Legal questions follow polygamist raid

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Gunny, Apr 26, 2008.

  1. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Hope the state's got a good case or there'll be plenty of lawsuits to follow.
     
  2. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,557
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    They can sue all they want. I don't see anything the State did as improper if they acted in good faith.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I think it depends on what comes out in the wash. If, for example, they DID act knowing the information was false and it can be proven, I'd say they have a case.

    Do you really believe removing ALL the children in the compound was ncessary? Honest question. The article mentions some families that are no polygamists; rather, nuclear families.

    I would think if they had an informant inside, as was originally alleged (don't know if that has changed or not) that they could have narrowed it down to only those they suspected of abuse and/or polygamy.

    I also think in this day and age where you can sleep with anyone you want without regard to legal consequence, polygamy is going to be hard to prove or make stick.

    We won't really know for sure until all the facts are presented if and when this goes to court. I'm just suggesting, and wondering if there might have been a different way to handle this than in the spectacular fashion it was.
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,557
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,434
    First,see my edit. Sorry... I specifically stated that it was only if the government acted in good faith. If it didn't, I hope it has a deep pocket.

    There's no way to narrow it down without a hearing. I think they just wanted to get the kids out of there. Plus, I'm sure there was a sense that if they didn't get the kids out, they'd be hidden and/or given to others in the cult. That's why they had the preliminary hearing. The judge felt there was enough to hold the kids pending a full hearing. After the full hearing, another decision will be made to either return all the kids, some of the kid or none of the kids.

    I think they got the kids out the way they did because they were afraid of another Waco.

    Personally, I think they were damned if they did; damned if they didn't. And, personally, as of this time, I'm all for erring in favor of the kids, particularly as more information comes out about the rape of these young girls. I haven't seen anything indicating that particular fact is in dispute.
     
  5. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,405
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,830
    I can't wait to see if RGS starts supporting the ACLU.

    :)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    Now that's funny!

    I can't see it, though. I caught him in six distinct errors (not counting grammar) in the other polygamy thread, and he still won't back down. RGS will hide, but he won't change his mind.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,990
    Yup, it is ok to violate peoples rights cause it is just one big game right Dogger?
     
  8. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    Where did I advocate violating anyone's rights?

    And I wasn't making light of the situation. I was making fun of you. Learn to read, and then read the post by Ravir that I quoted.
     
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,990
    You can always go Jillian's route and claim I love child abusers and rapists. The simple fact is 400 plus children were illegally removed, most are younger than 5 and are in absolutely no danger at all. The State lied and twisted and continues to do so. But you and ravir yuk it up all you want, just remember when it happens to you, you thought it was funny when it happened to someone else.
     
  10. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    The only think I thought was funny was Ravir's joke about you supporting the ACLU. I'm still chuckling over that one.

    I have a hard time believing that all 400 children were illegally removed, and I have a hard time believing that all 400 were in danger. Removing a child before giving a parent an opportunity to be heard should be done only when there is clear evidence of irreparable harm to the child.

    But given the mass confusion likely to be present with so many people, and remembering the outcome at Waco, I'm inclined to respect the judgment of the authorities, absent proof that they knew there was no danger, or behaved recklessly. God could sort them out if they all got killed, but I'd rather let a judge do it instead.
     

Share This Page