Citizen's home is raided because of a Facebook posting

[MikeK]

I left a message with a Secret Service office about a guy on FB who said he was dying of cancer and was going to kill Obama. There are definitely limits...

What is "FB?"

 

[Ernie S.]

I left a message with a Secret Service office about a guy on FB who said he was dying of cancer and was going to kill Obama. There are definitely limits...

If that were true, it would be a wise move, but a photo of a kid holding a gun in a safe and proper manner does not justify a visit from CPS.

 

[Bfgrn]

Interpretation:

Bfgrn has absolutely no argument that can possibly justify the actions taken by the people representing the state, but is required by his inability to not defend the government in all instances to try to make it look like the other side is completely wacko, which is why he insisted earlier that this was all a part of a plot by the father to make the government look bad by posting the picture in the first place.

Side note, the fact of the matter is that no one ever disputed the call went to CPS, or that they brought the police into it. I won't speak for anyone else, but my position is that CPS should have called first, and should not now be trying to pretend that they couldn't of handled this differently. As for the police, they should have got a warrant, period. If CPS calls asking for an escort on a Friday night they should determining if there is probable cause to believe their is an imminent threat, and get a warrant.

CPS should have called first? Tell me Einstein, what questions would they ask? And then tell me NO MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH IS how those questions would have been answered? And if there were a problem, wouldn't a phone call give warning to confiscate or hide any evidence??? How truly stupid can one person be. How the fuck do you make it across the street without getting run over???

You are embarrassingly a really stupid person. Oh, they should have called first...

CPS was called first, they called the police.

I guess that destroys the premise of your rant.

Are you really THAT dishonest?

 

[MikeK]

CPS should have called first? Tell me Einstein, what questions would they ask?

Essentially the same questions they asked while standing on the doorstep with four cops, pissing everyone off and creating an issue for the six o'clock news.

And then tell me NO MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH IS how those questions would have been answered?

The objective of a phone call would be to feel the situation out and determine if there was some apparent need to take the next step, which would be to conduct an investigation, or initiate a surveillance, or to obtain a search warrant. As it is, what they did was the worst possible approach.

 

[Bfgrn]

CPS should have called first? Tell me Einstein, what questions would they ask?

Essentially the same questions they asked while standing on the doorstep with four cops, pissing everyone off and creating an issue for the six o'clock news.

And then tell me NO MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH IS how those questions would have been answered?

The objective of a phone call would be to feel the situation out and determine if there was some apparent need to take the next step, which would be to conduct an investigation, or initiate a surveillance, or to obtain a search warrant. As it is, what they did was the worst possible approach.

People with an adult mind understand they did their job properly. And if they didn't go to the house and investigate without prior warning (phone call), they would have been guilty of being irresponsible. A child is a human being, not a possession.

When the caller identifies themselves as family services, it is no longer an objective phone call

 

[sfcalifornia]

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?

And then you'll be the first one complaining about liberal judges guaranteeing the rights of criminals.

We get it. You think cops are the enemy until you need them. Then they are your friends.

What if, during the cops' visit, they uncovered probable cause to get a warrant to investigate a child prostitution ring the Dad was running or some other kind of serial child abuse operation? That happens, you know. Would you be boo-hooing over their night visit then?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CPS should have called first? Tell me Einstein, what questions would they ask?

Essentially the same questions they asked while standing on the doorstep with four cops, pissing everyone off and creating an issue for the six o'clock news.

And then tell me NO MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH IS how those questions would have been answered?

The objective of a phone call would be to feel the situation out and determine if there was some apparent need to take the next step, which would be to conduct an investigation, or initiate a surveillance, or to obtain a search warrant. As it is, what they did was the worst possible approach.

People with an adult mind understand they did their job properly. And if they didn't go to the house and investigate without prior warning (phone call), they would have been guilty of being irresponsible. A child is a human being, not a possession.

When the caller identifies themselves as family services, it is no longer an objective phone call

If they did their job properly no one would be complaining about them showing up at the door in the middle of the night demanding to look at something they did not have a warrant for.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

And then you'll be the first one complaining about liberal judges guaranteeing the rights of criminals.

We get it. You think cops are the enemy until you need them. Then they are your friends.

What if, during the cops' visit, they uncovered probable cause to get a warrant to investigate a child prostitution ring the Dad was running or some other kind of serial child abuse operation? That happens, you know. Would you be boo-hooing over their night visit then?

Really? I suggest you go check out the thread where I thought it was wonderful that a prosecutor got a budget cut, which resulted in cases being dismissed because there was not DA.

I am in favor of judges going out of their way to protect the rights of criminals because I understand that it is the only way my rights are protected. Thanks for making my case for me though.

 

[Bfgrn]

Essentially the same questions they asked while standing on the doorstep with four cops, pissing everyone off and creating an issue for the six o'clock news.

The objective of a phone call would be to feel the situation out and determine if there was some apparent need to take the next step, which would be to conduct an investigation, or initiate a surveillance, or to obtain a search warrant. As it is, what they did was the worst possible approach.

People with an adult mind understand they did their job properly. And if they didn't go to the house and investigate without prior warning (phone call), they would have been guilty of being irresponsible. A child is a human being, not a possession.

When the caller identifies themselves as family services, it is no longer an objective phone call

If they did their job properly no one would be complaining about them showing up at the door in the middle of the night demanding to look at something they did not have a warrant for.

Then WHY did Moore call the investigating sergeant later in the evening to apologize for his behavior during the investigation?

 

[bucs90]

Holy shit, a kid in winter camo with an assault rifle...

Shawn Moore, Father Of NJ Boy Pictured With Gun, Won't Face Charges

Imagine if the kid was black, and lived in the inner city, and was holding two revolvers or cheap pistols. Right wingers would have a very different view of it.

BUT, that said, so a picture of a child (with no adult in the picture) holding what appears to be a military style assault rifle is online. And in the wake of all the school shootings, people called their elected officials and asked them if they would simply go see if that situation is reasonable and safe for the rest of the general public.

The police went by (not "raided") the house, spoke with the family, and the story ends there.

Am I missing something?

 

[MikeK]

People with an adult mind understand they did their job properly.

They obviously did not. They were sent packing, and for good reason. What they accomplished was an embarrassment and nothing more.

And if they didn't go to the house and investigate without prior warning (phone call), they would have been guilty of being irresponsible.

No they wouldn't. Because in the final analysis there was no good reason for them to do what they did -- obviously.

A child is a human being, not a possession.

The pivotal factor in that regard is, in this particular instance, whether the child was forced to do something he didn't want to do. Which is clearly not the case.

When the caller identifies themselves as family services, it is no longer an objective phone call

Why?

I believe you might be quite surprised at what a skilled investigator can accomplish with a passive telephone call. The trick is to obtain answers to questions which are not directly asked. The purpose being to determine whether further steps are necessary.

 

[bucs90]

If pictures of the kids down my street went up, and they were holding an AK47, unsupervised, I'd sure as hell like the cops to go by to ensure they are being properly supervised with that weapon, or at least that weapon is secured properly so CHILDREN wont doing anything stupid with it.

My God. You right wingers are starting to act like the Taliban- arming your CHILDREN with assault rifles????

 

[MikeK]

Imagine if the kid was black, and lived in the inner city, and was holding two revolvers or cheap pistols. Right wingers would have a very different view of it.

BUT, that said, so a picture of a child (with no adult in the picture) holding what appears to be a military style assault rifle is online. And in the wake of all the school shootings, people called their elected officials and asked them if they would simply go see if that situation is reasonable and safe for the rest of the general public.

The police went by (not "raided") the house, spoke with the family, and the story ends there.

Am I missing something?

If you disagree with my contention that the best approach to this extremely sensitive situation would have been a passive, explorative phone inquiry to test the water, rather than clearly effecting the appearance of a raid (four uniforms), why do you suppose it ended as badly as it did? At the very most, a daytime visit by a plainclothes officer would have sufficed.

Overkill is never good and often turns out badly. This was a "show of force" when no such demonstration was called for. And the story really doesn't end there because it's still very active here and who knows where else.

 

[MikeK]

If pictures of the kids down my street went up, and they were holding an AK47, unsupervised, I'd sure as hell like the cops to go by to ensure they are being properly supervised with that weapon, or at least that weapon is secured properly so CHILDREN wont doing anything stupid with it.

There's a way to do that and a way to not do it.

My God. You right wingers are starting to act like the Taliban- arming your CHILDREN with assault rifles????

Two possibilities: The kid is armed with that rifle -- or it's his father's rifle and the photo is for novelty purposes. There is no forceful way within Constitutional boundaries to determine which is the case. So what is the best way to go about it?

 

[Bfgrn]

Imagine if the kid was black, and lived in the inner city, and was holding two revolvers or cheap pistols. Right wingers would have a very different view of it.

BUT, that said, so a picture of a child (with no adult in the picture) holding what appears to be a military style assault rifle is online. And in the wake of all the school shootings, people called their elected officials and asked them if they would simply go see if that situation is reasonable and safe for the rest of the general public.

The police went by (not "raided") the house, spoke with the family, and the story ends there.

Am I missing something?

If you disagree with my contention that the best approach to this extremely sensitive situation would have been a passive, explorative phone inquiry to test the water, rather than clearly effecting the appearance of a raid (four uniforms), why do you suppose it ended as badly as it did? At the very most, a daytime visit by a plainclothes officer would have accommodated your scenario quite sufficiently.

Overkill is never good and often turns out badly. This was a "show of force" when no such demonstration was called for. And the story really doesn't end there because it's still very active here and who knows where else.

Anonymous call(s) were made to the Department of Children and Family Services that a boy there might have access to weapons and ammunition. The Department of Children and Family caseworkers requested police assistance.

There was no 'show of force'. The guys wife welcomed the officers and the child welfare agents into the home.

Moore called the investigating sergeant later in the evening to apologize for his behavior during the investigation.

 

[MikeK]

Anonymous call(s) were made to the Department of Children and Family Services that a boy there might have access to weapons and ammunition. The Department of Children and Family caseworkers requested police assistance.

There was no 'show of force'. The guys wife welcomed the officers and the child welfare agents into the home.

Moore called the investigating sergeant later in the evening to apologize for his behavior during the investigation.

Unless you live in the worst part of the worst ghetto in the worst city in America, four uniformed cops on your doorstep is a show of force! What would your neighbors think?

As far as Moore's apologizing for his behavior, it seems to me someone owes him an apology.

 

[Bfgrn]

Anonymous call(s) were made to the Department of Children and Family Services that a boy there might have access to weapons and ammunition. The Department of Children and Family caseworkers requested police assistance.

There was no 'show of force'. The guys wife welcomed the officers and the child welfare agents into the home.

Moore called the investigating sergeant later in the evening to apologize for his behavior during the investigation.

Unless you live in the worst part of the worst ghetto in the worst city in America, four uniformed cops on your doorstep is a show of force! What would your neighbors think?

As far as Moore's apologizing for his behavior, it seems to me someone owes him an apology.

What would the neighbors think?SERIOUSLY!!!

If I was his neighbor I would want the police to make sure some minor didn't have access to weapons and ammunition that could annihilate me and my family. And under the circumstances, the police are not going to walk into a possible dangerous situation where an assault weapon is present without enough officers.

This guy works for the NRA, I am sure he KNEW that posting that picture on facebook could create this scenario.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People with an adult mind understand they did their job properly. And if they didn't go to the house and investigate without prior warning (phone call), they would have been guilty of being irresponsible. A child is a human being, not a possession.

When the caller identifies themselves as family services, it is no longer an objective phone call

If they did their job properly no one would be complaining about them showing up at the door in the middle of the night demanding to look at something they did not have a warrant for.

Then WHY did Moore call the investigating sergeant later in the evening to apologize for his behavior during the investigation?

Why did you say he posted the picture with the intent to cause a ruckus?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Holy shit, a kid in winter camo with an assault rifle...

Shawn Moore, Father Of NJ Boy Pictured With Gun, Won't Face Charges

Imagine if the kid was black, and lived in the inner city, and was holding two revolvers or cheap pistols. Right wingers would have a very different view of it.

BUT, that said, so a picture of a child (with no adult in the picture) holding what appears to be a military style assault rifle is online. And in the wake of all the school shootings, people called their elected officials and asked them if they would simply go see if that situation is reasonable and safe for the rest of the general public.

The police went by (not "raided") the house, spoke with the family, and the story ends there.

Am I missing something?

Imagine me thinking that there is nothing wrong then either. I am not the one that thinks people in cities shouldn't own guns, nor am I racist. I leave that for you, the guy that is worried about gang bangers being able to open carry in South Carolina.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If pictures of the kids down my street went up, and they were holding an AK47, unsupervised, I'd sure as hell like the cops to go by to ensure they are being properly supervised with that weapon, or at least that weapon is secured properly so CHILDREN wont doing anything stupid with it.

My God. You right wingers are starting to act like the Taliban- arming your CHILDREN with assault rifles????

You could move to a neighborhood that doesn't have 'those' kids.