Gun-wearing couple triggers controversy, praise
This isn't the issue. Reading the story, it sure seems like everyone involved handled it very well (well, except the cashier who panicked). The folks who were open carrying handled themselves very well; the police who responded did not overreact; no one was arrested; the two OC'rs were respectful and were treated with respect. They were asked to leave private property, they complied, end of story. Cops show up, escort them out, no incident whatsoever. Given that the governor of the state and a US Supreme Court Justice were at this event, it could have gone rodeo very easily.PORTSMOUTH — A city police detective is being lauded for defusing a July 4 incident in which Stawbery Banke Museum officials asked a couple wearing his-and-hers pistols to leave a ceremony attended by the governor and a retired Supreme Court judge.
The event was a naturalization ceremony for 105 new U.S. citizens, presided over by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter. Also in attendance was Gov. John Lynch, with security provided by U.S. marshals, state police troopers and local detectives.
But that's not the issue. This is:
The gun-wearing couple, Johnathon Irish and Stephanie Taylor of Epsom, made national headlines in October 2010 when the state took custody of their newborn daughter, citing reasons that included Irish's collection of firearms and affiliation with a group called the Oath Keepers. The baby was returned a week later, and a judge issued a gag order, banning comment on the case.Looking around, there's precious little other information. One story alleges "domestic violence" as the reason for the infant's removal, claiming that Irish abused his girlfriend and her two children from a previous manner. Conveniently, since it's a case involving children, the state makes no comment. Bafflingly, even though the state alleged long-term and persistent abuse, Irish was never charged, and his infant daughter was returned a week later. Since Irish is still eligible to own firearms nearly a year later, one can safely assume that he maintains a felony-free record.
The idealist in me hopes there's more to this story; the cynic in me doubts it. If the state had strong enough evidence to take the man's child away, why the hell was he not prosecuted? If the proof that he was abusing his significant other and her dependent children wasn't enough to arrest him for assault, it damn well shouldn't be enough to take his baby away.
This is, after all, the land of "Live Free or Die", not "Live Free or Here" to the south...
That is all.
4 comments:
I know people who know them through the Oath Keepers. The baby was taken because of their involvement in Oath Keepers. The Southern Poverty Law Center (spit!) considers the Oath Keepers a hate/anti-goverment/dommestic terrorist type group. If memory serves me right (and I might have this wrong, I'll double check with my Oath Keeper friends) some family member who was opposed to the relationship basically used that to start trouble. If you are NOT aware of the Oath Keepers, I urge you to check them out and see if you come to the same conclusion as the SPLC did.
Makes me think of the two incidents in Pittsburgh where CYS took newborn babies from their mothers right after they were discharged from the hospital. This was because a blood screening done while in the hospital showed signs of drug use.
Ended up being because the women ate poppy-seed bagels just before going to the hospital.
In one of the two, the woman didn't get the baby back for two months.
I can't tell you how angry that makes me. I'm glad that was me in that situation as I definitely would have been arrested for assault on whomever came to take my kid...
You are correct Mopar. It was the womans father.
The bar to remove a child from the home is very low. Caseworkers can claim a fear of imminent danger to the child, which should mean someone might try to kill him tonight but in practice usually is nowhere near that. Law here requires an emergency court hearing within 48 hours to determine whether the removal can stand; I have heard tell (and would believe it) that removals quite often happen Friday nights so that the court hearing can be put off until Monday.
Retaliatory CPS complaints are very common; in Norfolk our upstairs neighbor called them and claimed that I had abandoned Bobbie (then an infant) in the apartment because she heard a baby crying and the mail hadn't been picked up in days. Much more recently, my ex-husband called them on me in 2009 after I visited Erik for his birthday (the ex had the kids for visitation at the time). In both cases, naturally, nothing came of it, but those who filed the false reports faced no repercussions, and I now have a record. (Even if you're found innocent, it counts as a record with them.) I'd be willing to be if you chatted with your divorced friends at least half of them would have similar stories.
Post a Comment