News Texas Polygamist Raid: Unjustified Persecution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptainQuasar
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the controversial raid that resulted in the removal of 401 children from a polygamist community in Texas, sparked by a 16-year-old girl's call alleging abuse. Participants express concern over the justification for such a drastic action, questioning whether the authorities provided adequate reasoning beyond the parents' polygamous practices. There are fears of potential religious discrimination and the implications of guilt by association, especially given the historical persecution of Mormons in the U.S. While some acknowledge the need to protect children from abuse, others argue that the broad approach taken by authorities seems excessive and lacks clear evidence of systematic wrongdoing. The conversation highlights the complexities of balancing child protection with the rights of religious communities.
  • #91
TVP45 said:
I did not attack you. I disputed your claim that ALL the children were to placed in foster homes or placed for adoption. The story, which is badly written, carries no byline, and has no independent substantiation, does not support your assertion of ALL.

I seldom listen to the BBC; I'm not sure why I would attack it.

I am quite willing to be found wrong in this matter, but I do ask that it be done with facts.
You obviously misread what I wrote. I said the state WANTS to take all the children into care, hence the court case, not that it will necessarily be allowed by the court to do so.

If they didn't want to take all of the kids into care then they wouldn't have them all on the docket.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. I quite agree that the state wants to keep all the children in temporary custody.
 
  • #93
Greg Bernhardt said:
Court docs say there was a bed in the temple used for underage sex. Also information that there was a cult informant inside for 4 years!

Are court docs in the public domain? I would love to read how the court describes a bed in a temple.

Also information? From where? Same court docs?

My only other question is; do these 'cults' pay taxes?




This has been an interesting read. My thanks to all the participants.
 
  • #94
Alfi said:
Are court docs in the public domain? I would love to read how the court describes a bed in a temple.

Also information? From where? Same court docs?

My only other question is; do these 'cults' pay taxes?




This has been an interesting read. My thanks to all the participants.
I posted the link here. https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1684170&postcount=84
 
  • #95
But on the top they found beds allegedly used by husbands after they married underage girls on the top floor of the temple.

ah ... thanks Evo...

Alleged by the reporter, or by whom?

... but I was more looking forward to court papers rather than speculation by a writer for profit.
 
  • #96
Art said:
And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.
This is a little old, but I just read it now.

I heard this on the radio more than a couple times, that the girl gave her name, to the authorities and the name of her husband. Being the alleged victim of a sexual assault, her name can not be revealed by authorities.
 
  • #98
russ_watters said:
It appears that the 911 calls may have been fraudulent: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/18/polygamy.fri/index.html#cnnSTCText

That's probably enough to keep people out of jail for abuse, but it is probably not enough to keep that cult in business.

If the authorities acted in good faith, a fraudalent call does not invalidate the search warrant.
 
  • #99
TVP45 said:
If the authorities acted in good faith, a fraudalent call does not invalidate the search warrant.
Really? I guess I figured that since their probably cause was not really probable cause, anything they found would be 'poisoned fruit'. I'm not a lawyer, though - I just watch too much Law and Order.
 
  • #100
If you do watch Law and Order, then may recall the episode in which Lt. VanBuren's old superior, now an executive at a Wal-Mart lookalike, provided information that led to a search. The search was invalidated when it appeared he had provided false information with VanBuren's knowledge. When it was determined she did not know the information was bad, the search results were readmitted. I hate to base legal stuff on TV, but I believe that principle generally holds.
 
  • #101
russ_watters said:
Really? I guess I figured that since their probably cause was not really probable cause, anything they found would be 'poisoned fruit'. I'm not a lawyer, though - I just watch too much Law and Order.

That's what I thought too, Russ, but a reporter said that if the authorities acted on good faith (and it appears they did), and since the crimes involve child abuse, that the evidence will stand. That makes sense; I can't imagine the law allowing child abuse to continue because of a technicality.
 
  • #102
TVP45 said:
If you do watch Law and Order, then may recall the episode in which Lt. VanBuren's old superior, now an executive at a Wal-Mart lookalike, provided information that led to a search. The search was invalidated when it appeared he had provided false information with VanBuren's knowledge. When it was determined she did not know the information was bad, the search results were readmitted. I hate to base legal stuff on TV, but I believe that principle generally holds.
Lol, I guess I missed that episode! I looked around for some info in this, but I didn't find anything concrete enough. #3 here seems to apply, though, so I'm still unsure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Exceptions_to_the_rule
lisab said:
That's what I thought too, Russ, but a reporter said that if the authorities acted on good faith (and it appears they did), and since the crimes involve child abuse, that the evidence will stand. That makes sense; I can't imagine the law allowing child abuse to continue because of a technicality.
Those are two separate issues - the police may or may not be able to prosecute past crimes based on a tainted search, but they can certainly stop ongoing and future crimes. They can't prosecute for a possible future crime though, obviously. That's why I said in post 99 that this bad intel could keep them out of jail (I'm unsure now), but it certainly would not get them their kids back if the authorities think they are in danger.
 
  • #103
russ_watters said:
It appears that the 911 calls may have been fraudulent: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/18/polygamy.fri/index.html#cnnSTCText

I forgot to come back here and say [post=1680386]I TOTALLY CALLED IT![/post] Wheee-hoo! :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Yeah, them being unable to find the girl, then deciding to take all the kids in the town was just a little bit suspicious... Thank you, U.S. media, for swallowing all that hook, line, and sinker... I hope some justice gets done in this case, rather than something that drives Mormons further away from the mainstream and endangers more kids (and establishes some history of modern religious persecution in the U.S.).
 
  • #104
Four days after that story was reported and CNN who reported it still have the photo of the guy the fake caller accused at the top of their page for the FLDS:

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/fundamentalist_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter_day_saints
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #106
CaptainQuasar said:
I forgot to come back here and say [post=1680386]I TOTALLY CALLED IT![/post] Wheee-hoo! :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Yeah, them being unable to find the girl, then deciding to take all the kids in the town was just a little bit suspicious...
I think your argument is still flawed. The rationale for removal of the children was not based on the phone call, but based on the observation of pregnant minors. Unless I'm mistaken, the warrant granted on the basis of the call was only for the purposes of searching the ranch, not for taking custody of children. And Texas law permits taking all children from a home if there is suspicion that anyone child in the household has been abused.
 
Last edited:
  • #107
Medical exams and reports by the children indicate that at least 41 children have had broken bones in the past.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24388249/

Forty-one percent had broken a bone...how does this compare to the general population? Seems high to me.

Then again, I doubt these kids have ever spent time watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the web. Maybe they've done activities that are more hazardous (we used to call it "playing").
 
  • #108
Gokul43201 said:
I think your argument is still flawed. The rationale for removal of the children was not based on the phone call, but based on the observation of pregnant minors. Unless I'm mistaken, the warrant granted on the basis of the call was only for the purposes of searching the ranch, not for taking custody of children. And Texas law permits taking all children from a home if there is suspicion that anyone child in the household has been abused.
Exactly.
 
  • #109
lisab said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24388249/

Forty-one percent had broken a bone...how does this compare to the general population? Seems high to me.
If it's 41 out of the 450 odd children, that's more like 9%, but they don't yet have records for all the children.

Also disturbing is that about 60% of underage teens are either pregnant or have conceived in the past. That, I'm sure, is way above the national average.
 
  • #110
Gokul43201 said:
If it's 41 out of the 450 odd children, that's more like 9%, but they don't yet have records for all the children.
It also depends on what bones were broken and if the breaks seem normal for a fall or blunt force or unusual breaks. Or maybe I watch too many crime shows.

Also disturbing is that about 60% of underage teens are either pregnant or have conceived in the past. That, I'm sure, is way above the national average.
That's WAY above. And considering they all live together, there's just no way to brush that aside.
 
  • #111
Gokul43201 said:
If it's 41 out of the 450 odd children, that's more like 9%, but they don't yet have records for all the children.

Also disturbing is that about 60% of underage teens are either pregnant or have conceived in the past. That, I'm sure, is way above the national average.

Aaaaah...you're right; it is 41, not 41%. That's different...doesn't seem out of normal range to me.

60% of underage girls moms or moms-to-be...yep, that's not normal!
 
  • #112
lisab said:
Then again, I doubt these kids have ever spent time watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the web. Maybe they've done activities that are more hazardous (we used to call it "playing").
They've probably also never played organized sports, though.
 
  • #113
The court of appeals in Austin just ruled in favor of the families. Now they just need to charge the morons who took all those kids with kidnapping...
 
  • #114
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/index.html

"Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may some day have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue."
...
Later, flanked by some of the FLDS mothers represented in the case, Balovich explained that authorities considered YFZ ranch one household, an assertion with which the appeals court did not agree.

Therefore, proving there was abuse in one household did not mean the state could apply that behavior to the entire ranch.
 
  • #115
It is good to see common sense prevailed. If you were to randomly pick any sink estate in the UK and investigate how the kids are treated you would find far worse and more plentiful cases of abuse and I suspect the same would be true with their US equivalents but to suggest in consequence all children from lower working class homes should be taken into care would be unrealistic to put it mildly.

I wonder will Texas now be liable for a hefty damages payout??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
Art said:
It is good to see common sense prevailed. If you were to randomly pick any sink estate in the UK and investigate how the kids are treated you would find far worse and more plentiful cases of abuse and I suspect the same would be true with their US equivalents but to suggest in consequence all children from lower working class homes should be taken into care would be unrealistic to put it mildly.
I didn't know that the authorities raided all the Mormon neighborhoods in the country and took away their children!

To my knowledge they found evidence of abuse at this one ranch and took only the children that were in that particular compound. They apparently failed to convince the judge that the entire ranch should be treated as a single household.
 
  • #117
Gokul43201 said:
I didn't know that the authorities raided all the Mormon neighborhoods in the country and took away their children!

To my knowledge they found evidence of abuse at this one ranch and took only the children that were in that particular compound. They apparently failed to convince the judge that the entire ranch should be treated as a single household.
Which is akin to the analogy I gave of the likely result of treating all of a sink housing estate as a single household.
 
  • #118
Gokul43201 said:
To my knowledge they found evidence of abuse at this one ranch and took only the children that were in that particular compound. They apparently failed to convince the judge that the entire ranch should be treated as a single household.
Given the nature of the FLDS organization, I still think there is a letigimate argument to be made there, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the law. I think there is a decent chance this ruling may be overturned.

In an effort to build a parallel, consider what would happen if a gated community at a country club made its own school on the grounds (rich people need to indocrinate their kids too). At the school, the kids were abused. What could be done about it?
 
Last edited:
  • #119
I look at this situation through the eyes of the local authorities -- they had little choice but to take the course they did. Wow, they were in a tough spot! I think they were very courageous.
 
  • #120
Art said:
Which is akin to the analogy I gave of the likely result of treating all of a sink housing estate as a single household.
I don't know what a sink estate is but it sounded like you were saying the entire lower working class was being treated like a household, not just one sink estate.