DescentBB

I don't have the time to get into the philosophical stuff right now. But I want to point out, for those of you interested in helping women and girls escape from FLDS and other polygamist groups: Shield and Refuge is an active ministry devoted to exactly that. It's run by women who've escaped from polygamy and Mormon fundamentalism themselves, and they now rescue women who contact them. They're currently looking for funding for their trip down to Eldorado, and one of their long-term goals is to set up a safehouse in Salt Lake. They're also always in need of basic supplies, like women's clothing -- many of the people they rescue can't even pack a bag because they can't arouse suspicions. If you really want to do something for these girls, consider contacting Shield and Refuge.

Thank you, Lothar.

Despite all the debate here about theological points which separate the different faiths, I think we can all get behind that kind of ministry.

Foil wrote:Thank you, Lothar.
Despite all the debate here about theological points which separate the different faiths, I think we can all get behind that kind of ministry.

Amen to that. We need to protect the children.

Wouldn't have hurt the wilfully stupid sheriff to give them a call a few years ago.

Ford Prefect wrote:Wouldn't have hurt the wilfully stupid sheriff to give them a call a few years ago.

I agree, it DOES seem like this took to long to fix, but I wish we had more details on what kind of evidence they had before the girls phone call.

Bettina wrote:The more I read about this the more it brought to mind the other thread where we talked about child endangerment laws. I can just imagine, when the police barged in, how some of you freedom fundamentalists on this board began crying "totalitarianism" for fear that this may be an assault on your civil liberties.

I was thinking about this today and trying to figure out how to explain WHY it's so important to find a way to protect our children AND keep our government under control. The following analogy came to me:

Suppose you are afraid of strangers attacking your children when you are not there to protect them, and so you decide to purchase a guard dog for them.

First you will have to make certain you get a guard dog that is actually strong enough to protect your children. A Chihuahua makes a great alarm, but won't be sufficient help to chase off a determined kidnapper.

Also, you will have to get a dog that is aggressive enough to actually defend the kids. A large docile sheep dog who thinks everyone in the world is his friend might be strong enough to help, but if he won't do anything but lick the hands of an attacker, he isn't much use as a guard dog.

But now you have a problem. The VERY THINGS that will enable your dog to protect the children, being both strong and aggressive, also make the dog a threat. If your dog mangles a neighborhood child because he wandered into your yard, the dog has become a hazard instead of a benefit. Or if you came home and discovered that the dog had killed one of your own children, you would certainly wish you had never gotten it.

This doesn't mean that having a dog, even an aggressive guard dog, is a bad idea. It may be a very GOOD idea, but you MUST ensure that it is a benefit not a hazard.

Government is societies guard dog, with the biggest difference being that you don't have to walk around behind a policeman on patrol with a pooper scooper.

We NEED Child Protective Services, and we NEED Police. I'm certainly glad we have them. And I want them to be strong enough to be able to do their jobs, and aggressive enough to actually be WILLING to do them. But, at the same time, CPS, police, and government in general, are a TERRIBLE threat. When out of control they can ruin innocent lives, even kill the very ones they were supposed to protect. We MUST empower them to do their jobs, while simultaneously keeping them on a tight enough leash that they are not a threat to the innocent.

Ahhh. A seesaw that never stays balanced. Sometimes we overreact and sometimes we don't do enough.

Thank you for saying exactly what I feel, Kilarin.

Part of me is just like what Thorne said, I feel like I want to go kick the crap out of those psychos.

But I know that if the police always acted on those kind of impulses, we'd just end up with brutality rather than safety.

(That said, I still think it's absolutely ridiculous that the law enforcement in this case 'sat' on the evidence for so long.)

Keep in mind, the local police department in an area like that is probably 5-6 officers. I'm pretty sure you need more than that to raid a compound full of religious fundamentalists (especially if they're armed), so I'm not at all surprised or disappointed that it took the police a day to act on the information.

Lothar wrote:...I'm not at all surprised or disappointed that it took the police a day to act on the information.

Maybe I misunderstood, then? I was under the impression that someone in the local office knew what was going on for a few months.

Foil wrote:

Lothar wrote:...I'm not at all surprised or disappointed that it took the police a day to act on the information.

Maybe I misunderstood, then? I was under the impression that someone in the local office knew what was going on for a few months. :?

The line that has been quoted multiple times is "We are aware that this group is capable of sexually abusing girls". The question is, what does that mean? Some people take it to mean "we had specific evidence that this group was abusing girls, but chose not to act." If that's the case, then it's reprehensible that it took them as long as it did to act.

I took it to mean "we know other FLDS groups have abused girls, so we've kept our eyes and ears open for months for any tidbit that would allow us to act, and we did everything we could to get that information. As soon as we had something concrete, we acted." That's the sense I get from the story -- they had a plan to act if and when they got anything concrete that would allow them to act. As soon as they got that phone call, which established probable cause (and not mere suspicion), they set the plan in motion. Before that time, all they had were suspicions, but here in the USA the police can't act on mere suspicions.

Lothar wrote:the local police department in an area like that is probably 5-6 officers. I'm pretty sure you need more than that to raid a compound full of religious fundamentalists (especially if they're armed)

VERY good point.

Lothar wrote:Some people take it to mean "we had specific evidence that this group was abusing girls, but chose not to act." If that's the case, then it's reprehensible that it took them as long as it did to act.

I took it to mean "we know other FLDS groups have abused girls, so we've kept our eyes and ears open for months for any tidbit that would allow us to act, and we did everything we could to get that information. As soon as we had something concrete, we acted."

Yes, exactly, that's what I've been trying to say. Thank you.

Foil wrote: Part of me is just like what Thorne said, I feel like I want to go kick the crap out of those psychos.

Where’s the Love? Christ said turn the other cheek, and forgive…(this comment was made because people want to deny others the title of Christian, while not doing a very good job of being one)

What are you going to do…break into their compound and beat up some 50 year old man?

This is a culture of abuse that is accepted in that group, you can’t just avenge that sort of thing.

That's exactly my point, Spidey.

I wasn't saying that my human impulse to want revenge was good, I was trying to imply the exact opposite - that my tendency to want vengeance at any cost could make things even worse.

As has been said, the same goes for law enforcement; they have a duty to find out what is going on before they take action. Although it has some appeal to our desire for vengeance, a policy of \"shoot first, ask questions later\" would be a very bad thing.

Understood

Warren Jeffs has been on the FBI most wanted list since 2006. This is 2008. That seems like more than a \"few months\" of waiting Lothar.

His trial, which began early in September of 2007 in St. George, Utah, lasted less than a month, and on September 25 the verdict was read declaring him guilty of two counts of rape as an accomplice. On November 20, 2007 he was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to life and has begun serving his sentence at the Utah State Prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs
You can't tell me that what was going on in the compound was any kind of mystery to anyone. They weren't afraid of violence since that is not one of the FLDS attributes. More likely they didn't want to \"offend\" local \"important\" people.
There is no excuse for not closing this down years ago.

Ford Prefect wrote:Warren Jeffs has been on the FBI most wanted list since 2006. This is 2008. That seems like more than a "few months" of waiting Lothar.

His trial, which began early in September of 2007 in St. George, Utah, lasted less than a month, and on September 25 the verdict was read declaring him guilty of two counts of rape as an accomplice. On November 20, 2007 he was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to life and has begun serving his sentence at the Utah State Prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs
You can't tell me that what was going on in the compound was any kind of mystery to anyone. They weren't afraid of violence since that is not one of the FLDS attributes. More likely they didn't want to "offend" local "important" people.
There is no excuse for not closing this down years ago.

Exactly, thank you.

Bee

Ford Prefect wrote:Warren Jeffs has been on the FBI most wanted list since 2006.

Yes, and Osama Bin Laden has had a $25 million bounty on his head since 2001. Doesn't mean we should go out arresting Muslims, even those who express some level of affinity for him, without some evidence of wrongdoing. We should certainly keep a closer eye on those we suspect of planning or engaging in illegal acts, but we can't and shouldn't go raiding their homes and arresting them without legitimate evidence. It's not a crime to be a fundamentalist Muslim or a fundamentalist Mormon. The police need to act when there's actual evidence of actual crimes; they can't act on platitudes like "we all know what goes on there."

How many times have you expressed outrage over the US government detaining "unlawful enemy combatants" or wiretapping terror suspects? How many times have you said the Bush administration was in the wrong for going after certain people? Yet here you are, saying it's OK for the government to go after fundamentalist Mormons simply because "what was going on in the compount was [not] any kind of mystery to anyone." You wouldn't buy that line if GWB said it about someone held in Guantanamo Bay, so why here?

Lothar wrote: How many times have you expressed outrage over the US government detaining "unlawful enemy combatants" or wiretapping terror suspects? How many times have you said the Bush administration was in the wrong for going after certain people? Yet here you are, saying it's OK for the government to go after fundamentalist Mormons simply because "what was going on in the compount was [not] any kind of mystery to anyone." You wouldn't buy that line if GWB said it about someone held in Guantanamo Bay, so why here?

I was thinking the same thing just yesterday.

Warren Jeffs was convicted of the crime that was \"uncovered\" at the compound where his followers umm... follow (for a better word) his instructions. That means the statutory rape that he was convicted of was taking place at the compound. Not rocket science. Not an infringement of anyone's precious rights.

Ford Prefect wrote:Warren Jeffs was convicted of the crime that was "uncovered" at the compound where his followers umm... follow (for a better word) his instructions. That means the statutory rape that he was convicted of was taking place at the compound.

Warren Jeffs was charged with crimes in Mohave County, Arizona and Washington County, Utah, and convicted of the crimes in Utah (he's still awaiting trial in Arizona.) The statutory rape he was convicted of being an accomplice to took place at a compound in Utah. The YFZ Ranch -- the compound being discussed in this thread -- is in Texas.

Are you saying it's OK to violate the rights of one group of people because an associated group of people committed a crime?

I’m not sure how you would answer that but, guilt by association is a factor in the United States judicial system.

Are you saying it's OK to violate the rights of one group of people because an associated group of people committed a crime?

I'm saying that it does not require any significant detective work to determine that the activities that can be expected to occur at the YFZ centre would be the same activities that the leader of the organization that runs the centre has been convicted of.
If you convict a gang leader of bank robbery you can bet that the rest of the gang robs banks too. Except in this case a little proactive action would save children from a lifetime trying to cope with abuse at a young age.

Ford Prefect wrote:I'm saying that it does not require any significant detective work to determine that the activities that can be expected to occur at the YFZ centre would be the same activities that the leader of the organization that runs the centre has been convicted of.

So, what kind of action do you think the police should be taking against all Catholic churches based on the SEVERAL pedophile convictions there have been for Catholic Priests?

My point being that the MAJORITY of Catholic Priests are completely innocent of such atrocities. To automatically assume they are all guilty by association would be wrong.

I would say it might be prudent to remain vigilant, and prolly a good idea to remain on the lookout for any further warning signs. (within the law)

Ford Prefect wrote:

Are you saying it's OK to violate the rights of one group of people because an associated group of people committed a crime?

I'm saying that it does not require any significant detective work to determine that the activities that can be expected to occur at the YFZ centre would be the same activities that the leader of the organization that runs the centre has been convicted of.
If you convict a gang leader of bank robbery you can bet that the rest of the gang robs banks too. Except in this case a little proactive action would save children from a lifetime trying to cope with abuse at a young age.

You're right, however that is the reasoning for imprisoning a lot of innocent people at The Guantanamo Bay detention camp. ... along with a bunch of actual criminals.

Doesn't make it the right thing to do, either. The real problem is how to sort out (separate) the real criminals from the people who just happen to be nearby.

Arresting people was not the required action. They eventually went in to the compound and started asking the tough questions that should have been asked years ago. When they didn't like the answers the pulled over 400 children out of the compound. I'm just saying that they had ample excuse to go in and ask those questions a long time ago.
Should they ask a few questions of the altar boys at Catholic churches? Of course they should. The whole \"hide your dirty deeds behind religious freedom\" schtik is the point of the thread. It should not be allowed. Period. IMHO if you like.

My wife and I were discussing it this morning and we agree, action was long overdue.

Many years ago, the abusive and predatory actions of some were among the reasons the Mormons discontinued polygamy (in 1890). That's when the FLDS (and some others) split from the Mormons. Obviously, the FLDS groups continued with polygamy. If you really want to track it back, more action should have been taken clear back then against the FLDS groups literally generations ago, because they refused to obey the law and continued a practice that sexual predators could take advantage of.

It was a mistake to let the FLDS groups continue all these generations. Now these families and all those children have to suffer because of that.

IMHO

Ford Prefect wrote:I'm just saying that they had ample excuse to go in and ask those questions a long time ago.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Kilarin wrote:

TechPro wrote:I'm just saying that they had ample excuse to go in and ask those questions a long time ago.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Odd, I thought it was Ford Prefect that said that, not me ... but it's cool. I agree.

TechPro wrote:

TechPro wrote:

TechPro wrote:I'm just saying that they had ample excuse to go in and ask those questions a long time ago.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Odd, I thought it was Ford Prefect that said that, not me ... but it's cool. I agree.

Of course it was you. Talking to yourself again?

I dont consider the FLDS mormon at all, it's just a collective group of rapists using a skewed version of the mormon church to control their victims. I'm surprised large quantities of police haven't been sent there yet to quell this ridiculous behavior.

TechPro wrote:I thought it was Ford Prefect that said that, not me

Ugh! Sorry, thats what I get for rushing off a post too quickly. I've corrected it.

Hmm, double post for some reason.

Ford Prefect wrote:

Are you saying it's OK to violate the rights of one group of people because an associated group of people committed a crime?

I'm saying that it does not require any significant detective work to determine that the activities that can be expected to occur at the YFZ centre would be the same activities that the leader of the organization that runs the centre has been convicted of.
If you convict a gang leader of bank robbery you can bet that the rest of the gang robs banks too. Except in this case a little proactive action would save children from a lifetime trying to cope with abuse at a young age.

On the basis of that, we can assume that all members of this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_ ... p9lItH2ocA

organization should be arrested because of the crime committed by their leader.

Absolutely! Investigate all complaints, ask tough questions. Did this guy teach his employees to follow his example? Did he set up a system to support and hide his activities? Did he hide behind his rights to \"freedom of religion\" to avoid having his activities scrutinized?
Seems like a silly link since what the sheriff did was knowingly against the laws he was supposed to uphold rather than rationalized by laws he made up. That said there is a tendency for police organizations to \"circle the wagons\" and not let the public know if something bad is happening internally. That needs to be broken up just like other closed organizations.

Wow, people get a grip, no one has suggested arresting the associates of criminals…just a good looking over. People like that sheriff will need accomplices to do that sort of thing, and I bet the reason no others are being charged is an internal thing. (they got the leader. Why sully the entire dept.)

Hey stop with the voice of reason stuff. This is an internet forum where Chicken Little rules the roost.