Man on Trial for Branding His Kids Like Cattle

Man on Trial for Branding His Kids Like Cattle

www.cnsnews.com

Port Angeles, Wash. (AP) - A man accused of branding his three children like cattle is on trial on assault charges in Washington state.

KIRO-TV reports Mark Seamands branded his 13- and 15-year-old sons and 18-year-old daughter with the letters "SK" - for "Seamands' Kids." He's been charged with assaulting the sons but not the daughter because she was old enough to give consent.

Seamands' ex-wife says she was horrified when she saw the scars on the youngest boy's chest, the other boy's arm and the back of the daughter's leg.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.upi.com
www.kirotv.com

WOW

This almost rendered the Semper speechless..

I'm all about giving parents more responsibility for raising their own children..But to quote a cheesy movie line.. "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility"..

Having raised two beautiful daughters to adulthood, I can attest the last thing I would have ever done, would have been to scar them. They were scared enough having a Cop for a dad..

Some people just don't have any business having children in their care and this just exemplifies that.

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

Semper

www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The two sons, reportedly proud of their brands, are expected to testify for their father and say he did nothing wrong, KIRO reported.

Prosecutors and their mother reject that idea.

"I think it's child abuse in every way shape and form," Alison Davis said.

Worse (IMO) than the actual physical [abuse] (the act of branding) is the emotional or psychological [abuse] he may have put these kids through for them to be proud of the brand! That is some twisted thinking to view branding a child ok - one only wonders what else has gone down, in that family.

ed: clarify

[edit on 13-5-2010 by LadySkadi]

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.

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

Correction - on his forehead!

And make sure that he has regular haircuts.

There were no charges laid for the daughter, because she was the age of consent. She obviously consented to that, otherwise he would have been charged with her branding as well. I can only assume the younger boys consented to this as well, in which case it's really not so bad.

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...

reply to post by semperfortis


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

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

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

I find this to be wrong, but that is a moral judgment.

So what type of disfigurements are allowed and which ones are not?

I see the side of both issues here. I find it to be one of freedom.

Just a couple thoughts.

Originally posted by The Cusp
There were no charges laid for the daughter, because she was the age of consent. She obviously consented to that, otherwise he would have been charged with her branding as well. I can only assume the younger boys consented to this as well, in which case it's really not so bad.

Read these descriptions and if any of them apply to this family's situation (i.e. if this guy is found to have done something like this to his kids) than you can see how they may have consented and even believed it was what they wanted - when in fact it was indeed, child abuse and therefor the assertion that "it's really not so bad" is completely misguided and dangerous line of thought.

reply to post by LadySkadi


What is your position on the things I brought up?

reply to post by endisnighe


We need to know whether this was an act based on "freedom of choice" or an act based on emotional or psychological manipulation or abuse to better judge what happened, but I think it telling that he is being prosecuted...




*However, not relevant to this case*
To answer your question - I think choices regarding piercings/tattoos/body mod. are best left to the minor and his/her parent to decide. Personally, I don't think minors should be doing any of it. Leave it until one is old enough to understand the implications, repercussions and long term effects of the decision. It is (in most cases) permanent, after all.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by LadySkadi]

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

reply to post by RestingInPieces


I watched a documentary on History or on NGC, or whatever. The people in the tribe took toddlers and without their consent, cut 300 slices on their faces, to show they were from this one tribe. Horrible for sure. However, the parents laughed about it, saying, well, they won't remember it later, and then they will be happy they are identified with our tribe. That's their culturen and I don't want to interfer. The cutting of of the foreskin of males. Well, I don't remember it being done to me. However, I am happy my parents did this to me. There's a whole lot of women who prefer a cut male to an uncut male.



Just saying, let people alone.

Nothing new I'm afraid to say. Gang tagging is another method done to the very young too....

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Read these descriptions and if any of them apply to this family's situation (i.e. if this guy is found to have done something like this to his kids) than you can see how they may have consented and even believed it was what they wanted - when in fact it was indeed, child abuse and therefor the assertion that "it's really not so bad" is completely misguided and dangerous line of thought.

While this story is centered on a potentially isolated experience, I think it bears some consideration, especially in light of LadySkadi's link above (and it's association's to "cult recipe's" and recent Behavioural Modification Techniques admissions from the Pentagon that this may be signiificant of something that may be impossible to describe without subjective experience.

There is a lot we don't know about the evolution of some of our countries subcultures and I can't even think to understand why someone would deign to brand their progeny...if not for some kind of need for recognition.

The psychology of it baffles me...

Edit to add a word for clarification.

[edit on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:12:30 -0500 by MemoryShock]

The children are going to be at the trial in his defense...

I don't understand how a parent could do something like that to their child, you're supposed to protect them from harm, not inflict it upon them.

I understand that they say the daughter was of age to consent, but I highly doubt that she wanted that done to her. I'm guessing that if she agreed to that it was either out of fear, or due to being brainwashed by her father.

That man is one sick minded individual.

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.

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..

Well, that doesn't really say anything, because in this case they had parental permission!

The parent was the one who branded them!

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?