Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
Wow, I knew it was easy to get into law school, but I didn't know it was that easy.
The point is that the law specifies what is required to take a child away, even on a temporary basis (btw, how long do you think "temporary" is?). I provided the criteria, and for the vast majority, the one that was applies is "immediate danger."
The argument that a 6 month old boy is being groomed to be a rapist, and therefore needs to be taken away from his parents under the criteria of "immediate danger" boggles my mind.
This due process only in appearance. Yes, there was a warrant, yes there was a judge, yes there was a hearing. At the very least, the hearing was only pro forma.
Any bets on how long "temporary" custody by the state is going to be? If my 6 month old was taken away for a year or two, that would be an incredibly long time.
This is crazy. Punish those that have committed crimes. Do not punish people that have not committed crimes. It's as simple as that.
|
There is reasonable ground for disagreement here, Mike. You just haven't located that ground yet. It would appear that you are at your saturation point on this issue in terms of learning anything new. Whether that is a personality or intellectual limitation I have no clue.
I have no doubt you can smoke me on conducting studies of things like whether water is wet, fire is hot, or clouds are fluffy, but you are just plain out of your depth on this one.