Posted on 04/16/2008 1:39:51 PM PDT by MissouriConservative
I am a native Texas and pretty much the State of Texas has the same record.
I want to see these people investigated and where crimes have been committed, particularly sexual abuse of children, I want to see them prosecuted hard and to the fullest extent. But I do not want them skating on a technicality because someone got either too full of themsleves, or someone got over anxious.
Like I said, my guess is that as soon as Arizona sees that there is enough evidence to be able to prosecute and make something stick, they will immediately and gladly give the guy up. Until then, it would be wrong to give him up...not because he is a nice guy or someone they want to defend...but because that very principle is a bedrock to all of our freedom and is worth defending.
Let state come forward with the DNA . if there are guilty then these vermin should be hanged.
But I also remember the McMartin preschool case and satanic ritual abuse cases where kids were subject to physcologial intimidation and pressure by case workers and so called therapists.Which is why I am very leery of prosecuting these cases without physical evidence
Until there is strong enough evidence to warrant that, they will not do it. I do not believe the State of Arizona has any love lost for, or is trying to protect this guy per sey...but I do believe that they will not violate principles important to all, in the absence of the necessary level of evidence.
The necessary level of evidence to pull parole (guy’s on parole) is VERY LOW.
I never said it was a hoax, I said the authorities may have has insufficient evidence for the raid. Not the same thing at all. It's the possibly that they acted on insufficient evidence that would not hold up against a challenge to the warrant that bothers me. For two reasons, first because acting that way in this case, means that they may do so in others. Secondly, such actions jeopardize the prosecution of any perpetrators that might end up charged in conjunction with the raid and the information obtained from it.
I meant evidence presented in the warrant application.
The more convincing the evidence, as opposed to allegations or hearsay, presented in the warrant, the more likely it is to hold up to a challenge by the defense attorneys of anyone charged with the abuse that was the justification for the raid in the first place.
Islam is both. The very founder was a pedophile, and he didn't even wait until the girl was of child bearing capability. He "married" her at 6 and "consummated" the marriage at 9.
True, but at this point the real, admissible, evidence that applies specifically to him is pretty much non-existant.
If they can find the girl, and she confirms that he is the one (apparently there may be a possibility that there are mulitiple members of with the same name) she reported as raping and beating her, and she will sign a complaint to that effect, then they will have enough evidence to pull his parole.
That still means it, the old law, could apply to *some* of the situations. There could be "pregnant teenagers" who were less than 16, but more than 13, who were married, with parental permission, before 2005, to men legally unmarried at the time. They could only be 17, 18 or 19 at this time, and thus pregnant teen agers. Would it apply in *some* cases, yea most likely. But it's not logically required that it apply in all of them.
In some cases that is called grasping at straws.
Remember, these aren't legal marriages! Can I - here in the burbs - give consent for my forty year old male friend to have sex with my sixteen year old daughter?
Under any other situation, that is RAPE. Can I give consent for that?
I highly doubt it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2002411/posts?page=340#340
a post with links to the second search warrant request and links to texas law that answers you questions.
Then DNA will identify the fathers and there'll be all the evidence necessary to satisfy evryone.
What I don't hear from any media is the obvious question...where are the men from the compound?
I believe we should prosecute Muslims who violate the law.
The terminology used by many Freepers (my good friends and great community) is as if the courts have already found the men/group guilty of all accusations. The charges seem pretty serious and likely to be true, but we should respect the court of law as the authority to make that determination- not us. Just my opinion.
Then DNA will identify the fathers and there'll be all the evidence necessary to satisfy evryone.
So if any of the women claim children that aren't theirs, they could be charged for making a false statement in court.
Then why don't we?
Not sure why you are asking me. You should probably talk to those in law enforcement about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.