Oh Look, not a minor at all

[Yurt]

can anyone here remind us of where the state got probable cause...

 

[Yurt]

an interesting viewpoint and a reminder about where this "probable cause" came from:

April 27, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) Contributor Ben Stein has polygamy on his mind this morning … and children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I ask a question? What the heck is going on in Texas with the kids caught up in the polygamy ranch disaster?

Look, I am not a fan of polygamy. For one thing, it's all any man can do keeping up with one wife. For another, it's against the law in this country.

But the polygamists that have been in the news have been operating for decades. The authorities knew about it, and them. They didn't do a thing about it for all those years!

Then, on a totally unsubstantiated telephone call about sex abuse - which apparently did not come from anyone even connected to the polygamist compound - the state closed down the compound, and (what is totally incomprehensible) took the small children of the settlement away from their mothers and fathers.

Why? What crime had the kids committed? Why are they being dealt the most drastic punishment imaginable - separation from their mothers and fathers - for no known reason?

The state of Texas has not found one single crime against these children yet. Even if they do find one or two, how can that be a reason for taking dozens, maybe hundreds of children away from their mothers?

The kids are the victims here - not of the parents, but of the incredible, unbelievable cruelty of the state of Texas authorities. If there is evidence of cruelty by the families to these kids, where is it?

Look, I am a huge fan of Texas. I have many friends there and love being there. But what is the attorney general of Texas doing? This is an Orwellian nightmare. For no reason except what looks like a crank call, the lives of these children have been turned upside down and into a screaming horror movie.

 

[BrianH]

He's not delusional. I have yet to hear anyone address the hypocrisy of removing these girls on a whim because they might be underage and pregnant, while the battle cry for abortion is, regardless of the age of the girls getting pregnant, they have a right to privacy. It seems to me that those are the people who are delusional, if they think the rights of some are sacred, but the rights of others should be sacrificed based on their own feelings about the situation.

Abortion has nothing to do with it. Quit bringing it up. You're trying to put two things together that aren't analogous.

First, girls that get pregnant (in society) do so either by their own will, or are raped. 99% of the time, the girl's parents are not aware of her having sex with her boyfriend, or not around when the girl gets raped. In either case, the boyfriend (if over 18) is at definate risk to be arrested and put on the sex-offender list, and a rapist the would be put in jail and also put on the sex-offender list. Justice is served either way. The reason the girls are not yanked from their homes, is because 9 times out of 10, the girls parents were not marrying her off to an older man, or facilitating sex acts with her boyfriend. The parents were not putting her in harms way, but the girl herself.

Second, when it comes to this sect and it's compound, the big difference that you fail to grasp, is that (knowingly or unknowlingly) the parents/mothers of these girls were putting their girls in an abusive environment and keeping them there. And when I say an abusive environment, I mean the beating of infants called "breaking", the sex with older men, as well as sexual abuse by older men. That's the difference, the fact the parents know and willingly allow this type of abuse is why their kids were taken away. I garauntee you that if the girls at this sect were sneaking out and having sex or marrying older men without their parents permission, then it would be a different story. But it's not the case, and the parents are facilitating this type of illegal activity.

In society, if your mother was marrying you off to several older aged men, she would be committing an illegal act by putting you in that position, not to mention the men you marry---for having sex with a minor.
Your abortion clinic theory is way off and is a completely different situation.

 

[BrianH]

an interesting viewpoint and a reminder about where this "probable cause" came from:

April 27, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) Contributor Ben Stein has polygamy on his mind this morning … and children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May I ask a question? What the heck is going on in Texas with the kids caught up in the polygamy ranch disaster?

Look, I am not a fan of polygamy. For one thing, it's all any man can do keeping up with one wife. For another, it's against the law in this country.

But the polygamists that have been in the news have been operating for decades. The authorities knew about it, and them. They didn't do a thing about it for all those years!

Then, on a totally unsubstantiated telephone call about sex abuse - which apparently did not come from anyone even connected to the polygamist compound - the state closed down the compound, and (what is totally incomprehensible) took the small children of the settlement away from their mothers and fathers.

Why? What crime had the kids committed? Why are they being dealt the most drastic punishment imaginable - separation from their mothers and fathers - for no known reason?

The state of Texas has not found one single crime against these children yet. Even if they do find one or two, how can that be a reason for taking dozens, maybe hundreds of children away from their mothers?

The kids are the victims here - not of the parents, but of the incredible, unbelievable cruelty of the state of Texas authorities. If there is evidence of cruelty by the families to these kids, where is it?

Look, I am a huge fan of Texas. I have many friends there and love being there. But what is the attorney general of Texas doing? This is an Orwellian nightmare. For no reason except what looks like a crank call, the lives of these children have been turned upside down and into a screaming horror movie.

By the tone of the post, it seems as though Stein sees this as a raid against polygamy. Polygamy, although illegal in Texas to begin with, has never played a part. The sexual abuse of underage girls is. Whether you're muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc....If you had a compound that married off under-aged girls and forced them to have sex with their older husbands, it would be illegal, and the compound would be raided in like. Not to mention the beating of infants....

 

[Shogun]

I think Ben Stein read the Left Behind series recently and has been affected by it's message.

 

[AllieBaba]

can anyone here remind us of where the state got probable cause...

Yeah, from a tc from a girl who last I heard was being prosecuted for previous fraudulent claims against other groups, and another girl who was "anonymous" and can't be found.

 

[AllieBaba]

Abortion has nothing to do with it. Quit bringing it up. You're trying to put two things together that aren't analogous.

First, girls that get pregnant (in society) do so either by their own will, or are raped. 99% of the time, the girl's parents are not aware of her having sex with her boyfriend, or not around when the girl gets raped. In either case, the boyfriend (if over 18) is at definate risk to be arrested and put on the sex-offender list, and a rapist the would be put in jail and also put on the sex-offender list. Justice is served either way. The reason the girls are not yanked from their homes, is because 9 times out of 10, the girls parents were not marrying her off to an older man, or facilitating sex acts with her boyfriend. The parents were not putting her in harms way, but the girl herself.

Second, when it comes to this sect and it's compound, the big difference that you fail to grasp, is that (knowingly or unknowlingly) the parents/mothers of these girls were putting their girls in an abusive environment and keeping them there. And when I say an abusive environment, I mean the beating of infants called "breaking", the sex with older men, as well as sexual abuse by older men. That's the difference, the fact the parents know and willingly allow this type of abuse is why their kids were taken away. I garauntee you that if the girls at this sect were sneaking out and having sex or marrying older men without their parents permission, then it would be a different story. But it's not the case, and the parents are facilitating this type of illegal activity.

In society, if your mother was marrying you off to several older aged men, she would be committing an illegal act by putting you in that position, not to mention the men you marry---for having sex with a minor.
Your abortion clinic theory is way off and is a completely different situation.

I can bring up anything I want, dumbass.
And if we're discussing the rights of women to have or not have children when they're underage, abortion certainly is a part of the equation. You can't say they have a right to privacy if they're underage and aborting their children, then claim they have no right to privacy if they're underage and choosing NOT to abort. It's idiotic, even you should be able to see the double standard.

If the state isn't allowed to investigate the circumstances of underage pregnant girls in abortion clinics, then the state sure as shit shouldn't be allowed to storm into the homes of underage pregnant girls/mothers and take them from their homes based upon nothing but the fact that they're underage and having babies.

Too complicated for you?

Finally, there is no proof that the mothers are putting the girls into abusive situations. And if anonymous phone calls, one from a renowned wacko and the other who has "disappeared" are all that is needed to indict, then we're all in big trouble.

Why do you think the mothers in this situation are so much more heinous than the mothers of 12 year olds who get abortions, who are protected by the law from investigation, repercussion, or having their children taken from them? You think it's somehow different when a mom of a 15-year-old lets her daughter spend quality time with her 18 year old "boyfriend" (aka, "pimp") than the mom who allows her 15 year old get married and start a family?

And how does the "my body my choice" mantra apply only to girls getting abortions, and not to those who decide to get married and have babies? You think welfare girls who get knocked up starting at 13 aren't subjected to "brainwashing" resulting in them thinking it's ok for them to go out and have sex indiscriminately? Remember, after all...it's illegal for underage girls to have sex, period.

Not only that, by protecting the privacy of underage girls who get abortion, there is no way the wonderful, upstanding, "young" boyfriends who are getting them pregnant (btw, they aren't usually young, not in the eyes of the law) are ever held accountable because the girls' PRIVACY is protected and they are not ASKED who the father of the baby is.

Unlike the girls who have been yanked from their homes in this case, subjected to gynocological exams, and who, when they refuse to name the fathers or identify their children, are being subjected to DNA testing.

 

[Yurt]

the entire probable cause angle is sketchy to me...anonymous (now proven to be false) which i am willing to say probably does not pass the totality of the circumstances test for getting a warrant from an anonymous source. should the warrant prove defective, the entire thing should be dismissed.

 

[Shogun]

would you dismiss a case that had a bad warrant but uncovered a terrorist ring?


child porn ring?

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm going to start calling in anonymous calls for every girl I see going in or out of abortion clinics now, and see what pops up in their homes.....

 

[Yurt]

would you dismiss a case that had a bad warrant but uncovered a terrorist ring?


child porn ring?

you go down that slippery slope you will have no rights...also, in every single case that involved terrorist/child porn that i know of, the investigation was extensive before hand, quite unlike this case...so faulty comparison

shogun:

if you were busted for say...weed, and you knew the warrant was faulty, but you were guilty, would not avail yourself of that defense?

 

[Shogun]

you go down that slippery slope you will have no rights...also, in every single case that involved terrorist/child porn that i know of, the investigation was extensive before hand, quite unlike this case...so faulty comparison

Again, if predicated upon the SAME faulty warrant are you going to wash your hands and walk away from a CP or Terrorist ring? I'm not asking about the cased that you know of; Im asking you to replace this child abuse with CHILD PORN or TERRORISM.

and I'm quite aware of the slippery slope arguement. But, Im guessing that it's not the slope that made you not want to answer my question. CP, terrorism and statutory rape are not "rights" that I support.

 

[doeton]

gotta agree with RGT and Yurt.

man the crime doesn't justify overlooking constitutional rights.

not to mention taking kids from their families shouldn't be done lightly.

 

[Shogun]

gotta agree with RGT and Yurt.

man the crime doesn't justify overlooking constitutional rights.

not to mention taking kids from their families shouldn't be done lightly.

Would you overlook a child porn ring uncovered by a sketchy warrant?

 

[doeton]

there's things the doeton personally might do and then there's what i expect the law to do.

i want to the law to abide by the law.

 

[AllieBaba]

gotta agree with RGT and Yurt.

man the crime doesn't justify overlooking constitutional rights.

not to mention taking kids from their families shouldn't be done lightly.

And isn't. Except in this case. The states get nailed all the time because it's their No. 1 priority to keep families together, and for them to separate them there has to be immediate danger to the children. IMMEDIATE. THat means, the guys who are allegedly inflicting pain, rape, whatever on the kids are in the house and the mom won't make them leave. But if they agree to leave (or in this case, aren't in the house in the first place) the state does NOT take kids from their home. Unless they're afraid something is going to happen to them, and sometimes not even then.

 

[Yurt]

Again, if predicated upon the SAME faulty warrant are you going to wash your hands and walk away from a CP or Terrorist ring? I'm not asking about the cased that you know of; Im asking you to replace this child abuse with CHILD PORN or TERRORISM.

and I'm quite aware of the slippery slope arguement. But, Im guessing that it's not the slope that made you not want to answer my question. CP, terrorism and statutory rape are not "rights" that I support.

i would not trample on constitutional rights, unless there is an undeniable imminent harm that outweighs the constitutional protection afforded. that was not the case here, hence your questions are faulty comparisons.

now, where is it exactly do you support ignoring our constitutional rights? what is your line? if you got busted for something, like weed, and the warrant was faulty, my guess is you would argue faulty warrant, DUI would you do that as well? or would you willingly go to prison?

if you are so aware of the slipper slope argument, how is it you feel justified comparing child porn and terrorism to this case? are all cases equal? are all circumstances the same? of course NOT. in this case, there was no need to act in the manner the state did based on unsubstantiated claims from an anonymous caller. that is why i told you that most cases do in fact involve investigation before hand. you cannot dismiss those examples. it is not black and white. but surely you know that given your prowess with the slippery slope argument.

 

[Shogun]

First, Im not convinced in some boogeyman 1984 knee jerk reflex that their rights have been violated.

Second, if a cop comes into my house on a faulty warrant and finds my 5 foot graphix bong I'm still going to be arrested.

third, Yes, I call statutory rape, as evident in pregnant 13 year olds, imminent. You may want to dance around how I turned the question around on you but I don't see you making the same case over wiretapped phones, racial profiling at airports or the attention that mosques get these days. Perhaps you don't think statutory rape is as horrible as the idea of dirty bombs in the jet blue suitcase. I do. And, while I'll defend personal rights all day long, im not going to avoid answering a question about a faulty warrant uncovering pregnant 13 year olds, terrorism OR child porn.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

...the press will not cover it because it doesn't go with their sensationalist demonization of Christians, ...

FLDS are definitely NOT Christians.

 

[Shogun]

FLDS are definitely NOT Christians.

according to you.. Im willing to bet they self identify with christianity via joe smith.