The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

Christie Calls for Investigation

2K views 14 replies 12 participants last post by  jimsdad 
#1 ·
of New Jersey agency's response to boy-with-gun photo.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/...se-in-boy-with/

"The public reports of this matter raise troubling questions concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation, the manner in which the investigation was conducted, and the procedures followed by law enforcement and the Division of Child Protection and Permanency," the governor wrote.
 
#2 ·
Good! Someone in authority has to question why a photo with no indication f a crime caused polise and a person from child protective services to invade a home with no probabalcause, no reasonable suspicion and the key word is reasonable. Unless there is more that we don;t know about, they all over stepped their authority.
 
#3 ·
Good I was worried earlier tonight when heard Christies' name on the radio in connection with this. I didnt know what he was doing untill now. Division of Child Protection and Permanency agent supposedly being there on a good faith mission to check on a childs saftey and refusing to show her credentials? Terrible.
 
#4 ·
I guess Christie got all the money he needed from Obama so he can go back to being a Republican again. Convictions and a person who stands for what he believes in totally gone, but he's back.
 
#5 ·
Would the viewpoints be the same if everything that happened was the opposite? if the kid was 16, black and wearing gang colors and the police were called and told sorry nothing we can do, then the kid went on a shooting spree? Everyone would be in an uprage.
 
#6 ·
Many years ago I posed dressed in my SASS outfit with a Henry Golden Boy .22 for a photo in a dating site. It was taken down for unauthorized content but was ok to see naked women and men but not legal firearms. Oh and I was a bit over 60 at the time.
 
#8 ·
Peppy, would it have been better if Christie had lied when he was asked how he felt about the way the pres was handling the disaster in Jersey?
I'm glad he's checking int this. He seems to do and say what he feels is the right thing even if it's not always what the extremist in his party want, very rare in politics today.

Rflktrman, what was the name of that site you mentioned?
 
#10 ·
A photo on a social media account can lead to all kinds of problems. That teaching student from Millersville U was denied a teaching certificate because of a Halloween party photo showing her holding what appeared to be a glass of beer. Absolutely nothing illegal or immoral, yet the state of PA used it as grounds to deny the woman a teaching certificate. Many of you are just "waking up" to the excesses of the system because now it is your "ox"

A call for a gov't investigation will be as constructive as the investigation into why the college prof in Boston was arrested, in his own home. Just enough whitewash to get the public to forget.
 
#12 ·
whil e kioti said:
pete65: If the kid was 16 and in a gang it wouldn't matter what color he was. That alone would be enough to get a warrent. (probable cause) Fortunately that was NOT the case.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Whil e you need to reread my post, I never said the kid was in a gang, I said wearing gang colors. Most gang colors are red, white, blue or black, I never said anything about symbols. So you are saying as long as they are wearing these colors they would have probable cause? Since the kid was white, wearing camo, and looked like a good kid there is a problem, but if it's a black kid wearing all black it would be probable cause? Interesting.
 
#13 ·
If I hired somebody, and could look at there facebook postings, I would certainly take my impression of them from it into account.
A glass of beer is no big deal, but some of the things people post are incredibly stupid and show a lack of good judgemnet if nothing else.
 
#14 ·
pte65: You suggested (wearing gang colors) that the kid was in a gang. Just wearing the colors you now mention means nothing, neither does the color of his skin which seemes to be important to you.

You can twist my opinion whatever way you like, but you still didn't explain what your point is.
 
#15 ·
I am going to make a leap here with no intention of hijacking or redirecting your post but rather to make the issue a bit more complex. Here goes. What additional dammage could an overbearing and unnecessairly watchful government do with the aid of cheap and ubiquitus drones?
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top