Very Disappointed

[RetiredGySgt]

I have been cut of from the internet since the other day because of piss poor service by my provider. But that is not what this is about.

The majority of the posters on this board seem to think that when they do not like something it is fine to use the " ends justify the means" , I have little reason to discuss much with people that have no basic understanding of our legal system ( you remember, innocent till proven guilty?) Or our Constitution.

I will be reconsidering my participation on a board where the mob rules.

All I can say is you deserve the place that " the ends justify the means" leads to. No one has any rights if every one does not have them. The worst of the worst MUST have the EXACT same rights as EVERYONE.

We have Lawyers on this board that have no problem what so ever that the rights protected by our Constitution are violated, just as long as it is some group they happen to dislike. Left and right alike have expressed the opinion that "hey they do not deserve protection".

The end is closer than I thought. Enjoy your "rights" they are going to be gone soon enough when the people all think it is fine to take them away from "that guy".

 

[ReillyT]

I have been cut of from the internet since the other day because of piss poor service by my provider. But that is not what this is about.

The majority of the posters on this board seem to think that when they do not like something it is fine to use the " ends justify the means" , I have little reason to discuss much with people that have no basic understanding of our legal system ( you remember, innocent till proven guilty?) Or our Constitution.

I will be reconsidering my participation on a board where the mob rules.

All I can say is you deserve the place that " the ends justify the means" leads to. No one has any rights if every one does not have them. The worst of the worst MUST have the EXACT same rights as EVERYONE.

We have Lawyers on this board that have no problem what so ever that the rights protected by our Constitution are violated, just as long as it is some group they happen to dislike. Left and right alike have expressed the opinion that "hey they do not deserve protection".

The end is closer than I thought. Enjoy your "rights" they are going to be gone soon enough when the people all think it is fine to take them away from "that guy".

If you want to argue about a particular issue, then that is great, but don't whine when people don't agree with you.

 

[dread]

I have been cut of from the internet since the other day because of piss poor service by my provider. But that is not what this is about.

The majority of the posters on this board seem to think that when they do not like something it is fine to use the " ends justify the means" , I have little reason to discuss much with people that have no basic understanding of our legal system ( you remember, innocent till proven guilty?) Or our Constitution.

I will be reconsidering my participation on a board where the mob rules.

All I can say is you deserve the place that " the ends justify the means" leads to. No one has any rights if every one does not have them. The worst of the worst MUST have the EXACT same rights as EVERYONE.

We have Lawyers on this board that have no problem what so ever that the rights protected by our Constitution are violated, just as long as it is some group they happen to dislike. Left and right alike have expressed the opinion that "hey they do not deserve protection".

The end is closer than I thought. Enjoy your "rights" they are going to be gone soon enough when the people all think it is fine to take them away from "that guy".

Kind of hard for the FLDS people to claim rights when they wont even claim their own children.


Those people have rights they just aren't exercising them.

 

[Anguille]

I have been cut of from the internet since the other day because of piss poor service by my provider. But that is not what this is about.

The majority of the posters on this board seem to think that when they do not like something it is fine to use the " ends justify the means" , I have little reason to discuss much with people that have no basic understanding of our legal system ( you remember, innocent till proven guilty?) Or our Constitution.

I will be reconsidering my participation on a board where the mob rules.

All I can say is you deserve the place that " the ends justify the means" leads to. No one has any rights if every one does not have them. The worst of the worst MUST have the EXACT same rights as EVERYONE.

We have Lawyers on this board that have no problem what so ever that the rights protected by our Constitution are violated, just as long as it is some group they happen to dislike. Left and right alike have expressed the opinion that "hey they do not deserve protection".

The end is closer than I thought. Enjoy your "rights" they are going to be gone soon enough when the people all think it is fine to take them away from "that guy".

I suppose this is about reactions to what is happening with the FLDS.
Maybe you are threatening to leave because you can't admit that it's looking more and more like the government has done the right thing to remove the children?

 

[dread]

RGS,


You never answered my question here:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=53787&page=9


Would YOU let your daughter become brainwashed/indocternated? And if so would YOU just stand idly by and watch your grandchild get raped?

 

[manifold]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!

I'm taking my ball and going home!

 

[Dogger]

Since we don't have "The Whine Zone", perhaps gunny should move this into "The Flame Zone", because that's the type of response you've invited.

I have differed from you on which means are permissible, but acknowledging that some situations make perfect procedural fairness impossible does not equate to "ends justify the means". State officials have to act when they receive information of abuse, and there is no doubt abuse was happening there.

I am troubled by everything that is happening to the individual members of the polygamous cult, but there is no clean way to surgically remove only certain children without the risk of another Waco. And the large number of people and interweaving relationships makes speedy resolution impossible as well.

We don't have the best information available, so I would rather err on the side of protecting the child victims than killing them. Justice will come in time.

 

[Gunny]

I have been cut of from the internet since the other day because of piss poor service by my provider. But that is not what this is about.

The majority of the posters on this board seem to think that when they do not like something it is fine to use the " ends justify the means" , I have little reason to discuss much with people that have no basic understanding of our legal system ( you remember, innocent till proven guilty?) Or our Constitution.

I will be reconsidering my participation on a board where the mob rules.

All I can say is you deserve the place that " the ends justify the means" leads to. No one has any rights if every one does not have them. The worst of the worst MUST have the EXACT same rights as EVERYONE.

We have Lawyers on this board that have no problem what so ever that the rights protected by our Constitution are violated, just as long as it is some group they happen to dislike. Left and right alike have expressed the opinion that "hey they do not deserve protection".

The end is closer than I thought. Enjoy your "rights" they are going to be gone soon enough when the people all think it is fine to take them away from "that guy".

You really have no argument. One, your claim that the state served a warrant KNOWING it was based on a hoax call is unsubstantiated. A vell phone number shows up on caller ID as the number it is given when registered, regardless where that person is. The fact that caller ID showed a Colorado area code means nothing.

If it turns out the call was in fact a hoax, then that person should be punished by law for placing the call.

That does not in any way undo what the police have found by responding to that call. Basically, they have found that the allegations are true. You can't deny 31 children ages 14-17 either pregnant or already having children.

By your reasoning, you think these people have the right to abuse their children and the state has no right to interfere.

If you choose to leave because no one agrees with THAT, that is your choice. I don't know what to tell you. Until you can prove the stated acted with the knowledge they were acting on false information, you have no argument in that regard. In fact, I already posted a timeline in one of these thread that pretty-much shows they did not.

It's like you're stuck on the rights of the parents and get past that to look at any other evidence that pretty much shoots down every claim you have made.

 

[AllieBaba]

He's talking about the fact that people decide, based on word of mouth, whether or not people are guilty, and based on that bias, believe that it's okay, before any evidence has been presented, to dismantle families and terrorize children.

Everybody who screams for a hanging does so on the allegations that one guy, who is NOW IN PRISON, committed child abuse. Even though the children weren't removed when that guy was being tried, they think it's honky-dorie that the kids be removed now on suspicion that there might be hanky-panky going on..and they continue to use that case as the "reason".

The truth is, there is no reason for the shrieking mania we're hearing on this site from people who wish the worst of things on people who haven't even been charge of a crime. There's no reason for their steadfast committment to dismantling these families, when they're willing to overlook the fact that we give welfare checks to underaged mothers living with their boyfriends EVERY DAY. The people giving the welfare checks are the SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE TERRORIZING these women based on nothing except the "suspicion" that they're having babies with older men.

I'm not disappointed, because I know how lacking in any moral compass people who will condone the behavior of one group, and harass another are. I know what the issue is here, and it's not child abuse.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

GunnyL has no case, he stated unreservedly in another thread that in the case of this group " the ends Justify the Means" no caveat , no hesitation and no evidence.

Jillian has no problem with Family Courts that are Unconstitutional and Illegal.

The Constitution is clear. Innocent TILL PROVEN Guilty, The State does not get to create an entire court system then claim it is not a court system because they say so. Family courts you are guilty unless YOU prove otherwise.

But do keep up the pretense. The chickens ARE coming home to roost. And when they do do not BOTHER whining about it cause you all thought it was fine with some other group. You have sold out your own rights and deserve the results to follow.

 

[dread]

GunnyL has no case, he stated unreservedly in another thread that in the case of this group " the ends Justify the Means" no caveat , no hesitation and no evidence.

Jillian has no problem with Family Courts that are Unconstitutional and Illegal.

The Constitution is clear. Innocent TILL PROVEN Guilty, The State does not get to create an entire court system then claim it is not a court system because they say so. Family courts you are guilty unless YOU prove otherwise.

But do keep up the pretense. The chickens ARE coming home to roost. And when they do do not BOTHER whining about it cause you all thought it was fine with some other group. You have sold out your own rights and deserve the results to follow.

Again.......What rights are these parents not getting when they WONT claim their own children? What kind of parent denies his/her own child?

 

[Gunny]

He's talking about the fact that people decide, based on word of mouth, whether or not people are guilty, and based on that bias, believe that it's okay, before any evidence has been presented, to dismantle families and terrorize children.

Everybody who screams for a hanging does so on the allegations that one guy, who is NOW IN PRISON, committed child abuse. Even though the children weren't removed when that guy was being tried, they think it's honky-dorie that the kids be removed now on suspicion that there might be hanky-panky going on..and they continue to use that case as the "reason".

The truth is, there is no reason for the shrieking mania we're hearing on this site from people who wish the worst of things on people who haven't even been charge of a crime. There's no reason for their steadfast committment to dismantling these families, when they're willing to overlook the fact that we give welfare checks to underaged mothers living with their boyfriends EVERY DAY. The people giving the welfare checks are the SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE TERRORIZING these women based on nothing except the "suspicion" that they're having babies with older men.

I'm not disappointed, because I know how lacking in any moral compass people who will condone the behavior of one group, and harass another are. I know what the issue is here, and it's not child abuse.

You need to give it up. An allegation in every state I was stationed in was good enough for an investigation. This isn't some persecution of Christians either. It's a matter of child abuse.

And Dogger is dead on ... if we're going to err, it needs to be on the side of protecting the children. The adults can speak for them themselves or hire lawyers. No one advocates for the children but US.

 

[Swamp Fox]

An allegation requires an investigation, it most states when it involves children that is mandatory. Since the FLDS wasn't about to throw the doors open and welcome the police, a judge was involved. Since most jurisdictions I've worked in require a review by the prosecution before submitting the warrant, it was reviewed by a lawyer. Warrants on based on good faith, ie the officer writing the warrant believed in good faith that the information contained in the warrant is true.

Based on the FLDS history is it so hard to believe that the allegations were true? This wasn't a "Hey Bubba, let's go roust the weirdos" kind of operation. There were numerous reviews of this before it ever proceeded.

 

[Dogger]

Let's also remember that once the officers are lawfully on the scene, they are entitled to act on matters that are in plain sight. If they see evidence of a crime, they can seize it. If they see evidence of abuse or neglect, they can act on that as well.

Also, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is the standard at a criminal trial, but not in preliminary matters or civil matters such as custody hearings. Generally, warrants are issued on probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and that evidence of the crime is located at the place to be searched.

As to sex with underaged girls by their older husbands: a valid marriage is a defense to illegal sexual intercourse with a minor. However, these men had other wives first. The underaged wives are rarely, if ever, the first wife of a middle aged man. Only the marriage to the first wife is legally valid. Because the subsequent bigamous marriage is legally void, the so-called husband cannot claim marriage as a defense to criminal sexual intercourse with a minor.

 

[jreeves]

Let's also remember that once the officers are lawfully on the scene, they are entitled to act on matters that are in plain sight. If they see evidence of a crime, they can seize it. If they see evidence of abuse or neglect, they can act on that as well.

Also, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is the standard at a criminal trial, but not in preliminary matters or civil matters such as custody hearings. Generally, warrants are issued on probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and that evidence of the crime is located at the place to be searched.

As to sex with underaged girls by their older husbands: a valid marriage is a defense to illegal sexual intercourse with a minor. However, these men had other wives first. The underaged wives are rarely, if ever, the first wife of a middle aged man. Only the marriage to the first wife is legally valid. Because the subsequent bigamous marriage is legally void, the so-called husband cannot claim marriage as a defense to criminal sexual intercourse with a minor.

Dead on...damn you mean we actually agree about something.

 

[Gunny]

GunnyL has no case, he stated unreservedly in another thread that in the case of this group " the ends Justify the Means" no caveat , no hesitation and no evidence.

Jillian has no problem with Family Courts that are Unconstitutional and Illegal.

The Constitution is clear. Innocent TILL PROVEN Guilty, The State does not get to create an entire court system then claim it is not a court system because they say so. Family courts you are guilty unless YOU prove otherwise.

But do keep up the pretense. The chickens ARE coming home to roost. And when they do do not BOTHER whining about it cause you all thought it was fine with some other group. You have sold out your own rights and deserve the results to follow.

You are incorrect. I have explained myself and my stance repeatedly. Don't say I have no case just because you disagree with it.

The law is equally clear in regard to child abuse. As far as your "innocent until proven guilty" argument goes ... WHO has been judged guilty by a court of law?

In the case where one's Rights come up against another, someone's has to take precedent over the other. There can be no adjudication otherwise.

As I have repeatedly stated, adults have recourse for their grievances through the legal system. Children have recourse only through those same adults unless the legal system intervenes on their behalf.

When weighing the pro's and con's of each argument against each other, it appears most people to include the law agree that erring on the side of protecting the children to be the correct course of action.

Where I don't see a case is erring on the side of possible totally unacceptable criminal behavior of abusing power and preying on defensless children.

You keep ignoring THAT protion of the argument and standing on the Constitution. Well, your Constitutional Rights end where others' begin. Those children have a right to, and we as a society have a moral obligation to protect them from predators.

It doesn't get simpler than that, and it goes with that whole "Marine thing." WE aren't here to protect the strong. They don't need us to. We are here to protect those who cannot defend themselves and if you can't get over the fact I project an ideal and a way of life I've lived my entire adulthood because you want to stand on your Constitutional Rights, then we just disagree.

But I'm not wrong, adn I've spent more time presenting logical arguments on this topic than you have.