Posted on 04/26/2008 10:47:03 PM PDT by ricks_place
You must be referring back to Waco.
No, I mean how Texas pulls off this stunt due to an anonymous phone call. If that is all it takes to get the officials in Texas to raid a place, I surmise that many will use this modus operandi to get Texas raids going day and night.
"Disagree. Firstly, Grooming daughters for polygamy rape is reason enough to remove the children and possibly criminally indict the parents. Secondly, until the DNA tests are returned the parents are unconfirmed, absent state birth certificates." - ricks_place
That's not disagreeing. What you are doing is explaining why the police went in...a different topic altogether.
What I'm doing is pointing out that parents are going to start thinking that they've got nothing left to lose...just like all drivers would feel if there was the death penalty for 1 mph over a 55 mph speed limit; you'd *never* stop for a highway patrolman if the penalty was death.
Same goes for losing your children.
That logic would only hold true if the authorities were consistent such that their interpretation of the rule of law was applied equally to all...
...won't happen. The first thousand anonymous calls tipping authorities off to an abusive school teacher will *never* get all schoolchildren removed from a school.
Abusive authorities will never apply their same standard for enforcement to other government entities.
Sorta puts the lie to “there are no boys” and “there was no SWAT,” eh?
The majority here are cheering them on too.
Surely not referring to the public schools or urban areas!
We should get signs made up for all ports of entry...
Welcome to America!
Home of the Strawman Warrant
Over ____ Served
(I don't even want to guess how many.) :-(
Sorta puts the lie to "they had an informant so they knew what was going on in there," doesn't it?
Sorry, but you Clintonista types can't have it both ways. In the rush to promote the anti-American angemda (fought with such winner slogans as "The Ends Justify the Means," "It's for the Children," and "If You're Not in Favor of Crushing Rights, You Must Support Polygamy!"), it seems that the pro-raid crowd is sometimes stumbling onto facts--but can't keep them straight from the previous claims that have been made!
Launch APC...
Why the name calling? What is your problem? What should they have done when they received the Sarah call? Ignore it?
LEO went to YFZ. They were told by the men at the gate there was no Sarah. Yet when they interviewed some of the young women, they were told there were several teenaged Sarahs with children. What would you have done?
BTW, Warren Jeffs FBI poster stated he could be armed and dangerous. Is there a reason to believe his followers wouldn’t be? My father, my late husband, and several other of my family members are/were LEOs. I would have wanted them armed to the teeth in that or any other situation.
Why, instead of answering my question, did you attack me? Again I’ll ask: Where did you hear there were “no” boys at YFZ?
The sheriff stated that he had an informant within the compound. Are you calling him a liar too? Why has Merrill Jessop retained a criminal lawyer if everything was so above board and peachie-dorie at YFZ? Would you send your children there for spiritual guidance?
Inspires a new tagline
Agreed. Oh well, those who live by the sword generally die by it. Wait until their turn, or their kid’s turn comes.
The FIB always does this. Putting "considered mostly harmless" on one of your 10 Most Wanted posters is not good marketing. And marketing is what they do best.
You are so right.
Would your father or late husband go and raid someone’s residence based upon someone telling them they had received a call—without first investigating? Are we to believe they would get a warrant for a man who was last known to be in another state, all on the basis of being told that a mysterious caller made accusations against him? Would they pull out into an intersection without looking themselves, based on someone telling them that an unknown person had said it was clear? If they made it through, would they then claim that it proved that there was probably cause that the road was clear?
I doubt they were such poor law enforcement personnel as that. They were probably like my brother—a fine officer who respects peoples’ rights while being aggressive in nabbing bad guys, and certainly not relying on unsubstantiated hoaxes to initiate major operations.
Tough to cite threads when they get yanked so often, but let's go to the contention that there were no mature boys. Then there was the contention that there were only "24 minor boys." Etc.
Now there's the tasty crow being served when it's reported that nearly half of the children are boys...and they aren't all "little boys" as was claimed.
Why, instead of answering my question, did you attack me?
Actually, I did try to make it all more generic than personal toward you, but I see that perhaps it was still a bit direct. The point stands, though, that the supporters of raiding-based-on-lies tend to be using using very Clintonian reasoning and excuses for abuses. Add to that the changing stories.
The sheriff stated that he had an informant within the compound. Are you calling him a liar too?
The informant or the Sheriff? The sheriff might be dishonest or a fool, but I can't say. If his informant's word was good enough, then they could have gone in years ago. If not, then a hoax phone call to a third party--something any informant could have arranged--is not anything that adds to the infomant's information. Otherwise, a third-party hoax call could be used as supposedly independent corroboration in any case where an informant holds a grudge.
Why has Merrill Jessop retained a criminal lawyer if everything was so above board and peachie-dorie at YFZ?
Because he's smart.
But I suppose the correct answer was "only the guilty defend themselves," or "there's no need to protect our rights--the government would never abuse its power," eh?
Would you send your children there for spiritual guidance?
The fact that I wouldn't send them to you doesn't make you guilty, nor does it mean your house should be raided if someone calls in a hoax against you. And I wouldn't send my children to the Sheriff for spiritual guidance, so the same applies there.
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.