quote:Many people would be surprised to learn that "Mormon" is not the name of any religious sect. It is a nickname applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1930 as a response to the religions new scripture called "The Book or Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."
*cries* I know it's a typo, but it's at the very beginning and it doesn't do much for the credibility of the article.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you suppose that the news media never called the "Branch Davidians" a "radical offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists?
Why wasn't it pointed out in every single news article that Jim Jones' "Peoples Temple" was an offshoot of the Disciples of Christ?
Why is it that no one has problems distinguishing between the Catholic Church and its breakaway group that committed mass suicide in Uganda "Movement for the restoration of the Ten Commandments of God"?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it that every news story prominently features a woman in an old-fashioned gown?
If they are rape victims, then the paper is publishing alleged rape victims. If they are not, then they are being exploited like animals in a zoo for the page views.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Gosh. That was horrible. And I think the RLDS church changed its name to Community of Christ 5 years ago.
Well, there haven't been any SDA, DoC, or Catholic presidential candidates this year either. Romney may out of the race, but the media is just reminding us he better not try for vice president either.
I've said myself it's not reasonable for him to hope for fairness. I hate that it's a fact, but that doesn't make it not true.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why do you suppose that the news media never called the "Branch Davidians" a "radical offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists?
Why wasn't it pointed out in every single news article that Jim Jones' "Peoples Temple" was an offshoot of the Disciples of Christ?
Why is it that no one has problems distinguishing between the Catholic Church and its breakaway group that committed mass suicide in Uganda "Movement for the restoration of the Ten Commandments of God"?
My guess, and this is only a guess, is that the LDS church is still "weird" enough in the popular conscience that the fact that this church is in any way related, even distantly, to it is thought to be interesting.
Another, more charitable theory is that the name "FLDS" is similar to the name of the LDS church and they are trying to make a distinction between the two so as to avoid confusion.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If they are rape victims, then the paper is publishing alleged rape victims. If they are not, then they are being exploited like animals in a zoo for the page views.
posted
It's an affidavit of a series of calls to CPS of a teenager about being beaten and choked by her middle aged husband. They haven't been able to determine who made the call. Since they don't know which if the fathers is the abuser, they took all the children from the compound.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Definitely. I think there is a definitely a case for this being religious persecution here - when one teenage girl is raped in New York, they don't rip the neighborhood apart.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Given the evidence, does this reaction seem a little heavy-handed to anyone else?
I'm pretty sure we haven't been given the all of the evidence, so no, this reaction does not seem a little heavy-handed to me.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why do you suppose that the news media never called the "Branch Davidians" a "radical offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists?
They did. I remember because I am SDA, and the association bothered me.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since they don't know which if the fathers is the abuser, they took all the children from the compound.
My understanding is that the reason they took all the children was additional evidence they found at the compound AFTER they got there--namely multiple underage pregnant girls and a bed in the temple that was allegedly used to bed underage girls.
The multitude of underage pregnant girls and other evidence (like the bed) is what prompted them to investigate/assume systematic sexual abuse of minors.
Now because there is a possibility the original call was a prank, there will be a legal battle whether the evidence gathered will be usable in court. The original call is not why they took the girls.
EDIT spelling and to add about the bed in the temple.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see the evidence for ripping all 400 children away from their homes. These should be considered on a case-by-case basis - you don't one set of children away from their mothers because their cousins were taken away from theirs.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with kat. I think they went way to far here, and the original justification for the search was pretty flimsy.
Of course, we're all going off of the small amount of information that is publicly available so far, but it sounds to me that they've gone too far in removing so many children from their homes.
What's unfortunate is that I believe there is likely some abuse happening but all of the evidence which supports that allegation may now become inadmissible because of the lack of diligence in determining the validity of the original tip.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think they went way to far here, and the original justification for the search was pretty flimsy.
I thought that the original justification is that the phone call corroborated the information that was received from an informant, information that has not been completely revealed to the rest of us.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for one thing, I believe the girl who made the call has still not been located. It's still an anonymous phone call. Additionally, the initial search warrant and some of the following warrants named the wrong man as the alleged husband of the anonymous caller. The man named in the warrant lives in Arizona, not in the Texas compound.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From the article:
quote:Many people would be surprised to learn that "Mormon" is not the name of any religious sect. It is a nickname applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1930 as a response to the religions new scripture called "The Book or Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."
*cries* I know it's a typo, but it's at the very beginning and it doesn't do much for the credibility of the article.
The other glaring factual errors didn't help either.
I also saw a Washington Post article that said that the FLDS Church split off from the main LDS Church in the 1990s. I can't imagine where they got that idea from.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Well, for one thing, I believe the girl who made the call has still not been located. It's still an anonymous phone call. Additionally, the initial search warrant and some of the following warrants named the wrong man as the alleged husband of the anonymous caller. The man named in the warrant lives in Arizona, not in the Texas compound.
Am I mistaken in the impression that he "lives" in an Arizona prison?
I don't really see physical abuse as an inadequate cause to deliver young women from systematic and ritualized statuory rape.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem people are having is that it's not at all clear whether there was evidence of such abuse for all 400 children.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't really see physical abuse as an inadequate cause to deliver young women from systematic and ritualized statuory rape.
I don't disagree. It's just that, for better or worse, our legal system includes a number of protections against unlawful searches and if the police did not cross their T's and dot their I's when they obtained the search warrant, then they will have thrown away all of the evidence they obtained under it. The fact that they named a man who does not live in the compound is an indicator that they were not sufficiently diligent in preparing the warrant.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you suppose that the news media never called the "Branch Davidians" a "radical offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists?
I saw that point hammered home constantly by the press.
quote:Given the evidence, does this reaction seem a little heavy-handed to anyone else?
There's more evidence than that. What it is hasn't been released, but that's common in criminal investigations.
quote:I would like to see the evidence for ripping all 400 children away from their homes. These should be considered on a case-by-case basis - you don't one set of children away from their mothers because their cousins were taken away from theirs.
This evidence is seldom (on a relative basis compared to the number of children taken from families) released to the public. We have no evidence that they weren't considered on a case by case basis - this is what I would expect to see reported if they had been considered on a case by case basis or if they hadn't.
quote:What's unfortunate is that I believe there is likely some abuse happening but all of the evidence which supports that allegation may now become inadmissible because of the lack of diligence in determining the validity of the original tip.
Doubtful. First, the evidence will not be inadmissible in child protection proceedings. The exclusionary rule only applies in criminal proceedings and certain select civil proceedings. Second, the description of the tip is adequate for at least some initial search, and they applied for and received additional warrants during the course of the raid.
quote:The man named in the warrant lives in Arizona, not in the Texas compound.
There is a man who lives in Arizona with the same name as the one that appears on the warrant. That is not the same thing as saying that the man named in the warrant does not live in Texas. There could be two people with the same name.
We simply don't know enough to think the raid was or wasn't legally justified. I've seen numerous press accounts of searches that are justified in which the described basis for the search is about as strong as what we have hear. Most of them have been found to be legally justified, usually with significantly more evidence than ever appeared in the press.
quote:The other glaring factual errors didn't help either.
It sounds as if he's as inaccurate about LDS as he is about other Christian denominations.
quote:I also saw a Washington Post article that said that the FLDS Church split off from the main LDS Church in the 1990s. I can't imagine where they got that idea from.
quote:The FLDS split from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than a century ago when the mainstream Mormon Church renounced polygamy. The Mormon Church excommunicates members who practice plural marriage.
quote:I think the problem people are having is that it's not at all clear whether there was evidence of such abuse for all 400 children.
To summarize my previous monster post: there's no particular reason that it would be clear to those who only know about this from the press at this point.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't seen the 1990s error, just that I know they've gotten it right at least once.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time I hear anything about this story, I feel so grateful that I am not a child protection worker in West Texas. Imagine trying to find homes for 400 kids. Yeesh.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I would like to see the evidence for ripping all 400 children away from their homes. These should be considered on a case-by-case basis - you don't one set of children away from their mothers because their cousins were taken away from theirs.
You would if they all lived together, essentially under the same roof.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You would if they all lived together, essentially under the same roof.
I dunno. They did live in multiple separate houses. It seems more like raiding every apartment in an apartment building because there were specific allegations that one man has abused a child and general allegations that some undetermined number of other men had done the same. Oh, and they all go to the same church. The fact that the church *owns* the apartment building may be legally relevant, but I couldn't say.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, I don't think the comparison to an apartment building is fair. My understanding was that this was a communal living arrangement. Even if there were multiple separate houses the links between theses households went far beyond neighbors who share the same religion. These were neighbors who shared not only religion but also close family ties and finances . The separate building on this compound were much closer to the bedrooms in a single family home than different apartments within a single multi-family dwelling.
As Dag described above, during the course of the raid they applied for and received additional warrants. That means that discoveries made in say "the first house they searched" turned up evidence which a judge found was sufficient grounds to justify searching the neighboring houses.
As I posted earlier, child protective services are (in most states) required under law to present evidence before a judge within 24-48 hours after removing a child from his legal guardian. Parents are normally allowed to be present at these hearings with counsel. That would have to be done on a case by case basis. There is nothing in the media reports to suggest this wasn't done.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I presume that this was done correctly. I am not sure why so many here presume that the laws were violated unless clear evidence that they were followed is printed in the papers.
This polygamous group has had plenty of run ins with the law and has lots of experience with the courts. If the laws were violated, I assume the mother's and their legal counsel would be filing suits and screaming bloody murder to the press.
Why are people so quick to assume that child and family services didn't follow the laws? Do you have a general bias against child protective services and always assume they are guilty until proven innocent?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
<edit: TheRabbit made a lot of my points already> I think that is very relevant. The apartment complex comparison is flawed because there's no reason to think any of the tennants are related to each other.
In this situation some combination of the following is true: 1) All individuals are living in communal space owned by the church. 2) All/many individuals are related and living in close proximity. 3) The legal marital/parent-child relationships involved are probably quite muddied 4) Given the severity of the infractions (multiple cases of statutory rape) it makes sense to err on the side of caution (caution being: remove everyone from the possibility of this happening to others until more information is available)
A better analogy: If this situation were happening at MooseHeart (a compound/mini-city dedicated to raising orphans) I would expect that all the kids would be addressed. Despite the fact that there are "house parents" that take care of various subsets of the children, they live in an institutional setting where the motivations of the entire institution may be in question, and the custody of the children is less than obvious.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just looked up some stats on the Texas Foster care system. You must remember that Texas is a really big state and likely has more resources to deal with this sort of problem than your average small population western state.
In 2003 the state of Texas had 26,000 children in the foster care system. Though I can't find more recent data, between 1999 and 2003 the number of children was increasing steadily by around 2000 children per year. So by extrapolation I expect that the number is now over 30,000.
These 400 children make up less than 1.5% of the children currently in the foster care system in Texas. On average 3% of the children in foster care are in emergency shelters so this incident has increased the load in the emergency shelters by roughly 50%. However, as of 2003 the Texas child protective services (TCPS) had 6300 employees and an annual budget exceeding $1.5 billion.
Based on the data I could find, children remain in the foster care system for an average of around 2 1/4 years. 40% are in the system for less than 12 months and 72% for two years or less. A quick calculating suggests that they are placing ~35 kids in foster care every day.
While I'm sure this is putting a severe strain on the local office. TCPS has the resources to deal with this problem. Concerns that these children will overwhelm the system and that TCPS will have to short cut all the legal precautions to handle this seem unwarranted.
[ April 14, 2008, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are people so quick to assume that child and family services didn't follow the laws? Do you have a general bias against child protective services and always assume they are guilty until proven innocent?
Where are you seeing these assumptions? I'm expressing concern that everything might not be kosher, specifically BECAUSE I'm worried that abuses may go unpunished. Some of what Dagonee has posted is reassuring, particularly as it pertains to exclusions to "fruit of the poison tree" situations for CPS.
My understanding of how polygamous housing works is that a single man owns either one house shared by his entire family, or that he may have multiple homes distributed amongst his different wives. This one-to-many relationship between the men and their wives, if it's also the case here, would mean that the activities within one man's house are not necessarily related to the activities within another man's house.
posted
One way the information could have been developed: A CPS officer has probable cause of an underage girl married to an adult and goes to the house. A CPS officer confirms the story and interviews everyone in the house, asking for names of underage girls married to adult men on the compound. In an interconnected community, it will not take long to get statements implicating almost every house on the compound.
Even if the original search was illegal, only the residents of that house could assert the fourth amendment privilege. The residents of the houses pointed to by the statements made by the girls in the first house have no fourth amendment claim.*
Moreover, once they have the knowledge and a witness (i.e., the girls themselves), they can use that information to convict - poisonous tree does not keep a witness from testifying against the defendant.
*There's an interesting wrinkle raised by the fact that the land surrounding the residences is privately owned. I don't think it ultimately changes the admissibility of evidence, but the particulars would depend on a lot of factors.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, If I'm not mistaken, this was a communal living arrangement. All the property, both houses and adjoining lands, belonged to the church. So perhaps the best analogy would be to a corporate industrial park where there are numerous buildings all owned and under the same management but still private office spaces within those buildings. If it were treated that way by the courts, how would that influence the 4th amendment concerns?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So perhaps the best analogy would be to a corporate industrial park where there are numerous buildings all owned and under the same management but still private office spaces within those buildings.
How is that different from the apartment building analogy? Because there are separate buildings? As they are all owned by the same entity, I don't think that would be a relevant distinction.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:All the property, both houses and adjoining lands, belonged to the church. So perhaps the best analogy would be to a corporate industrial park where there are numerous buildings all owned and under the same management but still private office spaces within those buildings. If it were treated that way by the courts, how would that influence the 4th amendment concerns?
The key issue here will be standing. First, this only matters if there is an unreasonable search: one lacking either a warrant (unless there's a valid exception such as immediate danger to persons or evidence) or probable cause.
Assume the corporate entity owns the compound and all the houses. It has an expectation of privacy throughout the compound. Assume an individual family is assigned to each house. This family has an expectation of privacy within that house and the immediate surrounding area (the "curtilage"). The corporation likely does not have an expectation of privacy within those houses, because the family can invite third parties into them.
Therefore, the families likely cannot assert any fourth amendment rights outside their home and curtilage. The corporation likely cannot assert fourth amendment rights within the homes.
A case could be made that the community as a whole has an expectation of privacy throughout the compound. If so, any community member could assert a fourth amendment right for any search in the compound. This would involve lots of research to fully analyze, though. I think it would represent a significant expansion to the scope of the fourth amendment.
quote:How is that different from the apartment building analogy? Because there are separate buildings? As they are all owned by the same entity, I don't think that would be a relevant distinction.
The difference is a lack of connection between the residents of different apartments. The police can, for example, search the apartment's laundry room in most buildings. It is this principle that I think precludes the community as a whole argument from succeeding. But that argument can't even be made in an apartment complex situation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have no evidence that they weren't considered on a case by case basis...
We certainly do-- the children were removed from their parents in an aggressive manner whose timetable belies the notion of case-by-case examination.
On the first glance, we assume the state is doing things on the up and up-- they go into the compound to investigate the rape and abuse of a sixteen year old girl. But the chain of charges exploding from that point is so incredible, the state needs to provide evidence to support their extraordinary efforts. Simply put, I don't buy Dagonee's argument that this has been considered; I think that this affair was done with the best of intentions, but is a black mark against true justice for the victims.
I'm infuriated that the state is not allowing mothers of children older than four to stay with their children. Are the mothers a danger? And if they are, how? While its understandable that in ordinary circumstances parents of children in state custody do not get to go with their children, this is hardly an ordinary circumstance.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:We certainly do-- the children were removed from their parents in an aggressive manner whose timetable belies the notion of case-by-case examination.
This is how emergency custody of children happens. The in-depth due process happens afterward. In this case, it started last Thursday or Friday.
quote:But the chain of charges exploding from that point is so incredible, the state needs to provide evidence to support their extraordinary efforts.
Yeah, but they don't need to provide it to YOU. And you don't know what evidence was provided to the people they do have to provide it to.
quote:Simply put, I don't buy Dagonee's argument that this has been considered
Could you point where I made this argument? I said, "We have no evidence that they weren't considered on a case by case basis - this is what I would expect to see reported if they had been considered on a case by case basis or if they hadn't" and "We simply don't know enough to think the raid was or wasn't legally justified."
quote:I think that this affair was done with the best of intentions, but is a black mark against true justice for the victims.
quote:I'm infuriated that the state is not allowing mothers of children older than four to stay with their children. Are the mothers a danger? And if they are, how? While its understandable that in ordinary circumstances parents of children in state custody do not get to go with their children, this is hardly an ordinary circumstance.
Yes, it is an unusual circumstance. Which means a couple of things. First, it means that extraordinary actions are likely necessary. You don't seem to have taken this into account in your criticisms. Second, it means that where extraordinary actions aren't needed, the process is going to be kept as close to normal as possible. Which means that "parents of children in state custody do not get to go with their children."
Unusual circumstance cuts both ways. The allegations are of systematic, community-wide statutory and actual rape and systematic, community-wide abandonment of a large percentage of the boys in the community. The mothers didn't do anything to stop this. I'm willing to lessen the moral blame attached to the women who were conditioned to this life from birth, but that excuse makes it more important to separate the mothers from the children capable of telling their stories. The mothers are more likely to exert pressure on the children to not cooperate, and, worst case, to try to flee with their children.
Emergency custody is designed to make the child safe and to reduce the likelihood that a parent will try to coach the child. I'm not sure why the extraordinary circumstances here makes that a less compelling need.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not happy any time due process is violated. While I understand the need to keep the evidence quiet, I'm not comfortable with the caretakers of the evidence; I'm not convinced of the state's competence.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yeah, but they don't need to provide it to YOU. And you don't know what evidence was provided to the people they do have to provide it to.
I believe that this in part refers to the legal counsel that has been retained by those charged, who have a competence independent of that of the "state" Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering how this can affect the rights of everyone I think the State has a moral obligation, and dare I say a legal one, to provide the evidence to ME! After all, isn't that what all the fuss over Gauntanamo is all about?
Notes: I changed that glaring misuse of vocabulary.
ME is a generic rather than specific definition for all individuals.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yeah, but they don't need to provide it to YOU. And you don't know what evidence was provided to the people they do have to provide it to.
I believe that this in part refers to the legal counsel that has been retained by those charged, who have a competence independent of that of the "state"
Agreed. I think it's great that so many lawyers are standing up, independent of the state, to do so. And that so many are doing it for free. Good for them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The parents' lawyers. The ACLU. The press. You. Me.
But you're doing more than watching. You're drawing a conclusion with inadequate evidence. Moreover, your conclusion seems to be based on a misconceptions about how the process normally works.
quote:I'm not happy any time due process is violated.
Nor am I. Fortunately, there's no evidence that this has happened here.
quote:While I understand the need to keep the evidence quiet, I'm not comfortable with the caretakers of the evidence; I'm not convinced of the state's competence.
I get that. The evidence you've cited for this discomfort, however, is evidence that's present in pretty much any seizure of a child: lack of public statements about the evidence, refusal to allow mothers to stay with their children, speedy removal after a visit. The scale is certainly different, but that alone doesn't speak to either side of this.
Perhaps your outrage is directed at the emergency child custody provisions themselves, and not this particular incident - I can't quite tell.
quote:I believe that this in part refers to the legal counsel that has been retained by those charged, who have a competence independent of that of the "state"
In large part, yes.
There will be a public examination of what went on here. It will take place during pretrial motions in any criminal prosecutions arising from this. It will take place in the 1983 suit that will likely arise from this.
What has happened so far is an emergency measure that happens hundreds or thousands of times a day in this country. It just happened more publicly, because of more sensational charges, and in a greater number than normally happens.
quote:After all, isn't that what all the fuss over Gauntanamo is all about?
No. The fuss at Guantanamo is about not giving the evidence to the detainee or the detainee's counsel.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
