Posted on 05/18/2008 10:05:55 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
IF a religion advocates committing crime, is it really a religion?
The central problems in this case are the ‘en masse’ nature of the child custody, and that a ‘religion’ was used to cover for those crimes.
Would we all have a different ‘perception’ of this case, had it not been involved with a ‘religion’?
Yes, we do have to be concerned about becoming a police state. We do have to worry about overzealous agencies who exceed their authority.
But, we also have to deal with the problems, and crimes that occur.
If neither parent is present, you would have to address if the child is visiting or a runaway. While the later is not good, they're all over this country and it doesn't necessarily place any type of blame on the parent or whoever took them in. All kinds of churches in this country take in runaways and for the better I think.
Then we come to true kidnapping, which is a crime, but still has to be proven BEFORE the fact.
I only noted a couple of viable options to your question and there are many more possibilities. If it's "legal" to take them into custody first, why do we have a runaway problem in this country at all? LE could just collect them, put them into foster homes, THEN decide if there were any crimes committed.
If there is evidence of a crime, prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law. Thought is not a crime, yet, the rats are working real hard on that one and have succeeded in some cases like "hate crimes". Even in husband and wife cases, it ain't love when you kill someone. At the moment, it's pretty much limited to race, but how can we be diversified if we can only shoot someone if they are the same color as we are?
OK, the last part was intended to lighten things up. I'm sure I'll get slammed by some over it. ;)
The central problems in this case are the ‘en masse’ nature of the child custody, and that a ‘religion’ was used to cover for those crimes.
Yes, the "en masse" issue is a major part of the problem. They were not prepared to do this, no courtrooms were readied, no individual hearings were done or even scheduled for that matter, and they didn't even have shelter pre-arranged for these kids. Sort of like, we're in the door now, let's get 'em!
I understand your concern about the covering of religion, but that is only alleged by outside sources and taken to task by LE and CPS. There still is not proof that it occurred in Texas.
IF they truly had evidence of a crime, they would have arrested someone by now, at minimum, to dampen the criticism. And we both know, that hasn't happened.
First, it didn’t happen that way.
The CPS didn’t just walk in and take 460 children into custody.
It started with 52. Then went up .
This was a multi-day affair, and involved three search warrants, IIRC.
There is a new thread up, and I expressed my opinion and then ran. Not because it isn’t a good thread.
Here’s a link to the original article
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5792428.html
I have been in agreement with what CPS has done up to this point. Now, I think they are stepping over the line, and there are better alternatives.
Of course, I’m not them, so they will have to face the music, which I am sure will be very loud.
One request.
Please start using paragraphs.
You must hit ENTER twice, after a line, to cause a paragraph break.
Otherwise, the autoscripting configurator (I made that up!) for FR , which is HTML (that part’s true), won’t see it.
Otherwise I’m gonna have to charge you, each time I read your post.
: )
“It is not up to me to prove my innocence, it is up to the state to prove my guilt. “
If it turns out there was no child abuse, no sex with minors since 2004?(when they moved in), no crimes actually committed, then the children having been taken into custody could be considered as unlawful ‘arrest’.
That may not be the exact ‘legal’ terminology.
BTW, there was a SECOND TEXAS ‘compound’ raided.
And a THIRD.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/sect-leader-arrested-on-child-sex-charges/
I think I'll leave that thread alone too. LOL
Some of us saw that coming, ya know? :)
I didn’t know you could hit enter twice and do that.
I’ve always used HTML.
I just tried it so I’ll see how it works.
A little more explanation and it now seems obvious what you wrote or what you meant. LOL
IMO, they have already broken rules and regulations, some of them their own in hearing timelines, state law on affidavits and warrants, and at minimum, the rights of the victims as unlawful detainment. Would also include the rights of the accused, except there aren’t any. The clock is still ticking there.
I knew of the first, not the second.
An FYI. West Texas has always attracted some strange people. It’s wide open country out there. Most everything in Texas is a long way apart, but it’s further out there.
And most people today wear jeans and t-shirts and wear their hair short. The more things change . . .
It works, as long as you don’t use any HTML yourself in the post.
You can cut and paste links, and hit return, and don’t have to use HTML.
Those are the only two things I know of that work on ‘auto’.
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_quick.asp
and this
So, three things.
I figured you were diligently hitting the dash key all the way across the page.
And I had no idea you were explicitly coding HTML for everything. Wish I’d known sooner.
So, what did you think about the two newest articles?
The one on the CPS limiting discussion of JEFFS at the YFZ Ranch.
The other on the two ‘fathers’ who want their kids back.
Once I learned HTML, as much as I know-far from an expert, it sort of comes as second nature. I will definitely check out the options on that site. I know it’s on the thread, but I even emailed it to the house. :)
Reserving judgement on true custody issues, for the time being anyway. In my rambling response that missed the question, I noted that this is where the issues need to be decided in civil court. Still think that for the moment.
In limiting discussion, pictures, etc. on anyone is treading on extremely thin ice. Not only on religious grounds, but also speech as well. Trying to be nice by saying it like that, but I don’t think I will.
I honestly think they are in direct violation of the Constitution and any government entity that engages in such blatant actions needs to be terminated with the violators going to jail.
Just found out what you meant by not mixing the html codes. I had a BIG paragraph. LOL
“I honestly think they are in direct violation of the Constitution and any government entity that engages in such blatant actions needs to be terminated with the violators going to jail.”
And there are exceptions that have been mentioned.
Still..... sticky, sticky, territory.
I know CPS has been granted far-reaching powers, but can they be granted something that is unconstitutional?
I would have to say no. Never.
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.