PLFXpert 0 #101 April 16, 2008 QuoteWhen it comes to probable (do you disagree abuse in this case is probable?) abuse--particularly sexually--of children, I really don't give a shit how they got around the law to do what they can to stop it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this is the same reasoning behind the Patriot Act and other great legislation in American history. I didn't say it would have been the right thing to do, nor am I proposing legislation to support others doing it. I'm just saying it would be at the bottom of my list of things to cry "no fair" about. I'm baffled by anyone who doesn't think several under-age girls walking around pregnant isn't "probable cause".Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #102 April 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhen it comes to probable (do you disagree abuse in this case is probable?) abuse--particularly sexually--of children, I really don't give a shit how they got around the law to do what they can to stop it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this is the same reasoning behind the Patriot Act and other great legislation in American history. I didn't say it would have been the right thing to do, nor am I proposing legislation to support others doing it. I'm just saying it would be at the bottom of my list of things to cry "no fair" about. I'm baffled by anyone who doesn't think several under-age girls walking around pregnant isn't "probable cause". Do you have any idea how many young girls are walking around pregnant in America at this moment? What does that prove, other than the fact that girls are capable of getting pregnant? So no, seeing a pregnant young girl walking down the street is not probable cause to take 416 children from their families. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #103 April 16, 2008 Quote Homeschools are not required to (at this time) participate in the testing for "no child left behind". A homeschooled child should not ever be considered left behind so blindly as you make it seem. I am not speaking just towards the cult but in general. Homeschooled children often score higher on standard tests / college entrance exams ect then their public schooled peers. Homeschoolers are more likely to be accepted into college including an ivy school then their public school peers. How would you establish this? I suspect the numerator (# going to college) is easy to establish, but the denominator for home schooled misses cults left and right and undercounts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #104 April 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhen it comes to probable (do you disagree abuse in this case is probable?) abuse--particularly sexually--of children, I really don't give a shit how they got around the law to do what they can to stop it. I didn't say it would have been the right thing to do, nor am I proposing legislation to support others doing it. I'm just saying it would be at the bottom of my list of things to cry "no fair" about. I'm baffled by anyone who doesn't think several under-age girls walking around pregnant isn't "probable cause". The baffling part to me is "I really don't give a shit how they got around the law to do what they can." If FLDS was the Feds, you'd probably feel very differently, no? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #105 April 16, 2008 QuoteI'm baffled by anyone who doesn't think several under-age girls walking around pregnant isn't "probable cause". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you have any idea how many young girls are walking around pregnant in America at this moment? What does that prove, other than the fact that girls are capable of getting pregnant? So no, seeing a pregnant young girl walking down the street is not probable cause to take 416 children from their families. It's not a pregnant girl. And they're all on the same street. And they don't seem to be willing to (or know how to) identify their biological moms, nor do their moms seem to be willing to identify their own biological children. And how do you define "families"? It seems their definition of family makes it far more difficult to determine which kids belong to which potentially abusive father. What would you have done differently?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #106 April 16, 2008 Quote I didn't say it would have been the right thing to do, nor am I proposing legislation to support others doing it. I'm just saying it would be at the bottom of my list of things to cry "no fair" about. I'm baffled by anyone who doesn't think several under-age girls walking around pregnant isn't "probable cause". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The baffling part to me is "I really don't give a shit how they got around the law to do what they can." Be baffled with your bad self, then. I already clarified my original statement--which was intended as a moot point anyways in response to the highly unlikely idea that evidence of "probable cause" was planted.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #107 April 16, 2008 Quote What would you have done differently? I would have established a case against each man accused of abuse and had him arrested. Which men were arrested for abuse so far? The way it was done, the children will probably be back on the ranch within a few weeks, or maybe even less. Without PROOF of each case of abuse the state has no standing to keep kids from their parents. Sweeping generalizations and heresay are not viable and do not stand up in a court of law. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #108 April 16, 2008 QuoteI would have established a case against each man accused of abuse and had him arrested. How would you have established your case? (I.e. in contrast to how it's being done.)Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #109 April 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteI would have established a case against each man accused of abuse and had him arrested. How would you have established your case? (I.e. in contrast to how it's being done.) Well, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. If I were a cop I would subpoena phone records and find the owner of that phone. Then I'd put that person in front of a judge and find out who this 16 year old girl was. Then, if she does in fact exist, I would arrest the man she implicates for rape, and start building a case based on my interrogation of him and testimony of the girl. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #110 April 16, 2008 Quote Well, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. They didn't. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #111 April 16, 2008 CNN has a video: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/04/16/lkl.flds.polygamy.cnn Apparently it shows inside the compound. The lady who is talking to the reporter is a little scary... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #112 April 16, 2008 Quote The lady who is talking to the reporter is a little scary... That appears to be the same woman the Today show interviewed (with two others). And I also reviewed Fox news footage from inside the compound. All I can say about the footage--particularly from the Today show--was these women appeared to be having trouble understanding simple questions, and then having even more trouble forming simple sentences to answer the questions (often repeated to them by request). They don't seem to understand what the law defines as abuse. What is amusing to me and why I even replied to this thread in the first place, is: With all the actual probable cause that anyone can Google, read about, listen to or watch, and with all the potential abuses to children that might have occurred, with all those potential injustices to talk about and argue why anyone would want to talk instead about the highly unlikely potential injustice of planting some sort of evidence to garner warrants and investigate. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 April 16, 2008 Quote What is amusing to me and why I even replied to this thread in the first place, is: With all the actual probable cause that anyone can Google, read about, listen to or watch, and with all the potential abuses to children that might have occurred, with all those potential injustices to talk about and argue why anyone would want to talk instead about the highly unlikely potential injustice of planting some sort of evidence to garner warrants and investigate. Memories of Waco, perhaps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #114 April 17, 2008 QuoteSlightly off topic, but similar. And apologies if I am politically incorrect. A couple in their 30's came to the D.Z. Both pretty scraggy looking. Husband thin and scrawny. Wife very unappealing. Anyway, she did a first tandem jump. Jump done, they left. Thirty minutes later he returned, foaming at the mouth, yelling, aggressive ---- His wife had been sexually molested by the TM! Whatever on the day, but by the start of the week there were lawyers involved, and informational/threatening letters sent to the airport manager, the city, USPA, the gear manufacturer, etc. Knee-jerk reaction by the manufacturer --- the (fulltime) TM's rating was pulled, without any investigation. There were plenty of witnesses against the student, and an extensive video of the airplane ride, the freefall and most of the canopy ride from pretty close range. Nothing untoward happened. Lots of ado for the next 4-6 weeks, and then it all went away. The husband related that his wife thought he was playing around, so she made up the story to make him jealous. So I suppose allegations need to be looked into, but from every end; and evidence is crucial, though lack of same may still leave questions. Sometimes unfortunately a can of worms. By the way, the woman suffered no repercussions. LOLQuote That is too bad, he could have sued her in civil court for defamation of character if all of that happened. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #115 April 17, 2008 Well, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. If I were a cop I would subpoena phone records and find the owner of that phone. Then I'd put that person in front of a judge and find out who this 16 year old girl was. Then, if she does in fact exist, I would arrest the man she implicates for rape, and start building a case based on my interrogation of him and testimony of the girl. Duke, this makes far too much sense! Most all the people think on emotion, and that is what the governement, and to much extent, the media wants of the public, so that they can do whatever they would like. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #116 April 17, 2008 Quotewith all the potential abuses to children that might have occurred, Christ man, anyone who has ever been around a child is a potential abuser, and you might have bodies buried behind your house. The hearings are supposed to start otday, and I'm sure it will be a circus. But it should be interesting. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #117 April 17, 2008 QuoteWell, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. How many phone calls does it take? And what if she does identify herself but her name is being withheld from press reports? From Salt Lake City Tribune story "Key players involved in the Texas FLDS case": "A 16-year-old girl, according to officials, told a family violence shelter in multiple calls on March 29 and 30 that her polygamous husband was physically and sexually abusing her at the YFZ Ranch, once breaking her ribs. She said she has a baby and is pregnant." As well as information obtained by "Schleicker County Sheriff [Texas] David Doran, "who has developed a working relationship with leaders at YFZ Ranch while also receiving information from a confidential informant who is an ex-member of the sect." Asserting that the investigation was initiated based on "1 anonymous phone call" is less than factually correct based on what has been reported widely and publically (& cited multiple times w/in this thread). It wasn't one call & it wasn't anonymous. And it wasn't the only information on which the investigation began. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #118 April 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. How many phone calls does it take? And what if she does identify herself but her name is being withheld from press reports? How many phone calls? Well, I would say no phone call is justification to take someone's kids, especially an anonymous call. If that's the case I know how to get some seriously sick revenge on some old enemies. I'll just find a payphone somewhere or borrow a cell phone, make a few calls, and then watch and laugh when someone takes their kids. LOL. And you can bold all of the ALLEGATIONS that you want - that doesn't give your argument validity, as they are just allegations. Like I said, the hearings will be interesting indeed. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #119 April 17, 2008 QuoteIf I were a cop I would subpoena phone records and find the owner of that phone. Then I'd put that person in front of a judge and find out who this 16 year old girl was. Then, if she does in fact exist, I would arrest the man she implicates for rape, and start building a case based on my interrogation of him and testimony of the girl. I'm with this one. If we truly believe in PERSONAL responsibility and justice, we take crimes one at a time and get the criminals. We should imprison individuals, not groups. We aren't drones, we aren't in socialism, we aren't mobs. We are individuals in this country and the justice system is supposed to acknowledge that. Get the first guy, then we can work to see how his crime can also implicate others in some form of accomplice roles or even of similar crimes. That's the way to get everybody who is involved in criminal activity but not ruin those that weren't. Lots of analogies - pedophile priests, etc. What I don't know, is how much of that homework was done prior to the first arrest. So I can't say that 416 kids were protected based on evidence vs unfairly taken based on "1 anonymous phone call". The court case should be interesting. I hope the cops did their homework, or else shit will hit the fan and should. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #120 April 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. How many phone calls does it take? And what if she does identify herself but her name is being withheld from press reports? How many phone calls? Well, I would say no phone call is justification to take someone's kids, especially an anonymous call. Again, the phone calls and prior information initiated the investigation, which may have been a requirement of Texas law when a minor makes a claim of sexual &/or physical abuse. If so, your issue should be with the law, not the claimant or the Texas law enforcement. The investigatory process included (but I'm highly doubtful was limited to) obtaining search warrants. Upon executing the search of the FLDS compound as part of the investigation, it has been reported that additional evidence of neglect, sexual, &/or physical abuse was obtained that prompted the removal of the children. One of the arrests thus far has been of an FLDS individual charged w/"tampering of evidence." QuoteIf that's the case I know how to get some seriously sick revenge on some old enemies. I'll just find a payphone somewhere or borrow a cell phone, make a few calls, and then watch and laugh when someone takes their kids. LOL. The problem is what you are describing is a specious analogy. Period. Where do you see *specifically* due process has been violated? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #121 April 17, 2008 Quote The problem is what you are describing is a specious analogy. Period. I think it's a valid analogy. Period. Quote Where do you see *specifically* due process has been violated? Well, for one thing the law states that each case should be handled individually, and that each child should have their own lawyer. That law is being ignored due to logistics by both the Attorney General and the judge. Other than that due process was ignored in nearly every aspect of this case. Take all the kids and then prove something later is the definition of violation of due process. I don't just throw the Bill of Rights out the window because "it's about the children!!!!!!" -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #122 April 17, 2008 Like I said - CIRCUS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/17/national/main4021790.shtml and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/17cnd-polygamy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflybella 0 #123 April 17, 2008 "Typically, each child would be given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, president-elect of the state bar. "You can't go one-by-one," Estes said." Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #124 April 17, 2008 Quote "Typically, each child would be given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, president-elect of the state bar. "You can't go one-by-one," Estes said." LOL. Yeah, evidently the president of the TX bar slept through that part of law school. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #125 April 18, 2008 Quote Quote "Typically, each child would be given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, president-elect of the state bar. "You can't go one-by-one," Estes said." LOL. Yeah, evidently the president of the TX bar slept through that part of law school. How do you propose that a man who has say...30 children be managed on a one-by-one basis with the children being the evidence against him? Particularly when the wives of the man will not testify, and cannot be compelled to testify against him? And when his children will not testify, and cannot be compelled to testify against him? Yet there is evidence that a 40 year old man impregnated a 14 year old girl. What do you propose be done? The state was faced with a Jim Jones/Guyana scenario. There are now 350 attorneys for 400+ children. What would you propose be done differently? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 5 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
cloudseeker2001 0 #115 April 17, 2008 Well, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. If I were a cop I would subpoena phone records and find the owner of that phone. Then I'd put that person in front of a judge and find out who this 16 year old girl was. Then, if she does in fact exist, I would arrest the man she implicates for rape, and start building a case based on my interrogation of him and testimony of the girl. Duke, this makes far too much sense! Most all the people think on emotion, and that is what the governement, and to much extent, the media wants of the public, so that they can do whatever they would like. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #116 April 17, 2008 Quotewith all the potential abuses to children that might have occurred, Christ man, anyone who has ever been around a child is a potential abuser, and you might have bodies buried behind your house. The hearings are supposed to start otday, and I'm sure it will be a circus. But it should be interesting. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #117 April 17, 2008 QuoteWell, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. How many phone calls does it take? And what if she does identify herself but her name is being withheld from press reports? From Salt Lake City Tribune story "Key players involved in the Texas FLDS case": "A 16-year-old girl, according to officials, told a family violence shelter in multiple calls on March 29 and 30 that her polygamous husband was physically and sexually abusing her at the YFZ Ranch, once breaking her ribs. She said she has a baby and is pregnant." As well as information obtained by "Schleicker County Sheriff [Texas] David Doran, "who has developed a working relationship with leaders at YFZ Ranch while also receiving information from a confidential informant who is an ex-member of the sect." Asserting that the investigation was initiated based on "1 anonymous phone call" is less than factually correct based on what has been reported widely and publically (& cited multiple times w/in this thread). It wasn't one call & it wasn't anonymous. And it wasn't the only information on which the investigation began. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #118 April 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. How many phone calls does it take? And what if she does identify herself but her name is being withheld from press reports? How many phone calls? Well, I would say no phone call is justification to take someone's kids, especially an anonymous call. If that's the case I know how to get some seriously sick revenge on some old enemies. I'll just find a payphone somewhere or borrow a cell phone, make a few calls, and then watch and laugh when someone takes their kids. LOL. And you can bold all of the ALLEGATIONS that you want - that doesn't give your argument validity, as they are just allegations. Like I said, the hearings will be interesting indeed. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #119 April 17, 2008 QuoteIf I were a cop I would subpoena phone records and find the owner of that phone. Then I'd put that person in front of a judge and find out who this 16 year old girl was. Then, if she does in fact exist, I would arrest the man she implicates for rape, and start building a case based on my interrogation of him and testimony of the girl. I'm with this one. If we truly believe in PERSONAL responsibility and justice, we take crimes one at a time and get the criminals. We should imprison individuals, not groups. We aren't drones, we aren't in socialism, we aren't mobs. We are individuals in this country and the justice system is supposed to acknowledge that. Get the first guy, then we can work to see how his crime can also implicate others in some form of accomplice roles or even of similar crimes. That's the way to get everybody who is involved in criminal activity but not ruin those that weren't. Lots of analogies - pedophile priests, etc. What I don't know, is how much of that homework was done prior to the first arrest. So I can't say that 416 kids were protected based on evidence vs unfairly taken based on "1 anonymous phone call". The court case should be interesting. I hope the cops did their homework, or else shit will hit the fan and should. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #120 April 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, first of all, I wouldn't have taken 416 kids based on 1 anonymous phone call. How many phone calls does it take? And what if she does identify herself but her name is being withheld from press reports? How many phone calls? Well, I would say no phone call is justification to take someone's kids, especially an anonymous call. Again, the phone calls and prior information initiated the investigation, which may have been a requirement of Texas law when a minor makes a claim of sexual &/or physical abuse. If so, your issue should be with the law, not the claimant or the Texas law enforcement. The investigatory process included (but I'm highly doubtful was limited to) obtaining search warrants. Upon executing the search of the FLDS compound as part of the investigation, it has been reported that additional evidence of neglect, sexual, &/or physical abuse was obtained that prompted the removal of the children. One of the arrests thus far has been of an FLDS individual charged w/"tampering of evidence." QuoteIf that's the case I know how to get some seriously sick revenge on some old enemies. I'll just find a payphone somewhere or borrow a cell phone, make a few calls, and then watch and laugh when someone takes their kids. LOL. The problem is what you are describing is a specious analogy. Period. Where do you see *specifically* due process has been violated? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #121 April 17, 2008 Quote The problem is what you are describing is a specious analogy. Period. I think it's a valid analogy. Period. Quote Where do you see *specifically* due process has been violated? Well, for one thing the law states that each case should be handled individually, and that each child should have their own lawyer. That law is being ignored due to logistics by both the Attorney General and the judge. Other than that due process was ignored in nearly every aspect of this case. Take all the kids and then prove something later is the definition of violation of due process. I don't just throw the Bill of Rights out the window because "it's about the children!!!!!!" -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #122 April 17, 2008 Like I said - CIRCUS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/17/national/main4021790.shtml and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/17cnd-polygamy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #123 April 17, 2008 "Typically, each child would be given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, president-elect of the state bar. "You can't go one-by-one," Estes said." Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #124 April 17, 2008 Quote "Typically, each child would be given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, president-elect of the state bar. "You can't go one-by-one," Estes said." LOL. Yeah, evidently the president of the TX bar slept through that part of law school. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #125 April 18, 2008 Quote Quote "Typically, each child would be given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, president-elect of the state bar. "You can't go one-by-one," Estes said." LOL. Yeah, evidently the president of the TX bar slept through that part of law school. How do you propose that a man who has say...30 children be managed on a one-by-one basis with the children being the evidence against him? Particularly when the wives of the man will not testify, and cannot be compelled to testify against him? And when his children will not testify, and cannot be compelled to testify against him? Yet there is evidence that a 40 year old man impregnated a 14 year old girl. What do you propose be done? The state was faced with a Jim Jones/Guyana scenario. There are now 350 attorneys for 400+ children. What would you propose be done differently? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
