Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-17-2008, 11:02 AM   #41
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Anyone out there who maybe surprised that the State of Texas is dismissing the importance of "Sarah" is woefully ignorant with regards to the workings of government agencies. Like pool chalk planted on an alleged crack dealer, this was an extraordinarily forseeable occurence.

This was a pretext from the beginning--a false reason for raiding a religious sect. As such it is a gross violation of the 4th amendment rights of citizens of these United States.

Quote:
Mysterious Sarah may be unnecessary in Texas bid to keep FLDS children
By Amy Joi O'Donoghue
Deseret News

SAN ANGELO, Texas — The pleas of Sarah, the mystery polygamist child bride who told authorities she was battered and sexually abused, was the key that unlocked the doors of the sprawling YFZ Ranch in Eldorado.

But according to state child protection officials, she won't have to walk through the courtroom doors Thursday for the state to prove its case of widespread child abuse at the Fundamentalist LDS Church compound.

"I think some people have really focused on that (Sarah) but the reality is that her phone call is the reason we went out there, but it was not the reason for the removals," said Greg Cunningham, spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
(but, but, but....It's for the cheeeldren....so, you're telling me you favor child rape???)
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-17-2008, 11:07 AM   #42
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

a really fine summary and take on the whole thing....

your children are ours
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 11:37 AM   #43
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Anyone out there who maybe surprised that the State of Texas is dismissing the importance of "Sarah" is woefully ignorant with regards to the workings of government agencies. Like pool chalk planted on an alleged crack dealer, this was an extraordinarily forseeable occurence.

This was a pretext from the beginning--a false reason for raiding a religious sect. As such it is a gross violation of the 4th amendment rights of citizens of these United States.
I don't pretend to know their motives, but it doesn't seem bad for the state to intervene if they really can prove all the removal cases without the original case. The original case, regardless of the final charges, provides grounds for the state to be there. In the process, they see other things that need to be addressed separately. You can't expect the cops/CPS to show up in blindfolds, asking to be taken to the caller's home just so that they have a narrowly-tailored presence... or worse to ignore what they see because that's not the reason they are there.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 12:07 PM   #44
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
I don't pretend to know their motives, but it doesn't seem bad for the state to intervene if they really can prove all the removal cases without the original case. The original case, regardless of the final charges, provides grounds for the state to be there. In the process, they see other things that need to be addressed separately. You can't expect the cops/CPS to show up in blindfolds, asking to be taken to the caller's home just so that they have a narrowly-tailored presence... or worse to ignore what they see because that's not the reason they are there.
Regarding the bolded: No.

The concern is that the original call was not only a sham, but it was a sham engineered by the local governmental officials, to serve as a pretext for going in and confiscating the children; that it was a sham, and that the State KNEW it was a sham.

That type of behavior and complicity by the State is at least as troubling as the yet unproven allegations of sexual abuse.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 12:15 PM   #45
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Okay, I'm starting to realize that by "sham" people are referring to various levels of sham. I assumed people thought it was a call made by someone which may have been based on a false story. The last thing I want is for 911 to start screening calls as hoaxes. If there's a 911 call, the cops better book it.

If there was no phone call, things are certainly more troubling. Seems easy enough to prove based on 911 logs. Those things are also recorded, I think, so there should be some evidence of the call.

As an aside, though, it seems like a great country we live in where people who are secretly doing really terrible things can make rather compelling constitutional arguments that they shouldn't have been caught because the state didn't go through the proper procedure to catch them.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 12:44 PM   #46
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
...As an aside, though, it seems like a great country we live in where people who are secretly doing really terrible things can make rather compelling constitutional arguments that they shouldn't have been caught because the state didn't go through the proper procedure to catch them.
well...I mean there is the 4th amendment to the US Constitution:

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So either people can be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches, or not.

And either warrants shall particularly describe what is to be searched and who or what is to be seized, or not.

I mean, the right to be secure in one's home from unlawful intrusion by the government is part of the rights of englishmen which go back to the magna carta. So, I suppose one could set aside 700 years plus of legal tradition in the west because of one instance of alleged child abuse, but that seems rather short-sighted and imprudent, IMO.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 12:59 PM   #47
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
Okay, I'm starting to realize that by "sham" people are referring to various levels of sham. I assumed people thought it was a call made by someone which may have been based on a false story

If there was no phone call, things are certainly more troubling. Seems easy enough to prove based on 911 logs. Those things are also recorded, I think, so there should be some evidence of the call.
It's not that there wasn't a call. It's that the local government officials had kind of winkingly-and-noddingly let it be known that:

<Chief Wiggum voice>:

''We can't go out there, search the premises, and take the children UNLESS we have some kind of reason to.....say...something like a phone call.....from an underaged girl....alleging beatings and sexual abuse. And we'll have a small squadron of local police, state troopers, and CPS officers on standy just in case we get such a call. And that number once again, folks 1-888-GETFLDS."

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 04-17-2008 at 01:00 PM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 01:16 PM   #48
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
well...I mean there is the 4th amendment to the US Constitution:



So either people can be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches, or not.

And either warrants shall particularly describe what is to be searched and who or what is to be seized, or not.

I mean, the right to be secure in one's home from unlawful intrusion by the government is part of the rights of englishmen which go back to the magna carta. So, I suppose one could set aside 700 years plus of legal tradition in the west because of one instance of alleged child abuse, but that seems rather short-sighted and imprudent, IMO.
I am not a constitutional law expert, but from a glance, the word "unreasonable" is probably where cases have interpreted the Fourth Amendment, and probably where people can disagree on the appropriateness of law enforcement actions. Warrants are narrowly tailored, but law enforcement's ability to act in many situations extends beyond the text of the warrant. Otherwise, in searching a house for a person, they wouldn't be able to touch the drugs sitting on the table in plain view.

And I've seen my fair share of arguments regarding the 2nd amendment to know just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean people hold it to be inviolable. Human laws change and evolve... HOPEFULLY in an effort of improvement. Human law had slavery and segregation as a-okay for some time and that needed to change, regardless of legal tradition.

Lastly, it's more than just this instance. 1. The excuse is used to shelter all kinds of criminal activity in both homes and vehicles. 2. This particular situation is exactly how CPS works: if they have a reason to show up at your home, they do, and if they see something new that they deem to be an immediate threat to the well-being of the child, that child is removed for the child's protection. It sucks to see children taken from their parents, but that's part of CPS's authority and obligation. Many people are outraged now only because of the magnitude of this one instance coupled with fundamentalist Mormonism.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 01:24 PM   #49
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
The original case, regardless of the final charges, provides grounds for the state to be there.
i'll take a slightly different take from Jack.Kerr....if we assume that the inital call was legit....

(FWIW, I'm not necessarily saying the mystery call is a complete state-perpetrated fake, I'm saying that the State was seeking a pretext to raid YFZ, and they were probably never terribly concerned with whether the call was legit or not in the first place)

But I digress, even if the State may have had a legit reason to be there, it hardly follows that the State had reason to be there with SWAT teams, Helicopters, and Armored Personnel Carriers...

Moreover, while agents of the State may have seen signs of child abuse not pertaining to the mystery child, it defies reason to suggest that they actually saw evidence that 100% of the families were abusing 100% of the children. Yet, undeniably the state abducted 100% of the children at YFZ.

Put it this way....if the State gets a call from a 15 year old girl in a trailer park, a CPS worker and a deputy sheriff visit the trailer park in question and at most leave with that particular girl. What doesn't happen is that the State launches a paramilitary raid that ends with the State hauling every women and child out of the trailer park in Southern Baptist Church buses.

So, how does the State manage to turn two phone calls from one 16 year old girl into a paramilitary raid and abduction of 416 children?

Easily -- they do this on the presumption of abuse based on the group's religious beliefs.

and when the state raids a place and abducts 416 kids based on presumptions about a group's religious beliefs, that's an unreasonable search and seizure, in my book.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 01:28 PM   #50
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
I am not a constitutional law expert, but from a glance, the word "unreasonable" is probably where cases have interpreted the Fourth Amendment, and probably where people can disagree on the appropriateness of law enforcement actions....
which is why I say....

"agents of the State may have seen signs of child abuse not pertaining to the mystery child, [but] it defies reason to suggest that they actually saw evidence that 100% of the families were abusing 100% of the children."

if that action doesn't cross the line from reasonable to unreasonable, then we might as well say that all actions taken by law enforcement people are deemed reasonable so long as they say they are....which is to say the 4th amendment is meaningless.

Quote:
The excuse is used to shelter all kinds of criminal activity in both homes and vehicles.
the thing is....what you're calling an excuse might also be considered a natural right of human beings no less essential and fundamental than the right to free speech or the right to keep the fruits of their own labor. when you call this an excuse rather than a natural right you are making a presumption of guilt on the part of the person in question --

-- and it's one thing when you are I speculate ideally about the guilt of fundie mormon, but it's quite another thing heavily armed government agencies start acting upon the presumption of guilt.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-17-2008 at 01:39 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 01:34 PM   #51
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex
if that action doesn't cross the line from reasonable to unreasonable, then we might as well say that all actions taken by law enforcement people are deemed reasonable so long as they say they are....which is to say the 4th amendment is meaningless.
Don't the courts determine "reasonable" - not law enforcement. Law enforcement always considers what they do reasonable.

I mean that is part of the separation of powers isn't it ? ?
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 01:41 PM   #52
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

It's not that they saw the actual abuse in progress. I think all they need is a threat in the home to 100% of the children. I've never been in either an FLDS compound or a trailer park, so I can't go farther than this in terms of characterizing the homes in those areas when there is a threat in the community. But my guess is that there is some element of the nature of an FLDS compound (probably very much tied to their religious beliefs and practices) which makes the compound different than a trailer park or a fenced-off suburban community. I am again guessing, but I think all the women in the FLDS compound are given as wives (unless they leave). And I think the reports were that they saw teenage girls (16 yo I think) with multiple children.

Now maybe you could say they should only have taken the little girls and left the little boys. I'm pretty sure standard operating procedure for CPS doesn't filter that finely... for instance one wouldn't be able to retain custody of one's sons under the argument that one has only been convicted of molesting girls, is 100% heterosexual and is disgusted by the thought of experimenting.

Sucks getting triple-teamed. =) I can barely keep up! It's so much easier when I'm posting retarded jokes.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??

Last edited by DirkFTW; 04-17-2008 at 01:45 PM.
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 01:48 PM   #53
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
I think all they need is a threat in the home to 100% of the children. I've never been in either an FLDS compound or a trailer park, so I can't go farther than this in terms of characterizing the homes in those areas when there is a threat in the community. But my guess is that there is some element of the nature of an FLDS compound (probably very much tied to their religious beliefs and practices) which makes the compound different than a trailer park or a fenced-off suburban community.
regarding the bold -- obviously, this is the case.

I think if any thinks that it's a good thing to let the government decide whether one's religious beliefs are suitable for parenting because this might prevent some bad things from happening hasn't thought adequately about what bad things might happen if the government gets to decide whether one's religious beliefs are suitable for parenting.

^^^^And that's an entirely sensible sentence.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 01:51 PM   #54
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
the thing is....what you're calling an excuse might also be considered a natural right of human beings no less essential and fundamental than the right to free speech or the right to keep the fruits of their own labor. when you call this an excuse rather than a natural right you are making a presumption of guilt on the part of the person in question --
Natural rights, yes. But our civil rights are tempered (often quite severely) in order to maintain order and provide peace. Probably overused, but you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and claim you are excused under free speech.

I am presuming guilt in my hypotheticals because that's when it is most ironic. Person A gets caught red-handed doing something clearly illegal but has the audacity to say, "oops you forgot to jump through all the hoops so I get to go free now byebye." I understand it's a balance of rights, trying to provide protections for the innocents, but wow does that situation seem wrong.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 02:00 PM   #55
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
I think if any thinks that it's a good thing to let the government decide whether one's religious beliefs are suitable for parenting because this might prevent some bad things from happening hasn't thought adequately about what bad things might happen if the government gets to decide whether one's religious beliefs are suitable for parenting.

^^^^And that's an entirely sensible sentence.
That's a very good point.

At the same time, however, there was a story on CNN about an 8 year old girl who was forced into marriage with a 30+ year old man, and that made me want to vomit. I would like to think that someone, somewhere, would be able to help in that situation, regardless of religious beliefs. I do believe in a natural law that is unchanging, so for me, it is not impossible for a government to have laws which are inherently correct.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 02:01 PM   #56
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
Natural rights, yes. But our civil rights are tempered (often quite severely) in order to maintain order and provide peace. Probably overused, but you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and claim you are excused under free speech.
this analogy misses the boat in this instance -- it is not an argument against the notion that publishing a political opinion is protected under the first amendment to say that one cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 02:03 PM   #57
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
At the same time, however, there was a story on CNN about an 8 year old girl who was forced into marriage with a 30+ year old man, and that made me want to vomit.
in this instance I think it's entirely sensible to nab the guy and cut his nuts off, among other things.

what is not sensible is to take children from his neighbors because he and his neighbors share the same religion.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 02:05 PM   #58
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202
Don't the courts determine "reasonable" - not law enforcement. Law enforcement always considers what they do reasonable.

I mean that is part of the separation of powers isn't it ? ?
Absolutely. And the courts are going to have to make some determination here. Unfortunately, these evaluations are often times very fact-intensive, so I don't know that there can be too many bright-line rules. Also, situations involving the well-being of another person do tend to require quicker reactions than would be possible if cops always had to go back to a judge and explain everything they saw and get a new warrant.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2008, 02:12 PM   #59
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
this analogy misses the boat in this instance -- it is not an argument against the notion that publishing a political opinion is protected under the first amendment to say that one cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre.
But first amendment rights are tempered to varying degrees, and indeed are tempered versions of their parent natural rights.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 12:06 AM   #60
jefelump
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
jefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to all
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by alexamenos:
But I digress, even if the State may have had a legit reason to be there, it hardly follows that the State had reason to be there with SWAT teams, Helicopters, and Armored Personnel Carriers...
Don't forget Waco. The authorities went to a "religious compound" with their warrants, and a gun fight ensued. We all know how it ended. So whether or not the state had a reason or a right to be in El Dorado, and whether or not they suspected the people to be armed, they were going to another "religious compound" that COULD have been much like the Branch Davidians. If I were a state trooper, I would want to go in heavy too, just in case...
jefelump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 09:47 AM   #61
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jefelump
Don't forget Waco. The authorities went to a "religious compound" with their warrants, and a gun fight ensued. We all know how it ended. So whether or not the state had a reason or a right to be in El Dorado, and whether or not they suspected the people to be armed, they were going to another "religious compound" that COULD have been much like the Branch Davidians. If I were a state trooper, I would want to go in heavy too, just in case...
Yeah, don't forget waco, where authorities launched a paramilitary assault to issue warrants on a crime that amounts to a failure to pay a few hundred dollars in taxes, to pick up a guy they could have picked up as he visited his local Dairy Queen.

The fact of the mattter that the guys at YFZ were at the front gate, on their knees praying when the SWAT Teams arrived.

The bigotry against religious groups is quite trite.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 10:44 AM   #62
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

speaking of waco, tomorrow's the 15th anniversary of a horrible day. In memory of those murdered near Waco on April 19th, 1993. It was a tragic, senseless, and horrible slaughter of so many innocent people.

Died April 19, 1993
Katherine Andrade, 24, white, American
Chanel Andrade, 1, white, American
Jennifer Andrade, 19, white, American
George Bennett, 35, black, British
Susan Benta, 31, black, British
Mary Jean Borst, 49, white, American
Pablo Cohen, 38, white, Israeli
Abedowalo Davies, 30, black, British
Shari Doyle, 18, white, American
Beverly Elliot, 30, black, British
Yvette Phagan, 32, black, British
Doris Phagan, 51, black, British
Lisa Marie Farris, 24, white, American
Raymond Friesen, 76, white, Canadian
Sandra Hardial, 27, black, British
Zilla Henry, 55, black, British
Vanessa Henry, 19, black, British
Phillip Henry, 22, black, British
Paulina Henry, 24, black, British
Stephen Henry, 26, black, British
Diana Henry, 28, black, British
Novellette Hipsman, 36, black, Canadian
Floyd Houtman, 61, black, American
Sherri Jewell, 43, Asian, American
David M. Jones, 38, white, American
David Koresh, 33, white, American
Rachel Koresh, 24, white, American
Cyrus Koresh, 8, white, American
Star Koresh, 6, white, American
Bobbie Lane Koresh, 2, white, American
Jeffery Little, 32, white, American
Nicole Gent Little, 24, white, Australian
and unborn child
Dayland Gent, 3, white, American
Page Gent, 1, white, American
Livingston Malcolm, 26, black, British
Diane Martin, 41, black, British
Wayne Martin, Sr., 42, black, American
Lisa Martin, 13, black, American
Sheila Martin, Jr., 15, black, American
Anita Martin, 18, black, American
Wayne Martin, Jr., 20, black, American
Julliete Martinez, 30, Mexican American
Crystal Martinez, 3, Mexican American
Isaiah Martinez, 4, Mexican American
Joseph Martinez, 8, Mexican American
Abigail Martinez, 11, Mexican American
Audrey Martinez, 13, Mexican American
John-Mark McBean, 27, black, British
Bernadette Monbelly, 31, black, British
Rosemary Morrison, 29, black, British
Melissa Morrison, 6, black, British
Sonia Murray, 29, black, American
Theresa Nobrega, 48, black, British
James Riddle, 32, white, American
Rebecca Saipaia, 24, Asian, Phillipino
Steve Schneider, 43, white, American
Judy Schneider, 41, white, American
Mayanah Schneider, 2, white, American
Clifford Sellors, 33, white, British
Scott Kojiro Sonobe, 35, Asian, American
Floracita Sonobe, 34, Asian, Phillipino
Gregory Summers, 28, white, American
Aisha Gyrfas Summers, 17, white, Australian
and unborn child
Startle Summers, 1, white, American
Lorraine Sylvia, 40, white, American
Rachel Sylvia, 12, white, American
Hollywood Sylvia, 1, white, American
Michelle Jones Thibodeau, 18, white, American
Serenity Jones, 4, white, American
Chica Jones, 2, white, American
Little One Jones, 2, white, American
Neal Vaega, 38, Somoan, New Zealander
Margarida Vaega, 47, Asian, New Zealander
Mark H. Wendell, 40, Asian, American
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 11:24 AM   #63
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

your daily polygamy update, and it's kind of delicious today...

Recall my earlier comments, to wit:

"This looks to me like exactly what the mormon fundies say it is --state sponsored persecution of a religious sect"

Quote:
Texas says FLDS beliefs turn girls into sex victims
By Brooke Adams and Kristen Moulton

SAN ANGELO, Texas - A child abuse investigator who led the initial foray into a polygamous sect's west Texas ranch said Thursday that children are not safe there because their parents have a belief system that "turns boys into perpetrators and girls into sexual assault victims."
Angie Voss, a supervisor with Texas Child Protective Services, spent six hours in an unprecedented custody hearing testifying about why the state took 416 children two weeks ago from the YFZ Ranch, owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Voss said one minor is pregnant and four have children. "There are young girls who feel the pinnacle of their existence is to get married whenever they are told and have as many children as they can have," she said. Even infants and children in monogamous homes are not safe on the ranch, she said. "It's not about religion. It's about child abuse," Voss said, drawing laughter from many of the 100 or so FLDS members in the audience.
A phalanx of attorneys from across Texas questioned how Voss could justify keeping the kids when she acknowledges they are healthy, loved and likely to be traumatized by the continuing separation.
let's note carefully -

- Angie Voss ,the lead investigator at the YFZ, is explicitly stating that the children are not safe because of the [religious] beliefs of their parents;
- Voss has quite apparently offered testimony that the children are by and large healthy and loved.

and moreover we read here that 1 minor is pregnant and 4 other minors have children. Bearing in mind that there must be at least about 100 mothers of those 416 children, then this means that 5 mothers (at most) have young daughters who--if we assume the worst*--have been diddled by the old dudes, and 95 mothers who have healthy and much loved children who, to the best of our knowledge, exhibit no signs of abuse.

And, the state has confiscated these healthy and much loved children not on the basis of anything that that has been done to these children, but instead because their parents hold the wrong beliefs.

like I said earlier, "the state ought [not] to confiscate children who aren't being abused from mothers and fathers (father?) for no reason other than the transparently obvious and odious reason that these people belong to the same religious sect. This is almost certainly happening, and it sucks."

and I note, in passing, where Ms. Voss says: "It's not about religion. It's about child abuse." And this is true according to Ms. Voss despite the fact that the she explicitly states that the danger here lies in the parents beliefs and that barely 1% of the children there exhibit any potential signs of abuse.

(I wonder, if we went through a trailer park might we find as many as 1% of the children there exhibit some indication of what may be child abuse?)

anyhoo.....I'm reminded of uncensored footage of the final assault at Waco -- as tanks were ramming into the Branch Davidian's church and as the FBI was shooting tear gas inside, a voice over a loudspeaker repeated again and again and again, "this is not an attack, this is not an attack".

That is, it's not altogether unheard of for agents of the State to declare "two plus two does not equal four."

(*the assumption that all of these girls were diddled by older dudes requres that we assume none went off into the woods with one of the young boys on the compound, like that never happens...)

-------------------
addendum, from another article:

Quote:
Hennington, hired to represent some of the fathers, pointed out that babies would not become sexually active for years and that the agency, in essence, is taking action on what could happen 10 to 12 years down the road.

"So based on the supposition that this may happen one day in the future, 400 children should not be with their families?"

Voss replied, "Yes ma'am."
It is quite evident that the alleged abuse here is not a fact, but rather a supposition as to what might happen to the children in the future given the religious beliefs of the FLDS.....hence, the State is making itself arbiter of what religious beliefs are acceptable, and what values parents may acceptably pass to their children.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-18-2008 at 12:59 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 03:12 PM   #64
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

It appears clear that the magnitude of the seizure and action is beyond the response to the supposed initial call/possible crime.

It appears clear that the cause of the seizure/action is to protect against what might have happened or what might occur in the future based on the judgement that the teachings of the church/group are harmful.

So...

When will the state seize children raised by adults who practice sodomy, homosexuality, adultery, "open marriages", or who commit other crimes that might harm children physically such as feeding them from McDonald's or letting them watch "sex and the city" or "nip/tuck"? Surely we should seize children allowed to play video games for more than 30 minutes per day. Surely, children whose Dads own guns should be seized before they teach those children to own and use guns. Surely those dads who own guns and play paintball or air soft "paramilitary" games should be seized. Surely, if parents consume alcohol, then there is a danger that the child might learn that it is ok to consume alcohol. Surely, if parents keep ice cream in the house, there is risk of obesity. Surely if parents have condoms in the house, then the children might learn to view sex as fun and without consequences.

Law enforcement has overacted in this case. I hope the courts fix it.

I do not support polygamy. I do not defend the persons charged.

But, when the law is abused and we ignore it because we hate the charged/abused, then we allow precedent to be established that will allow similar disregard for law and civil rights to hurt us later.

By the way, how can we hold polygamy as basically wrong and yet have a national debate about accepting gay marriage? How can we call polygamy wrong and accept Bill Clinton's infidelity as "ok"?

I agree with Dalmations202 who basically said that he did not separate out "crimes" such as polygamy away from "crimes" like adultery. All such "crimes" are defined as "crimes" by morality. The tradition of our morality in the Western World is Christianity.

Now, isn't it funny that the social workers of the world (the most militant type) are far left anti-religion liberals??? Funny that these militants are quoting morality (in its Christian roots) as the justification for their assault while they assume the mantle of Secularists?

Debates about morality are divisive and challenging. But, there is no debate that the government over acted in this case. I hope that the courts set it right.

The executive branch screwed up here. If the courts set it right, this hated little group might own a much larger plantation to practice on after they receive their compensation for the wrongs committed against them.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 03:32 PM   #65
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

I would love to interview a Secularists social worker about this. On what grounds do they act against this hated little group? The answer would have to be that they acted based on law... Any answer that is different would denote a motivation based on morality...

The cute little hated group has an answer for the law against polygamy. They don't get married... The alleged caller says she was physically and sexually abused by her "spiritual husband" which is a cute little mechanism to avoid breaking the law against polygamy. These FLDS practitioners are not married...

So, what law did the social workers act on? The only law that they acted on that can be defended (as far as I know) are the statutory rape laws.

Now, how do you use the statutory rape law to seize 416 children???

Fact is that they acted a motivation that is not grounded in law. So, now the judges/courts have to fix this.

The law enforcement officers acted on the 911 call. They did their job. Someone in administration/leadership in law enforcement and in the executive arm of CPS overstepped and directed the seizure.

A mistake has been made.

I would love to see a documentary on this later that probes how the Baptist Church vans and people got involved in this...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 03:44 PM   #66
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
I would love to interview a Secularists social worker about this. On what grounds do they act against this hated little group?...
Following the news to day per my last post on this....

....and the Texas CPS is quite explicitly stating that their basis for detaining and retaining the kids is that the religious beliefs of the group may lead to child abuse at some indeterminate time in the future.

seriously....

CPS says that teaching the wrong things (daughters are taught that their highest calling in life is to be a wife and to bear children) is bound to lead child abuse, hence the kids need to be taken from the parents irrespective of whether any of the parents in question have actually abused any of the children in question.

__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 03:47 PM   #67
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

I agree with Alex that the courts will now have to fix an illegal action committed by CPS and law enforcement. The action occurred for reasons that are not grounded in law.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 03:54 PM   #68
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Based on the logic of Texas CPS, CPS literally has the power to seize children for any situation that might lead to problems with children in the future...

If allowed to stand by the courts, the Texas CPS can seize children for any other cause in the future that they consider to possibly lead to a maladaptive child...

Again, what is to stop them from seizing your child for these reasons:
1)Discovery of PlayBoy magazines
2)Too much time playing video games
3)Discovery of air soft guns or paint ball guns combined with paramilitary clothing
4)ownership of firearms
5)Possession of a Bible (if they get really carried away with their Secularist views of what is harmful to children).
6)Discovery of marital infidelity (oh, I forgot they don't care about adultery in Secularist circles, they only care about organized issues like polygamy).

Where will the Texas CPS draw the line???
When will you oppose them???
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 04:29 PM   #69
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

and as much as I hate to start off a post with the statement, "in defense of statutory rapists".....

so-called "statutory rape" as a crime does not apply when the two people are legally married.

no ifs ands or buts, if he's 30, and she's 16, and they're legally married, it is not statutory rape, it is consummation of wedding vows. it may be a tad icky, but it is legal.

and....the state of texas outlaws plural marriages....hence the State says to the icky fundie mormon dude and the ugly young girl that they cannot be legally married even tho he wants to marry her and she and her parents consent, and such a thing is in keeping with the dictates of their religion.

....and then after telling them they can't be legally married, the State tells them what they are doing is a criminal act because they are not legally married.

?????

i'm not so sure that's really fair.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 05:18 PM   #70
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

they don't get married. They avoid the anti-polygamy laws by not getting married to more than one person. The alleged 16 year old who allegedly called said that her "spiritual husband" was abusing her.

It ain't polygamy if they ain't married...

They would have shut them down a long time ago if it was as easy as proving the criminal act of polygamy...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 05:40 PM   #71
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I agree that the courts ought to fix the CPS's illegal actions. I doubt, however, that this will happen. My guess is that the courts will find some tortured rationale to justify the actions of the CPS.

link

Quote:
Attorneys representing the mothers questioned Texas Child Protective Services chief investigator Angie Voss on how she was able to conclude the culture on the YFZ Ranch is a threat to children - and how the children might be returned.

Voss testified yesterday boys in the polygamous sect are groomed to become perpetrators of sexual assault, and girls become their victims.

....

District Judge Barbara Walther redirected many of the questions posed to Voss.

"The question is, 'Can I return the children?' " she told attorneys. "You all continue to focus on what happened."
Do you catch that question, "can I return the children?" The presumption here is obviously that the State keeps the children unless their parents prove otherwise. I doubt that the absence of evidence of child abuse will be construed as evidence of no child abuse.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2008, 06:13 PM   #72
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

from the linked article, it would appear that an appeal is likely. I can't imagine the hundreds of volunteer lawyers that showed up not filing 2 dozen appeals to this process with objections to every level of the process.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2008, 09:25 AM   #73
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default Hoax.

What did they know, and when did they know it.


Person of interest. You'd have thought she'd have stood out at the YFZ Ranch.

Quote:
Colorado woman may be caller who sparked CPS sweep, officials say

12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, April 19, 2008

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – Texas Rangers are pursuing the possibility that the pleas of a 16-year-old girl named Sarah, which triggered the massive child protection raid in West Texas, actually came from a Colorado woman with a history of filing false reports, officials said Friday.

Rangers accompanied Colorado Springs, Colo., police on Wednesday as they arrested Rozita Swinton, 33, on an unrelated misdemeanor charge of false reporting to authorities there. Ms. Swinton was already serving a one-year deferred judgment after pleading guilty in a 2005 false-reporting case near Denver.

Texas authorities view Ms. Swinton "as a 'person of interest' regarding telephone calls placed to a crisis center hotline in San Angelo, Texas, in late March," said a statement issued by Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange.

Calls from "Sarah," a teenager who said she'd been forced to marry an older man and bear his child, led Texas Child Protective Services officials to remove 416 children from the polygamist compound run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado two weeks ago.

CPS officials have said they assumed, but have not confirmed, that "Sarah" was among the children now in state custody.

State officials said they continued Friday to pursue possible criminal charges of child sex abuse on the compound as a judge heard testimony to determine whether the children should remain away from their parents. The issue did not come up during court proceedings.

The polygamist parents, who deny all allegations of sexual abuse, have said they didn't believe the allegations from "Sarah" and suggested the phone calls were faked.

Stephanie Goodman, chief spokeswoman for all of Texas' social services agencies, said she doesn't know if the calls that prompted CPS' sweep were a hoax.

"It doesn't matter," Ms. Goodman said. She said that while the calls "got us to the gates, it's not what caused us to remove the children."

"The decision to remove children was based on the findings at the ranch," she said. "That environment represented a significant risk for sexual abuse for all of those children."

On Thursday, CPS supervisor Angie Voss testified at a hearing about the Texas child removals that though state workers couldn't find the girl who purportedly called the San Angelo shelter, their description of her as Sarah, 16, sparked seeming recognition during initial interviews with girls at the ranch on April 3 and April 4.

Ms. Voss said that after CPS workers described what they knew of the original caller, some girls at the ranch said they knew of the girl and had seen her in the previous week.

Former state District Judge Scott McCown, who handled hundreds of CPS cases while on the bench in Travis County and now heads the Center for Public Policy Priorities, agreed that, legally, it probably doesn't matter whether "Sarah" is a fiction.

He said it's not the same as a drug case being thrown out, for example, because a police officer conducted an illegal search, the so-called poison tree analogy.

"First, in a criminal case, if you act in good faith upon information that you don't have any reason to know it's false, then it might not be the fruit of the poison tree," Mr. McCown said.

"If you go get a search warrant and you got it in good faith and there was no misconduct by the state, but somebody hoodwinked you, what you found in the search warrant doesn't necessarily get excluded."

When it comes to the civil case involving the protection of children, "it probably doesn't matter ... because the whole question is the ongoing protection of the children," Mr. McCown said.

In Colorado Springs, a search of Ms. Swinton's home yielded "several items" that might link her to calls made about polygamist compounds in Eldorado and Arizona, the DPS statement said.

The items, which weren't described, have been shipped to crime labs for analysis. The Rangers won an order by a Colorado judge sealing an affidavit for the search warrant used at Ms. Swinton's residence.

The Denver Post reported Friday that an anti-polygamy activist told Texas Rangers that Ms. Swinton was impersonating a child sexual abuse victim at the polygamist compounds and could be the same person who triggered the Texas raid.

Flora Jessop, an Arizona woman who grew up in the sect and now helps teen girls trying to escape it, said she had grown suspicious of a caller who turned out to be Ms. Swinton.

Ms. Jessop told the newspaper that on March 30 – a day after the first call to the San Angelo shelter – she received her initial call, also from someone identifying herself as "Sarah," a sexual abuse victim of her new father.

The caller later posed as Sarah's twin sister, said Ms. Jessop, executive director of the Phoenix-based Child Protection Project.

Ms. Jessop said she recorded 30 to 40 hours of daily phone calls with the woman who turned out to be Ms. Swinton, and shared the tapes with Texas Rangers.

The newspaper said Rangers traced the calls to Ms. Swinton's phone.

The woman's arrest this week was for allegedly posing in February as a young girl being held in a basement. In 2005, Ms. Swinton pleaded guilty to falsely reporting to police in the Denver suburb of Castle Rock that she was suicidal and wanted to give up a newborn child, the Post said. Authorities later said they could find no child.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 04-19-2008 at 09:31 AM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2008, 11:34 PM   #74
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

1) the initial phone call is a hoax.
2)the Baptist church vans and people are "in" on the initial hit
3)the charge to excuse the action is that the religious culture might cause young girls to become abused and might cause young boys to become perpetrators
4)they have only identified 4 or 5 instances where a girl young enough to fit the statutory rape definition has been found with children or sexually involved.
5)they cannot act using the anti-polygamy laws because these people are not legally married and therefore haven't legally committed polygamy.
6)they are forcing DNA testing to make the family connections so that they have proof of polygamy.

Did I get everything right?

So, based on that logic and legal approach, Texas CPS should show up with the Baptist Church in South Dallas and the Stop Six neighborhood in Fort Worth and pick up a few million children. The culture there seems to support or lead to underage sex that would fit the statutory rape laws. The percentage of girls there that will be found with children or to be sexually active at ages that fit the statutory rape laws will be a higher percentage than what they found in the FLDS group. They should do DNA testing on the whole population to prove family relationships and charge the people with polygamy (apparently the definition of polygamy for the Texas CPS is for a man to father children by more than one woman in one time frame regardless of marriage status). They should separate those few million children from their parents. They should keep them at Texas Stadium and the Ballpark in Arlington unitl the process is sorted out. And, in honor of Waco, they should arrive in those neighborhoods with tanks.
Next, they should study the red light districts in Dallas and Fort Worth. They will find a lot of "polygamy" there. They should catch the Johns and Janes and seize all of their children.
Next, they should study internet dating and bars. They will find a lot of "polygamy" there. They should seize all the children affected by this horrible process.

The thing that is weird about the FLDS group compared to the people you see around you everyday is that the FLDS people don't hide their activities and don't lie to their spouses and children. They take care of their children. They don't run away from child support.

Now, I am not defending the FLDS culture. I am not a sympathizer.

But, I am appalled at the action of Texas CPS and law enforcement. I am appalled thus far with the judicial process as well.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by wmbwinn; 04-21-2008 at 11:43 AM.
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 09:15 AM   #75
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
2)the Baptist church vans and people are "in" on the initial hit

Did I get everything right?
You might make one more note: The Bapitst Child and Family Services social services organization was directly involved in the arrest and displacement of the children, and was the lead organization involved in providing detention facilities for the children, at a reported estimated cost of $60,000 per day, to be reimbursed by the state.

The organization has also indicated that it would take an active role in relocating and adopting (selling) the children to good Christian homes. <ahem>

It's a beautiful picture--Government and Fundamentalist Baptists working hand-in-hand to rescue and re-progam the children of a deviant culture, all for the glory of God, and the enrichment of religious organizations at taxpayer expense.

No publicly announced plans yet to confiscate the YFZ Ranch and convert it into a Baptist youth church camp and indoctrination center, but....stay tuned and keep your eye on who owns the property 5 years from now.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 04-21-2008 at 09:22 AM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 11:07 AM   #76
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

of all the things that raise my ire in this mess, the one that thing that is most consistently bothersome is the outlandish suggestion that the CPS and the State of Texas is somehow more concerned about the health and well-being of these children than their own mothers.

I cited earlier the "perversity" of the State's *bargain* with the mothers that they could remain with their children so long as they first checked into an abused wife shelter, thereby putting unabused women who had not abused their children in the position of lying to help the state make its case if they want to see their children.

Now, we see that the State has made another bargain with the mother's, this one being that only mothers who are themselves minors may remain with the children, thereby putting women who are not minors in the position of lying to help the State make it's case if they want to see their children.

That is, the State is using these children as bargaining chips and as negotiating leverage. That's disgusting, but it's sadly not atypical of the State's behavior.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-21-2008 at 12:11 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2008, 05:25 PM   #77
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

ok, so the state of texas in its infinite wisdom has determined that allegation = proof, hence fundie mormons must give up their children for an indeterminate amount of time, that amount of time being approximately equal to the amount of time it takes for the State of Texas to come up with a tortured rationale to keep the children for an even longer period of time....

Quote:
The children suffer behind an iron curtain of corrupt secrecy. That curtain was lifted a few years ago, long enough to get a brief but terrifying glimpse of what was being done by people who had placed themselves beyond accountability.

Scores of children were killed, poisoned, beaten, and otherwise abused each year. Child rape was terrifyingly common: The largest group of victims were between 12 and 15 years of age, but thirteen percent of the victims were three years old or younger.

An official investigation of this secretive system was undertaken, but soon foundered over obstructions thrown up by those who had the most to lose if the full truth were revealed. But before the portcullis was slammed shut, the investigator learned that a child being raised in that system was four times more likely to die of criminal violence than a child in the general population.
link

mind you, the horrendously abusive system described above is not the system from which the CPS has saved these children, but rather the foster care system in the State of Texas, the system in which the CPS will place these children, notwithstanding that the state's own experts acknowledge that the FLDS children are healthy, much-loved and well behaved. Hence the State, in order to prevent any of these children from the horror that they might one day marry someone in their community, is sending these kids to strangers who may well "kill, poison, or beat" them.

"we're from the government, and we're here to help."

still the most frightening words ever spoken by any man.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-21-2008 at 05:51 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2008, 09:58 AM   #78
nikeball
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hogwarts - school of witchcraft and wizardry
Posts: 2,301
nikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond reputenikeball has a reputation beyond repute
Default

America loves to intervene. Anything we deem "not morally acceptable"..whether it be politics, religion, or oil.

However, I am one of the few to applaud what the government is doing here. If there is one iota of abuse to children, something has to be done. If there is even a hint that children are abused, a full scale investigation should be conducted. I am usually a rather liberal person..but when it comes to hurting the "innocent" I am going to be conservative.

In such a small and tightly knit community as this, I think the term "birds of the same feather fly together." I am more inclined to believe that the older men in the community knew that they were abusing the young women. I am pretty sure that they trade stories at the local watering hole (embellishing but they all know what is going on). When little girls of 12 year olds get pregnant..I really doubt it is because they want to be a mother already.
__________________
i bleed burnt orange. Hook 'Em Horns \m/
nikeball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 09:40 AM   #79
ribosoma
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greater Nowheres
Posts: 1,189
ribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond repute
Default

The Subject "People" vs. The Ruling "Persons"
ribosoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 10:15 AM   #80
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

i've been reading some of Grigg's stuff of late -- he's pretty good.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.