And this is what the anti gun crowd wants...

[cubby1223]

No, the state received an anonymous complaint about a boy holding a gun that his FATHER posted of Facebook. Please explain how this is suspected child abuse?

It is believed by the family that the incident was from an anonymous complaint originating from the photo posted on facebook.

I would say there are two likely possibilities:

(1) an anonymous caller made up a convincing story to rile up DYFS
(2) someone at DYFS had a bug up his/her ass, made a mistake, and the department will forever keep quiet on the matter.

 

[Lanyap]

No, the state received an anonymous complaint about a boy holding a gun that his FATHER posted of Facebook. Please explain how this is suspected child abuse?

He can't. Child services is trying to cover their asses on this one.

I'm sure they would have done the same thing if the boy was holding a hunting rifle or shotgun, right? But he was holding one of those scary black rifles. Case closed.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Yes thank you.



I was merely looking for the facts of the matter and not the spin.
The facts are someone called CPS on them, CPS sent someone out who apparently asked to be escorted out of fear. They asked to see her guns she exercised her rights and she said no, they left it alone and left.

Outrage not found.

Oh, and like Chris Matthews, or Rachel Maddow never "spin".
Wouldn't it be incumbent, and prudent for CPS to have asked the caller just why they felt the boy was being neglected, or harmed? OR, was it just the picture, HMMMM? When I look at that picture I see a clean, happy, well dressed,(I.E.,not old tattered, or dirty), No purple mohawk, or mullet, no vulgar tee shirt, no piercings. Hundreds spent for eye care, and glasses, and a really nice gift of a rifle, which his dad no doubt taught
him to use, and respect,(note the extended forefinger). A home with a real mommy, and a real daddy who obviously love, and care for their child. In my book, it doesn't get much better then that. Why was the CPS agent so fearful? Not 1, not 2, but a 4 police "escort"! Perhaps the CPS agent is a recent graduate of our schools indoctrination system, where even drawing a picture of a gun warrants a suspension. Intimidation, and no doubt, coercive words were used. Did they ask to see the child, or the conditions he was living in? Nope, it was straight for the gun grab, which is exactly what would have happened if they got 1 foot in the door! The welfare of the child was not their concern, nor their target. Thank God this family has been reading the writing on the wall, and was prepared.
Unfortunately, Thousands of uninformed, nieve people across the country won't be so lucky.
WAKE UP PEOPLE! you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[UberNeuman]

Oh, and like Chris Matthews, or Rachel Maddow never "spin".
Wouldn't it be incumbent, and prudent for CPS to have asked the caller just why they felt the boy was being neglected, or harmed? OR, was it just the picture, HMMMM? When I look at that picture I see a clean, happy, well dressed,(I.E.,not old tattered, or dirty), No purple mohawk, or mullet, no vulgar tee shirt, no piercings. Hundreds spent for eye care, and glasses, and a really nice gift of a rifle, which his dad no doubt taught
him to use, and respect,(note the extended forefinger). A home with a real mommy, and a real daddy who obviously love, and care for their child. In my book, it doesn't get much better then that. Why was the CPS agent so fearful? Not 1, not 2, but a 4 police "escort"! Perhaps she is a recent graduate of our schools indoctrination system, where even drawing a picture of a gun warrants a suspension. Intimidation, and no doubt, coercive words were used. Did they ask to see the child, or the conditions he was living in? Nope, it was straight for the gun grab, which is exactly what would have happened if they got 1 foot in the door! The welfare of the child was not their concern, nor their target. Thank God this family has been reading the writing on the wall, and was prepared.
Unfortunately, Thousands of uninformed, nieve people across the country won't be so lucky.
WAKE UP PEOPLE! you ain't seen nothing yet.

Paragraphs are not your enemy...

 

[ivwshane]

Oh, and like Chris Matthews, or Rachel Maddow never "spin".
Wouldn't it be incumbent, and prudent for CPS to have asked the caller just why they felt the boy was being neglected, or harmed? OR, was it just the picture, HMMMM? When I look at that picture I see a clean, happy, well dressed,(I.E.,not old tattered, or dirty), No purple mohawk, or mullet, no vulgar tee shirt, no piercings. Hundreds spent for eye care, and glasses, and a really nice gift of a rifle, which his dad no doubt taught
him to use, and respect,(note the extended forefinger). A home with a real mommy, and a real daddy who obviously love, and care for their child. In my book, it doesn't get much better then that. Why was the CPS agent so fearful? Not 1, not 2, but a 4 police "escort"! Perhaps the CPS agent is a recent graduate of our schools indoctrination system, where even drawing a picture of a gun warrants a suspension. Intimidation, and no doubt, coercive words were used. Did they ask to see the child, or the conditions he was living in? Nope, it was straight for the gun grab, which is exactly what would have happened if they got 1 foot in the door! The welfare of the child was not their concern, nor their target. Thank God this family has been reading the writing on the wall, and was prepared.
Unfortunately, Thousands of uninformed, nieve people across the country won't be so lucky.
WAKE UP PEOPLE! you ain't seen nothing yet.

I'm not reading your wall of text but my guess is that it's a big straw man argument.


What other theories do you guys have that absolutely zero evidence to back it up? The facts as described by a first hand witness are pretty straight forward but that ruins your narrative so...

Glenn Beck would be proud!

 

[cubby1223]

I'm not reading your wall of text but my guess is that it's a big straw man argument.

It's interesting to know that you don't read what other people say before making final conclusions of what was written.

What other theories do you guys have that absolutely zero evidence to back it up?

You still need to prove your conclusion that the worker feared approaching the house. All you have is a reason for why a worker may request police escort.

 

[ivwshane]

It's interesting to know that you don't read what other people say before making final conclusions of what was written.


You still need to prove your conclusion that the worker feared approaching the house. All you have is a reason for why a worker may request police escort.

My conclusion was based on the fact that the CPS said an escort would be provided only if they felt their safety could be compromised. Key word being only which ruled out your BS scenarios.

What's funny is you asking me to back up my claims and yet you have no problem with this little gem;

I would say the anonymous call to DYFS had some embellishments added in for effect. That's where the story needs to go.

You might want to stop posting, your true colors are showing.

Fucking moron.

 

[Abraxas]

No, the state received an anonymous complaint about a boy holding a gun that his FATHER posted of Facebook. Please explain how this is suspected child abuse?

That raises an interesting point about this thread and Blaze. The whole bit about the Facebook post is really just empty conjecture, since the tip was anonymous and Child Services isn't talking about the specifics of the complaint, nobody really has any idea what triggered it. I could posit a bunch of scenarios such as maybe the kid showed up at school with bruises, maybe he keeps showing up in the ER with broken bones, maybe a neighbor saw the father pointing a gun at the kid, or the kid playing with the gun in the yard; we don't know. What's more, what do you expect Child Services to do, announce who tipped them off any why? Considering the worker in question evidently was wary enough about approaching the residence that they requested an escort (which per the earlier link are not automatically assigned), they may well have safety reasons for not letting out who tipped them off, not to mention privacy concerns for the family.

Until something more concrete comes out we can just file this under people who want to be outraged become outraged.

 

[Gardener]

That raises an interesting point about this thread and Blaze. The whole bit about the Facebook post is really just empty conjecture, since the tip was anonymous and Child Services isn't talking about the specifics of the complaint, nobody really has any idea what triggered it. I could posit a bunch of scenarios such as maybe the kid showed up at school with bruises, maybe he keeps showing up in the ER with broken bones, maybe a neighbor saw the father pointing a gun at the kid, or the kid playing with the gun in the yard; we don't know. What's more, what do you expect Child Services to do, announce who tipped them off any why? Considering the worker in question evidently was wary enough about approaching the residence that they requested an escort (which per the earlier link are not automatically assigned), they may well have safety reasons for not letting out who tipped them off, not to mention privacy concerns for the family.

Until something more concrete comes out we can just file this under people who want to be outraged become outraged.

A very rational response. Thanks for posting.

 

[monovillage]

That raises an interesting point about this thread and Blaze. The whole bit about the Facebook post is really just empty conjecture, since the tip was anonymous and Child Services isn't talking about the specifics of the complaint, nobody really has any idea what triggered it. I could posit a bunch of scenarios such as maybe the kid showed up at school with bruises, maybe he keeps showing up in the ER with broken bones, maybe a neighbor saw the father pointing a gun at the kid, or the kid playing with the gun in the yard; we don't know. What's more, what do you expect Child Services to do, announce who tipped them off any why? Considering the worker in question evidently was wary enough about approaching the residence that they requested an escort (which per the earlier link are not automatically assigned), they may well have safety reasons for not letting out who tipped them off, not to mention privacy concerns for the family.

Until something more concrete comes out we can just file this under people who want to be outraged become outraged.

What a fucking liar you are. If DYFS had any evidence at all, like "broken bones" or "ER visit" or "bruises" "father pointing a gun at the kid" or even a reliable witness they would have had plenty of evidence for a warrant. They didn't have any of that, or they would have done it legally and by the book.

 

[Abraxas]

What a fucking liar you are. If DYFS had any evidence at all, like "broken bones" or "ER visit" or "bruises" "father pointing a gun at the kid" or even a reliable witness they would have had plenty of evidence for a warrant. They didn't have any of that, or they would have done it legally and by the book.

Your lucky day, I'm just bored enough right now to try and pump some critical thinking into that malformed brain space between your ears..

First, for me to be a liar, I would have had to put forward a statement of fact known by myself to be wrong. Since I didn't forward any statements of fact other than the claim that this was sparked by a Facebook post is so far empty conjecture, something demonstrably true, and that police are not automatically assigned to social workers (already demonstrated earlier in the thread), you can't really accuse me of lying unless one, you don't know what lying is, two, you are a moron, or three, both.

Secondly, we already have a good idea what evidence they had, an anonymous tip. What's more, an anonymous tip likely is not enough for a judge to find probable cause to issue a warrant. It is, however, enough for child services to send someone to investigate. On a related note, beginning an investigation without a warrant is not in fact illegal.

Thirdly, even if you accept everything in the Blaze article at face value, nothing they did was actually illegal. They came to the house, asked to view the guns, were told no, and left. Despite your martyr/rebel complex, no evidence that anything improper took place. The police didn't force their way into the house, they didn't take anyone into custody without charges, they didn't force open the sage or confiscate the guns. All they did was go to a house where another citizen told them a child was in danger and left when requested by the property owner.

All this considered, I have to ask, are you less stupid now?

 

[TallBill]

The problem is that most people have know idea what their rights are and seeing police there will comply. I have no reason to volunteer any information about my family to any agency.

 

[monovillage]

<snip> First, for me to be a liar, I would have had to put forward a statement of fact known by myself to be wrong. <snip>

Secondly, we already have a good idea what evidence they had, an anonymous tip. What's more, an anonymous tip likely is not enough for a judge to find probable cause to issue a warrant. It is, however, enough for child services to send someone to investigate. On a related note, beginning an investigation without a warrant is not in fact illegal.

Thirdly, even if you accept everything in the Blaze article at face value, nothing they did was actually illegal. They came to the house, asked to view the guns, were told no, and left.

Bullshit, the DFYS worker demanded numerous times for admittance and threatened to take their child if they didn't comply. That is far more then your, ohh so casual sounding

"They came to the house, asked to view the guns, were told no, and left."

Witness to the confrontation said:

The DYFS worker repeatedly demanded access to the house and for Moore to open his safe where the firearms were stored. She said that the guns should be catalogued and checked to make certain they were “properly registered.” ..........(NJ does not require registration, it is voluntary.)

and from another witness

After threatening to “take my kids,” the police and Family Services worker left — “empty handed and seeing nothing.”

Unless you have evidence to doubt the veracity of the witnesses you are underplaying the truth, being deceitful or in common terms, lying.

 

[Abraxas]

Bullshit, the DFYS worker demanded numerous times for admittance and threatened to take their child if they didn't comply. That is far more then your, ohh so casual sounding

"They came to the house, asked to view the guns, were told no, and left."

Witness to the confrontation said:

and from another witness



Unless you have evidence to doubt the veracity of the witnesses you are underplaying the truth, being deceitful or in common terms, lying.

The witnesses don't actually contradict what I said and so all I can conclude is that you could have saved everyone the time and trouble and just answered, "no."

 

[alicuben]

They can do anything they want, can't they

 

[mikeymikec]

I know that people will disagree with me when I say this, but IMO the mind boggles when you've got a parent who thinks it's a good idea to give a firearm to an 11-year-old as a birthday present.

Perhaps the parents want to encourage the idea of "big boys need bigger guns"... or something.

 

[cubby1223]

My conclusion was based on the fact that the CPS said an escort would be provided only if they felt their safety could be compromised. Key word being only which ruled out your BS scenarios.

What's funny is you asking me to back up my claims and yet you have no problem with this little gem;

You might want to stop posting, your true colors are showing.

Fucking moron.

I clearly indicated that my statement was a personal opinion, not a fact, specifically saying that more information should be gathered. You still haven't proven that this person feared approaching the house. If you would like to provide some examples of actions she made or statements she said that indicate that she feared approaching the house, be my guest.

And I see you've moved on to cursing to win your argument Classy move, always impresses the peanut gallery!



Just because I care so much about your mental health, here's a counter-analogy. Every time I drive my car, I wear my seatbelt. I wear the seatbelt because if I am in an accident the seatbelt will protect me from more severe pain and injury. But this does not mean I fear driving. I do not fear driving my car. I do not fear oncoming traffic even though any one of them at any time is capable of swerving across the lane and hit me head-on. It is a possibility that I prepare for, but I do not fear driving my car nor facing traffic.

Thank you for playing. Learn to accept your own inherent biases and learn to live happily amongst others.

 

[HumblePie]

I know that people will disagree with me when I say this, but IMO the mind boggles when you've got a parent who thinks it's a good idea to give a firearm to an 11-year-old as a birthday present.

Perhaps the parents want to encourage the idea of "big boys need bigger guns"... or something.

Because young boys handed a 22 caliber rifle are automatically going on a murder spree? Or will automatically shoot thier eye out? You do realize young boys in this country not so long ago could walk into Sears and buy a 22 rifle. Without there ever being any problems even back then from that.

 

[glenn1]

Your lucky day, I'm just bored enough right now to try and pump some critical thinking into that malformed brain space between your ears..

First, for me to be a liar, I would have had to put forward a statement of fact known by myself to be wrong. Since I didn't forward any statements of fact other than the claim that this was sparked by a Facebook post is so far empty conjecture, something demonstrably true, and that police are not automatically assigned to social workers (already demonstrated earlier in the thread), you can't really accuse me of lying unless one, you don't know what lying is, two, you are a moron, or three, both.

Secondly, we already have a good idea what evidence they had, an anonymous tip. What's more, an anonymous tip likely is not enough for a judge to find probable cause to issue a warrant. It is, however, enough for child services to send someone to investigate. On a related note, beginning an investigation without a warrant is not in fact illegal.

Thirdly, even if you accept everything in the Blaze article at face value, nothing they did was actually illegal. They came to the house, asked to view the guns, were told no, and left. Despite your martyr/rebel complex, no evidence that anything improper took place. The police didn't force their way into the house, they didn't take anyone into custody without charges, they didn't force open the sage or confiscate the guns. All they did was go to a house where another citizen told them a child was in danger and left when requested by the property owner.

All this considered, I have to ask, are you less stupid now?

What's the point of a government agent asking to see someone's firearms? They're legal to possess and owning them isn't reason to suspect child endangerment. Even if the owner agreed to let her see the firearms, she wouldn't have been able to do jack shit about them regardless except stare with a dumb look on her face. Even if the concern was whether they were "registered," it's not like the Department of Child Services is the agency which enforces this. This was complete idiocy all the way around.

 

[TechBoyJK]

So to clarify, the state received a complaint of suspected child abuse, they investigated it...which they are legally required to do, found no abuse/neglect, and left the child in the home.

Wow, what is the world coming to. Sound like the end times.

You missed the part where she wanted to come in the house without a warrant and have the guy show his guns, without a warrant. And wouldn't give her name.

You know.. the parts of the story everyone is taking issue with.

It's like saying "the usa had a bunch of soldiers visit Iraq for ten years. what's wrong with going on a vacation?" Yea, that's not quite what happened.

 

[mikeymikec]

Because young boys handed a 22 caliber rifle are automatically going on a murder spree?

No.

Or will automatically shoot thier eye out?

No.

You do realize young boys in this country not so long ago could walk into Sears and buy a 22 rifle. Without there ever being any problems even back then from that.

Wow, never any problems? That's impressive. Because in my experience, give a kid something that they can be destructive with, and usually they will.

Of course, children need to steadily be exposed in increasing levels of danger/responsibility in order to learn about the hazards of the environment they live in, but I really don't see any good reason to give an 11-year-old a firearm as a present (unless the family lives in a cave surrounded by bears or an equally hazardous environment). I liken it to handing them a can of petrol/gasoline and a box of matches for Christmas. It's just stupid and pointless.

If I had a family in an environment that doesn't require firearms and yet firearms have to be readily accessible (I won't hypothesise what environment that might be because quite frankly I disagree with the average American's "we need guns" argument), I might teach a kid of that age how to hold it safely (not firing), check that it isn't loaded and the safety is on, and that's about it. Anything more than that and I'd have to question why on earth a kid of that age needs to know how to do it, as well as the pros and cons of them having that knowledge. Furthermore, I would be wondering what else I need to teach them and let them have access to. My car, perhaps? Power tools, fireworks?

A sharp three-inch blade if misused is enough to do someone or something some serious damage. Letting an 11-year-old have access to one is one thing, but another thing entirely is giving it as a present, because it becomes one of their personal possessions to use unsupervised. Some 11-year-olds might treat their personal possessions with a great deal of care and respect, but I think the majority don't.

 

[TechBoyJK]

What's the point of a government agent asking to see someone's firearms? They're legal to possess and owning them isn't reason to suspect child endangerment. Even if the owner agreed to let her see the firearms, she wouldn't have been able to do jack shit about them regardless except stare with a dumb look on her face. Even if the concern was whether they were "registered," it's not like the Department of Child Services is the agency which enforces this. This was complete idiocy all the way around.

This is pretty much an over zealous reaction from an empowered CPS agent that 'thinks about the kids' before she thinks about anything else.. like our basic rights.

 

[TechBoyJK]

No.



No.



Wow, never any problems? That's impressive. Because in my experience, give a kid something that they can be destructive with, and usually they will.

Of course, children need to steadily be exposed in increasing levels of danger/responsibility in order to learn about the hazards of the environment they live in, but I really don't see any good reason to give an 11-year-old a firearm as a present (unless the family lives in a cave surrounded by bears or an equally hazardous environment). I liken it to handing them a can of petrol/gasoline and a box of matches for Christmas. It's just stupid and pointless.

If I had a family in an environment that doesn't require firearms and yet firearms have to be readily accessible (I won't hypothesise what environment that might be because quite frankly I disagree with the average American's "we need guns" argument), I might teach a kid of that age how to hold it safely (not firing), check that it isn't loaded and the safety is on, and that's about it. Anything more than that and I'd have to question why on earth a kid of that age needs to know how to do it, as well as the pros and cons of them having that knowledge.

So you don't have the confidence in your parenting skills to raise a law abiding citizen that respects gun laws? Are you going to not teach your kids to drive because it might enable them to drive away from a bank robbery? Rather than not teaching them to drive, maybe don't teach them to rob a bank.

 

[HumblePie]

Wow, never any problems? That's impressive. Because in my experience, give a kid something that they can be destructive with, and usually they will.

Of course, children need to steadily be exposed in increasing levels of danger/responsibility in order to learn about the hazards of the environment they live in, but I really don't see any good reason to give an 11-year-old a firearm as a present (unless the family lives in a cave surrounded by bears or an equally hazardous environment). I liken it to handing them a can of petrol/gasoline and a box of matches for Christmas. It's just stupid and pointless.

If I had a family in an environment that doesn't require firearms and yet firearms have to be readily accessible (I won't hypothesise what environment that might be because quite frankly I disagree with the average American's "we need guns" argument), I might teach a kid of that age how to hold it safely (not firing), check that it isn't loaded and the safety is on, and that's about it. Anything more than that and I'd have to question why on earth a kid of that age needs to know how to do it, as well as the pros and cons of them having that knowledge.

Really there weren't that many issues before with teenage boys purchasing their own .22 caliber rifles in the past. Very little crime was ever done by that category. Actually I don't know of any in the past done by that category. I'm sure there was an incident here or there, but nothing worse than anything else.

I'm not advocating letting kids buy guns today. In fact, with as bad of parenting skills most parents have today it would be a very bad idea. There was a time when a family could just have the bread winner parent and the other parent stayed home to raise the kids right. That time has long since passed. It's not something that is gone completely, but the majority of families are not structured that way anymore. Most American kids do not get the same level of supervision and instruction level from their parents anymore as kids in the past once did.

However, that doesn't mean that kids today are going to automatically have problems with a gun if they are given one buy a responsible adult and properly instructed.

 

[ivwshane]

I clearly indicated that my statement was a personal opinion, not a fact, specifically saying that more information should be gathered. You still haven't proven that this person feared approaching the house. If you would like to provide some examples of actions she made or statements she said that indicate that she feared approaching the house, be my guest.

And I see you've moved on to cursing to win your argument Classy move, always impresses the peanut gallery!



Just because I care so much about your mental health, here's a counter-analogy. Every time I drive my car, I wear my seatbelt. I wear the seatbelt because if I am in an accident the seatbelt will protect me from more severe pain and injury. But this does not mean I fear driving. I do not fear driving my car. I do not fear oncoming traffic even though any one of them at any time is capable of swerving across the lane and hit me head-on. It is a possibility that I prepare for, but I do not fear driving my car nor facing traffic.

Thank you for playing. Learn to accept your own inherent biases and learn to live happily amongst others.

Clearly you are incapable of reading.

Good day!