You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #12: As I would. There is a presumption of global guilt here [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. As I would. There is a presumption of global guilt here
that has no place in a fair prosecution of either the warrant or the removal of the children.

I know that this was not the best way to go after these people. I'm not being naive so much as cynical.

Nonetheless, this is the way the law works:

1. you have evidence or an accusation of misconduct
2. you investigate to find supporting evidence
3. you determine culpability of the parties involved
4. if sufficient evidence exists you prosecute the parties involved based on their level of culpability

Taking the boys away - what did that serve? Again, I am not defending them either. I strongly believe that the practice of religion should never trump the practice of civil rights, including the right to be free from religion.

A court order could as easily have been given FIRST requiring DNA testing, and all the stonewalling in the world couldn't refute that.

Finally though, if a 13 year old girl accuses her culture of marrying 13 year old girls and we know they don't marry earlier, then it is actually reasonable to assume that children much younger than 13 years old are in no "danger" at all.

This is Texas overreacting. I suspect the irrational thought was "if we raid them and they hole up like Jim Jones or Waco, at least we'll save the kids". The rational thought would be, Waco was stockpiling assault weaponry. Jim Jones was ex juris, until they killed a U.S. senator.

There is nothing at all in this group that indicated violence or reprisal, as was made quite evident in both the original raid and the interim. So if the problem is that they are marrying younger than the law allows, but not baby diddling, then the two "dangers" are not related.

Finally, there is also clear evidence that some community members broke no laws at all. Why should they be punished? If association is a good enough reason then I'm happy to round up the pagans for causing the jews, the jews for causing the catholics, the catholics for causing the protestants and the protestants for causing Jim Jones, Waco, and good Reverend Phelps, and all of them for causing me.

Oh crap there wouldn't be anyone left. :evilgrin:

:hi:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC