FOX News -Smart Family Doesn't Want Sexual Assualt Charges Filed Against MItchells

FOX News ^ | March 18, 2003 | Shepard Smith

[ewing]

just the update

[Salvation]

Rediculous not to file these charges too.

[Skywalk]

I agree with you, brother. While I feel compassion for anyone who suffers loss or torture or humiliation, I don't agree with this need to protect the victims of sexual abuse from having to testify, while we compel those who've seen their mothers/fathers slaughtered like hogs to take the stand. What's worse?

Be strong, be brave and hope you've taught your children to be smart and survive but never meekly surrender to a madman. I guess that's what we USED to teach.

[jwalsh07]

I think this is good news. Now if her parents really have thier heads on straight there will be no made for TV movies, books or any further appearances on the Katie Colon show.

[RnMomof7]

So, now her LDS religion is to blame, and her parents for teaching her those same beliefs? How so? And what is your definition of "very fundamentalist" Mormonism? And how on earth did any of this make Mitchell's perversion any easier to carry out?

Can you see how a man saying he was a prophet from God , and that god had personally told him to take her as one of his wives may ring a bell for an LDS child?

[GovernmentShrinker]

The fact is that no state will compel testimony of an unwilling victim, and if the state doesn't think it can convict without that victim's testimony it will not bring the charges which rest on it. This happens every single day in every single state with regard to domestic violence cases -- police are called to a home where a woman has obviously just been beaten to a pulp by her boyfriend or husband, but she's the only witness and within a day or two she's decided she doesn't want to press charges, and the case is dropped.

[Theophilus]

Do you even live in Utah?

What does living in Utah have to do with anything? That makes less sense then asking you if you're a blond. Are you?

Let the family make their requests to the prosecutor privately, then I could care less. I'm going to keep critizing these fruits as long as they keep making public statements.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Who's compelling witnesses to their parents' slaughter to testify? I've never heard of such a thing.

[geege]

What happens if she gets an STD for this pervert???? Just let it go?????

[GovernmentShrinker]

Actually it would ring a loud bell that something's not right here. The LDS Church has heavily emphasized the "Follow the Prophet" theme in children's classes in recent years, and point number one is that the Prophet is Gordon B. Hinckley and nobody else.

[cherry]

"If you remember correctly, the state of TX purposely didn't charge Andrea Yates with all of her children's murder in case the first jury found her innocent..."

. maybe the differance is the victims...Texas could have gone back and charged murder on the other children not mentioned in the first go-round...

did the same thing with the serial murderer Robt. Yates....kept one murder victim as a safety net just in case the first charges with the other victims did not hold up....

however, there is little defense here.....I don't see a problem with conviction and sentencing.....

[Skywalk]

let me correct myself--perhaps they are not compelled in the truest sense of the word, but they somehow are convinced or cajoled to speak. In some cases they need no convincing, they willingly go.

[RnMomof7]

There is a history to consider here..It would not be the first time that a man heard from God personally and a child of 14 would have heard the story

[GovernmentShrinker]

In case any of you missed this disgusting NewsMax article "Why Elizabeth Ran Away" by obviously clueless psychotherapist Joan Swirsky, here's the link http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/14/132703.shtml (it was posted previously on one of the ES threads). It's well worth freeping -- author's e-mail is given, but I chose to send my complaint to NewsMax's Editor in Chief, who is responsible for this garbage having been published.

[Theophilus]

nor did he do anything with girls/women who weren't of marriageable age under the prevailing social standards of the time.

I think "seducer" pretty much describes Joey. I think the "prevailing social standards of the time" were much much higher then they are today and they didn't include polygamy.

[FreePaul]

...There will be posters who will claim that Elizabeth went willingly...

The posters are not going to be the ones involved in the trial if there is one. The victim of the crime is going to have to testify. Any defense lawyer who doesn't vigorously cross examine will set up grounds for an appeal. That's just the way the system works. The victim is twice the victim.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Hardly any different from a man running around saying he's the Son of God, and Christian children of all stripes have had that one drummed into their heads. But most of them are still plenty skeptical when some nut on the street is claiming that he's Jesus, come back to Earth just like the Christian children were taught he would.

[CharacterCounts]

The victim is twice the victim.

Yes, but ultimately she will be the victor.

[GovernmentShrinker]

"Seducer" is a pretty fair assessment of JS, but hardly an appropriate description of Brian David Mitchell a.k.a. "Emmanuel". I was objecting to your drawing a parallel between the two.

[jlogajan]

but a crime is a PUBLIC wrong

That's too socialistic. There is a public (joint) benefit in prosecuting criminals. But the crime is always against an individual or individuals.

[Skywalk]

I would tend to agree, but what I'm saying finds its basis in our legal traditions.

And of course, the crime is against individual or individuals, but the State prosecutes to protect the public, through the deterrence of fines and prison.

A person that wishes to have their wrongs redressed files a tort against against the perpetrator.