Aaaaw. Poor sod. Don't cry, you got them back, in contrast to most ICE victims.
post
“I don’t know how much we can do about it, but so help me God, if there is any way to press civil or criminal charges over this, we will,” he wrote on Substack. “Not just for our own sakes but to draw a line that I thought everyone already recognized: do not mess with someone’s kids.”
I mean... the people who do this literally support pedophiles and are often the same themselves. So "messing with someone's kids" is like the fucking norm for these freaks.
Idk Pete. Democrats seem incapable of bringing justice to people who fuck with kids.
That night, the twins slept at their grandparents’ house. The authorities required them to sit alone for the interviews with the CPS workers, as is common during such investigations.
Being forced to "sit alone" with CPS staffers is pretty rough for a kid, and if CPS "requires" it without first requiring some damned evidence, that's a form of child abuse.
If someone reports that kids are being abused, then the trained professionals in childcare and abuse investigations should absolutely not have to include the presumed abusers or enablers in their process.
The child is the priority and their discomfort is better than their abuse.
Imagine if CPS was called because someone said the kids were being raped and the children had to sit their alongside their rapist answering difficult upsetting questions unsure of everything other than their abuser is beside them.
So, did you miss the "without first requiring some damned evidence" line, or simply ignore it..?
So you would seek to gather evidence from the victim, while their abuser is in the room with athority over them?
First port of call is separating and investigating.
So you would seek to gather evidence from the victim, while their abuser is in the room with athority over them?
Nobody has said that except you.
So, you're investigating Epstein allegations, and you think Epstein himself is in the room for every interview..?
I didnt say that, you cant follow like three two sentence comments. Thats on you.
Guess you didn't appreciate the implication of what YOU were suggesting.
So you would seek to gather evidence from the victim, while their abuser is in the room with athority over them?
Holy goldfish memory, Batman. I'm quoting you.
And you need to consider that in context, I wasn't saying that in every case that the abuser could be present. I was saying in the context of child abuse victims being interviewed alone, which I think is a valid process given otherwise their abuser could be in the room with them taking charge of their interview or statements.
Being able to quote something doesnt mean you csn comprehend it, or follow the thread in simple terms.
If there's no evidence beyond an anonymous tip, this is the wrong response. Make enough anonymous tips, and every kid in America could be required to sit for an interview, over and over.
1 comment