? You can't just call up the dad and say hey, are you a good father? Who is going to say no? There is no way to weed out a legit tip with a bogus one until they actually visit the home to check on the child.

 

[MARIS61]

No one can drive drunk in Oregon.

The standard is the same for everyone, regardless of age.

And yet, tens of thousands of Oregonians drive drunk every day.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

And yet, tens of thousands of Oregonians drive drunk every day.

I doubt that figure is correct. But yes, even with law enforcement making a serious commitment to stopping this behavior in our society, people still get away with it every day.

So where as I don't think police go far enough to try and stop this kind of behavior, I suppose those on their freedom soapbox would be screaming and yelling about sobriety check points and more aggressive police action.

No doubt you have stories of how the police trick people so they can charge them with DUII. My feeling is if they are intoxicated and driving, I don't care what the police do to catch them as long as they stay within the rules of the law.

I'm worried about your beautiful central Oregon where all officers are corrupt and everyone is driving around drunk.

 

[donkiez]

Story can't be true. There is no zero tolerance for those under 21 when it comes to the crime of driving under the influence in Oregon.

Sounds like one of those urban legend stories that get circulated and leads to citizens not trusting police. Personally it sad to see some of the opinions of police officers on this board . . .

Do you ever google stuff before you call BS? This took me like 5 seconds to find.


How much do you have to drink (BAC*) for a DUI in Oregon?
Under 21
.00% (zero tolerance)

21 or older
.08%

Commercial
.04%


http://dui.drivinglaws.org/oregon.php

I can name the two individuals, it is not an urban legend.

 

[donkiez]

I don't agree that all random complaints from a random person warrant a government agency investigating you and your parenting.

In theory I agree with you. However in reality it needs to happen. Most investigations are not a intrusive as you probably think they are though, its usually just an interview with the parents/kids and possibly a check of the premises. Also usually the complaints are not random, they may be false but they are not random.

Little food for thought, if you saw your neighbor beating the shit out of his kid and you called CPS wouldnt you expect that they check it out? This isnt just for children either. If your neighbor was a terrorist and you knew about it and turned him in, wouldnt you expect the police to at least check it out? The flip side to that though is that if someone is pissed at you they can turn you in for being a terrorist and you will probably get checked out...... you might not know you got checked out though but you can bet you did.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Do you own any children?

Do you want to?

I don't "own" any. And when they get into trouble (well, it's really only my toddler that gets into trouble), and I'm asked if they "belong" to me, I say no. But I do have two children, yes. But I don't want any more.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Never mind that I'd have a decided advantage over you in that situation whether I had bike or a balloon, you're changing the subject. Your personal fear of guns is meaningless to the thread topic which is the abuse of power by the government.

Buying your child a bike is far more likely to result in his death or Injury than buying him a gun.

Nearly every kid I grew up with had guns and nobody I have ever known has ever been shot with a gun.

Yes, you'd have an advantage with you bike? I have no fear of guns. I have fear of morons with guns, but then again, I have a healthy fear of morons, in general. And this dad is clearly a moron.