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.
The police were presented with the evidence before they raided. I didn't read the article, but did they get a warrant? If so the judge should be fired. If they didn't get a warrant, all the police officers should be fired. The person who reported it should get the fine for the outcome. This will teach people to mind their business.
They didn't get a warrant. Why should the police be fired? They showed up to investigate what was reported to them as potential child abuse. They asked if they could look around and see certain things, and when they were denied, they followed the law and left the premises. What course of action do you feel the police should have taken?
I agree the person who made the allegations should be held to account, made to explain his suspicion.
They didn't get a warrant. Why should the police be fired? They showed up to investigate what was reported to them as potential child abuse. They asked if they could look around and see certain things, and when they were denied, they followed the law and left the premises. What course of action do you feel the police should have taken?
I agree the person who made the allegations should be held to account, made to explain his suspicion.
I didn't read the article. From the title "home raided" I assume they entered the home, without consent, and began to search. As a general principle, I don't agree with police investigating "potential" child abuse.
They didn't get a warrant. Why should the police be fired? They showed up to investigate what was reported to them as potential child abuse. They asked if they could look around and see certain things, and when they were denied, they followed the law and left the premises. What course of action do you feel the police should have taken?
I agree the person who made the allegations should be held to account, made to explain his suspicion.
Sounds like they needed to get a warrant before ever knocking on the door, over a photograph showing what right every American has.
People should read the article. There was no 'raid' on the home: that was in the OP's thread title.
So, protective child workers ask police to accompany them to this house, where they have some slight reason to believe contains people with guns and young children. No warrant was sought from a judge. When said authorities arrived at the house they asked if they could enter and search. Request denied, authorities depart.
Now, I do not get excited over these bare facts. I have seen such occur many a time. People always have the right to refuse admittance to the police, unless some very narrow exceptions apply.
It appears that the protective child services worker decided, after speaking to the family, that no follow-up was necessary (i.e., no child was in immediate danger). It would have been easy to go to a judge and request a warrant if they thought otherwise.
I thought it strange that the article stated that the father called a 'second amendment' lawyer, whereas a fourth amendment lawyer would have been more appropriate. Heck, even a real estate attorney would have said "The police have no right to enter without a warrant".
I do not get excited over the allegation (for we have just one side of the story) that one of the protective child workers declined to give his or her name. They have a thankless enough job as it is, without this guy wanted to blab it out to the media/internet for whackos to harrass.
There is no potential lawsuit. One cannot sue 'the government' simply for protective services people and/or police showing up at your doorstep. If this gentleman sets up a Paypal fund so people may make donations to protect his second amendment rights, I would think twice before contributing.
People should read the article. There was no 'raid' on the home: that was in the OP's thread title.
So, protective child workers ask police to accompany them to this house, where they have some slight reason to believe contains people with guns and young children. No warrant was sought from a judge. When said authorities arrived at the house they asked if they could enter and search. Request denied, authorities depart.
Now, I do not get excited over these bare facts. I have seen such occur many a time. People always have the right to refuse admittance to the police, unless some very narrow exceptions apply.
It appears that the protective child services worker decided, after speaking to the family, that no follow-up was necessary (i.e., no child was in immediate danger). It would have been easy to go to a judge and request a warrant if they thought otherwise.
I thought it strange that the article stated that the father called a 'second amendment' lawyer, whereas a fourth amendment lawyer would have been more appropriate. Heck, even a real estate attorney would have said "The police have no right to enter without a warrant".
I do not get excited over the allegation (for we have just one side of the story) that one of the protective child workers declined to give his or her name. They have a thankless enough job as it is, without this guy wanted to blab it out to the media/internet for whackos to harrass.
There is no potential lawsuit. One cannot sue 'the government' simply for protective services people and/or police showing up at your doorstep. If this gentleman sets up a Paypal fund so people may make donations to protect his second amendment rights, I would think twice before contributing.
You're a lawyer right??? That's why you are on the State's side here. Figures.
People should read the article. There was no 'raid' on the home: that was in the OP's thread title.
So, protective child workers ask police to accompany them to this house, where they have some slight reason to believe contains people with guns and young children. No warrant was sought from a judge. When said authorities arrived at the house they asked if they could enter and search. Request denied, authorities depart.
Now, I do not get excited over these bare facts. I have seen such occur many a time. People always have the right to refuse admittance to the police, unless some very narrow exceptions apply.
It appears that the protective child services worker decided, after speaking to the family, that no follow-up was necessary (i.e., no child was in immediate danger). It would have been easy to go to a judge and request a warrant if they thought otherwise.
I thought it strange that the article stated that the father called a 'second amendment' lawyer, whereas a fourth amendment lawyer would have been more appropriate. Heck, even a real estate attorney would have said "The police have no right to enter without a warrant".
I do not get excited over the allegation (for we have just one side of the story) that one of the protective child workers declined to give his or her name. They have a thankless enough job as it is, without this guy wanted to blab it out to the media/internet for whackos to harrass.
There is no potential lawsuit. One cannot sue 'the government' simply for protective services people and/or police showing up at your doorstep. If this gentleman sets up a Paypal fund so people may make donations to protect his second amendment rights, I would think twice before contributing.
This is a state issue. Child Social Services is a State agency. They could not get the sheriff involved, who is suppose to handle concerns of this nature of state issues, so they went to the city police.....
An end around the protocol. Police have different rights than a sheriff. Police are not held accountable. A sheriff would get thrown out of office over this.
I didn't read the article. From the title "home raided" I assume they entered the home, without consent, and began to search. As a general principle, I don't agree with police investigating "potential" child abuse.
As a general rule, I think that if someone believes a child is being abused, knocking on the door of the house in which the child lives and telling the parents that someone believes their child is being abused is not a bad policy at all. Since that was the extent of this investigation, I have no problem with it.
Sounds like they needed to get a warrant before ever knocking on the door, over a photograph showing what right every American has.
They didn't knock on the door because of the photograph. They knocked on the door because an anonymous neighbor alleged there might be some child abuse happening. And regardless of the reason for knocking, said knocking is not, and I don't believe can in any way be construed as, a search of the property. The homeowner very politely and properly refused the search, and the issue is done. Requiring a warrant to knock on the door and ask a question would be an abysmal waste of time, resources, and eventually money.
As a general rule, I think that if someone believes a child is being abused, knocking on the door of the house in which the child lives and telling the parents that someone believes their child is being abused is not a bad policy at all. Since that was the extent of this investigation, I have no problem with it.
It's an opening for abuse. There needs to be enough evidence to exact an warrant. I don't want to pay police to harass parents because some busybody reported abuse.
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.
