137 children removed from polygamist ranch

[AllieBaba]

It's not your line, dear. I was thinking "turd", not mouse, but felt that would be uncouth.

 

[jillian]

It's not your line, dear. I was thinking "turd", not mouse, but felt that would be uncouth.

And being uncouth stopped you this time why?

 

[AllieBaba]

I recognize I'm not perfect and I'm always working on myself, you see.

 

[jillian]

As we all should.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh look, the State keeps the children. What a shocking surprise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

Religious presecution alive and well in the United States. They are not even pretending it is not.

 

[Angel Heart]

From the article you posted:

But the women also acknowledged that girls get married at ages younger than the state allows.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From the article you posted:

And your point? How does THAT justify removing 400 children that are in NO danger. MOST of the children are not old enough to begin with. And there is not one shred of evidence those children are in any danger, the State even admitted they were not in any danger.

Further the religion in question did not sanction underage marriages until Jeffs became the "prophet" and will revert from that with him gone.

Add to that the fact the Girls DECIDE themselves, also presented in evidence and you have no case against these people to keep 400 children that are in zero danger, BUT are in danger if kept by the State, admitted to by the State's own testimony.

Then add in the fact the State has "volunteers" caring for these kids and exactly how is it you do not know they are not in danger RIGHT now?

 

[Ravi]

They aren't old enough to be in danger and when they are they decide themselves to marry perverts?

Shameless BS.

 

[jillian]

And your point? How does THAT justify removing 400 children that are in NO danger. MOST of the children are not old enough to begin with. And there is not one shred of evidence those children are in any danger, the State even admitted they were not in any danger.

Further the religion in question did not sanction underage marriages until Jeffs became the "prophet" and will revert from that with him gone.

Add to that the fact the Girls DECIDE themselves, also presented in evidence and you have no case against these people to keep 400 children that are in zero danger, BUT are in danger if kept by the State, admitted to by the State's own testimony.

Then add in the fact the State has "volunteers" caring for these kids and exactly how is it you do not know they are not in danger RIGHT now?

Back up a second. I know you want to conclude that they're in no danger. I'm not sure where you see any the state "admitting" they're in no danger. But would like to know what you're referencing. I'd also remind you that this isn't a criminal proceeding at this point. All that is being determined is whether the children can be returned PENDING A FULL HEARING on the issues. There is a fairly low standard for that type of hearing in most jurisidictions because the goal is to get the children away from the imminent risk of harm.

It doesn't matter if the sect will disavow undeage marriage after Jeffs is gone. These PARTICULAR children have been indoctrinated with Jeffs' views. Nor did they DECIDE anything. An underage child cannot DECIDE to have sex with an adult male. That's why there are statutory rape laws... because they aren't CAPABLE of consent.

I also know that you have a personal interest in this particular religious group. But these people are a blight on your religion... if I were you, they would enrage me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They aren't old enough to be in danger and when they are they decide themselves to marry perverts?

Shameless BS.

Not one shred of evidence, but do keep on. Even the State admits these children are not in danger BUT because someday they " may be" and because the State does not like the religion, "hey let's take the children" . I suggest you read the law on when and why the State can remove children from their homes.

 

[Ravi]

Not one shred of evidence, but do keep on. Even the State admits these children are not in danger BUT because someday they " may be" and because the State does not like the religion, "hey let's take the children" . I suggest you read the law on when and why the State can remove children from their homes.

What is the exact phrase where the state "admits they are not in danger?"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Back up a second. I know you want to conclude that they're in no danger. I'm not sure where you see any the state "admitting" they're in no danger. But would like to know what you're referencing. I'd also remind you that this isn't a criminal proceeding at this point. All that is being determined is whether the children can be returned PENDING A FULL HEARING on the issues. There is a fairly low standard for that type of hearing in most jurisidictions because the goal is to get the children away from the imminent risk of harm.

It doesn't matter if the sect will disavow undeage marriage after Jeffs is gone. These PARTICULAR children have been indoctrinated with Jeffs' views. Nor did they DECIDE anything. An underage child cannot DECIDE to have sex with an adult male. That's why there are statutory rape laws... because they aren't CAPABLE of consent.

I also know that you have a personal interest in this particular religious group. But these people are a blight on your religion... if I were you, they would enrage me.

Ohh believe me I detest the religion. They are NOT Mormons at all. If you knew how the religion worked you would know that. BUT they are free in this country to practice their religion. Well they were until a fake call was made and a staged excuse was created to remove over 400 children because the State does not like the religion.

Read the articles. The rules are simple, these children are NOT nor were ever in imminent danger. And other then specific girls as yet unidentified that married illegally no children were "abused" either. These people are being tried for their religious beliefs. I would think THAT would enrage YOU Jillian.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is the exact phrase where the state "admits they are not in danger?"

That would be where they admit none of the children were in Imminent danger. A prerequisite for removing them from their parents.

 

[jillian]

Ohh believe me I detest the religion. They are NOT Mormons at all. If you knew how the religion worked you would know that. BUT they are free in this country to practice their religion. Well they were until a fake call was made and a staged excuse was created to remove over 400 children because the State does not like the religion.

Read the articles. The rules are simple, these children are NOT nor were ever in imminent danger. And other then specific girls as yet unidentified that married illegally no children were "abused" either. These people are being tried for their religious beliefs. I would think THAT would enrage YOU Jillian.

I figured you'd hate the religion. They're a blight on everything yours believes in. I know that. But, ultimately, freedom of religion doesn't include the right to sexually abuse underage girls. It just doesn't. You're also presuming it was a "fake" call. I figure that's certainly possible, though not probable. What I really think is that with 400 kids being taken away, whomever made the call certainly isn't going to admit it to anyone.

Reality... no judge was ever going to release over 400 children without knowing all of the facts. They only got to hear a couple of witnesses because the large number of people involved (at least until the DNA sorts out who belongs to whom) and who can't be split up at this point, makes it untenable and unmanageable. Once the DNA comes in, they'll be able to divide up the hearings and manage the courtroom. Then they'll be able to find out the reality of what happened This isn't a criminal trial. The same rights don't attach. And judges have a great deal of leeway when it comes to the best interest of the children.

The DNA test results are NOT going to be pretty. They will prove who the fathers and mothers are... and will prove the sexual abuse/statutory rape.

If I thought they were being tried for religious beliefs I would be angry. But the first amendment doesn't allow you to abuse or neglect children.

 

[Ravi]

That would be where they admit none of the children were in Imminent danger. A prerequisite for removing them from their parents.

Ah, I see your mistake. Just because the danger isn't imminent doesn't mean the danger doesn't exist.

It's really sad to see someone excuse pedophilia because it is practiced under the guise of religion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ah, I see your mistake. Just because the danger isn't imminent doesn't mean the danger doesn't exist.

It's really sad to see someone excuse pedophilia because it is practiced under the guise of religion.

Read the law. Imminent danger is required to remove children.

 

[Anguille]

And your point? How does THAT justify removing 400 children that are in NO danger. MOST of the children are not old enough to begin with. And there is not one shred of evidence those children are in any danger, the State even admitted they were not in any danger.

Further the religion in question did not sanction underage marriages until Jeffs became the "prophet" and will revert from that with him gone.

Add to that the fact the Girls DECIDE themselves, also presented in evidence and you have no case against these people to keep 400 children that are in zero danger, BUT are in danger if kept by the State, admitted to by the State's own testimony.

Then add in the fact the State has "volunteers" caring for these kids and exactly how is it you do not know they are not in danger RIGHT now?

I think you may have a point about removing the younger children. It doesn't seem that they or even male children are at risk and removing children of that young an age from their mothers could be traumatic for them and could cause more harm than good.
But how can you say that the underage girls decide for themselves if they want to marry the old goats? Not only are they below the age of consent, meaning they are not mature enough to make such a decision, but they are also living in a very conformist community where they are kept isolated from larger society. That is the only way of life they know. If they reject it, they are ostracized or sometimes committed to mental institutions.

 

[Ravi]

Read the law. Imminent danger is required to remove children.

Post the law.

According to this article, the judge ruled they were in danger of being sexually abused. How is that not good enough for you? In the article, none of the lawyers for the pervs are bringing up your point.

SAN ANGELO, Texas — A judge ruled Friday night that 416 children seized by authorities during a raid on a polygamous sect's compound are at risk of sexual abuse if they stay with the group and must remain in state care.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004359748_poly19.html

 

[Anguille]

This is an aside to the topic, but did anyone else besides me notice that when the mothers were being interviewed on television they all seemed to speak with abnormally high, almost whispery voices even though they were making a demand to have their children returned to them? It's as if they aimed to present themselves as weak and overly feminine.

Sure, some people are just naturally soft spoken but all of the women spoke that way. It sounded affected and that kind of creeped me out. It seems just another indication that women in this cult are made to be subservient to men.

 

[Gunny]

Bullshit, this sect has been around over 100 years. I doubt they are going to suddenly all commit suicide.

And agian for the slow.... THEY have no evidence. Never did. Their chief witness can't even say more then " maybe" or " I believe" or " I think". When was that considered proof?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

The latest spin is now some of the mother are really underage girls pretending to be adults. And I love how " we think" some girls gave birth as young as 13 with no names and no evidence is admissable in court. If they did, trot them out... they do after all have said girls in custody. Guilty by innuendo is illegal. You don't get to remove 400 children because " we think" after 2 weeks is the extent of the evidence against the families.

So you are going to overlook the obvious and stand on a point of law because YOU have decided there is no evidence. You do not KNOW the call was faked. You do not KNOW that any and all accusations are false. That is the point of the investigation.

You also don't get as much smoke as there is around this sect without a fire somehwere.