Waco TWO?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Juan,

I fully believe the lot have been BRAIN WASHED to the max.

They may have forth gereration of kids, and now parrents indocted.

I just would like to know, how far can the government go.

Now we are up to 416 girls. I have lived in some towns that had that many people living in them.
 
Sometime even the most casual of observations reveals the abnormality of a situation. Dozens of teens with child or pregnant indicates more than coincidence.

Again, and I keep hammering on this, a girl/woman with a baby that can be shown to have been conceived before she was 17 is, in and of itself, evidence of a sexual assault. A sexual assault that I'd say the authorities are obligated to investigate. It's my understanding that the number of such girls on this ranch was significant, though I suppose I could be mistaken (feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary).

There are only two ways that a girl having a baby before 17 years and 9 months (heck, make it six just to account for premature births) is not evidence of a sexual assault. One is that her partner was her spouse (legally, mind you). Should be easy enough to ascertain, and I'm guessing in most instances here this was not the case. The other is that her partner was less than three years older. This is an affirmative defense, which means that her claiming this does not relieve the authorities of their obligation to investigate. And again, easy to ascertain...she identifies the father, a couple blood tests to verify, and you're done.

As it is every last 17-year-old girl (well, 17 and 6 months) there with a child is evidence of a rape. Or sexual assault, or however Texas chooses to classify sexual contact with a minor. As is every last 18-year-old with a child over a year old. And every last 20-year-old with a child over two years old. And so on. And again, I'm going out on a limb and suggesting the number of these in this case is non-trivial, and well above the national average.

But I guess we'll see when more information comes out.



Oh, and the reason incest came up, I presume, is that the rape that Warren Jeffs was convicted as an accomplice to was of a girl by her first cousin. Which, I'm guessing, is not entirely uncommon given the relatively small, intermingled, and polygamous community we're talking about...that and the fact that they all seem to have one of about three last names.

Oh, and it should be noted that while Jeffs was only convicted for arranging/performing one underage marriage (accomplice to rape), he is IIRC being tried for a few more as well...and accused/suspected of more still. It's what some might refer to as "a pattern," and one the FLDS has shown little evidence of change on.


I just would like to know, how far can the government go.

Now we are up to 416 girls. I have lived in some towns that had that many people living in them.

I fail to see why you find the number so intriguing. As was mentioned, aside from the number the other aspects of the case are pretty straightforward and common. The only reason the number is so high is because of the unique nature of the communal living arrangements, and the fact that the abuse is suspected to be (and there is evidence that it is) widespread.

EDIT: Put it this way...this is little different than if 150 families happened to be sexually abusing their kids and live right next to each other. The government would separate all 416 in that case as well, pending the investigation. And yes, they'd be right to do so. That's how far the government can go, and how far they have gone. All this really is is a case where a bunch of sexual predators got together and formed a nice little commune.
 
Again, and I keep hammering on this, a girl/woman with a baby that can be shown to have been conceived before she was 17 is, in and of itself, evidence of a sexual assault.


Way back when, Some people thought that any girl above the age of 13 was a old maid!:rolleyes:

At the age of 30 you would die.

Times have changed and People have other beleives.

Does it mean what they did was wrong?
 
Way back when, Some people thought that any girl above the age of 13 was a old maid!

At the age of 30 you would die.

Times have changed and People have other beleives.

Does it mean what they did was wrong?

Having a baby at 13 when people only live until 30 was necessary to the survival of the species. It isn't anymore. Back then you also were independent of your parents at an earlier age as well. Nowadays a 13-year-old girl doesn't have a lot of options if her parents insist she has sex with Uncle Creepy...it's not like she can move out on her own.

The only chance she has in such a case is if the authorities step in. Which is exactly what is happening here.

And, as you pointed out, times have changed. You've made this same statement regarding 13-year-olds having kids a hundred years ago before, and it's no more relevant now. Drop it.

EDIT: Thinking back, maybe it was somebody else who made that comparison last time. Doesn't matter, still irrelevant and already covered.

Times have changed and People have other beleives.

Does it mean what they did was wrong?
Now you have crossed the line and started defending child molesters.

Yeah, there's a fine line between wondering whether the use of government authority is appropriate (and yes, I think it is at least worthy of discussion in this case) and defending child molesters. Homefires, despite assertions to the contrary, has crossed it multiple times.
 
Juan, Done!:D

Yeah, there's a fine line between wondering whether the use of government authority is appropriate (and yes, I think it is at least worthy of discussion in this case) and defending child molesters. Homefires, despite assertions to the contrary, has crossed it multiple times.

I don't for the last time deffend child molesters.

I do want to know how far the Government will go!

Crossed the Line? Who has crossed the line?
 
I don't have any problem with the State removing children from an abusive environment., but that's me. There are other cultures where forcing children into marriages is perfectly acceptable. In cultures where women are considered subservient, I don't see any substantive difference between forcing girls into marriage when they're 14, and forcing them (via "arranged marriage") into relationships when they're over the age of consent. Either way they're quasi-slaves, whether it's voluntary or not. What difference does it make when they start?

It's easy to ignore all that and say that if a group wants to live under those beliefs, they should move to another country, but it's not so simple. If they're following, in good faith, religious beliefs, we're supposed to have a government that does not interfere with religious practices in this country.

As much as I dislike the $cilons (three cheers for Jason Beghe!), there is a serious dilemma with attacking the $cilon cult. For those, and there are some, who truly believe in $cilon doctrine as a religion, attacking their religion and trying to get it shut down is arguably a conspiracy to violate civil rights.

Polygamist underage cults present different specifics, but the same general dilemma. I think it's bad, particularly when children are forced into relationships against their will. Most people in western society think it's bad. It's not allowed under the secular laws of most (all?) western nations. But if the people engaging in those practices believe it's a religion, and aren't simply using religion as an excuse, then why doesn't the U.S. Constitution demand that the State leave them alone?

Sure, anyone can cite SCOTUS decisions -- about the Indians' marijuana use among others -- and "accepted" limits to religious freedom. I'm not interested in court decisions. I'm interested in a philosophical, Constitution-backed, argument for why an arguably religious band of deviants can't create their own mini-town on a ranch and live according to their so-called "religion," even if it violates morals held by outsiders.

I worry that western morals in general, while they work fairly well now, and have worked well for us for the past few hundred years, are not an ultimate solution to social interaction, and getting too attached to them and defending them too dogmatically may cause problems for humanity later on.

Also, homefires, despite my general sympathy towards some of your arguments, your spelling drives me crazy. Firefox has built-in spell checking, and there's a spell-check plug-in for IE if I'm not mistaken. People understand what you're saying, but you open yourself up to ad-hominem attacks (even though they're not allowed here).
 
Right on all counts.

My spelling sucks and I know it. I do use Google spell check. Some times the fingers are faster then the brain.

Thank You!:(
 
Sure, anyone can cite SCOTUS decisions -- about the Indians' marijuana use among others -- and "accepted" limits to religious freedom. I'm not interested in court decisions. I'm interested in a philosophical, Constitution-backed, argument for why an arguably religious band of deviants can't create their own mini-town on a ranch and live according to their so-called "religion," even if it violates morals held by outsiders.

Well, it largely won't be based on the US Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't cover this issue. It's generally going to have to fall under SCOTUS decisions and compelling government interests.

The Constitution also doesn't cover the issue of rape in general. Statutory or otherwise. The real question is whether a human being has a basic civil right to only marry or have sex with those they meaningfully consent to, and whether a child under familial pressure and with no other perceived option can given meaningful consent.

Even beyond SCOTUS decisions, it's common sense that certain acts cannot fall under religious freedom. Human sacrifice, for instance...particularly human sacrifice without consent of the sacrificed. It's obvious that your religious freedom cannot allow you to commit a crime against another human being.

I guess at that point what you're really asking for is a discussion on the validity of statutory rape laws in general, and particularly in this context. Whether a child is actually able to give meaningful consent to an adult, or whether such consent will generally be the result of duress, coercion, or simply a lack of understanding of the consequences of the consent given. I guess we could go there, but I'm not sure I really have the stomach for it. I've known a couple victims of statutory rape, and I'm pretty sure I'm not likely to be able to argue objectively on the subject anyway.


So I'll simply state, so you know where I'm coming from, that I very strongly agree with the general principle of statutory rape laws (though not always the implementation). I don't think children are able to give meaningful consent to sexual relations with adults, so I think it is very much a form or rape. And I certainly don't think your freedom of religion gives you the right to rape another human being.
 
There are people who distrust government and there are people who will defend the government even if they are wrong. This situation in Texas seems to be bringing out both sides.

As for me, I don't trust government. Ever since my high school civics class, I realized that government was a necessary evil, not something to be lauded as a God like entity.

Pertaining to this Texas situation, I find it shocking that the authorities responded to this call from an unknown person (where is she anyway) with tanks and snipers. It seems like the "authorities" used overkill in this situation and I just don't understand why. Maybe the authorities saw an opportunity to show off all of that new equipment they have purchased with federal grants since 9/11. What other reason could be given for them showing up with a friggin' tank.
 
JuanCarlos
Yeah, there's a fine line between wondering whether the use of government authority is appropriate .... and defending child molesters. Homefires, despite assertions to the contrary, has crossed it multiple times.

JuanCarlos, earlier in this thread you implied that my questioning of the authorities in this situation might lead to more children being raped. Now, you attack another member under a similar pretense.

Do you think you can argue a point without attacking another member here with such disgusting implications? :barf:
 
JuanCarlos, earlier in this thread you implied that my questioning of the authorities in this situation might lead to more children being raped. Now, you attack another member under a similar pretense.

No, I implied that leaving these children with their families (given evidence* of widespread sexual abuse and history of the sect) poses an unacceptable risk of more children getting raped. If you object to having them separated pending investigation, that's up to you.

Pertaining to this Texas situation, I find it shocking that the authorities responded to this call from an unknown person (where is she anyway) with tanks and snipers. It seems like the "authorities" used overkill in this situation and I just don't understand why. Maybe the authorities saw an opportunity to show off all of that new equipment they have purchased with federal grants since 9/11. What other reason could be given for them showing up with a friggin' tank.

Again, if you're claiming this was all due to a single phone call I'd like to know who your inside source is...even the media is reporting that there was an ongoing investigation beforehand.

If your issue is simply with the actual show of force used in the raid, I think we may find ourselves largely in agreement. I'm not fond of the militarization of our police forces, and the excessive use of force to protect officers often at the expense of citizens who are presumed (or actually are) innocent. For instance, I could go off all day on no-knock raids (though that's a topic for another thread). Yes, in this case I think a long, hard look should be taken at the level of force used and the justification for it, if indeed it was as you describe (I didn't look into how the actual entry went down, I'm arguing more about the end result).

As to the value of removing the children from the custody of their parents temporarily pending the outcome of an investigation, I'm sticking to position.

* - Just to be clear, the obvious evidence I'm talking about, aside from the history of the group, is every last girl who can be shown to have conceived a child before the age of 17. Even if she is now 24.
 
JuanCarlos, fair enough. It just seems that, in this thread anyway, if one takes a different opinion than the authorities, then they are damning the children to hell and to be raped, etc. etc., ad nauseum. I'm all for protecting children, as most of the people who do not agree with the authorities most certainly are.

The authorities may have gotten this right. However, there are questions which should be raised and which have been raised. The onus should always be on the government to explain and verify the validity of their actions. I don't think that is a standard which is too high or extraordinary and I don't think raising such questions indicates a person who is excusing unlawful behavior.
 
Some of what I'm reading here

Turns my stomach.

Look, I've got no problem with polygamy.

Any group of consenting adults can do whatever they want, among themselves, as long as all are freely-chosen participants, and no one is compelled.

The key phrase here is "consenting ADULTS."

If the FLDS wanted to practice group living, and to get around the bigamy laws by only legally marrying one person, why not just wait until the girls/women were 18? At that point, no laws are being violated, and the state would never have gotten involved.

Come on, people, it's only 3 or 4 years.

But they just couldn't keep their hands off all that fresh young meat for that long.

There is no way to make the boinking of 14 year olds acceptable. None. Anyone who argues otherwise is advocating child molestation. It's that simple. There is no middle ground, no gray area here. Every single one of these men who "married" one of these girls deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. And the parents of the girls are accessories, and should also go to prison. All assuming that guilt can be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can defend this. Wonder about the facts, yes, but defend???

--Shannon
 
JuanCarlos, fair enough. It just seems that, in this thread anyway, if one takes a different opinion than the authorities, then they are damning the children to hell and to be raped, etc. etc., ad nauseum. I'm all for protecting children, as most of the people who do not agree with the authorities most certainly are.

Well, not hell so much...just the rape.

I'm wondering if you could clarify exactly what it is the authorities have done that you take issue with. As far as I see it, there are several distinct possibilities...though I suppose there could be others as well. Also obviously it could be more than one of the below.

- The issuance of the search warrant in the first place
- The nature of force used in the execution of that warrant
- The removal of all the children from the ranch when the investigation suggested that some had been sexually abused, pending further investigation and hearings
- The separation of the children from their mothers
- The interference with the religious freedom of the sect in the first place

Feel free to simply quote the points you take issue with, and point out any other concise issues you have with the situation. It gets confusing, because multiple posters have multiple issues with the situation, and it's not uncommon for people to shift points when convenient as well. I am more than willing to reply to any of those points (and on most, I already have), except for the second on which (as I said) I may agree.

Also, as far as verifying the validity of their actions I'm pretty sure that's what the upcoming hearings are for. Don't those start today or tomorrow? I'm sure we'll know a lot more soon.


To bring up some old posts, by you, that I think still need to be cleared up:

The Feds should not be involved. Period end.

Were the feds involved? I know that it was Texas that issued the warrant, Texas that removed the children, and I thought it was officers from Texas that executed the warrant. It's also Texas determining what happens next. Where did this statement come from?

It is now believed by the authorities that the call claiming sexual abuse is a hoax. Though the authorities have removed over 400 children from their families, they have yet to speak to this supposed caller.

Also, where did this come from? I presume you can cite a quote from any of the authorities involved? I've heard plenty of FLDS supporters, lawyers and otherwise, make this claim...but I've not heard of the actual authorities believing that it was a hoax except from you.

In America, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Clearly, they have got it backwards in Texas.

I hope that this situation is resolved soon. If they cannot locate this supposed caller, they should return the children to their families immediately.

One last old quote. First, I'll repeat...nobody is in prison yet, and no families have actually (to my knowledge) lost custody of their kids yet. There are going to be hearings to determine what happens next.

But, keeping in mind that the ranch is essentially a large communal home, do you support leaving children in that home if it can be shown that multiple underage girls have been victims of sexual assault there and that the adults in those families have neither stopped this pattern nor reported it to the police?

Because that's (at least by my understanding) a large part of the purpose of the upcoming hearings. It's not like CPS came in, took the kids, and that's that. There's a process, and it's being followed. It just turns into a bit of a charlie-foxtrot when you have what is essentially a single home containing a few hundred kids.
 
It just seems that, in this thread anyway, if one takes a different opinion than the authorities, then they are damning the children to hell and to be raped, etc. etc., ad nauseum. I'm all for protecting children, as most of the people who do not agree with the authorities most certainly are.

It seems hard for some of you to believe, but in this situation the "authorities" may be right.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4670370&page=1

Does Teen Bride at Center of Polygamy Case Exist?

Cops Can't Find Sect Teen Who Called for Help


By SCOTT MICHELS
SAN ANGELO, Texas, April 17, 2008

Among the hundreds of children, lawyers and caseworkers involved in an unprecedented child custody hearing this morning, one person will be noticeably absent -- the 16-year-old girl whose call for help set in motion the largest child protection case in U.S. history.

Texas authorities say they have not located or identified the girl, though they have said they believe she is among the 416 children from a polygamous sect who were taken into state custody nearly two weeks ago.

Some people are now questioning whether she exists at all.

Though the girl is not key to today's hearing, her absence looms over the case. Without her, any potential criminal charges that might be brought against members of the sect in the future could be jeopardized, legal experts say.

On April 4, a day after Texas police raided the compound, an abuse hot line in Arizona received a similar call from a 16-year-old who said she was calling from the FLDS community in Colorado City, Ariz.

The girl said she was being held against her will and physically abused, said Fernando Vender, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Economic Security, which oversees child protective services.
When investigators visited a family with the same name provided by the caller, they did not find the girl or any evidence of abuse, he said. Though the case remains open, investigators "could not verify that there was a young girl by that name, with that family and that abuse was going on," Vender said.

In her calls to the family shelter, Sarah said she believed she was pregnant with her second child. She claimed her husband was a 49-year-old man named Dale. She said that he raped and beat her, once breaking her ribs, and that she was being held at the ranch against her will.

This weekend, Texas Rangers interviewed Dale Evans Barlow, 50, who is named in the search and arrest warrant used to search the compound, but did not arrest him.

Barlow was briefly jailed in Arizona last year, sentenced to three years' probation and forced to register as a sex offender after he was convicted of conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor, according to Mohave County, Ariz., Probation Department Chief Friend Walker.

But, Barlow's lawyer told ABC News that he has not been to Texas since 1977 and Walker said Barlow had been checking in regularly with his Arizona probation officer.

Kathleen Mackert, who said she fled the FLDS community in Colorado City after years of sexual abuse, said she believes Sarah is real but may have been taken out of the compound before police arrived.

"They would want to avoid them getting ahold of her at all costs," she said.

Mackert said sect members are taught that they should lie to the government and other outsiders. "We were expected to lie," she said. "They were the enemy."

"This girl is proving to be the linchpin of the entire operation," Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, told ABC News. "If she doesn't exist, it's going to make it very difficult to defend this search. And if you can't do that, you can't use anything they found in there."

In late March, a girl who identified herself as Sarah made several petrified calls to an abuse hot line, complaining that her 49-year-old husband physically and sexually abused her, court records say. The calls prompted government officials to raid the Yearning for Zion Ranch in West Texas and take all the children into custody.

But, several women who live on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ranch told ABC News that Sarah does not exist.

"She's a bogus person," a woman who identified herself as Joy said earlier this week.

Since the calls, several events have raised questions about Sarah.

Investigators were apparently searching for information about the girl and seized medical records for several women who shared the name given by Sarah during their search of the compound, according to court records. Though an arrest warrant was issued for a man thought to be her husband, police did not arrest him.
Sarah's absence probably will not affect today's custody hearing, during which the state will ask to keep the children in state custody and place them in temporary foster homes, legal experts say. More important to the future of the children in state custody will be what the police found once they were inside the compound.

Guy Choate, who is helping to coordinate lawyers for the children, said it's not unusual for child custody cases to be based on an anonymous call. If caseworkers find evidence of abuse, they are obligated to take action, he said.
Authorities say in court records that there is a widespread practice within the sect of marrying off underage girls to older men. Investigators have found several girls who appear young who are either pregnant or have children, the records say.

More than 350 lawyers are expected to descend on the Tom Green County Courthouse this morning, when a judge will begin to sort out which of the children should be sent to foster homes and which, if any, will be sent back to their parents.

The nearly unprecedented case appears to be the largest child protection case in U.S. history and one that threatens to overwhelm the judges, lawyers and government officials working on it. Each child is entitled to a lawyer, and many of the parents are expected to have lawyers speaking on their behalf as well.

"We've never really seen anything like this," said Lynne Gold-Bilkin, a family law expert.

But, the girl's identity could be key to any criminal case that may be brought against sect members.

Lisa Wayne, a criminal defense lawyer, said that if the government's allegations are true, it could potentially bring a variety of criminal charges against sect members for alleged statutory rape, abuse or negligence.

But the church could challenge the search warrant that police used to enter the compound and some of the evidence that investigators found could be suppressed, she said.

"In a criminal case, you have the right to know who may give the government probable cause to come on the premises," she said.
 
The dear law professor should consult her criminal law colleagues. Warrants based on calls that contain sufficient information to be credible on their face don't tend to get tossed because it's later discovered that a non-government actor lied when making the call. Evidence suppression occurs when the court finds that the government acted inappropriately or illegally in obtaining the evidence. If someone other than the gov't (or a person acting in collusion with the gov't) lied, the principle justification for suppression isn't there.
 
buzz sez:
Warrants based on calls that contain sufficient information to be credible on their face don't tend to get tossed because it's later discovered that a non-government actor lied when making the call.

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.


One thing that makes me suspicious here, is absence of information about the source of the original hotline call. With modern call tracing, the owner of the cell phone and tower location, and/or the location of the land line would be key pieces of information, readily obtainable.

Of course, as other members have pointed out, CPS could just be using misdirection and hiding all their evidence, until real court proceedings commence.
 
Authorities say in court records that there is a widespread practice within the sect of marrying off underage girls to older men. Investigators have found several girls who appear young who are either pregnant or have children, the records say.

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.

Of course, as other members have pointed out, CPS could just be using misdirection and hiding all their evidence, until real court proceedings commence.

True. Also, I'm not sure how much the call matters in the CPS proceedings, either. If, by some chance, the search warrant doesn't pan out it may kill any criminal cases, but I'm pretty sure the hearings involving the safety of the children would continue regardless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top