There are laws against rape and I, like everyone else, expect them to be enforced. That was not my question. My concern is what moral decisions they will decide to investigate next. The person's statement was that they have a moral obligation to investigate any report that they receive. Does that mean that we are setting the stage for raids and removal of children from parents that don't agree with their neighbor's morals necessarily, but the neighbor calls and makes a report that is otherwise unsubstantiated?
A law involving morality that comes about as a result of society deciding that an act should be illegal are what this country is all about. However, if what I allow my children to watch on television may cause my neighbor to file a report and my children are removed -- pending investigation of what kind of parent I might be -- the line may has been crossed. Like I stated, who's morals are being enforced here?
Which brings me back to the case at hand. I have no problem on the face of things for authorities to investigate a charge of beatings and/or rape against a young girl. But the authorities in this case RAIDED ... with swat-like teams including an armoured vehicle ... and removed 437 children, probably well over 300 of those did not even come close to matching the given description of the child the investigation should have centered on.
Now, it must be said that I have not followed everything on this case closely. I know what I have heard in passing on TV and the limited threads I have read on FR concerning this subject. But it would seem to me that the government has made a HUGE leap in this instance, and that leap is being applauded by a large number of folks. I believe that applause is mostly due to information that they have heard or, for some other reason, believe because the FLDS live very oddly and against the norms of our society.
I have questions. That doesn't mean that I support the FLDS or that I agree with the government. That means that I am attempting to have an honest discussion of what is being done here and if it represents a slippery slope that we might think twice about before sliding on down.
*******************
And yet rape is the issue here.
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.