tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post3622910323945162365..comments2024-03-15T05:45:01.402-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Who's to blame for the Eldorado mess? How about the Apostle Paul?Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-52870807128169795282008-04-30T18:26:00.000-05:002008-04-30T18:26:00.000-05:00The Hawkins case does.The Hawkins case does.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68954622429616204822008-04-30T16:57:00.000-05:002008-04-30T16:57:00.000-05:00Bluesman, those bigamy cases had no religious free...Bluesman, those bigamy cases had no religious freedom component.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-62555096731762026992008-04-30T16:49:00.000-05:002008-04-30T16:49:00.000-05:00Hi Grits!A couple of things first.First, I am sorr...Hi Grits!<BR/><BR/>A couple of things first.<BR/><BR/>First, I am sorry to hear about your problems and wish you the best in getting them cleared up (and I have some ideas of what should be done to the bast**ds if they are caught).<BR/><BR/>Second, after having agreed with your position on another post, it feels much more natural to be back in the position of loyal opposition. :D<BR/><BR/>I believe that Utah and Arizona shied away for political, not legal reasons. Both of those states have a higher density of both mainline LDS and fringe (for lack of a better term) polygamist population. <BR/><BR/>It would be harder to seat a jury, so they try and cherry pick their cases instead of attacking the root of the problem. That's not the Texas way.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that Texas will have a problem proving the case. I can think of several in just the past couple of years:<BR/><BR/>Hawkins, 2008, pending, Callahan County (note, Hawkins is the leader of the polygamist religious sect 'House of Yahweh'), additional arrests of his followers are expected<BR/><BR/>Ellis, 2008, pending, Hardin County<BR/><BR/>Mitcham, 2008, pending, Hardin County<BR/><BR/>Peschel, 2007, 3 years - prob'd, Guadalupe County<BR/><BR/>Yates, 2005, 15 years, Nacogdoches CountyTxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-11452616888593228612008-04-29T18:36:00.000-05:002008-04-29T18:36:00.000-05:00What's your point, Bluesman?Like I said, they can ...What's your point, Bluesman?<BR/><BR/>Like I said, they can try if they want, but AGs with more experience on the topic have shied away.<BR/><BR/>It's true.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-61007831765439763952008-04-29T18:32:00.000-05:002008-04-29T18:32:00.000-05:00Uh, Grits?Neither Texas nor the United States have...Uh, Grits?<BR/><BR/>Neither Texas nor the United States have an anti-polygamy statute.<BR/><BR/>Texas has a bigamy statute, which I know you are aware of, and have been continuously prosecuting offenders.<BR/><BR/>There were two more indicted this month (unconnected to the FLDS).TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-52761558112225338702008-04-29T18:16:00.000-05:002008-04-29T18:16:00.000-05:00Has anyone tried to connect the dots from this deb...Has anyone tried to connect the dots from this debacle to Rep. Harvey Hildbran who bragged about "putting the FLDS out of business"? The fictitious "Sarah" made the phone call March 31st and within 72 hours a raid was organized by 4 government agencies and perfectly coordinated. Law enforcement just happened to have a battering ram with them to bash the temple door, and CPS just happened to have all those buses and shelters ready, with staff and volunteers. All of that organizing would normally take several weeks, and at the risk of sounding like an amateur sleuth, that whole thing sure look pre-planned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77474380864448548322008-04-29T13:20:00.000-05:002008-04-29T13:20:00.000-05:00In this case, 1:09, the laws were changed in 2005 ...In this case, 1:09, the laws were changed in 2005 to target the religious practices of this particular group. Their own state rep brought in the AG from Utah to testify on the bill, but never informed them about it. Also, those laws aren't universally applied (e.g., DFPS doesn't check DNA for the tens of thousands of pregnant teens in cities to prosecute the fathers), only to these folks.<BR/><BR/>These people are definitely subject to the laws, and if child abuse has occurred, it should be prosecuted and abused children given safe harbor. (Prosecuting polygamy is a slightly different legal question - states have avoided prosecuting it because they think the 1890 court precedent won't hold up; TX can try to do that if they like, but AGs with more experience on the topic shied away.) However the law should never be used to single out and persecute a particular religious group, and that's partially what's happening here with the law Harvey Hildebran passed that targets them.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-5175142386626872572008-04-29T13:09:00.000-05:002008-04-29T13:09:00.000-05:00"That is the real danger here. The poster who post..."That is the real danger here. The poster who posted the long post actually argues for taking away his or her own rights."<BR/><BR/>No, I'm pointing out that every religiously motivated decision I make is not an absolute right if it's leading me into illegal activity, and if I use my illegal religious beliefs as a foundation for my children's rearing and a large number of them follow my example, I can be investigated for child abuse. <BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<BR/>Employment_Division_v._Smith<BR/><BR/>http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/<BR/>html/historics/<BR/>USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html<BR/><BR/>Maybe the judge will find a good middle ground that allows the kids and families to stay together, as long as they allow more interaction with general society and stop practicing and teaching polygamy and underage spiritual marriages. I'm not going to say that the FLDS parents should never see their kids again, but they should be held accountable for their generations of illegal and abusive activity. They are still part of our society of laws.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-80669591409458422902008-04-29T12:28:00.000-05:002008-04-29T12:28:00.000-05:00WOW!Anon with the long post looks to have justifie...<I>WOW!<BR/><BR/>Anon with the long post looks to have justified taking children from about any household in the USA.<BR/><BR/>Even those that show they do have a choice in lifestyle..., no matter how they have been taught, may have missed out on learning of other choices.</I><BR/><BR/>That is the real danger here. The poster who posted the long post actually argues for taking away his or her own rights. When the same philosophy applies to those who get an abortion and other PC causes, the tune might be different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-83610760474267925742008-04-29T12:26:00.000-05:002008-04-29T12:26:00.000-05:00"Anon with the long post looks to have justified t..."Anon with the long post looks to have justified taking children from about any household in the USA."<BR/><BR/>Um, no. I explained why intentionally raising children to accept and practice illegal acts is child abuse and should be investigated. Why don't you get in touch with the professional psychiatrist and explain to him how free the children he interviewed are? I'm sure your righteous indignation and lack of deductive reasoning skills can lay waste to his credentials and experience any day. Or maybe he was just lying, like all CPS employees and law enforcement are known to do. That's also a likely possibility.<BR/><BR/>From the Salt Lake Tribune:<BR/>"Earlier Friday, psychiatrist Bruce Perry of Texas testified for the state, saying the FLDS culture is dangerous to children because teenage girls are not emotionally mature enough for marriage. <BR/> The other children, he said, are at risk because their brain development could be impeded by an authoritarian atmosphere that discourages independent thinking. <BR/> Perry said there are many healthy aspects to the FLDS culture, but still recommended continued state custody. "This is just a lose-lose deal. There is no great way to make this come out." <BR/> Perry worked with children from the Branch Davidian sect, which was decimated in a 1993 FBI raid that killed 76 people, 21 of them children."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63923149982317924242008-04-29T11:37:00.000-05:002008-04-29T11:37:00.000-05:00Both are previously linked articles.evidence of a ...Both are previously linked articles.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9091635" REL="nofollow">evidence of a criminal "COMPOUND"...</A> <BR/> "This includes that group of girls that once claimed they were 18 or older," he said. "<B>It was determined</B> they were not adults." <BR/> He said some women acknowledged being younger and the age of others was determined by their attorneys or by looking at the women. <BR/> "I have seen them myself," he said, "and I don't see any that look like an adult to me." <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274752,00.html" REL="nofollow">...because we "think" so</A><BR/>Of those 53, [CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins] said 26 claim to be 18 or older. "But we don't <B>think</B> they are," he said.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-24856628241993527282008-04-29T11:19:00.000-05:002008-04-29T11:19:00.000-05:00WOW!Anon with the long post looks to have justifie...WOW!<BR/><BR/>Anon with the long post looks to have justified taking children from about any household in the USA.<BR/><BR/>Even those that show they do have a choice in lifestyle..., no matter how they have been taught, may have missed out on learning of other choices.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-698927109026757752008-04-29T10:58:00.000-05:002008-04-29T10:58:00.000-05:00Thanks Anon 9:47.Here's a direct LINK to that arti...Thanks Anon 9:47.<BR/><BR/>Here's a direct <A HREF="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274752,00.html" REL="nofollow">LINK</A> to that article.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Linking tool:<BR/><B>< A href="LINK" >TITLE< /A > </B><BR/>-Paste the web address to replace LINK<BR/>-Leave the quotation marks (") there <BR/>-Type display words to replace TITLE<BR/>-Remove all spaces <BR/>(spaces allowed between words in TITLE)kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58076154462058758652008-04-29T10:42:00.000-05:002008-04-29T10:42:00.000-05:00The most recent count... There are a total of 463 ...<A HREF="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9091635" REL="nofollow">The most recent count...</A> <BR/><BR/><I>There are a total of 463 FLDS children - 250 females, 213 males - in state custody in Texas. Here is a breakdown of that count:<BR/>* 0-2: 101, 49 females, 52 males<BR/>* 3-5: 99, 46 females, 53 males<BR/>* 6-9: 131, 68 females, 63 males<BR/>* 10-13: 62, 34 females, 28 males<BR/>* 14-17: 42, 27 females, 15 males<BR/>* Disputed age: 26 females, now classified as 17 or younger.<BR/>* Two boys who turned 18 while in state custody also have voluntarily chosen to stay with younger boys.<BR/>Source: Texas Child Protective Services</I><BR/><BR/>Going off of the initial reports of 12 CPS workers being involved, they'd only have 120 fingers & toes to count with. With Azar now telling us <I>"caseworkers each have been assigned 15 children to represent"</I>, this more recent count should be more accurate! <BR/><BR/>I can only imagine how accurate the method used to determine which age groups to put them was; The Azar <I>"by looking at the women"</I> test.<BR/><BR/>Looking past the sorrowful humor this case has created (at least in my mind), it would be helpful if a credible source would provide a finite number of households there were at the YFZ Ranch. <BR/><BR/>Early on there was a number of 65 men at the ranch reported (accurate??). Using that and Azar's "31 of 53" count, it looks like there would be at least 34 households that did NOT fit into that "pattern" problem Walthers based her ruling child custody ruling on. <BR/><BR/>Using Parker's contention that <I>"the state's new count includes 17 adult women who are being classified as minors"</I>, we'd be left with 51 household of the 65 that may not be within that "pattern". <BR/><BR/>Whatever number you use, it's still not looking good to just lock all up and work the individual details out later.<BR/><BR/>Another thing that gripes me some is how the CPS keeps throwing that <I>"ages 14 to 17 "</I> out there, always lacking any details of those they include in the <16 YO category within that claim. At least the range in age they push to the media has not included the "12" or "13" YO's they were so quick to announce early on.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-47830971717725782772008-04-29T10:33:00.000-05:002008-04-29T10:33:00.000-05:00"If a 30 yr old woman looks me in the eye and tell..."If a 30 yr old woman looks me in the eye and tells me -- with determination and intelligence -- she chose this life what kind of feminist would I be to tell her how to live her life?"<BR/><BR/>It needn't stop there. If the conversation were as simple as that, it wouldn't say anything one way or another.<BR/><BR/>But if you ask, "Were you raised to believe that polygamy and bearing many children is necessary for heavenly glory? Is there a punishment or something you'll lose if you don't believe and follow this practice?" "Were you ever offered the opportunity to receive a general education? How many books have you read or been given the opportunity to read that don't agree with the prophets' teachings?" "Are you allowed to read a mass publication newspaper of your choice every day?" "How many moral, financial, and educational decisions do you make that are in conflict with the beliefs of your prophet? What would happen if you made major life decisions in conflict with the prophets' teachings? Have you ever suffered violence, or screaming, or threats to keep you from straying from the prophets' teachings?"<BR/><BR/>Even if the woman in question does not accurately assess her own situation, it's not like she should be removed from her home, unless she's under imminent threat of suicide, death, or serious bodily harm. She is free to make a mistake, if she is in fact mistaken. People in abusive relationships will insist their abuser loves them, that their way of life is "normal," and that they're not victims for many different reasons, including shame, lack of education, lack of self-esteem, and codependency issues. Addicts say they don't have a problem and can stop any time they want. You're implying that because someone states they're making a rational decision, that makes it so. It's a lot easier to vocalize some words than it is to objectively assess one's own psychology, especially when psychology is forbidden from one's life.<BR/><BR/>From the Salt Lake Tribune:<BR/>"Attorney Tip Hargrove, who represents two FLDS women, elicited Perry's admission that he has never spoken with a leader of the FLDS nor read the church's doctrine. The courtroom broke into laughter when he said he has gained his knowledge through press accounts, though he takes them "with a grain of salt."<BR/><BR/>The psychiatrist said that after spending months counseling the Branch Davidian children, he has consulted on other isolationist groups such as the Moon children and Posse Comitatus.<BR/><BR/>Perry said he has found much to be admired about the FLDS. The mothers are loving and respectful of their children, he said. But, he said, the culture is abusive. "The environment is authoritarian."<BR/><BR/>The few choices that church members have are often false choices, he said.<BR/><BR/>Perry said a 17-year-old in custody told him how her father asked her at 14 if she wanted to go to Zion, the YFZ Ranch. He said she agreed, and when they arrived at the ranch, she was told the prophet had advised she should marry a particular older man.<BR/><BR/>The girl told the psychiatrist she had a choice in the matter, but he was dubious.<BR/><BR/>"The independent free choice ... doesn't feel to me like it's a true choice," Perry testified. "Young girls who are 14, 15 or 16 are not emotionally mature enough to enter into healthy sexual relationships."<BR/><BR/>Hargrove questioned Perry whether there would be anything the FLDS parents could tell the court that would argue in favor of sending the children home. Perry said parents could tell the court three things: that they do not believe girls should be married before age 18; that they are open to making more transparent boundaries between themselves and the outside world so the children are not so fearful of the outside world; and that they will increase true free choices for their children."<BR/><BR/>Grits, I don't even have a PhD in psychiatry, yet it has been obvious to me and many others that the core issue in this mess is that of self determination, discovery, and informed choice.<BR/><BR/>If I come to a fork in a road, and you tell me that I can choose either one, and they will take me to different destinations, but once I get to a destination after making my choice, I cannot backtrack and find out for myself where the other road leads, when, in fact, you know that both roads lead to the same destination, was my choice free? I took a decisive action that I thought was informed, but I was in fact ignorant, and my circumstances and understanding were led by you, and you prevented me from learning on my own if you were telling the truth. But if I trust you, and rely on you, and am raised to believe that you have direct access to God's truth, why would I doubt you? Even further, I might believe that your lying to me was actually for my own good, and that I should be grateful to you for making the "tough" decisions for me. On the other hand, what if my natural human curiosity got the better of me, and decided that I just really had to see where the other road went, so I backtracked, and followed the other road, and saw that you had lied to me, was I free in my choice *because* of how you led me, or *despite* your manipulations?<BR/><BR/>Degreed, experienced experts in psychiatry are testifying that people are not raised to have true free choices in the FLDS. I can't understand how you can imply that textbook Stockholm Syndrome is the same as an act of informed feminism. It's a bit worrying how little you seem to understand or want to understand about psychology within abusive environments.<BR/><BR/>From Wikipedia, Stockholm Syndrome:<BR/>"Loyalty to a more powerful abuser — in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in — is common among victims of domestic abuse, battered partners and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. This unhealthy type of mental phenomenon is also known as Trauma-Bonding or Bonding-to-the-Perpetrator. This syndrome was described by psychoanalysts of the object relations theory school (see Fairbairn) as the phenomenon of psychological identification with the more powerful abuser. A variant of Stockholm Syndrome includes cases of abusive parents and abusive siblings in which the victim, even after entering adulthood, still justifies the family abuse."<BR/><BR/>"But three weeks in, there is no complaining victim and no arrests. What does that tell you?"<BR/><BR/>That says very little when talking about group mentality and inculcated loyalty. If you think it's tough to get a child rape victim to speak up and not recant, imagine trying to speak honestly with a child who believes they'll lose their family and never reach Heaven if they speak to you.<BR/><BR/>Cults maintain homogeny by raising members to believe that the outside world is evil and always out to get them. The foolish thing is that they often engage in illegal activities that draw attention to themselves, and then they use their "prophecies" to explain that they were right about the evil world all along. Well, yeah, if you intentionally base your beliefs on illegal practices, you're inviting your own problems. How is that the fault of the outside world, and I've asked this before -- if these people are free to make informed choices, as you say, why are they not free enough to be held responsible for the illegal practices of polygamy? You say half the marriages are monogamous. That means half are not. Half of the general population is not polygamous, but you're arguing that these people's culture doesn't foster illegal practices. . . if I have a boarding school that cares for 100 kids, and I'm a drug addict, and half the teachers are drug addicts, and we teach the students that drugs are a legitimate way of life, so 50 of the kids are addicted to drugs after time at the school, are you going to argue that since I have 50 kids not addicted to drugs, that my drug addiction and teachings aren't steering the kids' beliefs overall? That level of deviant homogeny is not explainable by chance.<BR/><BR/>You're taking the specific (monogamous marriages) and trying to abscribe it to the general (the FLDS way of life), even though the specifics you mention are at odds with the general belief of FLDS. I'm not saying monogamous spouses should be arrested. But if they allow their kids to be raised in an authoritarian environment that teaches people to engage in illegal behavior that also turns a blind eye to sexual abuse, that is grounds for CPS intervention. And again, family law is not criminal law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-58240733199151821372008-04-29T10:18:00.000-05:002008-04-29T10:18:00.000-05:00Amen and a big THANK YOU, Grits and anonymous. Wel...Amen and a big THANK YOU, Grits and anonymous. Well said!! It's so nice to know that there are still rational and critical thinking people in this country.Kathy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06412919295132405429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79480352476190715502008-04-29T09:47:00.000-05:002008-04-29T09:47:00.000-05:00It's worth repeating:The official count of the chi...It's worth repeating:<BR/><BR/><I>The official count of the children removed from the FLDS Church ranch is now 463, one more than previously reported. All 250 girls and 213 boys were ordered to be placed into state custody because of abuse allegations, including "a pattern of grooming girls from a young age to accept becoming married to middle-aged men."<BR/><BR/>New statistics released Monday indicate that 53 of the girls are between the ages of 14 and 17. "We believe that 31 of them either have children or are pregnant," Crimmins said. "In most cases, that's what the girls have told us."<BR/><BR/>Of those 53, Crimmins said 26 claim to be 18 or older. "But we don't think they are," he said.<BR/><BR/>http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274752,00.html</I><BR/><BR/>Even if we add the 13-year-old girls about to become of "marriage" age, there was no emergency that required the removal of the other 400 children. The state claims it was because of "grooming." Even if true, is that "grooming" a crime that requires emergency removal? That, I think, is the real issue.<BR/><BR/>It is standard rhetoric to claim anyone who fights for due process and the Constitution must be deviant. Maybe that is because our Founders were part of the patriarchal society, and wrong, wrong, wrong. Frankly, this new headline took some of the wind out of my melody writing sails, but after sleeping on it, CPS can't be trusted and trials by media is wrong, wrong, wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-7098725414276042862008-04-29T08:08:00.000-05:002008-04-29T08:08:00.000-05:00Mike, you've been here every day recently, mostly ...Mike, you've been here every day recently, mostly to complain and contribute little but one-sentence accusations with little substance and sweeping smears (e.g., "deviants") of other commenters. You're welcome here, as is anyone who disagrees with me, but no one would miss you if you'd never shown up, and I won't lament your departure.<BR/><BR/>No one has defended statutory rape. I've repeatedly said where it can be shown it should be prosecuted, comments which you of course ignore. But three weeks in, there is no complaining victim and no arrests. What does that tell you?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-85284692888341046442008-04-29T07:55:00.000-05:002008-04-29T07:55:00.000-05:00Grits, First, I don't come by every day. That's ty...Grits, <BR/><BR/>First, I don't come by every day. That's typical of the exaggerative arguments you make. I initially found you because you were a guest op-ed in the DMN. I'm researching the general subject area and have been very disturbed by the happenings at the compound. I was a little incredulous that seemingly intelligent non-members of the cult would be defending their practice of statutory rape in the name of religion. Still am. Reading your comments and those of the some of the deviants you attract has helped me to understand. The little comments you make as rebuttal confirm my suspicions. Now, if you'll excuse, I'll leave you and the perp sympathizers to talk among yourselves with. Too sick for me.Mike Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02443892756383347154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68551383596910473512008-04-29T07:44:00.000-05:002008-04-29T07:44:00.000-05:00How odd, then, Mike, that you drop by every day to...How odd, then, Mike, that you drop by every day to visit! What fantasy are you talking about?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-17255934935691174132008-04-29T07:36:00.000-05:002008-04-29T07:36:00.000-05:00Grits, You live in a fantasy world.Grits, <BR/><BR/>You live in a fantasy world.Mike Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02443892756383347154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-35726174356218979122008-04-29T07:03:00.000-05:002008-04-29T07:03:00.000-05:00"Yet when a fascist group has customs and ideas th..."Yet when a fascist group has customs and ideas that are most burdensome to the women and female children in that group, you don't seem to question what it says about our society as a whole if we don't speak out against that form of oppression"<BR/><BR/>Plenty of people are "speaking out" about FLDS practices. I's not as thought that point of view is being underplayed! The other side of the coin was stated aptly by an attorney friend of mine who's one of the ad litems in the case:<BR/><BR/>"If a 30 yr old woman looks me in the eye and tells me -- with determination and intelligence -- she chose this life what kind of feminist would I be to tell her how to live her life?"<BR/><BR/>Half of FLDS kids leave when they grow up. Half the marriages at YFZ were monogamous. Not every assumption about no options, etc., is verified in every case where kids have been seized.<BR/><BR/>Speak out all you want about their practices, but don't seize people's kids because of their beliefs. If there was criminal abuse, prosecute it. The rest is religious bigotry.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45148477776829372752008-04-29T06:22:00.000-05:002008-04-29T06:22:00.000-05:00Tx.How can you state so unequivocally that slicing...Tx.<BR/><BR/>How can you state so unequivocally that slicing off the foreskin is not penetration of the sexual organ? That act of cutting off part of the body is not an "incision", as you put it. That is a ludicrous statement. You can argue that the removal, with a razor, of a part of the foreskin is not penetration, but the Courts of Texas are going to interpret and apply that statute in the broadest possible way.<BR/><BR/>As for your parental consent argument, it stinks. Parents cannot consent to a criminal act against their children. If they do, they become parties to the offense. A licensed physician can "penetrate" or slice off some of the foreskin, because physicians are given a license to commit those kinds of assaults. Indeed, if you read the statutes strictly, every cut a physician makes on another human is arguable an assault. But society allows them to do so because the benefits generally outweigh the non-benefits. But if a doctor carves his initials into a woman's crotch area, after delivering a child, that can be considered an assaultive offense.<BR/><BR/>Your position on this might be modified if you do some research into the effects of circumcision. There is apparently a growing body of evidence, and concern, that circumcision results in a loss of sensation in the penis, which puts the act squarely within the definition of "serious bodily injury."<BR/><BR/>Of course, even if your position is correct, and assault with bodily injury is the only possible criminal offense that could be successfully prosecuted, the act of circumcision by a Rabbi could be the grounds for a CPS investigation and removal of a child from the custody of parents who particiapted in the act.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-40067711868623983912008-04-29T00:05:00.000-05:002008-04-29T00:05:00.000-05:00Much better Doran.Assault with Bodily Injury is a ...Much better Doran.<BR/><BR/>Assault with Bodily Injury is a possible charge, unless the person or his parent consented to the act, i.e. you can't file Assault on someone for a football injury...<BR/><BR/>Neither Sexual Assault or Aggravated Sexual Assault would fit. An incision is not considered to be 'penetration' for the purposes of that statute.<BR/><BR/>Aggravated Assault won't fly either - you have to have Serious Bodily Injury, and circumcision doesn't meet that level of injury - not even broken ribs necessarily meet that level. To have serious bodily injury in Texas, you have to prove that the injury caused:<BR/><BR/>a - a substantial risk of death (nope)<BR/>b - protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ (again, nope - the organ will still work)<BR/>c - serious permanent disfigurement (yet again, nope - minor scars are not considered serious, although they are disfiguring)<BR/><BR/>Injury to a Child is possible, but it has the same problem that I will address below.<BR/><BR/>Consent (see TPC Sec 22.06) - if the injury does not threaten or inflict serious bodily injury, the individual (or their parent in the case of a child) can consent to the use of force, and there is then no offense.<BR/><BR/>Sorry bout that, any more thoughts?<BR/><BR/>I can pull the case law if you want, I was just not in the mood to get on Lexis tonight.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20127086993622335012008-04-28T22:19:00.000-05:002008-04-28T22:19:00.000-05:00I would suspect the latest count and revised total...I would suspect the latest count and revised total of girls whom have been pregnant to be more of a rebuttal against the news story of merely a few days ago which stated that there were only 3 girls who were pregnant or had children (1 whom had recently reached the age of majority but was still being held, 1 who refused a pregnancy test so she was assumed pregnant, and 1 who was confirmed pregnant). As I recall, the backlash of that revelation by media and followers of this action was severe criticism against CPS. The general sentiment was "if that's all they got, they ain't got nearly enough". Thus, this "new" count was released to compensate. As Grits so finely put it when he sharpened his pencil on the subject, I won't believe it until I see it testified to in court.<BR/><BR/>A few things are obvious so far, one of them being that CPS has been waging a propaganda war in this matter since the start. Their comments to the press have rarely reconciled with their testimony to the judge. If the situation were not so tragic, it might be almost amusing to witness how CPS has repeatedly crawfished their way around. It has also not escaped my attention how they appear to be very skilled in their rhetoric, as if they've gotten away with this type of thing many times before, though perhaps never before on this scale or with this amount of media attention. I do find it unusual how to date, this case has remained "unsealed" and open for all to follow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com