It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man on Trial for Branding His Kids Like Cattle

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by CDippa
 


When the parents are divorced, I think at the very least it should require both parents permission to BRAND a child. LS is making a very valid point about the psychological abuse that probably took place in this home. What normal child would accept being branded by their father? What normal father would brand his children?




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
The children are going to be at the trial in his defense...


Yes, but why?

The article does not explain any family history nor give background on any possible reasons to why he did this, or why they agreed. I have to go back to my point above... Was there emotional or psychological (or even physical) manipulation or abuse going on?

If there was, that may explain their consent.


... so, what if there wasn't?

How do you explain it then?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Yes, but why?

The article does not explain any family history nor give background on any possible reasons to why he did this, or why they agreed. I have to go back to my point above... Was there emotional or psychological (or even physical) manipulation or abuse going on?

If there was, that may explain their consent.


I think the above highlights the following thread...from LS as well...

NeuroLaw

This could be a relevant application of the above...though if the situation is isolated than a concerted effort towards proper and non conflicting (regional) education could be a focal point.

I think both are viable options for our society...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Lack of education or conflicting societal/regional influences upon the parent.

The fact, I think, is that this is not a socially cultivating act. As such, it bears attention and perhaps could spawn relevant discussion on societal/personal evolution.

There is a reason why it is unacceptable behaviour and a reason why it occurred. The children's defense of the act, in my opinion, is not what any complete basis for judgement to be placed.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


ahhh i was looking forward to some photos of the mess, oh well.

On another note MOOOOOO!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlightOfTheNavigator
reply to post by semperfortis
 


ahhh i was looking forward to some photos of the mess, oh well.

On another note MOOOOOO!


I'll indulge - though you do not impress -

Here you go...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by endisnighe
 


"Is it legal to get a tattoo before the age of 18?"

Not without Parental Permission..

"Is it legal to get plastic surgery before the age of 18?"

Not without Parental Permission..

"Is it legal to get piercings before the age of 18? "

Not without Parental Permission..

At least not in any state I have served in...

Semper


I completely agree about this being a violation of trust and I find it morally reprehensible. That being said, as you've stated, none of these "body modifications" can be done without parental consent, well, is it not true that he was their father? They agreed to it and he did it, so he obviously gave his consent, and while I personally find this sickening I am going to have to agree with endisneigh about this being an issue of freedom. I also agree with LadySkadi about the psychological abuse aspect and think this should be looked into. If indeed any type of psychological abuse did take place and these children were not truly acting on their own volition, I can see a case being made to pursue charges. However, I am not sure about laws involving this type of situation. There was parental consent and the children also consented. If there are laws in place that makes psychological abuse illegal, then he can be charged, but only if there is absolutely no doubt that the abuse took place, however, if such legislation is not in effect I would have to drop the charges, no matter how much I disagree with the actions.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
In every state I have ever worked in, the charge would be Assault Of A High and Aggravated Nature..

This is NOT Tattooing...

Not by any stretch of the imagination...

Certain states even have specific laws in their codes listing branding, due to the treatment of slaves..

Semper



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I would like to reiterate that I found this to be wrong.

But, I am wondering how you are going to be able to prove between psychological abuse and just the love for a parent. We all know we will do things that we do not want to do, for those that we love.

Just going to be one hell of jury room discussion. Hopefully they spend more time then 10 minutes to come back with a decision. If it even gets that far. I am sure the DA will be balls to the wall on the threats of possible sentences and then offer up a plea bargain.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Before we compare this to a tattoo or piercing, remember that the piercer/tattoo artist actually knows what they are doing. I also believe that in most states they need a license and are required to work with properly sterilized equipment. Burns are a hotbed (:@@
for infection and I would think this to be reason enough to convict the father of child endangerment.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Wow! As a father of an 9 y/o I could never imagine branding her or other future children I may have. Granted I have a fair amount of tattoos and I hope one day my daughter wants to get tattooed of her own free will and legal age. To play devils advocate, maybe the dad and kids are really close and thought it was a good idea. Is there anything about the father getting branded with something along the lines of "father of ......". Over all I think this guy gives fathers a bad name.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Link with news clip

So, family tradition? That's what he says, but than - why was he branded by a friend that same day?


He branded them on Nov. 25, 2008, after they asked him to do it, the father and both boys testified.

On the same day, a friend branded "SK" on the arm of the father with the same red-hot branding iron, according to the father's testimony.

The father also branded his then-18-year-old daughter.



“I believe this helped amplify the fact that I would be there for them through anything,” Seamands said.

Branding with the “SK” is “a family thing,” he said in an interview he recorded with authorities and played for the nine-man, four-women jury, which includes one alternate.

“It's been a family brand for as long as I've been alive,” Seamands said.


Link

[edit on 13-5-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


If it's been a family thing and been a family brand for as long as he's been alive, then why is it that he was branded the same day that he branded his children ? It seems to me if what he says is true that he would've been branded by his father when he was young.

I saw the picture that you linked. I could not even imagine ever doing that to my child.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


I find this part of the story to be highly intriguing.


Seamands said he had permission to brand the boys from the children's mother, with whom he was going through a divorce at the time.

But Seamands' ex-wife told police that she was horrified when she saw the brands burned into the youngest boy's chest, the other boy's arm and the calf of the daughter's leg.


I noticed in the article also this-


When notified of the branding, Child Protective Services did not take any action against Seamands, Seamands testified.


Moving more towards not guilty though. I wonder if there are any CPS documents available.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

This is NOT Tattooing...

Not by any stretch of the imagination...

Certain states even have specific laws in their codes listing branding, due to the treatment of slaves..

Semper


I disagree that branding is not in the same category as tattooing. Many fraternities use branding...it is another form of body modification. If states still outlaw branding because of slavery, that just means those laws are antiquated and no longer relevant.

However, upon researching Washington's tattoo laws, it seems that a minor cannot get a tattoo even WITH parental consent. So if it is illegal for someone to tattoo the child, I would have to agree that it is illegal for anyone to brand the child.

My vote is changed to "guilty as charged".



Source (see page 2):

2010 Seattle Tattoo Expo Guidelines



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
The father's an inadequate loser. Probably suffering impotency

The sons don't have much brain or courage

Awful family

Should be a law that sterilises all members of families like that

that's all


.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Dock9]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
A question would be, is there any real difference to this and getting your kid's ears pierced? Both are mutillation for the sake of decoration.

Not that I'm condoning this at all, but it seens that as all the kids gave their consent, there's a kinda double standards thing going down here.

I have a daughter and there's no way I'd get her ears pierced now (she's only 18 months), but I'd probably be willing to concede if she wanted it done from about the age of 12-13.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by nik1halo
 




Issues of degrees and intent, at least

Ear piercing as opposed to wearing an ugly, stupid and relatively large defacement, lifelong, as opposed to two tiny holes that in time would seal over if allowed to

The father should be clubbed unconscious and thrown in a lake. I don't even have the inclination to consider providing him with treatment

Darwin Award stuff

The world would be a better place without him and his genes



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


I'm tempted to agree with you on this one, I was just playing Devil's Advocate to be honest.

The guy's an idiot to say the least.

I have a number of Tattoos and piercing's, but no way I'd let my kid get either done before the legal age (regardless of what I did in my youth).

In the UK, it's 18 for a tattoo and I know of no minimal legal age restriction for ear piercing with parental consent, although I think it's 16 for body piercing with parental consent.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
While I personally would never brand my child, I find this laughable. You people are so quick to jump on the bandwagon and act like this man is some kind of monster. Not everyone around is bad people. If the kids wanted the brand whats the big deal. As was said earlier other cultures cut their children hundreds of times, yet we arent going over their and telling them how to live their lives. People on this site are quick to dictate their morals onto others. We're all different deal with it.

MessOnTheFED!




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join