Citizen's home is raided because of a Facebook posting

[Mustang]

They should be treated with the exact degree of credibility they deserve, none.

And how are they supposed to know unless they actually visit the home?

It is an anonymous tip. IF you actually pay attention to case law, those are deemed to flimsy to get a warrant because there is no way to verify the person's credibility. In other words, I have the full force of case law, and numerous Supreme Court rulings, backing up my position.

What do you have again?

I thought Child Protective Services was called and a representative from that agency requested a police presence (which was her right to do) when she went to the home.

 

[Mustang]

They can ask, by calling his lawyer.

Exactly....they asked...he said no. Did they force him after that? Yes or no?

Did they threaten him after that?

The answer to that question, in case you are confused, is yes. Are you going to tell me that threat is not an attempt to force him to comply? Does the fact that it failed negate the fact that they used said force?

What force did the police use? I didn't read anything about any force being applied.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that's only the answer if you believe the drunk attention whore.

Since you insist that the police are telling the truth, can I point out that the police actually admitted they asked him to open his gun safe? Or would the fact that they back him up across the board, and insist that the only thing he got wrong is that they were in night uniforms and body armor instead of SWAT gear, somehow prove that your claim that he was drunk wrong?

yes, they asked to see his guns.
what's the problem?
but i'm asking you why i should believe that the cops and the social workers were being belligerent and making threats instead of the father?

they give a very different story of how things happened - and part of their story is everything was fine until the father came home drunk.

why shouldn't i believe them? they aren't pushing an agenda or seeking attention, why would their credibility be questioned?

The alleged purpose of the visit was to make sure the son was uninjured, why ask about guns?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL

Aw, poor Gasbag....

News to him that police lie all the time.

Get with it, stupid. That's how the cops catch the crooks. By getting the crooks to trip themselves up.

It is far from news to me. It is weird that people use the fact that cops lie as justification for them abusing their power though.

If the cops abused their power, they'd be held, questioned, reprimanded, suspended, fired, arrested etc. especially given the attention this incident has received. Haven't heard any report of that thus far which leads me to believe they acted within the law.

That was hilarious.

Tell me something, were the cops that shot Derrick Jones held, questioned, reprimanded, suspended, fired, arrested etc? Did you miss all the attention that case raised in the Bay Area? How does someone dropping anything justify police gunning them down in cold blood?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly....they asked...he said no. Did they force him after that? Yes or no?

Did they threaten him after that?

The answer to that question, in case you are confused, is yes. Are you going to tell me that threat is not an attempt to force him to comply? Does the fact that it failed negate the fact that they used said force?

What was the threat, exactly?

You don't remember?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The police did not take a chance with this situation nor should they have. I never took a chance when I was a cop. The firearm instructor can spin it anyway he wishes as can you. If you have ever been in this type of situation kindly tell what you actually did.

I don't give a crap if the police felt justified, they weren't. They should have got a warrant if they thought there was a real problem. If they couldn't get a warrant CPS should have waited until normal business hours to check it out.

It was a preliminary inquiry by Child Protective Services, if I recall correctly. It was not a formal police investigation. If the preliminary inquiry aroused the suspicions of the police, they would have gotten a warrant, I can assure you.

If you recall correctly?

They showed up at his house at 8:15 Friday night accompanied by at least 4 police officers in "night uniforms and body armor." All they had was an anonymous tip about a Facebook picture showing a child doing something that is legal. What, exactly, do you think they were investigating? How does a preliminary investigation into something that is legal justify an emergency response?

Want to try again? I hope you do, I enjoy demonstrating that there is no possible defense for their actions.

 

[ogibillm]

I don't give a crap if the police felt justified, they weren't. They should have got a warrant if they thought there was a real problem. If they couldn't get a warrant CPS should have waited until normal business hours to check it out.

It was a preliminary inquiry by Child Protective Services, if I recall correctly. It was not a formal police investigation. If the preliminary inquiry aroused the suspicions of the police, they would have gotten a warrant, I can assure you.

If you recall correctly?

They showed up at his house at 8:15 Friday night accompanied by at least 4 police officers in "night uniforms and body armor." All they had was an anonymous tip about a Facebook picture showing a child doing something that is legal. What, exactly, do you think they were investigating? How does a preliminary investigation into something that is legal justify an emergency response?

Want to try again? I hope you do, I enjoy demonstrating that there is no possible defense for their actions.

just what do you think a 'night uniform' is, exactly?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And how are they supposed to know unless they actually visit the home?

It is an anonymous tip. IF you actually pay attention to case law, those are deemed to flimsy to get a warrant because there is no way to verify the person's credibility. In other words, I have the full force of case law, and numerous Supreme Court rulings, backing up my position.

What do you have again?

I thought Child Protective Services was called and a representative from that agency requested a police presence (which was her right to do) when she went to the home.

Rights belong to people, not state agents. CPS has the authority to request police escorts, not the right. Why is that so hard for statists to grasp? Can you explain what they were investigating that justified an emergency response? Can you explain why the police showed up in "night uniforms and body armor" for a escort request? Why does a police force in a town of 8000 even have night uniforms? Are they trying to sneak around and not be seen?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly....they asked...he said no. Did they force him after that? Yes or no?

Did they threaten him after that?

The answer to that question, in case you are confused, is yes. Are you going to tell me that threat is not an attempt to force him to comply? Does the fact that it failed negate the fact that they used said force?

What force did the police use? I didn't read anything about any force being applied.

Do I actually have to explain rudimentary English to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was a preliminary inquiry by Child Protective Services, if I recall correctly. It was not a formal police investigation. If the preliminary inquiry aroused the suspicions of the police, they would have gotten a warrant, I can assure you.

If you recall correctly?

They showed up at his house at 8:15 Friday night accompanied by at least 4 police officers in "night uniforms and body armor." All they had was an anonymous tip about a Facebook picture showing a child doing something that is legal. What, exactly, do you think they were investigating? How does a preliminary investigation into something that is legal justify an emergency response?

Want to try again? I hope you do, I enjoy demonstrating that there is no possible defense for their actions.

just what do you think a 'night uniform' is, exactly?

I have no fucking idea, we didn't have night uniforms when I was in the Navy. We had summer and winter dress uniforms, and dungarees, but nothing that we were supposed to wear at night. They didn't even issue us pajamas, which might pass as a night uniform. One thing, I am pretty sure these cops were not wearing pajamas, why don't you tell me what the fuck it is, and why someone wearing a "night uniform and body armor" could not possibly be confused with a SWAT uniform.

 

[bodecea]

And how are they supposed to know unless they actually visit the home?

It is an anonymous tip. IF you actually pay attention to case law, those are deemed to flimsy to get a warrant because there is no way to verify the person's credibility. In other words, I have the full force of case law, and numerous Supreme Court rulings, backing up my position.

What do you have again?

I thought Child Protective Services was called and a representative from that agency requested a police presence (which was her right to do) when she went to the home.

This is apparently what they want:

1. Child Protective Services to ignore the call.

or

2. Child Protective Services go to a house with a gun-related report without the police

or

3. Child Protective Services go to a house with the police, but the police are unarmed.

 

[bodecea]

Since you insist that the police are telling the truth, can I point out that the police actually admitted they asked him to open his gun safe? Or would the fact that they back him up across the board, and insist that the only thing he got wrong is that they were in night uniforms and body armor instead of SWAT gear, somehow prove that your claim that he was drunk wrong?

yes, they asked to see his guns.
what's the problem?
but i'm asking you why i should believe that the cops and the social workers were being belligerent and making threats instead of the father?

they give a very different story of how things happened - and part of their story is everything was fine until the father came home drunk.

why shouldn't i believe them? they aren't pushing an agenda or seeking attention, why would their credibility be questioned?

The alleged purpose of the visit was to make sure the son was uninjured, why ask about guns?

According to the report in one of the links, the purpose of the visit was to investigate a call that stated that children had unsupervised access to guns. You are right.....this has nothing to do with guns.

 

[bodecea]

Did they threaten him after that?

The answer to that question, in case you are confused, is yes. Are you going to tell me that threat is not an attempt to force him to comply? Does the fact that it failed negate the fact that they used said force?

What was the threat, exactly?

You don't remember?

What was the threat, exactly?

 

[AmericanFirst]

For those that won't click the link because it says Blog:

New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle."Someone called family services about the photo," said*Evan Nappen,*an attorney representing Shawn Moore. "It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids."Moore was not arrested or charged.A Dept. of Children and Familiesspokesperson told Fox News they could not confirm or deny an investigation or raid had taken place due to government regulations."The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline," spokesperson Kristen Brown said. "We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry."Moore, of Carneys Point, is a certified firearms instructor for the National Rifle Association, an NRA range safety officer and a New Jersey hunter education instructor.He recently posted a photograph of his son wearing camouflage and holding his new .22 rifle. The child has a New Jersey hunting license and recently passed the state's hunter safety course."If you look at the picture, his finger isn't even on the trigger - which is proper," Nappen told Fox News.

Actually they didn't raid the home. They left after the wife stood up to them after they threatened her.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Some do gooder seen the posting and snitched and the police along with child services, who by the way would not even tell the wife her name, wanted to see their guns without a warrant. Good job standing up for their rights.

 

[bodecea]

Did they threaten him after that?

The answer to that question, in case you are confused, is yes. Are you going to tell me that threat is not an attempt to force him to comply? Does the fact that it failed negate the fact that they used said force?

What force did the police use? I didn't read anything about any force being applied.

Do I actually have to explain rudimentary English to you?

I want to know too...what force did the police use?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is an anonymous tip. IF you actually pay attention to case law, those are deemed to flimsy to get a warrant because there is no way to verify the person's credibility. In other words, I have the full force of case law, and numerous Supreme Court rulings, backing up my position.

What do you have again?

I thought Child Protective Services was called and a representative from that agency requested a police presence (which was her right to do) when she went to the home.

This is apparently what they want:

1. Child Protective Services to ignore the call.

or

2. Child Protective Services go to a house with a gun-related report without the police

or

3. Child Protective Services go to a house with the police, but the police are unarmed.

I want the fucking government to act like it is supposed to. It should follow the law, and always, repeat, always, make sure that due process is observed every single time it investigates anything. It should not show up in the middle of the night just because it can, nor should it ever insist that it has the right to do whatever it wants in the name of the children.

Did any of that confuse you? Should I use single syllable words?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yes, they asked to see his guns.
what's the problem?
but i'm asking you why i should believe that the cops and the social workers were being belligerent and making threats instead of the father?

they give a very different story of how things happened - and part of their story is everything was fine until the father came home drunk.

why shouldn't i believe them? they aren't pushing an agenda or seeking attention, why would their credibility be questioned?

The alleged purpose of the visit was to make sure the son was uninjured, why ask about guns?

According to the report in one of the links, the purpose of the visit was to investigate a call that stated that children had unsupervised access to guns. You are right.....this has nothing to do with guns.

How would they get that from a Facebook photo? Is it possible that somebody is lying to justify the actions of the government? If you doubt anyone would do that, may I point out that you insisted that there was absolutely no evidence this had ever happened even though you could not find a single report of anyone denying it? And, even after the police admitted it did happen, you tried to argue that "night uniforms and body armor" is not SWAT gear?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What was the threat, exactly?

You don't remember?

What was the threat, exactly?

Let me see if I can remember all of them.

First, we had CPS showing up with the police wearing "night uniforms and body armor." Feel free to lie to me and tell me that cops knocking on your door dressed like that is an everyday occurrence in your neighborhood.

Then we them insisting they a reason to investigate, something else you agree with.

Then we have them threatening to come back with a warrant in order to intimidate them into cooperating. Come to think of it, you think they were right about that also.

I guess I can see why you don't see the threat, it is easy to pretend their is not a threat when you are holding the gun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What force did the police use? I didn't read anything about any force being applied.

Do I actually have to explain rudimentary English to you?

I want to know too...what force did the police use?

Sigh

By definition, police are force. That actually means, for the less informed among us, the CPS used force to investigate an anonymous complaint based on a Facebook photo.

2 a : military strength
b (1) : a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose (2) plural : the whole military strength (as of a nation)
c : a body of persons or things available for a particular end <a labor force> <the missile force>
d : an individual or group having the power of effective action <join forces to prevent violence> <a force in politics>
e often capitalized : police force &#8212;usually used with the