Christines guilty of robbery, acquitted of kidnapping (Christine Trial Ends)

oregonlive ^ | 5/10/02 | LANDON HALL

[RGSpincich]

Most reasonable people wouldn't consider what Brian did "robbery."

Depends who tells the story. Facts are they were robbed. Steele world - Relocated their belongings for future pick up.

[ex-Texan]

No doubt the defense will file a motion to set aside the guilty verdict on robbery. What did they steal? Did they take even as much as $ 10 .... ? If not, then the guilty verdict will be set aside.

There is no appeal from the kidnapping acquital so my best guess is that Brian will be out in three years or even less on these charges.

The child endangerment and abuse charges are more serious. If they do not have a much better defense, they both may be facing a lot of jail time. Brian is too small to survive and endure in prison.

These people made their own bed. Now they have to sleep in it. .

[jude24]

How is it fascist to say that parents have a responsibility to care for their children, to provide them with food, education, and medical care. According to the doctor's testimony, two of the three of those (at least) were not adequately provided. In the eyes of the law, that's neglect, at least. And there was evidence of abuse. Parents do have the legal right to raise their children as you see fit; however, that does not give carte blanche to do whatever you want. You cannot beat your kids, no matter what they do. You must provide education. You must provide some sort of medical care. The Christines, according to the official court record, failed to do so, whether maliciously or negligently.

But the legal question at hand here is whether they were legally allowed to take their children at gunpoint, take the social worker's van and personal effects, and so forth. It was decided, probably for PR purposes, that a kidnapping charge was not a good idea, though it certainly would not have been inappropriate. Being the biological parent does not automatically legally entitle parents to cutody. The law does this all the time during divorces. It would be kidnapping for a non-custodial parent to take the children without the permission of the legal guardian. This is perhaps a case of first impression (the first of this sort of fact pattern) where the kidnappers were both biological, but non-custodial parents. This is why they were found guilty of custodial interference. Personally, if I were the DA, I would have included the kidnapping charge.

So we have the taking of the van at gunpoint. I dont care what excuses you make, that's robbery. And using a motor vehicle they werent authorized to is a crime too.

Fascism? Nah. Law and order? Sure, I'll accept that moniker willingly.

I have no sympathy for criminals.

[2sheep]

>Fascism? Nah. Law and order? Sure, I'll accept that moniker willingly.

>I have no sympathy for criminals.

Really?  Jas 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

    YOU HAVE BELIEVED A LIE!   YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR MIND TO THE BEAST! 
 

The lie:  "One Who Is Many ...It is the goal of every inferior species to be assimilated into The Collective. By assimilating the culture and technology of various races throughout the galaxy, we improve the overall quality of life for all species. Assimilation is a swift and "painless" procedure, and can be accomplished on a large scale. Preparation is irrelevant.  Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply. Resistance is futile. Lower your shields and surrender.  All species will ultimately become one with the ***Borg."

***The one world satanic agenda...

[TruthWillWin]

I believe People like Brian and Ruth have no hope of improving until they take responsibility for their behavior. It would be great (although highly unlikely) if some of the posters here would realize that continuing to blame the State Agencies and ignoring any evidence showing the State acted properly, only enables the Ruth and Brians of the world to continue their abusive ways..

[jude24]

Now we're getting someplace....

1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

-- Romans 13:1-5, KJV

If the Apostle Paul could write this during the reign of the sadistic, pagan Nero, than surely this applies to our society today.

You do the crime, you do the time. Look in the Old Testament laws. A civil society is given instructions regarding how their law should be carried out. Hebrews 10:28 says, "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses." Given their society's equivilent to substantive due process, the punishment was to be unfailingly carried out.

Any society that does not punish the evildoer who violates the law is failing in its calling.

I fail to see how supporting law and order is supporting the so-called "one-world" agenda.

[2sheep]

>I fail to see how supporting law and order is supporting the so-called "one-world" agenda.

Neither did the people who voted for Hitler.  You cannot tell the difference between good and evil and do not see/understand/discern that Brian and Ruth Christine are falsely accused.  You know not what you worship! 

Kaaba [Mecca]

 

United Nations Meditation Room

[TruthWillWin]

You cannot tell the difference between good and evil and do not see/understand/discern that Brian and Ruth Christine are falsely accused.

Extreme child abuse is OK with you?

[NYCVirago]

Steele also criticized the prosecution's decision to put Bethany on the witness stand. She said her father, whom she called "Baba," had pointed a gun at "the people," and that her mother had joined them wearing a blond wig. "Just imagine her waking up one morning and thinking, `My mommy and daddy have been in prison all these years, and my goodness, I'm the one that put them there,"' Steele said.

What a crock. The daughter didn't put her parents in jail; the parents' actions put themselves in jail!

[Catspaw]

Brian and Ruth Christine are falsely accused

Ah, but Brian and Ruth Christine aren't falsely accused anymore. They're convicted felons, found guilty by a jury of their peers, sitting in jail awaiting sentencing.

[jude24]

You cannot tell the difference between good and evil and do not see/understand/discern that Brian and Ruth Christine are falsely accused.

Not based on the testimony contained in the newspaper articles. If there is some exculpatory evidence I havent seen, then by all means share it. I bet the Oregan court of appeals would like to see it too.

And what is with your obsession with cubes?

[Catspaw]

p>The Christines showed no emotion as the verdict was read. However, Ruth Christine started sobbing and breathing heavily when discussing the sentence with defense attorney Edgar Steele. 


Ruth Christine put her head in her hands and sobbed when the verdict was read, then turned to her supporters in the courtroom and said, "I love you guys." Authorities then took her into custody. Brian Christine, who has been in custody since his arrest last year, showed no emotion.

I wondered why Ruth Christine started crying post-verdict.  I think Steele told her she was going back to jail.

[Roscoe]

Brian Christine, who has been in custody since his arrest last year, showed no emotion.

No remorse for what he's done to his wife and kids.

[Roscoe]

Most reasonable people wouldn't consider what Brian did "robbery."

The jury didn't share your agenda.

[GovernmentShrinker]

It seems to me that the sequence of the two trials is backwards. The alleged mistreatment came first, and led to the removal of the children, which in turn led to all the events covered at this trial. It's nice that we finally have a doctor who examined the children testifying in a genuine courtroom, but his testimony concerned the condition of the children, which is not really relevant to the charges tried in this trial.

From the bits of the doctor's testimony given here, it appears quite possible that serious abuse was committed by Brian Christine, and Ruth may not have had the means to stop it or even report it, because Brian may well have treated her the same way he treated the children. IF a trial on the abuse charges had been held on a timely basis (as it certainly should have been, regardless of whether the parents chose to appear at it or not), and IF that trial had found Brian to be the abuser and Ruth to be another victim, then the girls might have been properly returned to Ruth, conditioned on Brian not having any contact with them without the supervision of social workers. Under that scenario, the kidnapping would never have occurred (at least not from the social workers, and not with Ruth's participation), and with any sort of sane sentencing Brian would have been serving prison time for the abuse at the time the kidnapping occurred.

Can somebody please explain to me why it's okay to take people's children away from them, and not promptly try the parents on criminal charges, in order to establish whether the taking was legally justifiable? If it can happen to guilty parents, it can happen to innocent parents. And children should never be taken from parents for any significant length of time, unless one or both of the parents have been convicted of a crime. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Granted, for a reasonable length of time, the state might have to remove children for their safety, pending a trial. But there doesn't seem to be any time limit at all on the state's keeping of children without affording the parents a trial.

If you were an innocent parent, whose child was taken by the state on the grounds that some injuries which were actually caused by the child's klutziness on the playground, were alleged to have been inflicted on your child by you, how long would it be okay for the state to keep your children without having tried and convicted you for the abuse?

[Prodigal Daughter]

I suppose that a doctor who works for the state would never lie? Where's the emaciated photographs they said they had? Mengele was a doctor too. The lies are right out of Dr. Irwin Redliner's communist medicine book, so bizarre that you would think that people wouldn't be so gullible. Fifteen pounds? A cut on the forehead that we are supposed to believe smells worse than a rotted, gangrenous extremity, and everyone had to leave the room? I called my doctor and asked about that, not mentioning anything about the case which he said later he never heard of. He said that's not possible. Also, he said that cerebrospinal fluid doesn't smell like feces, that only GI bleed (gastrointestinal) would have that smell. If Giesen said that the Christines had horns growing out of their heads and were poisoning wells, everyone would believe it because he's a DOCTOR and his staff won't say different if they are sheeple who are intimidated by his position on his state medical committee. If one goes against him, all he has to do is lie about them next (this nurse stole prescription medicine, this nurse has a drinking problem, and on and on). State workers falsifying records, throwing out evidence? All the time, think Rilya, think Elian.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I think it's important to distinguish between "Brian and Ruth supporters", and people who have no opinion on the guilt or innocence of Brian and Ruth, but are reasonably concerned about the state's modus operandi in a situation as serious as forcibly taking children from their parents. I fall into the latter category, and my railings against the state should not be interpreted as support for the Christines, other than support for their right to due process under the law, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

[f.Christian]

Personally, my heart aches for a family that that has been destroyed by the very people charged with helping families.

You can crow all you want, but this is not a victory for justice, it is a travesty of justice...and a very sad day for our republic.

59 posted on 5/11/02 8:06 AM Pacific by EternalVigilance

[f.Christian]

I heard of a giant squid just reach up and take a sailor off a life raft---they have one tooth like an octopus!