[Goober5000]

A) Not being/previously pregnant is not evidence against abuse
B) it is standard operating policy for every state to remove all potential victims from the presence of suspected abusers

Are you advocating a policy of "guilty until proven innocent"?

There is no immediate, conclusive evidence for abuse, therefore no justification for immediate, wholesale removal like this.  State authorities are supposed to leave kids in their own homes unless there's "a continuing and immediate danger to their safety".

[General Battuta]

I'm really not sure where I fall here...ordinarily I'd be coming down hard on this kind of exploitation of women, but Goob is making some compelling arguments.

[Mars]

The children should be removed from the situation until a trial(s) can take place.

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, however, if there is some evidence that abuse is taking place (and multiple pregnant 14 year olds with 50 year old "husbands" is a pretty good indication) the potential victims should be removed from situations where the abuse can continue.

I don't think the accused should be thrown in prison without a trial however. And I don't think the victims should be permenently removed from their familys without some solid evidence against them; especially given the state of the US foster system.

[NGTM-1R]

A) Not being/previously pregnant is not evidence against abuse

Presumption of innocence, not of guilt, is one of the foundations of the US legal system. Hell, it provides the whole reason for due process of law, otherwise we'd just lock people and skip the trials.

That said, if half of them were apparently subject to statutory rape Goob, that would also provide very good evidence of abuse, and of a "continuing and immediate danger" to them; if you take away the half being actively abused where do you think it's going to fall next?

[Herra Tohtori]

A) Not being/previously pregnant is not evidence against abuse

Presumption of innocence, not of guilt, is one of the foundations of the US legal system. Hell, it provides the whole reason for due process of law, otherwise we'd just lock people and skip the trials.

Negotiable. Just ask Guantanamo Bay inmates...

That said, if half of them were apparently subject to statutory rape Goob, that would also provide very good evidence of abuse, and of a "continuing and immediate danger" to them; if you take away the half being actively abused where do you think it's going to fall next?

I have to say that I agree, but the problem is mainly that the authorities didn't have solid evidence when the raid was made, which means that they acted on a whim.

Which raises the question how well the people of US of A in general are protected by the legislation and how much leeway is accepted from the law enforcement community in the name of "right thing", "protecting the children" or "spirit of law"?

Right and wrong (and good and evil) aside, what will happen when the law enforcement starts enforcing the perceived spirit of law instead of the letter of it, perception being subjective to personal opinion of it? Montesquiean separation of powers is done for purpose - when the legislative, judicial and executive branches of power start to merge, things have historically usually turned worse for the majority of the people (and better for people in power). I'm trying to avoid the slippery slope argumentation here but I can't help to think what other things could happen if things like this go unchecked. If a hoax call (albeit apparently based on reality to some extent) can cause actions like this, when will the authorities start rounding up families suspected of whatever someone decides to accuse them of? Are allegations made in unconfirmed, phone call sufficient for reasonable suspicion of illegal activities? Sounds kinda like Stasi to me to be honest.

Obviously, the present evidence for sexual abuse is pretty conclusive, and should be acted upon accordingly, but it should also be acknowledged that a mistake was made in the handling of the matter. Both by letting this kind of action go unchecked for as long as it has been going on, and in the way something was finally done about it.

[Flipside]

Sounds to me like they were itching for a reason to go in, and the hoax call was the spark to the powder-keg as it were. The Police wanted to take action, knew what was going on there, but had little or no evidence to get a warrant.

The hoax call wasn't checked properly because they were so eager to go in, and it said exactly what they wanted to hear.

[NGTM-1R]

If a hoax call (albeit apparently based on reality to some extent) can cause actions like this, when will the authorities start rounding up families suspected of whatever someone decides to accuse them of? Are allegations made in unconfirmed, phone call sufficient for reasonable suspicion of illegal activities? Sounds kinda like Stasi to me to be honest.

Obviously, the present evidence for sexual abuse is pretty conclusive, and should be acted upon accordingly, but it should also be acknowledged that a mistake was made in the handling of the matter. Both by letting this kind of action go unchecked for as long as it has been going on, and in the way something was finally done about it.

How, then, do you confirm it? Anonymous tips come in all the time, and are acted on often, and no one raises a word of protest over it. This was a lot hotter information apparently than one of those. In such a situation the police act on the information available and will come down on the side of public safety nearly every time, because public safety is their job. Prosecuting successfully is somebody else's job. This too is the seperation of powers at work, Herra; you can't really have it both ways.

Also, previous bad acts by this group lend strong evidence that the call could have been geniune. The raid was, as Flip proposes, not a spur-of-the-moment affair. The State of Texas has always taken a hardline stance against the FLDS and evidence was already both actively sought and in hand against this particular group of FLDS followers. The problem was that much of it, by those young males cast out, was not admissible or not offered before the statue of limitations expired. They had mountains of testimony to crimes they couldn't prosecute for. The call was a godsend (forgive the cynicism) to them because it gave them a reason to do what they fully intended to do eventually. The real problem is it came prematurely.

[Kazan]

A) Not being/previously pregnant is not evidence against abuse

Presumption of innocence, not of guilt, is one of the foundations of the US legal system.

which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the part of my comment you quoted.

i'm 100% for presumption of innocence, but i'm also 100% for protecting teenage girls from scumbag ****nuts (whether they are FLDS or not) so have no issue with the "remove them from situation of potential abuse once a report of abuse has come in"

they're trying their best to protect both the rights of the girls (to not be abused) and the accused (to be presumed innocent)

it's not a perfect world.. if you think putting the girls in protective custody is implying some guilt then maybe you're right - however legally it isn't implying anything but that they got a report of abuse.

[TrashMan]

Are you advocating a policy of "guilty until proven innocent"?

There is no immediate, conclusive evidence for abuse, therefore no justification for immediate, wholesale removal like this.  State authorities are supposed to leave kids in their own homes unless there's "a continuing and immediate danger to their safety".

Goob, remind me to NEVER let you take care of my kids. You'd probably have a pedophile or some serial killer watching over them, since they haven't done anything to the kids YET.

When it comes to children, which are supposed to be our greatest tresure, caution in cases like this is the right thing to do.

[Herra Tohtori]

Are you advocating a policy of "guilty until proven innocent"?

There is no immediate, conclusive evidence for abuse, therefore no justification for immediate, wholesale removal like this.  State authorities are supposed to leave kids in their own homes unless there's "a continuing and immediate danger to their safety".

Goob, remind me to NEVER let you take care of my kids. You'd probably have a pedophile or some serial killer watching over them, since they haven't done anything to the kids YET.

When it comes to children, which are supposed to be our greatest tresure, caution in cases like this is the right thing to do.

Congratulations, you have managed to combine "Straw man", "Argumentum ad hominem", "Argumentum ad logicam", and "Non sequitur" (at least). While this is undoubtedly an achievement in itself, as well as a change from the usual "Argumentum ad absurdum" and "Argumentum ad nauseam", I wouldn't necessarily say that it improves the quality of your posting.

Could you perhaps consider keeping thy brainfarts to thy self? If not, could some nice admin/moderator perhaps help him for a while?


Also, like Franklin said... People who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Even if it's "for the children", operating outside the law will not lead to anything good. If the authorities need ways to interrupt the activities of cults like these, they should get the rights due process and act within the law.

Obviously the problem in this specific case is whether or not belonging to the FLDS in itself constitutes as "a continuing and immediate danger to the children's safety". Considering the present evidence (and general knowledge of the base ideology of the sect) I'd say it does. But considering what evidence the authorities really had when they initially committed the raid...? Hardly. Which means that no matter how noble the cause was, getting all the children into foster care (not just pregnant ones, or clearly abused ones, or based on some other criteria of selection) was in effect an act of vigilantism - an action that the authorities most likely believed to be good and right, but without actual legal support. Mind you, I pretty much agree with the good and right part of the action itself - I wouldn't want any children to be exposed to ideology such as the FLDS' one - but it's the acting-outside-law that gets to me.

Extrapolating from the case you could draw the conclusion that if the authorities think that it's good and right throwing people into Guantanamo Bay and secret prisons for years without Habeas Corpus, without prosecution or even case, occasionally subjecting them to what is generally perceived as torture, then it's OK for them to do so, regardless of what the letter of the law actually says about it.


I ask again. What is the actual reason why this raid took place? Is it because of the phone call? Or because of FLDS' actions? Or because FLDS has been allowed to continue their... activities... for decades?

[Goober5000]

If not, could some nice admin/moderator perhaps help him for a while?

I'd be happy to. We usually don't ban people for stupidity, but in his case I'll make an exception.  His cumulative history of what he thinks passes for "debating" should disqualify him from any further participation in General Discussion, as far as I'm concerned.  I'm beginning to thing he's a troll in sheep's clothing.

Anyway.  If someone has been abusing a kid, by all means lock him up and throw away the key.  But there's no proof that's what's been happening here, and quite a lot of evidence that it hasn't.  Even if abuse has occurred, then the authorities should confine their actions to the abuser and his family, not the entire compound!  Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

And for you "think of the children" people, think of the impact of removing over 400 children from their own families and placing them in foster homes with no scheduled return date.  The culture shock combined with the separation from their tightly-knit society is probably the most traumatizing thing they'll ever experience.

[redsniper]

And as I understand it, the potential for abuse is quite high in the foster system, so they might not be much better off.

[Mars]

And as I understand it, the potential for abuse is quite high in the foster system, so they might not be much better off.

On this I can agree

[Goober5000]

And here's an example of it:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5770183.html

I make no apologies for the bump, lest time dull our consciences.

[Mars]

We live (at least we Americans, can't speak for anywhere else) in a society that really would like to pretend all of the displaced kids are taken care of, even though the reality of the situation is that many of them go from bad situations to worse situations.

We also see pedophiles behind every corner.

Between the two of those I believe a lot of mistakes are made, and kids are sent from a possible polygamist marrige to a greesy old man at 13 to life with a crack whore foster mother at 8

[Kazan]

hey goober.. how about that lack of evidence

i don't know.. but i think one of these girls having been pregnant enough at the time of being picked up to give birth within a week or two afterward would seem to be some conclusive evidence

[Goober5000]

Not rly.  The age of consent in Texas is 17; 16 if you're married.  And nobody's going after Jamie-Lynn Spears, who was 16 when she got pregnant.

But the point of contention is the raid.  An hoax accusation against a single person (the warrant for which having since been dropped) is no justification for the kidnapping of over 460 children and the displacement of their families.

[Kazan]

Not rly.  The age of consent in Texas is 17; 16 if you're married.

this girl is not that old

And nobody's going after Jamie-Lynn Spears, who was 16 when she got pregnant.

false analogy

because
A) stat rape laws have a "does not apply if individuals are within X years of age of each other" (in Iowa it's 4)
B) obviously nobody has filed a complaint (ie JLS or her mom haven't called the cops on the father)

But the point of contention is the raid.  An hoax accusation against a single person (the warrant for which having since been dropped) is no justification for the kidnapping of over 460 children and the displacement of their families.

it's not kidnapping, go learn something about the law in relation to reported sex abuse cases - that single report may have been a hoax but that does not change the fact that they're ARE real cases that took place there and they know about them now.

is it bad that the initial call was a hoax? yes and shame on the person making it
does that make the real cases not true? nope
does that make the real cases not admissible in court? not as far as I know
does that mean the cops may prosecute the perpetrator of the hoax? ever herad of filing a false police report.

[NGTM-1R]

does that make the real cases not admissible in court? not as far as I know

It might, actually. I'm not a criminal justice major but I seem to remember a search under false pretenses tends to be inadmissible. I don't doubt there's some form of "good faith" or something that can be argued since it wasn't the police's false pretenses,  but legally it gets rather murky.

[MP-Ryan]

does that make the real cases not admissible in court? not as far as I know

It might, actually. I'm not a criminal justice major but I seem to remember a search under false pretenses tends to be inadmissible. I don't doubt there's some form of "good faith" or something that can be argued since it wasn't the police's false pretenses,  but legally it gets rather murky.

Yes, but generally in the legal system judges will frequently allow a little more in the way of argument when it comes to child abuse cases.  Ultimately, legal precedents see the overall good of the child as coming before the shades of grey written into case law.