# Mayor disbands police department



## Guest

Talk about using a sledgehammer to kill a housefly;

*Mount Sterling Police Department Shut Down; Officer Accused Of Using Taser On 9-Year-Old Boy*

A small-town Ohio police department was shut down Friday after a cop allegedly used a taser on a 9-year-old boy, and the police chief kept quiet about it.

Details about the taser incident on Tuesday are few, but the _Coshocton Tribune_ reported that the officer had been called to a Mount Sterling apartment where a child was refusing to go to school.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...=maing-grid7|maing5|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=142586


----------



## Guest

*Do you have what it takes to fill these boots? *
*Now accepting applications for Mount Sterling Police Chief. *

*







*


----------



## adroitcuffs

Call me cynical, but I'm guessing there's more to this little town's problems than this incident. Seizing computers? Uh huh. Reportedly six marks on his back "that looked like burns"? Hmmm, three drive stuns didn't get the little bugger's attention? (Yes, I know proper training says we shouldn't use the ECD on a 9-year-old, but seriously...)



mtc said:


> How about investigating why the parent couldn't make the little bastard go to school in the first place?
> 
> And WHAT made them think it appropriate to call the police?
> 
> I hate hearing calls when parents call police because they suck at parenting.


For awhile, one of my collateral assignments was serving on the district's "school attendance review board". Being called to a hearing before the board meant your child (or sometimes, _children_) had missed an obscene amount of school and you were potentially facing criminal charges (there was also a deputy district attorney on the board). It never ceased to amaze me the excuses and/or ignorance that would come out of parents' (or should I say breeders?) mouths.

"Well, I just can't get Susie out of bed in the morning." _What have you done to try and change her behaviour?_ "Well, if I do anything, she gets mad at me!" _<Gee, are you a parent or just hosting a life-long sleepover?>_

"Sometimes, Johnny locks his bedroom door so I can't go in to wake him up." _Have you considered removing the bedroom door?_ "I can do that?"

I especially liked (*ahem*) the mommies who would complain that their precious spawn wouldn't get out of bed and/or wouldn't get dressed for school, so they just didn't take the kid to school. I said more than once, "Ma'am, your child is SIX years old. If you can't discipline her now, just wait until the hell you're going to face in six more years." Another good one was the third-grade kid who missed over a third of the school year, and was tardy nearly every day when he did show up. Essential detail -- _they lived right next door to the school!_

As if I needed a reminder that there was more breeding than parenting going on... 

*****


----------



## HistoryHound

Cuffs,

I worked with a woman who's daughter got a call from the principle about the kid not being in school. Her excuse for him missing so much school was that she was his mother and if he didn't want to go or she didn't think they should have school because it was too cold outside; then, she wasn't going to bring him and that was her choice as a parent. Here's the scariest part of the story, the principle pointed out to her just how wrong she was and what would happen if she didn't start bringing the kid to school. Her response was to pull him out of public school and home school him. I have no idea how she got a home school plan approved, unless she didn't have to come up with it on her own.


----------



## adroitcuffs

I don't know about here, but in Cali, it's pretty damn easy to get home school authorization. All the parent has to do is register with an accredited program. By the time the failure of that is recognized, the damage is more than done.


*****


----------



## cc3915

adroitcuffs said:


> "Sometimes, Johnny locks his bedroom door so I can't go in to wake him up." _Have you considered removing the bedroom door?_ "I can do that?"*****


Bwahahaha.... I did that to my son's bedroom door once because he slammed it shut in anger after a "disgreement". I put it in the basement for a month. I'll tell you though, it worked. The kid never slammed his door shut again.


----------



## adroitcuffs

cc3915 said:


> Bwahahaha.... I did that to my son's bedroom door once because he slammed it shut in anger after a "disgreement". I put it in the basement for a month. I'll tell you though, it worked. The kid never slammed his door shut again.


It never ceased to amaze me, the number of these "problem children" who had televisions, music devices, computers, etc., in their bedrooms and the reluctance of the parents to remove said items as a consequence of poor behaviours. The look on their faces when I told them all the law required them to provide was basic food and shelter.... priceless.

*****


----------



## Guest

cc3915 said:


> Bwahahaha.... I did that to my son's bedroom door once because he slammed it shut in anger after a "disgreement". I put it in the basement for a month. I'll tell you though, it worked. The kid never slammed his door shut again.


If one of my kids pulls that when they're older, there won't be a door left to put in the basement, because it will come crashing down when I get a running start and launch my 6-3 225lb body into it at full speed like Jerod Mayo laying a hit on a receiver over the middle.



adroitcuffs said:


> It never ceased to amaze me, the number of these "problem children" who had televisions, music devices, computers, etc., in their bedrooms and the reluctance of the parents to remove said items as a consequence of poor behaviours. The look on their faces when I told them all the law required them to provide was basic food and shelter.... priceless.


Even better is the look when you tell them that once they turn 18, their parents are no longer legally obligated to provide them with anything, including basic food & shelter.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Delta784 said:


> If one of my kids pulls that when they're older, there won't be a door left to put in the basement, because it will come crashing down when I get a running start and launch my 6-3 225lb body into it at full speed like Jerod Mayo laying a hit on a receiver over the middle.
> 
> Even better is the look when you tell them that once they turn 18, their parents are no longer legally obligated to provide them with anything, including basic food & shelter.


VENTURA, Calif. - In what could turn out to be a landmark decision, a 
Ventura County Superior Court judge ordered a Ventura couple to support 
their 50-year-old son indefinitely.

Judge Melinda Johnson ruled two weeks ago that James and Bertha Culp of 
Ventura pay their son David Culp $3,500 a month for living expenses because 
he is incapable of supporting himself. Culp suffers from depression and 
bipolar disorder.

They were ordered to begin payments this month from their monthly income of 
about $20,000. James Culp is a retired trailer-park developer.

The Culps are appealing the decision. The appellate court ruling would be 
the first of its kind in California, according to Johnson, and could set a 
precedent for future cases.

David Culp is a Stanford University graduate who practiced family law in 
Ventura County for 19 years. He went from earning as much as $10,000 a month 
to collecting Social Security Disability at $1,049 a month because of his 
disability.

Johnson based her ruling on state law, Family Code section 3910(a). It 
states that "the father and mother have an equal responsibility to maintain, 
to the extent of their ability, a child of whatever age who is incapacitated 
from earning a living and without sufficient means."

In court documents, Johnson described the law as "unambiguous on its face."

Also factored into her decision was the possibility that Culp's emotional 
illnesses may have been hereditary and that his behavior disorders may be 
caused by physical and emotional abuse by his father.

Culp told his therapists his father physically and emotionally abused him 
and described his father in court documents as "an evil sadist" whose 
favorite sport was "humiliating the great lawyer in public."

Dr. Donald Hobson of Camarillo, Calif., Culp's therapist of four years, 
described his emotional problems as "almost post-traumatic stress disorder."

Specialists in family law emphasized the precedent-setting potential of the 
case.

Family law expert Sorrell Trope, of the Los Angeles firm Trope and Trope, 
said he hadn't seen a case like this in 53 years of practicing family law.

"As far as I know this is a landmark decision," he said.

David Culp's attorney, Jeff Jennings of Oxnard, Calif., said "every parent I 
talk to gets shivers when they hear about it."

But he noted the family code provision is clear. "The statute didn't come 
about by accident."

The Culps and their attorney declined to comment. David Culp also refused to 
comment.

David Culp was a successful family law and criminal defense attorney who 
practiced in Ventura County for 19 years and lived in Ventura with his wife 
and two children.

But in the late 1980s, Culp claimed he began exhibiting erratic behavior 
caused by untreated clinical depression, according to court documents.

He reported becoming "verbally abusive" toward judges and attorneys in 
court, "physically intimidating opposing counsel" and shaking a judge's desk 
in a "blind rage." He described being threatened with immediate 
incarceration and having bench warrants issued for his arrest.

The escalating behavior led him to close a private practice in 1994 on the 
advice of his therapist.

After his wife and two children left him, Culp applied for Social Security 
Disability.

In June, Culp filed the lawsuit against his parents for monthly expenses 
amounting to more than $11,000, which included college tuition for his 
children and several thousand dollars in medical expenses.

(Contact Leslie Parrilla of the Ventura County Star in California at 
http://www.staronline.com.)


----------



## Guest

justanotherparatrooper said:


> VENTURA, Calif. - In what could turn out to be a landmark decision, a
> Ventura County Superior Court judge ordered a Ventura couple to support
> their 50-year-old son indefinitely.
> 
> Judge Melinda Johnson ruled two weeks ago that James and Bertha Culp of
> Ventura pay their son David Culp $3,500 a month for living expenses because
> he is incapable of supporting himself. Culp suffers from depression and
> bipolar disorder.
> 
> They were ordered to begin payments this month from their monthly income of
> about $20,000. James Culp is a retired trailer-park developer.
> http://www.staronline.com.)


I would have to say that James Cuip raised a trailer park trash of a son!


----------



## Guest

justanotherparatrooper said:


> VENTURA, Calif. - In what could turn out to be a landmark decision, a
> Ventura County Superior Court judge ordered a Ventura couple to support
> their 50-year-old son indefinitely.
> 
> Judge Melinda Johnson ruled two weeks ago that James and Bertha Culp of
> Ventura pay their son David Culp $3,500 a month for living expenses because
> he is incapable of supporting himself. Culp suffers from depression and
> bipolar disorder.
> 
> They were ordered to begin payments this month from their monthly income of
> about $20,000. James Culp is a retired trailer-park developer.
> 
> The Culps are appealing the decision. The appellate court ruling would be
> the first of its kind in California, according to Johnson, and could set a
> precedent for future cases.
> 
> David Culp is a Stanford University graduate who practiced family law in
> Ventura County for 19 years. He went from earning as much as $10,000 a month
> to collecting Social Security Disability at $1,049 a month because of his
> disability.
> 
> Johnson based her ruling on state law, Family Code section 3910(a). It
> states that "the father and mother have an equal responsibility to maintain,
> to the extent of their ability, a child of whatever age who is incapacitated
> from earning a living and without sufficient means."
> 
> In court documents, Johnson described the law as "unambiguous on its face."
> 
> Also factored into her decision was the possibility that Culp's emotional
> illnesses may have been hereditary and that his behavior disorders may be
> caused by physical and emotional abuse by his father.
> 
> Culp told his therapists his father physically and emotionally abused him
> and described his father in court documents as "an evil sadist" whose
> favorite sport was "humiliating the great lawyer in public."
> 
> Dr. Donald Hobson of Camarillo, Calif., Culp's therapist of four years,
> described his emotional problems as "almost post-traumatic stress disorder."
> 
> Specialists in family law emphasized the precedent-setting potential of the
> case.
> 
> Family law expert Sorrell Trope, of the Los Angeles firm Trope and Trope,
> said he hadn't seen a case like this in 53 years of practicing family law.
> 
> "As far as I know this is a landmark decision," he said.
> 
> David Culp's attorney, Jeff Jennings of Oxnard, Calif., said "every parent I
> talk to gets shivers when they hear about it."
> 
> But he noted the family code provision is clear. "The statute didn't come
> about by accident."
> 
> The Culps and their attorney declined to comment. David Culp also refused to
> comment.
> 
> David Culp was a successful family law and criminal defense attorney who
> practiced in Ventura County for 19 years and lived in Ventura with his wife
> and two children.
> 
> But in the late 1980s, Culp claimed he began exhibiting erratic behavior
> caused by untreated clinical depression, according to court documents.
> 
> He reported becoming "verbally abusive" toward judges and attorneys in
> court, "physically intimidating opposing counsel" and shaking a judge's desk
> in a "blind rage." He described being threatened with immediate
> incarceration and having bench warrants issued for his arrest.
> 
> The escalating behavior led him to close a private practice in 1994 on the
> advice of his therapist.
> 
> After his wife and two children left him, Culp applied for Social Security
> Disability.
> 
> In June, Culp filed the lawsuit against his parents for monthly expenses
> amounting to more than $11,000, which included college tuition for his
> children and several thousand dollars in medical expenses.
> 
> (Contact Leslie Parrilla of the Ventura County Star in California at
> http://www.staronline.com.)


What horse shit....thankfully, we have no such provision in Massachusetts, although it's probably already being drafted on Beacon Hill now that this decision came out.

If the allegations of physical and emotional abuse are true, maybe the parents should be somehow sanctioned, but their obligation to financially provide for their children should end when they turn 18.

I once got a family trouble call, and the 19 year-old son whose experiment to live with his friends in Florida to start a band (thereby establishing residency in another state) didn't work out had come back to live with mom. He had only been living back at home for 2 weeks (thereby not re-establishing MA residency), and was being a real jerk....didn't work, all he did was play video games & mooch food, very disrespectful towards his mother (in front of me and my partner), etc.

After I established that he was 18 or older and had been living back at home less than 30 days, I told Mom "Throw him out". Both he and she were shocked, and she asked "What do you mean throw him out?" I said "Tell him to pack his stuff and find somewhere else to live". She said "I can't do that", to which I said "I can, so just say the word, and we will physically remove him from your apartment, right now".

The kid started backpedaling so furiously, I'm surprised I didn't hear the "BEEP BEEP" of a back-up alarm. All of a sudden, shooting his mouth off to his mother wasn't such a great idea...."But where am I supposed to go?" "You should have thought of that before you were a disrespectful punk to your mother".

Attitude changed, and he stayed.


----------



## HistoryHound

On one hand, I read that story and think that it's completely ridiculous that the parents be ordered to pay "child support" to a grown man. On the other hand, I think there may be something to this. They created this disaster of a human being, so let them support him instead of us. Maybe if more people thought they would be held responsible for their children when the kids became adults they'd do a better job of raising them. Not to mention think twice about indiscriminate breeding. But then I snap back to reality, and go back to my initial thought that this is just ridiculous. At some point in our lives we have to take responsibility for ourselves. There are plenty of people who have been dealt crappy hands as kids who have risen above their circumstances and become successful, productive adults.


----------



## kwflatbed

Pure bullshit from CA CA. Send him to live with the Obama clan he would fit right in.


----------



## OfficerObie59

If I had a law degree from Stanford, I'd be supporting _my_ parents...


----------



## adroitcuffs

Oh great, more fecal matter coming out of the California courts. 


*****


----------



## Kilvinsky

I've had people I worked with living with (non-diagnosed) bi-polar disorder and they do just fine.

No one really likes working with them, but at least they earn a living and fend for themselves!


----------



## ams

What is CA thinking? If he is that old and has a law degree from Stanford then he SHOULD be able to take care of himself.The guy is just looking for the easy way out of things and doesn't seem to want to work for anything.


----------



## Guest

I have a nephew that could've benefited from a good tazering at 9yrs old... 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk


----------



## Meat Eater

Sound like its time for that couple to move all their money out of CA. and relocate to TX. Lets see what a TX. court will do for the son.


----------



## Guest

Meat Eater said:


> Sound like its time for that couple to move all their money out of CA. and relocate to TX. Lets see what a TX. court will do for the son.


Speaking of TX, I have some good friends that live in a pretty rural part of Texas. The public school their 6 kids go to still allows the principal to dole out corporal punishment as a discipline, which my friends are completely accepting of. In fact one of their sons needed some discipline, and they were the first ones to admit that he deserved what he got.


----------



## Guest

HistoryHound said:


> On one hand, I read that story and think that it's completely ridiculous that the parents be ordered to pay "child support" to a grown man. On the other hand, I think there may be something to this. They created this disaster of a human being, so let them support him instead of us. Maybe if more people thought they would be held responsible for their children when the kids became adults they'd do a better job of raising them. Not to mention think twice about indiscriminate breeding. But then I snap back to reality, and go back to my initial thought that this is just ridiculous. At some point in our lives we have to take responsibility for ourselves. There are plenty of people who have been dealt crappy hands as kids who have risen above their circumstances and become successful, productive adults.


My nephew (the same one who would've benefited from being tased at 9yrs old) is very much a mommy's boy, even at 12 yrs old. My sister, who is completely to blame for his attitude and immaturity, readily admits that if he decides he wants to live at home with her for the rest of his life, she is completely fine with that, and would love to have him there. I don't see how he has any chance of becoming a truly productive member of society.


----------



## HistoryHound

right.as.rain said:


> My nephew (the same one who would've benefited from being tased at 9yrs old) is very much a mommy's boy, even at 12 yrs old. My sister, who is completely to blame for his attitude and immaturity, readily admits that if he decides he wants to live at home with her for the rest of his life, she is completely fine with that, and would love to have him there. I don't see how he has any chance of becoming a truly productive member of society.


Oh dear God. If my kids aren't out on their own in the next ten years (they're 21 &19) I'm going to feel like a complete failure. Barring any unforeseen circumstances I can't imagine my kids wanting to live at home much after they graduate and get jobs. Heck, the oldest one is half out the door already.


----------

