Child Welfare called in on Father who gave Son a Gun

Can't believe I agree with everything Maris has said in this thread.. Cops are the worst, CPS had no right or reason to investigate shit.

 

Oregon in the 90's

 

Scenario: He gets reported to CPS. CPS doesn't do shit. Son takes gun and shoots up school, or dad shoots son, or dad and son become the new DC snipers. CPS gets sued for tons of money. There was no way that CPS was going to disregard the complaint. They do that and something bad happens, and lots of people lose their jobs, the agency gets sued, people are criticized, etc. Now they could have handled it differently, but your suggestion that they shouldn't investigate shit is not very practical.

They could also have been investigating whether they had violated this law

 

You're falling into the trap of excusing tyranny due to a baseless "complaint" of a non-threatening, perfectly legal and responsible everyday part of parenting in America.

No different than if the photo was a girl with a Barbie doll.

That is how the law stands today. The government must obey the law, and never over-reach it.

If you fear guns, lobby to amend the 2nd Amendment. Or move to Britain.

 

I don't see how it would fair to blame CPS for your scenario in any way. Are they not going to be criticized if your hypothetical happens, after they've "investigated"?

Seems like a lot of you don't value true freedom.

 

Its not about freedom, its about child safety. ANY claim made about the safety of a child needs to be looked into. Right, wrong, truth or lies it doesnt matter. Problem is that many people abuse the system by making false or exaggerated claims to mess with others they dont like, but thats just how it is and those claims are usually figured out pretty quickly.

This whole thing has nothing to do with 2nd ammendment rights, its just two idiots on facebook who somehow managed to make their dissagreement a national conversation because it involved guns.

 

I don't agree that all random complaints from a random person warrant a government agency investigating you and your parenting.

 

how do you propose they weed them out? Just whatever they feel like looking in to?

 

You can't look at some and not others. Whatever formula you come up with will invariably miss 1 and all it takes is the one you miss for the shit to hit the fan. You have to look at all or none no matter how ridiculous they sound off-hand. Obviously you can't ignore them all either so that leaves you with...

 

Story can't be true. There is no zero tolerance for those under 21 when it comes to the crime of driving under the influence in Oregon.

Sounds like one of those urban legend stories that get circulated and leads to citizens not trusting police. Personally it sad to see some of the opinions of police officers on this board . . .

 

Shit hits the fan all the time. It doesn't give the government the right to interfere with the lives of any family they so choose based on an anonymous complaint.

 

So if you're under 21 you can drive drunk in Oregon as long as it's under the legal limit for 21+ year olds?

 

No one can drive drunk in Oregon.

The standard is the same for everyone, regardless of age.

 

You didn't answer the question. How do they determine which ones to check up on and which not to? You can't just call up the dad and say hey, are you a good father? Who is going to say no? There is no way to weed out a legit tip with a bogus one until they actually visit the home to check on the child.

 

And yet, tens of thousands of Oregonians drive drunk every day.

 

I doubt that figure is correct. But yes, even with law enforcement making a serious commitment to stopping this behavior in our society, people still get away with it every day.

So where as I don't think police go far enough to try and stop this kind of behavior, I suppose those on their freedom soapbox would be screaming and yelling about sobriety check points and more aggressive police action.

No doubt you have stories of how the police trick people so they can charge them with DUII. My feeling is if they are intoxicated and driving, I don't care what the police do to catch them as long as they stay within the rules of the law.

I'm worried about your beautiful central Oregon where all officers are corrupt and everyone is driving around drunk.

 

Do you ever google stuff before you call BS? This took me like 5 seconds to find.


How much do you have to drink (BAC*) for a DUI in Oregon?
Under 21
.00% (zero tolerance)

21 or older
.08%

Commercial
.04%


http://dui.drivinglaws.org/oregon.php

I can name the two individuals, it is not an urban legend.

 

In theory I agree with you. However in reality it needs to happen. Most investigations are not a intrusive as you probably think they are though, its usually just an interview with the parents/kids and possibly a check of the premises. Also usually the complaints are not random, they may be false but they are not random.

Little food for thought, if you saw your neighbor beating the shit out of his kid and you called CPS wouldnt you expect that they check it out? This isnt just for children either. If your neighbor was a terrorist and you knew about it and turned him in, wouldnt you expect the police to at least check it out? The flip side to that though is that if someone is pissed at you they can turn you in for being a terrorist and you will probably get checked out...... you might not know you got checked out though but you can bet you did.

 

I don't "own" any. And when they get into trouble (well, it's really only my toddler that gets into trouble), and I'm asked if they "belong" to me, I say no. But I do have two children, yes. But I don't want any more.

 

Yes, you'd have an advantage with you bike? I have no fear of guns. I have fear of morons with guns, but then again, I have a healthy fear of morons, in general. And this dad is clearly a moron.