Except that the conduct of the FLDS is well documented. That was what CPS was working on, not just the beliefs.
Obviously not. What the court is saying is that the "documentation" that was provided indicating why this raid happened was insufficient.
But their a cult full of crazy people is not a legal reason for a raid. You need hard evidence of wrong doing.
Sadly this is true. If the impetus for the raid is doesn't pass the legal mustard, than the results found in said raid are not submittible in court, irreguardless of any wrong doing uncovered.
I'm almost sorry for making this joke, but:
Mmm... Legal Mustard:
But in all seriousness, it is really a shame that they handled this so poorly, because these kids really do need help; it's my firm belief that they really are in danger of sexual abuse, neglect and essentially brainwashing. Any arranged marriage is not ok with me, and I have no trouble intervening or allowing the government to intervene. Tolerance of different religious beliefs is one thing, tolerance of abuse in the name of religion is morally unsound. Everyone within the borders of this nation is perfectly within their legal rights to practice whatever religious ceremony they wish, right up until the point where it conflicts with the rights of any other person.
I'm also gravely concerned for the possibility that the original 911 call was legitimate, and that the girl who made the call was simply moved or otherwise silenced. If her "husband" had gotten wind of what she had done, it would have been fairly easy to move her to another compound and make sure she had no further access to communication. This whole thing stinks to high heaven of incompetence by the state and purposeful obfuscation of the truth of the situation by the FLDS.
Call me a bad person, or a champion of our constitution, whichever you want, but I take Detharin's side on this matter.
My main concern is that to take children away when we have no legal reason for doing so (we have plenty of "real world "reasons, but as far as hard and fast, written in the paper laws? Just not enough) .
Also, this would be a very slippery slope. Which group would be next? They would begin to get the axe one after the other, and America will seem less as a land of freedom (albeit fucked up weirdo freedom) and more like the very country we were trying to escape.
Ya know. .. the one with the religious persecution and stuff...
Sadly this is true. If the impetus for the raid is doesn't pass the legal mustard, than the results found in said raid are not submittible in court, irreguardless of any wrong doing uncovered.
True for criminal proceedings (for rape and what not), but to my knowledge not true for the purposes of removing children for their protection. Unfortunately, evidence then needs to be found of actual abuse, which (again, unfortunately) has not been substantial.
The impetus was a phone call allegeing abuse and then they physically saw pregnant teenagers. I was under the impression that if cops pull you over for a broken tail light and your puffing on a crack pipe they can arrest you, how's this different?
This is kind of sketchy. See, there are allegations that the police/authorities suspected the phone call was bogus, but went in anyway. In order for other evidence found to be admissible, they had to actually have a good-faith reason for going in in the first place...so if there's any question as to that, it can again put any evidence in jeopardy for a criminal prosecution. Again, not the case for removing the children due to evidence of abuse, though...different standards there.
Also, while I'm probably mucking the above up from a legal standpoint (I'm no lawyer), I've heard some law-types argue back and forth on the issue elsewhere and this is what I got from it. For what it's worth.
But the calls were to 911, surely they were recorded. The police have to respond to that shit, even if it is a prank.
Were the calls to 911? For some reason I'm remembering them being to some kind of abuse hotline instead.
There were no pregnant 14 year-olds. The state's investigation has yet to turn anything up about pregnant minors. Or even about minors being married off. That whole thing stemmed from what CPS agents thought were young women (based off of looks, not any ID's).
They honestly haven't turned up any pregnant minors? Damn, that sucks. Plus, due to the fact that these folks generally do their own recordkeeping and aren't big on filing the o-ficial paperwork with the government, it's probably hard to even track down now-adult women who had children (or conceived) while minors based on birth dates. Hell, they weren't even cooperating on figuring out which children went with which mothers (gee, I wonder why).
Well, these people stem from a branch of Mormonism that allows bigamy, which is being legally married to someone, and then marrying another person on top of that. It's illegal in Texas as far as I know. But I'm not sure what kind of relevance is being placed on that in relation to this, or whether the state of Texas really gives a crap about it. There hasn't really been much word on it from what I've seen.
Texas is not, to my knowledge, focusing on the polygamist aspect of it at all, really. Mainly because these sects have long since learned not to make these marriages legal, so technically they're probably not breaking the law. The entire focus of the investigation has (I believe) been on the age of these "spiritual" brides.
Okay, now on to my take on the issue. This ruling is probably a fair one. Not that I support, in any way, the actions of this little cult (regardless of whether it can be proven, I think we all know what goes on there). But in a courtroom we need little things like evidence, and so far that has been somewhat lacking in this case. Which is unfortunate, because such evidence probably would have justified the heavy-handed approach the state has taken with the entire issue (including, for instance, removing near-infant children from mothers who were not in any immediate danger based on the allegations being investigated...though hardly limited to that). Had the state produced some slam-dunk evidence, like a horde of pregnant 16-year-olds, they probably could have gotten away with the rest. Sounds like they haven't managed that, though.
The only part of the ruling I disagree with is the assertion that the ranch shouldn't be treated as a single household, due to the communal nature of it. It's a valid ruling, I just wouldn't have made it. But in light of that, it becomes hard to justify even removing all the teenage girls from the ranch.
Like it or not, it's just kind of how the law works. They played it fast and loose, and have had more than enough time to show clear evidence of this abuse if it was as rampant as has been claimed. But you don't get to continue with tactics like this for long without some pretty compelling evidence. Here's hoping they get it next time.
Oh, fun references for anybody not familiar with the law in this state. Youngest age for (legal) marriage with parental consent is 16. Kids can marry younger, but this requires a court order (generally for emancipated minors). Age of consent for sex is 17. Exceptions if the child is (legally, which most of these wouldn't be) married, or if the older party is less than three years older (an affirmative defense, so any pregnant unmarried 16-year-old is still evidence of a sexual assault that would theoretically need to be investigated). So in theory any evidence they could find of children born more than a few months before the mother's 18th birthday would be evidence of a sexual assault.
Laws only apply when people want them to apply? How about laws only apply when laws have been broken. If no laws have been broken the POLICE have to right to kick in your door, and take your children away. You may or may not be familiar with American laws, however these people have rights that were violated. Whether we agree with them or not, is irrelevant. The point is LEGALLY the police had no right to do what they did. Do you understand LEGALLY. The LAW. I keep stressing this, and bolding it. No matter what we may PERSONALLY feel about their beliefs and practices, that does not give the POLICE the right to kick in their door. If a LAW is not broken, then the POLICE has no reason to act.
You're wrong about this, and all the hysterical capital letters in the world will not change that. Also, the police didn't actually carry out the raid, family services officers did. Please do attempt to keep your facts straight when ranting. Thanks!
I would be awesome if reading comprehension somehow came into this topic. Get this raising your children in the ways of your backwards religious beliefs is not 'child abuse'.
No, but there was reasonable grounds to assume that said beliefs involved illegal behaviour. A tip-off about a cult whose leader is in jail for perpetrating the same crimes being complained about is pretty solid reason for a raid.
For the state to remove the children from their parents BEFORE an investigation takes place their needs to be documented proof that the parents are a physical danger to the children.
This in an incoherent argument. You can't investigate a closed compound like that for this kind of crime with any hope of an effective resolution, and the department would have been insane to try. No-one's arguing that what they did wasn't heavy-handed and poorly executed, but making this the alternative is childishly naive.
How do we know the children were not in any physical danger? Well I dont however if you read the article the judges were nice enough to say
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger,"
Well hey that's super, but being quite familiar with the belief system in question I'm content to declare the judges completely fucking insane on this point. Don't like it? Deal.
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger,". They did not have "reasonable" suspicions for what they did. They had no legal right to do what they did. They had every legal right however to open an investigation into their activities.
The judge's quote has no logical connection to what you just said. Its simply the belief of the judge that this bunch weren't nutty enough for him. This has no bearing on whether the suspicions of the department involved were enough to justify a raid.
What basic human rights are we denying here?
The inalienable ones set down by the UN, to which your country is a signatory and of which your country is a major member, which do not place the free expression of religion above the rights of women and children to live free from fear of abuse or actual abuse, to receive a reality-based education, to pursue their own path through life. Those rights. I'm not talking about your stupid constitution, which by the way you're not interpreting all that well. Pro-tip: raiding a compound suspected of illegal activity towards minors is not 'making a law prohibiting free expression of religion', genius. As for the fourth, there was reasonable grounds, and warrants were issued. The 8th only applies to criminal court sentencing, so now you're just grasping at straws.
You really need to stop SHOVING your beliefs down others throats.
O RLY
yes, posting my opinion of a woman-hating sect on an internet forum is shoving my beliefs down your throat. You know what sweetums? If you're too sensitive to be confronted with an opposing viewpoint, maybe this isn't the place for you.
You do not like someones culture. Thats fine until you start demanding they change for you. You have 0 right to tell another human being how to live. You may not agree with their choices. You may think their culture sucks. Their culture may suck, their culture may butcher women, it may marry 9 year old girls to 50 year old men, it may do a bunch of shit that you find completely disgusting. That does not make you right, and them wrong.
When human rights are violated by these cultural practices, they are wrong. I'm not calling the feds on people who think eating durian is a rad idea, here. Less hysteria please!
You do not have the moral high ground when you move into someones culture and start telling them how to behave.
Again, what have I done besides talk to you? Wipe the froth off your face and take a step back.
I however have absolutely no problem saying you sick fucks are going to stop practice X because if you dont im going to kill every, single, fucking one of you until your culture lies dead and forgotten. I may not believe we have a moral right to tell them to change. That however does not mean we cannot use amoral methods to solve the problem.
So you're saying the family services people could have set the compound on fire but not run this investigation. You're super!
A super psycho. I'm done.
However if your going to hide behind the law, then you better damn well make sure a law is broken before you kick in a mans door. Now those children are going back to their zealot parents, on their zealot ranch, to be brainwashed, their women are going to end up being property for another generation or two, and nothing is going to change except them getting a bigger ranch off the settlement checks they are going to get from suing the police. Why? Because some dip shit could not be bothered to make sure he had enough evidence to get those children out of there for good.
What a load of shit. The judge's ruling was frankly tripe. The department wasn't wrong in their suspicions, they just have the ill-luck to be operating in a state containing a judge that doesn't think polygamy and 'marrying' off children is a bad idea for all concerned :roll:
You're wrong about this, and all the hysterical capital letters in the world will not change that. Also, the police didn't actually carry out the raid, family services officers did. Please do attempt to keep your facts straight when ranting. Thanks!
Wrong. State troopers and other law enforcement officials carried out the raid, with CPS officials in tow. They had the full-on SWAT teams present, IIRC. Pretty sure there were even some warrants involved.
No, but there was reasonable grounds to assume that said beliefs involved illegal behaviour. A tip-off about a cult whose leader is in jail for perpetrating the same crimes being complained about is pretty solid reason for a raid.
The conviction of their leader isn't necessarily relevant to further allegations against others, at least not from a legal standpoint. And if officials had any reason to believe the call itself was a hoax, then their reason for the raid is actually far from solid. Shaky enough that I'd be surprised if any evidence they had managed to find wound up being admissible in a criminal proceeding.
Not that that matters much, in the end...I'd say removing the children was probably a much higher priority.
The judge's quote has no logical connection to what you just said. Its simply the belief of the judge that this bunch weren't nutty enough for him. This has no bearing on whether the suspicions of the department involved were enough to justify a raid.
"Suspicions" are generally not enough for a raid. We usually prefer evidence on this side of the ocean, or at least probable cause. I'd say it's at least possible they met the latter burden, but hardly obvious.
What a load of shit. The judge's ruling was frankly tripe. The department wasn't wrong in their suspicions, they just have the ill-luck to be operating in a state containing a judge that doesn't think polygamy and 'marrying' off children is a bad idea for all concerned :roll:
Well, that and the ill luck of not being able to provide the mountain of evidence of abuse that should have dropped into their laps if the abuse was as rampant as they were claiming.
For the record, though, I support both the raid and (to be honest) the heavy-handed tactics used afterward. I think this ruling is just a way of bringing the actions of the authorities from here on out back in line with the actual evidence that existed, and that which has been found since.
You're wrong about this, and all the hysterical capital letters in the world will not change that. Also, the police didn't actually carry out the raid, family services officers did. Please do attempt to keep your facts straight when ranting. Thanks!
Wrong. State troopers and other law enforcement officials carried out the raid, with CPS officials in tow. They had the full-on SWAT teams present, IIRC. Pretty sure there were even some warrants involved.
I was under the impression that its actually the other way around, with the police acting in a support capacity for the CPS, who did the decision-making. That's certainly how it goes in most places when family services needs to enforce something.
"Suspicions" are generally not enough for a raid. We usually prefer evidence on this side of the ocean, or at least probable cause. I'd say it's at least possible they met the latter burden, but hardly obvious.
Well, lets mentally change 'suspicions' to 'probable cause' in my posts; its 2am and I'm picking the wrong words. As I recall, the suspicion about the call's veracity wasn't raised until after the raid, when someone went 'oh, wait, there's this person who's tried this before...'. I'm not even sure I believe that it was fake, though. This person hasn't been arrested on suspicion of making a false call to an emergency service, despite being known to police (she has been named in at least one article), and I find it slightly unlikely that her late-thirties self can sound much like a scared teenager over the phone. The entire story is just very odd.
For the record, though, I support both the raid and (to be honest) the heavy-handed tactics used afterward. I think this ruling is just a way of bringing the actions of the authorities from here on out back in line with the actual evidence that existed, and that which has been found since.
That I can go with, although I suspect that the rules surrounding admissible evidence are overly strict when dealing with a group so obviously intent on concealing the mechanics of their family lives. Refusing to record women's birth dates or allow them an accurate idea of their age is pretty bloody hinky behaviour, if you ask me, and most of the prosecution case rested on those ages being too low.
No, but there was reasonable grounds to assume that said beliefs involved illegal behaviour. A tip-off about a cult whose leader is in jail for perpetrating the same crimes being complained about is pretty solid reason for a raid.
While in this particular case I agree, you can't destroy the whole community because of the acts of one. He may have blood on his hands, but we can't legally say the others do-- at least more than one person's testimony, am I right?
I mean wouldn't that be like "Well the CEO was doing such and such, so let's assume the whole place is crooked and close the business".
I was under the impression that its actually the other way around, with the police acting in a support capacity for the CPS, who did the decision-making. That's certainly how it goes in most places when family services needs to enforce something.
May have been a little of both. They were going in on what was essentially a rape allegation, after all.
Well, lets mentally change 'suspicions' to 'probable cause' in my posts; its 2am and I'm picking the wrong words. As I recall, the suspicion about the call's veracity wasn't raised until after the raid, when someone went 'oh, wait, there's this person who's tried this before...'. I'm not even sure I believe that it was fake, though. This person hasn't been arrested on suspicion of making a false call to an emergency service, despite being known to police (she has been named in at least one article), and I find it slightly unlikely that her late-thirties self can sound much like a scared teenager over the phone. The entire story is just very odd.
I'm not sure a CPS abuse hotline qualifies as an "emergency service" (it wasn't 911, after all). And wikipedia at least suggests that she's still under investigation...these cases don't always move instantly. And this is hardly the first such case she's been investigated in. It's pretty obvious at this point (and even the authorities have largely admitted) that the actual call that sparked the raid was a hoax. Luckily for them, they had other evidence on which to base the raid.
For the record, though, I support both the raid and (to be honest) the heavy-handed tactics used afterward. I think this ruling is just a way of bringing the actions of the authorities from here on out back in line with the actual evidence that existed, and that which has been found since.
That I can go with, although I suspect that the rules surrounding admissible evidence are overly strict when dealing with a group so obviously intent on concealing the mechanics of their family lives. Refusing to record women's birth dates or allow them an accurate idea of their age is pretty bloody hinky behaviour, if you ask me, and most of the prosecution case rested on those ages being too low.
I'd agree in theory, because this group specifically seems to have adopted practices specifically to try and make gathering evidence difficult. However, at some point I think the protections of the rights of society at large outweigh protecting a handful of girls, as unfortunate as that is and callous as that may sound.
Call me a bad person, or a champion of our constitution, whichever you want, but I take Detharin's side on this matter.
My main concern is that to take children away when we have no legal reason for doing so (we have plenty of "real world "reasons, but as far as hard and fast, written in the paper laws? Just not enough) .
Also, this would be a very slippery slope. Which group would be next? They would begin to get the axe one after the other, and America will seem less as a land of freedom (albeit fucked up weirdo freedom) and more like the very country we were trying to escape.
Ya know. .. the one with the religious persecution and stuff...
how ironic.
You keep treating the FLDS as if there is no documented aspect of their abuses. Again, read up on the group.
You keep treating the FLDS as if there is no documented aspect of their abuses. Again, read up on the group.
There's plenty of documented evidence on shit the KKK has pulled, that doesn't mean we can round them up simply for being in the KKK. The indivduals involved have to have commited a crime for the individuals to be prosecuted. There is no real law against associating with assholes, unless you're on a boat and someone kills an albatross.
Well we are going to need a bigger truck if we're going to round up all the blacks. They've been committing a disproportionate amount of crime, so we'd better just go ahead and pick them all up so they don't do any further damage.
Oh hell, there are some of them Japanese too. Well, let's set up some camps for them too. I sure wish they hadn't been involved in pearl harbor or nanking.
Cletus, get some ropes, this is gonna be a long night.
PeekingDuck on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Call me a bad person, or a champion of our constitution, whichever you want, but I take Detharin's side on this matter.
My main concern is that to take children away when we have no legal reason for doing so (we have plenty of "real world "reasons, but as far as hard and fast, written in the paper laws? Just not enough) .
Also, this would be a very slippery slope. Which group would be next? They would begin to get the axe one after the other, and America will seem less as a land of freedom (albeit fucked up weirdo freedom) and more like the very country we were trying to escape.
Ya know. .. the one with the religious persecution and stuff...
how ironic.
This is not a slippery slope. The children were not removed from the grounds on the basis of their being brought up in a particular religion, it was that the religion in question was likely to promote the sexual abuse and willful neglect of those children. You cannot go after Catholics, however crazy some may be, because making kids attend mass on Sundays does not count as abuse, period. You can go after a Catholic family that locks their children in a closet to pray without food for days on end because they complained about having to go to Sunday school one day. This is a clear definition of abuse that CPS was trying to rectify, and they would have been much more successful in their arguments had they removed religion from the question entirely.
Pro-tip: raiding a compound suspected of illegal activity towards minors is not 'making a law prohibiting free expression of religion', genius.
This, even though I hate when foreigners have to lecture Americans about our Constitution. Congress passed laws outlawing abuse, which there was reasonable suspicion to believe was being perpetrated at this compound. Probable cause for the raid was established. If you take religion out of the question, which CPS should have done in their arguments before the bench, they thought they were looking at a compound full of adults systematically raping children outside of wedlock.
I'd agree in theory, because this group specifically seems to have adopted practices specifically to try and make gathering evidence difficult. However, at some point I think the protections of the rights of society at large outweigh protecting a handful of girls, as unfortunate as that is and callous as that may sound.
If you're looking at it as an either/or scenario, you are looking at it wrong. There can be no situation in which the rights of a larger society are protected at the expense of the rights of a few. If a society sees its rights as threatened by the removal of young women and girls from a situation where they are threatened or subjected with or to rape, then that society is trying to protect legal rights it doesn't deserve morally. I'm not saying that being overzealous in the protection of these girls could not lead to a compromise of the rights of others or that CPS handled this perfectly, I'm just rejecting the idea that there is no way to deliver these people their rights without infringing upon the rights of others.
You keep treating the FLDS as if there is no documented aspect of their abuses. Again, read up on the group.
There's plenty of documented evidence on shit the KKK has pulled, that doesn't mean we can round them up simply for being in the KKK. The indivduals involved have to have commited a crime for the individuals to be prosecuted. There is no real law against associating with assholes, unless you're on a boat and someone kills an albatross.
Does not follow. CPS did not go after every FLDS compound in the country. They went after one, in which they thought they had solid evidence that abuse was going on. If the cops think they have solid evidence that a local KKK chapter lynched a black man at a private meeting then they can hunt down every last one of the people in that chapter for accessory or worse. Probable cause to believe that a Klansman associated with that chapter had a hand in the killing exists. They can at the very least be brought in for questioning.
I'd agree in theory, because this group specifically seems to have adopted practices specifically to try and make gathering evidence difficult. However, at some point I think the protections of the rights of society at large outweigh protecting a handful of girls, as unfortunate as that is and callous as that may sound.
If you're looking at it as an either/or scenario, you are looking at it wrong. There can be no situation in which the rights of a larger society are protected at the expense of the rights of a few. If a society sees its rights as threatened by the removal of young women and girls from a situation where they are threatened or subjected with or to rape, then that society is trying to protect legal rights it doesn't deserve morally. I'm not saying that being overzealous in the protection of these girls could not lead to a compromise of the rights of others or that CPS handled this perfectly, I'm just rejecting the idea that there is no way to deliver these people their rights without infringing upon the rights of others.
Actually, because of the insular nature of this sect and the lengths they go to to cover their crimes, it does venture quite close to an either/or scenario. I'm not saying there is no way to do this, either...just that there may be no way to do this. Texas's CPS tried to do this, and have failed. It may be in part because they were overzealous in such ways that other people (rightfully) had reason to question whether rights were being trampled in the process (including the ACLU). It's also in part because, due to the nature of the crimes and this sect, it's just incredibly difficult to "catch" them. At least legally.
And yes, I'm sorry but I see the wholesale removal of the children of an entire group without credible evidence of the abuse being alleged as threatening the rights of the nation as a whole. We'll see what they come up with in the long run, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the last appeal or hearing in this process. But as it is, the level of action taken by the authorities in this case has far exceeded what is justified by the evidence found thus far. That's all this ruling really represents.
Here's an interesting question: what justification is there for removing a 4-year-old girl from her parents due to allegations involving the underage marriage of teenage girls to older men? Is there some immediate danger to this girl I'm not aware of, that her removal can't wait pending the results of the investigation? That's really my issue with the whole ordeal...they removed every last child, even those who (based on th allegations) were in no immediate danger whatsoever. I can understand, say, removing every girl between 12 and 18...you wouldn't want anymore of these "marriages" (and subsequent rapes) occurring while the courts grind through the cases. But near-infants? Really?
You keep treating the FLDS as if there is no documented aspect of their abuses. Again, read up on the group.
There's plenty of documented evidence on shit the KKK has pulled, that doesn't mean we can round them up simply for being in the KKK. The indivduals involved have to have commited a crime for the individuals to be prosecuted. There is no real law against associating with assholes, unless you're on a boat and someone kills an albatross.
Does not follow. CPS did not go after every FLDS compound in the country. They went after one, in which they thought they had solid evidence that abuse was going on. If the cops think they have solid evidence that a local KKK chapter lynched a black man at a private meeting then they can hunt down every last one of the people in that chapter for accessory or worse. Probable cause to believe that a Klansman associated with that chapter had a hand in the killing exists. They can at the very least be brought in for questioning.
It does follow if you follow Hedgie's repeated "read the lit" argument about all the pain caused by FLDS being cause to raid this one compound.
And, again, to your response to my argument, an individual still has to have committed a crime. Sure, you can question the whole "lodge", but you cannot prosecute the whole lodge unless every one of them were proven to be in that room when the crime was committed or if they have attempted to obstruct.
You keep treating the FLDS as if there is no documented aspect of their abuses. Again, read up on the group.
There's plenty of documented evidence on shit the KKK has pulled, that doesn't mean we can round them up simply for being in the KKK. The indivduals involved have to have commited a crime for the individuals to be prosecuted. There is no real law against associating with assholes, unless you're on a boat and someone kills an albatross.
Does not follow. CPS did not go after every FLDS compound in the country. They went after one, in which they thought they had solid evidence that abuse was going on. If the cops think they have solid evidence that a local KKK chapter lynched a black man at a private meeting then they can hunt down every last one of the people in that chapter for accessory or worse. Probable cause to believe that a Klansman associated with that chapter had a hand in the killing exists. They can at the very least be brought in for questioning.
It does follow if you follow Hedgie's repeated "read the lit" argument about all the pain caused by FLDS being cause to raid this one compound.
And, again, to your response to my argument, an individual still has to have committed a crime. Sure, you can question the whole "lodge", but you cannot prosecute the whole lodge unless every one of them were proven to be in that room when the crime was committed or if they have attempted to obstruct.
Even then, the state of Texas has yet to prove that anyone actually committed a crime. I don't expect YFZ to come out of this scot-free, but Texas CPS really jumped the gun on this occasion.
KrunkMcGrunk on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
I'd agree in theory, because this group specifically seems to have adopted practices specifically to try and make gathering evidence difficult. However, at some point I think the protections of the rights of society at large outweigh protecting a handful of girls, as unfortunate as that is and callous as that may sound.
If you're looking at it as an either/or scenario, you are looking at it wrong. There can be no situation in which the rights of a larger society are protected at the expense of the rights of a few. If a society sees its rights as threatened by the removal of young women and girls from a situation where they are threatened or subjected with or to rape, then that society is trying to protect legal rights it doesn't deserve morally. I'm not saying that being overzealous in the protection of these girls could not lead to a compromise of the rights of others or that CPS handled this perfectly, I'm just rejecting the idea that there is no way to deliver these people their rights without infringing upon the rights of others.
And yes, I'm sorry but I see the wholesale removal of the children of an entire group without credible evidence of the abuse being alleged as threatening the rights of the nation as a whole. We'll see what they come up with in the long run, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the last appeal or hearing in this process. But as it is, the level of action taken by the authorities in this case has far exceeded what is justified by the evidence found thus far. That's all this ruling really represents.
Here's an interesting question: what justification is there for removing a 4-year-old girl from her parents due to allegations involving the underage marriage of teenage girls to older men? Is there some immediate danger to this girl I'm not aware of, that her removal can't wait pending the results of the investigation? That's really my issue with the whole ordeal...they removed every last child, even those who (based on th allegations) were in no immediate danger whatsoever. I can understand, say, removing every girl between 12 and 18...you wouldn't want anymore of these "marriages" (and subsequent rapes) occurring while the courts grind through the cases. But near-infants? Really?
Meaning that you think that CPS's methods were inappropriate to the situation. I think that's reasonable. My point was that it's not reasonable to assume that CPS's cock-up of the situation means there's no way to protect children from abuse if their parents are abusing them in accordance with religious tradition, which is what the poster I was replying to seemed to be saying. (feel free to correct me if that's unfair)
You keep treating the FLDS as if there is no documented aspect of their abuses. Again, read up on the group.
There's plenty of documented evidence on shit the KKK has pulled, that doesn't mean we can round them up simply for being in the KKK. The indivduals involved have to have commited a crime for the individuals to be prosecuted. There is no real law against associating with assholes, unless you're on a boat and someone kills an albatross.
Does not follow. CPS did not go after every FLDS compound in the country. They went after one, in which they thought they had solid evidence that abuse was going on. If the cops think they have solid evidence that a local KKK chapter lynched a black man at a private meeting then they can hunt down every last one of the people in that chapter for accessory or worse. Probable cause to believe that a Klansman associated with that chapter had a hand in the killing exists. They can at the very least be brought in for questioning.
It does follow if you follow Hedgie's repeated "read the lit" argument about all the pain caused by FLDS being cause to raid this one compound.
And, again, to your response to my argument, an individual still has to have committed a crime. Sure, you can question the whole "lodge", but you cannot prosecute the whole lodge unless every one of them were proven to be in that room when the crime was committed or if they have attempted to obstruct.
I completely agree, and would point out that every adult in YFZ was not rounded up and accused of rape. CPS definitely jumped the gun and overreacted, which will in the long run cause these kids more harm. CPS has had a history of doing shit exactly like that, though.
Just to let the topic branch out a little, lets open this up: whom should the courts hold accountable if evidence that a 13 year old girl was raped and impregnated? The father? The "husband?" The leader of the sect or of the parish? Where do you lay accountability when an entire community is complicit or at least a willful accomplice (meaning you stood by and did nothing) in the crime?
The other issue that hangs ominously over the whole situation is the fact that marriage is at its core a religious institution and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning it's Constitutionally illegal for Congress (and therefore, state legislatures) to pass any bill defining a religious institution that will be respected by the state above others. Constitutionally, polygamy and underage marriage is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone's individual rights.
Not quite. The first amendment doesn't protect all religious practices; you won't get much traction with willing human sacrifice, for example. Polygamy and underaged marriage aren't in the same category, but they are both illegal, and not for religious reasons.
Texas's sodomy law wasn't knocked down because of religion (even though that's the reason- "Its a sin, ban it"!) it was struck down because it didn't apply to everyone equally. Same thing with CA and gay marriage.
The other issue that hangs ominously over the whole situation is the fact that marriage is at its core a religious institution and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning it's Constitutionally illegal for Congress (and therefore, state legislatures) to pass any bill defining a religious institution that will be respected by the state above others. Constitutionally, polygamy and underage marriage is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone's individual rights.
True, which is why Texas isn't pursuing the polygamy angle. The issue is that the state has determined that you aren't capable of consenting to sex under a certain age (barring specific exceptions) and thus any sex under that age is rape. Which is where individual rights come into play.
An interesting question is whether it would be an issue (legally, and as far as CPS is concerned) if these "spiritual marriages" occurred while the bride was underage, but the marriage wasn't consummated until they reached age of consent?
EDIT: Because really, as long as the marriage isn't a legal marriage I don't think any law is broken there, just like their polygamous "spiritual" marriages.
You're wrong about this, and all the hysterical capital letters in the world will not change that. Also, the police didn't actually carry out the raid, family services officers did. Please do attempt to keep your facts straight when ranting. Thanks!
Except the raid was done with state troopers, which i think has been established.
No, but there was reasonable grounds to assume that said beliefs involved illegal behaviour. A tip-off about a cult whose leader is in jail for perpetrating the same crimes being complained about is pretty solid reason for a raid.
A tip off, that the police suspected of being a hoax before they even went in is not a reason for a raid. Which is the point here. You keep claiming rights have been violated but you provided 0 evidence that any rights have been violated other than people have a problem with their religion.
Hell look at half the stuff that the bible condones that is not practiced. Their religious text could contain passages demanding all 12 year old girls be married and pregnant before their 13 birthday. It doesn't matter, the state has to prove this is in fact happening before it can do what it did.
This in an incoherent argument. You can't investigate a closed compound like that for this kind of crime with any hope of an effective resolution, and the department would have been insane to try. No-one's arguing that what they did wasn't heavy-handed and poorly executed, but making this the alternative is childishly naive.
The alternative is to not violate their constitutional rights. You don't wave those when you commit a crime. CPS took children from their parents that they knew and have stated were in no danger what so ever. Those children are in foster homes right now, even though CPS has stated their was no reason for them to sieze them. CPS has been interrogating children to try and find evidence to support the raid.
ell hey that's super, but being quite familiar with the belief system in question I'm content to declare the judges completely fucking insane on this point. Don't like it? Deal.
Thats fine, but your opinion is unsupported by evidence.
This has no bearing on whether the suspicions of the department involved were enough to justify a raid.
Which has previously been established was insufficient for what they did. They have admitted they felt the call was possibly a hoax.
The inalienable ones set down by the UN, to which your country is a signatory and of which your country is a major member, which do not place the free expression of religion above the rights of women and children to live free from fear of abuse or actual abuse, to receive a reality-based education, to pursue their own path through life. Those rights. I'm not talking about your stupid constitution, which by the way you're not interpreting all that well. Pro-tip: raiding a compound suspected of illegal activity towards minors is not 'making a law prohibiting free expression of religion', genius. As for the fourth, there was reasonable grounds, and warrants were issued. The 8th only applies to criminal court sentencing, so now you're just grasping at straws.
So which basic human rights are we being denied here again? You keep stating that peoples rights are being violated but dont really state what rights those are.
yes, posting my opinion of a woman-hating sect on an internet forum is shoving my beliefs down your throat. You know what sweetums? If you're too sensitive to be confronted with an opposing viewpoint, maybe this isn't the place for you.
Yes because my initial post about how fucked up their bungling of this situation is on all fronts somehow makes me an accessory to FGM in Africa. I'm all for a dissenting opinion provided it both makes sense, and has some bearing on what im talking about.
So you're saying the family services people could have set the compound on fire but not run this investigation. You're super!
super psycho. I'm done.
Exactly. If your going to violate a persons home, and family with no evidence dont hide behind a shield of law enforcement, morality, or whatever bullshit you tell yourself to help you sleep at night. If your going to tell people how to live their life, what they can and cannot do, do it from the honest perspective that you are doing it because you can.
What a load of shit. The judge's ruling was frankly tripe. The department wasn't wrong in their suspicions, they just have the ill-luck to be operating in a state containing a judge that doesn't think polygamy and 'marrying' off children is a bad idea for all concerned :roll:
Except they have 0 cases of polygamy. They have 0 evidence of what they have accused these people of. Thats the problem here.
Except they have 0 cases of polygamy. They have 0 evidence of what they have accused these people of. Thats the problem here.
Actually, the accusation was underage marriage and the sex that goes along with it. And they do have at least some evidence of that. Perhaps not enough to justify their actions, but still...hardly "0 evidence."
Except they have 0 cases of polygamy. They have 0 evidence of what they have accused these people of. Thats the problem here.
Actually, the accusation was underage marriage and the sex that goes along with it. And they do have at least some evidence of that. Perhaps not enough to justify their actions, but still...hardly "0 evidence."
In addition, the folks at YFZ are open polygamists from what I can tell.
KrunkMcGrunk on
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Except they have 0 cases of polygamy. They have 0 evidence of what they have accused these people of. Thats the problem here.
Actually, the accusation was underage marriage and the sex that goes along with it. And they do have at least some evidence of that. Perhaps not enough to justify their actions, but still...hardly "0 evidence."
In addition, the folks at YFZ are open polygamists from what I can tell.
Pretty much, if I'm keeping my Mormon sects straight, they believe that a righteous man needs to have at least 3 wives to attain a prime place in paradise.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Except the raid was done with state troopers, which i think has been established.
They participated. The CFS are the instigators and organisers, and the people who stuffed it up. Your beef is with them, is my point. Not that you appear capable of finding my point, as we see below:
A tip off, that the police suspected of being a hoax before they even went in is not a reason for a raid. Which is the point here. You keep claiming rights have been violated but you provided 0 evidence that any rights have been violated other than people have a problem with their religion.
No, the CFS failed to provide sufficient evidence. Burden of proof's not on me.
Hell look at half the stuff that the bible condones that is not practiced. Their religious text could contain passages demanding all 12 year old girls be married and pregnant before their 13 birthday. It doesn't matter, the state has to prove this is in fact happening before it can do what it did.
Wrong, it has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that its happening. Which they did at the time. Which is well established in this thread, but hey, you're not actually reading any posts in here.
CPS has been interrogating children to try and find evidence to support the raid.
No, they're trying to confirm or deny that crimes have occurred against the people in custody. That's what they're supposed to do. And for the third time, nobody's constitutional rights have been violated. You'll note that even the dumbass fucking judge isn't claiming that. You'd think even he'd notice!
Which has previously been established was insufficient for what they did. They have admitted they felt the call was possibly a hoax.
No, it hasn't. They considered it sufficient at the time.
So which basic human rights are we being denied here again? You keep stating that peoples rights are being violated but dont really state what rights those are.
I STATED THEM IN THE PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WHAT YOU WROTE HERE, YOU FUCKING TROLL.
Yes because my initial post about how fucked up their bungling of this situation is on all fronts somehow makes me an accessory to FGM in Africa.
Ah, another fine example of your failure at basic thought processes. You made a general argument that de facto supports the multiple practices I listed. It applies equally to all of them. You made that argument because you didn't think it through. If you're uncomfortable with making arguments that leave such practices unopposed, change them.
Exactly. If your going to violate a persons home, and family with no evidence dont hide behind a shield of law enforcement, morality, or whatever bullshit you tell yourself to help you sleep at night. If your going to tell people how to live their life, what they can and cannot do, do it from the honest perspective that you are doing it because you can.
Like I said, psycho. Murderous, hateful psycho. I don't understand why you're still not banned, I really don't.
Except they have 0 cases of polygamy. They have 0 evidence of what they have accused these people of. Thats the problem here.
No, they have zero cases of attempted official polygamy, because it is illegal. One of the sects' primary, defining values is polygamy in practice. This is common knowledge. The fact that they haven't rocked up at the county courthouse seeking documentation is not proof that they're not practicing this.
Like I said, psycho. Murderous, hateful psycho. I don't understand why you're still not banned, I really don't.
Just like some of us don't understand how you get away with hurling continued insults at nearly everyone you disagree with when others have been infracted and banned for less but those are the breaks, I suppose.
Man, I've never done it without good reason. What he said is good goddamn reason. Did you even read it? "its better to attack and fire a compound than raid it on the basis of a tipoff that turned out to be crap"? That's insane!
Man, I've never done it without good reason. What he said is good goddamn reason. Did you even read it? "its better to attack and fire a compound than raid it on the basis of a tipoff that turned out to be crap"? That's insane!
No its honest.
I respect a person who is willing to say "I have no legal right, no moral right, and no grounds for what im about to do. However I cannot abide what is happening here. May Deity X have mercy upon my soul."
I do not respect a person who does the same damn thing under some bullshit guise of authority, morality, or whatever they prop themselves up with.
CPS pulled out the "shield" of "Dear god thank of the children" stormed this compound on a tip they themselves felt was possibly a hoax all because they couldn't abide what was going on in there. They lacked proof, they haven't discovered proof, and so far its been a complete cockup from the begining. They have violated the the rights of the people on that ranch, and they know it. They took children that should not have been taken, Even if they do find something to charge someone with i would expect the FLDS lawyers to rip apart any evidence gathered as fruit from the poisoned tree.
When you state "The inalienable ones set down by the UN, to which your country is a signatory and of which your country is a major member, which do not place the free expression of religion above the rights of women and children to live free from fear of abuse or actual abuse, to receive a reality-based education, to pursue their own path through life."
Perhaps first i should state no one gives two shits about the UN. As far as the average American is concerned it can go fuck itself. However if your want to make an argument that the children were being abused im sure there are quite a few folks in texas that would love the help. Right now, they really don't have much of a case. Reality based education? Does that mean we get to ban both homeschooling, and any religious based school? Really? No more Catholic schools? Sign me up. To pursue their own path in life? Who determines their path? Its not the states job to come in and say "your religion is a little wacky we are taking your children."
So far we suspect a lot, and cannot prove anything. However perhaps you should remember. People are innocent until proven guilty. Spiritual marriages are not illegal. Having multiple spiritual marriages is not illegal. Hell Pagans do handfasting, if they handfast someone whos married to someone else are they a polygamist?
You think their behavior is horrible. I think their behavior is horribly. You think something should be done. I think something should be done. You think that they should have their children taken away, and their entire cult broken up. I think they should have their children taken away and their cult broken up. Your angry that our laws have failed to bring those guilty to justice. I'm angry that our laws have failed to bring those guilty to justice.
Your shouting about how its wrong for a judge to rule the prosecution has failed to meet their burden, and the judge should ignore the law and rule based on feelings. Your advocating vigilante justice.
I'm advocating lining anyone up who would molest a thirteen year old girl and shooting them. Your just still trying to hide behind the trappings of morality, legality, and angry when its pointed out that both are lacking in this case. We have no moral right to break up their families, and from the information we are getting we do not have the legal right either.
Yet you still want "something to be done" Fine I am right there with you. There's an old saying "Ain't no justice like mob justice." So what exactly is our major point of contention?
Man, I've never done it without good reason. What he said is good goddamn reason. Did you even read it? "its better to attack and fire a compound than raid it on the basis of a tipoff that turned out to be crap"? That's insane!
No its honest.
I respect a person who is willing to say "I have no legal right, no moral right, and no grounds for what im about to do. However I cannot abide what is happening here. May Deity X have mercy upon my soul."
And I'm saying that makes you a terrible, terrible person.
I do not respect a person who does the same damn thing under some bullshit guise of authority, morality, or whatever they prop themselves up with.
Super, but neither does anyone else, so you're not special and you don't get to claim this as a point towards your awful self.
CPS pulled out the "shield" of "Dear god thank of the children" stormed this compound on a tip they themselves felt was possibly a hoax all because they couldn't abide what was going on in there. They lacked proof, they haven't discovered proof, and so far its been a complete cockup from the begining. They have violated the the rights of the people on that ranch, and they know it.
Oh look, you're lying again. Well, at least you're consistent.
They took children that should not have been taken, Even if they do find something to charge someone with i would expect the FLDS lawyers to rip apart any evidence gathered as fruit from the poisoned tree.
That's about the only sensible thing you've ever said. Pity its so deeply encased in idiocy that I nearly missed it.
When you state "The inalienable ones set down by the UN, to which your country is a signatory and of which your country is a major member, which do not place the free expression of religion above the rights of women and children to live free from fear of abuse or actual abuse, to receive a reality-based education, to pursue their own path through life."
Perhaps first i should state no one gives two shits about the UN. As far as the average American is concerned it can go fuck itself. H
*polite chuckle*
Well, thank goodness I wasn't actually appealing to the authority of the UN, and thank goodness that you don't actually speak for 'the average american', and thank goodness that the hypothetical average american's opinion has no bearing on whether those rights actually exist or not. They do, the FLDS and the Texas legal system is shitting all over them, and it remains wrong, and all the right-wing code-rhetoric you can cut'n'paste from Free Republic won't change that.
Its not the states job to come in and say "your religion is a little wacky we are taking your children."
Yet again, no one did that. This is so, so boring. Say something new!
So far we suspect a lot, and cannot prove anything. However perhaps you should remember. People are innocent until proven guilty. Spiritual marriages are not illegal. Having multiple spiritual marriages is not illegal.
Honeybunch, 'spiritual marriages' in this sect are anything but. I have news for you. All the extra 'spiritual' wives are getting just as rogered as the 'real' wife, and having just as many children whether they want it or not, and being just as strongly controlled and told that they are evil if they don't submit as all the other women in the sect. Its not handfasting. its not engagement. you don't know what you're talking about.
You think that they should have their children taken away, and their entire cult broken up. I think they should have their children taken away and their cult broken up.
No, I don't, actually. I think the cult should be broken up. I think the abusive patriarchs of the cult should be jailed. I think their victims should be kept together and given a chance to really find their own path, which probably won't involve touching the majority culture with a ten foot pole but will involve learning a whole lot of stuff that was kept from them.
Your angry that our laws have failed to bring those guilty to justice. I'm angry that our laws have failed to bring those guilty to justice.
I'm just angry that you've forgotten which 'you're' to use. It hurts me!
Your shouting about how its wrong for a judge to rule the prosecution has failed to meet their burden, and the judge should ignore the law and rule based on feelings. Your advocating vigilante justice.
No, I've never done that. You're back to lying. And forgetting basic grammatical rules. I'm not sure which is worse.
Oh wait, its the lying.
advocating lining anyone up who would molest a thirteen year old girl and shooting them.
I'm not! That's why I'm better than you.
Your just still trying to hide behind the trappings of morality, legality, and angry when its pointed out that both are lacking in this case. We have no moral right to break up their families, and from the information we are getting we do not have the legal right either.
"The trappings of morality".
That's beautifullly fucked up. You're like Rembrant with illogic!
Yet you still want "something to be done" Fine I am right there with you. There's an old saying "Ain't no justice like mob justice." So what exactly is our major point of contention?
That you're an incoherent lying slandering psychopath who ruins every thread he posts in. I object to this.
And I'm saying that makes you a terrible, terrible person.
Your criteria for "good person" seems to be pretty much "agrees with me."
Super, but neither does anyone else, so you're not special and you don't get to claim this as a point towards your awful self.
Oh good so we agree.
Oh look, you're lying again. Well, at least you're consistent.
Lying? About what? I can be wrong. You can say that what i have said is incorrect and supply evidence that backs it up. However what you cannot say is that i am lying. Unless you believe I know more than I appear to and am intentionally attempting to mislead you.
That's about the only sensible thing you've ever said. Pity its so deeply encased in idiocy that I nearly missed it.
Thats fine. If i can dig through your personal attacks, then I'm glad you can dig through my raving lunacy.
*polite chuckle*
Well, thank goodness I wasn't actually appealing to the authority of the UN, and thank goodness that you don't actually speak for 'the average american', and thank goodness that the hypothetical average american's opinion has no bearing on whether those rights actually exist or not. They do, the FLDS and the Texas legal system is shitting all over them, and it remains wrong, and all the right-wing code-rhetoric you can cut'n'paste from Free Republic won't change that.
Right wing code-rhetoric? What the hell are you talking about? Oh you mean that whole "Hey lets obey due process" crap i keep spewing about maybe if they are going to do something they should do it right?
Yet again, no one did that. This is so, so boring. Say something new!
Well then perhaps you could be nice enough to explain to me exactly which of your UN granted rights have been violated?
Honeybunch, 'spiritual marriages' in this sect are anything but. I have news for you. All the extra 'spiritual' wives are getting just as rogered as the 'real' wife, and having just as many children whether they want it or not, and being just as strongly controlled and told that they are evil if they don't submit as all the other women in the sect. Its not handfasting. its not engagement. you don't know what you're talking about.
Neither do you. You accuse them of polygamy, but wait its only spiritual marriages not legal ones. Whoops not polygamy. Wait its child molestation. Wait no we have not found any concrete evidence of that. No I mean its their backwards religious beliefs that force women to conform and submit to male dominated rule.
But thats not illegal, which means not the problem of the government.
No, I don't, actually. I think the cult should be broken up. I think the abusive patriarchs of the cult should be jailed. I think their victims should be kept together and given a chance to really find their own path, which probably won't involve touching the majority culture with a ten foot pole but will involve learning a whole lot of stuff that was kept from them.
You seem to think this "find their own path" guarantees change. What if they wander back and decide to keep doing things the way the always have with men telling them what to do, and how to live. If they choose to be treated as objects we do not have the right to force change upon them.
I'm just angry that you've forgotten which 'you're' to use. It hurts me!
[sarcasm]
And your constant personal attacks wound my emo soul in ways razors never will.
No, I've never done that. You're back to lying. And forgetting basic grammatical rules. I'm not sure which is worse.
Oh wait, its the lying.
Oh which lies have I told?
advocating lining anyone up who would molest a thirteen year old girl and shooting them. I'm not! That's why I'm better than you at personally attacking anyone who disagrees with me.
Uh huh, yet your the one saying the judges are wrong for *gasp* doing their job correctly. How dare they rule fairly and impartially based on the evidence and not let reason be overridden by hatred for these child rapists.
"The trappings of morality".
That's beautifullly fucked up. You're like Rembrant with illogic!
Gee thanks. I am sure glad your making a point of some kind, as opposed to attacking me. Because that would be a welcome change.
That you're an incoherent lying slandering psychopath who ruins every thread he posts in. I object to this.
I object to your constant personal attacks. In fact more so I challenge you to prove that i am in fact a liar. Interesting you would accuse me of slander considering every post you make at me fits the definition.
Let us hope your next mental abortion can avoid personal attacks.
I ask again, where is our major point of contention? Or are we still going round and round with you stating even though no law has been broken CPS and State troopers can do whatever they damn well please. I do like to stay on track with these things.
- Generally speaking, moral perspective comes down to "agrees with me" to one degree or another. There is nothing remarkable about this stance.
- Isolating children from the world at large has a long history of having abusive consequences and simply being a way to control said children. At the minimum, home schooling and religious schooling need to have a range of minimums required to prevent a child from growing up separate from American culture at large. If you don't want to raise Americans, -go the fuck elsewhere-. These isolated communities, while reasonable in the past when everyone was ass backwards, are no longer beneficial. All they do is restrict the freedoms of the children born to them. If people want to isolate THEMSELVES, who cares. But once they bring children, who have no ability to enforce their own rights, into the mix, it's the entire country's business.
- Drop the personal combat, goddammit. It's so incredibly lame. Stick to the arguments, people.
Cat, how is the burden of proof not on you when you're saying the judge fucked up? They may have had enough evidence to raid, but that isn't enough for removal.
All the judge said- and this is reasonable enough- is that while the beliefs were damaging, CPS presented no evidence they were actually being followed, and almost as important no evidence that most of the children they removed were in danger. If the problem is underage marriages of female children, why did they pull out young adults and VERY young children- and boys?
The bottom line: these people are idiots and most likely abusive, but Texas CPS fucked up, and I'm really not surprised at the ruling.
Except that the conduct of the FLDS is well documented. That was what CPS was working on, not just the beliefs.
Obviously not. What the court is saying is that the "documentation" that was provided indicating why this raid happened was insufficient.
But their a cult full of crazy people is not a legal reason for a raid. You need hard evidence of wrong doing.
Sadly this is true. If the impetus for the raid is doesn't pass the legal mustard, than the results found in said raid are not submittible in court, irreguardless of any wrong doing uncovered.
The impetus was a phone call allegeing abuse and then they physically saw pregnant teenagers. I was under the impression that if cops pull you over for a broken tail light and your puffing on a crack pipe they can arrest you, how's this different?
Well that's your mistake right there; If you want to get away with criminal acts it really helps to be a large well-funded cult and not a motorist doing drugs commonly associated with brown-skinned folks.
Posts
I'm almost sorry for making this joke, but:
But in all seriousness, it is really a shame that they handled this so poorly, because these kids really do need help; it's my firm belief that they really are in danger of sexual abuse, neglect and essentially brainwashing. Any arranged marriage is not ok with me, and I have no trouble intervening or allowing the government to intervene. Tolerance of different religious beliefs is one thing, tolerance of abuse in the name of religion is morally unsound. Everyone within the borders of this nation is perfectly within their legal rights to practice whatever religious ceremony they wish, right up until the point where it conflicts with the rights of any other person.
I'm also gravely concerned for the possibility that the original 911 call was legitimate, and that the girl who made the call was simply moved or otherwise silenced. If her "husband" had gotten wind of what she had done, it would have been fairly easy to move her to another compound and make sure she had no further access to communication. This whole thing stinks to high heaven of incompetence by the state and purposeful obfuscation of the truth of the situation by the FLDS.
My main concern is that to take children away when we have no legal reason for doing so (we have plenty of "real world "reasons, but as far as hard and fast, written in the paper laws? Just not enough) .
Also, this would be a very slippery slope. Which group would be next? They would begin to get the axe one after the other, and America will seem less as a land of freedom (albeit fucked up weirdo freedom) and more like the very country we were trying to escape.
Ya know. .. the one with the religious persecution and stuff...
how ironic.
And, unfortunately, for the most part they have.
True for criminal proceedings (for rape and what not), but to my knowledge not true for the purposes of removing children for their protection. Unfortunately, evidence then needs to be found of actual abuse, which (again, unfortunately) has not been substantial.
This is kind of sketchy. See, there are allegations that the police/authorities suspected the phone call was bogus, but went in anyway. In order for other evidence found to be admissible, they had to actually have a good-faith reason for going in in the first place...so if there's any question as to that, it can again put any evidence in jeopardy for a criminal prosecution. Again, not the case for removing the children due to evidence of abuse, though...different standards there.
Also, while I'm probably mucking the above up from a legal standpoint (I'm no lawyer), I've heard some law-types argue back and forth on the issue elsewhere and this is what I got from it. For what it's worth.
Were the calls to 911? For some reason I'm remembering them being to some kind of abuse hotline instead.
They honestly haven't turned up any pregnant minors? Damn, that sucks. Plus, due to the fact that these folks generally do their own recordkeeping and aren't big on filing the o-ficial paperwork with the government, it's probably hard to even track down now-adult women who had children (or conceived) while minors based on birth dates. Hell, they weren't even cooperating on figuring out which children went with which mothers (gee, I wonder why).
Texas is not, to my knowledge, focusing on the polygamist aspect of it at all, really. Mainly because these sects have long since learned not to make these marriages legal, so technically they're probably not breaking the law. The entire focus of the investigation has (I believe) been on the age of these "spiritual" brides.
Okay, now on to my take on the issue. This ruling is probably a fair one. Not that I support, in any way, the actions of this little cult (regardless of whether it can be proven, I think we all know what goes on there). But in a courtroom we need little things like evidence, and so far that has been somewhat lacking in this case. Which is unfortunate, because such evidence probably would have justified the heavy-handed approach the state has taken with the entire issue (including, for instance, removing near-infant children from mothers who were not in any immediate danger based on the allegations being investigated...though hardly limited to that). Had the state produced some slam-dunk evidence, like a horde of pregnant 16-year-olds, they probably could have gotten away with the rest. Sounds like they haven't managed that, though.
The only part of the ruling I disagree with is the assertion that the ranch shouldn't be treated as a single household, due to the communal nature of it. It's a valid ruling, I just wouldn't have made it. But in light of that, it becomes hard to justify even removing all the teenage girls from the ranch.
Like it or not, it's just kind of how the law works. They played it fast and loose, and have had more than enough time to show clear evidence of this abuse if it was as rampant as has been claimed. But you don't get to continue with tactics like this for long without some pretty compelling evidence. Here's hoping they get it next time.
Oh, fun references for anybody not familiar with the law in this state. Youngest age for (legal) marriage with parental consent is 16. Kids can marry younger, but this requires a court order (generally for emancipated minors). Age of consent for sex is 17. Exceptions if the child is (legally, which most of these wouldn't be) married, or if the older party is less than three years older (an affirmative defense, so any pregnant unmarried 16-year-old is still evidence of a sexual assault that would theoretically need to be investigated). So in theory any evidence they could find of children born more than a few months before the mother's 18th birthday would be evidence of a sexual assault.
No, but there was reasonable grounds to assume that said beliefs involved illegal behaviour. A tip-off about a cult whose leader is in jail for perpetrating the same crimes being complained about is pretty solid reason for a raid.
This in an incoherent argument. You can't investigate a closed compound like that for this kind of crime with any hope of an effective resolution, and the department would have been insane to try. No-one's arguing that what they did wasn't heavy-handed and poorly executed, but making this the alternative is childishly naive.
Well hey that's super, but being quite familiar with the belief system in question I'm content to declare the judges completely fucking insane on this point. Don't like it? Deal.
The judge's quote has no logical connection to what you just said. Its simply the belief of the judge that this bunch weren't nutty enough for him. This has no bearing on whether the suspicions of the department involved were enough to justify a raid.
The inalienable ones set down by the UN, to which your country is a signatory and of which your country is a major member, which do not place the free expression of religion above the rights of women and children to live free from fear of abuse or actual abuse, to receive a reality-based education, to pursue their own path through life. Those rights. I'm not talking about your stupid constitution, which by the way you're not interpreting all that well. Pro-tip: raiding a compound suspected of illegal activity towards minors is not 'making a law prohibiting free expression of religion', genius. As for the fourth, there was reasonable grounds, and warrants were issued. The 8th only applies to criminal court sentencing, so now you're just grasping at straws.
O RLY
yes, posting my opinion of a woman-hating sect on an internet forum is shoving my beliefs down your throat. You know what sweetums? If you're too sensitive to be confronted with an opposing viewpoint, maybe this isn't the place for you.
When human rights are violated by these cultural practices, they are wrong. I'm not calling the feds on people who think eating durian is a rad idea, here. Less hysteria please!
Again, what have I done besides talk to you? Wipe the froth off your face and take a step back.
So you're saying the family services people could have set the compound on fire but not run this investigation. You're super!
A super psycho. I'm done.
What a load of shit. The judge's ruling was frankly tripe. The department wasn't wrong in their suspicions, they just have the ill-luck to be operating in a state containing a judge that doesn't think polygamy and 'marrying' off children is a bad idea for all concerned :roll:
Wrong. State troopers and other law enforcement officials carried out the raid, with CPS officials in tow. They had the full-on SWAT teams present, IIRC. Pretty sure there were even some warrants involved.
The conviction of their leader isn't necessarily relevant to further allegations against others, at least not from a legal standpoint. And if officials had any reason to believe the call itself was a hoax, then their reason for the raid is actually far from solid. Shaky enough that I'd be surprised if any evidence they had managed to find wound up being admissible in a criminal proceeding.
Not that that matters much, in the end...I'd say removing the children was probably a much higher priority.
"Suspicions" are generally not enough for a raid. We usually prefer evidence on this side of the ocean, or at least probable cause. I'd say it's at least possible they met the latter burden, but hardly obvious.
Well, that and the ill luck of not being able to provide the mountain of evidence of abuse that should have dropped into their laps if the abuse was as rampant as they were claiming.
Well, lets mentally change 'suspicions' to 'probable cause' in my posts; its 2am and I'm picking the wrong words. As I recall, the suspicion about the call's veracity wasn't raised until after the raid, when someone went 'oh, wait, there's this person who's tried this before...'. I'm not even sure I believe that it was fake, though. This person hasn't been arrested on suspicion of making a false call to an emergency service, despite being known to police (she has been named in at least one article), and I find it slightly unlikely that her late-thirties self can sound much like a scared teenager over the phone. The entire story is just very odd.
That I can go with, although I suspect that the rules surrounding admissible evidence are overly strict when dealing with a group so obviously intent on concealing the mechanics of their family lives. Refusing to record women's birth dates or allow them an accurate idea of their age is pretty bloody hinky behaviour, if you ask me, and most of the prosecution case rested on those ages being too low.
While in this particular case I agree, you can't destroy the whole community because of the acts of one. He may have blood on his hands, but we can't legally say the others do-- at least more than one person's testimony, am I right?
I mean wouldn't that be like "Well the CEO was doing such and such, so let's assume the whole place is crooked and close the business".
May have been a little of both. They were going in on what was essentially a rape allegation, after all.
I'm not sure a CPS abuse hotline qualifies as an "emergency service" (it wasn't 911, after all). And wikipedia at least suggests that she's still under investigation...these cases don't always move instantly. And this is hardly the first such case she's been investigated in. It's pretty obvious at this point (and even the authorities have largely admitted) that the actual call that sparked the raid was a hoax. Luckily for them, they had other evidence on which to base the raid.
I'd agree in theory, because this group specifically seems to have adopted practices specifically to try and make gathering evidence difficult. However, at some point I think the protections of the rights of society at large outweigh protecting a handful of girls, as unfortunate as that is and callous as that may sound.
You keep treating the FLDS as if there is no documented aspect of their abuses. Again, read up on the group.
Oh hell, there are some of them Japanese too. Well, let's set up some camps for them too. I sure wish they hadn't been involved in pearl harbor or nanking.
Cletus, get some ropes, this is gonna be a long night.
This is not a slippery slope. The children were not removed from the grounds on the basis of their being brought up in a particular religion, it was that the religion in question was likely to promote the sexual abuse and willful neglect of those children. You cannot go after Catholics, however crazy some may be, because making kids attend mass on Sundays does not count as abuse, period. You can go after a Catholic family that locks their children in a closet to pray without food for days on end because they complained about having to go to Sunday school one day. This is a clear definition of abuse that CPS was trying to rectify, and they would have been much more successful in their arguments had they removed religion from the question entirely.
This, even though I hate when foreigners have to lecture Americans about our Constitution. Congress passed laws outlawing abuse, which there was reasonable suspicion to believe was being perpetrated at this compound. Probable cause for the raid was established. If you take religion out of the question, which CPS should have done in their arguments before the bench, they thought they were looking at a compound full of adults systematically raping children outside of wedlock.
If you're looking at it as an either/or scenario, you are looking at it wrong. There can be no situation in which the rights of a larger society are protected at the expense of the rights of a few. If a society sees its rights as threatened by the removal of young women and girls from a situation where they are threatened or subjected with or to rape, then that society is trying to protect legal rights it doesn't deserve morally. I'm not saying that being overzealous in the protection of these girls could not lead to a compromise of the rights of others or that CPS handled this perfectly, I'm just rejecting the idea that there is no way to deliver these people their rights without infringing upon the rights of others.
Does not follow. CPS did not go after every FLDS compound in the country. They went after one, in which they thought they had solid evidence that abuse was going on. If the cops think they have solid evidence that a local KKK chapter lynched a black man at a private meeting then they can hunt down every last one of the people in that chapter for accessory or worse. Probable cause to believe that a Klansman associated with that chapter had a hand in the killing exists. They can at the very least be brought in for questioning.
Actually, because of the insular nature of this sect and the lengths they go to to cover their crimes, it does venture quite close to an either/or scenario. I'm not saying there is no way to do this, either...just that there may be no way to do this. Texas's CPS tried to do this, and have failed. It may be in part because they were overzealous in such ways that other people (rightfully) had reason to question whether rights were being trampled in the process (including the ACLU). It's also in part because, due to the nature of the crimes and this sect, it's just incredibly difficult to "catch" them. At least legally.
And yes, I'm sorry but I see the wholesale removal of the children of an entire group without credible evidence of the abuse being alleged as threatening the rights of the nation as a whole. We'll see what they come up with in the long run, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the last appeal or hearing in this process. But as it is, the level of action taken by the authorities in this case has far exceeded what is justified by the evidence found thus far. That's all this ruling really represents.
Here's an interesting question: what justification is there for removing a 4-year-old girl from her parents due to allegations involving the underage marriage of teenage girls to older men? Is there some immediate danger to this girl I'm not aware of, that her removal can't wait pending the results of the investigation? That's really my issue with the whole ordeal...they removed every last child, even those who (based on th allegations) were in no immediate danger whatsoever. I can understand, say, removing every girl between 12 and 18...you wouldn't want anymore of these "marriages" (and subsequent rapes) occurring while the courts grind through the cases. But near-infants? Really?
And, again, to your response to my argument, an individual still has to have committed a crime. Sure, you can question the whole "lodge", but you cannot prosecute the whole lodge unless every one of them were proven to be in that room when the crime was committed or if they have attempted to obstruct.
Even then, the state of Texas has yet to prove that anyone actually committed a crime. I don't expect YFZ to come out of this scot-free, but Texas CPS really jumped the gun on this occasion.
Meaning that you think that CPS's methods were inappropriate to the situation. I think that's reasonable. My point was that it's not reasonable to assume that CPS's cock-up of the situation means there's no way to protect children from abuse if their parents are abusing them in accordance with religious tradition, which is what the poster I was replying to seemed to be saying. (feel free to correct me if that's unfair)
I completely agree, and would point out that every adult in YFZ was not rounded up and accused of rape. CPS definitely jumped the gun and overreacted, which will in the long run cause these kids more harm. CPS has had a history of doing shit exactly like that, though.
Just to let the topic branch out a little, lets open this up: whom should the courts hold accountable if evidence that a 13 year old girl was raped and impregnated? The father? The "husband?" The leader of the sect or of the parish? Where do you lay accountability when an entire community is complicit or at least a willful accomplice (meaning you stood by and did nothing) in the crime?
The other issue that hangs ominously over the whole situation is the fact that marriage is at its core a religious institution and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning it's Constitutionally illegal for Congress (and therefore, state legislatures) to pass any bill defining a religious institution that will be respected by the state above others. Constitutionally, polygamy and underage marriage is fine, so long as it doesn't violate anyone's individual rights.
Texas's sodomy law wasn't knocked down because of religion (even though that's the reason- "Its a sin, ban it"!) it was struck down because it didn't apply to everyone equally. Same thing with CA and gay marriage.
True, which is why Texas isn't pursuing the polygamy angle. The issue is that the state has determined that you aren't capable of consenting to sex under a certain age (barring specific exceptions) and thus any sex under that age is rape. Which is where individual rights come into play.
An interesting question is whether it would be an issue (legally, and as far as CPS is concerned) if these "spiritual marriages" occurred while the bride was underage, but the marriage wasn't consummated until they reached age of consent?
EDIT: Because really, as long as the marriage isn't a legal marriage I don't think any law is broken there, just like their polygamous "spiritual" marriages.
True, the UN just recorded them.
Except the raid was done with state troopers, which i think has been established.
A tip off, that the police suspected of being a hoax before they even went in is not a reason for a raid. Which is the point here. You keep claiming rights have been violated but you provided 0 evidence that any rights have been violated other than people have a problem with their religion.
Hell look at half the stuff that the bible condones that is not practiced. Their religious text could contain passages demanding all 12 year old girls be married and pregnant before their 13 birthday. It doesn't matter, the state has to prove this is in fact happening before it can do what it did.
The alternative is to not violate their constitutional rights. You don't wave those when you commit a crime. CPS took children from their parents that they knew and have stated were in no danger what so ever. Those children are in foster homes right now, even though CPS has stated their was no reason for them to sieze them. CPS has been interrogating children to try and find evidence to support the raid.
Thats fine, but your opinion is unsupported by evidence.
Which has previously been established was insufficient for what they did. They have admitted they felt the call was possibly a hoax.
So which basic human rights are we being denied here again? You keep stating that peoples rights are being violated but dont really state what rights those are.
Yes because my initial post about how fucked up their bungling of this situation is on all fronts somehow makes me an accessory to FGM in Africa. I'm all for a dissenting opinion provided it both makes sense, and has some bearing on what im talking about.
Exactly. If your going to violate a persons home, and family with no evidence dont hide behind a shield of law enforcement, morality, or whatever bullshit you tell yourself to help you sleep at night. If your going to tell people how to live their life, what they can and cannot do, do it from the honest perspective that you are doing it because you can.
Except they have 0 cases of polygamy. They have 0 evidence of what they have accused these people of. Thats the problem here.
Actually, the accusation was underage marriage and the sex that goes along with it. And they do have at least some evidence of that. Perhaps not enough to justify their actions, but still...hardly "0 evidence."
In addition, the folks at YFZ are open polygamists from what I can tell.
Pretty much, if I'm keeping my Mormon sects straight, they believe that a righteous man needs to have at least 3 wives to attain a prime place in paradise.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
No, the CFS failed to provide sufficient evidence. Burden of proof's not on me.
Wrong, it has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that its happening. Which they did at the time. Which is well established in this thread, but hey, you're not actually reading any posts in here.
No, they're trying to confirm or deny that crimes have occurred against the people in custody. That's what they're supposed to do. And for the third time, nobody's constitutional rights have been violated. You'll note that even the dumbass fucking judge isn't claiming that. You'd think even he'd notice!
No, it hasn't. They considered it sufficient at the time.
I STATED THEM IN THE PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WHAT YOU WROTE HERE, YOU FUCKING TROLL.
Ah, another fine example of your failure at basic thought processes. You made a general argument that de facto supports the multiple practices I listed. It applies equally to all of them. You made that argument because you didn't think it through. If you're uncomfortable with making arguments that leave such practices unopposed, change them.
Like I said, psycho. Murderous, hateful psycho. I don't understand why you're still not banned, I really don't.
No, they have zero cases of attempted official polygamy, because it is illegal. One of the sects' primary, defining values is polygamy in practice. This is common knowledge. The fact that they haven't rocked up at the county courthouse seeking documentation is not proof that they're not practicing this.
No its honest.
I respect a person who is willing to say "I have no legal right, no moral right, and no grounds for what im about to do. However I cannot abide what is happening here. May Deity X have mercy upon my soul."
I do not respect a person who does the same damn thing under some bullshit guise of authority, morality, or whatever they prop themselves up with.
CPS pulled out the "shield" of "Dear god thank of the children" stormed this compound on a tip they themselves felt was possibly a hoax all because they couldn't abide what was going on in there. They lacked proof, they haven't discovered proof, and so far its been a complete cockup from the begining. They have violated the the rights of the people on that ranch, and they know it. They took children that should not have been taken, Even if they do find something to charge someone with i would expect the FLDS lawyers to rip apart any evidence gathered as fruit from the poisoned tree.
When you state "The inalienable ones set down by the UN, to which your country is a signatory and of which your country is a major member, which do not place the free expression of religion above the rights of women and children to live free from fear of abuse or actual abuse, to receive a reality-based education, to pursue their own path through life."
Perhaps first i should state no one gives two shits about the UN. As far as the average American is concerned it can go fuck itself. However if your want to make an argument that the children were being abused im sure there are quite a few folks in texas that would love the help. Right now, they really don't have much of a case. Reality based education? Does that mean we get to ban both homeschooling, and any religious based school? Really? No more Catholic schools? Sign me up. To pursue their own path in life? Who determines their path? Its not the states job to come in and say "your religion is a little wacky we are taking your children."
So far we suspect a lot, and cannot prove anything. However perhaps you should remember. People are innocent until proven guilty. Spiritual marriages are not illegal. Having multiple spiritual marriages is not illegal. Hell Pagans do handfasting, if they handfast someone whos married to someone else are they a polygamist?
You think their behavior is horrible. I think their behavior is horribly. You think something should be done. I think something should be done. You think that they should have their children taken away, and their entire cult broken up. I think they should have their children taken away and their cult broken up. Your angry that our laws have failed to bring those guilty to justice. I'm angry that our laws have failed to bring those guilty to justice.
Your shouting about how its wrong for a judge to rule the prosecution has failed to meet their burden, and the judge should ignore the law and rule based on feelings. Your advocating vigilante justice.
I'm advocating lining anyone up who would molest a thirteen year old girl and shooting them. Your just still trying to hide behind the trappings of morality, legality, and angry when its pointed out that both are lacking in this case. We have no moral right to break up their families, and from the information we are getting we do not have the legal right either.
Yet you still want "something to be done" Fine I am right there with you. There's an old saying "Ain't no justice like mob justice." So what exactly is our major point of contention?
Super, but neither does anyone else, so you're not special and you don't get to claim this as a point towards your awful self.
Oh look, you're lying again. Well, at least you're consistent.
That's about the only sensible thing you've ever said. Pity its so deeply encased in idiocy that I nearly missed it.
*polite chuckle*
Well, thank goodness I wasn't actually appealing to the authority of the UN, and thank goodness that you don't actually speak for 'the average american', and thank goodness that the hypothetical average american's opinion has no bearing on whether those rights actually exist or not. They do, the FLDS and the Texas legal system is shitting all over them, and it remains wrong, and all the right-wing code-rhetoric you can cut'n'paste from Free Republic won't change that.
Yet again, no one did that. This is so, so boring. Say something new!
Honeybunch, 'spiritual marriages' in this sect are anything but. I have news for you. All the extra 'spiritual' wives are getting just as rogered as the 'real' wife, and having just as many children whether they want it or not, and being just as strongly controlled and told that they are evil if they don't submit as all the other women in the sect. Its not handfasting. its not engagement. you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I don't, actually. I think the cult should be broken up. I think the abusive patriarchs of the cult should be jailed. I think their victims should be kept together and given a chance to really find their own path, which probably won't involve touching the majority culture with a ten foot pole but will involve learning a whole lot of stuff that was kept from them.
I'm just angry that you've forgotten which 'you're' to use. It hurts me!
No, I've never done that. You're back to lying. And forgetting basic grammatical rules. I'm not sure which is worse.
Oh wait, its the lying.
I'm not! That's why I'm better than you.
"The trappings of morality".
That's beautifullly fucked up. You're like Rembrant with illogic!
That you're an incoherent lying slandering psychopath who ruins every thread he posts in. I object to this.
Oh good so we agree.
Lying? About what? I can be wrong. You can say that what i have said is incorrect and supply evidence that backs it up. However what you cannot say is that i am lying. Unless you believe I know more than I appear to and am intentionally attempting to mislead you.
Thats fine. If i can dig through your personal attacks, then I'm glad you can dig through my raving lunacy.
Right wing code-rhetoric? What the hell are you talking about? Oh you mean that whole "Hey lets obey due process" crap i keep spewing about maybe if they are going to do something they should do it right?
Well then perhaps you could be nice enough to explain to me exactly which of your UN granted rights have been violated?
Neither do you. You accuse them of polygamy, but wait its only spiritual marriages not legal ones. Whoops not polygamy. Wait its child molestation. Wait no we have not found any concrete evidence of that. No I mean its their backwards religious beliefs that force women to conform and submit to male dominated rule.
But thats not illegal, which means not the problem of the government.
You seem to think this "find their own path" guarantees change. What if they wander back and decide to keep doing things the way the always have with men telling them what to do, and how to live. If they choose to be treated as objects we do not have the right to force change upon them.
[sarcasm]
And your constant personal attacks wound my emo soul in ways razors never will.
Oh which lies have I told?
Uh huh, yet your the one saying the judges are wrong for *gasp* doing their job correctly. How dare they rule fairly and impartially based on the evidence and not let reason be overridden by hatred for these child rapists.
Gee thanks. I am sure glad your making a point of some kind, as opposed to attacking me. Because that would be a welcome change.
I object to your constant personal attacks. In fact more so I challenge you to prove that i am in fact a liar. Interesting you would accuse me of slander considering every post you make at me fits the definition.
Let us hope your next mental abortion can avoid personal attacks.
I ask again, where is our major point of contention? Or are we still going round and round with you stating even though no law has been broken CPS and State troopers can do whatever they damn well please. I do like to stay on track with these things.
- Isolating children from the world at large has a long history of having abusive consequences and simply being a way to control said children. At the minimum, home schooling and religious schooling need to have a range of minimums required to prevent a child from growing up separate from American culture at large. If you don't want to raise Americans, -go the fuck elsewhere-. These isolated communities, while reasonable in the past when everyone was ass backwards, are no longer beneficial. All they do is restrict the freedoms of the children born to them. If people want to isolate THEMSELVES, who cares. But once they bring children, who have no ability to enforce their own rights, into the mix, it's the entire country's business.
- Drop the personal combat, goddammit. It's so incredibly lame. Stick to the arguments, people.
All the judge said- and this is reasonable enough- is that while the beliefs were damaging, CPS presented no evidence they were actually being followed, and almost as important no evidence that most of the children they removed were in danger. If the problem is underage marriages of female children, why did they pull out young adults and VERY young children- and boys?
The bottom line: these people are idiots and most likely abusive, but Texas CPS fucked up, and I'm really not surprised at the ruling.
Basically it's the same kind of wonderfuckery that spawned the OJ trial.
Well that's your mistake right there; If you want to get away with criminal acts it really helps to be a large well-funded cult and not a motorist doing drugs commonly associated with brown-skinned folks.