Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids... - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-22-2008, 09:41 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
Let's make it simple for you, 'Bare.

<Nice little erroneous analogy, not really based on the case we are talking about.>
First, I believe all the folks were living on a compound, were they not, not in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.

Second, the Child Protective Services had full support of court issued search warrants, not simply a cop wandering in and making an off the cuff decision.

Third, the decisions were made AFTER interviewing many of the minors in the compound, while they were INVESTIGATING the initial call, prior to taking the kids.

So, really, if you want to try and make it simple, go out to Google, look up the incident, get the facts, the timeline, a basic understanding of the incident and THEN form an opinion. I have found that works SO much better.

Also, it make the analogies flow much better.


Timeline of West Texas polygamist custody battle

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-22-2008, 09:51 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2007
Vehicle: 1973 450 SL
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 5,453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know you trust flow charts. But even though you understand the flow, the families were all disbursed before they had an accurate identity of the supposed victim.

Doesn't matter. The court ruled correctly, and your protestions about due process aside, you lose. Liberals--good intentions, poor results. Time and time again.

BTW Leo Ryan, the "intervening" congressman in the Jonestown affair (or was he the Lone Ranger?) was a liberal Democrat. No one criticized his motives, but his trip there was seen by many as a reckless grandstand which tipped the cult off balance leading to the largest mass suicide known to history.

Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.

God Bless the America we're trying to create.
--Hillary Rodham Clinton
bottomline1 is offline  
post #23 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-22-2008, 10:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
I believe polygamy is illegal in the State of Texas as it is in the rest of the country. I do not see any real problem with the State separating kids from parents who are engaged in federal crimes. Happens to drug dealers all the time, and, in this case, there was added evidence the practices of this polygamist cult involved underage sex. If the underage sex only involved girls over the age of 13, I see no reason why the State should wait until each of the girls reaches 13 before stepping in - while there may be debate on the process to be used to sort things out after the fact, I am with mcbear on this one. Do what is right first, and sort out the shit afterwards.

Polygamy is either illegal or it isn't, all by itself, without kiddy fucking. The feds and the State of Texas, as well as Colorado, Utah and others have a chore on their hands. This case is the tip of the iceberg.

But hell, at least they aren't gay, right? Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #24 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-22-2008, 11:43 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bottomline1 View Post
I know you trust flow charts. But even though you understand the flow, the families were all disbursed before they had an accurate identity of the supposed victim.

Doesn't matter. The court ruled correctly, and your protestions about due process aside, you lose. Liberals--good intentions, poor results. Time and time again.
You obviously don't understand the concept. The system DID work. Due process DID work. The concern was raised, court acted, kid's safety was insured [the most important part], investigation continued, due process proceeded, courts acted, kid's safety insured.

That law was written by a CONSERVATIVE BODY, not liberal. Executed by a conservative Judge. Due process was executed to the letter. If the kids are safe, that is what matters. If underaged girls are being used as sexual toys for guys, the investigation will, I would suspect continue. Religious freedom doesn't protect that activity.

Your incessant desire to blame everything on liberal acts truly flaws your logic. Get the FACTS first. Then post. Part of that flowchart concept.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #25 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-23-2008, 09:12 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
SAN ANGELO — A Texas appeals court ruled Thursday the state had no right to seize hundreds of children from a polygamist religious sect because it failed to prove they were in immediate danger of abuse. The decision halted ongoing custody hearings and raised the possibility of a reunion between children and parents.

The 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that a San Angelo judge exceeded her authority last month in ordering into foster care every child who resided at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, not just the teenage girls who Texas Child Protective Services said were at risk of being sexually abused by marriages to older men it said the sect arranged.

The ruling was by Justices Bob Pemberton and Alan Waldrop and Chief Justice Kenneth Law.

"The Department (CPS) did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty," the panel wrote in its order.

About half of the more than 460 children placed in protective custody are babies or toddlers...

Court rules Texas had no right to seize sect children | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

"...half of the more than 460 children placed in protective custody are babies or toddlers..."

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #26 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-23-2008, 09:57 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk View Post
SAN ANGELO — A Texas appeals court ruled Thursday the state had no right to seize hundreds of children from a polygamist religious sect because it failed to prove they were in immediate danger of abuse. The decision halted ongoing custody hearings and raised the possibility of a reunion between children and parents.

The 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that a San Angelo judge exceeded her authority last month in ordering into foster care every child who resided at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, not just the teenage girls who Texas Child Protective Services said were at risk of being sexually abused by marriages to older men it said the sect arranged.

The ruling was by Justices Bob Pemberton and Alan Waldrop and Chief Justice Kenneth Law.

"The Department (CPS) did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty," the panel wrote in its order.

About half of the more than 460 children placed in protective custody are babies or toddlers...

Court rules Texas had no right to seize sect children | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

"...half of the more than 460 children placed in protective custody are babies or toddlers..."
The State will either improve their case to maintain the protective custody, or they will let the babies and toddlers reunite with their mothers. If polygamy is a federal crime, then those mothers who practiced polygamy at the ranch are criminals. While I was amazed that OJ's prosecutor failed to convince a jury with evidence that he was guilty, I will be surprised if this ends here. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #27 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-23-2008, 10:19 AM
It Is What It Is, Dude
 
isthisdave's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2006
Vehicle: 1978 107.024 RIP
Location: InTransition
Posts: 21,645
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk's link
SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) - A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect's ranch.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children.

Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators.

The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings.
Even the court KNOWS something is amiss.....
isthisdave is offline  
post #28 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-23-2008, 10:24 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
The State will either improve their case to maintain the protective custody, or they will let the babies and toddlers reunite with their mothers. If polygamy is a federal crime, then those mothers who practiced polygamy at the ranch are criminals. While I was amazed that OJ's prosecutor failed to convince a jury with evidence that he was guilty, I will be surprised if this ends here. Jim
Sometimes you just have to face facts--that there just isn't enough evidence to convince a jury. Based on prosecutor evidence I never believe that OJ did it, and I'll be surprised if they can do it in the TX case either. Now sometimes prosecutions are just persecutions in disguise, as a form of punishment after they fail to make the case for perceived wrongs. That is what they will probably try to do since they are treading on thin ice w/ regard to persecuting a religious sect. They will try to harass them into submission. And that is not what our system of justice is, or should be, about.

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #29 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-23-2008, 10:26 AM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Bush could declare them 'enemy combatants'.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #30 of 55 (permalink) Old 05-23-2008, 10:29 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by isthisdave View Post
Even the court KNOWS something is amiss.....
I believe it was only out of deference to the TX judicial system and the logistical difficulties involved that they did not order their immediate return. They will be returned as soon as practicably possible.

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Going to speeding court tiggerfink R230 SL-Class 0 05-16-2007 07:20 PM
    had court yesterday milosz87 W201 190-Class 17 01-07-2007 07:28 AM
    Where is Texas? oops... Where IN Texas Steinebach922 Unimog 6 10-01-2006 07:44 PM
    OT.. Went to Court today........... Bruce R. R170 SLK-Class 21 09-22-2006 10:45 AM
    Disorder in the court ThrillKill Off-Topic 5 01-23-2006 03:44 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome