Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: Men's Rights Activist on Oct 09, 2010, 11:16 AM

Title: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Oct 09, 2010, 11:16 AM
Ironically, left wing teachers in colleges are free to engage in abusive behavior against students in ways that parents never could toward their children, nor a husband to his wife.  If anyone had any doubts that we are living in a police state, here appears to be the confirmation:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213149 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213149)
State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'

Quote
Irish, in an interview with WND, said officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancÚ at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: FP on Oct 09, 2010, 12:47 PM
"He told WND that other issues cited by authorities included an allegation of child abuse, which he assumed pertained to an incident weeks earlier in which one of his fiance's older sons allegedly was struck by a babysitter.

(Story continues below)

          

He said both he and his fiancÚ had been cleared by authorities in that investigation. "

Ah. So thats the main reason they nabbed the baby. Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Cordell Walker on Oct 09, 2010, 02:06 PM
stewart rhodes and the oathkeepers are gonna be raising holy hell over this
its already all over the net and the father is going to be on alex jones
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: outdoors on Oct 09, 2010, 04:48 PM

stewart rhodes and the oathkeepers are gonna be raising holy hell over this
its already all over the net and the father is going to be on alex jones


been hearing of this all over the place,look-out!
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Oct 09, 2010, 07:50 PM
The "Nanny State" is a bastard parent.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Captain Courageous on Oct 09, 2010, 08:52 PM
C.S. Lewis was right (The Screwtape Letters); the devil's minions are gubmint employees.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Oct 10, 2010, 05:15 AM
This has little to do with single mothers and everything to do with a liberal government which is very out of control. His child was kidnapped because he defends the Constitution. That is just mind boggling.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: CaptDMO on Oct 10, 2010, 07:09 AM

This has little to do with single mothers and everything to do with a liberal government which is very out of control. 

Wow
Do you see NO correlation between the (now) common prevalence of "single mothers"
(amongst other self-defined, and previously questioned, throughout world history)  groups and a liberal (US version) gub'mint?

How many gub'mint program pemployees would have to risk a cracked fingernail to eat if it weren't for the WORLD CATASTROPHE of the VICTIMIZATION SUFFERED by "single mothers"? (formerly known as widows, divorcees, or imprudently cautious fornicators)
Of course, the concept of man (ie.) simply ditching his family had fewer statutory "protection" liability incentives as well.     
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Oct 10, 2010, 08:29 AM


This has little to do with single mothers and everything to do with a liberal government which is very out of control. 

Wow
Do you see NO correlation between the (now) common prevalence of "single mothers"
(amongst other self-defined, and previously questioned, throughout world history)  groups and a liberal (US version) gub'mint?

How many gub'mint program pemployees would have to risk a cracked fingernail to eat if it weren't for the WORLD CATASTROPHE of the VICTIMIZATION SUFFERED by "single mothers"? (formerly known as widows, divorcees, or imprudently cautious fornicators)
Of course, the concept of man (ie.) simply ditching his family had fewer statutory "protection" liability incentives as well.     



I was responding to this:
Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: . on Oct 10, 2010, 09:01 AM
All of the uproar about this case seems very one-sided to me.  In the forums within our community (men's rights), I have noticed that no one has cited any independent corroboration of any facts related to this case.  It's all just information proceeding from the OathKeepers, from Jonathan Irish, and also from the libertarian community including WorldNetDaily.  But in fact, local media have covered the story.  Only after I started scrutinizing the situation from the professional news outlets did I start to realize that the child protection agency may in fact have made a defensible decision -- both legally and morally -- in taking custody of the couple's newborn baby.

It turns out that the parents of the newborn are not married to each other (they purport to be engaged).  However, the mother -- Stephanie Taylor -- IS STILL MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN.  Her husband, and the father of her two other children, has refused (according to her) to sign any divorce papers.  Therefore, Stephanie Taylor has been seeing another man -- Jonathan Irish -- while apparently having retained sole custody of her two kids from her current (and as yet unnamed) husband.  She is also living together with Jonathan Irish; in other words, she's a married (not single) mom living together with her boyfriend.  It is that boyfriend -- Jonathan Irish -- who has been named as an abuser in the affidavit filed by the local child protection agency.  How did they substantiate that Jonathan Irish is an abuser?  Well it turns out that in the last two years, she has repeatedly summoned police to the house to report on violence that was perpetrated by her live-in boyfriend, Jonathan Irish.  Her (not their) two kids were for a time even removed from her care because of the boyfriend's alleged violence.

Neither Taylor or Irish are gainfully employed.  Both cite an inability to work as the reason for their non-employment.  And yet somehow, they have found the money to live together in a home despite neither earning a salary.  I suspect that child support is being collected from the father by the married mom, who is living with her unemployed boyfriend.  The boyfriend, Jonathan Irish, has recently purchased a Taser gun and two other firearms which he keeps in the house with his married girlfriend.

Time and again when we learn of child abuse, the vast majority of the time it is inflicted on the kids either by the mother's boyfriend or the mother herself.  By comparison, only a minority of child abuse is perpetrated by the biological father.  And so it is highly plausible that Jonathan Irish -- the unemployed live-in boyfriend in this case -- is legitimately a threat to the safety of the kids that aren't biologically his.

Why would I assume that there was conflict within the household of Stephanie Taylor and Jonathan Irish?  Because in the news article, Jonathan indicated that despite the fact that neither of them were employed, he was expected to be a caretaker for his disabled girlfriend.  That creates a caustic power dynamic, with an imbalance of responsibilities disproportionately borne by the boyfriend, and with neither the mother nor her boyfriend bringing home a salary.  It is easy to believe that domestic violence occurred in that household, possibly perpetrated by both partners against each other (and yet -- in law enforcement's eyes -- with the boyfriend bearing primary blame for all of the conflict).

Read the following articles with a careful eye, and see if you draw the same conclusions as I have above:

1.  Concord Monitor
October 9, 2010
"Couple: State took our baby"
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby)

Quote
But according to an affidavit provided to Irish by the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, state officials took the child because of Irish's long record of violence and abuse. According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor's two other children. She is still married to the father of those children, though Taylor said yesterday that her husband has refused to accept her divorce petition for the past two years.

The affidavit also says that the police in Rochester report a "lengthy history of domestic violence" between Taylor and Irish, and that she accused him of choking and hitting her on more than one occasion. According to the document, Irish failed to complete a domestic violence course as ordered by the state, and that a hearing was held last month to terminate Taylor's parental rights over her two older children.


Quote
Irish, 24, said in an interview yesterday that he had never abused his fiancee or her other children. He said he was unemployed and collected disability becuse he is blind in his left eye from a childhood accident. He said that Taylor [his married girlfriend] suffers from "stress-induced seizure disorder" and that complications during her pregnancy required him to tend to her almost constantly.


2.  Concord Monitor
October 10, 2010
FBI responds to hospital threat
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219798/fbi-responds-to-hospital-threat (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219798/fbi-responds-to-hospital-threat)

3.  WMUR-9 News, Manchester
October 8, 2010
"Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Check Hospital During Protest"
http://www.wmur.com/r/25332217/detail.html (http://www.wmur.com/r/25332217/detail.html)

4.  Boston Globe
October 9, 2010
"Couple say NH took baby, paperwork cites father"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/10/09/couple_say_nh_took_baby_paperwork_cites_father/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/10/09/couple_say_nh_took_baby_paperwork_cites_father/)

Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: FP on Oct 10, 2010, 09:36 AM



This has little to do with single mothers and everything to do with a liberal government which is very out of control. 

Wow
Do you see NO correlation between the (now) common prevalence of "single mothers"
(amongst other self-defined, and previously questioned, throughout world history)  groups and a liberal (US version) gub'mint?

How many gub'mint program pemployees would have to risk a cracked fingernail to eat if it weren't for the WORLD CATASTROPHE of the VICTIMIZATION SUFFERED by "single mothers"? (formerly known as widows, divorcees, or imprudently cautious fornicators)
Of course, the concept of man (ie.) simply ditching his family had fewer statutory "protection" liability incentives as well.     



I was responding to this:
Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers.


And John Dias' new info confirms my belief that its smart to avoid single mothers and apparently non divorced mothers. While I have no problem believing that the state is capable of taking a kid for something so frivolous as membership in the oathkeepers "militia", the story seemed a little too vague. Now we learn that the abuse allegation may be real and the oathkeeper bit is just an arrogant lefty child agency wonk getting their dig in against conservatives.

How am I wrong in my belief BQ? I'm not saying its a great state of affairs but stories like this are why you avoid single mothers. Whether its because you run afoul of a nutter socialist child protection goomba for false reasons or the mother/children/ex use you as a punching bag legally and physically all for a relationship with the mother? Government is the cause but those single mothers are its agents, co-conspirators. You may find that diamond in the rough but until the laws change, its not worth the risk IMHO.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: neoteny on Oct 10, 2010, 09:55 AM
Government is the cause but those single mothers are its agents, co-conspirators.


Well said.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: rph3664 on Oct 10, 2010, 09:29 PM
Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case.  We're discussing it on another board, and the people there thought it was because of the parents' politics.  I don't agree with that either.

I just hope no harm comes to the other children, and that their dad can get custody if he's fit for it.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Oct 11, 2010, 03:13 AM
John, thank you for finding out more information, this does sound like there is a lot more going on than is being told here. Goes to show you one should believe everything one reads on the internet.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Cordell Walker on Oct 11, 2010, 03:52 AM
as far as Im concerned, the fact that the affidavit mentions the oath keepers PERIOD AT ALL, taints the CPS case on any and all other counts.
THe fact that the OK's are mentioned specifically in the document renders the rest of it  moot.
If the CPS had a REAL case then they wouldnt have brought up somethin like that.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: The Gonzman on Oct 11, 2010, 09:29 AM
Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case. 


Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: . on Oct 11, 2010, 09:52 AM
Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.


And yet you wrote this, not too long ago:

I'm inclined to give a guy even a second chance.  Five time loser?

Now a great leap of intuitive thought to think ol' Mike Wooten may be the one with the problem.

It indicates a pattern of questionable behavior.  5 marriages - not one, not two, but five - gone south.  Multiple black marks in his jacket.  Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense.  etc.

He's just not credible as a victim.


Why is it a "pattern" that justifies government intervention when the subject (Mike Wooten) is considered the enemy of one of your favorite political personas (Sarah Palin), but it's not a pattern that justifies government intervention when Jon Irish shacks up with a married woman who repeatedly calls the cops on him?  And if those calls to the cops were legit, then doesn't that also negatively reflect on the parental priorities of the mother in this case, since she stayed with him?  And in comparing Wooten vs. Irish, what exactly is the pattern describing in each case?  With Jon Irish, it's a pattern of alleged violence.  But with Mike Wooten, it's only a pattern of failed marriages, hardly in itself an indication of violence.  And yet you supported both Sarah Palin's and her sister Molly Wooten's efforts to separate Mike Wooten from his home and kids via a bogus restraining order.

Wooten was never a threat to his kids, nor his then-wife.  And when his marriages went south, each time he did the proper thing by ending them rather than exacting violent control over his wife.  Contrast that with Jon Irish, who not only cohabits with a married woman but is also repeatedly accused by her of abuse, yet they're still together in what seems like a volatile, unhealthy, codependent and possibly violent relationship.  And yet you still take Irish's side?

I think that your ideological loyalties are eclipsing your better judgment, Gonzo.  I suppose if Satan was a gun activist you'd support him for president too.  It seems to me that there was a credible chance that that baby would become the victim of violence within that household, whether perpetrated by the mother or father.  What would you propose to have headed off that possible outcome, without intruding on the sanctity of the parents' privacy rights?  What is your alternative?
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Virtue on Oct 11, 2010, 11:28 AM
Quote
Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers


Now all we have to do is get this info past the male sex drive.......any ideas on how we can do that?
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: neoteny on Oct 11, 2010, 11:37 AM

Quote
Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers


Now all we have to do is get this info past the male sex drive.......any ideas on how we can do that?


I almost said "schooling"... but then I realized that longer education doesn't mean less sex but rather more "hook-up" opportunity in colleges where the ratio of the sexes is something like 2:1 (females being in the majority).
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Oct 11, 2010, 11:43 AM
Quote
An affidavit given to the couple (seen in the video below) does appear to cite Irish's affiliation with the "militia" Oath Keepers, as well as the purchase of several weapons, in framing the reasoning. But it also paints Irish as an abusive and violent man who refused to complete a state-ordered domestic violence program.


Quote
Whether the affidavit referencing Oath Keepers is part of the original order or simply supporting documentation may be insignificant, however. Both Rhodes and the Monitor treat the documents as essentially connected, and Rhodes claims to have "confirmed" them.


It appears there are "reported reasons" to argue either point.  The apparent mentioning of "Oath Keepers" is certainly a troubling issue.  Why not also mention:  "He's a man,"  "He's a conservative,"  "He's a war veteran,"  "He's a Christian," etc. as valid DCYF reasons to take a child?  They (CPS) mentioned it.  These (DCYF, CPS, whatever) tramplers of the constitution need to explain their reasoning.

We also know domestic violence law is a major witch hunt against men, and enormously lacking in credibility.  The Nanny State is not only a bastard parent, it is a huge batterer of innocent men.  Whether the man in this case is guilty of d.v. or not is very questionable, given the lack of integrity of the state.  This case certainly raises as many, or more, questions about government behavior, as any individuals behavior, IMO.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: The Gonzman on Oct 11, 2010, 02:29 PM

Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.


And yet you wrote this, not too long ago:

I'm inclined to give a guy even a second chance.  Five time loser?

Now a great leap of intuitive thought to think ol' Mike Wooten may be the one with the problem.

It indicates a pattern of questionable behavior.  5 marriages - not one, not two, but five - gone south.  Multiple black marks in his jacket.  Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense.  etc.

He's just not credible as a victim.


Why is it a "pattern" that justifies government intervention when the subject (Mike Wooten) is considered the enemy of one of your favorite political personas (Sarah Palin), but it's not a pattern that justifies government intervention when Jon Irish shacks up with a married woman who repeatedly calls the cops on him?  And if those calls to the cops were legit, then doesn't that also negatively reflect on the parental priorities of the mother in this case, since she stayed with him?  And in comparing Wooten vs. Irish, what exactly is the pattern describing in each case?  With Jon Irish, it's a pattern of alleged violence.  But with Mike Wooten, it's only (???? - G) a pattern of failed marriages, hardly in itself an indication of violence.  And yet you supported both Sarah Palin's and her sister Molly Wooten's efforts to separate Mike Wooten from his home and kids via a bogus restraining order.

Wooten was never a threat to his kids, nor his then-wife.  And when his marriages went south, each time he did the proper thing by ending them rather than exacting violent control over his wife.  Contrast that with Jon Irish, who not only cohabits with a married woman but is also repeatedly accused by her of abuse, yet they're still together in what seems like a volatile, unhealthy, codependent and possibly violent relationship.  And yet you still take Irish's side?

I think that your ideological loyalties are eclipsing your better judgment, Gonzo.  I suppose if Satan was a gun activist you'd support him for president too.  It seems to me that there was a credible chance that that baby would become the victim of violence within that household, whether perpetrated by the mother or father.  What would you propose to have headed off that possible outcome, without intruding on the sanctity of the parents' privacy rights?  What is your alternative?


Jeez, if you're going to try to quote me out of context, don't quote me in context in the same message.

If you're citing someone's political beliefs as a reason, in whole or part, to treat them differently under the law, you're a fascist.  Period.

And in the case of cops, I hold them to a higher standard.  Period.  Those who have power over people's lives and freedom should be all but perfect, at all times, or find another line of work.

And I will repeat - Tasering a kid *IS* a threat.  It is just not done, no matter what, for any reason, at any setting, even if the kid "begs." (Which I doubt his story on that.)  Responsible adults do NOT do that.

Period.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: . on Oct 11, 2010, 02:47 PM
If you're citing someone's political beliefs as a reason, in whole or part, to treat them differently under the law, you're a fascist.  Period.


Premise established.

And now, your citation of your own political beliefs in an attempt to justify an arbitrary application of the law which is not currently on the books:

And in the case of cops, I hold them to a higher standard.  Period.  Those who have power over people's lives and freedom should be all but perfect, at all times, or find another line of work.


By your own logic, Gonzo, you indict yourself.  Even if a particular cop had always enforced the law in both spirit and letter, it seems pretty clear that you believe that if he has been divorced X number of times, this justifies a restraining order against him which separates him from his home and his children.  Just the lack of marital perfection itself, not necessarily any unprofessional conduct, in your view justifies the police state powers of a restraining order.  "Well, he asked for it!" you say, pointing to his desire to remain employed as a police officer, thinking of this as legitimizing an arbitrary application of the law stripping the officer of every individual right that he has.  Hello, Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini).
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Cordell Walker on Oct 11, 2010, 03:00 PM
if he is an abuser, take the kids cuz of that
if he is a junkie, take the kids cuz of that
BUT DONT, PERIOD, NO MATTER WHAT, TAKE THE KIDS CUZ OF ASSOCIATING WITH A LEGIT POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, OR FOR OWNING FIREARMS
the fact that the oath keepers were mentioned anywhere, in any way, makes me think that its a witchhunt and homie is probably being made an example of
kinda like  that ole hombre charles dyer
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: . on Oct 11, 2010, 03:40 PM
The fact that the oath keepers were mentioned anywhere, in any way, makes me think that it's a witchhunt and homie is probably being made an example of.


That may be.  I remember seeing a movie which breaks down and analyzes the federal response to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and it seems that the feds are most threatened by (and lash out in destructive ways toward) any group that asserts their gun rights.  So yes, he may be incurring more government wrath than the average Joe because of his politics.  That still does not negate the coincidental possibility that he may in fact be violently misanthropic, or violent toward his family, or violent toward his girlfriend's kids.  He shouldn't receive a pass making him immune to scrutiny, simply because some overzealous government bureaucrat with liberal politics cited his political activism in order to justify the agency's removal of their daughter.  And in fact, thousands of parents in the U.S. are targeted every day, for similar reasons, by similar agencies, and such agencies target such parents with a far lower threshold of proof than was cited by the agency in this case.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: TheDude on Oct 11, 2010, 04:01 PM

Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case. 


Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.


No, I think you could fall either way on this issue - given the meager facts that we have.

The only hysterical extremist here ... is you. I don't really see any fascists weighing in here.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Cordell Walker on Oct 11, 2010, 09:10 PM

The fact that the oath keepers were mentioned anywhere, in any way, makes me think that it's a witchhunt and homie is probably being made an example of.


That may be.  I remember seeing a movie which breaks down and analyzes the federal response to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and it seems that the feds are most threatened by (and lash out in destructive ways toward) any group that asserts their gun rights.  So yes, he may be incurring more government wrath than the average Joe because of his politics.  That still does not negate the coincidental possibility that he may in fact be violently misanthropic, or violent toward his family, or violent toward his girlfriend's kids.  He shouldn't receive a pass making him immune to scrutiny, simply because some overzealous government bureaucrat with liberal politics cited his political activism in order to justify the agency's removal of their daughter.  And in fact, thousands of parents in the U.S. are targeted every day, for similar reasons, by similar agencies, and such agencies target such parents with a far lower threshold of proof than was cited by the agency in this case.


well, if he is a wife beater, a kid beater or whatever, then take his kids cuz of that and leave his beliefs out of it period
when hitler invaded the USSR in 41, churchill, no fan of stalin, said something to the effect of, if hitler invaded hell, he would give the devil a favorable mention in the house of lords.
since THEY, not me, went there, went as far as to say that one reason they were fuckin with him was his association with the oath keepers and the fact he is a gun owner, means, at least to me, THEY are the bad guys, not him.
now if they produce a youtube vid of him slitting a 2 year olds throat and drinking the blood, while at the same time raping a dozen newborn kittens while wiping his ass with the american flag, with 12 of his buddies , 2 police sketch artists, a local news network, and his mom there to confirm his identity, then I MIGHT entertain the thought that the CPS is justified in this case
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Oct 12, 2010, 03:57 AM
Cordell, never thought I would say this but you seem to be the voice of reason here.  :greener:

The discussion is not about if he deserved to be arrested or not, it is that the media and the CPS both make the claim that it is his association with the Oath Keepers which caused him to lose his child (and hers, as she lost custody as well.) It should have been irrelevant that he was an Oath Keeper, or if it was the reason they needed to be clear what the provocation was (Waco/ Koolaid  fear.)  As it has been presented, it appears that belonging to this legitimate, non-violent political group caused the children to be taken. THAT is unconstitutional.

If he abused the children then CPS and the media need to explain what he did and list that as the reason.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: The Gonzman on Oct 12, 2010, 04:51 AM
By your own logic, Gonzo, you indict yourself.  Even if a particular cop had always enforced the law in both spirit and letter, it seems pretty clear that you believe that if he has been divorced X number of times, this justifies a restraining order against him which separates him from his home and his children.  Just the lack of marital perfection itself, not necessarily any unprofessional conduct, in your view justifies the police state powers of a restraining order.  "Well, he asked for it!" you say, pointing to his desire to remain employed as a police officer, thinking of this as legitimizing an arbitrary application of the law stripping the officer of every individual right that he has.  Hello, Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini).


Bullshit, and you're roundabout attempt to avoid Godwin's Law is noted.

What is justified is him losing his job for drinking on the job, abuse of power, and child abuse.  What is justified is prosecution for those crimes.  And what is justified is any fallout arising from them.

You want to harp on "five failed marriages?"  Consider the rest  "Multiple black marks in his jacket.  Repeated substantiated charges in the document you presented for his defense.  etc."  Saint John Wooten is as much of a problem child as the guy who shot the judge and his wife.

He's a fucking cop, though, so he gets away with it. 

Hello, Defender of the Police State.  I'm willing to wager if any of us tasered a kid, we'd be in Jail'

One Standard for the Police - another standard for the peons.
Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: The Gonzman on Oct 12, 2010, 04:55 AM


Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case. 


Well, we're glad to have the Fascist opinion on this case.


No, I think you could fall either way on this issue - given the meager facts that we have.

The only hysterical extremist here ... is you. I don't really see any fascists weighing in here.



Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Duly noted; if I walked out on the water to save a drowning child, your take on it would be "Gonzo can't swim!"

Title: Re: State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Oct 12, 2010, 09:44 AM
Quote
That may be.  I remember seeing a movie which breaks down and analyzes the federal response to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and it seems that the feds are most threatened by (and lash out in destructive ways toward) any group that asserts their gun rights.


Arguably, the genesis for Oklahoma City (at least), and possibly Waco, can both be found in Ruby Ridge.  There were issues of gun possession in that case.  Without getting into all the details, let's just say Ruby Ridge went badly.  Agents of the FBI, U.S. Marshall's, and ATF were involved in that incident in which a 14-year-old boy and a mother holding her baby were shot and killed.  The government paid a $3,000,000.00 out of court settlement to be out of that one.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" -  Ronald Reagan