Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

FluffySnowbirb t1_je9q5xu wrote

okay wtf. Child abuse should be life imprisonment. These fuckers should have been sentenced to life

15

Odd_Bag_289 t1_je9r8pa wrote

Dear Lord Jesus, please make sure their guns are safe. God please protect our guns

27

FluffySnowbirb t1_je9rerc wrote

Replying to Dragonborn3187 (#2,483,172)

My opinion does have bias given I’ve lived 18 years with shitty parents. I also think if you’re convicted of abuse you should be prohibited from adopting and sterilized. Since it’s clear you’re just gonna treat any children you get like shit

8

Richard_A_Smasher t1_je9tth1 wrote

I am absolutely baffled by how they didn’t get jail time. The child almost died from malnourishment and abusive conditions. How are they not facing more repercussions for their actions? I didn’t see anything in the article mentioning why given the state wanted 20 years.

124

Sumbrada t1_je9uq1u wrote

Replying to FluffySnowbirb (#2,483,565)

I think it's sarcasm. It's tongue in cheek sarcasm- the author really does believe that the firearm means more than the child- but the author probably isn't on their knees right now praying for guns. And if they are on their knees praying for guns, I'm going to assume it's being done with tongue in cheek sarcasm.

−4

CuriousRelish t1_je9w48i wrote

They should be forcefully sterilized, we all know the law isn't going to do shit until they murder a kid

7

WestheDeceiver t1_je9w5un wrote

So Idaho supports child abuse, glad they’ve cleared this up for us.

64

lambaghetti t1_je9x18t wrote

They only care about punishing and controlling women via obsession with the unborn. Once born they’re on their own.

15

Fit_Ad8096 OP t1_je9y2et wrote

Replying to Richard_A_Smasher (#2,483,944)

What locals are saying is the family and judge are Mormons. LDS take care of their own in most instances Not a blanket statement just an observation from someone that's lived in the Mormon belt my entire life.

154

billpalto t1_je9yofc wrote

Well thank God they weren't trying to get an abortion, or health care for their trans kid. That would mean jail time for sure.

112

The_Amazing_Shaggy t1_je9z7dv wrote

Replying to Sumbrada (#2,484,175)

What firearm? The OP article doesn't reference any. Is there another link to more info on this story?

ETA: To save others the downvotes for asking this is just a circlejerk about something irrelevant to the article. I couldn't tell. Too early this morning.

−9

NewKitchenFixtures t1_jea1pdn wrote

Replying to WestheDeceiver (#2,484,564)

Idaho is actually rated higher on their CPS department than most other states. They have a lower standard for removal and are less likely to return children to abusers.

It’s not like they are handing kids back over in 3 months like other states would consider. The US is kinda bad at the child protection side of things.

4

torpedoguy t1_jea2pck wrote

Replying to Fit_Ad8096 (#2,486,061)

If you're a woman in America who is or may become pregnant, all Requblicans are an immediate, deadly threat to you. And it won't be a quick or painless death - their legislators have truly gone above and beyond just 'out of their way' to make it as torturous and horrific for their own enjoyment.

All women need to get this through their heads, especially since some Requblican women ARE completely in on this "knowing" they'll be above such laws: They want you dying in excessive agony. It's them or you.

59

Dalisca t1_jeaamaa wrote

Replying to bandit69 (#2,485,280)

Foster care gives you money from the state. Adoption costs a lot of money and the financial benefit is a tax break (just like any other kid), but the tax break doesn't come close to covering the cost of the child. It's baffling.

12

RavenNorth1 t1_jeag7ew wrote

Important to note that the couple did not act alone. The were able to starve and torture this 5 year old with the eager assistance of Judge Darla Williamson, who protected the couple from legal consequence.

57

ibbity t1_jeam2go wrote

Replying to torpedoguy (#2,486,310)

I know hella people who are aggressively anti-abortion, and the thing is that it's not that they actively want lots of women to die in pain, as such. What they want is for women to know that that might be their fate if they have sex outside of marriage, and to stay virgins/celibate out of terror. For those who still have sex anyway, they want them to experience pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment for having sex, and then immediately hand over the baby to a more worthy adopting family.

The actual agonizing deaths are more desirable as a threat than as a constant reality, because if they are happening a lot, people might start to turn against the draconian anti-abortion laws. If they only happen occasionally, they serve as deterrents much better. It's not about sadism so much as it's about maintaining control over women and forcing them to "experience consequences" for having sex. Women (specifically) having sex "without consequences," they consider the height of moral depravity. Making it so that women will suffer for having sex is a means to an end (stopping them from having sex), not the end in itself.

19

ginga_bread42 t1_jeaod8h wrote

Replying to ibbity (#2,491,421)

Do they think everyone getting an abortion is throwing all caution to the wind and are unmarried? A lot of women getting abortions are married or in long term relationships and/or already have a kid.

It's also still weird as hell to think that children are a punishment for having sex.

16

ibbity t1_jeapiba wrote

Replying to ginga_bread42 (#2,491,953)

Oh, I'm not saying that this mindset isn't completely bonkers in fuckin younkers. But yes, they do assume that nearly all abortions are because some single party girl partied a little too hearty and is now trying to "avoid consequences" (you would not believe how many times they will say that word, it's like their favorite.) And the thing is that if you get one of them alone and talk to them rationally (which is a trick in itself; there's very little if any rationality in this mindset, even if it does have its own coherent internal logic), you can sometimes get them to open the door just a millimeter or so to almost acknowledge that sometimes it is necessary. But it never sticks. And you can't explain to them that "children as a punishment for sex" is fucked up, because they will just tell you that "murdering babies" is much worse.

9

TheIncontrovert t1_jeb6fq3 wrote

Fucking excuse me, I remember this case. They tortured that child. Guaranfuckingtee you there are some backhanders going on here. A poor person would be facing serious jail time.

9

torpedoguy t1_jebadxf wrote

Replying to ibbity (#2,491,421)

They may claim that, except their bills and actions show otherwise. They want anyone who isn't themselves to be punished and suffer (from destitution, death or anything else), even if you ARE married and WANTED the kid, for the crime of not being them personally.

They pretend they're "saving family" only until they've fucked up everyone else and not a moment later.

  • Even while that's going on they make sure their legislation negatively affects those subject to the law (that they aren't is the point and making it as harsh as possible makes them more special in comparison)

And the moment their grip on part of the population is complete, they go on to what they've already talked about doing; banning contraception and neonatal healthcare from married couples too. "For prosperity jesus".

The cruelty is the point, for only in your suffering is their being immune to the rules which harm you as 'superior' a position as it can be.

8

bandit69 t1_jebgt3k wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,493,667)

We attempted to adopt a young girl one time and due to the lack of caring from the social worker, we gave up. But we did have one worker tell us that "if she was in <x> foster care home, she was abused.

Sure the vast majority of foster care parents are probably good, but there are those that do it strictly for the money. AND, I've personally been acquainted with parents that didn't give a shit about their own kids.

5

GuardedNumbers t1_jebhj7s wrote

Absolutely disgusting all around. Hope the voters in Idaho remember this and hand the judge her walking papers next election.

5

DuPontMcClanahan t1_jebu46y wrote

In October 2017, at the age of five, the victim went into cardiac arrest due to extreme malnourishment and being forced to stand outside in the winter cold wearing only a diaper. The child survived, though officials say the abuse continued even after the cardiac arrest event.

Alrighty. We got Idaho parents free from brutally torturing their own kids, Arkansas Labor Law, West Virginia child labor laws, North Dakota saying no free lunch because they are poor, Matt Walsh wanting the age of consent lowered to 13, school shootings more frequently than a shooting in other democratic countries in a single year, most child and teen deaths (also caused by guns), and restriction of mental health services and gender affirming care for children on the list of stuff from a year alone.

Oh wait, we actually did protect the kids from that one book with the two penguin dads. Thank god (hopefully an understood major /s).

13

Mycide t1_jec3yy0 wrote

Surprise! Another official letting down the people they are supposed to be protecting. Pathetic.

4

HelpStatistician t1_jec6p6j wrote

Replying to Fit_Ad8096 (#2,485,031)

This is why there needs to be a strict separation of church and state. The judge should have recused themselves and should now face sanctions for not doing so. Mormons are really a disgusting cult, up there with scientology.

16

Zootrainer t1_jeci2l6 wrote

Replying to Fit_Ad8096 (#2,486,061)

If she gets pregnant beforehand, my daughter will not be attending a family reunion (her husband's side) slated to take place on some property in Idaho this fall. She will not risk what could happen if she begins to spot or have a miscarriage while she's there.

4

formermormon t1_jedyewq wrote

Replying to Fit_Ad8096 (#2,485,031)

Yep. I'm convinced the LDS Church harbors all kinds of crime, at all levels, for precisely that sense of "you are a member of the Church before EVERYTHING else, including nationality" mindset. Add in the "Lying is okay if you're doing it for the Lord" slippery slope, and you're suddenly above the law. I just wonder how much of a backlash will even happen if/when the financial and/or sexal abuse secrets are exposed, members are so brainwashed to ignore criticism of The Lord's Annointed.

5

dittybopper_05H t1_jeecspi wrote

Replying to bandit69 (#2,498,863)

>I've personally been acquainted with parents that didn't give a shit about their own kids.

Being a foster parent, so have I.

In fact, just being an active parent, I've seen it. When the littlebopper was young, and there were school events, you always knew which kids had parents that didn't care because they didn't show up to the school events.

And having been in family court more times than I can count, it always dumbfounded me how people showed up dressed for court. Spandex pants or dirty, torn jeans. T-shirts, often inappropriate. I mean, you're going before a judge who has the power to permanently rip your family apart, and you can't be bothered to go to the local thrift store like Goodwill or the Salvation Army and buy some presentable clothes for the cost of a pack of cigarettes and a 40 oz beer?

I always wore basically my work clothes, decent slacks and a button down shirt. Except on Adoption Day, when I wore my suit and the distaffbopper wore a nice dress.

2