Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Better to wait after injury or death? Just what the state needs is more unstable parents who have shown an inability to care for their kids.
I can't tell where the crime was commited. The artical is a little lacking on anything real. More over to say what it did on Oath Keepers is plain wrong.
What bugs me is if the state can make wild claims and then act on it, they can make wild claims on anyone they want to shut up.
Typically a crime must have taken place for the cops to do anything.
Past crimes considered to be paid to society shouldn't count.
I have mixed feelings on that with fellons, but these days you can do nearly nothing and be a felon. Once you are it seems the debt to society can never be paid fully. But once convicted you can't vote and or retain rights upon release. You can never pay the entire debt.
I have some problems with that idea, but am not a felon. It is a theory of mine that i wonder about only. It is getting to be if you just loose it a second and yell out loud, and maybe to no one in particular you can get busted for a felony, and if you do, you loose rights for life.
I could care less about the "Oath Keepers" I have seen agencies ignore problems and later finding a dead child. So far the only source of information was a fringe media outlet that is all but useless. As it involves children, the agency will not give out any information, as it should be. When you deal with kids, past histories are the factor to consider. Maybe some people should just not be parents.
All I know for sure is that as a taxpayer, I'm helping to pay for her first two kids. now she has a third and is already fighting with the father and denying him any rights. Yet they see no problem with that????
My opinion is these folks are common trailer trash, but I don't know that. What I think I know is the artical is based on some very dangerous Govt ideas.
I don't know how to get people to be non-violent, and or reasonable, any better than you do.
To me there is no doubt poverty breeds and breeds problems.
This past summer in the Ossipee Hannaford with my wife, we witnessed a father, low life looking tourist, punch his teenage daughter in the check out line. We didn't hear or see any reason for that action. My wife spoke up and told the guy hitting children or anyone else wasn't acceptable in NH.
The guy laughed at her, and said "I can hit my children anytime and place i want, their my kids!"
Had any LEO been in that line that father might well have been arrested for a felony.
After seeing that event take place I noticed that girl had rather a lot more bruises. Seem that low life father was in a real bad habit. But I have no idea how to stop that.
The cops have the same problem. I know out here in rural la la land it is a problem, and a call will come to the cops who go to break up a domestic fight, and the one who called will go bonkers on the cops. So the cops become embroiled in the domestic fight as well sometimes.
It is likey you and I will pay for a great deal of mis-produced children who will bear more of the same. But I sure don't know what can be done to stop it. What ever is being done sure isn't working.
DV's are a no win. Fortunately most I dealt with was after a screaming match that caused someone to call. Screaming in itself isn't a violation so hopefully everyone gets it out of their systems and calms down. But the laws have changed radically since i first started. In the past unless the victim was willing to sign the charges for a minor injury such as a slap, there was nothing we could do. Nor could we sign a complaint for a TRO. In one case before we could become the complainant, we came back time after time to minor disturbances where the GF was knocked around a bit but no serious injuries were noted. She refused to become part of any prosecution. A few months later she was doused with gas and set on fire.
But most cases involve very unhappy people and you walk out knowing that in the end the family is disintegrating which isn't pleasant to see. Even worse I saw too many kids being put in the middle of it and became pawns in the grown-ups games.
Better to wait after injury or death? Just what the state needs is more unstable parents who have shown an inability to care for their kids.
where do you draw the line? You can't fix stupid and there are a lot of stupid people with children. Should their children be taken from them because someone judged them stupid? They must be incapable?
The state stepped over a very fine line in this case. It is absolutely kidnapping through trickery. How does the mother have to proceed to get her infant back? Does she have to hire attorneys and go to hearings that could take another year before she sees her baby?
If agents stepped in and took away the children of everyone ever involved in domestic abuse cases, the foster system would be even more overworked than it is.
All states have child abuse laws that are written to protect the child from harm and not to give the benefit of doubt to parents/guardians. Many states, including NH have a law making reporting of child abuse mandatory for any person witnessing or suspecting such abuse: Section 169-C:29
Note the phrase "any other person" Mac.
The following section mandates - in law - the responsibilities of the DHHS: Section 169-C:34
Note: "determine the immediate and long-term risk to each child if the child remains in the existing home environment". Meaning - other children in the household may be removed even if a crime of abuse has not been committed against that specific child.
So, in law, the state had the right to protect this child. The Rochester police reports were easily enough to warrant their decision. I hope the state services now swiftly conclude the investigation, in order to return the child if the allegations prove false.
Johnathon Irish certainly has the right to bear arms and be a member of the Oathers, but his newborn also has equal protection under the Constitution, and indeed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of not being beaten to death by a scum bag (alleged). Bang your political gongs all you like.
Well I will agree that people ('professionals') are gathering info on others regarding guns. Last week at my children's school, a teacher passed out a survey question for kids to answer in writing: Does your family own any firearms? If so, how many and for what purpose? At least one child I know had the presence of mind enough to write, "That is none of your business".
thoroughly normal - girl babies have their first period within 3 days of being born usually.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
