Johnny got his gun

utkipp1 wrote:

Another great mmballism

To the extent any of them are "great".

Cause i googled cop in full tactical gear

LOL, then it must be true.  I did the same and got these guys:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHNAd6lCETCut8NxHNBFPMr
bRRobAVyC63wnS3WuWHcf-Ipia-dA

The picture you found was #3 and Anders Breivik, the Norwegian Neo-Nazi mass murdering came in at #8:

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/
9106/ipadartwidepg8anders142.jpg

Softcore pr0n came in at #18:

http://www.tacticalfanboy.com/wp-co
ntent/uploads/2011/07/265139_101503
67690463747_112515078746_10202220_5
766007_n.jpg

...and Lego came in at #43:

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/LEGO-FEMALE-
ELITE-POLICE-OFFICER-Tactical-Vest-
Lipstick-Security-Cop-City-Badge-/0
0/s/NDgwWDY0MA==/z/h9kAAMXQTgZRAN2F
/$T2eC16Z,!ygE9s7HJ-1oBR!N2FtJZ!~~60_35.JPG

So the guy couldn't have been exagerating at all?

Maybe.  What does he have to gain though ?  Brag to the online community, make his story evoke more than it needs to ?  (Tell us about the little girls in his neighborhood, his recent sex-tourism trips to Thailand, etc. ).

Yeah, if you don't know your basic rights, **** off.

Harsh.

I'll be waiting

2 hours:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp
x?page=20&xmldoc=In%20LACO%2020111207327.
xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

"hours":

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court
-of-appeals/1158885.html

3 hours:

http://raidreport.blogspot.com/2009
_03_03_archive.html

First time I held a firearm I was 5-years-old, shot it too.  A 20-gauge shotgun, if I remember correctly.  Pretty sure my grandfather still has a picture somewhere.    


My grandfather wasn't that...er, had more common sense. 

It doesn't take an attorney to use common sense.

Evidently not, 

If a picture of a child with a white powdery substance comes accross your Child Services office and it turns out he was helping his mom bake cookies, who is using common sense exactly?  

This sounds like "ZERO TOLERANCE" garbage that actually ensures that common sense is ignored. 

Hopefully Child Services has a little more "common sense" than to waste tax payer money hunting down every wild goose chase that comes across thier desk.  If you've seen the picture in question, then you'd know how rediculous it is.  I'd hope they had better things to do than that.  You know, cases where there is actual abuse.     

There are probably more pictures taken in the past decade than in the previous 10, seems to me that this would swampt something like child services if common sense is thrown out the window. 

If a picture of a child with a white powdery substance comes accross your Child Services office and it turns out he was helping his mom bake cookies, who is using common sense exactly? 




Personally, I think you've been using too much white powdery substance if you can't tell the difference between a white powdery substance, or a firearm--maybe in your case it amounts to the same thing...    

excuse me,  and a firearm

can't tell teh difference between a white powdery substance, or firearm

What again is illegal about a child being pictured with a gun in this scenario?

OH MY GOAAAAWWWD! 


a kid had a rifle!?!?!? AND IT WAS ON THE FACESPACESTWITTERBOOKS?!!?!?!!??


there is a HIGH chance that kid will take that .22 and commit mass squirrel homocide. 


alert the squad cars! everyone is a suspect! this is the end of days!!!

L
M
A
O 

Ok, Mr. non-attorney, what does probable cause have to do with opening an investigation,?

LOL, nice.  Alright, I'll word it another way, since you seem far more intent on avoiding the obvious question - what about that picture would indicate that an investigation should be opened? 

or another question, a file containing a picture of a ten-year-old in cammo hoding a rifle comes into your Child services office , and you don't investigate it, and some friend of the kid ends up dead a week later, guess who's getting fired?

It doesn't take an attorney to use common sense.

Good thing, or you'd be SOL... 

Once more, you are making an argument about something entirely unrelated.  This is not whether or not the CS person should have investigated (especially since they likely never saw the picture, and only received an anonymous tip about a possible issue), it is whether or not such a picture is indicative of any wrong-doing whatsoever.  And it's not.

My grandfather wasn't that... er, had more common sense.

Shame it's not genetic...

My grandfather wasn't that...er

hetero?

LOL, nice.  Alright, I'll word it another way, since you seem far more intent on avoiding the obvious question - what about that picture would indicate that an investigation should be opened? 

First, I haven't seen the picture, and I don't even know if it was posted on facebook before or afterthe home visit but was given to understand a 10 year old was holding a firearm. How about two decades of experience in the juvenile and custody courts of a state with guns laws a hell a lot more lax than those of New Jersey.  Naw, that couldn't count, could it. Guns kill, nathan, and so do ten year olds with acccess to them.  I would certainly make sure that the child's parents had more sense than their actions (at least the father's) appear.


   
Good thing, or you'd be SOL...  


sure. Let me know when the father wins his "gun righs" case against the State   
  

Once more, you are making an argument about something entirely unrelated.  This is not whether or not the CS person should have investigated (especially since they likely never saw the picture, and only received an anonymous tip about a possible issue), it is whether or not such a picture is indicative of any wrong-doing whatsoever. 


And it's not.

Thanks for your opinion, I got your point the first time.  Where I grew up, (Montana) a child under the age of 14 is not  allowed to be in possession of a firearm.  Ergo, prima facie evidence of illegality. I don't know about New Jersey, maybe with your vast experience in the laws of that state, you can tell me.  Nonetheless, as the article clearly stated, Child Protective Services (gee, what an appropriate name) is empowered to investigate possible cases of abuse and neglect.  Perhaps you can check out what abuse and neglect of a child is defined as there.  I know what it is defined as in Alabama, at least what all the judges I know would call it.

What again is illegal about a child being pictured with a gun in this scenario?


It doesn't have to be illegal. It doesn't even have to suggest illegality to commence an investigation, although as I stated above, it would be iillegal n some jurisdictions, I don't know about New Jersey.  

Tell you what guys, I know how you can show me how much common sense you have. Why don't you have children and when they are one month or so shy of their 11th birthday pose them with your favorite hunting rifle and put that picture on your facebook account--since you think it's legal. 

Don't forget to be  facebook friends with all the moms of the kids in your child's class  


Then add water and stir--see what happens 

scelerat wrote:

Tell you what guys, I know how you can show me how much common sense you have. Why don't you have children and when they are one month or so shy of their 11th birthday pose them with your favorite hunting rifle and put that picture on your facebook account--since you think it's legal. 

I call your bluff, Harvey Birdman.  Find and post the statute deeming it illegal to take a picture of a kid holding a rifle.

I call your bluff, Harvey Birdman.  Find and post the statute deeming it illegal to take a picture of a kid holding a rifle.


Poor Misterfamous, you are not too clear. I explained ( slightly differently) that in some jurisdictions it is illegal for a child of a certain age to possess a firearm (or maybe rifle),  I never stated nor implied that it was illegal to take a picture of a child being a delinquent by doing so.  But if you are the parent, you may be contributing to the delinquency of a minor by assenting to that possession.

scelerat wrote:

Poor Misterfamous, you are not too clear. I explained ( slightly differently) that in some jurisdictions it is illegal for a child of a certain age to possess a firearm (or maybe rifle), 

And I invited you to show such statutes.  You're big on the statutes, aren't you, Arnie Becker ?  Put up or shut up.

I never stated nor implied that it was illegal to take a picture of a child being a delinquent by doing so.  But if you are the parent, you may be contributing to the delinquency of a minor by assenting to that possession.

Oh, but you DID.  Let's have a look at your own post:

Tell you what guys, I know how you can show me how much common sense you have. Why don't you have children and when they are one month or so shy of their 11th birthday pose them with your favorite hunting rifle and put that picture on your facebook account--since you think it's legal. 

That's a direct statement that others believe (falsely) that it's legal, and you imply that it is illegal.  Case closed !  You're disbarred from the Imaginary Galactic Law Federation of Stupid.

Sure, Eeyore...

scelerat wrote:

Sure, Eeyore...

So... challenge unheeded, and you predictably back out like a coward ? 

For shame, Jackie Chiles !

POWNED.

My grandfather wasn't that...er, had more common sense. 

Apparently not since he helped in the rasing of an idiot.