Citizen's home is raided because of a Facebook posting

[Bfgrn]

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!

You keep FORGETTING...CPS "bureaucrats" did not make the anonymous phone calls to CPS. Concerned citizens did.

 

[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?

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!

You keep FORGETTING...CPS "bureaucrats" did not make the anonymous phone calls to CPS. Concerned citizens did.

We are not the ones forgetting anything.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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

Dude, you need to take your anti-psychosis medicines... I'm really not going to talk to you anymore because you are a crazy person.

 

[OriginalShroom]

CPS should have viewed the photo for themselves to determine if it met a threshhold for requiring investigation instead of simply accepting the word of some anti-gun loon.

 

[JoeB131]

CPS should have viewed the photo for themselves to determine if it met a threshhold for requiring investigation instead of simply accepting the word of some anti-gun loon.

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

 

[MikeK]

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

What is it about this photo that, in your interpretation, suggests the likelihood of the scenario you've presented?

My objective perception is that of a happy, healthy-looking boy holding a rifle in an appropriately safe, un-intimidating manner. The only impression it conveys to me is the boy probably will serve this Nation as a good soldier someday. I have no cause to expect that he might use that rifle to "shoot up a bunch of his classmates" and I have no legal right to make any such assumption without some specific reason.

Your impression is purely subjective and is predicated on some level of social hysteria resulting from a tragic incident in the recent past. But there is absolutely no reason to believe this boy might do something like that.

 

[OriginalShroom]

CPS should have viewed the photo for themselves to determine if it met a threshhold for requiring investigation instead of simply accepting the word of some anti-gun loon.

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

We will have to agree to disagree.

There is nothing wrong with that picture and too much that is right.

Only a big Government type would say that simply a photo of an 11 year old correctly and safely holding a firearm warrants a government investigation.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

What is it about this photo that, in your interpretation, suggests the likelihood of the scenario you've presented?

My objective perception is that of a happy, healthy-looking boy holding a rifle in an appropriately safe, un-intimidating manner. The only impression it conveys to me is the boy probably will serve this Nation as a good soldier someday. I have no cause to expect that he might use that rifle to "shoot up a bunch of his classmates" and I have no legal right to make any such assumption without some specific reason.

Your impression is purely subjective and is predicated on some level of social hysteria resulting from a tragic incident in the recent past. But there is absolutely no reason to believe this boy might do something like that.

Well, as you say, it's completely subjective. I look a kid with a weapon that he shouldn't have at his age, period.

And, yeah, given how many kids have gone into their schools and started shooting stuff up, asking some questions was completely appropriate.

 

[JoeB131]

CPS should have viewed the photo for themselves to determine if it met a threshhold for requiring investigation instead of simply accepting the word of some anti-gun loon.

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

We will have to agree to disagree.

There is nothing wrong with that picture and too much that is right.

Only a big Government type would say that simply a photo of an 11 year old correctly and safely holding a firearm warrants a government investigation.

Or someone who realizes that children shouldn't have guns like that, at all.

Look guy, I was in the Army for 11 years. My dad was a WWII vet and an avid hunter.

He'd have never let me handle a gun like that at 11.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

CPS should have viewed the photo for themselves to determine if it met a threshhold for requiring investigation instead of simply accepting the word of some anti-gun loon.

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

Rationalization, the way to people without evidence justify their belief in something just because they believe.

Must be wonderful.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

What is it about this photo that, in your interpretation, suggests the likelihood of the scenario you've presented?

My objective perception is that of a happy, healthy-looking boy holding a rifle in an appropriately safe, un-intimidating manner. The only impression it conveys to me is the boy probably will serve this Nation as a good soldier someday. I have no cause to expect that he might use that rifle to "shoot up a bunch of his classmates" and I have no legal right to make any such assumption without some specific reason.

Your impression is purely subjective and is predicated on some level of social hysteria resulting from a tragic incident in the recent past. But there is absolutely no reason to believe this boy might do something like that.

Well, as you say, it's completely subjective. I look a kid with a weapon that he shouldn't have at his age, period.

And, yeah, given how many kids have gone into their schools and started shooting stuff up, asking some questions was completely appropriate.

Why shouldn't he be handling that weapon at his age, even it were a .223 instead of a .22 caliber?

 

[JoeB131]

CPS should have viewed the photo for themselves to determine if it met a threshhold for requiring investigation instead of simply accepting the word of some anti-gun loon.

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

Rationalization, the way to people without evidence justify their belief in something just because they believe.

Must be wonderful.

Well, I don't know, guy. YOu seem to exist in your own alternative universe.

In my reality, when you have a couple of school shootings every year, and someone posts a picture of a child on the internet smiling like a loon... you fucking investigate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

We will have to agree to disagree.

There is nothing wrong with that picture and too much that is right.

Only a big Government type would say that simply a photo of an 11 year old correctly and safely holding a firearm warrants a government investigation.

Or someone who realizes that children shouldn't have guns like that, at all.

Look guy, I was in the Army for 11 years. My dad was a WWII vet and an avid hunter.

He'd have never let me handle a gun like that at 11.

What is it that tells you he is too young for a gun? I was shooting at that age, and I never once shot up a school, nor did I ever grab gun and use it to impress my friends, even though it was easily accessible in the hall closet, and not locked away in a gun safe.

 

[JoeB131]

What is it about this photo that, in your interpretation, suggests the likelihood of the scenario you've presented?

My objective perception is that of a happy, healthy-looking boy holding a rifle in an appropriately safe, un-intimidating manner. The only impression it conveys to me is the boy probably will serve this Nation as a good soldier someday. I have no cause to expect that he might use that rifle to "shoot up a bunch of his classmates" and I have no legal right to make any such assumption without some specific reason.

Your impression is purely subjective and is predicated on some level of social hysteria resulting from a tragic incident in the recent past. But there is absolutely no reason to believe this boy might do something like that.

Well, as you say, it's completely subjective. I look a kid with a weapon that he shouldn't have at his age, period.

And, yeah, given how many kids have gone into their schools and started shooting stuff up, asking some questions was completely appropriate.

Why shouldn't he be handling that weapon at his age, even it were a .223 instead of a .22 caliber?

YOu mean a weapon based on the infantry weapon used by the military?

Seriously?

Man, you gun whacks are the best argument for gun control their is.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What is it that tells you he is too young for a gun? I was shooting at that age, and I never once shot up a school, nor did I ever grab gun and use it to impress my friends, even though it was easily accessible in the hall closet, and not locked away in a gun safe.

And today you are a complete whackjob. I rest my case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, CPS acted completely appropriately.

The scenario they didn't want to see is someone sent them this picture, and then little Billy shoots up a bunch of his classmates the next week over an argument about Pokeman cards.

Then there would have been hell to pay.

Rationalization, the way to people without evidence justify their belief in something just because they believe.

Must be wonderful.

Well, I don't know, guy. YOu seem to exist in your own alternative universe.

In my reality, when you have a couple of school shootings every year, and someone posts a picture of a child on the internet smiling like a loon... you fucking investigate.

I see what the problem is, you live in a universe where there are two school shootings every year. Strangely enough, I live in a reality where there were 8 school shootings in January of this year alone.

Strangely enough, not one of them posted a Facebook picture of them holding a rifle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, as you say, it's completely subjective. I look a kid with a weapon that he shouldn't have at his age, period.

And, yeah, given how many kids have gone into their schools and started shooting stuff up, asking some questions was completely appropriate.

Why shouldn't he be handling that weapon at his age, even it were a .223 instead of a .22 caliber?

YOu mean a weapon based on the infantry weapon used by the military?

Seriously?

Man, you gun whacks are the best argument for gun control their is.

Why are you afraid of guns? Did one attack you when you were a child?

 

[MikeK]

Or someone who realizes that children shouldn't have guns like that, at all.

Look guy, I was in the Army for 11 years. My dad was a WWII vet and an avid hunter.

He'd have never let me handle a gun like that at 11.

"A gun like that."

Would you feel the same if the boy were holding a rifle like this lever-action .22?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Why are you afraid of guns? Did one attack you when you were a child?

Guy, I was in the Army for 11 years.

I have a healthy respect for what guns can do. Which is why I don't want them in the hands of children, crazy people (like yourself) or people who aren't terribly responsible.

 

[JoeB131]

Or someone who realizes that children shouldn't have guns like that, at all.

Look guy, I was in the Army for 11 years. My dad was a WWII vet and an avid hunter.

He'd have never let me handle a gun like that at 11.

"A gun like that."

Would you feel the same if the boy were holding a rifle like this lever-action .22?

I don't know. Does it have a maximum effective range of 430 meters and the ability to rip a huge hole in it's target like AR-15/M16 variants do?

Let us not kid ourselves. The M16 was designed to fight in the Jungles of vietnam, which meant is was designed to have all the killing power of the M14 with half the weight.