REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Some Questions

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 14:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1144
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, October 15, 2007 8:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Ok, first off - these are serious questions and ones I actually have a vested *personal* interest in, and while at THIS point currently, it's all theoretical, that may not continue indefinately especially if the situation deteriorates, which it has the potential to do in a hurry.

My youngest living relation is in a situation both at home and elsewhere, that gives me endless frustration as I honestly and firmly believe there is some risk to her person and safety, and a severe risk to her sanity and mental stability from all aspects thereof.

Sorry to be so vague, but there's a lot of legal 'grey area' where it's not clear what I can or cannot do in order to rectify it, and I need my options open and thus cannot share the exact details... but I am watching the nightmare that created me happen to her, and but for a few mitigating factors, I might well have wound up as much a monster as Carl Panzram.

Having worked in security, being prepared for "What if ?" is part of the mindset, and like Bianchi from CJ Cherryh's Foreigner series.. "One must consider the full range of possibilities."

Just remember that this is quite serious and personal, and I am very likely to start ripping heads off if personal snark or partisanship enters the discussion.

The Questions:

1. Should children old enough to self-realize be considered as fully "people" with their own rights ?

2. Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider arming a minor child ?

3. With what ?

4. Why/Why not ?

5. If intervention was certain to cause extreme and dangerous repercussions to both yourself and the child, at what point, if any, would you draw the line and do so ?

----------------

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 15, 2007 8:43 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ok, first off - these are serious questions and ones I actually have a vested *personal* interest in, and while at THIS point currently, it's all theoretical, that may not continue indefinately especially if the situation deteriorates, which it has the potential to do in a hurry.

My youngest living relation is in a situation both at home and elsewhere, that gives me endless frustration as I honestly and firmly believe there is some risk to her person and safety, and a severe risk to her sanity and mental stability from all aspects thereof.

Sorry to be so vague, but there's a lot of legal 'grey area' where it's not clear what I can or cannot do in order to rectify it, and I need my options open and thus cannot share the exact details... but I am watching the nightmare that created me happen to her, and but for a few mitigating factors, I might well have wound up as much a monster as Carl Panzram.

Having worked in security, being prepared for "What if ?" is part of the mindset, and like Bianchi from CJ Cherryh's Foreigner series.. "One must consider the full range of possibilities."

Just remember that this is quite serious and personal, and I am very likely to start ripping heads off if personal snark or partisanship enters the discussion.

The Questions:

1. Should children old enough to self-realize be considered as fully "people" with their own rights ?

2. Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider arming a minor child ?

3. With what ?

4. Why/Why not ?

5. If intervention was certain to cause extreme and dangerous repercussions to both yourself and the child, at what point, if any, would you draw the line and do so ?
----------------


Thanks Frem...we needed a new subject today.
Answers to your questions :
1) No
2) Never
3) n/a
4) Not mature and/or experienced enough to make rational decisions
5) Intervention can be difficult, but it beats being dead or in prison

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 15, 2007 8:47 AM

KANEMAN


1)Yes
2)For protection of person or property in a time of war...foreign invaders or domestic.
3)Whatever was available and most effective for protection.
4)see # 2
5)When the danger to the child is worse than the dangerous repercussions caused by intervention

Good luck....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 15, 2007 8:56 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The Questions:

1. Should children old enough to self-realize be considered as fully "people" with their own rights ?



Define self-realize please, I think I know what you are saying but I want to be sure.

Quote:

2. Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider arming a minor child ?


if I knew that they knew how to use a weapon properly, if I felt that their lives were in danger, if it was not illegal in my jurisdiction or the penalty wasn't to heavy, if I trusted their judgment and maturity.

Quote:

3. With what ?


Depends, age? size? situation? A small 10 year-old girl should probably get a .380 or something like that.

A medium-sized kid might be better off with a .45 (perhaps a Glock 36, good power and reliability but very concealable, only downsides are cost and only 6 shots).

If you think they may need lots of bullets (bad shots or lots of baddies) then a Glock 17 might be a better choice, specially if you can get the 33-round mags.

If the kid is strong enough a 10mm Auto is a good choice though ammo is expensive and scarce.

If the kids hands are small a gun chambered for the .45 GAP might be better, same performance as the .45 ACP but smaller cartridge leading to smaller grips.

Quote:

4. Why/Why not ?


It depends entirely on the situation, if I think it will do a significant amount of good then I would do so, but it's not (to me at least) a simple decision.

Quote:

5. If intervention was certain to cause extreme and dangerous repercussions to both yourself and the child, at what point, if any, would you draw the line and do so ?


When the probable repercussions of not acting are getting close to as bad as the repercussions of acting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 15, 2007 9:27 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The Questions:

1. Should children old enough to self-realize be considered as fully "people" with their own rights ?


Children are born as "people" with their own rights. The Supreme Court has recognized that children have the same civil rights as anyone else. However, they remain a protected class of persons and their rights are subject to the will of their parents and, in some instances, the State (which can act In Loco Parentis, on some matters).
Quote:


2. Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider arming a minor child ?


There are few, especially in today's world.

In note for the record that a minor cannot legally carry a concealed firearm in Ohio.

It is often legal to arm a child in limited circumstances such as sports, hunting, target shooting, JROTC, etc. The key things to remember are proper education, responsibility and ABOVE ALL proper supervision.

The law will vary from State to State. My guess its probably generally legal for a minor to own a firearm, but not to possess or transport the firmarm except under strict supervision and very limited circumstances.

The biggest issue is if you are prepared to be legally and financially resposnisble for your child's mistakes. Are you prepared to lose your house, your money, or maybe your freedom because your child shoots someone or something?
Quote:


3. With what ?


Depends on the kid. I'd never arm my little sister with my AR-15.
Quote:


4. Why/Why not ?


Most kids are irresponsible, reckless, short sighted, and easily distracted. Like Democrats, they are the last people we should consider arming.

Some are ok. My Dad taught me from about age 10, but never taught my brother or sisters.
Quote:


5. If intervention was certain to cause extreme and dangerous repercussions to both yourself and the child, at what point, if any, would you draw the line and do so ?


Need more detailed information. Thats like saying...'if something might happen that might have some unknown affect on someone, but we're not saying who'....it does not work for analysis.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 15, 2007 8:53 PM

SIGMANUNKI


With all due respect, I honestly think that you are asking these questions in a very wrong place. I strongly recommend consulting a lawyer and/or your local Department of Child and Family Services (or equivalent). They'll be able to let you know your options, whereas here, all you'll get is answer that should/will be prefixed by "IANAL, but...".

But, since you asked for opinions:

IANAL, but just because a child might be able to "self-realize" on some level, does not mean that they are capable of making sound choices. You yourself have mentioned that this person is in a bad place mentally (or getting there). Arming someone in this state doesn't exactly give rise to good outcomes. Most likely arming someone in this state will result in someone else and/or themselves being seriously hurt (or killed) and this person being sent to jail along with the person that armed him/her.

There is also the fact that this person will not be able to be armed 100% of the time. There is school where they won't be able to carry, among many other places. So, when it becomes known that this person is armed, it will become trivial to avoid the time(s) in which (s)he cannot be armed.

There is also a significant response time required to use any weapon. All someone would have to do is to attack somewhat suddenly (this is normally the case) and the weapon has just been made useless.

Basically, weapons are very reactionary in nature. Something that is reactionary cannot prevent nor make better something that has already happened. All it can potentially do is stop the situation. But, most likely it will make the situation (actually pretty much a guarantee) much much worse.

It is never, even remotely a good idea to arm a child.


"""
5. If intervention was certain to cause extreme and dangerous repercussions to both yourself and the child, at what point, if any, would you draw the line and do so ?
"""

You haven't given enough information for anyone to provide a useful answer. There are way too many variables, most notably your resolve, what you are willing to sacrifice and what is really at stake.

But, there is also the question of the probable outcome. Would doing something have a good chance of success? Or will it make it worse (even if successful)?



Your best bet (general answer as I'm clueless of the specifics, so YMMV), is to get her out of the situation. Change schools, change neighbourhoods, etc. Hell, if it's the parents/guardian, you could help her get emancipated and her own place (got an extra room?). That, in general is the best "easiest" long term solution; removing her from the situation. Anything else is a band-aid.


I wish you luck in helping her resolving her situation.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Fred, by self-realize I mean actually ask the question.
"I am a person, right, so why do I have less legal rights and protection than the family pet ?"

Sigma, I appreciate the response in spite of the fact that you and I completely disagree on whether adults should be, which of course colors your response here, but your comment in regards to consulting who and how does deserve a response.

I did that particular thing, only to be answered with.. "Till they're dead, nothing."
And that's just not good enough for me.

Believe me, if I *was* the kids guardian there wouldn't be a problem, but I am not, and laying assault to my own entire family would be pretty damn traumatic (to her), which is what resolving the situation is likely gonna take - abusive home, abusive school, and cut off from all social contact at this point because of it.

I am completely willing to assume guardianship, and fully able to do it, but it's not that simple, not when children are considered, legally, to be either property or even less than property.

Frankly, I'm appalled by some of the responses, because if the option is to sit back helplessly and watch them die or spiral down into mental breakdown and suicide, or breach the law and all social convention, the latter seems more appropriate, but I *did* ask your opinions, and *do* want them honestly.

Believe me, I wish to hell it was ever as simple as walking in the door and saying "Let's go." - would that it was, but when straightjacketed by society and the law, constrained to watch in helpless misery, something you know is wrong, then what ?

If it were just that, I would not much care, my primary concern is the physical safety and mental stablity of the kid, the latter of which is gonna deteroirate very rapidly if something is not done.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:46 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Well, Frem, if you didn’t like those responses, you’re sure to love this one. My initial reaction, especially not know what the situation is and knowing your pension for the melodramatic and hysteria, is that this situation is probably not nearly like you think it is. If you feel this minor is in danger, call the police or social services. But arming a minor without sufficient provocation by someone who is not this minor’s legal guardian and may not fully understand the situation is quite possibly a recipe for disaster.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:41 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ok, first off - these are serious questions and ones I actually have a vested *personal* interest in, and while at THIS point currently, it's all theoretical, that may not continue indefinately especially if the situation deteriorates, which it has the potential to do in a hurry.

My youngest living relation is in a situation both at home and elsewhere, that gives me endless frustration as I honestly and firmly believe there is some risk to her person and safety, and a severe risk to her sanity and mental stability from all aspects thereof.

Sorry to be so vague, but there's a lot of legal 'grey area' where it's not clear what I can or cannot do in order to rectify it, and I need my options open and thus cannot share the exact details... but I am watching the nightmare that created me happen to her, and but for a few mitigating factors, I might well have wound up as much a monster as Carl Panzram.

Having worked in security, being prepared for "What if ?" is part of the mindset, and like Bianchi from CJ Cherryh's Foreigner series.. "One must consider the full range of possibilities."

Just remember that this is quite serious and personal, and I am very likely to start ripping heads off if personal snark or partisanship enters the discussion.

The Questions:

1. Should children old enough to self-realize be considered as fully "people" with their own rights ?

2. Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider arming a minor child ?

3. With what ?

4. Why/Why not ?

5. If intervention was certain to cause extreme and dangerous repercussions to both yourself and the child, at what point, if any, would you draw the line and do so ?

----------------




I dont know anything about American law or your situation but is there any kind of civil action you can take to claim legal guardianship on the grounds of long-term and serious risk to the child?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:48 AM

MAL4PREZ


Gotta say, I agree with finn with the disaster thing. Whatever the situation, arming this child may make you feel better, but it's likely to put her in an even more dangerous situation. A gun in the hands of a child may not stay pointed at the perp for long. It can taken away, it can be turned on her, or she may turn it on herself if things are as bad as you're suggesting.

Lawyers are like doctors - you'll get a different answer from each one, which will be colored by their education and beliefs (witness Hero, who's not able to reply to you without getting in a dig on Democrats. ) Keep working within the system until you find someone who'll take up your cause.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 5:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Not sure of the law in the applicable state, but in many states there is such as thing as an "emancipated minor". IF your niece can support herself away from home (AFAIK there is nothing against you helping out financially) the she can apply to court to be considered "emanicpated"
Quote:

Emancipated Minors

Unlike the mature minor, state statutes define an emancipated minor. Although state statutes vary, there are many similarities between the different states and their definition of an emancipated minor. Generally, the youth must be a minimum age, usually 16 years old, live apart form her parents, and be economically self-sufficient.[28] Definitions of an emancipated minor include those who are self-supporting and not living at home, married, pregnant or a parent, in the military, declared emancipated by the court.[28]

Emancipated minors are considered adults for several purposes, including the ability to enter into a contract, rent an apartment, and consent to medical care. Emancipated minors relinquish the right to parental support, and they are expected to be self-supporting.[28] State statutes do vary; for example, in California to be emancipated, a minor must be at least 14 years old.[28, 29] However, in Montana, emancipation will only be granted if the court finds that "the youth has graduated or will continue to diligently pursue graduation from high school, unless circumstances clearly compel deferral of education".[28, 30] Although state statutes allow emancipated minors to make complex decisions, they are not immune from all state age requirements; for example, they must be 18 years of age to vote.[15, 28, 30, 31]

Without going to court to be declared mature or emancipated minor, minors can and do make several decisional choices about reproductive issues. There are no laws that dictate the sexual activity of a minor, other than certain criminal laws such as prohibiting statutory rape. A minor who is sexually active may choose contraception under current laws.[18] If a minor does not use contraception, is sexually active, and becomes pregnant, the minor must then choose whether to have the baby and keep the baby, give the baby up for adoption, or have an abortion. Once the minor becomes a parent, the minor is in charge


www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456472_5
www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-emancipated-minor.htm

The one thing you DON'T want to do is harbor your niece (harboring a runaway, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, alienating parental rights or some such). Nor do you want to "arm" your niece with anyhting that she is not legally entitled to have (nothing above and beyond pepper spray).



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:00 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Almost anyone is strong enough to tear off an ear, pluck out an eye, rip out testes, or chew through an esophagus.

In many cases, these feats are enough to stop a would-be attacker if they are unarmed. However, only a very miniscule percentage of the population is actually comfortable with committing these acts. I suppose that speaks well of the human condition.

But if someone is prone to close encounters of the wrong kind, the mindset to perform these acts without hesitation trumps any weapon you could provide them with. A weapon is the second line of defense. This mindset is the first.

It's also helpful that a mindset cannot be taken from you. It is 100% concealable. It stands ready to be used until your last breath.

But is this little girl really ready to do what is necessary, without hesitation, when the moment calls for it?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:27 AM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Believe me, if I *was* the kids guardian there wouldn't be a problem, but I am not, and laying assault to my own entire family would be pretty damn traumatic (to her), which is what resolving the situation is likely gonna take - abusive home, abusive school, and cut off from all social contact at this point because of it.

I am completely willing to assume guardianship, and fully able to do it, but it's not that simple, not when children are considered, legally, to be either property or even less than property.

Frankly, I'm appalled by some of the responses, because if the option is to sit back helplessly and watch them die or spiral down into mental breakdown and suicide, or breach the law and all social convention, the latter seems more appropriate, but I *did* ask your opinions, and *do* want them honestly.

Believe me, I wish to hell it was ever as simple as walking in the door and saying "Let's go." - would that it was, but when straightjacketed by society and the law, constrained to watch in helpless misery, something you know is wrong, then what ?

If it were just that, I would not much care, my primary concern is the physical safety and mental stablity of the kid, the latter of which is gonna deteroirate very rapidly if something is not done.

-F



If a child is in an abusive situation, the best, and really only, satisfactory solution is to extricate her from that environment. Handing a teenage girl a gun, saying: "Here's a gun, dear. I don't condone murder, but if anyone messes with you again, just, you know, shoot em. Politely." is not a good idea. In fact, it is tantamount to setting her up to do exactly that. You're not theorizing, in general, on whether or not people (including kids) should have guns in their homes. Instead, you're talking about a very specific situation, to which you yourself see no other way out than to resolve to shooting the lot. And then you want to hand her a lethal weapon, just in case? It is the shortest route to ruining her life. Seriously; if her hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, you will end her.

"One must consider the full range of possibilities," indeed. And not put her on a path that can only end one way for her: very badly. There's Child Protective Services, for starters. Not an ideally functioning institution, per se. But file reports. They sent you packing? File another report. Have others file reports. I don't buy your generalization that everyone is abusive towards her: all her family, everyone at school, etc. It just means you're too upset to look closer. There's gotta be teachers, principals, etc., that you could contact. And don't say you tried that already. Try again. Create an audit trail, as it were. File police reports and the like. With each step, even if they don't do anything immediately, you make it harder for them to ignore the build-up of documented instances. Get her a lawyer; one that can subtlely point out the possible ramifications of ignoring a consistent trail of reported abuses. And so forth.

Also, are there no Safe Houses any more? I'm not saying this is easy; if it were, you obviously wouldn't be here. But there's gotta be another way, short of shooting herself out of this. It ain't about "breach the law and all social convention," but 'bout what she needs.


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm under the impression that this young woman is prolly somewhat oppositional, and is facing a family and school that wants to "break" her into obedience.

My daughter is oppositional, has been her whole life (bc of brain damage). She is now 18, almost 19. The minute she hears the "command" voice her back goes up. I don't present phony choices. If I ask her to do certain things, I am absolutely OK with her saying "no". I make very few commands, but the ones I make I expect to be done and she knows it. Usually I advise her, in a non-judgmental way, of what is likely to happen to her if she makes certain choices. And when she makes lousy choices (and she does) I also have no problem saying "I told you so". As a result, she actually relies on my judgment, and is quite responsible about helping out around the house as long I don't browbeat her into doing it.

The problem is when you run into someone who is oppositional it's very easy to get into a negative dynmaic where you wind up beating the child to get "compliance". (More command elicits more resistance.) Also, oppositonal children have a tendency to be manipulative. They will often play people against each other so the parent has to be involved with the "significant others" in their child's life. Raising an oppositional child is a challenge but hey- SOMEBODY has to be the grownup in that situation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:15 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

1. Should children old enough to self-realize be considered as fully "people" with their own rights ?

Fred, by self-realize I mean actually ask the question.
"I am a person, right, so why do I have less legal rights and protection than the family pet ?"



No I don't think so. It's not very difficult to reach that level of understanding, and there's no reason why they (at that level of understanding) would be necessarily mentally competent to handle being outside of their guardians legal control. I do think that kids are not given the respect or responsibility that they deserve and can handle, but I don't think that level of freedom is deserved on the sole criteria that you have provided.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:43 AM

FLETCH2


Well I will go further. I think what you are proposing is an act of cowardice. In effect you intend to throw your "youngest relative" into a whole world of hurt so that you don't have to put yourself out in any way. I'm sorry but I'm calling it. If you REALLY believed she was in that much danger you should be out there helping her not thinking of putting her in even more danger.

If this girl is facing dragons then you are doing the same as riding up on your charger tossing her a sword and saying "good luck with that dragon kid" before riding off. The reason that youngsters have deminished rights is that it's expected that the adults in their life will hold those rights in trust for them. That mean as others have said that if you truely care about her YOU have to be the one facing the dragon and if that means that you have to dirty your hands by dealing with the dreded government or the cops then you fight down your disgust and you do it.

This is your Maidenhead moment, do you leave the girl to those that would harm her or do you pick her up and help her?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:27 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I do find it somewhat ironic that everyone assumes pistol when I was thinking mace.

Oh, and you fuckers with the petty personal or political snark, go fuck yourselves, I wanted answers, and honest ones, to get inside your heads (with your permission as you choose whether to post or not) and comprehend what YOU think - only in some cases there doesn't seem to be anything up there but pre-programmed bullshit, and if that's so, how can one even consider you human ?

For those who did comment with thought, whether I agree or not I appreciate you speaking your mind, I really do *need* to know how people view this.

Anthony, one of my concerns is that very fact - hell yes, the combination of genetics and environment has loaded and pulled that trigger, and she'd do it in a heartbeat without so much as an eyeblink of remorse... there's a geniune concern in that direction, and it worries me deeply.

I think Fletch makes the most salient point here, but lemme confirm that if I thought it would help, I would stick my neck out pretty far - the problem is that it's almost guaranteed (thanks to law and social convention) to aggravate the situation, NOT solve the problem, get me locked up and not do a damned thing for her but make it worse, and that's what's eating me so.

Asarian, I have pushed on that front as far as currently possible, there are other openings I am exploring, but I have to play close to the vest - she's been cut off from seemingly all non-school social contact by folks who don't want their treatment of her getting to the wrong folk, and I mean to see that it does if I can only get them to give a damn.

What I wanted to see was the general perception of such a thing, and how and why folks view it the way they do, cause another concern of mine is that I know what the kid is thinking, three steps ahead in explicit detail, and have confirmed that with personal on-site observation and discussion for an extended period... if you think it's bad enough the question I ask - how bad is it when the kid starts looking for that kind of self-help ?

I really don't have the words to express it, but the concept that it's wrong for a child to defend themselves from adults, even if those adults are mistreating them, I just don't know what to say to that....

I appreciate the input, however, those who actually gave any.
As for the two who know who they are, your masks are slipping, you sociopathic bitches, how bout to go take a powder and adjust em some, eh.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:05 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


When I was a kid I used to imagine myself pulling guns on teachers I didn’t like. I don’t know how many times I assassinated Mrs. Bova to the cheers of all her oppressed students in my own head. I had an over active imagination. Wasn’t always a gun, sometimes it was a lightsabre. Kids think strange things. That’s part of what means to be a kid and why arming them without close supervision isn’t always a good idea. I don’t know what ever happened to Mrs. Bova. She probably chocked to death one night on a kid bone will consuming one of her students.

Giving the kid mace or pepper spray to use against a legal guardian who is abusing her is almost certain to be taken away or possibly used against her the first time she tries to use it. Mace and Pepper spray are for street aggressors, people you can run from to safety. If there’s no safety to run to, they aren’t much use. If the kid is being abused social services is really the only real solution.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:54 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I do find it somewhat ironic that everyone assumes pistol when I was thinking mace.



My assumption was that something on the level of mace was a given and that you were talking something a little harsher.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

everyone
Not me!!! I said "pepper spray".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 14:36 - 7470 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL