Waco TWO?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Under your rendering, bogus calls made by unidentified third parties can be be used to trigger raids, which then turn into global fishing expeditions. Then officials merely say "Oops, not my problem?" Fruit of the poisonous tree.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised by how often that happens. If the "unknown caller" is a government agent, the evidence is suppressed. If not, the evidence gets in.

And no, they don't become fishing expeditions. But if a cop enters a residence (or area) under the authority of warrant derived from an anonymous call, any evidence of a crime (even a crime unrelated to the original complaint) visible to the cop gets in.


JuanCarlos is pretty much dead on. The sect can't argue that the girl faked the call and that justifies getting the kids back in the face of apparent child abuse. Those are separate issues.
 
Why didn't you highlight this part? It would look nice in red. To some extent, I'm not sure how much it matters if the call was bogus (provided it wasn't fabricated by the government, of course)...when they arrived, evidence of widespread abuse was found. That's the issue now, not Sarah.
Click to expand...
The whole article is merely a speculative press trying to say something when they do not really know anything. This new article is almost a verbatim repeat of an earlier article. It is just a case of guessing and trying to make what little they know seem more substantial than it is in reality. Notice how every line he highlighted contains the words "might", "could", and "experts say."

The girl that called will probably not be found since she probably used a fake name when she called.

Using this kind of fabricated information to try and deny the reality of what was found is very weak and casts a poor light on anyone defending the child molesters.
 
The girl that called will probably not be found since she probably used a fake name when she called.
Click to expand...

Obviously. Also, it's likely she's not coming forward due to fears of reprisal...either against herself, or against her family.

Personally I find that easier to believe than that the call was bogus. Though really, either is possible, and at this point it's largely irrelevant.
 
It's not irrelevant at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.

If someone calls the police from a pay phone as says "someone is shooting people in the mall" and the police arrive to find someone shooting people they do not have to refuse to act until they find the person that made the initial call or drop charges if that person is never found.
 
Yes, it is.

If someone calls the police from a pay phone as says "someone is shooting people in the mall" and the police arrive to find someone shooting people they do not have to refuse to act until they find the person that made the initial call or drop charges if that person is never found.
Click to expand...

Nor, if they show up and nobody is shooting people in the mall, are they no longer obligated or somehow barred from arresting the guy beating up the other guy down by the food court, or the kids smoking a joint out by the dumpsters.

Though this isn't entirely analogous, since we're talking about a private residence rather than a more public venue.

However, if some anonymous neighbor calls and complains that that I stole their lawn gnome, and they obtain a search warrant to come in and search for said lawn gnome based on that call, neither the lack of lawn gnome nor inability to identify the neighbor that called will prevent them from arresting me when they find the girl I kidnapped and have tied up in my den.


Actually, I'm not a lawyer so it's possible none of the above is true. But hey, sounded good right? Plus, lawn gnomes.


EDIT: Shoot. I'm finding flaws in that analogy as well. I guess it's actually just hard to come up with a decent analogy to a group breaking away from society and quietly raping their daughters en masse.
 
I here they are installing a soft serve ice cream machine in hell, it must be true since I agree morally and legally with JC and PBP:confused:
 
JuanCarlos

What's this I been hearing of you talkin' smack about Gnomes!?!?

Gnome.jpg
 
Cases are thrown out everyday because of the manner in which the "evidence" was obtained by the police. Thus, the fact that the police cannot produce the person whom was the basis for this raid is not in anyway irrelevant. This case does hinge on this so-called "witness", if she even exists.
 
Thus, the fact that the police cannot produce the person whom was the basis for this raid is not in anyway irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you bothered to read the actual statements from authorities you would notice they based the case on informants inside the compound as well as multiple phone calls. Identifying a single girl is not relevant to the case as a whole.
 
Yeah, if you bothered to read the actual statements from authorities you would notice they based the case on informants inside the compound as well as multiple phone calls. Identifying a single girl is not relevant to the case as a whole.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Really? I bet the lawyers for the state would prefer to have the witness in order to make their case. What do you think?
 
Hmm. Really? I bet the lawyers for the state would prefer to have the witness in order to make their case. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Hmmmm...what do you think the inside informants, who's identity will be protected will count as?
 
You skipped right past my question. Do you think that the lawyers for the state would prefer to have the so-called witness in order to make their case?

playboypenguin
Hmmmm...what do you think the inside informants, who's identity will be protected will count as?
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about inside informants, only some veiled inferences that they had more evidence than just the girl. Of course, they said this because they couldn't find the girl, IMO.
 
Do you think that the lawyers for the state would prefer to have the so-called witness in order to make their case?
Click to expand...
I think the one girl will not matter to them at all. Like I said, they have other "witnesses" that helped in obtaining the warrants. Then the facts of the situation itself will more than bear out their case from that point.

Like JuanCarlos said, just because the police enter you house looking for a Gnome doesn't mean they can't bust you for the ten pounds of cocaine they find while looking for it.
 
firemax
If you really believe that, then I cannot take you seriously.
Click to expand...
playboypenguin
Oh no...
Click to expand...

Oh yes. You are either wistfully ignoring the facts or you simply have no idea about law. The police cannot simply raid our homes without probable cause. The fact that they stated their reason for going in was a phone call from some girl claiming to be in the compound and because they cannot produce this girl... this jeapordizes their case significantly. If this is brought to trial, the defense will have a field day with this.
 
Oh yes. You are either wistfully ignoring the facts or you simply have no idea about law. The police cannot simply raid our homes without probable cause.
Click to expand...
And you are being willfully ignorant of the fact that they did have probable cause.
 
Re: Legal age. Point of information.

Some mention has been made regarding minimum legal age for marriage, and sexual consent in Texas. 14, 16, and 17 have been quoted.

In a previous post, I asked if anyone had knowledge of the history of governing statutes in Texas. No one responded.

My take is that this sect chose to relocate to Texas from Arizona and Utah, back around 2004, specifically because the legal age for marriage in Texas was 14, with parental consent. Like it or dislike it, that was the law at the time. Side issues revolve around the legality of said marriage, (i.e., "spiritual marriages", after the first, in a plural situation).

Seems that around 2005, some Texas legislators amended the law to 16, with increased penalties also, specifically targeting perceived FLDS practices.

Link: http://www.caller.com/news/2008/apr/13/utah-lessons-applied-in-raid/

So, any prosecutions would have to take into account the effective date of the change in law. Theoretically, a 14 yo girl could be legally married with parents' consent in 2004, and become impregnated, without breaking any laws in Texas. Moral judgments not withstanding.

Some members are obviously emotionally invested in this case, apparently to the degree that anyone who would question any aspect of the case is automatically in support of molesters (charge made numerous times), and purposely mis-characterizing articles highlighted.

A legitimate question, given the incendiary nature of the charges is: "Are we willing to frame a guilty party?" Not an unlikely prospect, from some of the posts.
 
hammer4nc wrote:

Re: Legal age. Point of information.

Some mention has been made regarding minimum legal age for marriage, and sexual consent in Texas. 14, 16, and 17 have been quoted.

In a previous post, I asked if anyone had knowledge of the history of governing statutes in Texas. No one responded.

My take is that this sect chose to relocate to Texas from Arizona and Utah, back around 2004, specifically because the legal age for marriage in Texas was 14, with parental consent. Like it or dislike it, that was the law at the time. Side issues revolve around the legality of said marriage, (i.e., "spiritual marriages", after the first, in a plural situation).

Seems that around 2005, some Texas legislators amended the law to 16, with increased penalties also, specifically targeting perceived FLDS practices.

Link: http://www.caller.com/news/2008/apr/...plied-in-raid/

So, any prosecutions would have to take into account the effective date of the change in law. Theoretically, a 14 yo girl could be legally married with parents' consent in 2004, and become impregnated, without breaking any laws in Texas. Moral judgments not withstanding.
Click to expand...

Thats what I was trying to point out when I mentioned the legal age was 14.

Now, to put it straight, I hate child abuse, and anyone who abuses a child in my opinion should be hanged. That said, lets play devil's advocate here for a minute.

Lets suppose that this religious sect in question is VERY serious about their faith. They honestly believe that they are doing the will of God, and live it, breathe it, 100%. (as evidenced by their completely removing themselves from normal society, deemed evil and wicked to them)

Lets suppose they teach love and spiritual harmony, and are completely religiously fanatic in their beliefs. Lets suppose that they honestly and fully believe that marrying at 14 is spiritually right for them, and they are not just doing this to get "young meat" as so many have put it. They honestly believe they are doing as God instructs, and as they have been taught, no doubt by their parents, grandparents, ect. Lets suppose, that these girls, and young women, raised this way, have no problem with this, and believe they are gloifying God by having many children.

What if this is the case? (as in some it most likely is) Does it still make it wrong? Does it make it right to say that OUR sense of MORALITY, is better or more right, than their sincere religious beliefs?

Is it right for us, to force our moral judgments and beliefs on others? If this is TRULY a pure religious belief, do we have the right to stop how these people live? Is freedom of religion true, or isn't it? Is it absolute, or are there limitations? If so, are there limitations to other rights? Like the 2nd? The 1st? We can't decide which ones to defend, and which ones not too simply because we don't morally agree.

As I said, I don't personally agree with what is happening, just playing Devil's Advocate. But I'm sure someone will still argue that I am defending pedophiles with my statement. Which can't be farther from the truth.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top