PDA

View Full Version : Man used baby as shield in police standoff



jimnyc
04-22-2013, 11:10 AM
I don't know what the charge is, for using the baby in addition to his other charges, but the penalty should be death, IMO. I suppose it's good that it ended well, but imagine had this baby been harmed?


Police in Estacada, Oregon were responding to a report of a burglary when they spotted the suspect, later identified as Raleigh Reynolds. When they attempted to arrest him, Reynolds allegedly ran and jumped a fence before barricading himself in the house next door.

Deputies with the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office surrounded the home, later saying they believed the suspect was armed at the time, reports KPTV.

A woman came out of the house and identified herself as the suspect's sister. Reynolds attempted to escape several times but retreated back inside.

He later emerged holding a baby, with the child positioned as a shield between himself and the deputies. Police say Reynolds refused to comply with commands and it was believed he could be armed.

Deputies negotiated with Reynolds until he released the baby and was taken into custody. The infant, revealed to be Reynolds' son, was not hurt during the incident, and was released to family members at the scene.

http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/04/22/Man-used-baby-as-shield-in-police-standoff/2581366636646/

Robert A Whit
04-22-2013, 11:50 AM
I don't know what the charge is, for using the baby in addition to his other charges, but the penalty should be death, IMO. I suppose it's good that it ended well, but imagine had this baby been harmed?



http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/04/22/Man-used-baby-as-shield-in-police-standoff/2581366636646/

It was his baby. I suppose having taken law in college tells me the penalty proposed won't happen. Death for this is not how Oregon law works.

Marcus Aurelius
04-22-2013, 12:55 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633169#post633169)
I don't know what the charge is, for using the baby in addition to his other charges, but the penalty should be death, IMO. I suppose it's good that it ended well, but imagine had this baby been harmed?



http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/04/22/M...2581366636646/ (http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/04/22/Man-used-baby-as-shield-in-police-standoff/2581366636646/)




It was his baby. I suppose having taken law in college tells me the penalty proposed won't happen. Death for this is not how Oregon law works.


You should be banned. Who gives a rats ass if it was HIS baby. HE had no right to use the baby as a human shield.

Robert A Whit
04-22-2013, 01:09 PM
Who gives a rats ass if it was HIS baby. HE had no right to use the baby as a human shield.

The law cares. Nobody said he had a right to use the baby as a human shield. I have no idea why you blurted that out.

Marcus Aurelius
04-22-2013, 01:11 PM
The law cares. Nobody said he had a right to use the baby as a human shield. I have no idea why you blurted that out.

someone uses a baby as a human shield, and your first words are 'it was his baby'... and it's beyond your comprehension to understand why people might take that negatively? Really?

wow.

Robert A Whit
04-22-2013, 01:47 PM
someone uses a baby as a human shield, and your first words are 'it was his baby'... and it's beyond your comprehension to understand why people might take that negatively? Really?

wow.

In context of previous comments by others, it makes perfect sense. But no, i am not like you so I don't see why it upset you.

You alleged something else as well. Not important to me to check out what else you said.

Marcus Aurelius
04-22-2013, 02:38 PM
In context of previous comments by others, it makes perfect sense. But no, i am not like you so I don't see why it upset you.

You alleged something else as well. Not important to me to check out what else you said.

bullshit. there was ONE previous post.

Let's break it down, and put your response after each individual statement made by the original poster...




I don't know what the charge is, for using the baby in addition to his other charges, but the penalty should be death, IMO.

It was his baby.






I suppose it's good that it ended well, but imagine had this baby been harmed?

It was his baby.


Now, explain how the CONTEXT of either of those two OP statements makes 'it was his baby' anythign but disgusting, you jackass.

aboutime
04-22-2013, 02:42 PM
bullshit. there was ONE previous post.

Let's break it down, and put your response after each individual statement made by the original poster...










Now, explain how the CONTEXT of eother of those two OP statements makes 'it was his baby' anythign but disgusting, you jackass.




Marcus. It's really no longer worth the time, or effort to attempt trying to reason with, or have any kind of human, civil discussion with someone.
If you or I say Black...we can plan on being corrected, and told it's White since he went to COLOR SCHOOL and ALMOST got a degree in PAINT SPLASHING, and MUD CHURNING.

Marcus Aurelius
04-22-2013, 03:42 PM
I didn't think he'd have the balls to back up his disgusting comment.

aboutime
04-22-2013, 03:45 PM
I didn't think he'd have the balls to back up his disgusting comment.


Marcus. HE DIDN'T! Ignorance REALLY is Bliss!

Robert A Whit
04-22-2013, 04:39 PM
I didn't think he'd have the balls to back up his disgusting comment.

You mean saying the baby was the fathers is disgusting to you?

Back up in what way?

You also were told that using the child as a shield is wrong. I said it. You want to keep this up all day, go for it. I am done with you.

Abbey Marie
04-22-2013, 04:58 PM
I have a feeling Robert is being misread here, but we just don't know for sure. It is just as easy to conclude he mentioned it was the perpetrator's baby to point out how disgusting that is. I don't think we can be sure from what he wrote.

Robert- would you like to explain further?

Robert A Whit
04-22-2013, 05:04 PM
I have a feeling Robert is being misread here, but we just don't know for sure. It is just as easy to conclude he mentioned it was the perpetrator's baby to point out how disgusting that is. I don't think we can be sure from what he wrote.

Robert- would you like to explain further?

You are right Abbey. It is why I enjoy you so much. FAIR treatment over posts is not too much to ask for.

A father using his child to save himself is terrible. We might even call him a scum bag. All I said is the child was his, not that it was acceptable for that reason. (I plan to revisit my OP to try to find out why a couple of posters got so jacked up about it that they came to fight over it)

I tend to type fast and reply fast and of course some here enjoy nitpicking. But of course, I was misread and you picked up on it.

More editing **********

I went back. When I said it is his child, I meant the child was not kidnapped. Jim blurted out it deserved the death penalty and in that context I came back, it is his baby. Not that he was right to use his child as a shield. I repeat, it is wrong to use a child to save yourself.

But had he kidnapped the child, a death penalty could of course be the law. I don't know for certain if the law in ORE provides for the death penalty but that state is also very uber liberal.

Marcus Aurelius
04-22-2013, 05:23 PM
I went back. When I said it is his child, I meant the child was not kidnapped.

Jim blurted out it deserved the death penalty and in that context I came back, it is his baby. Not that he was right to use his child as a shield. I repeat, it is wrong to use a child to save yourself.


funny.. no one MENTIONED kidnapping. Not until YOU mentioned it as an excuse for your disgusting comment.

Every time you're caught, you try to move the goalposts to make what you said sound less stupid or obnoxious. You fail ever time.

Robert A Whit
04-22-2013, 05:29 PM
funny.. no one MENTIONED kidnapping. Not until YOU mentioned it as an excuse for your disgusting comment.

Every time you're caught, you try to move the goalposts to make what you said sound less stupid or obnoxious. You fail ever time.

I can't say what I want to say to you.

So all I can tell you is that Jim spoke of execution.

When have you heard of a father being executed for the non death of his child?

I do not believe you will ever get it.

I must add one more thing.

I have posted on forums since the mid 1990s. I have been treated the way you treat me and a couple others treat me in the past.

But NEVER by anyone alleging they vote republican. Even my fellow Libertarians (I vote republican though) never act like a couple of you act.

I don't get attacked by most of the posters. A couple find it amusing to ruin threads.

I get attacked this way on forums by ... DEMOCRATS.

Never republicans.

I honestly see a couple of you as moles. Not republicans, but posters who love to brawl with republicans.

When I created a list of posters to thank, it was a very long list. I notice that in my short time posting, i have amassed a huge store of good will. I can look at the thanks, the reputation and i know what is actually going on. I get good rep far more than you do. Maybe that is your problem.

When the guy told you off and told you that you belong on ignore, he hit the nail on the head.

Marcus Aurelius
04-22-2013, 05:36 PM
I can't say what I want to say to you.

So all I can tell you is that Jim spoke of execution.

When have you heard of a father being executed for the non death of his child?

I do not believe you will ever get it.

why does the parent of the child matter? It doesn't. Whether it was his child he used as a human shield, or someone elses. Parentage is immaterial.

Jim said 'death penalty'. Your very first comment was 'it's his baby', like that somehow mattered. It didn't.

NO ONE mentioned parentage, kidnapping etc., but YOU... as a vain excuse to mask your asinine comment.


Again, you FAILed.

aboutime
04-22-2013, 06:05 PM
We can solve this right here, right now by saying.

ANY PERSON, ANIMAL, SCUZBALL who would intentionally use a child...of any age, as a barrier, or shield against anyone else. Whether it is his OWN or SOMEONE else's child. DESERVES TO DIE.

It doesn't matter who the parents may be. A CHILD is A CHILD and anyone who places A CHILD in harms way. SHOULD BE DEAD.

Robert A Whit
04-22-2013, 06:20 PM
The claim I read said no harm came to the child.

Thus there was no valid reason to bring up the death penalty.

End of this topic

Kathianne
04-22-2013, 06:22 PM
The claim I read said no harm came to the child.

Thus there was no valid reason to bring up the death penalty.

End of this topic

Jim gave you that power? Why didn't you close the thread?

Robert A Whit
04-22-2013, 06:26 PM
Jim gave you that power? Why didn't you close the thread?

For me. I almost ignored this post by you. I am tired of this topic. That is all I mean.

Marcus Aurelius
04-24-2013, 06:58 AM
The claim I read said no harm came to the child.

Thus there was no valid reason to bring up the death penalty.

End of this topic

has nothing to do with your gross comment.

why does the parent of the child matter? It doesn't. Whether it was his child he used as a human shield, or someone elses. Parentage is immaterial.

Jim said 'death penalty'. Your very first comment was 'it's his baby', like that somehow mattered. It didn't.

NO ONE mentioned parentage, kidnapping etc., but YOU... as a vain excuse to mask your asinine comment.


Again, you FAILed.

Abbey Marie
04-24-2013, 06:47 PM
Robert has explained his post. Let's move on.

Robert A Whit
04-24-2013, 06:51 PM
Robert has explained his post. Let's move on.

Thank you Abbey.

Marcus Aurelius
04-24-2013, 08:27 PM
Robert has explained his post. Let's move on.

his explanation was bogus.

jafar00
04-24-2013, 11:26 PM
The law cares. Nobody said he had a right to use the baby as a human shield. I have no idea why you blurted that out.

What about Israel. Maybe this guy got the idea from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1qUd2HWx_NI

Robert A Whit
04-24-2013, 11:42 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633206#post633206)

The law cares. Nobody said he had a right to use the baby as a human shield. I have no idea why you blurted that out.



What about Israel. Maybe this guy got the idea from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1qUd2HWx_NI

Huh?

By the looks of the american, he has never heard of Israel.

The bum used his kid for a shield. I hope he spends a lot of time in the cross bar hotel.

aboutime
04-26-2013, 04:41 PM
What about Israel. Maybe this guy got the idea from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1qUd2HWx_NI


jafar. If memory serves most of us in the slightest way. That man probably got the idea from someone like you. You know? A Hamas follower, and worshiper who doesn't care about the safety of ANYONE's children...if they happen to live in Israel, or look like someone you hate so much. So. We can change your words above to read: "Maybe this guy got the idea from either Jafar, or Hamas."

Pick on jafar.