Thursday, March 21, 2013

New Jersey Boy's Facebook Picture Brings Cops to the House


The picture that allegedly caused official concern.
(Credit: Shawn Moore/Facebook) 

 Cnet

They were allegedly alarmed by a Facebook photo of Josh Moore, aged 11, holding a .22 rifle, and they allegedly wanted to get very near him.

The photo had been posted by his father, Shawn, to Facebook. It showed Josh, in his camouflage outfit and rather bright sneakers. 

Shawn Moore told his story to a forum on the Delaware Open Carry Web site.
He said he received a text from his wife that police and alleged members of the Department of Youth and Family Services had paid their home a visit. It was, allegedly, not a social call. 

Indeed, he posted a picture of police in what he describes as "tactical gear."

He says the authorities demanded to enter the house in Carneys Point, N.J., and check his guns. His lawyer, on a cell phone speakerphone, was privy to all the discussions.

Moore insisted that he wouldn't open the safe where his guns are kept-- as no warrant was allegedly presented to him -- and that a lady from the Department of Youth and Family Services refused to identify herself. 
What do you think?

14 comments:

  1. Just another case of nanny state overreach and clutching at pearls because "OH MY GAWD! He's letting his kids touch GUNS!!!11!"

    This is why, even when I was a kid, there was no photography of guns or at the gun range.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What do you think?" - I think you used the word "allegedly" alot in that post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. I think the cops should check out things like that. In this case as soon as they learned the guy had his guns locked up in a safe, they should have had all the information they needed, which perhaps is just what happened.

      Delete
    2. Check out what? Gun ownership?

      Delete
    3. I'd ask what probable cause you see for the police to investigate this case, but I already know that you don't care about due process and legal restraints on government action.

      Delete
    4. Not gun ownership, but kids with guns. That should be checked out. There's no adult in the picture. Should we wait till a kid shoots up his school and then publish his facebook pictures?

      Delete
    5. Judging by the picture angle, it was taken by a supervising adult.

      HOWEVER, you've failed to express why a picture of a child holding a firearm--something that is not illegal in any way--gives probable cause that a crime is being committed.

      The gun isn't illegal. A child having possession of a gun isn't illegal, even without direct adult supervision (supervision which could be inferred from this picture). Pictures of children with guns aren't illegal.

      Too bad, but there's no probable cause here, in spite of you finding the picture disturbing.

      Delete
    6. Yes, Mikeb, we should. In other words, we shouldn't swarm in with the power of the state to look into something that isn't a crime. Now, if the kid posted a photograph and said that he was going to commit an act of violence, that's different.

      You want to treat gun owners the way that gays were treated in years gone by. You want most of us to be illegal, and you want all of us to keep quiet about it. It's a real problem for control freaks when citizens are proud of their rights, ain't it?

      Delete
    7. Judging by the angle of the picture it was taken by a 15-foot Sasquatch. There is no adult in the picture and I don't believe it's legal for a 10-year-old kid to have possession of a gun while unsupervised by an adult.

      Delete
    8. You've been shown here how you're wrong, but you're doubling down on your silly assertion that there was something in that picture worth investigating. If your side would ever get a clue, you'd be genuinely dangerous.

      Delete
  4. I think that you should admit that we were right. Your side creates an atmosphere of panic and suspicion, and this is the result. So you tell us, what do you think of armed and anonymous agents of the state forcing their way (don't quibble--whenever agents of the state come calling, that's force) into the home of a citizen who had done nothing wrong?

    I've said it before, but perhaps you'll hear me this time. When one right can be infringed, all can be infringed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Orlin said the citizen stood his ground.

      Delete
  5. It's heartening to hear of a citizen holding his ground against the local standing army.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete