Fed Gov Seizes New Born Child of '"Oath Keeper" Who Owns Guns

[mrussel]

Oathkeeper gets his kid back.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nh-baby-returned-to-oath-keepers-parents/

 Sounds like the real issue was he likes to smack around his wife and children. I agree that his affiliation with the Oath Keepers should not have been put in the complaint,but from that article,one of the big issues was that he had not completed the terms of his domestic abuse program. I have little sympathy for him.

[saddlebum]

I agree the guy seems to be a jackass, even though some Oathkeepers came foward and said they would leave their kids with the couple. They trusted him that much. The only thing worth talking about in this story is that child services refered to Oathkeepers as a militia and as if they are a dangerous group, which is false. I'm sure there is alot of Oathkeepers that don't necessarily want to be associated with this guy. But I could be wrong.

[Elijah Gunn]

So, all this seems to have played out as a way to infer that people involved with the Oathkeepers abuse their children. That is what most people are going to remember from all this. Just another swipe with the broad brush that covers all us gun owning, constitution honoring ,"right wing extremists".

[wreckhog]

No, the way it played out was to see that the original poster (not Oath Keepers) had some agenda and chose to ignore what was actually going on, regardless of the safety of a child.

[mrussel]

No, the way it played out was to see that the original poster (not Oath Keepers) had some agenda and chose to ignore what was actually going on, regardless of the safety of a child.

 I think that's perhaps a little harsher than I would put it. I dont so much think that he was unconcerned with the safety of a child,just blinded and biased by what he thought was going on.

[mrussel]

So, all this seems to have played out as a way to infer that people involved with the Oathkeepers abuse their children. That is what most people are going to remember from all this. Just another swipe with the broad brush that covers all us gun owning, constitution honoring ,"right wing extremists".

.
Yep....that's what I suspected from the git go......'predictive programming' of the masses.....SPLC villianizing Oathkeepers and planting seeds.


..TM7

  I do wonder,can you have firearms in NH if you have a domestic violence conviction? In many states that makes you a "prohibited person". (I personally avoid that unpleasant eventuality by NOT smacking around women. I understand,for some people,it can be hard. It seems it can be especially hard,as they put it,"When she wont keep her damn mouth shut" or when "She just has to mouth off" ,but suggest considering the consequences)

[SwampThing762]

Hey guys, I am going to ask a question because I do not see that anyone addressed this issue.  The articles and thread posts state the father was ordered to anger management classes, by the court and did not go.    Records of court proceedings, convictions, and sentencings are public records, yet I do not see where anyone has made an FOIA request for them.     Did anyone ever attempt to request those records, and if they do not exist, could it perhaps be the governmental regime fabricated these charges to forcibly take the child (kidnapping)?   

I am not taking any sides in this matter, but if the government can just fabricate an allegation to remove a child from the parent, that sets a dangerous precedent.

ST762

[mrussel]

Hey guys, I am going to ask a question because I do not see that anyone addressed this issue.  The articles and thread posts state the father was ordered to anger management classes, by the court and did not go.    Records of court proceedings, convictions, and sentencings are public records, yet I do not see where anyone has made an FOIA request for them.     Did anyone ever attempt to request those records, and if they do not exist, could it perhaps be the governmental regime fabricated these charges to forcibly take the child (kidnapping)?   

I am not taking any sides in this matter, but if the government can just fabricate an allegation to remove a child from the parent, that sets a dangerous precedent.

ST762

You make one huge mistake in your logic. He has essentially stipulated that all those things are true. They have excuses to why all the things happened. Most people who abuse their children have excuses how its all someone else fault. There was a girl that was a friend of a friend that I sort of knew. She was a meth addict. She had 3 children,when she got pregnant from having casual sex while she was high. CPS took each of those three children away,one time right at the hospital becuase she was high she delivered. She had plenty of excuses why it happened. It was her grandmother who had a grudge against her or the neighbors who hated her. Not once did she admit it was becuase she was a meth addict that was unfit to take care of her children. Im sure these people have a boat load more excuses of why they are being "singled out" but the real reason is becuase they are unfit parents. Whats telling is the one excuse they did NOT have is that the arrests and the domestic violence issues were fabricated on the spot by the federal government to take their child.

 Honestly,the idea that its some conspiracy is kinda loony. There isn't any monolithic thing called "government". Think about it. Suppose the FBI or whoever had come to CPS (or whatever they are called there) and told them that this guy has a history of domestic violence and is a threat to the kids. The process would grind to a screeching halt as soon as it became clear that he had a clean record. The judge,and the social workers dont work for the "government",which in the sense your speaking of is the federal government. They work for state and local agencies,all quite independent. Getting that many people to go along with some conspiracy would be like herding a bunch of cats across a parking lot.  (in case you've never dealt with cats,they dont heard,they just go do their own thing)

 Actually,I dont think those records are subject to federal FOIA laws. They are held by state and local agencies and therefore state laws are what applies. Most states however have similar laws though. My guess however is that no news agencies are crazy enough to think that,especially since he never denied that he was ordered to anger management classes. The court proceedings of his latest appearance would be informative however. My guess is that in the previous cases he made a deal with the DA to go to the classes,and perhaps do other things (like stay out of trouble,which his concealed weapon charge would be a violation of) which he did not live up to. I suspect that in his most recent appearance he promised to live up to his other promises and the judge explained the serious consequences should he fail again.

 I know someone said that the weapons charge was due to his wifes gun being in the car,and that she had a permit but did not have it and he was blamed becuase it was his car. Why didnt he have a permit. That seems odd. Unless perhaps IT WAS REVOKED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. In that case,perhaps that's why they had a problem with his purchasing weapons. In most states people convicted of domestic violence cannot have weapons and presumably to stay legal,he would have had to leave those weapons in the care of someone else (should not be a problem,his fellow Oathkeepers I would expect to step up and offer) I know that if I were convicted of domestic violence my carry permit would be revoked and I would have to send all my guns to live with my brother or sell them.

 Thats what I dont understand. He has pretty much agreed he has a domestic violence conviction,that's not in dispute. As such,form 4473 question i asks "have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?" There is an exception if the conviction is set aside or expunged however that usually does not happen until after you have provided the court with documentation that you have completed the requirements,that is his "I promise not to smack my wife or children around" class. They are also not prohibited unless they were represented by a lawyer or had refused a lawyer,and had the right to a trial by jury (or gave it up). The fact that he was in a diversion program suggests that he DID have a run through the full court system and pled out in return for the program and perhaps having the charge set aside as is customary in many jurisdictions. IF he has that conviction,then under federal law he cannot purchase firearms. Then again,maybe its because Im not a lawyer. Then again,perhaps the judgment is defered until after the program instead of set aside after completion of the program. That makes more sense with the facts as presented.

[Mikey]

Well fellas, here's what you have to change at the next elections...you need to make changes in who sits on what bench, or who appoints whoever to sit on what bench, and you need to find a way to corral the social work based child advocacy agencies in your state - new governors should help.  The social workers approach to these agencies and the social workers who lead and staff these agencies are anti just about everything most people who own and use guns prefer.  It may not be that he was 'abusing' anyone at all, he simply may not have been treating them the way these social workers feel they should have been treated, which makes him a criminal in their minds.  

Understand this, if you dicipline your children or need to straighten out a unruly adult, the social workers of the world will consider it 'abuse' and you will probably be charged with something if they can get away with it; also understand that the notion of a 'loving intervention' these social workers are so fond of is not worth the toilet paper it could be written on.  With all this 'gushing crap' about how social workers feel children should be raised and how families should interact, all it takes is one stupid judge to make it very difficult for people like the average gun owner to live their lives.  The Oathkeepers business literally has nothing to do with the case, it just helped the social workers fuel a idiot judge.  When I mentioned 'matches' before, I meant it - agencies that renders complaints and advocate the removal of children from their family home based on willful inaccuracies and social bias should be closed or burned and staff either fired or put to work elsewhere where their actions can be monitored.

If they, social work agencies, their attendant courts and the like, challenge us to be tolerant of race, creed, color and religion, then they can damn well be tolerant of our exercising our 2nd Amendment right and stay the hell out of our lives or they may find themselves in the midst of a career change.  Period.

[beerbelly]

Domestic violence is a one way bunch of crap! If a woman goes down and files a complaint, the guy is automatically guilty! No evidence except her word against his, he is guilty! He actually has to do nothing to her, all she has to do is say he did. He is guilty!
Then in any custody preceding his violence is used against him! He knows when such a charge is brought he is screwed! I believe that is one reason you are seeing so many men killing their wives and ex-wives. They are tired of having their lives ruined for nothing!
   If this guy had been convicted of Domestic violence he could not have a gun, this is true in every state! It is a federal thing, no law, Bill Clinton put it out as a presidential order! Just one more way to slowly take away your guns. I saw it happen to a young guy I used to hunt with!
                                     Beerbelly
                             

[MGMorden]

Domestic violence is a one way bunch of crap! If a woman goes down and files a complaint, the guy is automatically guilty! No evidence except her word against his, he is guilty! He actually has to do nothing to her, all she has to do is say he did. He is guilty!
Then in any custody preceding his violence is used against him! He knows when such a charge is brought he is screwed! I believe that is one reason you are seeing so many men killing their wives and ex-wives. They are tired of having their lives ruined for nothing!
   If this guy had been convicted of Domestic violence he could not have a gun, this is true in every state! It is a federal thing, no law, Bill Clinton put it out as a presidential order! Just one more way to slowly take away your guns. I saw it happen to a young guy I used to hunt with!

Domestic Violence often leaves all too obvious evidence.  Half the time the woman isn't just trouncing down to the police station - she's filing the complain from a hospital bed or with obvious physical trauma (cuts, bruises, etc).  To say that we shouldn't punish the crime because someone may be falsely accused is to attempt to rationalize away all need for law enforcement (since false accusations can happen with ANY crime). 

[beerbelly]

As I said often there is No evidence, just the word of some woman that wants to get back at the guy for throwing her sorry azz out.
                                    Beerbelly

[SHOOTALL]

BB that does not speak highly of his judgement for taking her in , in the first now does it but then he may not have been thinking with his brain. A man pays for what he gets most of the time and should !

[mrussel]

So, all this seems to have played out as a way to infer that people involved with the Oathkeepers abuse their children. That is what most people are going to remember from all this. Just another swipe with the broad brush that covers all us gun owning, constitution honoring ,"right wing extremists".

.
Yep....that's what I suspected from the git go......'predictive programming' of the masses.....SPLC villianizing Oathkeepers and planting seeds.


..TM7

  I do wonder,can you have firearms in NH if you have a domestic violence conviction? In many states that makes you a "prohibited person". (I personally avoid that unpleasant eventuality by NOT smacking around women. I understand,for some people,it can be hard. It seems it can be especially hard,as they put it,"When she wont keep her damn mouth shut" or when "She just has to mouth off" ,but suggest considering the consequences)

.

To answer your question...likely you can not have a firearm(s) in your possession if accused or convicted of a domestic offense...in most any state. Now go read the original 'affadavit' against Irish....Since this a relatively common local NH affair with local child protection services agency involved there are a few questions..(actually not too common taking a new born baby from it's mother!!):::

A]  why and how did this reach national attention?
B]  why did the state's complaint mention Irish's affilitation with OathKeeper's and how did they know this? And why-how should that be pertinent to his case?
C]  how did the 'complaint' come to mention that Irish owned firearms...?  Thatb information usually comes later after investigation or hearing?
D] in your opinion.. on this local affair how did DHS become involved and is there any connection to SPLC..?

...TM7
.

 What reason is there to think that SPLC was involved? I bet the Anti Defimation League, and a dozen other organizations that dont like millitia groups and think they are dangerous had absolutely nothing to do with this as well. Chances are the CIA,NSA,NASA,and the EPA also were not involved. The list goes on.

 The mentioning of firearms in the complaint may well have had something to do with the pending firearms charge against him and the fact that the police had responded to problems several times where firearms were involved. (or at least that's what it said in the complaint)

 The complaint read
 "Mr Irish was court ordered to atttend Ending Violence with Scott Hampton however to date has not completed the program. The Epsom Police Department stated they were very familiar with Mr Irish as they have responded to multiple calls which involved Mr Irish and firearms,one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr Irish associated with a millitia known as the ,"Oath Keepers" and has purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle,handgun and taser. "

 Please forgive the typos. Heres a link to where I got this from,the text should be as it is in the document except for the a few typos and punctuation errors. http://www.newsnet14.com/2010/10/12/oath-keepers-associate-new-born-baby-taken/

 The only mistake there is the characterization of the Oath Keepers as a militia. They are instead a far right political organization that is protected by the first amendment of the constitution.


 So lets look at his like the lawyers would. Suppose the Oath Keepers sue,and the Supreme Court orders the reference to the Oath Keepers removed from the complaint. How does that change things. It would then read.

"Mr Irish was court ordered to attend Ending Violence with Scott Hampton however to date has not completed the program. The Epsom Police Department stated they were very familiar with Mr Irish as they have responded to multiple calls which involved Mr Irish and firearms,one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr Irish has purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle,handgun and taser. "

It does not make any difference does it. I agree,its just there to be inflammatory and has no place there,but it does not change the substance of the complaint. This is a person who has had a history of violence,has a pending firearms charge and has had many run ins with the police involving guns. The court is not really going to care what his excuses for the firearm charge are,or what his excuses for the domestic violence charge are or what his excuses for not attending the court ordered class are,or what his excuses for the multiple incidents involving firearms with the police are. They hear these excuses all day becuase most of the dirt bags that come through their courtroom have a ton of them.

[mrussel]

Domestic violence is a one way bunch of crap! If a woman goes down and files a complaint, the guy is automatically guilty! No evidence except her word against his, he is guilty! He actually has to do nothing to her, all she has to do is say he did. He is guilty!
Then in any custody preceding his violence is used against him! He knows when such a charge is brought he is screwed! I believe that is one reason you are seeing so many men killing their wives and ex-wives. They are tired of having their lives ruined for nothing!
   If this guy had been convicted of Domestic violence he could not have a gun, this is true in every state! It is a federal thing, no law, Bill Clinton put it out as a presidential order! Just one more way to slowly take away your guns. I saw it happen to a young guy I used to hunt with!
                                     Beerbelly
                             

 Yea,you saw it happen to a "freind" and thats why you are an apologist for wife beaters and murderers. Well,I suspect your "freind" had it coming.

 And if you read the ATF form,they cant take away your right to have a gun unless you have a lawyer,or waive the right to one and have a jury trial,or waive the right to one. Due process is served.  My guess is,the judgment has been deferred pending his completion of the court ordered diversion program. Thats commonly done. What that means is if you complete the terms of the program,the judgment is set aside or entered as not guilty and about the only time it would ever come up is if you applied for a top secret security clearance or some such. (In that case,they will still find it and you better have a good explanation other than "it was all everyone elses fault but mine,I'm so abused,everyone hates me" I think your "freind" should have gotten a better lawyer. He wasnt one of those idiots who decides to defend himself and pisses off the judge by making thousands of crazy motions based on incorrect reading of statutes and the constitution was he?

[mrussel]

Domestic violence is a one way bunch of crap! If a woman goes down and files a complaint, the guy is automatically guilty! No evidence except her word against his, he is guilty! He actually has to do nothing to her, all she has to do is say he did. He is guilty!
Then in any custody preceding his violence is used against him! He knows when such a charge is brought he is screwed! I believe that is one reason you are seeing so many men killing their wives and ex-wives. They are tired of having their lives ruined for nothing!
   If this guy had been convicted of Domestic violence he could not have a gun, this is true in every state! It is a federal thing, no law, Bill Clinton put it out as a presidential order! Just one more way to slowly take away your guns. I saw it happen to a young guy I used to hunt with!

Domestic Violence often leaves all too obvious evidence.  Half the time the woman isn't just trouncing down to the police station - she's filing the complain from a hospital bed or with obvious physical trauma (cuts, bruises, etc).  To say that we shouldn't punish the crime because someone may be falsely accused is to attempt to rationalize away all need for law enforcement (since false accusations can happen with ANY crime). 

 Well said.

[SwampThing762]

mrussel,

You claim there is a flaw in my logic.    Reagan wisely said, "trust, but verify".   As I was reading the various articles which were nearly all repetitions of the same articles, I saw where no one was attempting to verify the accuracy of all charges via court records.   I merely asked if anyone confirmed the charges, and I still have not received an answer.  Before you start calling me looney and a conspiracy theorist for asking a question, perhaps you should try to locate the answer.   Otherwise, I am going to consider the name calling an attempt at flaming me.

[beerbelly]

!mrussel, your insinuation is that my friend is really me. You could not be more wrong. My wife has been dead for seven years. She never raised a hand to me nor I to her. Some times you know it all know nothing
                                Beerbelly

[mrussel]

mrussel,

You claim there is a flaw in my logic.    Reagan wisely said, "trust, but verify".   As I was reading the various articles which were nearly all repetitions of the same articles, I saw where no one was attempting to verify the accuracy of all charges via court records.   I merely asked if anyone confirmed the charges, and I still have not received an answer.  Before you start calling me looney and a conspiracy theorist for asking a question, perhaps you should try to locate the answer.   Otherwise, I am going to consider the name calling an attempt at flaming me.

 I have the answer. He made a bunch of excuses as to WHY the charges were not really his fault. I have no reason to beleive those excuses,becuase they are amazingly similar to the excuses I have heard from other petty criminals and wife beaters. More importantly,in front of the cameras,and the news reporters,he not once has claimed the charges themselves were falsified. If the charges were just made up and not in teh court records,dont you thing he would be denying them at every single opportunity. Hes had dozens of interviews and yet not once has he said "Ive never had any problems with the police,I never had a concealed weapon charge,and Ive not only never beat my wife,Ive never been charged with it or had to appear in court and was never ordered to attend domestic violence counceling,its all just a bunch of lies" Never once has he said that. That makes me beleive that the charges are in fact real. Instead he has made excuses as to why the gun charge was not legitimate (not that it was falsified,but just that he was an innocent person in the wrong place at the wrong time and that it was really his wifes mistake becuase she forgot her permit at home. (Does anyone find it odd that his wife has a carry permit and he does not? Its like the title of this article "Oath keeper who owns guns" Seriously,do any of them NOT own guns? ) It seems everything that has happened to him,happens becuase someone else made a mistake. Guess what. The police dont come knocking on your door becuase your associated with a far right political group. They come because someone called them. When your neighbor hears you screaming at your wife and calls 911,then come. If the police say there were firearms involved its not because they were all locked in a safe. (perhaps responsible wife beaters make sure to take off their gun,unload it and lock it in the safe before they proceed to "teach that bitch a lesson".)

[mrussel]

!mrussel, your insinuation is that my friend is really me. You could not be more wrong. My wife has been dead for seven years. She never raised a hand to me nor I to her. Some times you know it all know nothing
                                Beerbelly

 Perhaps I am,but excusing murderers and trying to blame the authorities who arrest and prosecute people for beating women just seems to be a little more personal than "it happened to a friend".

[mrussel]

mrussel: 

What reason is there to think that SPLC was involved? I bet the Anti Defimation League, and a dozen other organizations that dont like millitia groups and think they are dangerous had absolutely nothing to do with this as well. Chances are the CIA,NSA,NASA,and the EPA also were not involved. The list goes on.

 The mentioning of firearms in the complaint may well have had something to do with the pending firearms charge against him and the fact that the police had responded to problems several times where firearms were involved. (or at least that's what it said in the complaint)

 The complaint read
 "Mr Irish was court ordered to atttend Ending Violence with Scott Hampton however to date has not completed the program. The Epsom Police Department stated they were very familiar with Mr Irish as they have responded to multiple calls which involved Mr Irish and firearms,one of which resulted in a pending charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr Irish associated with a millitia known as the ,"Oath Keepers" and has purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle,handgun and taser.

.

Look into SPLC....they are the clearing house on who and what militias are, and working closely with DHS. Research the Missouri case.
How the complaint mentions 'purchases' of various firearms is a mystery since there are no permanent records kept by government agencies, supposedly.

Mr Irish is likely a sketchy person; and whether there is domestic violence issues with his wife is ultimately up to a court of Law to decide, yet you seem to be convicting him here. The fact that there is a newborn baby indicates that the alleged violence may be limited. The removal of the newborn baby from the mother is very unusual, symbolic; when all that was needed was a court order to keep Mr. Irish away from the newborn...something fishy here. You also seem to accept some linkage with Oathkeepers as significant and fair game in this case, while many here are wondering why Oathkeepers is even mentioned in the complaints leveled on him. Is this an attempt to drag Oathkeepers into a mellee and national attention, or greater local attention, for some greater agendi..??

With your long posts I don't really get your thesis on this case. Everybody here is against domestic violence of any kind, yet you seem to insinuate that some are for it. You seem to think that all manner of one's life should be placed under the microscope when domestic issues crop up...including membership in patriotic organizations is fair game. You seem to ignore or condone the removal of a just-born baby by The State from his mother as a matter of just plain legal process.

So concisely...what is your point?



...TM7
. 

How do you figure that a new born baby is evidence there is no domestic violence going on? That just does not track. Yes,I do in fact approve of state and local agencies having the power to take children,newborn or otherwise away from situations they deem to be dangerous. No,a restraining order isn't going to work if the wife keeps ignoring it and going back. This happens all the time. In that case,there is nothing the authorities can do to protect her. However,if she puts the children in harms way by doing it,they have a responsibility to protect the children. And finally,yes,it is a pretty strait forward legal procedure. They can take the children to a safe place with a certain level of evidence which is in fact rather low. An investigation is done,and a hearing scheduled. If that investigation cant support the children being removed then the children must be returned.

 This is exactly how it SHOULD be. The child welfare agencies should not have to wait until a dead child shows up to take action. That requires the bar to be set low enough that they can act on reasonable suspicion. It also gives them access to the child who can be examined for signs of physical abuse and perhaps can discuss whats happening. Yes,there is a risk that a child could be coerced into making false accusations. There is also the risk if you sit by and do nothing that children will end up dead. The two must be balanced and the hope is that by having trained professionals handle the situation that the child can give solid factual information rather than being "led". Nothings perfect. Still,the system as it sits is far better than nothing. If you have a suggestion on how it might be improved,without dismantling the whole thing and ignoring the problem feel free to speak up.

[wreckhog]

Must not be any fathers of daughters on here. So where do you guys stand on Mel Gibson? Who says that he punched out his girlfriend while she was holding his kid.

Mel:“Threaten ya? I’ll put you in a f *%^^% rose garden you c*&& You understand that? Because I’m capable of it. You understand that?”

Oksana: What kind of a man is that? Hitting a woman when she’s holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth twice in the face! What kind of man is that?
Mel: Oh, you’re all angry now! You know what, you f*%&^% deserved it!

[mrussel]

Must not be any fathers of daughters on here. So where do you guys stand on Mel Gibson? Who says that he punched out his girlfriend while she was holding his kid.

Mel:“Threaten ya? I’ll put you in a f *%^^% rose garden you c*&& You understand that? Because I’m capable of it. You understand that?”

Oksana: What kind of a man is that? Hitting a woman when she’s holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth twice in the face! What kind of man is that?
Mel: Oh, you’re all angry now! You know what, you f*%&^% deserved it!

 Im sure there are legions of Mel Gibson fanboys out there that are CERTAIN that he is innocent. After all,how could someone who made both the Road Warrior and Passion of the Christ be a bad man. (Ok,I didn't much care for Passion,but the Road Warrior seriously ROCKED!)

[beerbelly]

I have a daughter and a granddaughter, what dose that have to do with right and wrong. Just because a woman says something dose not make it true! There are two sides to every story.
 Well maybe not, I  am sure some of you guys ( and I use that term lightly) wives will not let you have a side. What she says is law!

[mrussel]

I have a daughter and a granddaughter, what dose that have to do with right and wrong. Just because a woman says something dose not make it true! There are two sides to every story.
 Well maybe not, I  am sure some of you guys ( and I use that term lightly) wives will not let you have a side. What she says is law!

 No,there are not two sides to every story. Quite often there is the side that tells what happened and the side that makes up excuses why its someone elses fault. You are quite correct that I dont know you. I dont know anything about what kind of a person you are. All I know is what I see here and how your presenting yourself. What I see here is someone who makes excuses for people that beat and kill women. I see someone who suggests that people that disagree with his opinion that something such as spousal abuse laws "makes" men beat or kill their wives is a "guy" only loosely speaking. I hear from you the very same things Ive heard from men that beat their wives. "She made me do becuase she wouldn't shut up" or "She made me do it becuase she wont listen". In fact,murderers who have killed their wives have pretty much the same excuses and the same attitude. Apparently so do you,becuase your making the same excuses for them that they make for themselves.

 The only thing we have to go on is what people say on these forums. If your an apologist for wife beaters and try to justify their behavior,and tell us that the women are just all liars,just like they do,then the only thing we can assume is that you agree with these type of people. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,its probably a duck.

 And no,I disagree with what Wreckhog said in technical grounds. His statement should be ammended to "Must not be any fathers of daughters other than ones that think beating defenseless women is a form of recreation here"

[guzzijohn]

I cannot speak for other states but here in Kansas almost everyone goes out of there way NOT to remove a child from the home and this policy has caused the injury or death of children here. A child is not removed unless there is a current and direct threat to a child's well being. My wife is a retired social worker and for many years she was a child abuse and neglect investigator. The stories of what she has seen can curl straight hair! Second these social workers have a pair of big ones. They go into very volatile situations without another person or back up. The only time they have back up is if there has been a direct violent threat against the worker.
GuzziJohn

[beerbelly]

I read where the feds returned this kid to it's parents, Do you think just maybe they screwed up by taking it in the first place?

[guzzijohn]

Quote from Beerbelly:

I read where the feds returned this kid to it's parents, Do you think just maybe they screwed up by taking it in the first place?

I find it too difficult in this specific case due to lack of all the information on this family to try to even begin to make that call. As in my previous post it can be very difficult to know where to draw the line. In Kansas there have been cases of the child not being removed from the home due to lack of evidence or returned to the home only to have a dead child on your hands days or weeks later. It doesn't require training or a license to have kids and there are some really sick or deranged folk out there that have kids.
GuzziJohn

[mrussel]

I read where the feds returned this kid to it's parents, Do you think just maybe they screwed up by taking it in the first place?

 I didnt read anywhere where the feds returned or even took their parents. Reread the articles. It was a state agency that took the kid. As for the child being returned meaning that "someone screwed up",I disagree. Thats a real problem today. We are focused to much on outcomes sometimes. Life is messy and sometimes you can do everything right and still things dont turn out as you would have hope. (Im not saying of course that you would HOPE the child was i danger or being abused,you would HOPE that you dont make a mistake and take a child that was not in danger) The thing is,if all the evidence you have available to you tells them the child is likely to be in danger,then they have to ask. If during the investigation it turns out the child is not in danger then the child has to be returned. The courts of course come in,when the parents dispute the states interpretation of the evidence, or the evidence itself or when the investigators have not been convinced that there is no danger,but still have not been able to find any solid evidence that there is. In that case,the court has no choice but to order the childs return. It does not mean that anyone screwed up. They may well have been acting reasonably based on the evidence they had at the time.

 Thats why you dont automatically get to sue the police department for a million dollars if they falsely arrest you. You only get to do that if there was some misconduct by the police. If a man your height with your hair color carrying a revolver just like the one you carry,driving the same kind of blue Honda that you drive,robs a store and gets 100 dollars,and they pick you up an hour later three blocks away with $97.50 in your pocket (maybe you bought a hot dog) and arrest you,they are acting reasonably. When the palm print from counter where the camera sees him placing his hand comes back,and does not match yours,and they check the security camera and bank records at YOUR bank where you just withdrew 1000 dollars 20 minutes before the robbery happened,and they check with the gun store where you purchased that gun for a total of $902.50 20 minutes AFTER the robbery took place, then they have to let you go. You cant sue them for false arrest. They did nothing wrong. If they could be sued every time they look at facts like that,and come to reasonable,but wrong conclusion,they could not do their jobs. You will be angry,and justifiably so,but sometimes life just sucks.

 On the other hand,if they wipe off that hand print on the counter,simply dont mention that they found you with the supposed robbery weapon in the complaint so they dont have to explain why you can prove you purchased that gun 20 minutes AFTER your supposed to have robbed a store with it and keep you in jail by making up a story that your a homeless transient that is a flight risk when they know damn well that you have an apartment (becuase in fact they searched that apartment and questioned your co-workers) then yea,you can probably sue them. Similarly,if they locked you in a holding cell for a week without a phone call and when you demanded a lawyer told you "<favorite racial slur>s dont get lawyers" then yea,you can sue them.

[teamnelson]

The pen is certainly mightier than the sword ... seems like a couple folks here are okay with the government using a cut & dry child protective services case as an opportunity to take a political jab at Oath Keepers and gun owners. A few more high profile cases and OK will be synonymous with Tim McVeigh. The fact is OK is not a militia. The fact is Irish legally purchased a handgun, rifle and taser ... there are no reported illegal weapons charges against him. So it is not unlawful for him to do so despite general statements to his failure to show for anger management, and her 2 prior cases.

The newsworthy item here is the irresponsible logic of DSS in bringing up irrelevant issues. The fact that a child was protected doesn't justify their politicization of the issue.