PA Reb
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,511
- Reaction score
- 1,816
Terrifying 4th/2nd Amendment Story!
- Thread starter DigiRebel
- Start date
- Status
Maybe I missed it, but where is the abuse or neglect? Not sure a kid under parental control holding a gun (correctly) has never been against the law. Correct me if I'm wrong.
sipowicz
Member
Who would you rather have your child play with?...a bunch of kids who are told to never ever touch a gun who will be high on curiosity if they find one or a kid who knows how to handle and respect them? If more kids were trained like that young fellow, there would be much fewer gun accidents. But try telling that to the anti's who would rather stick their heads in the sand.
MaximumLawman
Member
So....No civil rights violations?
sipowicz
Member
Child services needs something to do...if they go into inner cities to check on the welfare of kids from fatherless homes or crack moms, they''d be called racists.
Off topic sort of...Hijacking this thread..maybe..
The DHS.....
I don't know how many of you have actually had to deal with the DHS...I'm not talking about TSA bafoons, that's something else..But they are are a part of the DHS.
In the job I had most recently, and retired from, I was a Gov worker, who was also involved in making investigations.
DHS would call us asking for information....
Me.."Who are you?
Other end of the phone..."I can't tell you that".
Me..."You can't tell me who you are, you've Government, I'm Government, and you're saying you can't tell me your name?
Other end of the phone. "No, can't give you our name over the phone".
Me. "Can you at least tell me where you're located"?
Other end of the phone..."Can't tell you that either".
Me..."So you want me to tell you everything I know about XYZ, but you won't tell me who you are, or where you are, only that you are from the DHS?"
Me.."I tell you what, you called me to get this information,,,give me your phone number and I'll call you back".
Other end of the phone "We can't give out our phone number".
Me "But you called me, a G man. You're a G worker of DHS, but you won't tell me squat"?
Me..."Good luck on finding out what you want to find out. Good bye".
That's how DHS treats even other Gov workers.
10 cookies to a donut, that's how they handle the CIA and FBI guys too...
Remember...Who does DHS answer to??????
Sort of off topic about the person who from Facebook called this in...But that's they way the DHS thing is now. You call in your neighbor because he/she has "several black guns". And you don't know what that person is going to do with them....
That's all the "Informant" information they need to come to your door...Guess what, under the "threat of terrorism", they aren't even going to knock before they invite themselves in.
Before some one jumps in and tells me how their Civil Rights are going to be violated....Well, my suggestion here is, you tell it to the lead person thru the door.
If I'm Lying, I'm Dying!!!!!!
WuzzFuzz
The DHS.....
I don't know how many of you have actually had to deal with the DHS...I'm not talking about TSA bafoons, that's something else..But they are are a part of the DHS.
In the job I had most recently, and retired from, I was a Gov worker, who was also involved in making investigations.
DHS would call us asking for information....
Me.."Who are you?
Other end of the phone..."I can't tell you that".
Me..."You can't tell me who you are, you've Government, I'm Government, and you're saying you can't tell me your name?
Other end of the phone. "No, can't give you our name over the phone".
Me. "Can you at least tell me where you're located"?
Other end of the phone..."Can't tell you that either".
Me..."So you want me to tell you everything I know about XYZ, but you won't tell me who you are, or where you are, only that you are from the DHS?"
Me.."I tell you what, you called me to get this information,,,give me your phone number and I'll call you back".
Other end of the phone "We can't give out our phone number".
Me "But you called me, a G man. You're a G worker of DHS, but you won't tell me squat"?
Me..."Good luck on finding out what you want to find out. Good bye".
That's how DHS treats even other Gov workers.
10 cookies to a donut, that's how they handle the CIA and FBI guys too...
Remember...Who does DHS answer to??????
Sort of off topic about the person who from Facebook called this in...But that's they way the DHS thing is now. You call in your neighbor because he/she has "several black guns". And you don't know what that person is going to do with them....
That's all the "Informant" information they need to come to your door...Guess what, under the "threat of terrorism", they aren't even going to knock before they invite themselves in.
Before some one jumps in and tells me how their Civil Rights are going to be violated....Well, my suggestion here is, you tell it to the lead person thru the door.
If I'm Lying, I'm Dying!!!!!!
WuzzFuzz
mkk41
US Veteran
Current political and emotional climate being what it is these days , ya gotta be a few grains shy of a full load to put a pic of a teen, in camo, holding an AR, on Facebook , in NJ!
I got no sympathy for them. Ya wanted attention? Ya got some!
I got no sympathy for them. Ya wanted attention? Ya got some!
sigp220.45
US Veteran
It sure wasn't much of a raid. They knocked on the door, and left when asked to. No search, doesn't look like they made it past the front door.
Where is the civil rights violation?
Where is the civil rights violation?
Last edited:
Ditto to what mkk41 said. Given that even the most innocuous you tube or Facebook posting can go viral, responsible gun owners would do well to minimize the "stupid gun stunts" type of postings. Yeah, it's our 1st Amendment right to do so, but I can't see the wisdom in aiding and abetting our 2nd Amendment enemies.
MaximumLawman
Member
Can we all agree that you don't have a right for the government not to drop by your house and knock on the door when a friend, relative, neighbor or stranger says there are kids in danger there? If you don't like it, find out who called and sue them for whatever PTSD you now have because the police and child protective services came over and talked to you from the porch.
Hmmm...Me smells smoke coming from NJ.
The NRA, CMP and other organizations have programs for teaching the youngsters how to handle weapons and to shoot. Correct?
So I forsee big trouble, if the camera man goes to the shooting range, and sees those youngsters wearing what ever clothes they might wear to the range. And they're not only holding that black gun, but they are shooting it...Maybe even at silhouette of a person.
Oh the Horror!!!!!!!
WuzzFuzz
The NRA, CMP and other organizations have programs for teaching the youngsters how to handle weapons and to shoot. Correct?
So I forsee big trouble, if the camera man goes to the shooting range, and sees those youngsters wearing what ever clothes they might wear to the range. And they're not only holding that black gun, but they are shooting it...Maybe even at silhouette of a person.
Oh the Horror!!!!!!!
WuzzFuzz
duppie
Member
There were none... Now it appears that the gentleman's wife let DYFS and the police enter and even look around before Mr Moore came home apparently inebriated according to "some sources" and asked them to leave,the Police and DYFS complied and Mr Moore later called to apologize to the town's police for his behavior.
As I indicated before, It would be wise to reserve judgment before all sides are heard. A supposed factual account of that night's occurrences is to be broadcasted on a NRA sponsored interview sometime later.
Anyone reading this particular tread will gather I have issues with this individual and it's this very questions of the gentleman's credibility I take issue with... that and the fact that we as a pro firearms community are so starved for hero's that we will hitch our wagon to the darkest horse without verifying it's not just a ******* in disguise.It inevitably speaks to all our credibility.
Last edited:
It's troubling that the guy appears to be an attention seeker, and so as 2A supporters on a national story like this that should give us pause. However the flip side of the coin is that this doesn't mean that what he claims is necessarily false. Indeed the reaction (or rather circling the wagons) on the part of LEO and child protection services is serious smoke indicative of fire.
On the other hand I don't blame the police. As has been stated previously, in many states they are required to accompany child protection services employees on calls where there are credible threats of domestic violence, etc. Given this is a firearms-related call I'm not surprised they were given such a request and consequently had to respond accordingly.
The fault as I see it is two-fold: first the child protection services lady was clearly acting as a bully. Refusing to provide her name, her credentials, running away when her picture was about to be taken etc. are not signs that she was confident that she was on the right side of the line: legally or morally. And threatening to take someone's kids away because you won't surrender your Fourth and Second Amendment rights is absurd. At best it is grossly unprofessional; at worst it is abuse of governmental power and an infringement on civil rights. This should kick off an investigation and have career repercussions if the claims are accurate - assuming her department even cares to do the right thing that is. Indeed the department's response might be the best bellwether of all.
And the final bit of blame lies with the caller. Sounds like a bit of vindictive intimidation on the caller's part too, maybe akin to swatting? Ref: Swatting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That is sadly a growing form of anonymous bullying and intimidation that some day is going to get someone killed.
On the other hand I don't blame the police. As has been stated previously, in many states they are required to accompany child protection services employees on calls where there are credible threats of domestic violence, etc. Given this is a firearms-related call I'm not surprised they were given such a request and consequently had to respond accordingly.
The fault as I see it is two-fold: first the child protection services lady was clearly acting as a bully. Refusing to provide her name, her credentials, running away when her picture was about to be taken etc. are not signs that she was confident that she was on the right side of the line: legally or morally. And threatening to take someone's kids away because you won't surrender your Fourth and Second Amendment rights is absurd. At best it is grossly unprofessional; at worst it is abuse of governmental power and an infringement on civil rights. This should kick off an investigation and have career repercussions if the claims are accurate - assuming her department even cares to do the right thing that is. Indeed the department's response might be the best bellwether of all.
And the final bit of blame lies with the caller. Sounds like a bit of vindictive intimidation on the caller's part too, maybe akin to swatting? Ref: Swatting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That is sadly a growing form of anonymous bullying and intimidation that some day is going to get someone killed.
I also want it to be clear to anyone reading here that lawyer who was on speaker phone throughout the incident said the police were nothing but professional throughout. As was stated earlier in the thread (which looks like another thread was merged into it...) the police have to show with the NJ DYFS. There seems to have been no actual violations, the concern is the fact that the DYFS employee was making threats of taking the man's child, and demanding access to the man's gun cabinet to inventory his firearms without a warrant. The situation is further aggravated because the man was treated as guilty before proven innocent by the DYFS (if his son held a scary looking black rifle he MUST have illegal firearms somewhere on the premises) and the DYFS agent not only refused to show proper credentials but to even give a name. The DYFS on the whole (based on the articles I've read) has done nothing more than stonewall, and based on what I've seen any nutjob can make any accusation with absolutely no repercussions.
As far as posting stuff to facebook... I have lots of stuff posted... granted I try to limit my audience on FB as much as possible, but my kids doing stuff gets posted to my facebook so family and friends (who use it as a point to keep up on things with each other) can share and see it.
Obviously, if you post illegal stuff you deserve to get in trouble for it.
In this case, the firearm was a legal firearm, the boy legally able to handle it (and properly trained and so on), there was *NOTHING* illegal, or even wrong, going on from the get-go. You can argue that posting anything online is a bad idea I suppose, but then I have to ask what, exactly, are you doing here?
The problem here isn't the police, and (even if he is a grandstanding idiot, who may have been inebriated during the encounter) not the father. (You don't have to like him, and being drunk is still legal, at least he had the presence of mind to get his lawyer on the phone during the encounter, I have to wonder if I'd have had the presence of mind to do that.) The problem, as the story is presented at this point, is the NJ DYFS agent. One, I have a hard time believing that someone doing something legal (even safe) is, in most cases, a case for DYFS to come pounding on a door late one evening. Two, if the agent doesn't have to identify themselves, and the accuser can be anonymous, and even if not there is no recourse against the accuser there is some pretty serious issues here. The DYFS agent could have investigated the situation is a more tactful, way (assuming that they do indeed have to investigate everything). Showing up after dark with police in tow just isn't the way this should have been handled.
As far as posting stuff to facebook... I have lots of stuff posted... granted I try to limit my audience on FB as much as possible, but my kids doing stuff gets posted to my facebook so family and friends (who use it as a point to keep up on things with each other) can share and see it.
Obviously, if you post illegal stuff you deserve to get in trouble for it.
In this case, the firearm was a legal firearm, the boy legally able to handle it (and properly trained and so on), there was *NOTHING* illegal, or even wrong, going on from the get-go. You can argue that posting anything online is a bad idea I suppose, but then I have to ask what, exactly, are you doing here?
The problem here isn't the police, and (even if he is a grandstanding idiot, who may have been inebriated during the encounter) not the father. (You don't have to like him, and being drunk is still legal, at least he had the presence of mind to get his lawyer on the phone during the encounter, I have to wonder if I'd have had the presence of mind to do that.) The problem, as the story is presented at this point, is the NJ DYFS agent. One, I have a hard time believing that someone doing something legal (even safe) is, in most cases, a case for DYFS to come pounding on a door late one evening. Two, if the agent doesn't have to identify themselves, and the accuser can be anonymous, and even if not there is no recourse against the accuser there is some pretty serious issues here. The DYFS agent could have investigated the situation is a more tactful, way (assuming that they do indeed have to investigate everything). Showing up after dark with police in tow just isn't the way this should have been handled.
MaximumLawman
Member
So, the police didn't do anything unconstitutiona, the CPS worker didn't do anything unconstitutional but she was rude when responding to the house of a "frequent flyer" after being summoned there by a complainant? Maybe the threat title could be changed to "Government employee was rude to a frequent flyer" instead of the very misleading "Terrifying 4th amendment violation" title.
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
While you are at the library be sure and pick up "Animal Farm", another good insight on what we see happening in modern America.
(My remarks are predicated on the assumption that the father's report of what happened is factual.)
Say what you want . . . even if there were technically "no civil rights violations" . . . . if multiple police officers with tactical gear show up at my door while only my wife is there, she is probably going to let them in. (The first report was that they were inside the house when the father got there, and he asked them to go out and they complied, right?) Yes, she has the "right" or the "authority" to do that, but what about the intimidation factor? Police officers in tactical gear are intimidating, even when they are acting "in a professional manner." Their very presence is intimidating.
I am usually very pro LEO, but I know and you know that they very often rely on the intimidation factor to get "permission" to conduct a search. For instance, how many 18 year-old High School girls are going to tell an officer she refuses permission to search her car? How many of our wives are going to tell them they can't come in? Mine might or might not, just depending on how they approached.
Even if the police were not the ones threatening to "get a search warrant," their presence implied that they were indeed part of that threat. I realize they had no choice but to accompany the caseworker. I agree that if things happened as presented by the father, the caseworker was mostly at fault. That does not reduce the intimidation factor of multiple officers in tactical gear one whit.
No matter the father's sobriety or lack thereof; no matter if the father is an obnoxious, attention-seeking loudmouth--there can be no denial that there was a coercion on the part of the state's agent, backed up by the awesome power of multiple armed police officers, for the father and his wife to waive their constitutional rights.
I recall reading Justice Thurgood Marshall's opinion in a 5th Amendment (self-incrimination) case: " . . . the efficiency of the rack and thumbscrew can be matched . . . . by more sophisticated modes of "persuasion.""
Say what you want . . . even if there were technically "no civil rights violations" . . . . if multiple police officers with tactical gear show up at my door while only my wife is there, she is probably going to let them in. (The first report was that they were inside the house when the father got there, and he asked them to go out and they complied, right?) Yes, she has the "right" or the "authority" to do that, but what about the intimidation factor? Police officers in tactical gear are intimidating, even when they are acting "in a professional manner." Their very presence is intimidating.
I am usually very pro LEO, but I know and you know that they very often rely on the intimidation factor to get "permission" to conduct a search. For instance, how many 18 year-old High School girls are going to tell an officer she refuses permission to search her car? How many of our wives are going to tell them they can't come in? Mine might or might not, just depending on how they approached.
Even if the police were not the ones threatening to "get a search warrant," their presence implied that they were indeed part of that threat. I realize they had no choice but to accompany the caseworker. I agree that if things happened as presented by the father, the caseworker was mostly at fault. That does not reduce the intimidation factor of multiple officers in tactical gear one whit.
No matter the father's sobriety or lack thereof; no matter if the father is an obnoxious, attention-seeking loudmouth--there can be no denial that there was a coercion on the part of the state's agent, backed up by the awesome power of multiple armed police officers, for the father and his wife to waive their constitutional rights.
I recall reading Justice Thurgood Marshall's opinion in a 5th Amendment (self-incrimination) case: " . . . the efficiency of the rack and thumbscrew can be matched . . . . by more sophisticated modes of "persuasion.""
How about "Armed Agents of the State and City Governments Attempt to Intimidate and Coerce Citizens"?
Why do I get the feeling this is like those random emails we all get with a little bit of fact and a whole mess of conjecture designed to create outrage?
MaximumLawman
Member
Consent must be freely and voluntarily given. Searches conducted as a result of "intimidation" are not legal. The police asking to search is not "intimidation". Telling you they'll beat you up is. Or tellign you they're going to get a warrant if you refuse is coercion or telling you unless you consent they'll arrest you. The cops didn't do any of that here.
- Status
