Due process concerns for the FLDS situation

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Wow, I knew it was easy to get into law school, but I didn't know it was that easy.

The point is that the law specifies what is required to take a child away, even on a temporary basis (btw, how long do you think "temporary" is?). I provided the criteria, and for the vast majority, the one that was applies is "immediate danger."

The argument that a 6 month old boy is being groomed to be a rapist, and therefore needs to be taken away from his parents under the criteria of "immediate danger" boggles my mind.

This due process only in appearance. Yes, there was a warrant, yes there was a judge, yes there was a hearing. At the very least, the hearing was only pro forma.

Any bets on how long "temporary" custody by the state is going to be? If my 6 month old was taken away for a year or two, that would be an incredibly long time.

This is crazy. Punish those that have committed crimes. Do not punish people that have not committed crimes. It's as simple as that.

There is reasonable ground for disagreement here, Mike. You just haven't located that ground yet. It would appear that you are at your saturation point on this issue in terms of learning anything new. Whether that is a personality or intellectual limitation I have no clue.

I have no doubt you can smoke me on conducting studies of things like whether water is wet, fire is hot, or clouds are fluffy, but you are just plain out of your depth on this one.

[MikeWaters]

Trust me, I make decisions about imminent danger before a judge a lot more than you. You probably no times, or a few times. Me, hundreds of times.

Additionally I've testified in court as to imminent danger. I have some knowledge about it.

You on the other hand trumpet your training/knowledge while providing no direct counterpoint to what I've said. It's your own version of an ad hominem.

But since I'm feeling generous, I'll give you some advice. Don't use the flash on your camera when taking a closeup of a toddler from 3 feet away. It blows out the picture.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

There is reasonable ground for disagreement here, Mike. You just haven't located that ground yet. It would appear that you are at your saturation point on this issue in terms of learning anything new. Whether that is a personality or intellectual limitation I have no clue.

I have no doubt you can smoke me on conducting studies of things like whether water is wet, fire is hot, or clouds are fluffy, but you are just plain out of your depth on this one.

Dan, I am enjoying this debate immensely. But I am disappointed with your response here. Sure, we aren't all legal experts. Why not enlighten us? Mike seems to be asking some good questions.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Trust me, I make decisions about imminent danger before a judge a lot more than you. You probably no times, or a few times. Me, hundreds of times.

Additionally I've testified in court as to imminent danger. I have some knowledge about it.

You on the other hand trumpet your training/knowledge while providing no direct counterpoint to what I've said. It's your own version of an ad hominem.

But since I'm feeling generous, I'll give you some advice. Don't use the flash on your camera when taking a closeup of a toddler from 3 feet away. It blows out the picture.

If all that is true, then I find it remarkable that nothing sunk in during that process. You have displayed very little knowledge about this throughout and now claim that you have been through it hundreds of times. Hmm. I guess people can come to their own conclusions about that claim.

I think I have very directly said how you get to the idea of imminent danger and that the standard is different when we are talking about a temporary hearing. I have also granted that you can hold the opinion that you disagree with how the judge interpreted the facts she was presented with. The only reason you are getting an ad hominem attack is because you suggested my ignorance by asking me what law school I attended. Again Mike, you are out of your depth on the legal analysis and you have made it plain you don't intend to listen. Now your claims are getting wildly more fantastic. You just let me know when you're done embarrassing yourself.

Oh, and the overexposure of the photograph is what makes it cute. It wasn't intentional, but I like how it turned out.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Dan, I am enjoying this debate immensely. But I am disappointed with your response here. Sure, we aren't all legal experts. Why not enlighten us? Mike seems to be asking some good questions.

Mike picked this fight with me by insulting me Jeff. I think you will find that I have responded reasonably to others including you.

[MikeWaters]

I'm seriously unimpressed with your statements as well (I can't call them arguments, because you really have none).

You challenged someone to provide an instance of the failure of due process.

I have written on that lack of due process. Many people here have the same concerns as me, regarding the things I wrote about.

Since you can't respond to my specific examples and arguments, then what are you doing in my thread?

Btw, I will admit that it is not fair to say that a person's schooling is the explanation for their ignorance and inability to reason. The admissions process is not perfect. I hope this mollifies your feelings.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Mike picked this fight with me by insulting me Jeff. I think you will find that I have responded reasonably to others including you.

Yes, you certainly have responded reasonably to me. And yes, he insulted you. And you have insulted him back, multiple times. I am just hoping that some rational debate breaks out during the fight. Because I am genuinely interested in the legal issues here.

[MikeWaters]

See the difference here is that I use both arguments and insults. Some people here only use insults.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm seriously unimpressed with your statements as well (I can't call them arguments, because you really have none).

You challenged someone to provide an instance of the failure of due process.

I have written on that lack of due process. Many people here have the same concerns as me, regarding the things I wrote about.

Since you can't respond to my specific examples and arguments, then what are you doing in my thread?

Btw, I will admit that it is not fair to say that a person's schooling is the explanation for their ignorance and inability to reason. The admissions process is not perfect. I hope this mollifies your feelings.

My feelings aren't hurt Mike. I have answered you and you haven't understood it. I'm not sure there is any getting beyond that.

[MikeWaters]

No you haven't. You have said the bar is lower for this temporary custody hearing. This is the bar that would allow theoretical abuse 15 years from now to be enough reason to take away an infant from his/her mother.

In my opinion, any reasonable reading of the statute, as I understand it, would not allow for this.