52 Girls Removed From Texas Compound

I see you couldn't answer my previous question because you were being sensationalistic.

It's fine if they can prove something happened there.

But, they went under a false report.
They haven't found the caller. If they find the caller and it's someone who lied and wasn't a sixteen years old
The police and the church will owe them an apology.

They might be at fault, but I haven't seen any new developments in the case.
Why haven't they raided the compound before this supposed caller?

 

Perhaps they should have arrested the molesters, but left the children with their mothers. If this is all about the children, (doubtful) they have done poorly IMO.

 

I'd sure rather have a bunch of Christian folks in those Baptist vans, be the first contacts with these kids, than social workers and the parent for hire types in inmate work crew vans....

 

We don't know yet if it was a false report. The media seems to think it likely but when was the last time you took their opinion at face value? Duh!

Even if it were a hoax, the gov't had a duty to investigate fully. When they arrived they found multiple pregnant teenagers and some of those appeared to already be mothers. Just what does that imply to you. Someone was getting those girls pregnant and yes, even in the face of a hoax phone call, the gov't has a duty to investigate the possibility of child abuse.

 

hillclimber, I agree I would as well

 

If someone accuses you falsely that is lying and bearing false witness which are sins in the Bible. :wavey:

So, all anyone knows is the state of Texas raided them with the help of a Baptist church with no evidence. The caller still hasn't been found.

Why haven't they raided the compound before this supposed caller?

Why didn't they arrest the men and not the women and children?
What did they do? They messed up, the victims shouldn't be taken into custody.

The supposed criminals should have been arrested.

 

Fine. Let's have 13 and 14 year-old girls impregnated by men in their 50's...and defend the practice. Sheesh.

 

NO rbell, that is not proper.....misrepresenting the statements of another!
That is not what Scribe said or implied:

It is reasonable to expect that suspects are taken into custody:
It is reasonable to provide protection for the victims..... if that proves to be the case: Whether that constitutes removal from a place where provisions presumably were already provided and in place, to take the victims to a place or places where tax dollars are paying for their expenses, is a question to us who have no substantial knowledge with which to judge....other than to question according to our perception.

To answer the OP, yes, the first thing I saw was a picture of 'The First Baptist Church". First question pops to mind.... How are they connected with this?

For the separation of church and state crowd... I wonder, why didn't government fall back on its own equipment.... school buses, military transport? Was it the church that volunteered help or was request made of them......

AND IMO... if it was the church's voluntary help of providing buses.... it is a bad move: Published accross the nation, it gives a sub-liminal message to others....particularly the ones who are led by appearances and don't think deeper...."if you mess up... the church will help the government take you away.'
If the government asked the local churches for help......By what right did they have? I might feel a little differently, if the church's involvement was voluntary to provide temporary and secure shelter, food and rest for the victims. This is a slightly different matter of help without appearing to take sides in an issue which is still under investigation.

BTW, on national news tonight heard that some of their major funding came through/from a company who had a pricey contract with..........


guess..............


the Defense Department!



and.....



the DOD was unaware of an FBI file and investigation on some already connected with the compound and the contract.

--------------------------------

 

Finally someone else sees rebell for what he is thinly veiled. :wavey:

Again...
The caller still hasn't been found.

Why haven't they raided the compound before this supposed caller?

Why didn't they arrest the men and not the women and children?
What did they do? They messed up, the victims shouldn't be taken into custody.

The supposed criminals should have been arrested.

 

From the top:

No complaint, no raid. Just cause you and I don't approve of polygamy isn't enough for the gov't to step in. (why no one has prosecuted all involved for breaking polygamy laws is anyone's guess. That's where I would've started)

They didn't arrest the women or the children. The children were removed into protective custody upon suspicion of child abuse. The women left willingly and were allowed to stay with the children. (like women don't abuse children. Personally, I wouldn't have allow them to. Protective custody is just that protective from any and all in the previous environment who would've or could've caused harm.

The men weren't arrested because only one was accused of the abuse. He fled to a different state, where he has been questioned. (Let's no bring up the fact that he is a registered sex offender. You know prior bad acts don't have any bearing on this case).

 

If someone accuses you falsely that is lying and bearing false witness which are sins in the Bible. :wavey:

It is very common practice for the authorities to not show "all their cards" to the media and general public. It doesn't mean that they don't have more info than we are aware of. IMO, we're looking at a huge "gray area" issue. If abuse is involved, erring on the side of children's safety isn't a bad thing.

Furthermore...you have an issue with these folks being tried & convicted in the court of public opinion, it seems. I understand that.

But aren't you doing the same with the Baptist church that assisted? You don't know what information they were given. Maybe they were given more info than we were, and based on that, they decided to become involved.
__________________

See my above quote in response; also, keep in mind: just because the caller hasn't turned herself in does not negate the validity of the charges.

Finally, my handle here is rbell. If it was a typo, fine...but how 'bout using rbell instead of other derivatives? Thanks.

 

I wanted to put this in a separate post, so it would be seen.

I was wrong to imply that The Scribe does not care about the children's welfare.

We won't agree on some of the issues at this point, but my post was an unwarranted attack implying flaws in The Scribe's character that I have no right to make.

Scribe, you're a brother in the Lord and did not deserve that treatment from me. I offer you my apologies and ask for your forgiveness for my harsh words. I should be more "agreeable" in my "disagreement." My apologies to the BB as well, for my words and attitude.

God Bless. :thumbs: :wavey:

 

rbell,
You've made some good points.

Polygamy is unlawful, and children should not be sexually abused.

 

Thanks, I appreciate and accept your apology.

I do care about the children, but I want to see justice done the right way.

I apologies if any of my words were hurtful or offensive.