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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by fallow the light
children use to be adults at the age of 13. they use to start their own families, pay their own bills and hunt their own food. now 13 year olds are fragile little puppies who know absolutely nothing about the world and can not decide for them self's.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by fallow the light]


Actually you have your history a bit skewed and are misunderstanding the time when kids went to work so young and married so young. What made sense in past culture does not relate to today's reality.

If you go back into the start of the twentieth and end of the nineteenth centuries you find marriage at those ages common. What was also different was the lifestyle and culture and what it took to survive.

People had lots of children young. Half or more died before age five. To survive a family needed land and large families to work the land to provide food and income.

Just going back to my Fathers time when he grew up in the early twentieth century. School only went as far as the eighth grade if you were lucky. All hands were needed to care for cattle and the crops. There was no money to hire help and the number of children who could do work determined how productive a family could be. There were no Wal-Marts or Super-Markets. What you produced is what you ate and sold to buy what you could not produce.

As to the marriage. Yes it was young but they continued to live with their parents and grandparents in the same home. Sometimes up to four generation in the same household working the same land. Families stayed together for survival. Grandma and Grandpa saw to the home and the young children while mom and dad saw to it the work got done with the help of all available hands in the family.

Now, we are a completely different culture. Education is everything and that means schooling until a later age. It also means the kids can not work and still get the education they need in today's world. Any chance at future success in what has now become a much longer lifespan rests on remaining single and without children until you have an education out of the way.

Apples and Oranges.

As far as letting children mark up their bodies, it could be abuse whether you believe so or not. If I'm hiring an executive level person, I'm going to skip over people covered in bad tattoos with rings in their noses. Not because I give a damn, but because it will drive many customers away. No its not right, but it is how it is. If you handicap your own children that way it could mean the difference between a good life with all the frills or a life of struggling to get by on low wages.

Also allowing young unformed minds to make decisions that could impact them for their whole lives is terrible parenting. Total incompetence.




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
It is the violation of trust that sickens me..

Just like any other child abuse, the children trust their parents and are confused on a base level when that trust is violated...

Trust me, I deal with this all the time...



A violation of "trust" or a desire due to peer pressure/latest trend?

I know. I know ... but there Is an ever-increasing trend in cowboy/rodeo - type genres where "branding" is gaining interest over tattoos even.

... just sayin'...

to each their own, I guess. ?
?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Whatever people want to do to their own bodies is their business. And before you answer with they agreed to it, I don't believe that they agreed to it without some form of abuse in that family. Children that grow up with any form of abuse will do things that they wouldn't normally do had they not been abused.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Grey Magic
 


Humans don't have too many instincts about how to raise kids, we tend to just mirror the child raising techniques we've seen around us.
- And there are times when raising kids in a one, or even two, parent family can drive anyone crazy, so people will often act out learned behaviour without thinking about it.

Then, once you've started raising kids badly, not getting their love and respect, not showing them they're loved and safe at home, and not setting them a good example, you find parenting unrewarding, wonder why you've been cursed with such bad kids, and see no reason to behave better towards them.

At least, that's how I see a lot of bad parenting.

Being a parent takes time and commitment. It's not something anyone can do well now and then when they get round to it.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gromle
 


You're talking about something entirely different. I'm talking about the father branding his children with SK. Where the S stands for his last name, and the K stands for kids. So yes he was claiming ownership of his children.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
If I'm hiring an executive level person, I'm going to skip over people covered in bad tattoos


...how would you know they're covered in tattoos?... tell 'em to take their clothes off so you can check 'em out?... i had a potential employer like that a long time ago... he still walks with a limp...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 



Perhaps the best punishment for this would be to publicly brand this guy with "Moron" on his chest..


Eye for an eye...yeah...that's gotten our civilization places alright...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
So would this have been a non-issue if he had tattoos done? I'm failing to see the difference.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CDippa
If a parent can give consent for a tattoo, why can't they give consent for a branding?

To me, it comes down to whether or not the children wanted and accepted the branding. If the parent forcibly branded them against their will, I think he should be prosecuted, obviously. But, if the children wanted to be branded for whatever reason, how is that any different than a parent consenting to a tattoo?


I agree with you, that I don't see the big distinction between the two different types of body modification, tattoos and burn (or cut) scars, both are painful and both are more or less permanent disfigurements.

As you found out when you researched the Washington laws, you need to be 18 to get a tattoo so the same thing should apply to get a burn or cut body marking.

I am personally against tattoos, brands and similar body modifications for myself and my family, but I think the Washington law is about right that getting those should be prohibited for people under 18, even with parental consent.

I don't think piercings fall into the same category as tattoos and brands so 13 year olds should be able to get piercings with parental consent.

The father is guilty of breaking the law. Whether the jury agrees is yet to be decided.

I find the calf brand on the daughter to be disgusting, but no more disgusting than a tattoo and since she was 18 and old enough to consent to it, even if I don't like it, I respect the father's and daughter's freedom to apply that one since she was 18. The boys were too young, but if they had also been over 18, again, I wouldn't like it, but I would respect their freedom to get it if they wanted. I do have a problem with kids under 18 getting tattoos and brands though, I agree with the Washington law that they should be 18 for that type of modification.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by janon
So would this have been a non-issue if he had tattoos done? I'm failing to see the difference.
Some people see a difference, but I don't.

But giving his minor children tattoos would be just as illegal under Washington law, so it would still be an issue.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



26.28.085. Applying tattoo to a minor--Penalty Every person who applies a tattoo to any minor under the age of eighteen is guilty of a misdemeanor. It is not a defense to a violation of this section that the person applying the tattoo did not know the minor's age unless the person applying the tattoo establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she made a reasonable, bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of the minor by requiring production of a driver's license or other picture identification card or paper and did not rely solely on the oral allegations or apparent age of the minor. For the purposes of this section, "tattoo" includes any permanent marking or coloring of the skin with any pigment, ink, or dye, or any procedure that leaves a visible scar on the skin. Medical procedures performed by a licensed physician are exempted from this section.


You are right. I think they need to charge him with this misdemeanor and be done with it.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by janon
 


Good find, I see the part you highlighted applies to this situation.

Yes, that's what he's guilty of.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
According to the story, all of the kids - 15, 17, and 18 agreed to it and are still standing by the father and by their branding.

Even so, the younger two obviously don't know what they are saying because you don't make any sense until you turn 18. Everyone knows that.

I say, this is about as bad as those african tribes who burn themselves to make tribal keloidal scars on their children.


not to sound like 'that guy', but this thread should have ended after restinginpieces initial comment i've quoted.

everything else is going to be uneccessary emotional opinions that i don't care about because people can't let other people just be themselves. refer to the post i quoted.

the kids consented, it's none of your business. unless you live under a rock, branding is quite popular with body mod people. it's seriously not a big deal, and i doubt he did it because he thinks of his children as cattle.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Jury: Dad not guilty of second-degree assault

Dad got off -

I still find this a disgusting and poor parenting decision made by the father, but the jury did not find it a criminal offense.


ed: fix link


[edit on 13-5-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Thanks for the decision, I agree with the Jury he's not guilty of assault.

He's guilty of the tattooing misdemeanor but I guess that's not what he was charged with.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


That is good to hear. I'm so glad that the jury wasn't so easily led to believe that just because some people don't follow the socially accepted 'norm' doesn't mean they are evil or malicious.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
We have to find a positive in all this nonsense

and the most obvious of the positives

is that the idiot's kids have their moronic tattooes out there as a warning to anyone desperate or stupid enough to consider breeding with them

let that gene pool die



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Well, I wish they would have stated how long it took in the jury room.

I know the cases I have been in, they were usually quite quick. Of course nothing so questionable as this.

I guess freedom was probably the main component behind the jurist's decision.

I always wanted to do an article on interviews of jurists. I always thought that would be an interesting read.

As for this case. I see both sides of the argument, do not condone it myself, but by my convictions that freedom and liberty on the choices others decide to make, I believe the jury came to the right decision.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9
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]


Ahh, I see. The family is so terrible for doing things to themselves that you disagree with, that they should be exterminated from the gene pool.

Just for you..

Hrmm.. What else don't you agree with? Must take notes...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
that is utterly sicking and disturbing.. this man needs to locked away... better yet.. branded his self



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join