Texas Authorities Raid Polygamist Compound(400 kids taken from a polygamist compound)

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275358,00.html

Why does government issues such statements without any mention of the cause or proof of what has actually happened? Because they know some people are too lazy to even read the article and will draw conclusions just based on a headline and then go and post about it in the forums.

 

Earl, Kaethy, Stox, Rebecca (sorry, if I've left out others), thank you for your good thoughts; the only reasonable choice to make, it seems to me. The situation:

Precisely obtains here; no amount of obfuscation or sophistry or other hocus-pocus can change the facts. The only difference is that hundreds of children, and not two, are in obvious and immediate jeopardy.

I'm utterly in agreement with you. I'm also in agreement with your assessment, Earl, that the counter-arguments being made are deeply grotesque in construction.

 

It must be nice when you don't have anything relevant to say, to make a totally wrong example and then agree with yourself, especially when in the process you can make yourself feel like such a great human being.

Unfortunately the only difference between you and other supporters of such actions and a regular lynch mob is that you give your support through Internet instead of acting directly. You must forgive me but I was never found of lynch mob justice or the theory that the end justifies the means.

 

Please tell me how this example:

Isn't precisely comparable to this issue. If it is, please tell me why the actions taken in the present case are not a correct and proper response.

Please tell me how:

Is in any way comparable to this issue. If it isn't, please stick to the present case.

Please do not dodge the question again.

Please do not resort to vagaries or unsupported assertions - if you've got an argument, please provide reasoning, based on the facts before us.

Please note that "you're wrong!," "you're a police state toady!," or "you're a member of a lynch mob!" don't constitute credible lines of reasoning. Though you may continue to pursue these types of histrionics, please know they do nothing but prove an impression of ignorance.

 

You are not a stupid person and you know very well that your example has got nothing to do with this situation and it is just constructed to get the emotional support of non informed readers.
In your example the people responsible has been identified, there is a proof of abuse and the children are directly linked to abuser. To make your example relevant to this situation, it should be constructed like this:
There is an apartment building of 100 units. Some one anonymous calls and tells the police that there is a child being abused in this apartment complex. Police decides to go there, break in to every apartment to search and remove hundreds of children for further investigation. In your mind may be such actions are justified in order to save a child but in my opinion there are far greater questions involved than safety of one child (It is OK, now you can call me cold hearted who don't care about children).
You previously posted that you have some personal experience with this issue which I believe is the reason that your judgment is clouded and you ignore other factors involved. Take a step back and think about if you are ready to sacrifice all individual rights in the alter of "safety".

 

First of all, and I was waiting for this to be attempted by someone, my history of abuse informs my empathy with these children, but not my appraisal of the actions taken. Please do not presume to speak for anyone's motivations regarding this issue.

Further,

Yeah. I hear this a lot from certain circles on this forum..."you know it is/isn't 'X'....you just know it." I do not know this at all, and completely disagree. And further, I don't operate this way. I don't use words like "police state toady," "lynch mob," etc., which very definitely is a language of emotionality. Please do not attempt to divine motivations, and stick to substance.

I'll repeat your assertions:

In my example, the child abused was the child of the parents, or half the family unit. In this case, the underage pregnant children are the children of the parents in the compound, which is a closed society - these children cannot be magically impregnated by kids at public schools (an application of illogic you earlier attempted), and the "reasonable persons" standard of law applies. These girls are being impregnated by the men of the FYS compound. This is abuse. These girls are under the care of the men, and the women, who claim to be their fathers and mothers. A reasonable person standard demands that one must conclude these children are under the authority of the men and women of the compound. Therefore, the example provided directly applies.

Beyond this, there are a host of other factors leading to a conclusion of reasonableness with respect to the actions being taken - for starters, the compound itself includes a 29,000 s.f. home for Warren Jeffs, a convicted accomplice to rape, and apparently soon to be indicted sexual abuser, as reports are now stating; and it is under his absolute control - by his very protocols and directives as "prophet" - that the compound operated. The men and women having authority over these children repeatedly lied to authorities over which children belonged to whom, and engaged in actions designed to confuse the authorities from ascertaining family ties (switching kids, and coaching kids, apparently). Much more, but ample already to conclude the actions taken were the proper response.

Now, to your statement:

Is completely inaccurate, though the inaccuracy has been repeated throughout the thread, which is on the variant of "a loon called, and the police stole the kids without cause!!!!!!!!!!!." More accurate would be that the 100 units are not units located within the general community, but a closed compound; that half the children were suspected of having been raped, evidenced by the fact of their pregnancy; that the parents of these children will not provide which children belong to whom. Take my example and multiply it by hundreds, and you will have the story of this case.

You did not answer the question:

Good lord, just watched the Larry King Interview. To "Esther." A direct question - "and you never thought a relationship between older men and teenage girls, or younger, was wrong? Response (a long pause): "I would not (long pause)...I would have...for my own daughter, I would advise her to wait until she was of legal age. I would not want her to get married younger than that." Q: But did you see others at the ranch getting married younger? Response: (Pause) Not that I'm aware of. Followup: So you have never, to your knowledge, seen a younger girl marry and older person? Response: Not that I'm aware of." Marilyn, had you? Response: Not that I have ever seen. Q: (another Esther): Esther, had you? Response: Not that I have ever seen.

Now, yes, my "personal impression only." I've been around depositions. Any lawyer would spot this kind of thing a mile away - can anyone else see in the above an absolute pattern of COACHED? A direct question - is it wrong for older men to be banging pre-teens. Is this wrong, yes or no? And "I'm not aware of...," then, "Not that I had seen" with the same line - verbatim - used repeatedly. Classic deposition answer that avoids perjury while and at the same time avoids the answer. Classic, coached tactic. One can close one's eyes, for godsake, at the moment of "I now pronounce you, older guy, married to this incredibly underaged girl," and still answer with "not that I had ever seen." An affirmative answer would be NO! THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN IN OUR COMMUNITY, LIKE WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU! I guess that would be a bit of a sticky wicket, since half the girls, who never see the light of day outside the compound, are walking around knocked up. Unbelievable.

 

The example that I posted before it was in response to another poster who claimed that since it is difficult for authority to determine who is guilty then group punishment is justified but since you are repeating the same line of reasoning then it is also relevant to your present post.
Individuals don't need to answer any question or cooperate with authority and in fact there are protections against self incriminations in the laws, therefore your claims that their actions will justify police actions are totally wrong. Your assumption of guilt by association is also wrong since warren Jeffs having a house there is not relevant to guilt or innocence of individuals. I am not claiming that they are innocent but I believe that is the duty of the police to prove the guilt on individual bases and just claiming that we "know" or "feel" this group is up to no good and since it is difficult to investigate and separate the guilty individuals, we have the right to give out collective punishment is not an acceptable argument or method.

 

No, you got it completely wrong, and your error persists. The analogy you provided:

Has zero relevance to this case. Public high school children can be impregnated by any number of people. The girls of this case live entirely in the closed compound of the "Yearning for Zion Ranch." They cannot have been impregnated by anyone other than the adult males of this compound. This is prima facie evidence of abuse, and your example is utterly inapplicable.

I didn't say Jeff's house is what matters, I said there is a house built for Jeffs, and it is by his doctrines that this closed society is run. His "doctrines" include the orchestration of rape of underage girls, per his conviction. If you missed that, sorry. If you didn't, shame on you for the disingenuousness.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, and I honestly don't know if you simply can't hear this distinction: There is no punishment. There are no conclusions of law, nor no verdicts, yet - these will come later, I have a hunch, although it is impossible to say.

This entire action rests on the basis of evidence of imminent harm to children under the care of their parents. Two children in a family of 4, or 400 children in a closed community of people, it matters not. The exigent if temporary duty to protect the children from further immediate harm trumps whatever theoretical claim to "religious liberty" one would wish to make.

 

I saw that interview too. Esther kept her head up during the interview UNTIL this series of questions, then while she gave these answers, her head was down, she couldn't look up. Not a good liar.

 

I think of search and seizure of ones house, place of worship and removal of children from care of their parents, a form of harassment and punishment, do you think such actions are fun and enjoyable activities?
I did not mention "religious liberty", what i mentioned is presumed innocent until proven guilty but you have watched Larry king and believed their answers was coached, so that should be enough to prove their guilt, shouldn't it?
I mentioned individual rights and protection against the actions of states but you think that state is protecting children from harm and that will give them a license to do anything that they please including going on fishing expedition, doesn't it?
Answer a simple question, do you believe that the end justifies the mean? What is more important in your opinion, safety of 1 or 10 child or the protection of rights that protects individual against over reach of the government?
I believe you live in Chicago, so I have a great suggestion that you can try to use it in that city to reduce crimes and protect many innocent victims from horrible crimes, ARREST EVERYONE IN THE PROJECTS, we all know that many of them are involved in different crimes, so let's search every house, arrest everyone and later those who are not guilty, we don't need to charge or send to prison.

 

Funny you say this as well - I got exactly the same impression. That it ripped them apart to do this, but they were instructed to, and they obey. Unbelievably tragic.

 

Gworld, I won't, and can't, keep going back to correct your misstatements. I have too much of actual worth to do. One should serve, I hope, to ask you to stick to what is said, what happened, where we go from here, on substance.

Nowhere have I said this is fun. In fact, quite the opposite. Early on, in fact,

What part of:

equates to:

What part of

equates to:

? Will you honestly make any attempt, no matter how disingenuous, to torture this thing into your pre-set view?

Platitudes do nothing. Let's talk specifics. What ends? What means? Or,

In the face of credible evidence of harm being done to these children by their parents, your statement doesn't make sense. It isn't "overreaching" to prevent the harm to children in an abusive family unit - 2 or 200 - by temporary resort to removal from the abusive situation. Or, again,

Gworld, you know, just forget it. We can go around until eternity is over, and you'll never accept what seems to most of us as the only reasonable conclusion to draw. You will continue to misrepresent what is actually being said, you will continue to mischaracterize the reality and resort to conspiracy nonsense and emotionality, and will never be interested in the pursuit of the truth of the matter, in my opinion, for reasons, beyond your fear of all government, that are unknown to me, flatly unknown. I'm learning to say, "to hell with it" on this forum, over these endless rounds of horseshit. to be honest, this is an utter waste of time.

 

I bet you think Constitution is also just a bunch of conspiracy nonsense and emotionality written by a bunch guys who engaged in endless rounds of horse-shit to protect the right of individuals against the government. It was an utter waste of time, since we know that government does no wrong and we just need to bring the suspects to Larry king to insure us that they are guilty.

 

Gworld, I don't really give a damn what you "bet." You "bet" I am spending this time because I am either just hopelessly personally beclouded due to my personal history, you "bet" I'm spending this time because I'm "anti-constitution," you "bet" I'm doing this because I'm just some statist freak. Meanwhile, several people have provided concrete evidence and credible points to try to help you see, in their view, and in my view, the truth of the matter, and you misstate what is actually said, you misrepresent what is actually being done, you torture events into your constructed worldview, you ignore everything else because it refutes your ridiculous claims.

I've seen this before. I have a lot of "bets" as to why you and others might be making such attempts, but I "know" it's a fucking waste of time.

 

gworld, I think you might appreciate some of the sentiment in this article. Kaethy and Rebecca, it's food for thought.

But What About the Children?
http://mises.org/story/2967

Excerpt

 

Hadn't seen this before.

So, the women say one thing:

Heads downcast, have to think of the answer.

Meanwhile, the men had this to say:

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=8201487

Someone should really help these people to confer before telling their stories as instructed. The women say, meekly, and at obvious personal cost, uh, "my gosh, never saw it." The men say, "we do it, hell yeah....but didn't know it wuz wrong! In fact, marrying youngin's and knockin' 'em up is some of that ole timey religion, man!"

It's called pedophilia, asshole. And rape.

No, no reason at all to step in on behalf of these underage girls. Or boys.

Unbelievable, again. These guys are amateurs, though, will hand them that. I have a fantastic Friday night "men's night" film for the whole bunch. That last scene, where the girl is given in marriage to the old, sick fuck, and she proceeds to her domestic imprisonment and hell - priceless testament to the defense of "religious liberty on principle" over "sense."

This doesn't have a damn thing to do with religious liberty. It has everything to do with crime against children.

 

What a great discovery, you have discovered all by yourself that bad things happens in the world and there are criminals and victims. I just wonder what does it have to do with the present discussion about the individual rights and limits to the state power.

 

Nothing, Gworld. Nothing at all. Kids getting raped, with more in immediate harm's way, are none of anyone's business, the police and child protective services powers of the state least of all. In fact, the state has zero proper function and this is all a conspiracy by police state thugs, and those of us who react with horror at this sect's apparent crimes are just plugged in to the matrix borg.

 

You are right, it had nothing to do with the subject.

You are wrong, it is police and child protective services business to protect children but it is not a license to do anything they like, they still have to follow the rules independent of how good their intentions are.
State has a proper function but so is the laws that limits the state powers and protects individuals against state over reach. I don't say you are plugged in to the matrix borg but if you think this is the worst that happens in this world or even your country, either you are very naive or you think that "your horror" and emotionality supports you better in defending your position since logic fails you.

 

It's your thing to try to bring in a global argument, everything under the sun, over staying with the issue at hand. I accept that it's your thing, in addition to a host of tactics that don't amount to anything - misstating, misrepresenting, mischaracterizing, as pointed out above. But you're still wrong.

<<Sigh>>

Where have they done "anything they like?"

What rules have they broken?

I'm not discussing a global appraisal of man's evil. I'm discussing this issue, and this response, a kind of fire that brings you to tap dance everywhere to apparently wish to include every crime, anywhere, and any and all state function, but not in it, not in this issue itself.

Logic. Yep, you've provided just the tightest line of reasoning I've ever come across, solid, and there's been some seriously tight reasoning on the forum, man, mostly coming from your ilk. Stripped of everything but reason and facts.

Knock yourself out, Gworld - defend the rape of these girls, and the "injustice" of judicial action in the face of it. Keep dancing to a new tack, cuz your shoes are getting seriously worn out, it seems to many.