Police Put Pressure on Josh Powell by Removing his Children

by W.F. Price on September 29, 2011

The travails of Josh Powell, who is a “person of interest” in his missing wife Susan’s case, have been all over the local media in the Seattle area. Powell moved to Washington state shortly after his wife went missing in 2009. In these cases, spouses are naturally suspected, so Powell has been under a great deal of scrutiny for the last couple years, but so far absolutely no physical evidence has emerged to suggest that he harmed his wife, and without a body there’s no conclusive evidence a crime was even committed.

Most recently, police arrested his father in a peeping tom investigation, following cooperation with West Valley Utah police to put pressure on Josh. His father, Steve Powell, has allegedly been taking naughty pictures of women and girls for some time.

In the wake of Steve Powell’s arrest for voyeurism, Josh’s children were removed from his custody, because they lived with Josh together with Steve, but the local media is reporting that the children have been removed because their father is under scrutiny in the missing person case. Although family courts have a great deal of leeway in taking children from parents, the legal reason for the removal of the kids is likely Steve Powell’s arrest, as allowing police to essentially kidnap children when they merely suspect someone of a crime (and Josh has never even been named a suspect) would be too blatant an abuse of police power.

Nevertheless, removing the kids even for that reason is going too far, as Josh has neither been arrested nor charged with anything.

What appears to have happened recently is that Steve Powell, who worked for the Department of Corrections before his arrest, was sticking his thumb in the eye of the police. He had access to Susan Powell’s diary, and was threatening to publish portions of it. He involved himself in the investigation, invited media attention, and generally acted in a provocative manner toward the cops. Police tend to hang together, so local police in Pierce County cooperated with Utah’s West Valley PD to stick it to him, raiding his house and seizing his computers, in which they allegedly found illicit photos.

Cops really don’t like it when people make them look bad, and the failure of the West Valley PD to find anything to pin on Josh Powell in his wife’s disappearance was making some cops look pretty incompetent. Steve Powell was rubbing this in their face, hence the raid.

Now, the police have effectively punished Steve Powell, and they have succeeded in putting enormous pressure on Josh, who is broke, and given his reputation has no chance of finding work. In showing up at the custody hearing he argued without an attorney, and the judge, naturally, turned custody over to his wife’s parents. This is a temporary custody hearing, but when men lose temporary custody hearings, they often turn out to be permanent — especially in Washington state. Furthermore, if Steve Powell is financially drained defending himself, Josh could well end up homeless, which would further complicate any efforts to get his children back.

Although the police went after Steve Powell in part because of his provocative antics, ultimately, the target is his son, Josh. This kind of pressure is designed to induce a confession, so the West Valley PD can achieve their goal of resolving the Susan Powell case. However, these tactics raise serious questions about police power in contemporary society. Should police use child dispossession as an investigation tactic? Should they take sides in custody cases? Cops and prosecutors know that there is no right to an attorney in these cases, so it’s an easy end-run around basic protections.

When looking into “exceptions” to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, many (if not most) of them are found in family law. Although Josh Powell’s wife’s disappearance could easily lead reasonable people to suspect him, it is exactly these cases that test human rights and civil liberty. All Americans supposedly have the right to due process, a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence. But what does any of this mean if the police can seize one’s children merely for suspicion?

Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children.

{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }

Ken September 29, 2011 at 06:13

“Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children”>>>>>

EXACTLY!
What tyrannical measures and “precendent” will be experienced by men here in the US in the years to come under the banner of “protecting women and children”. From the taking of a man’s children for the slightest of “threat” percieved to the eventual “barring” of men from being in places where children congregate (without a woman present) the pendulum of tyranny is swinging…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1
AntZ September 29, 2011 at 06:37

“Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children.”

I recently saw an example of this in my son’s Elementary school.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Mr. N September 29, 2011 at 06:59

AntZ please elaborate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 29, 2011 at 07:04

Tyranny-Slavery-

…These are words that go together well.

…What a wonderful world this will be.

… Puppets on a string.

(Time to revive those songs..)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
codebuster September 29, 2011 at 07:12

This post from Lew Rockwell’s site is relevant. Similar theme, re constitutional principles and allocation of powers:
http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/police-state-end-the-trial191.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Alcuin September 29, 2011 at 07:24

“Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children”

If the Titanic sunk today, men would be shot and then dumped into the water. Feminism is a crime against men’s humanity.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 4
Natalia September 29, 2011 at 07:32

The kids are already dealing with the pain of missing their mom, and now they are taken away from their dad. How can anyone believe that’s better for the children?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 5
Firepower September 29, 2011 at 08:40

Natalia

How can anyone believe that’s better for the children?

Liberals – they truly believe they are above criticism because, “in the end” all will work out for the best, because Liberals truly believe their motivations are morally superior.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 9
Ryu September 29, 2011 at 08:53

Yes, do you know who it is who is the guiltiest of all?

It’s the men who are enforcing these rulings – the cops and soldiers. Many will insist that the cops are guilty, after all, they are being paid for it and they can’t disobey orders.

Except that’s not true. As we learned in WW2, following orders is no excuse. The same cops and soldiers who were following orders in Waco and Ruby Ridge are carrying out these orders to steal the man’s kids. These men are the ultimate white knights. They go to war to protect feminism.

And stop quoting the constitution. That thing is dead and buried. It was not even a valid arguement in my great-grandfather’s time. It went up in flames the second Lincoln declared war on the South.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
Rocco September 29, 2011 at 09:18

The guiltiest of all are the social workers at child protective services, they are the ones responsible for this. Only a woman could have the kind of hubris needed to take someone elses child and think to herself it’s justified, she knows better. This is where the enforcers of the system live.

Social workers are the police in plain clothes.

The best thing men can do, IMO, if they care about mens rights is infiltrate the social work field and subvert it. They expect a 20% increase in the need for social workers over the next 10 years, we’re in a recession, it’s easy work, like being a cop.

This is not an exageration. But since they can take children without a good cause they get very callous and power mad. They have full immunity from prosecution of liability…a license to steal children.

IMO another likely scenario is that the social workers talked to the mother in-law and the children were taken to placate the mother in-law. The social workers just decide he’s guilty of kidnapping. In their twisted world it doesn’t matter, it’s all relative. But the grandmother is unhappy, that, to the social workers is something that cannot be tolerated, a woman, upset.

The fathers arrest was the pretense the social workers used, their brothers in the police force would have arrested him on suspicion of child porn if they wanted too.

He will never see those kids again. Social workers, like all women, never say they’re sorry and never admit their wrong…40 years of go girl power at work, you can’t change it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
Firepower September 29, 2011 at 09:39

If Josh Powell is guilty, then of course his kids should go.

BUT, he hasn’t even been charged with anything, much less convicted after a trial.

SO, the whole “innocent until proven guilty” canard is proven yet again as bullshit.

There was a recent case where a MOTHER who had killed her kids got to keep her new kids in a new family, but *poof* that was QUICKLY forgotten by the msm. Even Casey Anthony is given better circumstances.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Traveller September 29, 2011 at 09:41

Police brutality in Wall Street protest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI

It was noted in other conservative blogs, even the leftist MSNBC aired such a commentary. The king is quickly losing clothes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Quartermain September 29, 2011 at 10:11

Thomas Jefferson’s coat of arms said: Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

Wish that sentiment would spread.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
BSimpson September 29, 2011 at 10:13

“Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children.”

And all of God’s people said….

Amen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 29, 2011 at 10:27

“Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children”

Question: Which came first. The tyranny or the family law?
Did a preexisting tyranny create feminism from the top down as is generally thought?
Or did feminism inadvertently create legal loopholes for power structures to exploit and grow into tyranny from the bottom up?

The view one takes could positively or negatively affect the reaction of a fence sitter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Firepower September 29, 2011 at 10:39

Quartermain
Thomas Jefferson’s coat of arms said: Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

Wish that sentiment would spread.

Wishing will not make it so.

USA Jordies are indoctrinated in Government Schools to despise ALL concept of God, Thomas Jefferson – and obedience.

When you have NONE of these concepts, you have disarray in mrm.

Which is precisely what you have. No cohesion means continued losses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
codebuster September 29, 2011 at 11:07

And stop quoting the constitution. That thing is dead and buried. It was not even a valid arguement in my great-grandfather’s time. It went up in flames the second Lincoln declared war on the South.

True, dat. The rot, quoting the constitution out of context and for personal gain, probably started a long time ago. Just as the mutation of “free-market principles” to “free-for-all market principles” began a long time ago. Doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be revived, restated and re-asserted with renewed vigor, though, with what we have now learned happens to society in its absence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
criolle johnny September 29, 2011 at 12:03

One of my EIGHT GRADE inner-city history students told me the King of England in 1776 was a “gangsta”, because “if he could not get you, he went after your family”.
They see it, they say it. I wish our courts were that honest.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Rocco September 29, 2011 at 12:32

OT

A nice summary of why the mrm should not support Obama care. Women see it as a way to get health benefits without having to be married.

“The burden of not being able to afford care has had a greater impact on women than men. In one study, over 50% of women delayed seeking medical care because they couldn’t afford it (compared to 39% of men); and a third faced difficult decisions to pay for needed care, such as giving up basic necessities.”

That 11% are the women that refuse to marry, so, the man tax, brought to you by Osama Obama pays the insurance of all those slut walk protestors.

Now you know why they walk. To support the United Womens Federation Local 666, otherwise known as NOW.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/womensbodiesminds/a/HealthCareReformWomen.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Lysander Spooner September 29, 2011 at 13:58

This is no longer America.

America died not with a whimper, but with thunderous applause.

Chile is looking better and better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Rocco September 29, 2011 at 14:08

Why Chile?

I’m considering Brazil, I’ve been there many times, it’s great but getting feminized.

I’ve been hearing good things about Columbia, I hear it’s improving.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Mr Stricter September 29, 2011 at 14:37

Another article I read suggests there were other issues including possible child porn involved among other things. So its a bit more complex.

That being said taking a persons kids ought to be done with great care. Now understand some a-holes need to lose their kids and as ugly as it is CPS is doing the right thing. But in all cases due diligence is needed . I have no idea about case though as usual I lean at opening to no.

However the apparatchik ought to remember that while right now the State is still strong enough to shield and cover for bad, arbitrary or very unpopular judgment calls. That however is not a given in the long run and when it breaks down (when, not if) that may quickly not be the case.

The powerful will have forgotten their enemies (for you it was the worst day of your life, for me it was Tuesday) but the enemies they made, for right or wrong reasons will not forget them . And no you can’t hide or run either. The sins, real or imagined of the powerful will be visited collectively on them and theirs.

best to make as few enemies if possible and support better pro family policies not stupid feminist of misandrist ones.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Gilgamesh September 29, 2011 at 15:36

You can plant child porn. There was a case a while back where law enforncement found cp on some government employee’s computer, but later discovered that a botnet had automatically downloaded them to the machine. As of the writing of the article (Which I’d link if I could remember the url-try googling “botnet child pronography” and see if the story comes up) he was still receiving death threats despite the fact that he was not the one who downloaded the pictures. The writer of the article couldn’t think of a reason why anyone would write a botnet to download child porn to someone else’s computer, but I’m pretty sure we all know what it could be used for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Robert September 29, 2011 at 15:38

evilwhitemalempire September 29, 2011 at 10:27
“Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children”

Question: Which came first. The tyranny or the family law?
Did a preexisting tyranny create feminism from the top down as is generally thought?
Or did feminism inadvertently create legal loopholes for power structures to exploit and grow into tyranny from the bottom up?

The view one takes could positively or negatively affect the reaction of a fence sitter.

If they knew the facts, they would fall off the fence in the blue pill direction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Robert September 29, 2011 at 15:43

evilwhitemalempire September 29, 2011 at 10:27
“Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children”

“Did a preexisting tyranny create feminism from the top down as is generally thought?
Or did feminism inadvertently create legal loopholes for power structures to exploit and grow into tyranny from the bottom up?”

“The view one takes could positively or negatively affect the reaction of a fence sitter.”

A very sharp comment. Can I borrow this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Robert September 29, 2011 at 15:45

Sh*t generally flows downhill but, feminism proved it can flow uphill as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Robert September 29, 2011 at 15:48

If they knew the facts, they would fall off the fence in the red pill direction. A blue corvette passed as I was typing. Sharp car with tinted windows.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Robert September 29, 2011 at 16:12

I’m still angry concerning the resume I sent by email over a week ago being kicked back to me because some type of HTML “attachment”.

I finally got it straightened out and sent.

As for the topic at hand;

The police were/are wrong for kidnapping Josh Powell’s children. It angers me to no end when the police choose to follow the orders of feminism.

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female.

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman).

The hateful words of hags.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
fmz September 29, 2011 at 16:20

MRA can only really address the gender war social imbalance, but never those that bring down the hammer, as they have guns, prisons and armies. Femism is a coercive lever and nothing more, all the rhetoric behind it is propaganda that appeases with faux power (empowerment). Femz are just a class of useful idiots. MRA will always be within that game and whilst it can change some of the rules it can end the game, as it ultimately relies on engagement. It has it uses, particularly for those either invested in the current social order (existing and aspiring family men).

GYOW is the only way to neutralise the coercive lever of family, marriage and co-hab. It has the added benefit of nuetralising of severley limiting some of the other coercive levers. For example, work as a free agent/contractor, have an escape hatch (foreign abode, dual nationality, expat), live simple and dont have too much stuff. Essentially limit one’s buy-in, by simply picking and choose what and when and then, rent it, lease it. Dont get tied down, maintain mobility.

Its really up to the young men who dont yet have kids and havent bought in too heavily to change their directions and by default the landscape will change. Appealing to them is the way to go. They seem to have mostly figured it out for themselves, if the laments of wimminz is any measure. Stories like this one serve as reminder of whats really going on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Firepower September 29, 2011 at 18:16

fmz

MRA can only really address the gender war social imbalance, but never those that bring down the hammer, as they have guns, prisons and armies.

That’s admitting helplessness. If a movement is helpless – it is not a movement- it is a target. Like helpless Ewoks getting mowed down by The Empire.

While “activists” who define activity as internet posting “address the gender war social imbalance” (whatever that means…) the
Real Power will put a collar on them as they play with the catnip.

Its really up to the young men who dont yet have kids and havent bought in too heavily to change their directions and by default the landscape will change.

There is NO indication in our society of this group achieving anything of significance.

What will happen is: today’s 20 year-0lds will wait around until they’re tomorrow’s 40 year-olds. Blackmailed and anchored to property and families, they will recall these words as they look to tomorrow’s 20 year-olds trying to dig out of an even deeper hole.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
Mr. J September 29, 2011 at 19:55

Nothing will get done.
No progress will be made.
Nothing will change.

You know why?

Because the most important thing to most men is watching millionaires run around with a ball and that “their team” “wins” “the superbowl”, “the worldseries”, or some other inane stupid shit.

The politicians and other operatives just continue to chuckle to themselves at the scenario as it continues on and on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
3DShooter September 29, 2011 at 20:11

@Welmer

“When looking into “exceptions” to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, many (if not most) of them are found in family law.”

There are NO EXEMPTIONS in the Constitution – they have been ‘interpreted’ into it.

That said, it is hard so say what happened in this case. But you are quite right to observe that what is currently going on is nothing more than state ‘pressure tactics. If they actually had evidence, they would charge him.

As an aside, it is worth mentioning that on this side of the ‘Blues’ the Momo’s pretty much control everything, If they decide to circle the wagons for any cause they have no reservation against pulling a ‘mountain meadows’ if it is in their interests [google mormon mountain meadows for those fortunate enough to not have had to endure them].

When my ex-brother-in-law brought his soon to be wife out here from Boston, her most memorable remark was that she’d never seen so much land without houses on it. I think Owyhee county ID (borders northern UT) is still the least densely populated area in the lower 48. I’d probably have taken advantage of that if I’d known what the kangaroo family courts are really like . . . Ahhh, a lost opportunity . . . FTSU!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fmz September 29, 2011 at 21:54

Who helps himself is not helpless. This need not mean fighting against. One can help himself to an another path, to another destination. l think that voting with my feet is much more useful, to me. l withold my efforts and enjoy the efforts of all that is created about me. Doing the minimum required to live this life, being aware that it can be taken at the barrell of a gun. Having a stash and being set to get on with it if worst transpires.

l say let the diseased system rot. Get your ducks in a row, hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Say yer hail marys, do your token penances and be ready to take off when/if it gets untenable.

They need us. They feed of us. They know it. Its their achilles. The most dependant (80%+) rely on the rest. Their worst vitriol is saved for those who let this be known. Who dont buy in, who call them out, rub it in their faces, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire September 29, 2011 at 23:11

Robert September 29, 2011 at 15:43
“A very sharp comment. Can I borrow this?”

Borrow away.
Steal it if you want to.
Getting good ideas out into the manosphere is WAY more important to me then getting credit for stuff.

You might want to mine these fellows for some material also.
It’s where I’ve been getting a lot of my ideas from.

http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/2010/12/eboybad-girlgood-squared.html

http://theantifeminist.com/what-feminism-is/

These two are both very different from the ‘mainstream’ mrm AND very different from one another.

Their theories are both based on technology but are predicated on opposite premises.

MacCloud starts out with men on top and then technology changes that.
While Shopenbecq starts out with women on top until technology threatened to change that. Feminism being reactionary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
bruno September 30, 2011 at 01:47

“Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children.”

So true.
As this could only happen because men let it happen, and are blind to see their rights being robbed from under their noses.

The majority of the voters are women.
And “women’s rights” is the number one (!) reason for women’s voting box choices. They don’t care about politics, economy, or social justice, they only care about their privileges. No other class of voters votes so shamelessly for their own privileges, and so little for the general good.

For men, the political candidate’s standpoint on “men’s right’s” has absolutely no impact on men’s voting decisions.

In the voting box, men don’t defend their rights, at all.

Men need to be aware of this, and start voting for candidates who explicitly want to fight against men’s discrimination, otherwise politicians will continue making laws against men, until men have less rights than plants or animals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Skeptik September 30, 2011 at 01:59

“What will happen is: today’s 20 year-0lds will wait around until they’re tomorrow’s 40 year-olds. Blackmailed and anchored to property and families, they will recall these words as they look to tomorrow’s 20 year-olds trying to dig out of an even deeper hole”.

Nope, they won’t.
Not once they’ve taken on board the latest astonishing widespread Men’s Rights Activism apparently happening in Japan -

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/09/28/men-going-their-own-way

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 30, 2011 at 02:39

“Not once they’ve taken on board the latest astonishing widespread Men’s Rights Activism apparently happening in Japan -”

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/09/28/men-going-their-own-way

Yes, those ‘herbivores’ got it right from the start.
Elam explains it by the frog in boiling water analogy.
Personally I think it’s because they’re just smart enough to not have to jump in a puddle of mud to learn they’ll get dirty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
deb September 30, 2011 at 05:30

I understand the legal sentiment- I agree actually. On the other hand you look at the recent missing child and spouse cases and you see that the only way the police can secure some sort of justice for the victim and society is by “getting them on something unrelated”- it certainly has worked for them and I’m glad coz i want justice too. If murderers would just admit their evil deeds- or if we had a reliable enough PET scan or voice analysis device that would be legally binding- we wouldn’t have to go thru all this hullibalue. Luckly, he is guilty and knows he is guilty- so hopefully he won’t be able to feel victimized enought to do something horrible- like off himself and children at one of his supervised visits.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8
Firepower September 30, 2011 at 12:14

Mr. J
Because the most important thing to most men is watching millionaires run around with a ball …

The politicians and other operatives just continue to chuckle to themselves at the scenario as it continues on and on.

The damnable, unforgivable part of this is
WE ARE AWARE OF IT

yet, still continue gorging on the Blue Pill

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 1, 2011 at 03:14

Tyranny has arrived in the guise of protecting women and children.

Tyranny has been around a long time in the US .Protecting women and children is just a newer tactic that is being used. I think that most men were asleep and oblivious to tyranny because it didn’t effect them but now that custody has become a big issue they’re really seeing the underbelly of how governments operate and there’s a trickle down effect.All governments operate under the tyranny tactic and it’s only a matter of degree between a USSR and a USA.

From your story it appears that the children were taken from Josh because he lived with Steve and Steve was charged with alleged kid porn which is how this story was written in a number of mainline papers. So I guess that the pretext for removing the kids was the nature of the alleged crime that Steve was arrested for and that kids lived with him and the father. If Josh wasn’t living with Steve could they take custody of the kids? To me it just looks like a pretext to take the kids to put pressure on and harass Josh in the wife disappearance case and using the child porn allegation because if Steve was charged with something like embezzlement they couldn’t do it. btw, you mentioned that it was for some sort of “peeping tom” type offence but that would mean that he was sneaking around and taking pictures through a window or something of that nature but I don’t think that that’s what happened. I believe he may have taken pictures in a public place which isn’t a crime but in today’s crazy Alice in Wonderland world that may now be considered a peeping tom.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Susan February 5, 2012 at 16:48

I am suspecting that you all are eating your words right now since this man just killed himself and murdered not only his wife but his children as well. What you people need to understand is that the court has an obligation to protect society. This has nothing to do whether you are to the right or the left. This man is suspected of killing his wife and until he is cleared the court MUST PROTECT those children since they were in his custody. Since the court did not do an efficient job in doing so, those children are now DEAD. I hope your words are making you choke.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price February 5, 2012 at 16:57

I am suspecting that you all are eating your words right now since this man just killed himself and murdered not only his wife but his children as well. What you people need to understand is that the court has an obligation to protect society. This has nothing to do whether you are to the right or the left. This man is suspected of killing his wife and until he is cleared the court MUST PROTECT those children since they were in his custody. Since the court did not do an efficient job in doing so, those children are now DEAD. I hope your words are making you choke.

-Susan

Typical for a feminist to see this as a triumph. Josh Powell was hounded for years up to this point. If he didn’t kill his wife, and there’s still no evidence he did, does the court bear some responsibility for the outcome here?

woggy February 7, 2012 at 16:06

@Susan

Are you on a fishing expedition, lady?

I checked and rechecked the comments to this article, just to see if “Susan” made any clairvoyant prediction of the terrible turn of events.
Nope.
“Susan” didn’t predict this grisly outcome, and truthfully, no one could.
“Susan” wrote:
“This man is suspected of killing his wife and until he is cleared the court MUST PROTECT those children since they were in his custody.”
The whole world knows who killed Andrea Yates’ children, yet I’ll bet Susan joined the chorus of those wanting to blame everyone else (at least everyone else with a penis) for doing to her children what many men couldn’t do to a rat.
The whole world knows who killed Mary Winkler’s husband, yet Mary Winkler walks free, and she got the three kids!

So why should anyone here be choking on their words?

The only poster here that should be ashamed is YOU Susan. Gloating over dead children as a means of attempting shame on men whose only crime is being men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Eve February 7, 2012 at 19:12

@ Woggy, actually someone did predict that there was a greater risk and they removed the children from the home because of that, as they well should have. Their biggest mistake was allowing him supervised visits before he completed a psychiatric evaluation because he used that opportunity to kill his children. The same is true of Andrea Yates. And I don’t know anything about the Mary Winkler case but I don’t see why it matters. In all three cases the people who lost the most were the children and it was all of us- society in general, child protection services, neighbors and relatives, who failed to protect them.

None of this is about shaming men. And no one can predict the future. There were several red flags in this case and the authorities were right to consider them.

Despite that, had Powell not done this he would likely have gotten custody of his children back. He killed them, and himself, instead. Go ahead and use Andrea Yates’ and Mary Winkler to gloat about your pet political penis cause. Doesn’t change the fact Josh Powell murdered his children and probably his wife and that a great many of you made a martyr out of him while pretending that the state didn’t have a legitimate interest in protecting his children. Well, guess what. They did. And they would have in Yates’ case too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price February 7, 2012 at 19:58

@Eve

This is a tough (and extraordinary) case. I don’t think we can apply it to the typical father out there.

However, there are some very important lessons here, and I’ll address them soon. It’s obvious where Josh went wrong, but seeing some of these cops and judges dodge responsibility is really kind of shameful — this really didn’t have to go down this way (as you suggest).

I really think there are practical solutions that could have prevented it, and they don’t amount to further disposing of fathers’ rights. Quite the contrary, I will argue.

BTW, Eve, talking about gloating here is really in poor taste. A couple little boys just died (they happened to be the exact same age as my children), and if you think I would “gloat” over that you’ve got a real misanthropic streak in there somewhere. Please, try to have a little human decency and respect here.

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant February 8, 2012 at 12:50

Look, I’m not looking for trouble, but I just find this to be in bad taste. It’s not that I disagree, necessarily… but I just have a real problem with politicizing this man’s crimes. It’s beyond politics.

By all means, we can talk about how society marginalizes men, treats them as disposable success objects, sends an implicit message of worthlessness… because it does. But I think should be discussing this is terms of *how this impacts men themselves*. I don’t think we should be discussing how it leads men to commit acts of violence upon others. It feels too much like a passive-aggressive threat, and that’s not productive- because it doesn’t change society’s and/or women’s essential attitudes about men. I for one want them to care about us because they believe we have worth, not because they’re afraid we’ll beat the shit out of them. Basically, I want to feel valued , not feared. Men like Powell choose to do what they do, and it’s not because they’re marginalized, but because they are assholes.

It feels- and I’m not saying you’re purposely doing this, but it’s just my perception- like you’re attempting to shift some of the blame from Powell to the courts that “drove” him to this action. I’m sorry, but no one can “drive” someone to murder their children, or their wife, or to shoot up a courtroom, or whatever. Every scrap of blame, such as it is, rests on Powell’s shoulders. He is a serial murderer and if I believed in hell, I’d consider him a VIP member. Do not pass go, motherfucker.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price February 8, 2012 at 13:09

Every scrap of blame, such as it is, rests on Powell’s shoulders.

-MRAL

That kind of simplistic thinking tends to have deadly results when applied in the real world.

If the cops knew he was capable of real violence, and they must have if they suspected him for murder, they bear some responsibility for provoking this. Even Chuck Cox’s attorney suggests this — I wouldn’t be surprised to see a wrongful death lawsuit come out of it, and you might be surprised to see who files it, and who is named as a defendant.

We can say it’s all his fault all we want, but we have to work within the law, and the cops did it in a piss-poor manner. I am quite frankly very pissed off at West Valley’s police chief. He (along with Pierce County cops) was playing a game of brinksmanship with a couple little boys in an effort to circumvent laws around police investigations. Should he just get a pass for that?

If he really wanted to force the issue, he should have arrested Josh Powell. But he didn’t. He cheated, and he tried to use the kids to get his way.

As for the feminists, they don’t give a damn about legal procedure or real-life consequences. They’ll just blab on and on to try to take a higher moral posture, but that’s all it is: a pose.

Don’t fall for it.

Anonymous February 9, 2012 at 13:27

“Men like Powell choose to do what they do, and it’s not because they’re marginalized, but because they are assholes.”

Or maybe because they are insane.

” I’m sorry, but no one can “drive” someone to murder their children, or their wife, or to shoot up a courtroom, or whatever.”

Are you sure about that? If Powell was borderline insane, then I imagine he could be driven over the edge. If the driver suspected Powell’s instability, then they are responsible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant February 10, 2012 at 18:57

Well, I understand where you both are coming from. But I think there’s an important distinction between “responsibility” and “blame”. “Blaming” anyone but this Powell fuck for taking an axe to his two children puts a real bad taste in my mouth. Clearly there was a hell of a lot of incompetence here, there’s no doubt about that, and I’m not saying we need to just let that go. Indeed, it’s something that should be pursued. But these terms you’re using- “provoke”, “push”- seem designed to paint this as a reaction to something- to what, exactly?

I’ll tell you what should have happened- Powell should have been kept the heck away from his kids. The police created a situation in which a psychotic had access to children, and they had reason to believe he was, at the very least, not fit to be a parent. So sure, the police could have averted the crime- but they didn’t “provoke” it. There’s an undercurrent of rationalization here, and it makes me uneasy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price February 10, 2012 at 21:03

I’ll tell you what should have happened- Powell should have been kept the heck away from his kids.

-MRAL

You can’t just do that. It’s illegal to seize people’s kids for suspicion, for disliking them, thinking they’re a psycho, etc. Actually, you need proof of child abuse or neglect, and, no, someone a guy lives with secretly having illegal images without his knowledge doesn’t count.

Legally speaking, turning the kids over to their grandfather was a sketchy move in any event. In the long run, it wouldn’t have held up. It was all about the cops trying to use the kids to pressure Powell in the murder case. It was a sleazy tactic no matter who Powell was. Cops shouldn’t be able to use it — period.

But if you look at the result, the case is closed. The cops were looking to resolve the case, and it has been resolved. Sure, there are a couple dead kids, but now the vast majority of people (who don’t have a clue about the law), want to absolve the cops of their responsibility.

As for Chuck Cox, I can’t really blame him for what he did. I think he made some big mistakes, but he probably trusted the authorities who used him and the kids to provoke the Powells. I hope he sues West Valley PD.

But these terms you’re using- “provoke”, “push”- seem designed to paint this as a reaction to something- to what, exactly?

What do the words “provoke” and “push” mean to you? Is there a moral value assigned to them? I think you’re getting a little too tied up in feminist semantics here. Every little word implies some judgment on one’s character to them. To me, these words describe something that actually happened — cause and effect.

If, given a certain situation, you do something that causes a certain foreseeable (and terrible) reaction, then there is the issue of negligence. It is a clear concept in liability. In other words — blame. The WVPD is liable due to negligence — tortious I would argue. Therefore, they are partly to blame, and should pay for what they did.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: