Militia Cleanup: Did you say take away their kids?

[Jolthig]

Glad this nonsense is over. The protest over the months sounded rather silly.

[The Rich Port]

I sincerely doubt they were there as "human shields".
Sharp claims to maintain a family gospel band, the siege was dominated by mormons.

Entirely reasonable they were there entirely to sing songs, but that they were there is despicable, yes.

Leaving her children unattended is hardly a better scenario, considering the thin ice she was on with child welfare services as is.

Really mate- just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them less of a person.

... She brought her children to a terrorist party.

Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.

[Risottia]

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is suing the federal judge handling his criminal case stemming from an armed standoff with government agents, with a complaint that accuses President Barack Obama, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid and one of Reid's sons of plotting to steal Bundy's property.

This is pure Berlusconesque.

[Genivaria]

Leaving her children unattended is hardly a better scenario, considering the thin ice she was on with child welfare services as is.

Really mate- just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them less of a person.

... She brought her children to a terrorist party.

Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.

"I plan to fucking die here, the government won't take me alive!"
"Sounds fun, I'll bring my kids."
Seriously what the fuck!?

[Imperializt Russia]

I sincerely doubt they were there as "human shields".
Sharp claims to maintain a family gospel band, the siege was dominated by mormons.

Entirely reasonable they were there entirely to sing songs, but that they were there is despicable, yes.

Leaving her children unattended is hardly a better scenario, considering the thin ice she was on with child welfare services as is.

Really mate- just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them less of a person.

I think you quoted the wrong post.

She took her children to an armed protest. That is not acceptable.

[Crurnlark]

... She brought her children to a terrorist party.

Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.

Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.

Would that mean it is twice as meaningless, or is it like multiplying 0 by 2?

I think you quoted the wrong post.

She took her children to an armed protest. That is not acceptable.

She took her children to an armed protest without illegal intent. Ill advised? Sure. Unacceptable? Not so much.

[Zeinbrad]

... She brought her children to a terrorist party.

Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.

Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.

Would that mean it is twice as meaningless, or is it like multiplying 0 by 2?

I think you quoted the wrong post.

She took her children to an armed protest. That is not acceptable.

She took her children to an armed protest without illegal intent. Ill advised? Sure. Unacceptable? Not so much.

Dangerous? Yes.

[Crurnlark]

Dangerous? Yes.

Indeed. It wasn't the wisest course of action, but taking her children was tied specifically to an altercation in which the law enforcement officers had failed to communicate with the mother, not her limited role in the siege.

[Zeinbrad]

Dangerous? Yes.

Indeed. It wasn't the wisest course of action, but taking her children was tied specifically to an altercation in which the law enforcement officers had failed to communicate with the mother, not her limited role in the siege.

So if I bring my kids to an armed sieved with plenty of people willing to shoot at law enforcements...I'm not endangering the enough for them to taken away?

This isn't because of what she protested, this is because she brought her kids to a place were they could of gotten injured or worse.

[Ifreann]

... She brought her children to a terrorist party.

Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.

Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.

Would that mean it is twice as meaningless, or is it like multiplying 0 by 2?

I think you quoted the wrong post.

She took her children to an armed protest. That is not acceptable.

She took her children to an armed protest without illegal intent. Ill advised? Sure. Unacceptable? Not so much.

She brought her children to a situation that any reasonable person would recognise as dangerous. That sounds like illegal intent to me, since endangering one's children is generally illegal.

[Crurnlark]

So if I bring my kids to an armed siege with plenty of people willing to shoot at law enforcements...I'm not endangering the enough for them to taken away?

This isn't because of what she protested, this is because she brought her kids to a place were they could of gotten injured or worse.

After a quick look at generic child endangerment laws... it looks like I'm going to have a very difficult time arguing this position.
But again, her children were taken away tied to an assault on an officer charge where they didn't make their intentions clear and physically grabbed her.

[Imperializt Russia]

... She brought her children to a terrorist party.

Mate. What she should have done is not fucking go, let alone take her goddamn kids with her.

Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.

No. It really hasn't.

[Ifreann]

Look, I know the word terrorist never meant anything in the first place, being a geopolitical boogeyman we made up to go invade places for oil (EDIT: and has since then been expanded to include a wide, very real gallery of enemies of America), but if you are identifying people that haven't attacked civilians as terrorists, the word terrorist has lost all meaning.

No. It really hasn't.

Don't be silly, the word terrorist never existed before 9/11.

[The Rich Port]

So if I bring my kids to an armed siege with plenty of people willing to shoot at law enforcements...I'm not endangering the enough for them to taken away?

This isn't because of what she protested, this is because she brought her kids to a place were they could of gotten injured or worse.

After a quick look at generic child endangerment laws... it looks like I'm going to have a very difficult time arguing this position.
But again, her children were taken away tied to an assault on an officer charge where they didn't make their intentions clear and physically grabbed her.

... She watched the news before she learned of these people, I assume?

Then she'd know that they'd declared their intent to resist police arrest and engage in unlawful conduct through violence if they were ever attempted to be detained.

She knew they were engaging in unlawful behavior and therefore were subject to arrest, and that associating with them in any way meant she might be arrested as a suspect until she was cleared of any charges. That's how the law works.

You get what you give.