BBC NEWS | Americas | Court win for Texas sect parents
WTF?!?!? Under age teens are being forced to marry and have sex with members of their own family ,the courts give them back to people like that?
Printable View
BBC NEWS | Americas | Court win for Texas sect parents
WTF?!?!? Under age teens are being forced to marry and have sex with members of their own family ,the courts give them back to people like that?
its only a win for about 38 mothers. thats still over 130 kids.
300 are still taken away.
sick FUCKERS! FLDS thats rape, and those men need to be round up and castrated.. and the women get snipped..
Texas had no right to do this in the first place. There has still yet to be any proof that any kids were harmed. How do you determine when a woman is too young for marraige?
If you say you have to wait till they're mature then maybe they should make a law that you can't get married or pregnant till you're 30. It takes about that long before people are mature enough to have children.
I don't think they should be allowed to to that, whether or not they were hurt, being raised that it's okay to get married and pregnant even in early teenage years is outrageous..Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
THEY HAVE MARRIED 13-17 YEAR OLD GIRLS WITH KIDS.... THATS RAPE>>>>Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
what more reason do you need...
Yea it was also with their uncles and cousins and shit. That is fucking sick!
You know what I think people need to lay of the kool aid and mainstream television! there's no proof of underage sex and all the rest of the slander. The arrests were made by law enforcement in big armoured cars, resembling more an army, all of it because of a phonecall.
I don't support polygamy but they were acting within Texas law, just because they don't want to be part of the modern world it doesn't mean they're rapists. There is no proof of incest either.
The real crime was taking the kids from their parents for 30 days. Don't believe all television tells you.
The FLDS has a nice little poem about their philosophy:
When roses are red, they're ready fer pluckin'
When yer cousin's 13, she's ready fer f##kin'!
I think the court made a big mistake here, and Texas had every right to do this. In cases of child endangerment, you should not have to wait to prove that the child has already been abused before taking the kid to safety. There is enough evidence these kids were in danger, and it was the right thng to do to get them out of that situation before any more were harmed. Once they were in safety, then the court better hurry up and decide whether there is real danger there or not on a case-by-case basis. But to say they didn't have enough evidence of danger to act is wrong. Get the kids to safety first, then sort it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
Well, they aren't making a new law or setting a new age limit in this case. They are just enforcing the existing laws. It's not a case of "determining when a woman is too young for marraige" --- that's already been done a long time ago. I don't know what the legal age limit is in Texas, but I'm pretty sure it's older than 13. And I'm also pretty sure that even if the legal age for marriage is lower than the normal age of consent for sex, a 50-year-old man better have a real legal marriage with the underage girl before he starts having sex with her! Most of these were not legal marriages, so I think the underage sex is probably legally statutory rape or child molestation. Once they get the DNA, birth records, and legal marriage records sorted out, it's just going to be simple math to prove that these older men were having sex and making babies with underage girls who were not their legal wives.Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
In Canada the age of sexual consent is 14. So any adult can legally have sex with a 14 year old. I believe its 12 in Holland, but I'm not 100% certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by illnillinois
My mom married my dad when she was 16 and they had their first child when she was 17, so I dont see anything wrong there.
Maybe the FLDS just needs to relocate to a country where it is legal to bang your 12-year-old cousins. Not legal in Texas, and that's why they are having these legal problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillyX
My grandma was 14 when she first married and had her first kid. Not Mormons, but it use to be very common and I didn't see anyone getting hurt. I don't advocate anyone getting married or having children till they are 30. But thats just me. I have no right to force my opinions on anyone else. By the way grandma had 3 marraiges and outlived all her husbands to a ripe old age of 96.
The only criteria there should be in these cases is somebody being hurt. If not leave them alone and pay more attention to your own life.
I think the problem with this cult is that the girls are too young to make these kinds of decisions. I think they are being manipulated and coerced into these "marriages" and being taken advantage of. Apparently many of them didn't really want to be in these marriages, but they are too young and too isolated to prevent it. That's rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
It's one thing to point out your grandmother got married when she was 14. I know a lot of people in older generations did get married much earlier than they do now. In some cases when very young people are really in love and responsible adults agree it is Ok, and it is legal in that particular state, then maybe it's alright for underage people to get married. I personlly doubt it is really a good idea, but it might not be morally wrong or illegal.
But if you have 14-year-old girl being told by her parents and religious leaders that she HAS TO marry a 50 year-old-man who already has multiple "wives," then someone is getting hurt.
There was no probable cause ! Probable cause means its probable, not probably, not a phonecall and excess cover up by the media.
The government can just say fuck the law alltogether and do what ever the hell they want, if they're found guilty of kidnapping (which is what happened) they'll just say oops guess we have to give the kids back and nobodys held accountable.
Do you mean probable cause for the raid or cause to remove the kids to protective custody?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugitive
So far no one has disputed the probable cause for the raid --- maybe that will come up in the eventual trials. They had warrants and continue to get permission for further searches, siezing records, taking DNA samples, so they must have proven enough probable cause to convince a court to allow them to go that far.
As for removing a kid to protective custody, I don't think the same legal rules apply as do for warrants. I don't think child protective services usually have ro PROVE that abuse has already occured in order to remove a child. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the same standards of "probable cause" apply in cases of child safety and removing a child from a hazardous environemt.
One thing is sure, the authorities in this case were in a bad spot. On the one hand, if they err on the side of safety and remove the kids, they might get caught overstepping their authority --- which is what the court has said. On the other hand, if they suspected the kids were in danger but still just let them stay in the compound, and another little girl got raped, then right now we'd be all over them for sitting on their asses and not protecting the kids.
I think they did the right thing by removing the kids. As this thing unfolds, I think we are going to see some real depravity come to light.
Yeah you can't remove all kids just because one MIGHT of been abused. There is going to be one hell of an expensive lawsuit over this. Texas is going to need a big ass insurance coverage.