RE: Oath Keeper Story... Reason Magazine debunking some elements of it?

[Reason]

RE: Oath Keeper Story... Reason Magazine debunking some elements of it?

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/08/baby-snatching-its-hilarious-w

 

[pcosmar]

I saw the article in Wonk.
I didn't post the link.

They were on it quick and nasty

 

[2young2vote]

Does accused abuse towards the wife (girlfriend) and her older kids justify taking their newborn away?

 

[Reason]

Does accused abuse towards the wife and her older kids justify taking their newborn away?

Who knows what the truth is behind all these accusations, I think we should be careful that we don't let this blow up in our faces and end up discrediting ourselves.

I am mostly concerned about the accusation that the document has been altered.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263687

//

 

[torchbearer]

Does accused abuse towards the wife (girlfriend) and her older kids justify taking their newborn away?

guitly until proven innocent.

 

[specsaregood]

guitly until proven innocent.

The articles and documents state that there were repeated cases of domestic abuse. enough warranting taking the other 2 kids out of the home almost 2 years ago. If one accepts that one of the government's duties is to protect life and liberty then taking kids out of a violent home can arguably fit. Esp. until the trial/verdict concludes. It is no different than putting people in jail while they are standing trial.

 

[pcosmar]

Does accused abuse towards the wife (girlfriend) and her older kids justify taking their newborn away?

Hmm,
Does an uncorroborated claim, an allegation. a charge.(no conviction) against the father
justify taking a child away from it's mother?

Did you use the word "justify" in there?

 

[squarepusher]

so, this guy beats his wife and her kids? maybe the state was justified?

 

[torchbearer]

The articles and documents state that there were repeated cases of domestic abuse. enough warranting taking the other 2 kids out of the home almost 2 years ago. If one accepts that one of the government's duties is to protect life and liberty then taking kids out of a violent home can arguably fit. Esp. until the trial/verdict concludes. It is no different than putting people in jail while they are standing trial.

i'll call the cops to let them know i saw you abusing someone.
then you can see how it feels.

 

[specsaregood]

i'll call the cops to let them know i saw you abusing someone.
then you can see how it feels.

Yup, we should just let abusers walk around free. Hell, let em rape and beat their children too it ain't none of my business. FTR: I've been wrongfully arrested because of a computer glitch, I know how it feels.

 

[libertarian4321]

so, this guy beats his wife and her kids? maybe the state was justified?

Possibly. We can debate that later.

What is becoming clear is that the baby was NOT taken "because the father was an Oath Keeper."

As I said in the original thread, the whole story MADE NO SENSE- if being an "Oath Keeper" was the reason for taking the kid, they would take the children of all Oath Keepers.

It appears that The father was trying to whip up support/hysteria for his cause and misled everyone.

That is why several of us urged caution in the original thread- it is important that we get all the details before we grab torches and pitchforks and take to the streets.

 

[MelissaWV]

so, this guy beats his wife and her kids? maybe the state was justified?

As I said in the other thread, there would be better ways of going about it.

A newborn was in a hospital setting, it seems. This is an easy enough location to secure. It's been done in the past, of course, with dangerous people getting procedures done to the extent they are sedated the whole time or there are guards outside or even restraints involved. In this case, it's as simple as keeping the infant and the parent(s) under watch in the hospital. This would allow the newborn to still be breastfed and bond with the mother. Hospitals have cameras everywhere, and generally put tracking devices or some other scannable ID on infants (baby-snatching is a big deal). People could be warned to not "let the mom walk out" with the baby, or even on her own if it's such a concern. If the father is SUCH a crazy bastard, then they could just keep him away entirely until all the allegations are investigated.

All of that seems excessive to me, but definitely it's better than taking an infant away from the necessary care of its parents, especially its mother.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Reason "debunks" this?

Yeah, that's about right.

IIRC they were still mumbling into their beards and lattes and spreading FUD about the validity of MIAC even after the Missouri state police verified that the document was legit.

 

[Knightskye]

Reason "debunks" this?

Yeah, that's about right.

IIRC they were still mumbling into their beards and lattes and spreading FUD about the validity of MIAC even after the Missouri state police verified that the document was legit.

Post a link. All I've found so far is this, and it's not saying the MIAC report is fake:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/14/look-out-hes-got-a-bob-barr-bu

 

[Maximus]

This was my first thought when I saw the story come out. If the state can prove its case that this guy is a serial abuser I don't have a problem with this.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Post a link. All I've found so far is this, and it's not saying the MIAC report is fake:
http://reason.com/blog/2009/03/14/look-out-hes-got-a-bob-barr-bu

Yeah, that was the blog entry I recall.

The story was confirmed but grudgingly.

Infowars isn't always reliable (to put it mildly), but this time it broke some real news

And:

A few days ago, the conspiracist site Infowars posted a "strategic report" by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a police

 

[pcosmar]

I think everybody is trying to scratch the dog to make it wag right.

 

[angelatc]

If the guy beats the wife and kids, perhaps the solution is actually to remove the GUY from the home. But of course, there's no federal bounty on his head, is there?

 

[Acala]

another fact

Just to throw another log on the fire here. In case you didn't know, Child Protective Services are now regularly hit with multi-million dollar civil judgments for FAILING to take a child from suspicious circumstances. Here is the typical scenario: someone calls in the tip on the abusive (typically) boyfriend. CPS investigates and decides it doesn't have enough evidence and closes the case. The boyfriend kills the baby. Relatives of the baby sue CPS and win millions because hindsight is always 20/20.

With tort law the way it is, if I was in charge of CPS my standing orders would be "if in doubt, take custody." I would rather have to face an irate parent than a dead baby and a multi-million dollar judgment.

 

[BenIsForRon]

If these guys have already had their other two babies taken away, its very possible that there is a good enough case to take this baby away. So yeah, it might not be a good idea to scream about oppression just yet.