Time to stop defending the FLDS

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think Waters has some weird feeling of affinity with the group.

I remember he once said something about considering himself a gnostic Mormon. Maybe this is what he meant.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think Waters has some weird feeling of affinity with the group.

I would think that many Mormons with polygamy "in their veins" did. I think that was part of my sympathy; that in a way these were our crazy distant cousins. Odd bunch, but who are we to judge. My wife, a convert, had no sympathy at all and was horrified by my push back.

With the latest revelations, she wins and I let her know that this morning.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I would think that many Mormons with polygamy "in their veins" did. I think that was part of my sympathy; that in a way these were our crazy distant cousins. Odd bunch, but who are we to judge. My wife, a convert, had no sympathy at all and was horrified by my push back.

With the latest revelations, she wins and I let her know that this morning.

I have polygamous ancestors. I'm sure I have all kinds of strange and freaky even nasty ancestors by present standards. I never felt any affinity with FLDS.

[MikeWaters]

I'm waiting for the evidence. I'm waiting for hearings. I'm waiting to here from the defense.

Strange concept I know, in this age of Gitmo and waterboarding and global warrantless surrveillance.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The two articles I have read on this latest revelation have both been surprisingly brief. That seems odd given that it would appear to vindicate the Texas officials. I do recall that early in the investigation they discovered that one of the "young teens" was actually 22 years old. Without the benefit of birth certificates, how are they determining age on these girls? Does anyone know? How solid is this evidence?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The two articles I have read on this latest revelation have both been surprisingly brief. That seems odd given that it would appear to vindicate the Texas officials. I do recall that early in the investigation they discovered that one of the "young teens" was actually 22 years old. Without the benefit of birth certificates, how are they determining age on these girls? Does anyone know? How solid is this evidence?

It is odd nobody cares about the evidence, just the news media allegations.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The two articles I have read on this latest revelation have both been surprisingly brief. That seems odd given that it would appear to vindicate the Texas officials. I do recall that early in the investigation they discovered that one of the "young teens" was actually 22 years old. Without the benefit of birth certificates, how are they determining age on these girls? Does anyone know? How solid is this evidence?

Like I said before: officials said they couldn't determine ages. Now they say they can, but offer no explanation.

All this in the context of increased heat on them in the form of public scrutiny.

I'll wait until the evidence is in.

All the rest of you can form a lynch mob.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Like I said before: officials said they couldn't determine ages. Now they say they can, but offer no explanation.

All this in the context of increased heat on them in the form of public scrutiny.

I'll wait until the evidence is in.

All the rest of you can form a lynch mob.

You have to admit Mike. You have to be suspicious of any group that adheres to having old men tell the followers how to dress.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm waiting for the evidence. I'm waiting for hearings. I'm waiting to here from the defense.

Strange concept I know, in this age of Gitmo and waterboarding and global warrantless surrveillance.

What evidence would change it for you? This is pretty major evidence.

I had a client a couple years ago who was really upset because he believed the police were unfairly singling him out and picking on him. He kept telling me over and over he didn't understand how they could charge him when they had "no evidence."

I would always say, you mean except for the witnesses who say they saw the drug transaction go down, then saw you running down the street firing your 9mm while chasing two other guys. He would always say, but they're lying and no one ever found a gun.

What he was really saying was, there is no evidence that I can't deny. Even if the gun showed up he would say its not his. If there were finger prints he would have said he was framed.

He had gotten so committed to the idea that the police were screwing him (because they believed the witnesses) that no piece of evidence to the contrary could ever be assimilated into the narrative he had created for himself.

We are all waiting for more evidence Mike. That is why there are review hearings. But those of us not feeling either disdain for the government or sympathy for the FLDS are taking an objective look and saying "it certainly looks bad, I'm glad they have pulled the kids out of that mess while they sort through this." You've got your fingers in your ears.

[MikeWaters]

The govt. officials themselves said that they removed boys because they could be future predators.

The law says "immiment danger".

I believe in following the law.

You're a lawyer right? What does "imminent" mean? Do you have a dictionary in your law library?

Civil libertarians are never popular. Most people want their liberties taken away.