Court: Texas Had No Right To Take Polygamists’ Kids
You know, I could have told them that a month ago … Oh, WAIT!!! I DID!!!
I have a strong hunch this ‘government intervention’ is quite possibly gonna cost the State Of Texas some serious pesos …
SAN ANGELO, Texas - A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect’s ranch.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were “legally and factually insufficient” under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children.
Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators.
The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings.
(AP)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
I HATE to say this….. I want these child molesters locked up forever.
BUT
If the information that led to the discovery of the crimes in question were found to be fraudulant….
It is illegal search and seizure and goes against EVERYTHING in the 4th Amendment of the constitution…
What do we do?
Do we throw away the constitution or do we let them go and obtain information to prosecute them at a later date?
Its a tough one…
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 amIf you read the decision, you would see it’s a complete piece of garbage. The “fruit of the poisonous tree 4th amendment argument” isn’t what they relied on to make this decision, either (that the initial phone call was fraudulent). The fruit of the poisonous tree doesn’t apply because the lady who made the initial call was not a police agent. They stipulate in the decision that the girls were sexually abused. But they say that doesn’t prove they were in physical danger. They say sexual abuse isn’t physical danger. If sexual abuse isn’t physical, what is it? And if it isn’t danger, what is it? The abuser should know that it’s danger in my book, because if they touch my daughter, I’m going to shoot them until I’ve used up every bullet in my gun.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 am