Posted on 04/17/2008 10:12:04 PM PDT by Howdy there
Let me preface this by saying that there may be perfectly legitimate reasons that they have the crematorium, and I am NOT presuming guilt.
But...if you believed it was your mission on Earth to marry off young girls and have sex with them, occasionally there's going to be clear evidence of what you're doing that will be reported if medical personnnel are involved. For example, if a 13 year old has a stillborn child, an investigation may follow, and if you get investigated for some other reason a tiny skeleton buried on the ranch could be used against you. If you have a crematorium, you dispose of the body and it's as if the kid never existed.
Note that according to wikipedia the ranch "houses a temple, a waste treatment facility, a 29,000-square-foot (2,700 m²) house for FLDS Church President Warren Jeffs, a meeting house, and several dormitory-style buildings.There are generators, gardens, a grain silo, and a large stone quarry that is being cut for the temple." If there was a slaughterhouse or other cattle or hog-related items on that list, I might figure the crematorium was for carcasses, but it doesn't seem to fit the stuff that's there.
Yes, but the results of Warren Jeff's doctrine have been on trial, and it has been proven in court that the foundation of his doctrine is activity that is abusive and highly illegal.
Is that probable cause on its own? No. But to pretend that a group following a relgion that preaches the need for forced polygamous marriages involving minors is the same as Indians having kids out of wedlock to get welfare is pretty silly. Even sillier is comparing Hispanic high school girls screwing up their lives with willing underage sex to a doctrine of forced marriage.
Sure, c
I would think you would have enough information to realize they are both at rock bottom. After what has been proven about the FLDS in court through the trial of Warren Jeffs I wouldn't trust these people to tell me what color the sky is.
In fact, let me put it this way: My next door neighbor is an Illinois state trooper. I'd trust him to watch my kids. Ditto for my friend the recently retired judge or the den mother in my cub ppack who works for CPS. But if an FLDS leader came to my house and offered to babysit, I'd leave the imprint of a size 12 boot on his butt.
I’ll have to go back and see what I said.
Thank You, for your comment.
Thanks so much for answering! It certainly makes it MUCH more suspicious, to me! (Am enjoying all of your posts—you say it so much more eloquently than I will!)
Well, I’m lost.
Sounds like we all agree on the basics on this one, but are arguing with each other over focus on individuals concerns.
Some are worried the ‘rights’ of the children were violated.
Some are worried the ‘rights’ of the women were violated.
some want the men violated.
Some are worried that the gubamint is using gestapo tactics to raid churches.
Some are worried that Warren Jeffs is still running his inbreeding severely retarded girls to trade for sworn loyalty scam.
Some are worried that all the children in Indian Reservations are being raped, then traded to Ghetto neighborhoods, or vice versa.
Everybody is worried about something. The government has been, and is trying to do something now.
But everyone is waiting for the commercial to get over, so we can get back to the show, and find out the conclusion.
And the masses are getting impatient.
“It is the nature of the evidence used to obtain the warrant in the first place which seems to be untenable. “
And, it may be in the details of the evidence, and not just what the media has revealed to us, that makes the difference.
[...] : fraudulently concocted : spurious (trumped–up charges) Main Entry: [...] 1: of illegitimate birth : bastard Main Entry:
trumped–up
spurious
2: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : false
3 a: of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged
3 b: of a deceitful nature or quality
So, in your world the authorities shouldn't have raided the place and Freepers like me shouuldn't think it was probably justified because "every American is innocent until proven guilty" [...]
No, the authorities should not have raided the place until they had verifiable evidences sufficient to sustain a warrant.
Secondly, suspicion is not a reason for arrest or seizure. What right have the authorities to remove children from families where the evidence is not apparent?
FIVE pregnant females under 18 (not necessarily statutory) caused the removal of four hundred and sixteen children. How can that be justified?
[...] but if you want to find someone guilty of intentionally putting innocent people in danger of losing their kids and going to jail, that's perfectly fine.
Because those I accuse are beholden by oath, by duty, and by law to follow a standard of due process that was *not* adhered to. That is evidenced and apparent by the subject of the OP.
SORRY. I mixed up which statement you referred to.
___________
You asked: “So, you are telling me you haven’t already decided?
Because I had said: Those MEN of the FLDS owe these women quite a huge settlement, and they should go to jail.
As far as the comment I made about the HUGE SETTLEMENT, that is totally irrespective of the current discussions on threads, and pertains to a hundred year history of continuing the practices of CHILD BRIDES with out even a legal marriage, “THE BREAKING” where baby girls heads are held under running water, to starve their brain of oxygen and ensure their becoming mentally retarded, so that they will “BE SWEET”
(google :BE SWEET. But it isn’t sweet, it’s sick.)
I completely understand what you are saying
Please consider this.
It was a Search warrant.
To go look for underage pregnant girls.
They were found.
Hearings are going on currently with a judge to determine the custody of said girls, other children the same age, and the involved children ...of the children.
It was not an ARREST WARRANT.
You’ll see one of those if the blood tests and testimony are convincing enough to a judge and prosecutor, and those aren’t done yet.
Plus the MEN won’t give their DNA to help solve the problem. (whatever their reason)
“FIVE pregnant females under 18 (not necessarily statutory) caused the removal of four hundred and sixteen children. How can that be justified?”
Authorities the mothers of these five females if they wanted to take their other children with them.
They said yes.
The authorities said, would have have your other children raise their hands. 411 hands went up.
Authorities asked the .....
(sorry)
Of course I will cede that exception, as I have attempted to do in my previous comments.
Link plz? The article in the OP said that FLDS women were skeptical of the accusations. It is my understanding that the mothers are not with the removed children.
It does not change my position, however.
A sketchy warrant and they seize 100s of children. Apart from all the discussion involving the girls .... and whether there was good cause to take them...
Tell me, why did they take the boys?
Were there allegations of their abuse? NO
Were they in danger? NO
Did the warrant have anything to do with the boys? NO
So from what harm were the boys removed?
A disapproved lifestyle!
It was sarcasm.
My bad for not putting the tag, on it.
“Of course I will cede that exception, as I have attempted to do in my previous comments. “
The only thing I don’t trust is the Media and their staged releases of information, and the terribly biased articles , no matter which side of the table they are on.
I think it’s a given that sex with minors is being practiced.
I think it’s a given that the CPS and LE are walking on broken glass while a majority of the nation is watching and judging their every move.
What was that old Twilight Zone movie? “The Monsters are due on Maple Street”
When I start reading through a thread on FLDS, or a similar vein, it feels like that movie.
Clarification:
Post 251 was meant as sarcasm, regardless to how true it may or may not be.
I understand that perfectly. It makes no difference. If there was not evidence to support the warrant, the search should not have been conducted.
To go look for underage pregnant girls. They were found.
This also makes no difference if the reason for the warrant was not substantive.
As to the rest of your post, I care not one wit for these people if they have done as they are accused, and provided that their actions were in fact illegal.
What I am adamant about is that the law is followed, and more so by the authority than by the citizen.
ok i have read where the news types when they went in filmed not only tv’s but computers and those hooked up to the internet. and as far as the rest i have not seen any pictures of the men that would meet that description
but you do have a good imagination will give you that
i try to stick to those things proving not wild emotions and exaggeration.
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.