Child Welfare called in on Father who gave Son a Gun

Was it CPS that was called in that one?

 

It was a 2 year old. Are you for real?

 

Denny, really? I mean, really? You expect a 2-year old to figure out when he/she is sun burnt? Really? If you truly believe that, I will no longer post here.

As I suggested, I'm sure the (ex) wife raised a big stink about it. But how about a little common sense? I mean, really. I mean, who doesn't know that's far too long for his kid to be out in the son unprotected? I don't think the guy should get into any trouble, but the dad is clearly a moron and a bit ignorant/irresponsible. Simple as that.

 

RR, this is how I know DC has to be fucking with us and trying to earn more comments/hits.

 

My guess is when he posts links, he owns those sites, too. Double the ad revenue!

 

So what does Sean Moore sue for, exactly? To bring it back to the horrible injustice done to not only this man, but to the 2nd Amendment, Amurrica, and freedom for all mankind.

 

I forgot to add that she called me a couple of days after--when I routinely picked up my son at school, a teacher (not his teacher) was staring at me. Yes, the taxpayers paid for CPS to go to my son's school, interrogate him and his teacher, do a bunch of paperwork, then phone me and get a promise that I wouldn't have him play alone at the City playground again.

Stuff like this can then be used in a divorce (fortunately, mine had just finished up--it takes months) or anything else against you (my brother did so in a deposition when we disputed our inheritance after our parents died). You might think it's trivial but it can snowball.

 

Well, that's a bit much. If they continued to interrogate the dad/family in this case, then it's over the line.

 

Let go. As he should have been.

 

received a tip, came to the house, sounds like the wife was cordial, invited them in, they asked about the guns, she couldn't open the safe, so she calls him. He's been drinking with a friend, shows up mad at the cops, kicks them out. They leave. End of story. Where was the harassment, exactly?

 

It was hidden. Read between the lines.

 

implied harssment?

 

Here is the baby bong picture I mentioned earlier and a link to the article

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20013878-504083.html

CPS was called, baby was drug tested came back negative. Mom got minor drug charges.

 

Not sure what site that is, but rather than do a five second search, how about we talk about what the actual statute says:

ORS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty (Oregon Revised Statutes (2011 Edition)):

(1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person:

(a) Has 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150;

(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or

(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.

(2) A person may not be convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants on the basis of being under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant unless the fact that the person was under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant is pleaded in the accusatory instrument and is either proved at trial or is admitted by the person through a guilty plea.

(3) A person convicted of the offense described in this section is subject to ORS 813.020 in addition to this section.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the offense described in this section, driving while under the influence of intoxicants, is a Class A misdemeanor and is applicable upon any premises open to the public.

(5)(a) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants is a Class C felony if the current offense was committed in a motor vehicle and the person has, at least three times in the 10 years prior to the date of the current offense, been convicted of, or been found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for an act that if committed by an adult would be, any of the following offenses in any combination:

(A) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of:

( i ) This section; or

(ii) The statutory counterpart to this section in another jurisdiction.

(B) A driving under the influence of intoxicants offense in another jurisdiction that involved the impaired driving or operation of a vehicle, an aircraft or a boat due to the use of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance, an inhalant or any combination thereof.

(C) A driving offense in another jurisdiction that involved operating a vehicle, an aircraft or a boat while having a blood alcohol content above that jurisdiction’s permissible blood alcohol content.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection, a conviction or adjudication for a driving offense in another jurisdiction based solely on a person under 21 years of age having a blood alcohol content that is lower than the permissible blood alcohol content in that jurisdiction for a person 21 years of age or older does not constitute a prior conviction or adjudication.

(6) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, the court shall impose one or more of the following fines on a person convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants as follows:

(a) For a person’s first conviction, a minimum of $1,000.

(b) For a person’s second conviction, a minimum of $1,500.

(c) For a person’s third or subsequent conviction, a minimum of $2,000 if the person is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

(d) For a person who drives a vehicle while the person has 0.15 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150, a minimum of $2,000.

(7) Notwithstanding ORS 161.635, $10,000 is the maximum fine that a court may impose on a person convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if:

(a) The current offense was committed in a motor vehicle; and

(b) There was a passenger in the motor vehicle who was under 18 years of age and was at least three years younger than the person driving the motor vehicle. [1983 c.338 §587; 1985 c.16 §293; 1987 c.138 §5; 1991 c.835 §7; 1999 c.619 §3; 1999 c.1049 §1; 2003 c.14 §495; 2003 c.445 §1; 2007 c.879 §3; 2009 c.525 §1; 2009 c.613 §1][/I]

OK I showed you mine, you show me yours.

I believe your friends told you this, but I don't believe it happened the way they told you. Maybe the law has changed since the 90's but I don't think so.

 

Wow, sounds like this is a prevailing thought out there. I just pulled up the statute for Driving Under the Influence. Is there another statue out there that I am missing?

 

Ok Matlock, here is a more reputable web site for you, its the Oregon DMV site

http://www.dmv.org/or-oregon/automotive-law/dui.php

"Motorists will fail a DUII field test if their blood alcohol reading is 0.08 percent or higher. For drivers under 21 years of age, any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream constitutes a failure of the sobriety test"

Forgive me if I don't take your word for anything ever, but I'm not a lawyer so Ill go by what one tells me or what I read on the DMV web site, or base things on my experience. Believe whatever you want but that doesn't make you right, in this case you are just plain wrong and your blind insistance to the contrary is somewhere between annoying and laughable. By all means keep on keeping on though, and since your so sure of yourself put your money where your mouth is and give your teenager (when you have one) a beer and put him on the road, see what happens.