Legal questions follow polygamist raid

[Gunny]

Associated Press
updated 5:52 p.m. CT, Fri., April. 25, 2008

SAN ANGELO, Texas - The state of Texas made a damning accusation when it rounded up 462 children at a polygamous sect's ranch: The adults are forcing teenage girls into marriage and sex, creating a culture so poisonous that none should be allowed to keep their children.

But the broad sweep — from nursing infants to teenagers — is raising constitutional questions, even in a state where authorities have wide latitude for taking a family's children.

The move has the appearance of "a class-action child removal," said Jessica Dixon, director of the child advocacy center at Southern Methodist University's law school in Dallas.

"I've never heard of anything like that," she said.

Rod Parker, a spokesman for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, contends that the state has essentially said, "If you're a member of this religious group, then you're not allowed to have children."

Attorneys for the families and civil-liberties groups also are crying foul. They say the state should not have taken children away from all church members living at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado.

Not all practice polygamy
Church members said that not all of them practice polygamy, and some form traditional nuclear families. One sect member whose teenage son is now in foster care testified that she is a divorced single mother.

more ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24317685/

Hope the state's got a good case or there'll be plenty of lawsuits to follow.

 

[jillian]

Hope the state's got a good case or there'll be plenty of lawsuits to follow.

They can sue all they want. I don't see anything the State did as improper if they acted in good faith.

 

[Gunny]

They can sue all they want. I don't see anything the State did as improper.

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[Ravi]

I can't wait to see if RGS starts supporting the ACLU.

 

[Dogger]

I can't wait to see if RGS starts supporting the ACLU.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Yup, it is ok to violate peoples rights cause it is just one big game right Dogger?

 

[Dogger]

Yup, it is ok to violate peoples rights cause it is just one big game right Dogger?

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[Dogger]

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.

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.

 

[Swamp Fox]

As long as the police officers had the legal right to be there, anything they seized in the way of evidence is admissible. For example, if I'm at someone's house for a disturbance call and I see bundles of marijuana, I don't just walk away from the house because the original call turned out to be in error.

Since the kids are actually the evidence in this case and the way most abuse laws are written, I think Texas is going to be alright.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As long as the police officers had the legal right to be there, anything they seized in the way of evidence is admissible. For example, if I'm at someone's house for a disturbance call and I see bundles of marijuana, I don't just walk away from the house because the original call turned out to be in error.

Since the kids are actually the evidence in this case and the way most abuse laws are written, I think Texas is going to be alright.

No they are not, There is NO EVIDENCE any children below the age of 13 and NO male children were ever in danger. Again for the slow MOST of the children are under 5.

 

[Swamp Fox]

No they are not, There is NO EVIDENCE any children below the age of 13 and NO male children were ever in danger. Again for the slow MOST of the children are under 5.

Danger doesn't come into play. Sexual abuse of a minor is a crime and if kids under the age of 16 are having children, it's evidence of that crime. So the young children are evidence of that crime, especially if the DNA testing shows momma was 14 when she had them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Danger doesn't come into play. Sexual abuse of a minor is a crime and if kids under the age of 16 are having children, it's evidence of that crime. So the young children are evidence of that crime, especially if the DNA testing shows momma was 14 when she had them.

That is not how it works, read the law. If Fred is molesting his children and I live next door, the State does not get to take my kids too.

 

[Swamp Fox]

That is not how it works, read the law. If Fred is molesting his children and I live next door, the State does not get to take my kids too.

Unless you and Fred live in a compound where fucking underage girls is the norm, not the exception. It's based on probable cause. You and Fred live in a compound where having sex with underage girls is the norm, I can take your kids too based on the reasonable assumption that your wife is only 15.

As a cop, better safe then sorry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unless you and Fred live in a compound where fucking underage girls is the norm, not the exception. It's based on probable cause. You and Fred live in a compound where having sex with underage girls is the norm, I can take your kids too based on the reasonable assumption that your wife is only 15.

As a cop, better safe then sorry.

Wrong again. There has to be some evidence I and my kids are involved, not just proximity or the fact I am of the same religion.

 

[Angel Heart]

And what if several of those young children are there with out their parents? What if they are not even American kids?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c7390a77-1e34-4422-b299-e57a45c81670&k=57282

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And what if several of those young children are there with out their parents? What if they are not even American kids?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c7390a77-1e34-4422-b299-e57a45c81670&k=57282

You might want to REREAD your story and correct your claim.

 

[nibor]

Geez I love the religious...............they're so Godly yaknow.............I'm certainly glad they didn't turn them into another bon fire and sit around toasting marshmellows like the last time the freakin storm troopers took up the third hand of the lord.........................

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Geez I love the religious...............they're so Godly yaknow.............I'm certainly glad they didn't turn them into another bon fire and sit around toasting marshmellows like the last time the freakin storm troopers took up the third hand of the lord.........................

Not for want of trying. The Cops went in with armored cars, swat and loaded for bear. I bet the State of Texas is unhappy they couldn't justify shooting some of them.