If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Cuba pulls a reverse Janet Reno   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 174
    More: Followup, Janet Reno, U.S., Josh Hakken, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, CBS Tampa, fugitives, Sharyn Hakken, U.S. authorities  
•       •       •

18627 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2013 at 12:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-10 04:37:08 PM  

Bruce Campbell: rufus-t-firefly: So, the ends justify the means?

From my standpoint, no.  I also have not been in that situation, either.  It could be deemed a crime of passion, though.


A crime of passion isn't premeditated. They did quite a bit of planning.
 
2013-04-10 04:41:26 PM  

Bruce Campbell: rufus-t-firefly: How about a more recent pic?

Looks like a guy who just got his ass kicked on a boat and has been in fight or flight mode for at least a week.


Or a guy who REALLY didn't expect Cuba to just hand him over.

Something I haven't thought of since CNN found them yesterday: Why in the hell did he admit his identity to the CNN reporter?

Josh Hakken glared through his sunglasses at the CNN reporter who found him and said nothing beyond confirming his identity.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/us/florida-children-abducted/

That seems rather counterintuitive.

"Oh, shiat, they've found me. Better confirm that I'm the guy they're looking for."
 
2013-04-10 04:42:23 PM  
i.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uki.dailymail.co.uk

Find the different one.
 
2013-04-10 04:42:27 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Oh, yeah - and they planned suicide before they decided on kidnapping.


rufus-t-firefly: They aren't exactly stable.


Before or after the kids were taken away?

Also, the grandmother who eventually got custody of them said this?  Who else did?
 
2013-04-10 04:44:10 PM  

FC Exile: mongbiohazard: namegoeshere: Here's a timeline of the case. The kids were temporarily removed. They never showed up to any of the court hearings to try to get them back. So permanent custody was given to the grandparents.

Thank you for the facts. There's a lot of knee-jerk white-knighting going on in this thread.

But after actually looking at the facts..... yeah, I'm suprised this didn't end in murder/suicide, and these are not the folk heros a lot of us are looking for.

Which facts are those exactly. There are ten months missing in that timeline.  Why would he buy a boat to take himself and his family to Cuba just to kill them.? You make no sense.


Perhaps the thought was he would kill them when he knew they were busted?

It's happened enough times before:

1. Flee from police
2. Get cornered
3. Murder and/or suicide

It's almost a trope.
 
2013-04-10 04:44:18 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: That seems rather counterintuitive.

"Oh, shiat, they've found me. Better confirm that I'm the guy they're looking for."


He was probably thinking exactly what most people thought.  Cuba keeps murders and cop-killer safe from the reach of US custody.  What difference does it make if I tell them?
 
2013-04-10 04:45:58 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x446]

Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.

/yes, yes, get off my lawn and so forth


Amazing how everyone missed the joke and are crying troll. +1
 
2013-04-10 04:48:42 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: FC Exile: [tribwgno.files.wordpress.com image 445x279]

I've seen it as "allegedly waving a gun around". Was there an effort to arrest him for that? Was this what one person saw or many? I only seek knowledge cause it seems hinky. Guy had a nice truck and money to buy a boat. What did he do for a living?

Bruce Campbell: rufus-t-firefly: First off, the "foster home" part has been reported previously:

There is no warrant.  That's the point.  He's thrown in the clink for pot possession, but committing aggravated assault results in no warrant and no charges.

rufus-t-firefly: What if Kirk Cameron had done that?

You're missing the "but for" aspect of this.  But for LA taking away his kids on account of a weed possession and talking ominously it would not happen.

So, the ends justify the means?

I don't think kids should be taken away for pot possession...but you don't get to tie someone up and flee the country with your kids just because you're being treated unjustly.

Work within the system, you may eventually get them back. Now, there's practically no chance of that happening. And that's a shame.


Basically his wife had him tie up her out of control, kid stealing mom, so not just "somebody".
No one really gave him any reason to believe they would ever let him have his kids back, so he ran.
I still think Zimmerman should have run. (That's gonna be up soon)

"This will happen more and more as the government and police keep stepping on us.  Eventually people will choose to fight instead of run.
Then some of the people who have ganged up and appointed each other in charge. Who think they can wantonly tax, subjugate, abuse and imprison their fellow man in perpetuity without consequence, will die."  Eric Cartman
 
2013-04-10 04:49:49 PM  
I think these guys are religious whackadoos and easily influenced by fearmongering propaganda.  But that doesn't give the government the right to take your kids away.  FFS they can't even take the kids away when their religion bars them from giving very basic life saving treatment to otherwise fatal diseases.

I've never heard of pot being dangerous to smoke around children.  I've heard of lots of people getting drunk and beating their kids though.  Seen a lot of people smoke their cigarettes all day with the kids in the room or the car.  That's a lot worse than a smoke that people tend to inhale until there is no second hand smoke.  Nobody is taking those kids away.

Everything i've ever been told about CPS is it's an authoritarian nightmare full of egocentric maniacs.  They create living hell over accusations that would be meaningless in a courtroom.  If i had to deal with them and failed to get my kids back i'd be real tempted to take them back by force.

I don't think their kids should have been taken away, but the current state of affairs makes it hard for me to think the kids should be returned.  They took bad and made it a hell of a lot worse, but they might not have had any options left.
 
2013-04-10 04:51:48 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: My guess - the pot possession was an excuse to take the kids. The odd behavior of the parents was the real reason.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/authorities-continue-searc h- for-missing-tampa-children/2113181


The couple was acting bizarrely and talking about "completing their ultimate journey," according to information released by Slidell police Thursday.

Joshua Hakken talked about a fantasy series of books that had changed his life, called  The Sword of Truth. He said he was heading to the "Valley of Rahaan."

He had his children with him.

He also had marijuana in the room - and a gun and large knife, police say.

Police charged Joshua Hakken with marijuana possession and put his young children in foster care.

If the kids had been left with them, and then were harmed, some of the same farkers who are upset at this "injustice" would be screaming for the heads of the people who left the kids with their mentally unbalanced parents. And the fact that they ran for CUBA of all places tells you that their mental state isn't great.

Oh, yeah - and they planned suicide before they decided on kidnapping.

The documents show Hauser provided law enforcement with oral and written statements that Joshua Hakken and her daughter Sharyn Hakken had previously planned suicide but Joshua realized "they have a way out."

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/hillsborou gh -county-deputies-say-joshua-hakken-left-credit-cards-and-computer-prio r-to-kidnapping

They aren't exactly stable.


Say's the guy who just stole their children.
 
2013-04-10 05:03:09 PM  
just in case one more peek might inspire someone to  make this into some kind of meme.

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-04-10 05:14:17 PM  

StrikitRich: susler: Good for Cuba in returning them.

Had Reno not returned the Gonzalez kid, they may not have.

Cuba doesn't want harsh relations with the US as a reversal of the embargo would really help their tourist trade.  Returning kidnapped children was not only the right thing to do morally but it gets them good PR.


Can't we just lift embargo and pursue normalized relations with Cuba, yet? If we can have friendly relations with Russia and farking Vietnam, I think we should be able to handle acting like adults with Cuba.
 
2013-04-10 05:25:11 PM  
 It seems like most of the people advocating them having thier children kidnapped from them are doing so on grounds of thier politics.
Didn't they do this under some South American facsist government?
And how often do they release pictures of people getting a body cavity search like this? should it be standard practice for EVERYONE who  gets one? or maybe was this was just to humiliate them?
And of course the real question for those cheering this on. Does everyone that smokes pot or holds unpopular political views deserve to have their children taken away?

Hypnozombie
 
2013-04-10 05:53:34 PM  

Bruce Campbell: What is still baffling to me is how LA could maintain more than emergency temporary jurisdiction over a custody case involving FL resident parents, FL resident children, and FL resident grandparents.


You don't think that children visiting Louisiana can be taken into custody while in Louisiana, due to events in Louisianna, becoming wards of the state of Louisianna?  Who could be given in temporary custody to family who were Florida residents?  An arrangement which could then be changed to a permanent arrangement at a later date?

Why so credulous?

/I suppose they could have been kept in the Louisiana foster system until they hit 18, if that would make you happier
 
2013-04-10 06:01:28 PM  
Why so UNcredulous?

FTFM
 
2013-04-10 06:04:40 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Bruce Campbell: What is still baffling to me is how LA could maintain more than emergency temporary jurisdiction over a custody case involving FL resident parents, FL resident children, and FL resident grandparents.

You don't think that children visiting Louisiana can be taken into custody while in Louisiana, due to events in Louisianna, becoming wards of the state of Louisianna?  Who could be given in temporary custody to family who were Florida residents?  An arrangement which could then be changed to a permanent arrangement at a later date?

Why so credulous?

/I suppose they could have been kept in the Louisiana foster system until they hit 18, if that would make you happier


Because that is not how UCCJEA and PKPA are set up. UCCJEA grants temporary emergency jurisdiction for abandonment and abuse scenarios, but once the dangerous situation (stoned parents) is abated (no longer stoned) and the kids are no longer present in the state, which was the case, the jurisdiction ceases and the case should have been transferred to the proper jurisdiction, the home state. That is consistent across both federal Acts and both states are supposed to adhere to it.
 
2013-04-10 06:48:31 PM  

Bruce Campbell: Because that is not how UCCJEA and PKPA are set up. UCCJEA grants temporary emergency jurisdiction for abandonment and abuse scenarios, but once the dangerous situation (stoned parents) is abated (no longer stoned) and the kids are no longer present in the state, which was the case, the jurisdiction ceases and the case should have been transferred to the proper jurisdiction, the home state. That is consistent across both federal Acts and both states are supposed to adhere to it.

UCCJEA

and PKPA   are principally designed to determine which jurisdiction a trial will take place to determine which family member will get custody of a child.  It is a fundamentally different matter than determining the result of someone being a ward of the state.  Especially in the case of child endangerment, where the state may have a different standard on what represent a transient danger than you do.

But for the sake of argument, lets say the custody battle is between the grandparent and the STATE OF Louisianna, standing in loco parentis.

UCCJEA determined priority as follows:

1. The state which is the "home state" of the child, or was the child's home state within six months immediately before the commencement of child custody proceedings if the child is absent from the state, but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in the state;
2. If no state has jurisdiction under #1, then jurisdiction is proper where the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with the state (other than mere presence), and substantial evidence concerning the custody determination is available in the state;
3. If no state has jurisdiction under #1 or #2 above, jurisdiction is proper in any state having an appropriate connection with the child.

If the proceedinds start while the child is in LA, then case one seems to apply, because the child is not absent from LA, and LA is by definition present in LA.

If case 1 is disputed, then case 2, the State as In Loco Parentis has an signicant connection with the State as the State of Louisianna, and there is substantial evidence of child endangerment in Louisianna.

If one disputes that cases 1 or 2 apply, then the child is foster care in Lousianna, a connection to Louisianna.

But again, I don't think this is a custody battle per-say, but a case where a state has assumed responsibility for a child for the child's protection relinquishing custody to someone the state determined was safe, the grandparents, with the full cooperation of the grandparents.  Not a trial.

Could the parents have initiated a custody battle between themselves and the grandparents that would fall under the UCCJEA?  Probably, but it'd be a new trial, not the resolution of Louisiana's interest in the matter.

/now where is my GED in law?
 
2013-04-10 07:13:25 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Bruce Campbell: Because that is not how UCCJEA and PKPA are set up. UCCJEA grants temporary emergency jurisdiction for abandonment and abuse scenarios, but once the dangerous situation (stoned parents) is abated (no longer stoned) and the kids are no longer present in the state, which was the case, the jurisdiction ceases and the case should have been transferred to the proper jurisdiction, the home state. That is consistent across both federal Acts and both states are supposed to adhere to it.

UCCJEAand PKPA   are principally designed to determine which jurisdiction a trial will take place to determine which family member will get custody of a child.  It is a fundamentally different matter than determining the result of someone being a ward of the state.  Especially in the case of child endangerment, where the state may have a different standard on what represent a transient danger than you do.

But for the sake of argument, lets say the custody battle is between the grandparent and the STATE OF Louisianna, standing in loco parentis.

UCCJEA determined priority as follows:

1. The state which is the "home state" of the child, or was the child's home state within six months immediately before the commencement of child custody proceedings if the child is absent from the state, but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in the state;
2. If no state has jurisdiction under #1, then jurisdiction is proper where the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with the state (other than mere presence), and substantial evidence concerning the custody determination is available in the state;
3. If no state has jurisdiction under #1 or #2 above, jurisdiction is proper in any state having an appropriate connection with the child.

If the proceedinds start while the child is in LA, then case one seems to apply, because the child is not absent from LA, and LA is by definition present in LA.

If case 1 is disputed, then case 2, the State as In Loco Parentis has an signicant connection with the State as the State of Louisianna, and there is substantial evidence of child endangerment in Louisianna.

If one disputes that cases 1 or 2 apply, then the child is foster care in Lousianna, a connection to Louisianna.

But again, I don't think this is a custody battle per-say, but a case where a state has assumed responsibility for a child for the child's protection relinquishing custody to someone the state determined was safe, the grandparents, with the full cooperation of the grandparents.  Not a trial.

Could the parents have initiated a custody battle between themselves and the grandparents that would fall under the UCCJEA?  Probably, but it'd be a new trial, not the resolution of Louisiana's interest in the matter.

/now where is my GED in law?


Child custody is child custody and it doesn't matter who has initiated it or the reason for it. What do you think the temporary emergency provisions are for?

And no, the parents cannot initiate a custody battle at this point. Terminating parental rights means in the eyes of the law, they are now strangers, with no rights or responsibilities to the child. The rights were transfered immediately to the grandparents. LA opened the window to the "reasonable period of time to find a permanent placement" and slammed it shut with the immediate transfer of parental rights to the grandparents. The parents can only appeal the ruling.
 
2013-04-10 08:49:15 PM  

Bruce Campbell: Child custody is child custody and it doesn't matter who has initiated it or the reason for it. What do you think the temporary emergency provisions are for?


No, its not that simple.

Do you think the UCCJEAcould get a child convicted of a crime out of a penal institution?

Do you think the UCCJEA could remove a child from an insane asylum after being committed as being a danger to themselves?

I don't.  I think there are custody situations that overshadow application of the UCCJEA, and protection of multiple children from a negligent pair of parents may be one.   The initial charge resulted in a temporary foster care.  Showing up at the foster home with a gun would escalate things to a new level.  Repeated endangerment.

This is not a custody case where one family member is competing with another for custody.  This is more akin to involuntary termination of parental rights..  Perhaps something from LA's  CHC 1015.
 
2013-04-10 09:15:57 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Bruce Campbell: Child custody is child custody and it doesn't matter who has initiated it or the reason for it. What do you think the temporary emergency provisions are for?

No, its not that simple.

Do you think the UCCJEAcould get a child convicted of a crime out of a penal institution?

Do you think the UCCJEA could remove a child from an insane asylum after being committed as being a danger to themselves?

I don't.  I think there are custody situations that overshadow application of the UCCJEA, and protection of multiple children from a negligent pair of parents may be one.   The initial charge resulted in a temporary foster care.  Showing up at the foster home with a gun would escalate things to a new level.  Repeated endangerment.

This is not a custody case where one family member is competing with another for custody.  This is more akin to involuntary termination of parental rights..  Perhaps something from LA's  CHC 1015.


Your first example is a criminal act. Your second example is covered by state mental health acts. None of the ground in CHC 1015 applies, and it puts the cart of terminating parental rights before the horse of stripping the parent of custody.
 
2013-04-10 11:11:58 PM  
Well now my girl is convinced the Grand's were in on it!
 
2013-04-11 02:05:31 AM  

Bruce Campbell: TheBigJerk: Gotta link with mention of the warrant?

Here's the link to all outstanding warrants in the Parish that includes Slidell, LA:


The alleged foster family incident happened in Hammond, LA, which is in Tangipahoa Parish. I spent a couple minutes looking and couldn't find a list of open warrants for that Parish. Perhaps you'll have better luck.
 
2013-04-11 11:35:49 AM  
JWideman:  Here's a problem I have: smoke weed in front of your kids, go to jail. Get drunk in front of your kids, nobody gives a shiat. (except neo-prohibitionists)

It's not like the kids can't get a contact high from smelling the weed fumes.
 
2013-04-11 11:42:53 AM  
ReverendJynxedLeftCoast_eh: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x446]
Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?
Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.
Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.
/yes, yes, get off my lawn and so forth
Amazing how everyone missed the joke and are crying troll. +1


When the supposed joke was lame to begin iwth, people will pick on the guy making it.  No amount of excuse making will change that.
 
Displayed 24 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report