7 Children Taken from Parents, Search Warrant for legal "miracle cure" supplement? WTH

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Annee

The GCSO insists, in a statement released this week, that MMS was not the sole reason they made the decision to remove the children. They won't comment beyond that and neither will DHS. Much of the available information has come from motions filed by the defense Wednesday. Q. Byrum Hurst Jr., Stanley's attorney, says the complaints by law enforcement to take the children were aimed at a life style (home births, rarely seeing a doctor, homeschooling) rather than factual allegations that the children have been abused and harmed or that an emergency existed. According to DHS in cases where children are removed from a home, there has to be an emergency order signed. The Judge is tasked with determining one of three options: there was probable cause to take the children at the time and still is; there was probable cause at the time but not anymore and the children can go back home; or, there was never probable cause to take the children.

www.arkansasmatters.com...

As we know, many people are unable to distinguish between claims and fact and only take in information if it supports their foregone conclusion. I am not referring to you. The facts will come out at the hearing and not before.

it is ok if both of you ignore the two times i said i first seen the story on local news after the hearing yesterday and they gave word that the judge decided for the children to ramain in custody until feb. and that there were no claims of abuse that were proven to be the reason. then they showed a bottle of mms and said the judges decision is based solely on the danger of the substance and no abuse was found in the case.

it could be faulty reporting but it matches the rest of the story where it has been said nothing was found in the home except mms and the charges of abuse stem from the older two not wanting to go to school. as we know the fruit always takes the side of law enforcment no matter the case and finds joy in defaming others rather than digging for truth and rational thought. the news station is i think ksla

a reply to: deadeyedick

A newscaster is not an official source. They may be right, they may be wrong, but they are not an official source.

I asked you for info from an official source.

a reply to: Annee

fair enough but i did post in the very first post the news said the judge determined no physical abuse.

you asked if it was my opinion and it was not. while the news does not work for dhs they still have to get the facts straight and are held accountable on many levels so it is not something that can just be dismissed completly and when you add it to everything else it fits. on top of that we still can not determine if it was coming from an official source but i am sure we will get clairity as other reports come in. they all have a duty to try to be factual.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Annee

fair enough but i did post in the very first post the news said the judge determined no physical abuse.

I believe I asked you if I missed the link that states that.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TKDRL



From ChiefD's link.

“It’s never our desire as law enforcement officers or the Garland County Sheriff’s Office to remove any child from a home. However, it’s my commitment to protect all citizens of Garland County, especially minor children who simply cannot protect themselves. Although I cannot comment further as this is an ongoing investigation involving minor children, this case may lead to criminal arrests and charges being filed. It was the opinion of onsite investigators with the Garland County Sheriff’s Department and Arkansas State Police the children were at risk of serious harm and the decision was made to remove the minor children from the home pursuant to the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act, 12-18-1001. Additionally, I would encourage the public not to try this case in social media or the public in general as it could affect the minor children involved. As certain facts come to light, I am confident the public will understand why this decision was made and I firmly stand behind this decision to protect the children involved.”

"It’s never our desire as law enforcement officers or the Garland County Sheriff’s Office to remove any child from a home. However, it’s my commitment to protect all citizens of Garland County, especially minor children who simply cannot protect themselves"

By this statment by the police we should all be able to determine that they do not have a problem with telling a lie. In order to remove children from a home they must first desire to do it before it gets done. The first 4 words are a complete lie said to try to gain emotional support for their actions. Fact is that everyone has a choice and they choose to break up a family before ever getting any facts or evidence.

I am not saying that having the desire to seperate children from an abusive home is wrong but i am saying that the statment is a lie and we have to question how many other moral fallacies the police went through in order to create the situation and others. These are ways that we often trick ourselves and others into justifaction of actions.

Sodium_chlorite

There is the link to the wiki on the substance in question. It is a great read if you are into reading such.
One thing i find that stands out is that it is reported there that this so called dangerous substance is on the all time record list for being the cause in one death. Perhaps the police,fda and dhs do not have access to such information?