Fine with me, So what do you propose should be done about the underaged maraige problems in their community? Or are you still without ideas on how to resolve the problem?
"So what do you propose should be done about the underaged maraige problems in their community? Or are you still without ideas on how to resolve the problem? "
I didn't get a degree in law enforcement or child services. But I have proposed all that I believe on the topic from personal opinion.
My opinion is that the girls that are in danger of being married off at young ages, should be protected by the legal system.
How that gets achieved is up to those who understand this better.
You are an odd person. I don't know why you've chosen the path of a sadducee. Your interiest in promoting pot seems to be to allow people to get high when they want.
If you knew anything about plant biology you would know that fungus actively grow in plants.
Your sources are full of it. I sent you to a government site already and your just not interiested in it.
Good luck to you and your family. Do them a favor and make sure their educated before they leave home.
"Your interiest in promoting pot seems to be to allow people to get high when they want."
I don't think it's the government's job to tell consenting adults what they put in their body. Certainly the government allows people to put very deadly chemicals in their body such as tabacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs..
Consenting adults should have the right to ingest what they want to.
If they get caught imparied while driving, they should be arrested. Just like with alcohol.
As long as people take things into their body that impair them their are laws to respond to bad behavior. Where are your arguments about people being responcible while using this crap? You know people aren't interiested in responcibility when they get high to escape everyday life.
"As long as people take things into their body that impair them their are laws to respond to bad behavior. Where are your arguments about people being responcible while using this crap? You know people aren't interiested in responcibility when they get high to escape everyday life. "
I am telling you that the harm caused by marijuana is smaller than that caused by Tylenol. Marijuana has killed no one due to it's toxic side-effects. Tylenol has killed thousands.
"Your sources are full of it. I sent you to a government site already and your just not interiested in it."
I have asked you 3 times (4 including this one), for your sources, and I am still waiting.
You are welcome to post your source again. However, I think that you are full of it.
My sources come from well accredited universities such as UCLA, Harvard and Oxford as well as dozens of others, from well accredited scientists who are not potheads, but who are pursueing truth.
Walker JM, Huang SM. "Cannabinoid analgesia." Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2002 Aug;95(2):127-35. PMID 12182960 - "...to date, there are no deaths known to have resulted from overdose of marijuana." (p. 128)
No one has ever injested enough of the stuff before passing out to acctually kill themselves. Big deal. Inebriaded drivers kill people all the time. Do you have a reason why people should be allowed to use pot when people are to irresponcible to be trusted with driving while not under the influence. Wherre's your argument?
"Do you have a reason why people should be allowed to use pot when people are to irresponcible to be trusted with driving while not under the influence. Wherre's your argument? "
What do you mean, you have made no case that Marijuana causes driving accidents.
How many automobile deaths occurred due to Marijuana last year.
Walker JM, Huang SM. "Cannabinoid analgesia." Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2002 Aug;95(2):127-35. PMID 12182960 - "...to date, there are no deaths known to have resulted from overdose of marijuana." (p. 128)
Acid is a chemical compound that is know to be made in at least one form in bacteria. Are you to byast to admit that a plant could potentially make a similair compound?
Example, some kinds of fish and tree's both make anti-freeze proteins. Lots of life forms make similair proteins and compound.
"Acid is a chemical compound that is know to be made in at least one form in bacteria. Are you to byast to admit that a plant could potentially make a similair compound?"
What I am telling you is that you are full of crap, and that THC is not made from a fungus like acid is.
That is a simple, and glaring fact.
That is what I am saying. And I am saying that Acid and THC are not similar.
As for giving up pot? I gave it up 11 years ago when I found Jesus as my personal savior. I stopped all together, as well as tabacco.
You take up christianity and give up unchristian behavior to then promote unchristian behavior?
Prozac and Tylenol (with codeine) are very addictive.
Pot has mild form of acid. How would that be better then tylenol or prozac? It couldn't even replace them in what their used for. Why do you support anebriated behavior 'like' wine bibbing?
Smoking marijuana is illegal. The only real benefit it creates is stimulation of the brain in reilieving pain and relaxing the sinuses. Their are litterally dozens of better drugs that are legally perscribed by doctors. People die under the influence of the drug all the time which means that it kills. 100 symptoms? Where's your university studies that proove it?
I am against breaking the law.
You are encouraging illegal activity before the law is changed. You are for breaking the law.
You are exaggerating so that you can change the subject. You aren't even talking about the original topic now, typical.
I expose hypocrisy and you get angry.
And no, expressing a political opinion is not breaking the law. Look up the first amendment and don't be foolish.
I wasn't implying illegal behavior. I expose your lack of intriest in following the laws of the land and you don't like me for it. Paul said to follow the laws of the land and be a great member of society.
There is a difference between anger and frustration.
I am frustrated because the topic is "FLDS, and Child Rape", and yet you have made no connection between the FLDS and marijuana, yet you bring marijuana into the conversation.
I am fine talking about marijuana. I have responded to you on my channel, and I have a blog that you can post on too: utahpirateradio. com
I am only frustrated because this is a typical LDS distraction.
You argue that the raid was legal when you promote the use of illegal drugs. The connection is your flawed perception. If you hadn't fried your brain years ago you could easily be making these connections.
I question your motives in the legal system and i'm distracting you? You don't give and take in the legal system. You either are supporting the legal system or you aren't. You aren't when you encourage others to break the law. Distraction? I'm exposing your criminal mind.
"You argue that the raid was legal when you promote the use of illegal drugs. "
Actually, I promote the research and further legalization of marijuana which is already legal for medicinal usage in 12 U.S. states and in 100's of countries including Canada.
I don't promote the use of anything illegal. I promote the legalization of a valuable resource.
"I question your motives in the legal system and i'm distracting you? You don't give and take in the legal system. You either are supporting the legal system or you aren't. You aren't when you encourage others to break the law. Distraction? I'm exposing your criminal mind. "
The distraction is that instead of talking about the FLDS raid (the topic), you accuse me of breaking the law in a series of petty attacks that you know nothing about, nor do you have any proof. I support democracy.
If your half fried brain wasn't able to understand what I said then here it is simply. Your video's say it's fine to smoke pot when it's illegal.
It used to be illegal for blacks to enter a white school, or a white restaurant.
That's cultural and human rights. The proper argument should be alcohol was once illegal. Protest all you want. Their are reasons for this law. Does your preacher know your advertising this behavior?
If your half fried brain wasn't able to understand what I said then here it is simply. "
This is why our conversation breaks down. You insult me, and then like on my channel blog you say "why are you so hostile when we write"..
It's like the boy who cried wolf.
I haven't been hostile to you, in fact I have been very patient. But when you insist on attacking me in the most petty ways, it does lower my opinion of your conversation.
"Your video's say it's fine to smoke pot when it's illegal."
As for comprehension problems. First you are mis-understanding something here. I have not made one video in regards to marijuana. So when you say "Your video's say ". You are actually referring to someone else's video that I do not know.
I have personally stated that I do not agree with breaking the law. Someone else's opinion can not be counted as my own.
You might not watch much tv but those of us that look on accasion see commercial about driving under the influence. Weather it's alcohol, pot, or even perscription drugs people get in accidents while under the influence.
mpp. org
Not a univeristy. The equivelent of the national enquirer.
I've known people to get run over because they were too high to realize they were in the middle of the road. The toxic effects are similar to alcoholism. They just don't kill the liver.
Run by pot heads without interiests in disproving claims. Ignoring statistics with involvement in car accidents. Less credable then the national enquirer.
Did you bother to read any of the links that I gave?
I recommend that you do.
As for the National Drug Control Policy.
They do no list the statistics that you have referred to. You kept claiming that Marijuana is dangerous, and that people die from driving under the influence of Marijuana.
But the funny thing is that I have provided reference after reference that shows Marijuana is not dangerous. Yet your sources do not cite any reference that show marijuana related deaths.
"Weather it's alcohol, pot, or even perscription drugs people get in accidents while under the influence."
Do you have some kind of legitimate study that gives that statistics on how many people died while under the influence of marijuana/alcohol/prescriptions?
Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?
Just curious. You have asked me for proof of my claims today, it's only fair that you should be able to provide proof too for your claims.
When are you going to answer my question? Are you for the use of Marijuana or against it? You have links to the subject on your page so I am curious as to your position. Are you against that form of illegal behavior?
You may or may not be this type or person. But I have noticed in talking with LDS people that when a conversation takes a turn (unwanted), a typical response is to say "hey, take a look over there!!!!", rather than deal with the topic at hand.
To answer your question, just like many in the congress of this US, I do wish to see marijuana legalized.
You do know that the main component of marijuana is a mild form of acid don't you? The topic at hand is that the stuff is an addictive substance that encourages crime in the neighborhood. Driving under the influence, theft and dozens of other habits that destroy the character of a person.
just like many in the congress of this US, I do wish to see marijuana legalized.
So how many voted for legalization?
Can you honestly tell me that you don't actively use the stuff?
"Are you for the use of Marijuana or against it? "
Another distraction??!? What does marijuana have to do with the FLDS?
As for "am I for the use of Marijuana". Yes, and in so far, 12 states have legalized medical marijuana. Denver decriminalized it all together, and Hailey Id has had a recent stir in their local politics over the issue.
Yes, I believe Marijuana should be no less legal than Prozac, Tylenol, and certainly no less legal than alcohol and tabacco which are ACTUALLY deadly!
It was to see how deep your interiests are in following the laws of the land. You want to follow the laws with child raip in their community. But it seems as if you have no interiest in following the drug laws that have been made to protect the community from illegal activity coming from addiction to this substance. I agree that alchohol and tobacco should be illegal for their addictive and deadly natures, Prozac and tylenol aren't addictive, I bet you couldn't give marijuana up without help.
I1Dont2Care3 I am just making the arguement that as moral an idea it is to kidnap children just to give them a questionably "better" home I think their are better ways of dealing with this group. If you think moarls are equivalent to laws then you are agreeing with the way the salem witch trial occured.
Their are processes to making a legal case and prosecuting people. In Salem their weren't processes of making a case against people. Their legal system was based on keeping the people moral. Anyone who didn't admit to the crime was executed and those that did went to prison.
Their was no interiest in making a case to take the kids. They just took the kids with no proof of foul play. They found proof after taking the kids making the proof unusable in a real court.
"Their are processes to making a legal case and prosecuting people. "
They didn't enter the property with that intent as I understand it. They entered the property to investigate a claim of abuse.
I don't think they barged in expecting to arrest or incriminate people.
Looks to me like they entered the property to investigate an allegation. When they got there, they found possible endangerment of the children, and so they tried to protect the children.
first thanks for this video. i don't understand people that are standing up for these people. what they did and are still doing is wrong. And on other thing for Trandos21 it doesn't really matter if they are "allowed" on the ranch. it's not very hard to do something illegal when you already are and there is no legal enforcers around for miles. these people are sick and i hope they don't get there kids back. (oops did i say kids.. sorry i meant children) :p
"If that was the problem they wouldn't have ggiven their kids back. "
Don't think that the FLDS are off the hook. CPS will still have access to the compound. FLDS will continued to be counciled and analyzed by CPS for abuse, and the sheriff department will continue to investigate the illegalities and crimes that have been found during this investigation.
The FLDS may get off scott free. But after seeing what happened to Warren Jeffs. I doubt it.
So when babies are left out on the street or in garbage can the police find the parents and give them back their child?
If parents don't claim these kids, does that mean that they are orphan?
It does if no family come to claim them. The reason that is unheard of is because very few parents kick their kids out without other relatives taking them in. If all relatives don't want the kid then the kid is the states responcibility. I do know kids that have ended up in state custody this way.
Do you think that the early american patriots weren't thinking of the future of the US when they planned out at the starting of the country? As wonderful as it is to take the children away it doesn't fix the problem that the FLDS perpetuate. We moraly can't deny another their religious freedom but we can punnish them for it. The greatest punnishment is to alow their children to regent their teaching after entering a whole new world at school.
Why? Because you don't address related subjects without a kill the molesters mentality. Personally I think that molester need their genitals cut off but you are way more personally involved in this topic then a nonbyast person would be. Here's a nonbyast exercise, wht if you were the father of the sex offender. What would you want to happen?
But in a case like this, where the men are molesting, and the women are standing by knowing what is happening. And the religion indoctrinates this practice of child-brides..
Well, there are so many factors contributing to the molestation.
The apathy of the mothers is no less dangerous. The encouragement of the religion is just as dangerous as the fathers practicing it.
"but you are way more personally involved in this topic then a nonbyast person would be. "
I don't know how. I mean, not many people can stand a molestor. My cousin was abused by her father. It makes me ill to know what molestors are capable of. Not just FLDS. But any molestor.
I have not been any more tolerant of other molestors any more than I am intolerant of FLDS doctrines and predators regarding this subject.
I defend the right for freedom of religion. people are free to be fools just like they are free to be charged and imprisioned for their crimes to society. Religions don't always follow mainstream culture with their thoughts or actions.
I told you that the raid wasn't legal. The courts just sent the kids home.
A non bias observer doesn't work with religious you equal rights movements. They use the written laws to dictate their actions. Even the courts found the CPS to be in the wrong here.
If the seizure which was the focus of the raid despite the number of kids was ruled illegal by the texas supreme court. The are putting the kids home today. The delay for the return was by the lack of co-operation of the judge over the childrens cases to comply with the higher courts decision without changing the return policy. She finally complied. once again. A riad is less organized then a seizure which has goals. ruling against the seizure rules against the raid.
"A riad is less organized then a seizure which has goals. ruling against the seizure rules against the raid. "
You can be sure that the "raid" will happen again and again since the Supreame Court ruled that CPS must have access to the compound, and that the FLDS involved must NOT leave the state of Texas, and there will be continued investigation in to the criminal and abuse activities of this group.
So this "raid" will continue. Meaning CPS will continue to be allow to enter the property
You can be sure that the "raid" will happen again and again
A raid includes taking things. Are you high? Why aren't you interiested in being educated durring the discussion? Are you even hear with the real world. A humble person learns everything about the subject to be a good judge of a persons rights. Your preaching without learning about the topic. If your so disinteriested in being a part of the world to make it better then don't preach.
Taking information in a raid is part of a raid. The information illegally taken that wasn't related to their inquiry can be thrown out of court proceeding now. When the CPS screwed up by acting before indepth investigation they threw out the right to use that information in a court of law. The morons sunk every case they could make against the old geezers that were involved in the illegal activities. The prosecution can't use ilegally obtained evidence in court.
Do you even know what I said? Are you a moron or slow?
The prosecution can't use illegally obtained evidence in court. Other wise Al Capone would have stayed in jail at least once. That means the DNA tests won't go in criminal cases against the child rapers. This means the CPS screwed up trying to protect the kids.
Is ignorance bliss in your world. Is your preacher ignorant to your interiests?
"Do you even know what I said? Are you a moron or slow?"
From you lack of ability to spell, I doubt you are a lawyer, or someone who is educated. But since you know the law so well, I will respect your opinion of what you think will happen with this evidence, and I will watch it all unfold in front of us.
The Supream Court did grant CPS extended contact with the FLDS in this case, and the court did say that CPS must be able to access the property in the future in regards to this case.
Once again. A "seizure" is a raid with objectives to be accomplished. When police seize narcotics they go on a raid for the narcotics in a location and accomplish objectives. If a seizure is a form of a raid then an illegal seizure is by defenition an illegal raid.
As far as I understood it, the CPS went in to investigate. The police were called in because of expected resistence to the investigation (which they got).
And the seizure accurred BECAUSE of the investigation, not directly as a result of the raid. (Unless when you say raid, you mean investigation??)
But you are welcome to have the opinion that a raid is a seizure and that a seizure is a raid in this case. I humbly disagree based on my limited knowledge of the situation.
expected resistence to the investigation (which they got).
Resistance=arrest.
CPS went in to investigate
Seizure requires investigation. When the investigation was ended without resolution the investigators decided to do something that would require proof before action with kids they knew nothing about. Be as humble as you want, the courts that know the laws ruled against your limited knowledge used by the CPS.
These young girls have been ripped from their mothers in tears so they can be mocked in their new communities and even rejected in their new schools. They are the newest generation of lost boys and girls to be put up with in foster homes until they are kicked out at the age of 19 with no place to go. They will end up uneducated and socially problematic. They will probably return to the ranch at the age of 19 for a loving home and family support. They might even bring friends with them.
So it's a question of whether they should be left in the environment where child molestation is the doctrine of their church, and is widely practiced by the close-by members of this church.
Or to take them away, put them in a safer environment.
No doubt that is a hard choice, and within the first 60 seconds of my video I empathize with that. I have no doubt it is a tough choice.
But being kicked out at 18 or 19 isn't so bad. I have 9 kids in my family and 18 is an average age of leaving
I think that the raid took place to investigate a phone call about child molestation.
The raid didn't occur until the children were taken hence the name "raid". If they saw evidence of child molestation they then would have evidence and reason to DNA test everyone in the ranch. A sapeana for DNA is used to find out who is related to who. Everyone involoved is tested regaurdless of affiliation. Do you understand how the justice system works?
The raid didn't occur until the children were taken hence the name "raid". "
The word raid is what I don't think you understand. CPS entering the property, despite resistance, was the raid. It happened before they saw young girls pregnant in the ranch.
The "raid" occured as a result of a phone call about child molestation and child abuse.
The "seizure" took place as a result of CPS trying to protect children that appeared to be in danger.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think will happen to the young girls when the foster care system kicks them out onto the streets at 18 or 19?
A seizure has an intended goal while a raid doesn't and takes everything it can.
I accuse you because you have no interiest in attacking possible offenders outside of this community from what I see. Do you have proof to the contrary.
"I accuse you because you have no interiest in attacking possible offenders outside of this community from what I see. Do you have proof to the contrary. "
On my block at UtahPirateRadio. com
A post that I made titled:
"F*%&ing pedophiles!"
This was back before the FLDS issue, in 2007, and it had nothing to do with FLDS.
So you made a post. Why is it you haven't been interiested in reviewing facts from it for this case? If you genuinely dislike the pedophiles why is it you think the mothers deserve punishment too?
I've not thought of a better solution, have you?
I already gave the solution of desegregating the kids from the ranch by not allowing home schooling. Had you been interiested in a solution you would have noticed that I have said it a number of times you condemn the FLDS.
Their is a difference between your kids and their kids. Yours won't be alienated in every aspect of life until they are thrown out on the street. Yours will be better educated with possibilities of college. When have I ever siad the kids should stay with their fathers?
Actually, I've never said anyone should be punished. I am happy these kids are safer though.
They sapeanad every kid for DNA testing in the fourth week. That is how they were able to get the kids DNA without parental or gardian permission. Why couldn't they do that with the parent's?
You don't need to include family lineage in a sapeana to get DNA, you don't need them to be in custody, If the parents don't follow the sapeana they won't get their kids back. Sapeana's have nothing to do with tracing family ties. They only specify what a person must give the police that give them the sapeana or warrant.
" If the parents don't follow the sapeana they won't get their kids back. "
What sapeana? If they don't know who the parents are, since some went unidentified, they can't sapeana them.
Thats the point I was making.
There is an Associated Press news report that you can watch on youtube that talks about parents haven't been able to be identified because some of the kids didn't have anyone claiming them.
If the kids fathers won't claim them, who do they sapeana?
"Sapeana's aren't issued based on family affiliation."
If it concerns DNA it IS based on family affiliation.
But you keep claiming if the people getting these sapeanas refuse the DNA test, they would be arrested.
My point is, they can't send out a sapeana to a person that is unknown.
If they don't know who the parents are, and if no one is claiming each other, then they can't send out a random sapeana to an unknown person. Who would it go to? What address? Who could refuse it?
My position over everything is this. Taking the flds children won't kill the illegal practice. And taking them without proper legal procedure will only give the flds an advantage legaly. (Like with Jessup). If the children are given exposure to the real world through state or private schooling they can be legaly educated out of the illegal practices. The CPS should have had the government deny the flds the right to home school long ago. What the CPS did will seperate the childrens minds from us.
"Taking the flds children won't kill the illegal practice."
Valid point, but if the authorities ignore this practice of taking child brides, then it will only make these predators feel safer, and will only encourage them to take MORE child brides. Not a good situation.
"taking them without proper legal procedure will only give the flds an advantage legaly. (Like with Jessup)."
He shouldn't have his kids if he is on the sex offender list still. But good point about legalities.
Look at the future of this. The children aer put in foster care until 18. They have been in a failure of a home (foster home) meaning they are less likely to be well educated. This means when they are kicked out at 18 they most likely will seek out their parents and move back to the ranch. Polygamy continues on and foster friends are easily drwn into the promised better cirstances on the ranch. Forcing the FLDS kids into public schools is the best way to deal with the situation.
if the authorities ignore this practice of taking child brides, then it will only make these predators feel safer, and will only encourage them to take MORE child brides.
So when are the authorities going to do something to the predators? So far they have just removed their kids. That won't hurt a predator. That will hurt the minds of the children involved and alienate them from the people that can give them modern USA morals an standards to think and even live with.
It seems to me like they have. There are literally thousands of "mos" (molestors) in prison. Including the infamous Warren Jeffs.
Are you saying that the texas authorities have delt with the molesters in the FLDS communtiy by taking their children? Is that their legal punnishment?
"Are you saying that the texas authorities have delt with the molesters in the FLDS communtiy by taking their children? Is that their legal punnishment? "
No, Im not saying that. I do know that many of the parents of these kids did not claim their children or gave conflicting stories about which kids were their's and then after request many of them (not all) refused DNA testing.
So I'm sure if they could figure out which person molested which child, there would be some arrests.
DNA tests should already be back by now, unless this isn't a priority for the state.
many of them (not all) refused DNA testing.
Week 4 was court ordered DNA testing and people can't refuse that. a thousand tests could take a good lab a month or less. People should have been arrested by now.
When do you think the arrests will happen? Do you think arrests will be made soon?
"Week 4 was court ordered DNA testing and people can't refuse that. a thousand tests could take a good lab a month or less."
Actually all of the labs had a mimimum turn around of 30 days for NORMAL volume according to a few news reports that I saw, they are severely over-booked right now.
A month is typical. But due to overbooking (now that 420 new cases have came in all at once). Who knows how long it will take.
What did they say was 'normal' volume? A hundred people? Five hundred? sorenson genomics could probably pull that In less then a month and a half. A number of labs being hired to do the work could easily do the work order. Texas has tons of labs in the state for testing.
From the news report I watched, they were already at "normal volume" when all of these tests came in. Meaning all of these tests coming in put them OVER normal volume.
I ment how many tests are considered normal volume? I want to know if their testing facilities are even trying to get the work done anytime soon. A good lab should be able to get at least twenty tests or more done a day.
"I ment how many tests are considered normal volume?"
And when I said that they claimed that they were already at "normal volume", and thats all I know. Really.. Thats all I know.
If it takes a minimum of 4 weeks to complete a DNA test under normal volume, and now normal volume has been exceeded.. Then it may take longer than 4 weeks. That's just common sense, right.
common sense says if your over booked with work you out source the extra work to make sure that the results are done in a timley fashion for court and criminal procedings. Texas has the labs to do it. And who's saying that the FLDS ae refusing sapeana's. Are you sure that isn't just rumor's going around?
"And who's saying that the FLDS ae refusing sapeana's. "
I never said anyone is refusing anything.
I am saying (according to the Associated Press news releases) that they were not having co-operation from the children in identifying the parents, and they were not having co-operation from the parents in identifying the children.
First you said that the FLDS are refusing to give DNA which means they were refusing sapeana's. Now they aren't? And they just refuse to identiy who their kids are? Your back tracking your words.
"First you said that the FLDS are refusing to give DNA which means they were refusing sapeana's"
I never said that FLDS were refusing sapeana's.
I am saying that the state didn't know WHO to supeana because if the parents weren't claiming their children, and the children were refusing to point out their parents.
Well, then the kids went unclaimed, and there was no one to sapeana.
How can someone refuse a sapeana that they never get?
So the state doesn't know who is living on the ranch? They would come with a paper and pencil with a camera and document who was who. Then they would pull out the sapeana and take everyone's DNA recording what sample belongs to what face and given name. A sapeana doesn't need to be for a specific name. It could be for the entire community on the ranch and it would still be good.
"So the state doesn't know who is living on the ranch?"
The people on the ranch may or may not be there.
The mothers may be there at the time, but the fathers may have been out getting supplies. Or out building another FLDS town. Or out at their job.. Etc.
I know that when I was a kid, my dad worked construction, and I didn't see him for weeks some times.
A lot of these FLDS men own constructions companies.
I do know that many of them were not there, that was reported.
"common sense says if your over booked with work you out source the extra work to make sure that the results are done in a timley fashion for court and criminal procedings. "
Sure.. But who is saying that there are any labs that could handle an extra pay load?
The labs don't have to be in texas and i know at least three labs here in utah. I'm sure they have enough labs in texas, I'm sure they got at least two or more labs that could get the work done.
The reason I asked you is so you can think about why the legal system doesn't really seem to be concerned about the DNA as much as keeping the kids away fro the ranch. By the way, the PCR reactions used in amplifying the DNA for at least one person should only take 2-3 hours. running the DNA gels only half an hour. If they ran the machines 24/7 they could cover the 500 kids would be around a month and a half. that's the stats.
"The reason I asked you is so you can think about why the legal system doesn't really seem to be concerned about the DNA as much as keeping the kids away fro the ranch. "
I think that I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion on that issue, and neither do you.
However, there are more than 400 people getting tested.
Take the 400+ kids, times that by 3, and there is 1200 tests at very least.
When a court sapaena's your DNA and you refuse to give it you go to jail. A court issues the sapeana to guarantee that investigatons procede with or without people's co-operation. You would end up in prison by not complying.
"When a court sapaena's your DNA and you refuse to give it you go to jail."
WHO will they supeana? If the parents are claiming the children, and if the children aren't claiming the parents. Then who are they going to ask for DNA?
They sapeana things and people for the purpose of police investigations and court proceedings. People can try to dodge a sapeana but they can't refuse a sapeana.
You don't put the name of the suspected parents on a sapeana. That would be like putting the suspected name of the children on the sapeana which they didn't do. A sapeana doesn't need to show family ties.
If no one is arrested then the child molestation continues in the near future. The arrest of Jeffs almost nothing to do with the CPS decision to remove the children. No one on the ranch has been charged. That is the purpose of the law when crimes are prosecutable. The little evidence they have will come from DNA testing. With the way wives are swapped when people are booted out I don't think that it will help them too much. It'll just be proof that they are a demented group.
"The arrest of Jeffs almost nothing to do with the CPS decision to remove the children."
I know that Jeffs is a convicted sex offender. His doctrines and ordainances included many long sermons on how young girls should submit to men, and that thoughts of young boys is a SIN.
(you can hear these sermons even on YouTube).
Jeff's pretty much commanded child molestation.
He is the prophet. He is the owner of the establishment. And his followers obey him.
The children were not taken because jeffs was on the premisis or because he was in jail. He wasn't a part of the decision to take the children from the ranch. Where are you going with this?
Actually polygamy is in their culture and child molestation is a side affect of their self segregation to allow for the illegal practices that they are engaged in. They can't bring others in so they push out young men and teach young women that they should do what their told. This is why I have been saying that forcing the kids into public school is the right way to go. The FLDS homeschool their kids into polygamy and leave them uneducated. This way their stuck on the ranch.
"Actually polygamy is in their culture and child molestation is a side affect of their self segregation to allow for the illegal practices that they are engaged in. "
And it is also taught by their prophet, which would be considered doctrinal.
Have you listened to his sermons on the subject?
Check out fincenMIB 's videos.
youtube. com/user/fincenMIB
He is a former FLDS member, and has tons of tapings of Warren Jeffs preaching about child marriage.
What are you trying to convey? You talk about the polygamy, child molestation and nothing else.
You have no interiest in fingding a solution to the problem and open dialog and just seem hostile in communication.
You assume that everything with the kids is done by perfectly honest people who are not weak and sinful themselves. I say that the raid wasn't the right way to stop polygamy and you attack the FLDS as if they are the source for all evil. Are you sure that's a good argument?
I think that the raid took place to investigate a phone call about child molestation.
I think when they got there and they saw sure signs of child molestation, the removal of the children was something that the law requires them to do, if the children appear to be in danger.
I don't think that the raid had anything to do with polygamy. Else wise, many people would be in jail right now.
You aren't looking for a better solution because that would mean you would need to be nonbyast. You aren't prepared for that and that is why you aren't because you have no interiest in finding a just solution for all parties. Foster homes molest children too you know. your just trading one environment for another in some cases.
If it concerns DNA it IS based on family affiliation.
Not when DNA is being used to find family affiliation. Which is what they are doing.
So when asked if you have a better solution, you don't offer one??
Just because I don't think these young girls she have to submit to sexual relations with an old geezer like Warren Jeffs, or any of his colleagues, and just because I don't think that these young girls should have to bare children when they are children themselves, doesn't mean that YOU have a better solution to the problem.
I said leaving the kids with their mothers. I have been telling you for weeks that their fathers should be charged and go to prision. I never said leave the kids with their fathers.
I didn't see that as a solution, because it doesn't seem like one. You are serious about leaving the kids with their molestors?
Are you slow? So you think the lost boys idea is better?
It doesn't force the community to let children have their own life? It won't be a way for stopping child molestation?
"I said leaving the kids with their mothers. I have been telling you for weeks that their fathers should be charged and go to prision. I never said leave the kids with their fathers."
If their fathers CAN be charged and sent to prison, THEN the kids may not be in danger for a few years. But even IF they get these fathers to step up to DNA tests, etc the end result would be that the fathers get a few years in prison, and end up back in the lives of these kids when they get out.
I have been asking you "why aren't the men being charged?" Half a brain could put the men being charged and the forced public schooling together. In which case the men are sex offenders and unable to go onto ranch grounds.
"I have been asking you "why aren't the men being charged?" "
But that doesn't mean "they should be charged".
Earlier you said the reason why you asked me that, is so that I would consider other facts in the case. You didn't say that they SHOULD be charged, until now.
So NOW you think that they should be put in prison. Ok.
But when they get out in a few years, and complete their probabation, they can go back to whatever lifestyle they lived before.
I was saying they should be in prision weeks ago. Your having too much fun will this kill the molesters bit your on.
But when they get out in a few years, and complete their probabation, they can go back to whatever lifestyle they lived before.
Like I have said before the CPS can go to congress and try to have laws passed for the situation. Here they could ask to leangthen the time on the registry.
The last two weeks I have said throw the fathers in jail. Is your brain switched off? Are sex offenders allowed on the ranch? Will the kids be living there? You are losing the discussion because you aren't think with your mind open to the last weeks discussions. Once again. Think long and hard, are sex offenders allowed on the ranch grounds?
His sex offender registration lasted only as long as his probation lasted. 3 years
Then the law should be changed to extend the time.
I've been adding links to the video using YouTube's "Annotations" feature.
That is a very cool feature!
So for references to different topics relating to this video, you can click the annotations on the video and it will take you to a different video.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Trandos21,
I made a video to address your issues with my marijuana support.
youtube. com/watch?v=nz6SxpWQnDA
There is no need to try to divert this conversation any more. You can take all of your concerns to the video that is about marijuana.
If you would like, I will move all of your marijuana comments from here on to the new video.
This video is about underaged marriages, and not marijuana.
Thanks for understanding.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Fine with me, So what do you propose should be done about the underaged maraige problems in their community? Or are you still without ideas on how to resolve the problem?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"So what do you propose should be done about the underaged maraige problems in their community? Or are you still without ideas on how to resolve the problem? "
I didn't get a degree in law enforcement or child services. But I have proposed all that I believe on the topic from personal opinion.
My opinion is that the girls that are in danger of being married off at young ages, should be protected by the legal system.
How that gets achieved is up to those who understand this better.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Trandos21, I found another video for you.
Have you watched this one yet?
youtube. com/watch?v=KOnNr5Mn_0c
This is about the child molestation stuff.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You are an odd person. I don't know why you've chosen the path of a sadducee. Your interiest in promoting pot seems to be to allow people to get high when they want.
If you knew anything about plant biology you would know that fungus actively grow in plants.
Your sources are full of it. I sent you to a government site already and your just not interiested in it.
Good luck to you and your family. Do them a favor and make sure their educated before they leave home.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"If you knew anything about plant biology you would know that fungus actively grow in plants."
I guess that would imply that you know plant biology and that you are saying that THC is definately a fungus?
Are you high?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I have interiests in biology that isn't smoked.
are saying that THC is definately a fungus?
I didn't say that. I responded to your comment. If you aren't smart enough to understand just admit it.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"are saying that THC is definately a fungus?
I didn't say that. I responded to your comment. If you aren't smart enough to understand just admit it. "
Lets get back to reality. You said that THC is a type of acid.
I said that marijuana is not a fungus, and that acid is a fungus.
Then you explained how plants have fungus in them.
But I asked you if you are saying that THC is a fungus. And you have so far declined to answer.
I am telling you a fact. THC is not a fungus.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"I have interiests in biology that isn't smoked."
Actually THC works best if eaten or vaporized, not smoked.
There are two prescription drugs made from THC. Sativexx, and Marinol. These are prescribed by doctors around the world and also in the US.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"Your interiest in promoting pot seems to be to allow people to get high when they want."
I don't think it's the government's job to tell consenting adults what they put in their body. Certainly the government allows people to put very deadly chemicals in their body such as tabacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs..
Consenting adults should have the right to ingest what they want to.
If they get caught imparied while driving, they should be arrested. Just like with alcohol.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
As long as people take things into their body that impair them their are laws to respond to bad behavior. Where are your arguments about people being responcible while using this crap? You know people aren't interiested in responcibility when they get high to escape everyday life.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"As long as people take things into their body that impair them their are laws to respond to bad behavior. Where are your arguments about people being responcible while using this crap? You know people aren't interiested in responcibility when they get high to escape everyday life. "
I am telling you that the harm caused by marijuana is smaller than that caused by Tylenol. Marijuana has killed no one due to it's toxic side-effects. Tylenol has killed thousands.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"Your sources are full of it. I sent you to a government site already and your just not interiested in it."
I have asked you 3 times (4 including this one), for your sources, and I am still waiting.
You are welcome to post your source again. However, I think that you are full of it.
My sources come from well accredited universities such as UCLA, Harvard and Oxford as well as dozens of others, from well accredited scientists who are not potheads, but who are pursueing truth.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Walker JM, Huang SM. "Cannabinoid analgesia." Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2002 Aug;95(2):127-35. PMID 12182960 - "...to date, there are no deaths known to have resulted from overdose of marijuana." (p. 128)
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
No one has ever injested enough of the stuff before passing out to acctually kill themselves. Big deal. Inebriaded drivers kill people all the time. Do you have a reason why people should be allowed to use pot when people are to irresponcible to be trusted with driving while not under the influence. Wherre's your argument?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"No one has ever injested enough of the stuff before passing out to acctually kill themselves."
Before passing out? LOL
Rigght.
Listen, no one has ever died from the toxic side effects of Marijuana. And marijuana has been used for nearly 4000 years.
Yet things as simple as aspirin or tylenol are responsible for many deaths.
Big difference in side effects.
You don't know a whole lot about medical science do you?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"Do you have a reason why people should be allowed to use pot when people are to irresponcible to be trusted with driving while not under the influence. Wherre's your argument? "
What do you mean, you have made no case that Marijuana causes driving accidents.
How many automobile deaths occurred due to Marijuana last year.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Who has ever died from the toxic effects of marijuana? Can you name even 1 person from all of these "Facts" that you have researched?
And THC is not like acid. Acid is a bacteria, a fungus. THC is not a fungus, and it's side effects can not kill you.
In fact, it is used as medicine by millions of people.
You know absolutely nothing about this subject, just admit it.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Walker JM, Huang SM. "Cannabinoid analgesia." Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2002 Aug;95(2):127-35. PMID 12182960 - "...to date, there are no deaths known to have resulted from overdose of marijuana." (p. 128)
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Acid is a chemical compound that is know to be made in at least one form in bacteria. Are you to byast to admit that a plant could potentially make a similair compound?
Example, some kinds of fish and tree's both make anti-freeze proteins. Lots of life forms make similair proteins and compound.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Acid is a chemical compound that is know to be made in at least one form in bacteria. Are you to byast to admit that a plant could potentially make a similair compound?"
What I am telling you is that you are full of crap, and that THC is not made from a fungus like acid is.
That is a simple, and glaring fact.
That is what I am saying. And I am saying that Acid and THC are not similar.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
youtube. com/watch?v=nz6SxpWQnDA
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Here is the reason why Warren Jeffs' bum hurts now:
youtube. com/watch?v=CqW8p4pNrbI
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
As for giving up pot? I gave it up 11 years ago when I found Jesus as my personal savior. I stopped all together, as well as tabacco.
You take up christianity and give up unchristian behavior to then promote unchristian behavior?
Prozac and Tylenol (with codeine) are very addictive.
Pot has mild form of acid. How would that be better then tylenol or prozac? It couldn't even replace them in what their used for. Why do you support anebriated behavior 'like' wine bibbing?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Pot has mild form of acid. How would that be better then tylenol or prozac?"
This is actually untrue. THC is nothing like acid, and other plants such as tomatoes have high contents of THC.
I think you have totally missed the mark on what marijuana is, and what it isn't.
Read this:
drugpolicy. org/marijuana/
Most prescription medicine, especially prozac and tylenol with codeine have a high toxicity level and CAN kill you.
Marijuana's toxic side effects can not kill you.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
drugpolicy. org/marijuana/factsmyths/
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Another pot head run web site with the same motives as the national enquirer.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Another pot head run web site with the same motives as the national enquirer. "
I thought you were going to say "damn commies" for a minute.
Actually, you must have failed to read any part of that website.
There are dozens of studies, from well accredited universities and scientist on the subject. You must have missed all of them.
Did you say that - I - had a half fried brain? While you can't even do any research of your own?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
It has been proven that THC is a mild form of acid.
Most prescription medicine, especially prozac and tylenol with codeine have a high toxicity level and CAN kill you.
With everything in a high enough quantity you can die. 7 liters of water in one sitting is lethal.
Why is it you don't read government run web sites? Does their proof not matter? Or is it because they are interiested in even the bad facts?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"When are you going to answer my question? Are you for the use of Marijuana or against it? "
I am against breaking the law. I am in favor of legalizing Marijuana.
This is not an unreasonable request. Here is why.
Marijuana treats over 100 symptoms of major medical ailments.
Marijuana in no dose large or small can actually kill a person. In fact, no person on record has ever died of a lethal dose of Marijuana.
And it costs the US tax payers billions to keep it illegal with no fruit.
slu2com 3 years ago
Smoking marijuana is illegal. The only real benefit it creates is stimulation of the brain in reilieving pain and relaxing the sinuses. Their are litterally dozens of better drugs that are legally perscribed by doctors. People die under the influence of the drug all the time which means that it kills. 100 symptoms? Where's your university studies that proove it?
I am against breaking the law.
You are encouraging illegal activity before the law is changed. You are for breaking the law.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"You are encouraging illegal activity before the law is changed. You are for breaking the law."
You are exaggerating so that you can change the subject. You aren't even talking about the original topic now, typical.
And no, expressing a political opinion is not breaking the law. Look up the first amendment and don't be foolish.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You are exaggerating so that you can change the subject. You aren't even talking about the original topic now, typical.
I expose hypocrisy and you get angry.
And no, expressing a political opinion is not breaking the law. Look up the first amendment and don't be foolish.
I wasn't implying illegal behavior. I expose your lack of intriest in following the laws of the land and you don't like me for it. Paul said to follow the laws of the land and be a great member of society.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"I expose hypocrisy and you get angry".
There is a difference between anger and frustration.
I am frustrated because the topic is "FLDS, and Child Rape", and yet you have made no connection between the FLDS and marijuana, yet you bring marijuana into the conversation.
I am fine talking about marijuana. I have responded to you on my channel, and I have a blog that you can post on too: utahpirateradio. com
I am only frustrated because this is a typical LDS distraction.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You argue that the raid was legal when you promote the use of illegal drugs. The connection is your flawed perception. If you hadn't fried your brain years ago you could easily be making these connections.
I question your motives in the legal system and i'm distracting you? You don't give and take in the legal system. You either are supporting the legal system or you aren't. You aren't when you encourage others to break the law. Distraction? I'm exposing your criminal mind.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"You argue that the raid was legal when you promote the use of illegal drugs. "
Actually, I promote the research and further legalization of marijuana which is already legal for medicinal usage in 12 U.S. states and in 100's of countries including Canada.
I don't promote the use of anything illegal. I promote the legalization of a valuable resource.
As for the legalities of the raid:
youtube. com/watch?v=CqW8p4pNrbI
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"I question your motives in the legal system and i'm distracting you? You don't give and take in the legal system. You either are supporting the legal system or you aren't. You aren't when you encourage others to break the law. Distraction? I'm exposing your criminal mind. "
The distraction is that instead of talking about the FLDS raid (the topic), you accuse me of breaking the law in a series of petty attacks that you know nothing about, nor do you have any proof. I support democracy.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"I wasn't implying illegal behavior. "
Then what are you implying? If I follow the laws of the land, but protest as a request for change, there is nothing unamerican about that.
". I expose your lack of intriest in following the laws of the land and you don't like me for it."
It used to be illegal for blacks to enter a white school, or a white restaurant.
There is NOTHING wrong with change.
slu2com 3 years ago
If your half fried brain wasn't able to understand what I said then here it is simply. Your video's say it's fine to smoke pot when it's illegal.
It used to be illegal for blacks to enter a white school, or a white restaurant.
That's cultural and human rights. The proper argument should be alcohol was once illegal. Protest all you want. Their are reasons for this law. Does your preacher know your advertising this behavior?
Trandos21 3 years ago
If your half fried brain wasn't able to understand what I said then here it is simply. "
This is why our conversation breaks down. You insult me, and then like on my channel blog you say "why are you so hostile when we write"..
It's like the boy who cried wolf.
I haven't been hostile to you, in fact I have been very patient. But when you insist on attacking me in the most petty ways, it does lower my opinion of your conversation.
I understood what you said fine..
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"Your video's say it's fine to smoke pot when it's illegal."
As for comprehension problems. First you are mis-understanding something here. I have not made one video in regards to marijuana. So when you say "Your video's say ". You are actually referring to someone else's video that I do not know.
I have personally stated that I do not agree with breaking the law. Someone else's opinion can not be counted as my own.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
BTW- Did you see this:
Here is the reason why Warren Jeffs' bum hurts now:
youtube. com/watch?v=CqW8p4pNrbI
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"People die under the influence of the drug all the time which means that it kills."
Name some of these instances, got any sources?
I tell you truthfully, that the toxic effects of marijuana has killed no one.
"100 symptoms? Where's your university studies that proove it?"
mpp. org
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You might not watch much tv but those of us that look on accasion see commercial about driving under the influence. Weather it's alcohol, pot, or even perscription drugs people get in accidents while under the influence.
mpp. org
Not a univeristy. The equivelent of the national enquirer.
I've known people to get run over because they were too high to realize they were in the middle of the road. The toxic effects are similar to alcoholism. They just don't kill the liver.
Trandos21 3 years ago
mpp. org cites many medical studies, and research. It is a place to follow links to the studies.
You can check this out too:
drugpolicy. org/marijuana/
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Run by pot heads without interiests in disproving claims. Ignoring statistics with involvement in car accidents. Less credable then the national enquirer.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Ignoring statistics with involvement in car accidents"
What are the statistics, and what is your source.
You keep mentioning these elusive statistics. So what are they? Where can I read them?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
'National Center for Health Statistics'. How about the 'Office of National Drug Control Policy'. Google it and then read their reports.
Trandos21 3 years ago
Did you bother to read any of the links that I gave?
I recommend that you do.
As for the National Drug Control Policy.
They do no list the statistics that you have referred to. You kept claiming that Marijuana is dangerous, and that people die from driving under the influence of Marijuana.
But the funny thing is that I have provided reference after reference that shows Marijuana is not dangerous. Yet your sources do not cite any reference that show marijuana related deaths.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Look for the links to the proper web sites with the stats.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Look for the links to the proper web sites with the stats. "
That doesn't answer my question. I asked you "Did you bother to read any of the links that I gave?"
Please do not reply on this video about the topic of Marijuana. Please post your comments about Marijuana on the video designed for Marijuana. Thanks!
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"Weather it's alcohol, pot, or even perscription drugs people get in accidents while under the influence."
Do you have some kind of legitimate study that gives that statistics on how many people died while under the influence of marijuana/alcohol/prescriptions?
Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?
Just curious. You have asked me for proof of my claims today, it's only fair that you should be able to provide proof too for your claims.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
When are you going to answer my question? Are you for the use of Marijuana or against it? You have links to the subject on your page so I am curious as to your position. Are you against that form of illegal behavior?
Trandos21 3 years ago
I made a video called "anti-LDS diversion".
It's called "slight of hand" or "distraction".
youtube. com/watch?v=4kKldKOS35A
You may or may not be this type or person. But I have noticed in talking with LDS people that when a conversation takes a turn (unwanted), a typical response is to say "hey, take a look over there!!!!", rather than deal with the topic at hand.
To answer your question, just like many in the congress of this US, I do wish to see marijuana legalized.
slu2com 3 years ago
You do know that the main component of marijuana is a mild form of acid don't you? The topic at hand is that the stuff is an addictive substance that encourages crime in the neighborhood. Driving under the influence, theft and dozens of other habits that destroy the character of a person.
just like many in the congress of this US, I do wish to see marijuana legalized.
So how many voted for legalization?
Can you honestly tell me that you don't actively use the stuff?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Are you for the use of Marijuana or against it? "
Another distraction??!? What does marijuana have to do with the FLDS?
As for "am I for the use of Marijuana". Yes, and in so far, 12 states have legalized medical marijuana. Denver decriminalized it all together, and Hailey Id has had a recent stir in their local politics over the issue.
Yes, I believe Marijuana should be no less legal than Prozac, Tylenol, and certainly no less legal than alcohol and tabacco which are ACTUALLY deadly!
slu2com 3 years ago
It was to see how deep your interiests are in following the laws of the land. You want to follow the laws with child raip in their community. But it seems as if you have no interiest in following the drug laws that have been made to protect the community from illegal activity coming from addiction to this substance. I agree that alchohol and tobacco should be illegal for their addictive and deadly natures, Prozac and tylenol aren't addictive, I bet you couldn't give marijuana up without help.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Prozac and tylenol aren't addictive, I bet you couldn't give marijuana up without help.
Prozac and Tylenol (with codeine) are very addictive, very deadly, and are a 'controlled substance' for a reason.
No body has died from the toxic effects of Marijuana. But thousands have died from the toxic effects of both prozac and tylenol with codeine.
As for giving up pot? I gave it up 11 years ago when I found Jesus as my personal savior. I stopped all together, as well as tabacco.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I1Dont2Care3 I am just making the arguement that as moral an idea it is to kidnap children just to give them a questionably "better" home I think their are better ways of dealing with this group. If you think moarls are equivalent to laws then you are agreeing with the way the salem witch trial occured.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"If you think moarls are equivalent to laws then you are agreeing with the way the salem witch trial occured. "
Seems kind of like an athiestic point of view. However, I disagree that these laws are like Salem witch trials.
This to me is kind of like that show on dateline "To catch a predator"..
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
HUH?
Their are processes to making a legal case and prosecuting people. In Salem their weren't processes of making a case against people. Their legal system was based on keeping the people moral. Anyone who didn't admit to the crime was executed and those that did went to prison.
Their was no interiest in making a case to take the kids. They just took the kids with no proof of foul play. They found proof after taking the kids making the proof unusable in a real court.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Their are processes to making a legal case and prosecuting people. "
They didn't enter the property with that intent as I understand it. They entered the property to investigate a claim of abuse.
I don't think they barged in expecting to arrest or incriminate people.
Looks to me like they entered the property to investigate an allegation. When they got there, they found possible endangerment of the children, and so they tried to protect the children.
slu2com 3 years ago
They entered the property to investigate a claim of abuse.
And without evidence supporting that claim they took every child away from their homes.
I don't think they barged in expecting to arrest or incriminate people.
When the police came it was with the intention of arresting an abuser.
Looks to me like they entered the property to investigate an allegation.
The allegation was proved to be incorrect and they proceeded as if it was correct with every child.
Trandos21 3 years ago
first thanks for this video. i don't understand people that are standing up for these people. what they did and are still doing is wrong. And on other thing for Trandos21 it doesn't really matter if they are "allowed" on the ranch. it's not very hard to do something illegal when you already are and there is no legal enforcers around for miles. these people are sick and i hope they don't get there kids back. (oops did i say kids.. sorry i meant children) :p
thanks again. wish i had a camera!
I1Dont2Care3 3 years ago
it's not very hard to do something illegal
Yeah, the CPS did a great job of proving that.
Trandos21 3 years ago
The problem (before and now) is that the FLDS have not been co-operating in claiming their children.
youtube. com/watch?v=lb8sH6HM3o8
The court has ordered that the FLDS can get their children back AFTER they are properly identified.
If the parents come with proper identification, and properly claim their children. They get their kids back.
So far they have not been very co-operative.
Hmm. I wonder why? Old men, having babies with young girls?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
If that was the problem they wouldn't have ggiven their kids back.
Trandos21 3 years ago
Did you watch the video from Mark Shurtleff?
youtube. com/watch?v=lb8sH6HM3o8
This guy isn't making up some lies. He holds no stake in the case pro or con. He has a reputation to risk as a law maker and as a public figure.
Many of these FLDS parents were not being co-operative in claiming their children.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"If that was the problem they wouldn't have ggiven their kids back. "
Don't think that the FLDS are off the hook. CPS will still have access to the compound. FLDS will continued to be counciled and analyzed by CPS for abuse, and the sheriff department will continue to investigate the illegalities and crimes that have been found during this investigation.
The FLDS may get off scott free. But after seeing what happened to Warren Jeffs. I doubt it.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
If parents don't claim children they end up in foster care.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"If parents don't claim children they end up in foster care. "
Hmm.. I guess that makes sense right?
Here is my prospective. I will give it to you by asking a question.
If parents don't claim these kids, does that mean that they are orphan?
I actually haven't followed up with the case today. So I don't know if or what the stipulations are.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
So when babies are left out on the street or in garbage can the police find the parents and give them back their child?
If parents don't claim these kids, does that mean that they are orphan?
It does if no family come to claim them. The reason that is unheard of is because very few parents kick their kids out without other relatives taking them in. If all relatives don't want the kid then the kid is the states responcibility. I do know kids that have ended up in state custody this way.
Trandos21 3 years ago
Do you think that the early american patriots weren't thinking of the future of the US when they planned out at the starting of the country? As wonderful as it is to take the children away it doesn't fix the problem that the FLDS perpetuate. We moraly can't deny another their religious freedom but we can punnish them for it. The greatest punnishment is to alow their children to regent their teaching after entering a whole new world at school.
Trandos21 3 years ago
You keep playing like this is religious persecution. I think your full of shit.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Why? Because you don't address related subjects without a kill the molesters mentality. Personally I think that molester need their genitals cut off but you are way more personally involved in this topic then a nonbyast person would be. Here's a nonbyast exercise, wht if you were the father of the sex offender. What would you want to happen?
Trandos21 3 years ago
I agree there balls should be cut off.
Same if I was a father of a sex offender.
But in a case like this, where the men are molesting, and the women are standing by knowing what is happening. And the religion indoctrinates this practice of child-brides..
Well, there are so many factors contributing to the molestation.
The apathy of the mothers is no less dangerous. The encouragement of the religion is just as dangerous as the fathers practicing it.
There are way to many factors
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"but you are way more personally involved in this topic then a nonbyast person would be. "
I don't know how. I mean, not many people can stand a molestor. My cousin was abused by her father. It makes me ill to know what molestors are capable of. Not just FLDS. But any molestor.
I have not been any more tolerant of other molestors any more than I am intolerant of FLDS doctrines and predators regarding this subject.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
""but you are way more personally involved in this topic then a nonbyast person would be. "
What do you mean by non-bias?
How many people do you know that have no-bias, or are "non-bias".
You seem bias. You keep talking about religious freedom and such, and you keep trying to defend their doctrines...
Aren't you a bit bias?
And what about a doctrine that encourages child molestation is acceptable? Why should their religious practices be condoned, if it violates children?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I defend the right for freedom of religion. people are free to be fools just like they are free to be charged and imprisioned for their crimes to society. Religions don't always follow mainstream culture with their thoughts or actions.
I told you that the raid wasn't legal. The courts just sent the kids home.
A non bias observer doesn't work with religious you equal rights movements. They use the written laws to dictate their actions. Even the courts found the CPS to be in the wrong here.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"I told you that the raid wasn't legal. The courts just sent the kids home."
The raid was legal and justified. The sezuire is what has been ruled upon.
Entering the compound was never in question. It is what they took out is what the problem was.
And actually the state hasn't released them yet. The parents STILL have to identify themselves and their children.
If they don't identify themselves, and/ore their children they are still at square one.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
If the seizure which was the focus of the raid despite the number of kids was ruled illegal by the texas supreme court. The are putting the kids home today. The delay for the return was by the lack of co-operation of the judge over the childrens cases to comply with the higher courts decision without changing the return policy. She finally complied. once again. A riad is less organized then a seizure which has goals. ruling against the seizure rules against the raid.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"A riad is less organized then a seizure which has goals. ruling against the seizure rules against the raid. "
You can be sure that the "raid" will happen again and again since the Supreame Court ruled that CPS must have access to the compound, and that the FLDS involved must NOT leave the state of Texas, and there will be continued investigation in to the criminal and abuse activities of this group.
So this "raid" will continue. Meaning CPS will continue to be allow to enter the property
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You can be sure that the "raid" will happen again and again
A raid includes taking things. Are you high? Why aren't you interiested in being educated durring the discussion? Are you even hear with the real world. A humble person learns everything about the subject to be a good judge of a persons rights. Your preaching without learning about the topic. If your so disinteriested in being a part of the world to make it better then don't preach.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"A raid includes taking things. "
Like information?
Entering the property to take information, is no less of a raid.
Before they went into investigate child abuse, and in their investigation they found more than they expected.
Sometimes the government sucks, I'll concede to that. But I think sometimes they care and try to do the right thing.
Obviously, they made some mistakes. But I do not think little girls should be made to marry old geezers in the country club. That's just me..
slu2com 3 years ago
Taking information in a raid is part of a raid. The information illegally taken that wasn't related to their inquiry can be thrown out of court proceeding now. When the CPS screwed up by acting before indepth investigation they threw out the right to use that information in a court of law. The morons sunk every case they could make against the old geezers that were involved in the illegal activities. The prosecution can't use ilegally obtained evidence in court.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"The information illegally taken that wasn't related to their inquiry can be thrown out of court proceeding now. "
If it was truly illegally taken, then people can also get charged with a crime.
Lets see how it unfolds.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Do you even know what I said? Are you a moron or slow?
The prosecution can't use illegally obtained evidence in court. Other wise Al Capone would have stayed in jail at least once. That means the DNA tests won't go in criminal cases against the child rapers. This means the CPS screwed up trying to protect the kids.
Is ignorance bliss in your world. Is your preacher ignorant to your interiests?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Do you even know what I said? Are you a moron or slow?"
From you lack of ability to spell, I doubt you are a lawyer, or someone who is educated. But since you know the law so well, I will respect your opinion of what you think will happen with this evidence, and I will watch it all unfold in front of us.
The Supream Court did grant CPS extended contact with the FLDS in this case, and the court did say that CPS must be able to access the property in the future in regards to this case.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Once again. A "seizure" is a raid with objectives to be accomplished. When police seize narcotics they go on a raid for the narcotics in a location and accomplish objectives. If a seizure is a form of a raid then an illegal seizure is by defenition an illegal raid.
Trandos21 3 years ago
As far as I understood it, the CPS went in to investigate. The police were called in because of expected resistence to the investigation (which they got).
And the seizure accurred BECAUSE of the investigation, not directly as a result of the raid. (Unless when you say raid, you mean investigation??)
But you are welcome to have the opinion that a raid is a seizure and that a seizure is a raid in this case. I humbly disagree based on my limited knowledge of the situation.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
expected resistence to the investigation (which they got).
Resistance=arrest.
CPS went in to investigate
Seizure requires investigation. When the investigation was ended without resolution the investigators decided to do something that would require proof before action with kids they knew nothing about. Be as humble as you want, the courts that know the laws ruled against your limited knowledge used by the CPS.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"A supporter is a follower, don't sugar coat it."
Yes, I support the protection of these young girls.
You must be a follower of not protecting them using your symantics?
Regardless. Yes I think that they should not have to bare chilren at 13-16 years old. I am not apologetic about it.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
These young girls have been ripped from their mothers in tears so they can be mocked in their new communities and even rejected in their new schools. They are the newest generation of lost boys and girls to be put up with in foster homes until they are kicked out at the age of 19 with no place to go. They will end up uneducated and socially problematic. They will probably return to the ranch at the age of 19 for a loving home and family support. They might even bring friends with them.
Trandos21 3 years ago
So it's a question of whether they should be left in the environment where child molestation is the doctrine of their church, and is widely practiced by the close-by members of this church.
Or to take them away, put them in a safer environment.
No doubt that is a hard choice, and within the first 60 seconds of my video I empathize with that. I have no doubt it is a tough choice.
But being kicked out at 18 or 19 isn't so bad. I have 9 kids in my family and 18 is an average age of leaving
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I think that the raid took place to investigate a phone call about child molestation.
The raid didn't occur until the children were taken hence the name "raid". If they saw evidence of child molestation they then would have evidence and reason to DNA test everyone in the ranch. A sapeana for DNA is used to find out who is related to who. Everyone involoved is tested regaurdless of affiliation. Do you understand how the justice system works?
Trandos21 3 years ago
The raid didn't occur until the children were taken hence the name "raid". "
The word raid is what I don't think you understand. CPS entering the property, despite resistance, was the raid. It happened before they saw young girls pregnant in the ranch.
The "raid" occured as a result of a phone call about child molestation and child abuse.
The "seizure" took place as a result of CPS trying to protect children that appeared to be in danger.
A "seizure" is diffrent from a "raid".
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
A supporter is a follower, don't sugar coat it.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think will happen to the young girls when the foster care system kicks them out onto the streets at 18 or 19?
A seizure has an intended goal while a raid doesn't and takes everything it can.
I accuse you because you have no interiest in attacking possible offenders outside of this community from what I see. Do you have proof to the contrary.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"I accuse you because you have no interiest in attacking possible offenders outside of this community from what I see. Do you have proof to the contrary. "
On my block at UtahPirateRadio. com
A post that I made titled:
"F*%&ing pedophiles!"
This was back before the FLDS issue, in 2007, and it had nothing to do with FLDS.
It's on page 2, and the date is:
November 23rd, 2007
utahpirateradio. com/2007/11/23/fing-pedophiles/
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
So you made a post. Why is it you haven't been interiested in reviewing facts from it for this case? If you genuinely dislike the pedophiles why is it you think the mothers deserve punishment too?
I've not thought of a better solution, have you?
I already gave the solution of desegregating the kids from the ranch by not allowing home schooling. Had you been interiested in a solution you would have noticed that I have said it a number of times you condemn the FLDS.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"So you made a post."
Yes you asked for proof that I dislike other pedophiles. That post is proof.
"Why is it you haven't been interiested in reviewing facts from it for this case?"
I have. And I've posted about it.
Are you trying to say that I've missed a fact or two?
"If you genuinely dislike the pedophiles why is it you think the mothers deserve punishment too?"
Actually, I've never said anyone should be punished. I am happy these kids are safer though.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Their is a difference between your kids and their kids. Yours won't be alienated in every aspect of life until they are thrown out on the street. Yours will be better educated with possibilities of college. When have I ever siad the kids should stay with their fathers?
Actually, I've never said anyone should be punished. I am happy these kids are safer though.
A post that I made titled:
"F*%&ing pedophiles!"
Does that imply punishment?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Does that imply punishment?"
If a pedophile was scoping out my kids. Yeah, there is a possibility that I could lose my temper.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"I already gave the solution of desegregating the kids from the ranch by not allowing home schooling."
Leaving them with their molestors, and simply putting them in public school is going to end all of this?
I didn't see that as a solution, because it doesn't seem like one. You are serious about leaving the kids with their molestors?
Oooook...
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
From 12 hours ago:
sltrib. com/ci_9404134
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
They sapeanad every kid for DNA testing in the fourth week. That is how they were able to get the kids DNA without parental or gardian permission. Why couldn't they do that with the parent's?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Why couldn't they do that with the parent's? "
Umm.... Im just brainstorming here.
Lets see.
1. The parents are not in custody
2. They don't know who a lot of the parents are, or where they are.
Those two things have been reported on the news a few times.
If they can't pinpoint the parents, how can they test them?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You don't need to include family lineage in a sapeana to get DNA, you don't need them to be in custody, If the parents don't follow the sapeana they won't get their kids back. Sapeana's have nothing to do with tracing family ties. They only specify what a person must give the police that give them the sapeana or warrant.
Trandos21 3 years ago
" If the parents don't follow the sapeana they won't get their kids back. "
What sapeana? If they don't know who the parents are, since some went unidentified, they can't sapeana them.
Thats the point I was making.
There is an Associated Press news report that you can watch on youtube that talks about parents haven't been able to be identified because some of the kids didn't have anyone claiming them.
If the kids fathers won't claim them, who do they sapeana?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Sapeana's aren't issued based on family affiliation. You don't know this part of the court system.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Sapeana's aren't issued based on family affiliation."
If it concerns DNA it IS based on family affiliation.
But you keep claiming if the people getting these sapeanas refuse the DNA test, they would be arrested.
My point is, they can't send out a sapeana to a person that is unknown.
If they don't know who the parents are, and if no one is claiming each other, then they can't send out a random sapeana to an unknown person. Who would it go to? What address? Who could refuse it?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
My position over everything is this. Taking the flds children won't kill the illegal practice. And taking them without proper legal procedure will only give the flds an advantage legaly. (Like with Jessup). If the children are given exposure to the real world through state or private schooling they can be legaly educated out of the illegal practices. The CPS should have had the government deny the flds the right to home school long ago. What the CPS did will seperate the childrens minds from us.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Taking the flds children won't kill the illegal practice."
Valid point, but if the authorities ignore this practice of taking child brides, then it will only make these predators feel safer, and will only encourage them to take MORE child brides. Not a good situation.
"taking them without proper legal procedure will only give the flds an advantage legaly. (Like with Jessup)."
He shouldn't have his kids if he is on the sex offender list still. But good point about legalities.
slu2com 3 years ago
Look at the future of this. The children aer put in foster care until 18. They have been in a failure of a home (foster home) meaning they are less likely to be well educated. This means when they are kicked out at 18 they most likely will seek out their parents and move back to the ranch. Polygamy continues on and foster friends are easily drwn into the promised better cirstances on the ranch. Forcing the FLDS kids into public schools is the best way to deal with the situation.
Trandos21 3 years ago
if the authorities ignore this practice of taking child brides, then it will only make these predators feel safer, and will only encourage them to take MORE child brides.
So when are the authorities going to do something to the predators? So far they have just removed their kids. That won't hurt a predator. That will hurt the minds of the children involved and alienate them from the people that can give them modern USA morals an standards to think and even live with.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"So when are the authorities going to do something to the predators? "
It seems to me like they have. There are literally thousands of "mos" (molestors) in prison. Including the infamous Warren Jeffs.
Certainly it's not just polygs in prison for being mos.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
It seems to me like they have. There are literally thousands of "mos" (molestors) in prison. Including the infamous Warren Jeffs.
Are you saying that the texas authorities have delt with the molesters in the FLDS communtiy by taking their children? Is that their legal punnishment?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Are you saying that the texas authorities have delt with the molesters in the FLDS communtiy by taking their children? Is that their legal punnishment? "
No, Im not saying that. I do know that many of the parents of these kids did not claim their children or gave conflicting stories about which kids were their's and then after request many of them (not all) refused DNA testing.
So I'm sure if they could figure out which person molested which child, there would be some arrests.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
DNA tests should already be back by now, unless this isn't a priority for the state.
many of them (not all) refused DNA testing.
Week 4 was court ordered DNA testing and people can't refuse that. a thousand tests could take a good lab a month or less. People should have been arrested by now.
When do you think the arrests will happen? Do you think arrests will be made soon?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Week 4 was court ordered DNA testing and people can't refuse that. a thousand tests could take a good lab a month or less."
Actually all of the labs had a mimimum turn around of 30 days for NORMAL volume according to a few news reports that I saw, they are severely over-booked right now.
A month is typical. But due to overbooking (now that 420 new cases have came in all at once). Who knows how long it will take.
I have not heard about any developments.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
What did they say was 'normal' volume? A hundred people? Five hundred? sorenson genomics could probably pull that In less then a month and a half. A number of labs being hired to do the work could easily do the work order. Texas has tons of labs in the state for testing.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"What did they say was 'normal' volume?"
From the news report I watched, they were already at "normal volume" when all of these tests came in. Meaning all of these tests coming in put them OVER normal volume.
It sounds like all of these labs stay very busy.
But thats all I know.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I ment how many tests are considered normal volume? I want to know if their testing facilities are even trying to get the work done anytime soon. A good lab should be able to get at least twenty tests or more done a day.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"I ment how many tests are considered normal volume?"
And when I said that they claimed that they were already at "normal volume", and thats all I know. Really.. Thats all I know.
If it takes a minimum of 4 weeks to complete a DNA test under normal volume, and now normal volume has been exceeded.. Then it may take longer than 4 weeks. That's just common sense, right.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
common sense says if your over booked with work you out source the extra work to make sure that the results are done in a timley fashion for court and criminal procedings. Texas has the labs to do it. And who's saying that the FLDS ae refusing sapeana's. Are you sure that isn't just rumor's going around?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"And who's saying that the FLDS ae refusing sapeana's. "
I never said anyone is refusing anything.
I am saying (according to the Associated Press news releases) that they were not having co-operation from the children in identifying the parents, and they were not having co-operation from the parents in identifying the children.
I didn't say anyone refused a supeana.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
First you said that the FLDS are refusing to give DNA which means they were refusing sapeana's. Now they aren't? And they just refuse to identiy who their kids are? Your back tracking your words.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"First you said that the FLDS are refusing to give DNA which means they were refusing sapeana's"
I never said that FLDS were refusing sapeana's.
I am saying that the state didn't know WHO to supeana because if the parents weren't claiming their children, and the children were refusing to point out their parents.
Well, then the kids went unclaimed, and there was no one to sapeana.
How can someone refuse a sapeana that they never get?
That was one of the reports that I watched.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
So the state doesn't know who is living on the ranch? They would come with a paper and pencil with a camera and document who was who. Then they would pull out the sapeana and take everyone's DNA recording what sample belongs to what face and given name. A sapeana doesn't need to be for a specific name. It could be for the entire community on the ranch and it would still be good.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"So the state doesn't know who is living on the ranch?"
The people on the ranch may or may not be there.
The mothers may be there at the time, but the fathers may have been out getting supplies. Or out building another FLDS town. Or out at their job.. Etc.
I know that when I was a kid, my dad worked construction, and I didn't see him for weeks some times.
A lot of these FLDS men own constructions companies.
I do know that many of them were not there, that was reported.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"common sense says if your over booked with work you out source the extra work to make sure that the results are done in a timley fashion for court and criminal procedings. "
Sure.. But who is saying that there are any labs that could handle an extra pay load?
Have you heard of any results yet?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
The labs don't have to be in texas and i know at least three labs here in utah. I'm sure they have enough labs in texas, I'm sure they got at least two or more labs that could get the work done.
Trandos21 3 years ago
If you know where the labs are, then you are asking the wrong person. You should be asking them.
The DNA work takes are very least 4 weeks. And I don't think 4 weeks have even passed yet since the testing started.
I think that will be the answer you get from the labs. But who knows?
Let me know what you find out.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
The reason I asked you is so you can think about why the legal system doesn't really seem to be concerned about the DNA as much as keeping the kids away fro the ranch. By the way, the PCR reactions used in amplifying the DNA for at least one person should only take 2-3 hours. running the DNA gels only half an hour. If they ran the machines 24/7 they could cover the 500 kids would be around a month and a half. that's the stats.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"The reason I asked you is so you can think about why the legal system doesn't really seem to be concerned about the DNA as much as keeping the kids away fro the ranch. "
I think that I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion on that issue, and neither do you.
However, there are more than 400 people getting tested.
Take the 400+ kids, times that by 3, and there is 1200 tests at very least.
sltrib. com/ci_9404134
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"Week 4 was court ordered DNA testing and people can't refuse that"
Yes they can, many kids didn't identify a parent, so who are they going to arrest if they don't even know who to arrest?
Like I said before, many of these kids went unclaimed. Abandonment?
slu2com 3 years ago
When a court sapaena's your DNA and you refuse to give it you go to jail. A court issues the sapeana to guarantee that investigatons procede with or without people's co-operation. You would end up in prison by not complying.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"When a court sapaena's your DNA and you refuse to give it you go to jail."
WHO will they supeana? If the parents are claiming the children, and if the children aren't claiming the parents. Then who are they going to ask for DNA?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
They sapeana things and people for the purpose of police investigations and court proceedings. People can try to dodge a sapeana but they can't refuse a sapeana.
Trandos21 3 years ago
WHO would be named on the supeana?
If they don't know who the parents are...
Here are some of the reports that I have heard.
1. The kids are telling CPS who their parents are (some).
2. A lot of the parents are absent, and are not claiming their children.
So WHO are they going to serve?
John and Jane Doe??
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You don't put the name of the suspected parents on a sapeana. That would be like putting the suspected name of the children on the sapeana which they didn't do. A sapeana doesn't need to show family ties.
Trandos21 3 years ago
If there is no one to serve, there there is no one to reject the summons.
Come on, do be naive. You HAVE to have a name to be able to serve the papers to.
Who are you going to summons if there is no name?
Who are you going to test if there is no name?
What I am saying is that they can't test people, who haven't claimed kids, or haven't been claimed by kids..
Does this still not make sense to you?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Still seems like their is alot of the polygamist men still on their ranch in texas. Do you think they'll ever get around to arresting any of them?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Do you think they'll ever get around to arresting any of them? "
How would I know?
Most of them are commiting a crime defined as bigamy, that has been illegal for around 120 years.
Many other are committing crimes such as child molestation, and sexual assault on a minor.
Will they every arrest them?
I believe some of them already have been arrested including their prophet. Maybe more will be arrested, but I do not know.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
If no one is arrested then the child molestation continues in the near future. The arrest of Jeffs almost nothing to do with the CPS decision to remove the children. No one on the ranch has been charged. That is the purpose of the law when crimes are prosecutable. The little evidence they have will come from DNA testing. With the way wives are swapped when people are booted out I don't think that it will help them too much. It'll just be proof that they are a demented group.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"The arrest of Jeffs almost nothing to do with the CPS decision to remove the children."
I know that Jeffs is a convicted sex offender. His doctrines and ordainances included many long sermons on how young girls should submit to men, and that thoughts of young boys is a SIN.
(you can hear these sermons even on YouTube).
Jeff's pretty much commanded child molestation.
He is the prophet. He is the owner of the establishment. And his followers obey him.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
The children were not taken because jeffs was on the premisis or because he was in jail. He wasn't a part of the decision to take the children from the ranch. Where are you going with this?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Where are you going with this? "
That child molestation is part of their culture, and part of their doctrine.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Actually polygamy is in their culture and child molestation is a side affect of their self segregation to allow for the illegal practices that they are engaged in. They can't bring others in so they push out young men and teach young women that they should do what their told. This is why I have been saying that forcing the kids into public school is the right way to go. The FLDS homeschool their kids into polygamy and leave them uneducated. This way their stuck on the ranch.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"Actually polygamy is in their culture and child molestation is a side affect of their self segregation to allow for the illegal practices that they are engaged in. "
And it is also taught by their prophet, which would be considered doctrinal.
Have you listened to his sermons on the subject?
Check out fincenMIB 's videos.
youtube. com/user/fincenMIB
He is a former FLDS member, and has tons of tapings of Warren Jeffs preaching about child marriage.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
What are you trying to convey? You talk about the polygamy, child molestation and nothing else.
You have no interiest in fingding a solution to the problem and open dialog and just seem hostile in communication.
You assume that everything with the kids is done by perfectly honest people who are not weak and sinful themselves. I say that the raid wasn't the right way to stop polygamy and you attack the FLDS as if they are the source for all evil. Are you sure that's a good argument?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"What are you trying to convey? "
That the doctrines in the FLDS church concerning child marriage is child molestation, and I don't agree with child molestation.
"You talk about the polygamy, child molestation and nothing else."
Polygamy is the least of my concern.
"You assume that everything with the kids is done by perfectly honest people who are not weak and sinful themselves. "
Not true.
"the raid wasn't the right way to stop polygamy"
I don't think that was the point.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"the raid wasn't the right way to stop polygamy"
I think that the raid took place to investigate a phone call about child molestation.
I think when they got there and they saw sure signs of child molestation, the removal of the children was something that the law requires them to do, if the children appear to be in danger.
I don't think that the raid had anything to do with polygamy. Else wise, many people would be in jail right now.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
That the doctrines in the FLDS church concerning child marriage is child molestation,
The doctorines were origionally about polygamy. They weren't based on child molestation in the begining.
I don't think that was the point.
So why do you support these actions when you and others might find and suggest a better solution?
Are you a follower or are you a leader?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"The doctorines were origionally about polygamy. They weren't based on child molestation in the begining."
But they have "continued revelation". Regardless, they have doctrines concerning young brides NOW, and that is the point.
"I don't think that was the point."
Actually that IS the point. Atleast that is my point.
"So why do you support these actions when you and others might find and suggest a better solution? "
I've not thought of a better solution, have you?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You aren't looking for a better solution because that would mean you would need to be nonbyast. You aren't prepared for that and that is why you aren't because you have no interiest in finding a just solution for all parties. Foster homes molest children too you know. your just trading one environment for another in some cases.
If it concerns DNA it IS based on family affiliation.
Not when DNA is being used to find family affiliation. Which is what they are doing.
Trandos21 3 years ago
So when asked if you have a better solution, you don't offer one??
Just because I don't think these young girls she have to submit to sexual relations with an old geezer like Warren Jeffs, or any of his colleagues, and just because I don't think that these young girls should have to bare children when they are children themselves, doesn't mean that YOU have a better solution to the problem.
Prove me wrong. What would be a better solution?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I said leaving the kids with their mothers. I have been telling you for weeks that their fathers should be charged and go to prision. I never said leave the kids with their fathers.
I didn't see that as a solution, because it doesn't seem like one. You are serious about leaving the kids with their molestors?
Are you slow? So you think the lost boys idea is better?
It doesn't force the community to let children have their own life? It won't be a way for stopping child molestation?
Trandos21 3 years ago
"I said leaving the kids with their mothers. I have been telling you for weeks that their fathers should be charged and go to prision. I never said leave the kids with their fathers."
If their fathers CAN be charged and sent to prison, THEN the kids may not be in danger for a few years. But even IF they get these fathers to step up to DNA tests, etc the end result would be that the fathers get a few years in prison, and end up back in the lives of these kids when they get out.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Not as sex offernders.
Trandos21 3 years ago
There sex offender registration isn't an indefinate affliction. I found that out when I researched the Jessop guy.
His sex offender registration lasted only as long as his probation lasted. 3 years
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"I never said leave the kids with their fathers."
Actually the last 3 times that you stated this idea about putting them in public school. That was the totality of your solution.
You kept saying outlaw homeschooling for them.. But you didn't mention anything else. Certainly nothing about the molestors going to prison.
Now you are saying put the men in prison. But "mo's" typically only go to prison for a few years, and then get out and go back home.
Not a real good solution.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
I have been asking you "why aren't the men being charged?" Half a brain could put the men being charged and the forced public schooling together. In which case the men are sex offenders and unable to go onto ranch grounds.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"I have been asking you "why aren't the men being charged?" "
But that doesn't mean "they should be charged".
Earlier you said the reason why you asked me that, is so that I would consider other facts in the case. You didn't say that they SHOULD be charged, until now.
So NOW you think that they should be put in prison. Ok.
But when they get out in a few years, and complete their probabation, they can go back to whatever lifestyle they lived before.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
But that doesn't mean "they should be charged".
I was saying they should be in prision weeks ago. Your having too much fun will this kill the molesters bit your on.
But when they get out in a few years, and complete their probabation, they can go back to whatever lifestyle they lived before.
Like I have said before the CPS can go to congress and try to have laws passed for the situation. Here they could ask to leangthen the time on the registry.
Trandos21 3 years ago
"I was saying they should be in prision weeks ago. Your having too much fun will this kill the molesters bit your on."
Again, you are improvising. I've never said "kill" anyone.
Nor have I witnessed you say "put them in jail".
"Like I have said before the CPS can go to congress and try to have laws passed for the situation"
But under the current law, your proposition is not a solution, just a small deturrant.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
The last two weeks I have said throw the fathers in jail. Is your brain switched off? Are sex offenders allowed on the ranch? Will the kids be living there? You are losing the discussion because you aren't think with your mind open to the last weeks discussions. Once again. Think long and hard, are sex offenders allowed on the ranch grounds?
His sex offender registration lasted only as long as his probation lasted. 3 years
Then the law should be changed to extend the time.
Trandos21 3 years ago