Posted on 04/22/2008 3:40:19 PM PDT by BGHater
Would you mind adding me to your ping list?
If I have to. :p
:)
They did not “raid”. They were allowed in. There was no shouting, no violence. The armored vehicle was brought in later. I see no reason that the police should be required to
endanger themselves by not taking precautions in an unknown situation.
Saying “I have a moral duty to investigate.” is not related in any way to what is found during the investigation. It means that to leave a possible victim in such a situation would be immoral.
The removal of the children had nothing to do with the original warrant.
They obtained a second warrant after multiple cases of underage pregnancy/rape were uncovered during the questioning of the teen girls.
They then proceeded to obtain an order of removal for the children, which they did NOT have to do. That was extra security in this case.
“If I call the dispatcher and tell them someone is attempting to break into my house, they are not going to do a wiretap before they send someone out. Only after they secure the premises will they go about determining if I made a prank call. I have been a government employee. You have to be able to prioritize and you have to take every report at face value.”
_____________________________________________________________
Do you think this is a accurate analogy to the Eldorado case? What part of the exigent circumstances provision quoted in my post did you not read?
Sarah who? Surname was not given.
Where is Sarah? They are looking for her. That’s why the entered the YFZ ranch.
With whom did she have sex? Dale Barlow.
When did she have sex with this person? Over the past year according to the phone call.
__________________________________________________________
All the answers are in the information posted by you. What you are too [?] to realize/accept is that the CPS is mandated to act on the report, as it stands, and not sift through the issue of motive.
What part of ‘take every report at face value’ do you not understand?
I have no complaint with the concept of leaving innocent people to their privacy. I resourced the McMartin thing that was posted only to find out there’s been no conclusion. It was a waste of time and money.
If you’re correct, that the attorneys for the FLDS can prove there are no exigent circumstances, why haven’t they?
That is pretty much my point and my concern. I guess you phrased it so much more pithy than I. Now ... who's children are next to be removed, even though CPS doesn't really HAVE to, they just WANT to?
Pingy me too, please?
I’d like to point out that there are codes, i.e. state states, involved in both agencies here. The CPS has their code and so do the sheriff’s officials.
At any time during their investigation, should any of the agency officials present observe a violation of the code - and I know they know it backwards, forwards and upside down - or a question of violation, that has to be acted upon. Failure to do so is dereliction of duty.
Actually, I think she gave her name as Sarah Jessop (Barlow).
I think that is what was on the warrant paperwork.
“....that the attorneys for the FLDS can prove there are no exigent circumstances,...”
Guilty until proven innocent?????????
This is getting into the looking glass land.
I have decided that I will wait for the case to be adjudicated.
That isn’t what I said.
They got an unnecessary court order. They had the authority to remove the children without it. They went the extra mile, and had the court order produced.
Are you suggesting that people who disagree with you are fascist? Name calling doesn’t make your position any stronger.
susie
How do you know they were guarding the Mosques from scrutiny? Is it possible they were guarding those who might go worship there from possible retaliation? Perhaps you have an in ad the police dept and could share with us how you know what they were doing there?
susie
I’d have to go back and look at my Freepmail, but it may have been (I tend to not keep much track of who says what, that way I argue the points, not the personality of the posters). I find I usually agree with some things a person says and disagree with others. I probably agree with most of the people on FR on most things. :)
susie
Probably showing my ignorance, but what is IANAL?
susie
Perhaps magic and osmosis! ;)
susie
Of course the raid was legal - the guy with warrant in hand likely did nothing wrong because he had a legal authorization in hand (and because the members provided a token protest to satisfy church law, then stepped aside - wise choice).
Best available way to 'change the law' is to show that it is flawed - otherwise you have to hang out with politicians or lawyers, or both.
I'll stay here thanks, paid the dues, don't want a refund.
There is no polygamy, in a legal sense, going on. The men are only legally married to one woman at a time. The rest are *spiritual* and the state has no way to prosecute that. So...why are you suggesting the state should have acted on that?
susie
There is a thread on FR whereby the USSC has stated that even under an unlawful or false arrest and resulting search is legal. So, even IF the calls were bogus or the initial warrant was bogus, anything the CPS guys say is valid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.