How do the neighbors not know? Texas Polygamists

Parent Cafe
101

<p>I’m not certain. In fact the judge doesn’t have to be certain a crime was committed to justify issuing a search warrant. We don’t require guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to search for evidence. </p>

<p>But personally, I sure hope the warrant is upheld if the facts are as set forth in the news accounts. Because if it’s not upheld and the caller was “for real” there is no question that she is in very grave danger.</p>

<p>And again, I think these folks are free to believe anything. I do NOT think they are free to DO anything, though. And looking for the records of anyone who gave birth to a child before the age of 17 doesn’t seem to me to be an overly broad warrant. </p>

<p>But the judge will decide that.</p>

102

<p>They’ll know soon enough if the man has ever heard of the girl, since a sample of his DNA was collected. Also the specifics of the affidavit/complaint certainly justify the initial warrant. I’m sure the specifics of the expanded warrant will soon be known as well.</p>

<p>Btw…in Texas, a sexual relationship between an adult and a person under 17 is a crime. A person CAN legally marry at 16 (with parental consent) which exempts them from the law. BUT, we are talking legal marriage, not ‘spiritual marriage’. Spiritual marriage won’t land an old geezer in jail for bigamy, but it also will not protect him from statutory rape charges.</p>

<p>Also, another interesting facet to be played out. I believe, here in Texas, birth and death records are sealed for 75 years. I doubt authorities will waste too much of their time with records and instead will focus on DNA.</p>

<hr>

<p>[Houston</a> news, entertainment, search and shopping | chron.com - Houston Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.chron.com%5DHouston”>http://www.chron.com)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/09/0409eldorado.html[/url]”>http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/09/0409eldorado.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"SAN ANGELO — The 16-year-old girl whose call prompted a raid on a West Texas polygamist compound said she had been repeatedly beaten and sexually assaulted by her husband, according to documents released today by the state.</p>

<p>The girl first called a local family violence shelter on March 29, saying she had been spiritually married to a 49-year-old man when she was 15, that she had an 8-month-old baby fathered by him and that she was pregnant again.</p>

<p>She said she was being held against her will at the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ Yearning For Zion Ranch in nearby Schleicher County</p>

<p>According to the documents, the girl said the man had last beaten her on Easter, and that on one occasion, he had beaten her so severely that several of her ribs were broken and she was taken to the hospital. She said he would force himself on her sexually.</p>

<h2>A day later, on March 30, the girl called with similar comments, but then, the document said, “She began crying and then stated that she was happy and fine and does not want to get into trouble and everything she previously said should be forgotten.” "</h2>

103

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re right. I don’t know everything that goes on in the compound. But use your mind here - because your cogent debating style on this forum clearly demonstrates that you’re capable of the level of critical thinking for this - we’re talking a fundamentalist sect that openly marries its adolescent girls to old men in polygamous “spiritual marriages” and has been criticized extensively by many former members as essentially being a massive contraption for sexual coercion and abuse of its girls. No, we don’t know for sure everything that happened in there. But really, what do you think was happening? Give me a break.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You said they shouldn’t have taken the actions they did, which were taken in response to alleged crimes committed upon children. Therefore your argument suggests that the criminal activity should be ignored (or if not ignored, not persecuted as harshly). This is no straw man.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Incorrect. Her phone call included allegations of widespread abuse visited upon other children. Maybe you missed that fact. Either way, that is more than enough cause to take preemptive actions to protect the children. Maybe you’re unfamiliar with the way child protection works. In cases involving child abuse, it is not a requirement to wait until the body is found, or the rape is reported; one can move in to prevent that legally, as has been done here. Legally.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s a very unsophisticated perspective that smacks of attempted logical entrapment. My personal opinion is that some 15 year olds are capable of consentingto sex; some are not. Some 15 year olds are capable of abortion consent; some are not. Unfortunately, it is difficult to make that distinction. In this case, I believe a 15 year old girl brought up and indoctrinated with the idea that she must have sex with an older man before the age of consent, in a polygamous relationship, will be punished or hurt or excommunicated if she does not, and has the whole weight of the community bearing down on her, is not capable of consent. Do you or do you not disagree?</p>

<p>Look, I’m going to lay this out very simply:</p>

<p>It is a well-known fact that widespread violation of polygamy and statutory rape laws regularly go on in FLDS compounds.</p>

<p>A call was made from a 16 year old girl in the compound, alleging this widespread criminal activity, as well as extensive child abuse (another crime, in case you forgot). This is enough for a warrant to remove her from custody, and, based on accepted child protection practices, to remove the other children while an investigation is conducted to make sure they are not being abused.</p>

<p>Now that they have been removed, it is clearly apparent that a number of underage girls have babies, so fun as your head-in-the-sand “we don’t really know what’s going on”, it’s pretty damn obvious.</p>

<p>razorsharp, throughout the entire thread you’ve been attempting to lead people into logical contradictions; you have created any number of straw man arguments, and so forth. Take a stand. What do you believe the government should have done in this case? Simply removed the one girl and ignored the vast number of other (obviously true to at least some degree, given the number of babies) allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse? What? Stop playing this pseudo-Devil’s Advocate and state what exactly your position is on this issue.</p>

104

<p>

I have not created any staw man arguments. I have been trying to respond to your arguments which are clearly straw man arguments and full of flame and irrelevance.</p>

<p>My position? It is simple. The State of Texas should comply with law – all of them. One girl called. She should be removed at her request. If she was the victim of a crime, the criminal(s) should be punished. If she is lying, she should be put in juvenile detention. (Did you ever think that it might be possible for a girl to lie about this?; Bet you didn’t. False allegations from 15/16 year old girls happen all the time in courts just as there are truthful allegations). </p>

<p>If the State law enforcement officers entered the property pursuant to a lawful warrant and observed behavior that would create probable cause to believe other crimes were committed, then they should obtain the proper warrants and search in accordance with those warrants. If criminal behavior is identified those criminals should be prosecuted. </p>

<p>I have a tough time believing that putting 401 children living in 1700 acres of land in protective custody was appropriate action in response to lawful warrants. </p>

<p>Placing a child in the custody of the State and away from the child’s parents can be tramatic to the child and cause irreversable injury. The State’s shotgun approach appears to be unnecessary and makes a spectical of those children the State is supposedly trying to help. The State is also making a spectical of their religious beliefs for which they have the right to pursue. It’s pretty simple, actually.</p>

105

<p>razorsharp - Actually the State of Texas did exactly as you recommend…CPS along with state troopers “entered the property pursuant to a lawful warrant and observed behavior that would create probable cause to believe other crimes were committed” and then they “obtained the proper warrants and search in accordance with those warrants”. They are carefully searching per a warrant as we speak. As to why the children were removed, the following statement was made:</p>

<p>“All the children from the compound are now in our care,” said Darrell Azar, a spokesman for the Department of Family and Protective Services, which oversees CPS. </p>

<p>CPS’s involvement at the 1,700-acre Yearning for Zion Ranch is over, he said, but the investigation continues. At the compound, CPS found pregnant teenagers and teen mothers, he said. </p>

<p>“Our investigation determined there was a widespread practice of young girls being conditioned to accept becoming the spiritual wives of older men and to have sex with them,” Azar said. “We determined these children were in imminent danger of continued abuse. We simply could not leave these children in homes where alleged abusers also lived.”</p>

<p>So I fail to see why you continue to object. Leaving children under the same roof with suspected pedophiles is not an acceptable option, whether those children suffered abuse or not.</p>

106

<p>I believe I’m not supposed to link blogs here, but a copy of the CPS affidavit which was released this afternoon can be viewed at drudgereport.com. Apparently the 16 year old girl was also concerned because her parents were preparing to send her younger sister to the YFZ Ranch to be married.</p>

107

<p>Anyone who has doubts about why the authorities have done what they’ve done should read this article posted tonight on CNN:</p>

<p>[Affidavit:</a> Report of child brides led to raid - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/08/texas.ranch/index.html]Affidavit:”>http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/08/texas.ranch/index.html)</p>

<p>What was going on in that compound was appalling. To be more worried about the possible traumatic nature of removing those children rather than the actual traumatic nature of what they were being forced to do is incredible.</p>

108

<p>ldmom06: I was equally concerned with why razorsharp thought it was the wrong move, which is why I asked him to clearly state his position. Now that he’s said it, it is as I suspect: he’s either just been playing some twisted Devil’s Advocate in this thread, or he really truly believes that there’s little going on that’s wrong in that compound, given that his arguments so far have been founded on the postulate that Texas CPS had no legal evidence of abuse, which is obviously incorrect.</p>

109

<p>Razorsharp has stated in other threads that he likes to play Devil’s advocate in order to shake things up, see what happens. Therefore, it can be very difficult to know just what he truly believes. Certainly the way he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the very blatant reality of FLDS polygamist unions with underaged girls, while insisting upon beating the same strawman over and over with a stick, shows the disingenuousness of his discourse in this thread. He’s probably laughing his ass off over the way he’s worked some of us into a lather.:rolleyes:</p>

110

<p>I love arguing too, so this is just fun for me. ;)</p>

111

<p>

I just checked. It’s still there. </p>

<p>Sometimes you guys are so easy to mess with. :)</p>

112

<p>mess with us at the expense of children? wow, how pathetic is that</p>

113

<p>

Now I am really laughing!</p>

<p>“at the expense of children”? Say it again CGM. Say it again.</p>

114

<p>Personally, I’m actually not upset or in a lather, just a little perplexed. But, nice to know razorsharp is rejecting logic merely for sport rather than out of ignorance or stupidity. I was starting to worry about him/her. ;)</p>

115

<p>So, razorsharp, you make yourself look rather dim for fun, hmmm? Interesting hobby!!</p>

116

<p>[My</a> Way News - Sect Accused of Marrying Pubescent Girls](<a href=“HeadlineAlley”>HeadlineAlley)</p>

<p>“Investigators determined that there is a widespread pattern and practice of the (Yearn for Zion) Ranch in which young, minor female residents are conditioned to expect and accept sexual activity with adult men at the ranch upon being spiritually married to them,” read the affidavit signed by Lynn McFadden, a Department of Family and Protective Services investigative supervisor."</p>

<p>just for you razorsharp, seems this will make you laugh some more and once again talk about “consent”</p>

<p>[My</a> Way News - Sect Accused of Marrying Pubescent Girls](<a href=“HeadlineAlley”>HeadlineAlley)</p>

<p>“the girl had looked for opportunities to escape before, but she was warned that outside the double-gates blocking entry to the Yearning For Zion Ranch, in a world completely foreign to her, she would be forced to cut her hair and wear makeup, and to have sex with many men - all damning transgressions in a faith where modesty calls for women to wear long underwear year-round under pioneer-style dresses.”</p>

<p>sometimes if you are going to do the devils adovcate thing, it might help if you didn’t do it will such little intellect and information, and yes, at the expense of those that can’t defend themselves</p>

117

<p>In one account of her wish to escape, the girl had entertained the idea of faking an illness so she would be taken into town for treatment, but the FLDS elders would not let her take her baby along to the doctor’s appt. So she gave up that idea. Apparently, this is how they keep these girls in line…by threatening to take their children away.</p>

<p>To me, this is kidnapping…pure and simple.</p>

118

<p>I can’t for the life of me understand how all these the men in this compound go along with this. Aren’t there ANY who have a shred of conscience, self respect, or a little inkling that their behavior is wrong and immoral. Surely, even if they’ve been conditioned that this is “God’s will” or whatever, I find it hard to grasp that none appear to have the basic gut instinct that coercing, hurting and traumatizing children is wrong. Are these people so “religiously” brainwashed that females in this society are considered nothing but objects, chattels? I’d think if there was somebody in there who had any basic human questioning about self and about what’s going on, they would have come out of there and spoken out…but it hasn’t happened, not with the men. You only hear of the occassional girl/woman who manages to escape, never a man.
Makes me crazy mad.</p>

119

<p>Short answer: yes, they are that religiously conditioned.</p>

120

<p>and just sick…imagine seeing your own daughter handed off to some man who she wants nothing to do with, and in fact celebrating the event</p>

<p>all in the name of “relgiion”- using religion as a front for pedaphlia</p>