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

There are people who rationalize that the ends justifies the means. These are dangerous people, because this is the same rationale GWB has used to seize the power to void or avoid any law under the auspice of defending the nation.

It's a slippery slope. And an unprincipled one. The 4th Amendment protects citizens. It should not be so easily bypassed by a prank phone call.

 

There are some people who consistently misrepresent what is said, and what is actually done, as this poster is certainly "rationalizing" nothing. Probable cause was upheld, and investigation was most definitely warranted, and

Avoidance or misrepresentation cannot alter that.

Again, I do have to wonder why some folks who most repeatedly voice their desire for further inquiry into 9/11 conspiracy theory would deny the rightful initial investigation into a situation where the abhorrently egregious abuse of children might be taking place.

 

There are some people who imagine that a prank phone call is reason to investigate someone.

In this case, what is turning out to be a bogus phone call, had the police descend on the FLDS compound. They have not completed an investigation. They have not filed any charges. They have not arrested anyone.

But they have taken 400 children away and those children are undergoing DNA tests, which may or may not turn up any strange relationships.

But the premise that the police can descend on your home, empowered by nothing more than a rumor, to confiscate your children and genetically test them to make sure they are yours, defies any standard of morality or privacy IMO. That's how a police state functions, not a free society.

Is this acceptable in America? Not to me.

 

I guess it eludes this poster. Folks, what part of:

Makes this so difficult to understand? "What is turning out to be. " What "wasn't known to be." What "regardless, if someone calls in a crime being foisted upon children, it warrants an investigation under probable cause." Given the seriousness of the call, what "commonsensically led authorities to investigate."

And the investigation itself has led to the actions taken, not the phone call, as the investigating authorities have said, and as has been stated on this thread.

But the poster continues to misstate that there wasn't probable cause to investigate, continues to misrepresent what took place (prank phone call - police take kids; as opposed to "prank phone call - investigation - kids taken") and continues to avoid the obvious, it seems to me: a phone call yelling "SOMEONE IS BEING MURDERED, RIGHT BEFORE MY EYES!!!!!" rightfully elicits an investigation. If the caller was a loon, and a murder didn't happen, 'kay. If the caller was a loon, and a murder did happen, 'kay. If a murder happened, and the caller wasn't a loon, 'kay.

Under any circumstance, probable cause is precisely what took place respecting this issue, the poster's misstatements notwithstanding.

 

It looks like some posters here are more interested in living in a police state, where your neighbor, or a stranger can subject you to police harassment by doing nothing more than spreading a rumor.

George Orwell would be so proud.

 

Hahahah. Yep. So, it went from a phone call eliciting a rightful investigation leading to the actions taken to "police harassment based on rumors."

I'll be sure to ask the police if they're sure they want to come next time I witness some serious shit coming down. I'll ask them, "but....but....how do you know I'm not playing a prank, instead of reporting the homicide in progress?"

Classic.

 

There has been no rightful investigation as some posters would put it. No one has been charged. All we know is that 400 people were taken away by the police, over 60 of them were of adult age, and now the state is forcing these people to prove their innocence against prank phone calls through DNA testing.

There are some posters here who would argue that the police can't afford not to act, and thus, those posters don't realize that they are empowering people who would abuse the system, because the police have to err on the side of intervention.

This is not much different than the current harassment being unleashed by the police around the world, where citizens are constantly surveilled, asked to provide their papers, and conform to searches on demand.

What would the Founders think of a people who were so quick to surrender liberty for security?

 

As usual, the poster is moving on to the next thing. He begins by saying there wasn't probable cause:

Once that was clearly shown to be flawed, it's "moving on to the next thing" time. This is a monster of a case, and investigation continues. This is no different than removing someone who is purported to have been tortured and kidnapped from the alleged kidnapper's home. This was the prudent, not extreme, move to make.

And now, the poster once again asks us to see "what the Founders would have thought," but it seems we've been here before.

The Constitution, by the way, is a beautiful document, embodying among the highest ideals of humanity's aspirations for good society. It does need to be looked at with reasonable sense, howvever. The above poster apparently believes the document is a sacred, immutable text. This is ridiculous, in my opinion. By way of example, I would remind us all:

Them there "3/5ths of all other persons" were men, women and children in manacles and chains, United States slaves, and this tenet exists in the U.S. Constitution. The constitution is either perfect, or imperfect, and once you admit imperfection, you admit reasonable interpretation. I'm just a bit tired of hearing how "we're" all just a bunch of tyrannical police-state lovers if "we" apply sense to senselessness.

 

Now some posters here would have us believe that probable cause is an estranged woman making prank phone calls, and that an investigation is rightful before it has turned up any evidence of wrong doing.

To summarize,

Accusation = Proof
Investigation = Guilt
Tyranny = Security

 

Size and bold lettering does nothing to bolster one's points.

To summarize,

No one is fooled.

Placing a phone call about the immediate danger to 400 children rightfully elicits an immediate response by law enforcement, Guerilla's apparent belief that this kind of police response is equal to Nazi Germany's totalitarian state notwithstanding. He early on attempted the argument that there was no probable cause to elicit such a response, and that attempt failed. Now, characteristically, he's moving on to something else, to the "illegality" of the investigation - which continues, with the safety of the children being paramount. I will repeat:

Maybe the larger problem comes down to Guerilla's apparent, but in my mind, erroneous belief he is pursuing a strict Constitutionality to all of his various points, here, and elsewhere:

I believe the Constitution is a beautifully conceived document as well. But every comma isn't a whisper from god, and every word outside the document isn't satan's breath. We must preserve constitutionality by applying its principles in daily life.

Though I believe that across many threads I have shown where the constitutionality of his views falls short, across many issues, I think we could all use a reminder that the Constitution Guerilla regularly cites to in the way many people wave and thump their sacred texts, is an incredible, but imperfect document. Or, again,

In fact requires reasonable people to work with it in a reasonable fashion:

 

The facts remain, and I can't believe that any sane person would argue against it, that a PRANK PHONE CALL was made, and as a result 400 PEOPLE were taken from their homes, WITHOUT PROOF, WITHOUT CHARGES and WITHOUT INVESTIGATION.

The investigation comes after these people have already been taken from their homes. What happens if this does indeed turn out to be a scam, and these people were innocent? Did the state have the right to break up their family and subject them to this treatment?

The issue here, is that the state has overstepped it's bounds over a PRANK PHONE CALL and disrupted hundreds of lives.

The sick, twisted interventionist logic that would claim that every child complaint must be addressed by forcing people out of their homes, regardless of the veracity of the accusation, is the same f**ked up logic GWB used when he lied to the world and said that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons, and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

And with that paranoia and fear, the trading of liberty (and rationality) for security, a sovereign country was invaded, and the blood of thousands is on the hands of every American who agreed with the invasion. Because those people have used their fear as justification to intervene or harm others.

Much like the fear created by the attack on Pearl Harbor. or the Gulf of Tonkin. Or 9/11. Operation Northwoods is specifically about attacking Americans and framing another power, to gain emotionally driven consent to attack a 3rd party.

Even if that 3rd party is innocent.

But the lower brained state worshippers still think they have the moral justification to infringe on one person's rights, under the guide of protecting someone else.

It's a slippery slope. I wonder what would happen to the resident apologists for the state, if someone made bogus phone calls to their local police, and had their children taken away for DNA sampling? Would the police be correct in that instance for acting based upon conjecture and malicious rumor?

To summarize,

Accusation = Proof
Investigation = Guilt
Tyranny = Security

 

Again, this is untrue. Simply repeating it doesn't alter the truth.

Folks, I have to say I just think Guerilla might be confused here. The phone call did not trip the removal, it tripped the investigation. Guerilla originally said there was no probable cause to warrant the investigation, because the investigation was made on an allegedly prank phone call:

This was shown to be completely erroneous. The investigation was initiated, on precisely the basis of probable cause.

And that investigation apparently led authorities to believe there was an immediate danger to these children, and it was in the interest of protecting them from further immediate harm that the prudent call was apparently made to remove them from the situation, while investigation continues.

As well, the world is full of concretes and actualities, not generalities leading to conspiracies at every corner. This action was not a nazi police state action, nor is it analogous to Bush's record on civil rights. It is what it is, a particular set of circumstances, requiring a particular analysis, and a particular set of actions.

Particularly when he has has the temerity to call me "psychotic," "Class A Nutjob," etc. on the basis of my making points in this forum, it is regretful that Guerilla continues to use emotional buzzwords, and titanic sized bolded lettering, in lieu of making a convincing argument.

 

Fascinating case, potentially horrible conditions in which young girls could be subject to forcable rape under the undue pressure and control from adults, issues of religeon and privacy.

These are the things under which the constitution comes under scrutiny and which established law is used to both protect the rights of individuals and establish a "police force" to protect the rights of both society and individuals.

On 4/10/08, two days after the raid, MSNBC, reported on this issue, and specifically dealt with the probable cause issue of the raid.

With regard to the raid, MSNBC reports

The sect had purchased the land in 2003 or 2004, and moved into the site in 2004. Texas authorities were aware of potential problems since 2004 but had not acted. ......more from the article on this waiting period....

During the period from 2004 to the recent raid, local officials had visited the compound but were frustrated in their efforts to uncover any criminal activity.

More on these efforts over 4 years and the actions that sponsored the raid.

This article seems to indicate that after 4 years of research and effort, finally something provoked the "probable cause standard" to initiate the raid.

But what is probable cause?

Per Wikipedia

Probable cause is a standard used by police. The language comes right from the 4th Amendment.

The issue reflects both the protection of individual rights and a protection of society as reflected by a standard that is requisite to balance both needs.

How are these standards applied?

From Wikipedia this series of quotes tackles different perspectives on the standard of probable cause...

and from a different source we have this definition...

I would suggest that after 4 years of investigating, after 4 years of not acting because of a lack of current evidence, and after receiving the call the probable cause standard was more than met.

It appears that constitutional protections of privacy were more than met, while the needs of society to protect the most innocent waited 4 years, while the protections of the constitution prevented the police from acting.

 

Yup folks, the great evils in this world are big lettering, and ol' guerilla. You know you are winning an argument when your opposite has to resort to Ad Hominem arguments against the man.

Creative revisionist history being passed around.

A prank phone call, prompted police action. The police have charged NO ONE. They have arrested only the prank caller. Meanwhile, hundreds of children have been taken from their parents, awaiting genetic testing.

All of the Obama-esque hot air and double talk can't make this situation any muddier.

What I am reading, and it should shock me as much as it shocks you the reader, is that some people on this forum believe that the police have the right to come into your home, on the basis of a phone call from a malicious 3rd party, and take your children away.

Yep, the investigation starts after you are in custody. Sounds a lot like a police state, with the gestapo running the show.

Oh, btw, it will take a month after they take you into custody, to determine if you are even guilty of some wrong doing.

So when you read all of the blather pandered about in this thread, meant to confuse and dilute the issue, just remember one thing.

People have been taken into custody, without being charged, based upon a malicious lie.

If there is no charge, there is no crime. And people cannot be held indefinitely while the police look for a crime to charge them with. That's the opposite of a free society.

And shame on the state apologists who try to convince you otherwise.

 

Yeah, great job Earl. The informant turns out to be some sick lady who made everything up and was leading the police on.

So they went in without probable cause, they went in as suckers.

And that still doesn't excuse the police for holding these people for a month to complete genetic testing before deciding to charge them.

If there are no charges, there are no crimes. People cannot be held indefinitely against their will, particularly splitting up kids from their moms, and then sending them off to foster homes.

 

Guerilla can repeat this as much as he likes, but it wasn't true the first time, and it isn't now. No one was taken away on the basis of a phone call.

He can, and does, ignore the facts, which is of course his right. But this is unsupportably erroneous, for reasons shown by Earlpearl (excellent post, Earl - as always; thanks - learned something new) and myself. He attacks others ("Obamaesque hot air," etc. - or just naming me "psychotic/nut job," others "fascists," etc.), but cannot accept that the many flaws of his thinking will very definitely be dealt with.

 

Once again folks, it's been a week, and no one has been charged. The Police are splitting up kids from their Moms, and genetically testing these people, without having a crime to charge them with.

But some folks on this forum won't address that.

They don't want to talk about people being taken into custody without there being any crime.

They would much rather attack me personally to cover up for the horrible things they condone in the name of security.

 

The crime is evident already. There are several teenage girls who are pregnant and or mothers. They clearly were impregnated prior to their 17th birthday. That's illegal under age 16. Between 16 & 17, it's only legal if within a LEGAL marriage consented to by the girls parents. The parent cannot consent to a marriage that is bigamy or polygamy or a "spiritual marriage". So the girls who were impregnated prior to their 17th birthday, are evidence of sexual abuse.

One of the men was interviewed and said he didn't know sex with an underage girl was illegal. Hmm, ya think they might have looked into what's legal & what's not regarding young women & sex after their prophet Warren Jeffs was sent to prison for being an accessory to rape! Nooo, not them. WILFULL IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.

At the start of the raid, they asked for a girl named Sarah, because they believed that was the girl who made the call. The men at the gate said, no, no Sarah here. Yeah, right. There are 5 Sarah's in the group. Anyone want to take a guess why they said no? Nice, how about Thou shalt not bear false witness?

Also, there were 437 children. But only about 2 dozen teenage boys. Now why is that? What happened to all the boys??? There should be about 200, of all ages. That doesn't work out to 24 teenage boys. This is because teenage boys are frequently banned for minor infractions, so the old men won't have competition for the girls. Anyone ever hear of the lost boys? This isn't just about abuse of girls. Abandoning your sons to the streets is cruel and abusive and I would think illegal.

I saw one of the women on TV being interviewed. She spoke clearly with her head held high, until they asked if she knew of any underage girls being "married" off. Then she put her face down and spoke softly while she claimed to not know of any girls being "married". She wasn't a good liar.

But let's not call it marriage, cuz it isn't. It's not spiritual marriage, it's illegal polygamy.

So if you secretly envy these guys for being able to add teenage girls to their harem, maybe you could somehow generate some outrage on behalf of the abused and abandoned boys.

 

I'm fascinated by the discussion of probable cause and its usage vis a vis the constitution.

I'm not sure why you are blasting out in big bold oversized letters, Guerilla. I wish you'd stop. Its annoying....and childish IMHO.

With regard to finding the source of the call that initiated the raid, here is an excerpt from an article detailing the court's response from yesterday 4/23/08

The raid occurred on 4/8. Texas police contacted Colorado police in mid April. At this point there is no hard evidence one way or the other with regard to who initiated the call.

Did a girl from the compound initiate the call? Did a woman who had previously made supposedly fake calls only in Colorado suddenly make a call to Texas?

Nobody knows.

Since nobody knows....why are you writing in huge print. Its annoying and childish.

Meanwhile, if one goes back to the standards applied for probable cause one standard backed by precedent suggests that even hearsay can be used as a standard for probable cause.


Meanwhile the potential evil connected to pedophilia is the most heinous of crimes. I've never directly experienced it. For a period I felt like I was the second hand recipient of the crime of pedophilia, as a girl friend from years ago was dealing with its long term miserable impact as an adult from something that had happened to her as a child. It is brutal.

From hearsay and rumour I have heard that criminals in prison treat pedophiles in the most brutal ways. I suppose most in society have a similar distaste for this crime. Should the young girls in this "camp" have been subjected to pedophilia for years because the strict application of the "probable cause" standard kept authorities from protecting their rights and innocense, it would be a crying shame IMHO.

 

Oh, it bothers you Earl?

I'm sorry about that! I didn't realize you had a monopoly on foolishness!

But since no one knows, you are saying it is right to separate kids from their parents, pass them off to foster care, test their DNA and hold everyone without charging them?

Would this be acceptable if it was done to your family based on a phone call no one is sure of, and a supposed victim no one can locate?

Do you believe that the police have the right to investigate for one crime, and then prosecute for others they discover along the way?

Is that the new standard? The cops pick a citizen or group up, whether what they pick them up for is legit or not, and then hold them until they can find a crime to charge them with.

Welcome to tyranny.

You can ramble on about probable cause all you want. If the phone call from the 16 year old was a prank, there was no probable cause, just a sloppy investigation leading up to entering the compound.