Parents Lose Children over Family Photos

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-05-08 09:55am

You did, however, say that they were justified in suspecting child abuse in the first place, based on the horrifying fact that the mother bathed with her children and breast-fed them.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-08 10:31am

AdmiralKanos wrote:You did, however, say that they were justified in suspecting child abuse in the first place, based on the horrifying fact that the mother bathed with her children and breast-fed them.

Given that they took a fair number of pictures of it, yes. I'm not denying that. I also think it should have stopped after their talk with the parents, let alone the ransacking of their home.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-05-08 06:56pm

Stormbringer wrote:
AdmiralKanos wrote:You did, however, say that they were justified in suspecting child abuse in the first place, based on the horrifying fact that the mother bathed with her children and breast-fed them.
Given that they took a fair number of pictures of it, yes. I'm not denying that. I also think it should have stopped after their talk with the parents, let alone the ransacking of their home.

And how have you justified the claim that "bathing with children" reasonably leads to "send the cops; they're probably pedophiles?"

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-08 07:34pm

I believe that an investigation was definately justified, although taking the kids away was pretty silly.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-05-08 11:06pm

-_-' Man, what idiocy. They've definitely overreacted, and I think the parents may have legal grounds to sue when this is over.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2003-05-09 12:01am

I think a seperation of Texas from the rest of the US would be for the better of all mankind.

Infact, a lot of problems could be easilly solved by breaking the US up into several smaller countries with like-minded ideals.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-09 12:39am

We tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-09 02:21am

Stormbringer wrote:Hey Edi, why don't you pull your head out of your ass and instead read what I said from the very first fucking post!!! I didn't think they were justified in taking the kids at all and I've said so. Try reading my posts before you bitching about me doing something I never did.

I've read everything you said in this thread, and while I noticed you did say they went overboard, you've still been about the most prolific apologist for the fucked up reasoning that led to the whole travesty in the first place. It seems like everything that's being said by Mike and me simply bounces off your skull. I just reread the whole thread, and in nearly every on-topic post, you condemn the action but defend the reasoning that directly led to it. Sure, I could have worded my previous post better, but shit happens. I don't always bother to spend ten minutes agonizing over the exact wording and whether it might put somebody's knickers in a knot, when it's quite clear to most people what I take exception to. Mike certainly didn't seem to have any difficulties in understanding what caused me to fly off the handle. If you're expecting an apology, you're in for a long wait.

Edi

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2003-05-09 03:15am

Howedar wrote:We tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation.

Well, bloody well try it again!

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-05-09 11:23am

Spyder wrote:
Howedar wrote:We tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation.
Well, bloody well try it again!

Hell no. It was a disaster.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 11:52am

I just reread the whole thread, and in nearly every on-topic post, you condemn the action but defend the reasoning that directly led to it.

I don't support the notion that lead to this; that notion is that those picture automatically meant abuse. That clearly isn't the case. I do defend the notion that they had reason to investigate. There was something potentialy wrong and that does mean they have reason to investigate. They didn't have reason to take those kids away.

If you're expecting an apology, you're in for a long wait.

Like I give a damn. But don't put words in my mouth you stupid little pissant.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 12:01pm

Stormbringer wrote:I do defend the notion that they had reason to investigate. There was something potentialy wrong and that does mean they have reason to investigate.

Yet you have made no case whatsoever for probable cause to suspect harm, other than your bizarre leap in logic from "mother bathing with kids" to "probable child molester".

Where do you get your information on child-raising technique, Stormbringer? it's not from personal experience, so do you simply believe that anything which deviates from your expectations is reason to suspect wrongdoing?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 12:16pm

Yet you have made no case whatsoever for probable cause to suspect harm, other than your bizarre leap in logic from "mother bathing with kids" to "probable child molester".

The fact that her boyfriend was taking pictures of her naked with their children is cause to investigate. And when it became clear that it was innocent it should have been dropped.

Where do you get your information on child-raising technique, Stormbringer? it's not from personal experience, so do you simply believe that anything which deviates from your expectations is reason to suspect wrongdoing?

No, when there is the real potential for wrong doing. It's no different than seeing a guy with a gun walking into a bank. There are other explanations but it's reasonable to take action to prevent a possible crime.

Simply because a mother bathes with her children isn't grounds for any investigation and I never claimed it is. When her boyfriends pictures of all of them there is cause to investigate.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 12:26pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Yet you have made no case whatsoever for probable cause to suspect harm, other than your bizarre leap in logic from "mother bathing with kids" to "probable child molester".
The fact that her boyfriend was taking pictures of her naked with their children is cause to investigate. And when it became clear that it was innocent it should have been dropped.

And how does "picture of family bathing" translate to "probable cause to suspect child molestation"? You are evading the question: there is no just cause to suspect ANYTHING beyond what is seen in the pictures.

No, when there is the real potential for wrong doing. It's no different than seeing a guy with a gun walking into a bank.

Oh, so a woman bathing with her child is somehow just as suspicious as a gunman walking into a bank now? ARE YOU ON DRUGS?

Simply because a mother bathes with her children isn't grounds for any investigation and I never claimed it is. When her boyfriends pictures of all of them there is cause to investigate.

What difference does that make? How does the act of photographing something harmless make it into something which is not harmless?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 12:34pm

And how does "picture of family bathing" translate to "probable cause to suspect child molestation"? You are evading the question: there is no just cause to suspect ANYTHING beyond what is seen in the pictures.

The fact is they were taking pictures of naked kids. Depending on where those pictures went afterwards they could be child pornography. The fact is finding what those pictures were for is reasonable.

Oh, so a woman bathing with her child is somehow just as suspicious as a gunman walking into a bank now? ARE YOU ON DRUGS?

Actually, I meant it as an analogy on why you act when there is the potential for a crime.

And would you quit the bullshit tactic of distorting what the whole reason for investigation was. It wasn't her bathing with the children it was the fact that they photographed it. And yes, the possiblity of child pornography is as serious a crime as bank robbery.

What difference does that make? How does the act of photographing something harmless make it into something which is not harmless?

Because those photos might not be harmless. For all that photo clerk (and the police) knew those pictures could have been handed out to every pervert in the state of Texas.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 12:42pm

Stormbringer, a photograph of a naked child is not necessarily pornography. And unless you have actual CAUSE TO SUSPECT THAT IT IS, then you have no case. Your position is that any photograph of a naked child, no matter how innocent the context (eg- taking a bath) should be assumed pornographic BY DEFAULT.

That is bullshit, and I'm tired of the way you keep repeating that assumption as if it's been established to be fact. You even criticize me for not quietly accepting it, as if it is so profoundly self-evident that it is completely non-contestable.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 12:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:Stormbringer, a photograph of a naked child is not necessarily pornography. And unless you have actual CAUSE TO SUSPECT THAT IT IS, then you have no case. Your position is that any photograph of a naked child, no matter how innocent the context (eg- taking a bath) should be assumed pornographic BY DEFAULT.

I'm saying that it should be established whether it is rather than simply assuming it is innocent by default. It's reasonable, when the potential for criminal activity exists, to find out whether or not it is happening.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 12:46pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Stormbringer, a photograph of a naked child is not necessarily pornography. And unless you have actual CAUSE TO SUSPECT THAT IT IS, then you have no case. Your position is that any photograph of a naked child, no matter how innocent the context (eg- taking a bath) should be assumed pornographic BY DEFAULT.
I'm saying that it should be established whether it is rather than simply assuming it is innocent by default.

Wrong. In the criminal justice system, one needs probable cause to suspect wrongdoing before taking any kind of action.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 12:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:Wrong. In the criminal justice system, one needs probable cause to suspect wrongdoing before taking any kind of action.

Which is what this all boils down to. Whether naked pictures of children are probable cause for an investigation. And on that you have your opinion, I have mine.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 01:05pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Wrong. In the criminal justice system, one needs probable cause to suspect wrongdoing before taking any kind of action.
Which is what this all boils down to. Whether naked pictures of children are probable cause for an investigation. And on that you have your opinion, I have mine.

Ah, the "opinions" cop-out. Sorry, but "child bathing" photos are common family photo albums all around the country, and have never been correlated to child molestation in any way. That is my EVIDENCE, against which you have set your opinion.

Your attitude is precisely why that family was put through hell in the first place.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 01:20pm

Ah, the "opinions" cop-out. Sorry, but "child bathing" photos are common family photo albums all around the country, and have never been correlated to child molestation in any way. That is my EVIDENCE, against which you have set your opinion.

And photos of similarly naked children star in the collections of convicted sex offenders stashes.

Your attitude is precisely why that family was put through hell in the first place.

My attitude would have had the investigation end after the police got done talking to them. Hardly hell.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 01:40pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Ah, the "opinions" cop-out. Sorry, but "child bathing" photos are common family photo albums all around the country, and have never been correlated to child molestation in any way. That is my EVIDENCE, against which you have set your opinion.
And photos of similarly naked children star in the collections of convicted sex offenders stashes.

Faulty logic; you cannot establish a statistically meaningful correlation between A and B by simply showing that incidents of B have been connected with A, particularly when you equate apples and oranges. Collecting pictures of SOMEONE ELSE'S children bathing is quite a bit different than taking pictures of your own.

Do you believe that there is a correlation between television ownership and pedophilia because most pedophiles have TV sets?

Your attitude is precisely why that family was put through hell in the first place.
My attitude would have had the investigation end after the police got done talking to them. Hardly hell.

As soon as you turn the police on someone, you are inviting trouble. Police are trained to expect wrongdoing and look for it, prejudicially in many cases. That is precisely WHY we demand that probable cause be established BEFORE taking action. Do you not understand this?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-05-09 02:14pm

Faulty logic; you cannot establish a statistically meaningful correlation between A and B by simply showing that incidents of B have been connected with A, particularly when you equate apples and oranges. Collecting pictures of SOMEONE ELSE'S children bathing is quite a bit different than taking pictures of your own.

It is only faulty logic if you claim that those pictures means the person is a pedophile/child pornographer. It means that it's one possible explanation.

And there have been child molestors that have done have used naked pictures of their own kids as porn and as trading material for other porn.

Do you believe that there is a correlation between television ownership and pedophilia because most pedophiles have TV sets?

Yes, there is a correllation. Pedophiles like TV. It doesn't prove that one is a pedophile.

As soon as you turn the police on someone, you are inviting trouble. Police are trained to expect wrongdoing and look for it, prejudicially in many cases. That is precisely WHY we demand that probable cause be established BEFORE taking action. Do you not understand this?

So it all comes back to whether or not this is grounds for an investigation.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 02:50pm

Stormbringer wrote:Yes, there is a correllation. Pedophiles like TV. It doesn't prove that one is a pedophile.

Precisely. Now if you discover that a person has a TV, "one possible explanation" (to use your term) is that he watches child porn on it. Would you go and send the police to investigate him on that basis?

So it all comes back to whether or not this is grounds for an investigation.

Correct, and you have to establish probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, which you have failed to do. The best you can do is ignore the need to establish even a correlation, and simply say "one possible explanation". If "one possible explanation" becomes the standard for establishing due cause to haul someone into the station for questioning, then we can all look forward to spending time there.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-05-09 03:37pm

Stormbringer wrote:Simply because a mother bathes with her children isn't grounds for any investigation and I never claimed it is. When her boyfriends pictures of all of them there is cause to investigate.

Where the hell you've living during your first 10 years of life? It is quite apparent you know nothing about child raising and everything else which comes with it.