FLDS Raid

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Typically, each child would be given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, president-elect of the state bar.

"You can't go one-by-one," Estes said."

LOL. Yeah, evidently the president of the TX bar slept through that part of law school.

How do you propose that a man who has say...30 children be managed on a one-by-one basis with the children being the evidence against him? Particularly when the wives of the man will not testify, and cannot be compelled to testify against him? And when his children will not testify, and cannot be compelled to testify against him?
Yet there is evidence that a 40 year old man impregnated a 14 year old girl.
What do you propose be done?
The state was faced with a Jim Jones/Guyana scenario. There are now 350 attorneys for 400+ children.

What would you propose be done differently?

I propose they follow the law.

And it was not a Jim Jones situation. These people are not suicidal.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I propose they follow the law.

What law specifically was violated?

Quote

And it was not a Jim Jones situation. These people are not suicidal.

I agree that there does not seem to be any indication of mass suicide.

The State, however, did find compelling evidence during execution of the original search warrants of physical and sexual abuse of minors or that were in imminent danger of such abuse to order removal.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If that's the case I know how to get some seriously sick revenge on some old enemies. I'll just find a payphone somewhere or borrow a cell phone, make a few calls, and then watch and laugh when someone takes their kids. LOL.

Clarification:

You assert that you as a late 20-something to 40-something independent adult male acting with malicious forethought to falsely make claims compelling the removal of someone’s child because of your unresolved grudge …

is equivalent to

… the State initiating an investigation of multiple complaints by a 16-year old pregnant girl with an infant in a tightly controlled gated-compound in which independent information has been given by another (former) FLDS member?

You *really* think those two situations are analogous?

I do agree with you on one thing here: “specious” is not the most precise word to describe your analogy.

Is your argument essentially that the metaphorical bar for evidence needs to be higher in cases in which women or girls make accusations of sexual misconduct, including sexual misconduct against minors?

VR/
Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

… the State initiating an investigation of multiple complaints by a 16-year old pregnant girl with an infant in a tightly controlled gated-compound in which independent information has been given by another (former) FLDS member?

Considering the calls were a HOAX - yes, I do.

http://www.krdo.com/global/story.asp?s=8184795

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Considering the calls were a HOAX - yes, I do.

http://www.krdo.com/global/story.asp?s=8184795

If that is true, which from that news report sounds possible, that is horrid.
And the 33-year old woman arrested should be charged to the full extent of the law.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Considering the calls were a HOAX - yes, I do.

http://www.krdo.com/global/story.asp?s=8184795

If that is true, which from that news report sounds possible, that is horrid.
And the 33-year old woman arrested should be charged to the full extent of the law.

VR/Marg

Agreed. The problem is, the sect lawyers can probably now argue that all of the subsequent searches and siezures (of material and children) was based on a lie, and therefore unconstitutional. It's like a guy who is pulled over for a burned out tail light that is working fine, and he has 50 pounds of dope in his trunk. Since he shouldn't have been searched in the first place, the charges are thrown out.

That is why I advocated finding the girl, getting her testimony, and arresting the perp, and going from there. Now I am willing to bet we end up with a huge legal mess that goes on for years and costs taxpayers millions of dollars while the sect goes on doing what they do.

Then again, the law has meant very little so far, so they may just go ahead and take the kids and burn down the compound. It is, after all, Texas.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

Agreed. The problem is, the sect lawyers can probably now argue that all of the subsequent searches and siezures (of material and children) was based on a lie, and therefore unconstitutional.

Is that true? If the original call was a hoax, but the police followed due process in their investigation of it, does that invalidate the evidence they found later?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Agreed. The problem is, the sect lawyers can probably now argue that all of the subsequent searches and siezures (of material and children) was based on a lie, and therefore unconstitutional.

Is that true? If the original call was a hoax, but the police followed due process in their investigation of it, does that invalidate the evidence they found later?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the search happened as a result of a hoax, any evidence found as a result may be inadmissible in court. There seems to be lots of legal precendent for that conclusion.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Typically, each child would be given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, president-elect of the state bar.

"You can't go one-by-one," Estes said."

LOL. Yeah, evidently the president of the TX bar slept through that part of law school.

How do you propose that a man who has say...30 children be managed on a one-by-one basis with the children being the evidence against him? Particularly when the wives of the man will not testify, and cannot be compelled to testify against him? And when his children will not testify, and cannot be compelled to testify against him?
Yet there is evidence that a 40 year old man impregnated a 14 year old girl.
What do you propose be done?
The state was faced with a Jim Jones/Guyana scenario. There are now 350 attorneys for 400+ children.

What would you propose be done differently?

I propose they follow the law.

And it was not a Jim Jones situation. These people are not suicidal.

You're right, it wasn't Jim Jones/Guyana, it was David Koresh and Waco all over again.
Regardless of how they got there, and there *is* a lot more to this story of how (and when) they decided to go in, they have found evidence that supports what they have believed.
If you haven't been around it, you likely cannot comprehend it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

… the State initiating an investigation of multiple complaints by a 16-year old pregnant girl with an infant in a tightly controlled gated-compound in which independent information has been given by another (former) FLDS member?

Considering the calls were a HOAX - yes, I do.

http://www.krdo.com/global/story.asp?s=8184795

So, you're willing to assume the alleged prank caller is guilty without any proof or trial, but feel the rights of the FLDS have been violated, despite evidence supporting allegations of abuse being found upon execution of the search warrants.

I wonder if I am the only one that recognizes your double standard?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the search happened as a result of a hoax, any evidence found as a result may be inadmissible in court. There seems to be lots of legal precendent for that conclusion.

As long as there was what appeared to be probable cause at the time of the search, and the officers involved in the search did not know the evidence that provided the probable cause was flawed, the search is probably legal, and the evidence admissible.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

… the State initiating an investigation of multiple complaints by a 16-year old pregnant girl with an infant in a tightly controlled gated-compound in which independent information has been given by another (former) FLDS member?

Considering the calls were a HOAX - yes, I do.

http://www.krdo.com/global/story.asp?s=8184795

So, you're willing to assume the alleged prank caller is guilty without any proof or trial, but feel the rights of the FLDS have been violated, despite evidence supporting allegations of abuse being found upon execution of the search warrants.

I wonder if I am the only one that recognizes your double standard?

I just had a gut feeling that the call was BS from the very start, that's all. The whole 'borrowed cell phone' thing sounded like a lie, and then they never found the girl.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the search happened as a result of a hoax, any evidence found as a result may be inadmissible in court. There seems to be lots of legal precendent for that conclusion.

As long as there was what appeared to be probable cause at the time of the search, and the officers involved in the search did not know the evidence that provided the probable cause was flawed, the search is probably legal, and the evidence admissible.

If I was the lawyer for the sect I would argue that the police should have known based on the ease of finding the phone number (caller ID? If not, phone records) and the woman's history of making these sorts of calls.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Nightingale 0]

However, if the police really did have a person on the inside for four years (and it sounds like they did), they may have had enough evidence already, and a specific child calling for help may have been what spurred them to act, rather than being the probable cause itself. They're just going to argue that they had enough probable cause without the phone call. Getting evidence thrown out is VERY difficult to do.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

As long as there was what appeared to be probable cause at the time of the search, and the officers involved in the search did not know the evidence that provided the probable cause was flawed, the search is probably legal, and the evidence admissible.

That's the beauty of "probable cause". Almost anything becomes admissible. That is because "probable cause" is whatever they'd like it to be.

I know that someone can argue that "there are rules for this sort of thing", but not in real life.

"Yes, I was following them for about 12 miles when their tire touched the center line and I pulled them over..."

However, it is nice that they decided not to murder everyone this time, by burning them alive, in order to "save them".

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

However, if the police really did have a person on the inside for four years (and it sounds like they did), they may have had enough evidence already, and a specific child calling for help may have been what spurred them to act, rather than being the probable cause itself. They're just going to argue that they had enough probable cause without the phone call. Getting evidence thrown out is VERY difficult to do.

Fair enough.

But a constitutional law professor at GW seems to be saying exactly what I was saying:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4670370&page=1

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

I just had a gut feeling that the call was BS from the very start, that's all. The whole 'borrowed cell phone' thing sounded like a lie, and then they never found the girl.

The justice system does not go by gut feeling though. They follow the law, if it turns out that the call was a woman pulling a prank then thats crap, she should be charged. However had it been passed off as a prank by the authorities without investigating the accusation then that would be worse in my opinion.

People are innocent until proven guilty, but there are many things that appear the sect is guilty of many laws. Time will tell. They cant just let parents have the kids when they have enough evidence of abuse, they cant take a chance and return children to parents who flat out tell the authorites they were told to lie to the govt, no you cant know our names and no we wont claim our children. Regardless of the life they live they are in this country and must follow the laws. Their freedom of religon does not give them the rights to break the law of our land.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Their freedom of religon does not give them the rights to break the law of our land.

Really? As a child I was allowed to drink wine in Catholic church. Also, I understand that Native Americans are allowed to take peyote. So religion does trump law in some cases.

I know these things are nothing compared to the alleged abuse, but you could argue that giving a child wine or peyote is abuse.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

However, if the police really did have a person on the inside for four years (and it sounds like they did), they may have had enough evidence already, and a specific child calling for help may have been what spurred them to act, rather than being the probable cause itself. They're just going to argue that they had enough probable cause without the phone call. Getting evidence thrown out is VERY difficult to do.

Fair enough.

But a constitutional law professor at GW seems to be saying exactly what I was saying:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4670370&page=1

The probable cause issue may affect evidence in criminal charges (although I don't think it will, but we'll see how the ruling goes), it probably won't affect evidence introduced in child custody and welfare hearings, because the standard they have to meet is "a person of ordinary prudence and caution there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare."

They're going to make an urgency argument... "Your honor, I got the phone call, and I dispatched officers immediately, because I believed there was a child in immediate danger inside the ranch."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the search happened as a result of a hoax, any evidence found as a result may be inadmissible in court. There seems to be lots of legal precendent for that conclusion.

As long as there was what appeared to be probable cause at the time of the search, and the officers involved in the search did not know the evidence that provided the probable cause was flawed, the search is probably legal, and the evidence admissible.

This has been the standard for some time now. If the police acted in good faith, then the fruits of the search are valid. If instead the cops had one of their wives call in the complaint, it *probably* would be invalidated, though these days you never know.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

I know these things are nothing compared to the alleged abuse, but you could argue that giving a child wine or peyote is abuse

I see your point to an extent , however I do know that in Texas and some other states it is completley legal to serve ones own children liquor.

I do not know nearly enough about laws, nor difference in what has wiggle room in them, but personally I would much rather the laws on physical and sexual abuse of children to have no wiggle room.

I once dated a guy who later I found out molested his ex-step daughter, personally I thought there was to much wiggle room when I learned more about the case and a bit about the law, but at the same time I understand that the law isnt perfect and sadly it will never be. That was one guy, this is a compound of guys taking on multible wives that are often under age, and due to the way they segregate themselves its hard to be on the outside and think we know everything. Just because we are a "free" country does not mean that we are entitled to all the knowledge right away or in some cases ever.

Personally I wonder how it would have been had the sect members from the get didnt lie, seriously, they say in one sentence "We dont abuse our children, give them back" but then in the next they say "we wont tell you which ones are our own children, now will we give you our real names, we are taught to lie to the govt"

They admit they lie, why should we believe anything they say?

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[rushmc 23]

News reports are saying that law enforcement is confirming that at least 16 girls under age are pregnant or have children. One as young as 13.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

This thing is a freaking mess. I am now hearing of different numbers (from the same news source) saying 415 over 10 years (what is the rate in the US today?) and that only 4 or 5 (out of 416 over 10 year) are pregnant or have a child.

I hate the fucking media in this country

I have less of an idea of what is going on now than I did 2 days ago

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

if the police really did have a person on the inside for four years (and it sounds like they did), they may have had enough evidence already, and a specific child calling for help may have been what spurred them to act, rather than being the probable cause itself. They're just going to argue that [emphasis PLF] they had enough probable cause without the phone call.

Exactly.

I'm still extremely amused anyone thinks 416 children and 138 women were taken into custody because of a phone call alone.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Considering the calls were a HOAX - yes, I do.

http://www.krdo.com/global/story.asp?s=8184795

If that is true, which from that news report sounds possible, that is horrid.
And the 33-year old woman arrested should be charged to the full extent of the law.

VR/Marg

Agreed. The problem is, the sect lawyers can probably now argue that all of the subsequent searches and siezures (of material and children) was based on a lie, and therefore unconstitutional. It's like a guy who is pulled over for a burned out tail light that is working fine, and he has 50 pounds of dope in his trunk. Since he shouldn't have been searched in the first place, the charges are thrown out.

That is why I advocated finding the girl, getting her testimony, and arresting the perp, and going from there. Now I am willing to bet we end up with a huge legal mess that goes on for years and costs taxpayers millions of dollars while the sect goes on doing what they do.

Then again, the law has meant very little so far, so they may just go ahead and take the kids and burn down the compound. It is, after all, Texas.

There you go again, Duke......this just makes too much sense for those people who cannot see without their eyes.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"