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

Gworld, I realize you have a hard on for me, but there is a question on the table, so please turn your masturbatory obsession on your peabrain self and shut the fuck up.

Then, typically, Guerilla doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Most do, for reasons Rebecca very aptly got to with her direct question. The situation of a 50 year old guy in a position of authority over a young girl is by nature utterly different from a 17 year old and 14 year old. An extremely cursory google search yields a year 2000 study - with things having changed considerably since even then:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/statutoryrape/handbook/statrape.pdf (WARNING: PDF)

It should be commonsense, and laws are evermore coming to uniformity: a person in a position of authority, 30-40 years older than a teenage girl, is doing something just a tad different from that girl's boyfriend of two years older. Commonsense, but this eludes Guerilla and Co.

But you know, the question also being ignored is that this isn't a normal situation. This is a situation where these girls do not see the light of day, literally, in terms of forming their identity and making an informed consent, at whatever age - this is an authoritarian, closed compound where the girls are, from early on, by the rape-accomplice Warren Jeff's established protocols, indoctrinated in what exactly they must do to exist within that society, which is to breed like cattle for significantly older men. There is no counter-model for them to make a free and open choice as to what they would wish to do had they the choice.

 

I figured as much, I had wondered why you seemed unconcerned with that aspect of the case. Thanks for the honest answer.

 

Just came across an Op-Ed from U. Southern Mississippi, which I think says a couple of things very well:

http://media.www.studentprintz.com/media/storage/paper974/news/2006/04/04/Opinions/Statutory.Rape.Laws.Are.Legitimate.And.Just-1995231.shtml

 

It might be your experience that men have a hard on for you but I assure you that this is not the case with me and in a couple of hours I will be out with a nice girl that I met last night for lunch. My only concern was that you should stop making yourself a laughing stock as you do so often.

P.S. You are too late with making the breakfast, forget about it. I will go out for lunch soon enough, so no tip for you.

 

Until now my discussion was about the difference between prosecution and persecution and the correct procedures in criminal investigation but since you still continue with waiving these children like a flag in order to avoid the difficult questions, let's take a look at the history of child custody service and foster homes in Texas and then you tell me if they are better off.

Window on State Government

If even 10% of these 400 children had a normal life before the raid, who will be responsible if they get raped or die while under state care? With your careless attitudes toward innocents, you will probably think that will be OK because it is for greater good.

What are you going to say to a 3 year old girl if she gets raped in a foster home? All is good, we did this for your sake, so you don't need to marry an old man when you are a teenager.

People like you with no regard for human life and the suffering of innocents are just sickening.

 

No, until now your discussion was a pile of dogshit, which isn't surprising, given what I've seen of your character. Your questions were long ago answered, on the merits, but you're just too thick to see it.

And it is precisely on this basis that I acknowledge your last cut and paste is legitimate food for thought. For me, it's always been:

And one has to ask oneself whether these kids being in a foster system that has had a history of abusive situations is more or less dangerous than them being raised by abusers, who are also one's parents. Either way, there is damage being done to these kids. Helluva choice. The former comptroller's article was from 2006, and I don't know what the situation is today. But it gives pause for thought.

 

Once drawn in, there is no aspect of this case I am "unconcerned with". Your calling it so, is exactly why I have gone out of my way to frame my answers as clearly as possible.

Now, as I have indulged you, I hope you will also indulge me.

You wrote that the Texas law was correct. Do you also believe the Texas law that gay sex is legal, is also correct?

Also, do you see a benefit in taking a wife away from her much older husband, and putting the children in foster care? Do you believe that it is in the best interest of the kids to have them grow up knowing that society thinks they are rape babies? If the wife claims to love her husband, and likewise, the husband being 40 and the wife being 14, do you really feel it is in their best interest to break the family up?

 

Kaethy, Rebecca care to comment on this?

Do you really believe the state will care better for these children than their parents?

And if so, what do you feel your moral obligation is, for endorsing the state care system, and the potential for continued or increased abuse, should an incident occur?

 

What's truly astounding is that the G & G boys have spent this entire thread arguing for the "Liberty" of the abusive parents to practice their "religion" on these girls, and now it's a miracle - they have the welfare of these children closest at heart. This is a tragedy, and no solution will be painless, for anyone involved. But no one is fooled, boys - you don't give a damn about these kids. In other words,

Yes. A 40 year old guy (on up - 40, 50, 60 - whatever) "marrying" a 14 year old kid, with that kid raised in an environment where she either obeys the S.O.B. or face worldly opprobrium and "heavenly" damnation, is not legitimate. It's a crime.

 

Your question has already been answered by state representative:

good luck with getting new stats, the situation is so bad that even state representative can not get the stats out of child care services even when the report is ready and available.

State child care service is very profitable 14 billion dollars /year industry for certain people. That is the reason those of us who take these matters seriously, believe that every child situation should be dealt with on case by case bases and mass removal of children on very loose allegation is wrong. What makes the matter worse is that Judges almost always approve the removals since they are more concerned with the consequences for themselves if they do not approve and somethings happens to the child than the child welfare. May be next time, you will think about all aspects of the question before jumping on the bandwagon.

I also have a question for Rebecca. How would you feel if your neighbor called and accused you of child abuse and your child was removed from your house without any investigation and placed in such environment for only 2 Weeks, forget about that in this case these children will most likely spend months and years in that environment?

Now, that you and your friends can not wave these children like a flag, can we get back to discussion about correct procedures in criminal investigation and prosecution, the difference with persecution and individual rights in regard to state power.

 

Pretty lousy, I'm sure. Which is why it was important an investigation took place, moron, and 2 days of court testimony and adjudication before the judge came to this difficult decision.

You really are nothing more than a piece of dogshit. The only one waiving anything is you and your pal, and neither one of you gives a damn for these children. I assure you those of us who have posted in opposition to children being knocked up by middle aged men do so out of a legitimate concern for kids, and for no other reason.

 

That reminds me of some things I have been reading up on lately. The largest prison population in the world, is in the US.

We have 25% of the world's inmates, but only 5% of the world's population.

The Prison Industrial Complex is one of the biggest political donors in the country. Prisoners are paid slave wages to work in private prisons that are run for profit.

I have no doubt that State Child Care is also it's own corporate nightmare, with various factions and interests bidding on the care of children, concerned only with profit.

It really should come as no surprise that the state is bad at raising children. The theory of homesteading, goes somewhat like this. That the owner of a property (in this case, the parents) will always manage that property (the children) better than anyone else because they have an incentive (love, duty, honor, social pressure, etc.) to do so.

The state has no incentive to raise these children properly. There is no way to translate Rebecca and Kaethy's concern for these children, into independently run childcare services. In fact, I'd guess that Rebecca or Kaethy would do a tremendously better job than child care services, if for only that they do not have a (financial) profit motive.

I am also interested to see an answer to this.

 

In reality, the children will be removed even before any judge makes a decision and nice try to ignore the part of my post that at present situation Judges routinely approve the removals.
Do you honestly believe that every one of these children including small children will be better off in a state care than being with their parents?

I am sure you are very concerned and that is the reason you like to place small children in an environment that they can get poisoned, raped and killed. Like I said, you can always tell the 3 year old girl that it is OK that she got raped since she won't need to marry an old man when she is a teenager but I wonder what will be your excuse if a 3 year old boy gets raped?

 

I will go ahead and answer your questions, but know that I will never agree with you that adults having sex with minors should be legal. I am not familar with Texas law regarding gay sex. Generally speaking, it doesn't really bother me what kind of sex people are having, as long as it is between consenting adults, and they are not hurting anyone else. On the question of taking wife away from husband and putting children in foster care, that is a tough one. If the wife is only 13 or 14, I would like to see her put into foster care with her children. If she is older like 16 or 17, and wants to stay, perhaps that would be an option. It depends on circumstances of case, each case should be looked at individually. Even in statutory rape case, the law leaves a lot of room for flexibility. At the very minimum, each family should be required to go through counseling program. Do I think it is best to break up a 14 yr. old and a 40 yr. old man? Yes I do. Although, I don't believe it should be mandatory to seperate her from her child.

 

We really don't see eye to eye on all of this, and I didn't expect we would, but this was a quality answer to questions that don't have easy answers. Thank you.

My issue is with the definition of minor. I'm certainly no fan of an adult having sex with someone who has not hit puberty. I think we can agree that there is no "ideal" age that satisfies the emotional development and gravity of consent for all children, while still satisfying the inevitable sexual urges that teenagers have earlier than state sanctioned "age of consent", regardless of the legality of those urges.

We're on the same page here, the only issue I have is the issue of the age of consent. Perhaps it would be more logical to qualify teenagers as educated and informed about sex, than to arbitrarily grant consent rights at a particular date milestone.

I think you got my point about the law as a defense of a position. Texas law sometimes agrees with us, and sometimes it does not. And probably, different for you and I. It's hard to claim that the law is an authority, unless you're one of those perfect people who agrees with every single law and punishment.

I think we can agree, this is messy business. And if you believe there is a victim, then how they are treated has to be at least equal to if not greater than the concern for punishment. We can't punish the mother and child and claim to be doing the right thing.

 

There are two arguments being attempted here:

1. The state had no right to intervene in removing the children from the YFZ compound;

2. The choice of foster care for these children is worse than leaving them in the abusive situation they find themselves in now.

No. 2 is a legitimate though painful area of thought. It raises good-faith questions of conscience, essentially, a question that must be asked: which is worse - removing children from a known abusive situation, or placing them in a system where the potential for abuse exists? And this is something for us all to ponder.

Guerilla and Gworld have spent close to 20 pages trying to defend the right of middle aged men to impregnate teenage children, on the basis of these children having agreed to "consensual" relation with the offenders, and on the basis of "liberty." This is baneful claptrap, in my opinion.

A good op-ed piece speaks to much of the legitimate concerns raised by many in this thread. While I don't agree with all of it - in particular, taking the ACLU to task for doing what it is supposed to do - it has hit home on many of the issues germane to this thread:

http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/620718.html

(Emphasis mine)

By the way - I expected to be banned, based on my own reporting of my response to Gworld's tactic, namely, to say that those of us who agreed with the intervention do so not out of concern for these children, but for some narrow political viewpoint, or worse. I wasn't banned, obviously, but was rightfully given infractions by someone else's reporting of my posts in this thread. While I am surprised I'm still here, I am willing to continue this dialogue on substantive lines, provided others drop the disgusting tactics of recent memory.

 

If your name was anthonycea you probably would have been banned but you're quite safe here I think. To be honest the P&R forum hasn't been the same since he got banned for life. The P&R forum needs a balance IMHO.

 

You're welcome.

Is that where you draw the line, at puberty? Girls have puberty between the age of 10-14 years old. Do you think it is a good idea to have sex with 10 yr. olds and 12 yr. olds? IMO, that is pedophilia and child molestation.

We shouldn't need to worry about emotional development and gravity of consent regarding sex with children, because children shouldn't be having sex anyway.

Huh? We should be concerned with satisfying the inevitable sexual urges that teenagers have?

How about just wait for them to become adults, that would be easy.

I don't believe adults should be having sex with children. The vast majority of people feel the same, and I am greatful for our current laws which try to protect children.

 

I am being completely honest here, AGS. I did receive a "serious" infraction from this thread, and absolutely, rightly so, based on the rules. I broke the rules in telling Gworld and Guerilla what they could do with themselves, given their having dived into the sewer, in my opinion, in trying to divert attention away from the issue at hand. I didn't care if I was banned or not, and don't now. If I continue to post as I have over the last few days, I will very definitely expect to be banned.

The mods do a good job babysitting this corner of the DP universe. Anthony was banned because this is all he did, from what I remember. There wasn't a post of his that didn't contain a personal attack on another member, and however one feels about it, this is against DP policy. I personally don't think "Fuck you, you asshole son of a bitch!" needs to be balanced by "fuck you, too, you asshole son of a bitch!" to be considered balanced.

Generally, I try to keep the gloves up. Every once in a rare while, I say to hell with it and let my bald feelings be known. I rightfully get dinged for it. So should you. So should any of us.

 

This is utterly false. On the contrary, the statistics and evaluation are in the public domain, and completely transparent. Please refer to:

2008 CFSR Assessment (WARNING: PDF).

I am pleased to see that many of the issues raised by former Comptroller Strayhorn (in Gworld's link) have been addressed, it seems to me. The document is lengthy (209 pages), and extremely detailed, but worth the read, if one is sincerely concerned about the actual state of child protective services in Texas.

It is good and proper that such departments are held to account for their grave responsibility, and from my read, it seems things relevant to this issue have vastly improved. The department owns up to its failures, and concretely provides a detailed account of what it has done in response to its earlier failings. The document cited is extremely detailed - just a small sampling:

Please also see:

Dapartment of Family and Protective Services - Reports, Stats, Plans, Presentations

The idea that the department is "hiding" stats from the Legislature, or anyone else, is simply false.