Citizen's home is raided because of a Facebook posting

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I think a few people do.

 

[Lakhota]

I hope the kid is mentally stable and supervised by competent adults when using his assault weapon.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too bad there's no constitutional right to privacy...

...so I'm told...

...lolol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Too bad there's no constitutional right to privacy...

...so I'm told...

...lolol

Which would make me right about abortion not being a right, wouldn't it?

 

[boedicca]

Facebook is a corrupt company which enables corrupt government.

Why anyone would have a Facebook account is beyond comprehension.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I hope the kid is mentally stable and supervised by competent adults when using his assault weapon.

The gov't. screwed up, not the parents. Of course we know how competent the current clowns (libtards) in gov't. are.

 

[JoeB131]

Facebook is a corrupt company which enables corrupt government.

Why anyone would have a Facebook account is beyond comprehension.

It's useful for keeping in contact with people...

 

[AmericanFirst]

Facebook is a corrupt company which enables corrupt government.

Why anyone would have a Facebook account is beyond comprehension.

So it is facebook to blame for the corrupt obamaturd? I thought it was the commies like ayers and soros.

 

[boedicca]

Facebook is a corrupt company which enables corrupt government.

Why anyone would have a Facebook account is beyond comprehension.

It's useful for keeping in contact with people...

There are other ways to stay in touch with people besides providing a great deal of personal information to a corrupt company which does not respect users' privacy.

Just sayin'.

 

[JoeB131]

Facebook is a corrupt company which enables corrupt government.

Why anyone would have a Facebook account is beyond comprehension.

It's useful for keeping in contact with people...

There are other ways to stay in touch with people besides providing a great deal of personal information to a corrupt company which does not respect users' privacy.

Just sayin'.

That's why I don't post anything private on it. I also don't invite anyone I don't know to visit me on it.

Now, I do use it for my online business. Or I tried to, didn't get good results.

 

[boedicca]

It's useful for keeping in contact with people...

There are other ways to stay in touch with people besides providing a great deal of personal information to a corrupt company which does not respect users' privacy.

Just sayin'.

That's why I don't post anything private on it. I also don't invite anyone I don't know to visit me on it.

Now, I do use it for my online business. Or I tried to, didn't get good results.

You really think that you can limit how they track you? It's not just what you post - they do thinks to track as much of your online behavior as possible. It's really quite horrible.

 

[JoeB131]

There are other ways to stay in touch with people besides providing a great deal of personal information to a corrupt company which does not respect users' privacy.

Just sayin'.

That's why I don't post anything private on it. I also don't invite anyone I don't know to visit me on it.

Now, I do use it for my online business. Or I tried to, didn't get good results.

You really think that you can limit how they track you? It's not just what you post - they do thinks to track as much of your online behavior as possible. It's really quite horrible.

Yes, but they aren't the only ones who do that.

Now, if you are arguing that we should make tracking cookies and that kind of data collection illegal... I'm completely with you.

 

[boedicca]

Such tracking should be opt in.

 

[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?

In order to respond to the Black kid with two revolvers hypothesis (a totally different image) I would need to see such a photo to comment on it.

But in keeping with the existing example I find absolutely nothing intimidating about the above photo. The boy has obviously been trained in the proper and respectful (port arms) handling of that rifle and there is nothing aggressive about his facial expression. For me this is cause to believe he is appropriately supervised.

 

[auditor0007]

No one's home was 'raided'.

Since his lawyer was on the phone with the police I will take his word over yours.

There was no reason for them or child protective services to be there in the first place.

This was nothing more than targeted political harassment

For the most part I would agree; however, here is the problem. There are enough idiots out there who would put their child in danger with guns laying all over the house. Once Social Services gets a call of this nature, they have a duty to check things out. The bottom line is that this individual did nothing wrong, and so he had nothing to fear other than an inconvenience.

Social Services is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Every time they investigate an anonymous report over nothing, they are blasted for being overzealous big brother sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, but God forbid they do not follow up on an anonymous report, and because of their failure a child ends up dead. Then the shit really hits the fan. So what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to know ahead of time if a child might really be in danger? Are they supposed to be mind readers?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too bad there's no constitutional right to privacy...

...so I'm told...

...lolol

Which would make me right about abortion not being a right, wouldn't it?

There is a constitutional right to privacy.

 

[JoeB131]

[

For the most part I would agree; however, here is the problem. There are enough idiots out there who would put their child in danger with guns laying all over the house. Once Social Services gets a call of this nature, they have a duty to check things out. The bottom line is that this individual did nothing wrong, and so he had nothing to fear other than an inconvenience.

Social Services is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Every time they investigate an anonymous report over nothing, they are blasted for being overzealous big brother sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, but God forbid they do not follow up on an anonymous report, and because of their failure a child ends up dead. Then the shit really hits the fan. So what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to know ahead of time if a child might really be in danger? Are they supposed to be mind readers?

Dude, you got to stop making rational thoughtful arguments...

THIS...IS...USMB!!!"

 

[MikeK]

For the most part I would agree; however, here is the problem. There are enough idiots out there who would put their child in danger with guns laying all over the house. Once Social Services gets a call of this nature, they have a duty to check things out. The bottom line is that this individual did nothing wrong, and so he had nothing to fear other than an inconvenience.

Social Services is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Every time they investigate an anonymous report over nothing, they are blasted for being overzealous big brother sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, but God forbid they do not follow up on an anonymous report, and because of their failure a child ends up dead. Then the shit really hits the fan. So what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to know ahead of time if a child might really be in danger? Are they supposed to be mind readers?

They are supposed to respond to clear indications of abuse, inappropriate conduct, unhealthy or unlawful conditions. Does a photo of an apparently healthy, happy boy properly holding a firearm call for a visit by CPS bureaucrats and four uniformed police officers?

In America there are millions of lawfully owned firearms, many of which belong to parents of young boys who are trained in the proper use and handling of those weapons. This photo is representative of one such example. Except for a purely subjective impression in the anti-gun mentality there is absolutely nothing about this photo that justifies the actions of the CPS.

To suggest it is okay for CPS bureaucrats to make subjective judgments about when it's okay to conduct aggressively invasive investigations without concrete indications of violations is to condone emergence of a Big Brother atmosphere in America.

We don't want that!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Too bad there's no constitutional right to privacy...

...so I'm told...

...lolol

Which would make me right about abortion not being a right, wouldn't it?

There is a constitutional right to privacy.

Only if you understand that the protection of that right applies to your home and, to a much lesser extent, your person. This is why police can do a Terry stop and frisk you for concealed weapons, which is the basis of all stop and frisk policies in the United States. I am pretty sure you think that these polices are justified, but that is only because it has never happened to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

For the most part I would agree; however, here is the problem. There are enough idiots out there who would put their child in danger with guns laying all over the house. Once Social Services gets a call of this nature, they have a duty to check things out. The bottom line is that this individual did nothing wrong, and so he had nothing to fear other than an inconvenience.

Social Services is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Every time they investigate an anonymous report over nothing, they are blasted for being overzealous big brother sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, but God forbid they do not follow up on an anonymous report, and because of their failure a child ends up dead. Then the shit really hits the fan. So what are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to know ahead of time if a child might really be in danger? Are they supposed to be mind readers?

Dude, you got to stop making rational thoughtful arguments...

THIS...IS...USMB!!!"

Dude, you need to learn the difference between rationalization and thoughtful argument.