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

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



Message

marsman -> Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 8:14:32 PM)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/05/13/national/a170649D52.DTL&tsp=1

Wash. dad charged with branding kids is acquitted

Thursday, May 13, 2010

(05-13) 19:15 PDT Port Angeles, Wash. (AP) --

A man in Washington state who branded his children like cattle has been acquitted of second-degree assault charges.

A jury in Port Angeles deadlocked Thursday on two lesser charges of fourth-degree assault, and a judge declared a mistrial on those counts.

The two teenage sons of 39-year-old Mark J. Seamands testified that they had wanted to be branded.

The Sequim (SKWIM') man was branded himself. He testified he wanted to bring the family closer together while he was going through a divorce. Seamands' ex-wife said she was horrified when she saw the scars.

Seamands' 18-year-old daughter also was branded, but the dad wasn't charged with assaulting her because she was old enough to give consent.

The children were branded with the letters "SK," which stands for "Seamands' kids."



VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: Wash. dad charged with branding kids is acquitted (5/13/2010 8:31:42 PM)

This is definitely newsworthy and able to be discussed. I do want to remind everyone of TOS , and to make sure to stay within the lines as some of the people in the article are teenagers.



sweetsub1957 -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 8:49:27 PM)

Holy Shit!! This happened only hours away from me & i had no idea!!!! WOW! What i don't understand is, how spanking can be considered child abuse, yet someone can brand their children and be acquitted..... [8|]

~sweetsub~



marsman -> RE: Wash. dad charged with branding kids is acquitted (5/13/2010 8:53:16 PM)

quote:

VideoAdminAlpha Date 5/13/2010 8:31:42 PM:

I do want to remind everyone of TOS , and to make sure to stay within the lines as some of the people in the article are teenagers.


Kill the thread if you feel uncomfortable or think that it puts collarme at risk...




LadyAngelika -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 8:57:35 PM)

Apparently he brainwashed his two sons into saying they consented to this.

(Edited: I initially posted the pics but I figured it might offend some people's sensibilities - warning before clicking them that they are pretty atrocious)

http://media.ktvb.com/images/branded_son_1_051210.jpg

http://media.ktvb.com/images/branded_son_2_051210.jpg

- LA



VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: Wash. dad charged with branding kids is acquitted (5/13/2010 9:07:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marsman

quote:

VideoAdminAlpha Date 5/13/2010 8:31:42 PM:



I do want to remind everyone of TOS , and to make sure to stay within the lines as some of the people in the article are teenagers.


Kill the thread if you feel uncomfortable or think that it puts collarme at risk...




Thank you I will. I do feel however that it is a good discussion topic as long as people stay on topic; since you're the OP you don't mind if I try to leave it up a bit I hope? [;)]



VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 9:08:38 PM)

I don't normally "post" in threads but what makes you say that LA?

Edited to add: Im not saying they were or weren't Im just wondering your reasoning.



LadyAngelika -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 9:09:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminAlpha

I don't normally "post" in threads but what makes you say that LA?


What makes me say what? That he brainwashed his kids?

Edited after I saw your clarification.

I read a few articles on this from various sources. The daughter is 18 and the boys are 13 and 15. Those are highly influential ages where boys want to prove to their father that they are becoming men. Also, other reports say that the parents had recently gotten divorced and this was supposed to be a way for the children to bond with their father. Kids of divorce often do things to please their parents as they fear being abandoned like their parents abandoned each other.

- LA



lizi -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 9:40:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

What makes me say what? That he brainwashed his kids?

Edited after I saw your clarification.

I read a few articles on this from various sources. The daughter is 18 and the boys are 13 and 15. Those are highly influential ages where boys want to prove to their father that they are becoming men. Also, other reports say that the parents had recently gotten divorced and this was supposed to be a way for the children to bond with their father. Kids of divorce often do things to please their parents as they fear being abandoned like their parents abandoned each other.

- LA

This is exactly true about young sons doing things to please their fathers for various reasons. A very close friend of mine has a Klan (as in KKK) tattoo over his heart that his Dad 'required' him to get at 13. He says he consented to do it but really felt he had no choice. I know he was deeply ashamed to show it to me but felt he had to- he didn't want me to see it and then run away screaming. Although as it was, I wouldn't have known what it was. I never saw one before.

In his case I'd consider it a form of brain washing. My friend really doesn't believe in the Klan principles as a grown man and says he didn't as a child either but couldn't tell his Dad that. He says he agreed to have the tattoo solely to please his father who insisted that every one of his 4 sons get the same tattoo as they entered puberty. In fact he told me that his father would have beaten him if he didn't get it so...he just went ahead and did it. Mental and physical coercion- probably a potent combination to a 13 year old.

I suggested tattoo removal, not sure why he doesn't do it at this point. As it is he never takes off his shirt if he can help it.



blueeyedbbwsub -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 10:04:23 PM)

All I can say is that some people shouldn't be allowed to become parents. I know it's not possible to *regulate* but it just makes me sick at heart to know that these things are going on.

I have a teenage niece I love to pieces and if something ever happened to her, my inner momma bear would come out and tear whatever dingleberry into shreds. There's no reason for this to go on in this day and age, yet it does. It's not that it's more predominant, it's that there's much more reporting of any abuse. It used to be keep it in the family, present a perfect image. It wasn't always known.

I can't even begin to comprehend the thought process that went through that man's head. But then i guess he sits on his brain and can't see the forest for the trees.



VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 10:13:08 PM)

I'm glad I got the clarification in quickly enough. When I looked it after it posted, I thought, "wow that really could be taken the wrong way" [;)] so Im glad. (I do not want to see what you had before, lol. It might have hurt my feelings!!!!)



Termyn8or -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 10:14:55 PM)

Tattoo removal is an arduous process. I know a guy who can just about cover anything up. It is less painful and removal can leave scar tissue that probably will not tan and reveal the original design. What's more it may then not be coverable. It depends on the depth of the original.

Now on to the OP. I don't think it was right. Perhaps a different age of consent might be in order for such things, permanent things, and that includes more than branding. That includes anything not medically necessary, which would include circumcisions as well as piercings. Yes that means pierced ears as well.

That's just my opinion, and I don't want the job of setting the age of consent. Perhaps universal sufferage at a predetermined age is not the best idea. For some 10 might be too old and for others 20 might be too young. Hell for some, 30 might be too young.

Tattoo removal or covering can be done, but I've never even given branding a thought, up until now.

T



laurell3 -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 10:41:07 PM)

I don't think it's safe to assume that because this individual was acquitted, mostly due to a deadlocked jury that this isn't child abuse or assault. Jury nullification is alive and well in the US, and it appears to be what happened in this case. That is, it IS a crime, he probably should be convicted, but his attorney sways the jury to acquit anyway. It appears, from the limited amount of information that I could find, that his attorney argued this:

In closing arguments, lawyer Loren Oakley of the county Public Defender's Office, who is representing Seamands, did not dispute that Seamands branded his children.

Oakley compared the branding to circumcision.

He said there was no evidence of criminal intent and claimed the boys were not "disfigured."

"This is a case about different strokes for different folks," Oakley said.


and apparently the jury bought it.

In my personal opinion, the guy is one sick cookie, I'm not suggesting this is correct. I am merely saying case outcomes don't necessarily always turn on what is right or what the written law is.



Termyn8or -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/13/2010 10:53:05 PM)

No, even though I think it was wrong there is a reason for juries. That is the reason. I may not agree with it, but so what ?

T



LafayetteLady -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 12:31:37 AM)

Well first of all, a judge declaring a mistrial does not mean the man was aquitted. The State can (and should in this case) try the case again. Often with a mistrial, the state decides, based on the severity of the case not to go through the expense of a new trial. Even that is not an aquittal. In that case the charges are dropped.

As for what he did not being "disfiguring," the pictures posted certainly do not appear to be small, inconspicuous marks. They also appear to have been done with multiple cigarette burns. So it seems a bit odd that the defense would claim what looks to be about a 3"x3" mark in a conspicuous area of a child's body is not disfiguring.

While the children may at this point be stating that they "consented" (although not old enough to consent) to being branded like this, I have a feeling they are saying that now because they don't want their father to go to prison and are trying to protect them. Even should the state decide not to try the case again, it doesn't prevent children's services in that state from stepping in and limiting the time this father spends with his kids, as well as ordering therapy for all. It would seem that any parent who thinks that branding their children with something that indicates his "possession" of them is in need of some serious therapy. If he wanted to "bond" with his children, that could be achieved by spending some time with them.

Certainly, it would eliminate anyone wondering why his wife divorced him to begin with.



LadyAngelika -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 4:34:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminAlpha

I'm glad I got the clarification in quickly enough. When I looked it after it posted, I thought, "wow that really could be taken the wrong way" [;)] so Im glad. (I do not want to see what you had before, lol. It might have hurt my feelings!!!!)


VA, I wouldn't have taken in the wrong way, not coming from you ;-) I just wasn't sure of your question was.

- LA



LadyAngelika -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 4:40:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lizi


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

What makes me say what? That he brainwashed his kids?

Edited after I saw your clarification.

I read a few articles on this from various sources. The daughter is 18 and the boys are 13 and 15. Those are highly influential ages where boys want to prove to their father that they are becoming men. Also, other reports say that the parents had recently gotten divorced and this was supposed to be a way for the children to bond with their father. Kids of divorce often do things to please their parents as they fear being abandoned like their parents abandoned each other.

- LA

This is exactly true about young sons doing things to please their fathers for various reasons. A very close friend of mine has a Klan (as in KKK) tattoo over his heart that his Dad 'required' him to get at 13. He says he consented to do it but really felt he had no choice. I know he was deeply ashamed to show it to me but felt he had to- he didn't want me to see it and then run away screaming. Although as it was, I wouldn't have known what it was. I never saw one before.

In his case I'd consider it a form of brain washing. My friend really doesn't believe in the Klan principles as a grown man and says he didn't as a child either but couldn't tell his Dad that. He says he agreed to have the tattoo solely to please his father who insisted that every one of his 4 sons get the same tattoo as they entered puberty. In fact he told me that his father would have beaten him if he didn't get it so...he just went ahead and did it. Mental and physical coercion- probably a potent combination to a 13 year old.

I suggested tattoo removal, not sure why he doesn't do it at this point. As it is he never takes off his shirt if he can help it.


Indeed. I have a few other friends who did things perhaps less permanent physical scars to please their parents (converting to a certain religion, adhering to certain ideologies or mindsets) but emotional scars run deep as well.

So much time is spent on trying to help kids overcome peer pressure but what about parent pressure, which is even stronger.

As for your friend's tattoo, I am halfway through the process of having one removed and it is not only expensive but also incredibly painful, even with numbing cream. Also, the results are not guaranteed. I didn't get mine out of parental pressure but rather peer pressure in my late teens. I'm just glad it was nothing too outrageous, but like your friend, I do not let anyone see it unless I am intimate with them. It isn't so much the tattoo itself but the circumstances around getting it that really wish not to expose.

- LA



barelynangel -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 4:54:34 AM)

I believe what happened here is appauling and not something i would advocate a parent doing or getting their kids involved with or a parent consenting to, but why is this different than a parent allowing their teens to get tatoos or some piercing or some other skin disfiguring thing that they claim they want?   Have you seen kids nowadays and some of the stuff they are allowed to do to themselves?  Is it because it doesn't "seem" as bad or is somehow acceptable?  I mean you have parents who pierce their kids ears when they are babies and can't even be asked.  I mean how many girls get those huge tatoos on their belly or low back and the parents are involved and just as influencing with regard to same?

While people on here may not "allow" their kids to do such and many parents wouldn't and such in their teens the point is there are parents who allow teens to do surface damage to themselves in the name of expression -- how is this really all that different, the father didn't see anything wrong with this and the kids went along -- was it a smart thing for the parent to do, personally no, but criminal or to the point they rip apart a family even more with getting social services involved?  To me, this would have to be applied the same way as if it was a parent giving concent to a tatoo or piercing or teeth whatever some kids do nowadays.   I don't agree with these types of parents either but i don't believe people are arrested for giving consent for their kids to disfigure themselves. 

Would this have even been newsworthy if it was a tatoo and could it simply be branding hasn't caught on in a rage yet -- and i think it will eventually?

I am not advocating this - i also don't advocate a kid getting a tatoo until they are 18, but does person preference of what is acceptable body modification make a difference in concepts like this?
angel



CynthiaWVirginia -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:00:14 AM)

OMG, that was some huge, ugly branding scars!

I keep imagining those that were put on the chest area especially, and want to gag. 

When my mother was little, she got branded by her brothers.  She has a one inch scar on her hip...and she told me all about it.  It was NOT consensual.

I'm saying a big IF here...if the kids actually consented and aren't just saying so out of fear...why did it have to be so HUGE and ugly?  Even if the children begged to have one just like daddy's, why didn't the father have the good sense to say no or to get it done with a tiny mark and professionally done? 

Kids get tats and piercings all the time, and if they also obsessed over a small, professionally done branding well...how can I argue and say that branding is disfiguring and painful, but tats and piercings are not? 

I still hate those horrible huge brands on those kids, and I can't even let my mind wander farther than that to think about how he actually did it.  It was good to bring this up though, and I wish my son (over 18) was awake so I could tell him about it and show him those pix.



LadyAngelika -> RE: Dad charged with branding kids... (5/14/2010 5:00:59 AM)

barelynangel, I think you missed the point completely. The kids didn't ask their parents to be branded. The father suggested it and suggested that it would bring them closer together as a family. The kids did this to please their father. Did you read the few posts about the power of parental pressure? Are you aware of the psychological powers at play?

There is a big difference between this and a kid petitioning their parents to get a tongue piercing, or as I've been hearing lately, getting it first and then trying to conceal it.

- LA



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125