RE: Dad charged with branding kids...

RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slaveluci -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:01:37 AM)
Lots of assumptions and filling in the blanks here simply because the story states only the barest of facts. Just from what little bit is said, I do think it's safe to assume he won't be winning any "Father of the Year" awards. However, I don't automatically assume anything about the divorce or his relationship with his children. To say he "brainwashed" them may be a bit of a leap, especially without really knowing anything about what did or did not occur prior to the branding. I think -making my own assumptions here-that he may be misguided and not quite a genius parent but there doesn't seem to be any indication that he was abusive/neglectful to his children in any other way. He didn't imprison them, tie them up and force this branding on them and there's no indication either that he browbeat them into it or forced them in any way. Stupid, a bad judgement call, not great parenting - all those things in my book. Automatically abusive and evil? Not necessarily........luci

sirsholly -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:07:24 AM)
quote: The two teenage sons of 39-year-old Mark J. Seamands testified that they had wanted to be branded. Why is this even a factor? The kids were under the age of consent.

barelynangel -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:08:27 AM)
Also, in review -- the older sister willingly did this, on many levels it could have been her agreeing or wanting this that she actually was the major influence. She's 18 years old and to a 13 and 15 year old, that could have been a cool thing they get to do what their 18 year old sister was. I agree this father isn't father of the year, but i can see how the jury didn't have a consensus. I think the State would be wasting resources to retry this matter. angel

barelynangel -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:12:12 AM)
Holly, kids who are under the age of consent usually do get tatoos and such because they WANT them and the parents are the ones who consent because of this. So should all these parents who consent to their under the age of consent kids who allow tatoos and other surface disfiguring things be charged as a criminal? What about parents who give their kids cosmetic surgery because they advocate such because they see flaws in their kids AND the kids actually want it also? Its not criminal for parents to consent for the kids to change their appearance through cosmetic surgery. In courts, the defendant has a right to put on his or her defense and in the end, the fact the kids wanted these and were all for it, does to me hold considerable relevancy and so the court probably figured they will leave it up to the jury to determine what weight they will give the kids testimony. angel

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:15:13 AM)
barelynangel, again, you are missing the distinction between what a kid intrinsically desires (and I'd argue that some of this comes from peer pressure) and what the parents prescribe. - LA

barelynangel -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:22:59 AM)
LA -- you are going to have to clarify the "again" because 1) i haven't discussed any of this with you even in this thread, and 2) this is the first time you directly posted to me in this thread, 3, beyond your first post which to me was dramatic in its brainwashing concept, i can see no "again." Actually LA no i am not, perhaps you are being too dramatic with your brainwashing concept lol. I am also not looking at it from an emotional angle, but a practical one. I don't know who said it but there is a hell of a lot parents "brainwash" their kids on, and so in and of itself brainwashing isn't concidered illegal in the respect of parenting in this country nor is it considered criminally neglet or abuse. i am looking at like actions of parents all over the country who consent and to me if they consent they are advocating it, there are MANY parents who prescribe life changing things for their kids, and hell i know many parents who say how cool tatoos are, who have tatoos, who advocate tatoos and then they have kids who want them too because mom and dad do, and its NOT criminal for parents to consent to them getting them. Hell some parents can't wait til their kids are old enough to get them a cool tatoo. You can't tell me these parents aren't prescribing same. Cosmetic surgery holds the same argument. I am NOT saying i advocate this behavior in parents but i am saying it isn't a criminal act necessarily. And if you hold this to be criminal then you should hold any surface disfiguring concept advocated or as you put it brainwashing concept to be a criminal act of abuse and neglect if done by parents in the concept of raising their kids, meaning ALL forms including religion, political beliefs etc etc etc (i.e., emotional as well as phyical). I am looking at the criminal element, not the moral one. angel

sirsholly -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:27:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel Holly, kids who are under the age of consent usually do get tatoos and such because they WANT them and the parents are the ones who consent because of this. So should all these parents who consent to their under the age of consent kids who allow tatoos and other surface disfiguring things be charged as a criminal? What about parents who give their kids cosmetic surgery because they advocate such because they see flaws in their kids AND the kids actually want it also? Its not criminal for parents to consent for the kids to change their appearance through cosmetic surgery. In courts, the defendant has a right to put on his or her defense and in the end, the fact the kids wanted these and were all for it, does to me hold considerable relevancy and so the court probably figured they will leave it up to the jury to determine what weight they will give the kids testimony. angel Personally, i see a huge difference between a tattoo and a parent burning his own childs skin, but that is just me. The law says those kids are under the age of consent, Angel. If you hold the law at it's word, then the kids could not give consent and ol Father of the Year took it upon himself to brand them. So where does this end. Can a pedophile parent use that rational for abusing his 13 yr old child ("Gee, your honor...he wanted it!") If 13 and 15 are too young to give consent, then the fact that they agreed should not have been a factor in the outcome of the trial.

barelynangel -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:33:37 AM)
Holly, what about cosmetic surgery? It may not be burning the child but its many times physically injurying them through surgery. And a parent having their kid get cosmetic surgery aren't arrested. Tatoos from what i understand is someone poking a needle full of ink into the skin over and over and many times it is very painful from what i hear especially if you get it like in the small of your back etc. AND it many times is over a period of time to finish . You really see it as different? I don't. AND what's more is some parents allow this over and over so a kid can get more than one tatoo. I see them equalling damaging and equally injurying. Which is why i say kids should have to wait til they are 18. I get what you are saying however, kids many times are used in courts and their testimony is relevant and the jury is allowed decide what weight it gets. I am not saying its right -- i am saying that is what the law allows. Think about statutory rape cases where the child is used to say she was willing. Again, i am not advocating what this guy did, but i understand the kids being used and the relevancy of why their testimony was used. angel

sirsholly -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:46:45 AM)
quote: Holly, what about cosmetic surgery? It may not be burning the child but its many times physically injurying them through surgery. And a parent having their kid get cosmetic surgery aren't arrested. My understanding is cosmetic surgery at such a young age is not done simply because the kid doesn't like the shape of her nose. Bones are not done growing, and most are not eligible till they are older. If it is done, it is generally to correct a deformity. Should the parent be held liable if surgery goes wrong? Why would they, as what they have done was for the benefit of their child, to improve the quality of life. But...even if cosmetic surgery was done on a thirteen year old, there is a huge difference between taking the child to a reputable physician...as opposed to good ol dad doing the surgery himself.

Louve00 -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:50:59 AM)
I would just like to know what made the father "want" to brand his children. You brand cows and livestock to show your proof of ownership. If someone wanted these kids a brand on their arm doesn't protect them and can be concealed, if it is the case. But thats a truly over paranoidistic thought to provoke you to do this. And I question him too, if he's done it on the suggestion of his daughter. Tattoo's are a form of body beautification to some. I pierced my daughters ears when she was an infant. But it wasn't done as a possessive mark or at the suggestion of another child. Branding a child in such a way to cause infection, scarring of the tissue and a permanent mark to remind the child of what was done to him is cruelty. Its another insane story in this insane world.

sirsholly -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:55:12 AM)
quote: I would just like to know what made the father "want" to brand his children. Family unity, of course! The fact that if he had to set his childrens skin on fire to keep his kids close to him in the face of divorce tells me just what kind of parent he is...[8\|]

Louve00 -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 6:12:29 AM)
Well then, for the "sake of family unity" he should be wearing the biggest, most obvious brand showing him the chief owner of the brood. But no, my guess is his skin is unmarred from a brand of that nature. None of this is the work of a sane individual and I hope authorities realize that and get those kids in a safer place.

barelynangel -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 6:13:06 AM)
Hi Holly, cosmetic surgery on 13 and 15 year olds happen in this country especially in many - well i should say some or a few -- of the upper class families grins who are the ones who can afford it and its not for deformity. I personally know 3 girls who had nose jobs done when they were in their early teens (which is why i thought of it), 1 was in Jr. High and other two were in my/their sophmore year, both of whom got nose jobs because one said hers was too long and the other though it was too "bubbly". Believe me, its was considered uncommon back when i was in HS and now its more accepting and common now. I don't know what i would have decided if i had been on the jury as these news stories don't give the "trial" or evidence for me to be informed enough, however, i really don't at this time see it as different as cosmetic surgery -- and no i am not speaking of correcting a deformity -- or tatoos, or teeth sharpening or grills or all that stuff kids seem to do to themselves more so now than when i was a kid. As an aside, i wasn't reading the "he branded his kids" as he did it himself, so when you said that i searched for various articles i did see one - only one mind you lol incredibly stating he did it and there was a video -- but i would have to see the video to consider whether or not he failed to take safety precautions -- which would weigh heavily for me. I thought by the idea he branded the kids as he took them to get brands. So again, in hindsight, i would have to have known how it occured and what safety precautions were in place. However, the general concept i don't see any different that tattos or cosmetic surgery. Just like this branding thing -- cosmetic surgery isn't this big trend but it does happen and parents aren't arrested that i have heard of. I feel bad for the kids because i think they may regret this as they get older. But i know many people who wish they never got tatoos because they can't afford to get them removed. I hope this isn't something that will catch on lol. Can you imagine power to the family let's get family crest brands or tattos society? angel

sirsholly -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 6:21:18 AM)
quote: he did it and there was a video - He video taped it?!!? Don't ask me why, but that just made my stomach flip [:'(]

barelynangel -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 6:32:37 AM)
No, i think they said one of the sons was doing it on a cell. It was part of the trial and indicates it was to be shown to the jury from what i gathered. http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2010/05/12/man-on-trial-for-branding-his-children/

dreamerdreaming -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 8:06:29 AM)
After reading the article and the associated articles (from which it derived), my first reaction is that if these guys really all wanted it, I'm cool with it... EXCEPT: It was clearly done without the consent or knowledge of their mother, and it seems clear to me that as such, it was more of an exclusionary thing, towards her. THAT's what's really wrong with the whole scenario, IMHO. So much for "family" bonding. I'd call it "father/child bonding" or, "Lets all exclude Mom! She'll feel awful when she finds out later that we could give a shit about her feelings, cuz we all love Dad! We won't tell her what we're doing, because hey- what if she'd wanted to get in on it, to make it a FAMILY BONDING thing! We can't have that, when the whole point is that we're bonded to Dad, NOT her!" Maybe the kids weren't thinking like that, but I'm sure the father was. And I'm sure that's how it felt to the Mom. Like a cold snub, from all of them.

reynardfox -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 8:12:55 AM)
The victims in question were not of an age to consent legally and therefore the guy should be behind bars. It looks to me like he did it as a F**ck you to his ex wife. A shame some people see offspring as possessions and not people. This guy makes me sick.

slvemike4u -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 9:44:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveluci Lots of assumptions and filling in the blanks here simply because the story states only the barest of facts. Just from what little bit is said, I do think it's safe to assume he won't be winning any "Father of the Year" awards. However, I don't automatically assume anything about the divorce or his relationship with his children. To say he "brainwashed" them may be a bit of a leap, especially without really knowing anything about what did or did not occur prior to the branding. I think -making my own assumptions here-that he may be misguided and not quite a genius parent but there doesn't seem to be any indication that he was abusive/neglectful to his children in any other way. He didn't imprison them, tie them up and force this branding on them and there's no indication either that he browbeat them into it or forced them in any way. Stupid, a bad judgement call, not great parenting - all those things in my book. Automatically abusive and evil? Not necessarily........luci Luci,as a divorced father I am willing to make some assumptions here....Assumption A)The man is a complete asshole. Assumption B)The ex-wife is lucky to be rid of him. Assumption C) Despite the criminal court's findings....I see a review of the custody/visitation agreement in this idiot's future. Assumption D) He(the Father) will lose at such a hearing and will be lucky if he is allowed "supervised visits" with his children from here on out. ....and finally I assume he is in the running for "Asshole of the Year Award".

subtee -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 9:47:53 AM)
To me the entire thing is disgusting. Equivocating about it is disgusting. Imagine in your mind the physical act of doing this to your kid...

slvemike4u -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 9:51:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee To me the entire thing is disgusting. Equivocating about it is disgusting. Imagine in your mind the physical act of doing this to your kid... My imagination is nowhere near powerful enough to conceive of such a thing......Thank god for that.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875