Poll: Do you feel safe/secure in your home after Elian raid?

It would be interesting to compare how safe we feel in our homes and how safe we actually are, statistically. If you believe TV, it's dangerous outside, you'd better stay home and not talk to anybody because psychos, rapists and cop killers are everywhere, and the only reason they haven't broken into your home, murdered you and stole your TV yet is because some young, good looking cop somewhere was willing to "bend the rules" a little.

That's TV. Real life it's not like that. In real life, as long as you take reasonable precautions, and don't rely on the police to protect you, you're pretty safe, even in bad neighborhoods. You just have to pay attention and use common sense.

There's a name for people who rely on the police to protect them. They're called victims.

-- Prepper (prepper@no.more.JBGTs), May 07, 2000

Answers

I feel perfectly safe. I follow simple rules:

Don't break the law (as much as possible -- still have to LIVE) Don't flaunt what you have. Get to know your neighbors. Don't talk too much to strangers. (busybodies) Don't piss anybody off.

Most of all, have good discernment.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), May 07, 2000.

Why would anyone feel less safe in their home after the Elian raid [unless they're harboring people illegally], and what does this question have to do with the rest of your post?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 07, 2000.

Anita, Elians relatives were not harboring him illegally. The justice department "changed its mind". Janet Reno broke the law. No matter how anyone "feels" about the father/son relationship. Our constitution is the Supreme Law in this country. We still have the right to be secure in our homes, the last time I looked. But this incident shows that some people get away with violations of our rights at times, and they usually do because of support by ill-informed people.

-- KoFE (Your@town.USA), May 07, 2000.

Ditto Anita.

Ditto Doomstomper, but laughing a little about not breaking law a little bit, hmmmmmmm?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 07, 2000.

KoFE:

"Elians relatives were not harboring him illegally."

I'm quite aware of the opinions of Napolitano, Dershowitz, and Tribe on this issue. However, their opinions outside a court of law wherein those issues are topical are as meaningful as the countless experts who disagree with them. Elian was paroled temporarily into the home of the Miami relatives until March 6. Beyond that date, his status again became illegal alien.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 07, 2000.

My experience has taught me that we are not secure in our homes. The "law" can enter any time they please and "The Law" is behind them.

-- Debra (my@reality.com), May 07, 2000.

Godless people,do Godless things. so why be surprised?

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), May 07, 2000.

There are thousands of warrants served daily in this country, some of which involve considerably more violence than anything experienced by the relatives and little Elian. This has been going on for...oh, about 200 years now. Why would the serving of one warrant make you suddenly feel insecure? And how many times has your house been entered by the JBT's?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), May 07, 2000.

Good point Jim. Unfortunately there are still thousands of children who have been kidnapped and/or killed who the government has not been able to find. One way to solve this problem would be to implant a GPS transmitter in all convicted felons. If they commit a second felony or try to remove the implant the punishment would be death. We could save billions in prison costs because the only ones that would need to be institutionalized would be the criminals who have a proven psychological problem or a need for rehabilitation.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 07, 2000.

I feel fine at home. Never again will I give in to FUD. I certainly was not a dyed in the wool 10 doomer, but I was foolish enough to buy into fear and uncertainty.

But *IF* I had kept another person's child after the deadline to turn him over to his real parent, then I would not be surprised to have "The Law" take him by force. In fact, I wonder why the hell "The Law" bent over backwards for this extended family of lawbreakers.

But, if I'd had the child, and I cared anything for his father, I would have turned him over as soon as possible, instead of causing an internation incident for my own selfish reasons.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 07, 2000.

Hawk:

Interesting you should bring up that concept. There's a thing called the Digital Angel which is being tested now in North Carolina. This is a small transmitter that can be worn on a wrist band or implanted under the skin if the person is likely to remove the wristband. It is being used for Alzheimer's patients who are at risk for wandering. It has been used for about two years now. The costs for searches for these people have dropped from about $300,000 annually to about $6,000. The number of live finds has gone from 24% to 90%. I note that, on EZBoard, this new technology is viewed as the first step of the mark of the beast and another example of government intrusion. I wonder what the response would be to your proposal for using the same technology for criminals?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), May 07, 2000.

Jim,

I think it is invasive of our right to privacy, and it should never be required on law-abiding citizens unless they request it for their own safety. But IMO, once a criminal has been convicted of a serious crime, they should lose all their rights. Many serious criminals do not fear life in prison, because it is comfortable and they don't have to work. Prison housing costs us a lot, so they are usually released as early as possible, and there is no real deterrent to keep them from committing crimes again.

Think how easy it would be to locate repeat offenders. Anytime a crime is reported, the police could just identify the signals that were in that area at the time, and then easily locate them.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 07, 2000.

Hawk:

I have to disagree with you on this one. Although the statistics do say that a convicted felon is likely to commit another felony, they do not say all convicted felons will commit another felony. To require all convicted felons to be implanted would be a serious civil rights violation. Many convicted felons have committed non-violent crimes-they are victims of over zealous drug laws.

Placing an implant in an individual is saying that from now on you are guilty until proven innocence and it would be a perversion of the rule of law. The state supreme court in New Jersey has issued a temporary injunction against "megan's Law"-this is the law which requires released sex offenders to report this status to their new community. The stay was issued as the court examines wether this law violates civil rights.

I am not a believer in "once a criminal, always a criminal". If I had beleived that, I would never have gotten sober; When I was doing street drugs I was committing a felony every day-I never got caught, but with your rules I would now have this implant, even though I am five years sober.

I see no mercy in your proposal, and where there is no mercy there is no love. It is unfortunate that there are repeat criminals, but that should not be the reason to deny civil rights to those that HAVE been rehabilitated.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 07, 2000.

FS, if you think that using drugs is not serious enough to be a felony, then perhaps the laws should be changed, but that is not related to what I said. I happen to think that marijuana should be legalized. What I meant was that certain crimes would be agreed upon to be serious enough to merit the implant (murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, etc). The suspects would of course be given a fair trial, and if they were convicted after having proven that they were not insane or ill, then they would get the implant. Maybe after a suitable number of years it could be removed, but still on a second offense they should be executed. Imagine how much less crime there would be if we had stiff penalties, instead of just letting them sit around watching TV and eating food paid for by taxpayers.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 07, 2000.

Hawk:

I agree to some extent. But how long would they have to wear the implant? Who is to say? Many now on parole 'behave' till time is up and off to the races.

FS: I agee with you on this one also. Their are many I know who are recovering, one comes to mind is a 5x felon, drug charges. She has now been sober 2 years.

I get what you meant Hawk re: rapists, murderers etc...but for the execution part, what IF they were really innocent.? You know their are more and more going free due to DNA.

Your thoughts on this one?

regards, consumer

-- consumer (shh@ol.com), May 07, 2000.

consumer,

I would think that something along the lines of the normal maximum jail sentence of each particular crime would be suitable for the period of the implant. Of course the government would be required to keep it confidential, and only be allowed to track the signals in areas and times when a crime is reported. The important thing is that it would provide a very strong deterrent against future crimes, and many of these people could become an asset to society instead of a liability being locked up in prison. For the executions, of course they would have to be proven without a doubt and DNA should be used whenever possible to confirm guilt. The point is that in many cases it would be much easier to find possible suspects that were near the crime scene.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 07, 2000.

Hawk:

That is a very strange idea you have there. I did not understand it at first-what you are saying is that the implants would replace the prison terms? I don't know. Couldn't the implants be surgically removed by cooperating surgeons? This is such a strange idea that I think I will give it more thought before I fully respond.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 07, 2000.

Hawk, more kids are taken from their families by the government every year than are kidnapped by strangers. Many kids in government custody are maimed and killed by negligent and abusive foster parents and older kids in the system. Anyone can make an anonymous complaint against a parent, and the system is geared to increase the case load. Each child in custody is worth federal grant money, and the parents are assessed child support if they are working. The state pays very little per child to the foster parent.

Do the math...Foster parent gets $350 per month. The parents are assessed $400+ per month in child support to be paid to the state. If they have health insurance, the parents are required to keep that paid also. The state gets a federal grant, and any extra medical costs are paid by Medicaid, a federal program. As long as the child doesn't rack up excessive medical costs -- that means he doesn't get to see the doctor for chronic conditions, as all visits have to be approved by the state -- the state makes a profit. The case load is increased. The increased case loads are the basis for the kidnapping agency to request additional state funding. (They're making their own raises.) On top of that, racial minority and handicapped children -- remember all those kids on ritalin are eligible for SSI funds -- all those children get a higher federal grant. More racial minority and handicapped children are taken than white and non-handicapped.

75% of all child abuse referrals are UNFOUNDED. Of the 25% remaining, many are cases that require far less intervention than taking the child. The state, however, makes a profit on each child taken and is more likely to take the child.

If you don't believe me, research this subject. It'll blow your mind. It's all a secret to "protect the child" -- that means you don't get to know who did this to you. You don't get to know where your child is or who is taking care of him or if he's in a group home. You don't get notified of hearings. A bureaucrat can make you take all kinds of "parenting classes" in order to get your child home and then change your "reunification plan" the day you go back to court. You may or may not get to see your child one hour a week, while someone watches you. You will be told what you may or may not say to your child. Your child will be told lies about you. Check it out. It's true.

"Follow the money"

-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 07, 2000.

Pig, I find that hard to believe. If the government took a child when there was no abuse going on the parents could simply hire a lawyer. The government isn't likely to be able to collect the $400 a month either. Sounds to me like some kind of conspiracy theory cooked up by someone who abused their child, not unlike the Miami Cubans.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 08, 2000.

Hawk, I see you have no experience in this matter. When the state grabs your kids, it isn't carried out in normal court with normal rules. You aren't allowed to know the specific charges against you until you actually get there. When the original allegations are disproven, say someone says you've beaten your children and no signs are found, the charges may change and change again. In many cases they grab your child at school, and you aren't notified until you try to pick your child up or he doesn't come home. The kids are gone before you know you need a lawyer. You legally have 48 hours in which to request a "show cause" hearing to make the pick-up legal, and many kids are taken on the weekend. That gives a parent very little time to find a lawyer who can schedule you quickly. If you have no representation, no representation is given you by the court. You don't get to speak at the hearing.

NO evidence is necessary in order to pick up a child. Even if the child denies abuse, the child is assumed to be lying to protect the family. Even if no abuse has taken place, the parent is assumed guilty until proven otherwise.

Even if the court finds no reason to continue to hold the child, a process that sometimes takes months, the parents and children are not allowed to sue the agency that made the mistake. Suing for wrongful accusation and disruption and frankly, kidnapping, must be done at the federal level. The federal courts won't hear the case for years and it's a very expensive process...if you can find an attorney who will take your case.

Children are taken without court orders every day. The state pays social workers very little. Anyone with a college degree in any field, and not specific to working with children, may become a social worker. The pay is low and the turnover is high. Many unsuitable people with power issues become social workers and use that position to inflict abuse on innocent parents AND the kids.

The kids are taken to a strange place, often a shelter. Their school routines are disrupted, they may be taken to a different school altogether. They have only those possessions on them when they were taken. They are told their parents cannot and will not come to get them. They are often separated from siblings. They are not allowed to see their parents and are told the parents don't want to see them. They are pressured again and again to make accusations against the parents in order to go home...and if they cave in, they may never really go home.

Hawk, I wouldn't wish this on your children. Remember the IRS hearings? Remember how people cried and told horrible stories of everything from having their doors kicked in to losing everything they had? Did you believe those people? The same things and worse happen when CPS goes after you. They're no different from any other 3-letter government agency...except they have legal immunity from any crimes they may commit BEFORE they commit those crimes. Think about it.

-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 08, 2000.

Hawk, about that child support to be paid to the state for holding your kids...have you ever heard of garnishment?

-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 08, 2000.

Pig:

Would you mind presenting some links to some of the statistics and other data that you state to be truth? I'd like to see you back up these allegations. If this practice is as wide-spread as you claim, you should have no trouble providing multiple links from different sources.

Debra:

You must remember that in your case you had a non-family member living on your premises. When my kids were teens, we had some friends of theirs show up asking to spend the night. One girl had run away from home on several occasions, so was familiar with proper procedure. Once I had assured her that she could stay the night, SHE called the police herself and assured them she wasn't a run-away. She said her dad had become violent over something she'd done and she wanted to give him time to cool down. The police honored that. After that incident, we had another girl who called to ask if she could stay with us. I called the police, who called the mother of the runaway, who called me back stating that the girl was bipolar and needed her meds. If the girl came, I was to notify the mother. The girl never showed, so I didn't need to get involved. Life gets trickier, legally, if we allow others into our homes.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2000.

Anita, I don't know how to hotlink, but give me a day and I'll start a thread with several websites for you to see. One of the problems with this is that few people are willing to talk to anyone about what has happened to their family -- this is the immediate response from people who have never gone through it.

I don't want to put words into Hawk's mouth, but it sounds like he's saying that the accused are making this up...the accused are guilty...to be accused is to be guilty...and even if the innocent get a lawyer and finally get their kids back, it was ok to take the kids in the first place because "it's for the children".

-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 08, 2000.

Pig:

I'll be glad to hotlink anything you provide, but you need credible sources to back up your claims.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2000.

Anita, I have so many links that I'm going to work on doing it myself. Hang on, you'll be shocked.

-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 08, 2000.

Anita and Hawk:

To a 'certain' degree Pig is believe it or not correct. Alot of things I disagree with Pig on.

Remember I told you about my niece? Social Services/CPS in California snatched her from my sister, had good cause, HOWEVER, my neice stood her ground at 9 yrs old.

My sister got a social worker with an attitude who more often than NOT abused her power. Reunification plan was often vague, many screwups.

I was threatend by SW (social worker) on several occasions, because I gave a good comment about how my sister was doing. NOT what worker wanted to hear.

GAL = guardian ad litem assigned, WORTHLESS, never return calls and only got busy as Court date approached. Niece was in foster home where she was abused. Took me along time to get her out, had to go thru homestudy in Ohio and I HAD TO DO ALL THE WORK.

They were in no hurry to get the child out of there. BTW, foster care money differs from state to state. Foster mom got big $$, I got welfare pittence of 200.00 + medical.

Montel Williams did a show on the abuse of CPS, final conclusion was "WHO IS MINDING CPS"....answer is NOBODY.

I could go on and on about how all involved were mistreated, but I wont, because I'm sure if you search the web, regarding parental rights, you will see MANY such cases.

Hawk, I know it sounds crazy, but I swear it is true. I am still very angry about the whole thing.

Took my sister along time to get her child back.

Trust me, corruption is in the game there, big time.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 08, 2000.

Consumer & Pig

I've heard many horror stories about CPS abuses, too. I think that it would be a good idea to bug your state legislators if this happens, as well as pursuing legal action. Keep updating them and bothering them untils they show some interest. Also, if you can get some positive press for your cause, make them look bad in the media. It might help, and might also get your legislators to take more of an interest in your situation. CPS' power will only be checked when enough people become aware and demand change. Hearing from mothers who have been abused by the system is the only way it will come about. Is there any national organization?

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 08, 2000.

"...bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you..." Folks, we have been de-sensitized for the last 5 years by the world class pimp Murdoch with his crap white trash reality tv shows like COPS. They live in public housing. They live in the barrio. They live in a trailer. "Look, he's a drunken beer belly in a "wife beater" t-shirt! He's got a rebel flag on his pick-up! He DESERVES to have his door kicked in and have a fascist gestapo in riot gear make a "dramatic entry" into his "home". He's probably a drug dealer, porn addict, pedophile, right? Today it's them. Tomorrow it could be you out there in your $250,000 McMansion in your idyllic suburb, whatitsname? BriarRidgeMallardEstatesFoxboroCommonsColonial AcresSleepyHollowWindingCreekCambridgeHomes. Pay attention. If it's ok to violate the rights of the third world "lowlifes", or the MOVE headquarters in Rizzo's Philly of the 1980's, then nobody is safe. Wake up. Boycott the media madness with extreme prejudice. The fastfood junque of our cultrual debris floating amid the flotsam and jetsom in the Springerization of our nation. "I'm sleeping with my Grandma" "I'm a stripping transvestite truck driver" Americana has become the abode of demons. I was horrified to see this on tv during my last visit to Europe to stay with relatives last summer. They were very upset, naturally. Demanding to know "why" we were exporting this filth to their country. I had to agree. How exactly are we Americans any different from those hedonists who blatantly cried out for ever more Christians to be sacrificed to the lions for "entertainment"??? More or less afraid since Elian? Scared shitless, you damn betcha!

-- Heart of Darkness (apocalypse@now.com), May 08, 2000.

Flash, try VOCAL -- Victims of Child Abuse Laws. There are chapters in many states that deal with their own state variations on the theme, but it is a national organization for the falsely accused.

The IRS abused the hell out of Americans until the hearings a few years ago. They still abuse people, but not nearly to the extent that they once did. Someday enough people will have been through the CPS nightmare -- or they'll mess with the wrong person -- and you'll see the same types of hearings. Nothing said during the IRS hearings sounded different from what I've heard from parents about CPS.

You want some personal stories? I tried to keep it to links, but I know people who have been through this. One woman was in the middle of a divorce -- her ex mother in law said she didn't have utilities or food. She was flipping her lights on and off for the cops, begging them to look in her pantry and refrigerator to see the food -- and they said it didn't matter. They took her terrified kids (cops with guns, putting screaming toddlers into a squad car) without her ever seeing a court order. At her hearing she had a statement from her utility company that her utilities had never been interrupted. She brought the receipts from the grocery store dated from the day before her children were taken. CPS changed the allegations right there in the hearing and said she didn't change the baby's diaper often enough, that the baby had diaper rash WHEN he was picked up (an allegation after the fact of his removal). It took months of seeing her children only one hour per week, of having one lawyer after another turn her down, before she stipulated to neglecting her children. Then the children were returned to her under state supervision. Get that -- she maintained her innocence and the kids were not returned, she admitted guilt and got them back. The state took children from an innocent woman on a false pretense and gave kids back to an admittedly neglectful one. Who is protecting who?

I've heard so many of these from the victims themselves. I'll try to keep it to links though, so as not to confuse the issue with my own sense of outrage.

-- Pig (don't@think.so), May 08, 2000.