Sickening

jimpeel said:
It still requires a warrant and the party served must reasonably understand the charge, the cause of the warrant, and the consequences of giving evidence which could be used against them. A four-year-old child does not understand those tenets. Neither would a retarded person.
Click to expand...

They're not trying use evidence against the kids. Just finding out who their daddy is.

Are you for gathering evidence, even under warrant, from pesons who are unable to understand their rights? How about a reterded person? Are you willing to have evidence taken from a retarded person who does not understand their rights?
Click to expand...

If they needed to know who is the father of the retarded person I see nothing wrong with a swab.

Why on earth would you be against finding out who these kids parents are? That is pretty retarded.
 
jimpeel said:
Your problem is with comprehending the law as it was codified until 2005 in which a "little girl" -- as you put it -- was thirteen. Fourteen-year-olds could marry. Since that time a "little girl" is fifteen.
Click to expand...


I understand the law just fine Jim. If they're innocent there's nothing to worry about. Although you keep trying to declare them innocent before all the facts are in.
 
jimpeel said:
Under the tenets of the CHURCH, however, there is no crime as they are acting under their beliefs. If everyone there holds the same beliefs, and the Constitution states very clearly that the state shall not interfere with the exercise of religion, then what is the state doing taking these kids?
Click to expand...

If you belong to a church that believes in ritual sodomy of 5 year old boys you can bet your ass the state is going to interfere.

This church's "prophet" is a convicted sex offender, there is a bunch of evidence against other members yet you want to declare them innocent out of hand.

By the way, did you miss the part on what the church (Catholic) says about consent?
Click to expand...

Who cares?
 
jimpeel said:
By the way, did you miss the part on what the church (Catholic) says about consent?
Click to expand...

Your posts are always so long without actually saying anything that my eyes just kind of tend to glaze over. It's a lot like the comic strip "Cathy." It takes forever to read it and by the time you get to the end, the punchline isn't very funny.

I do wonder why what the Catholic church says about consent is important since the FLDS is a split off a church that's loosely halfway based on a split from the Catholic church.
 
jimpeel said:
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LAW HERE.
Click to expand...

The law says it's illegal to fuck an underage girl unless you're LEGALLY married to her. Either these people have been filing the paperwork at the county clerk-recorder's office to marry these 14-year-olds, which I doubt since they're taking on more than one wife which is illegal, or we're only talking about some of the law.
 
They're not trying use evidence against the kids. Just finding out who their daddy is.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Looking for evidence of a crime under false pretenses (no 16 year old girl), thusly breaking up the family is harmful to the kids.
Looking for evidence of a crime under false pretenses (no 16 year old girl) is bad for the 4th.

As for your other question....I don't care who the daddy is-they aren't using pulic funds.

Present evidence to a judge, get a warrant & arrest all the scumbags. Just don't do it under false pretenses. It's been several weeks & nobody is in jail & the familiy is still ripped apart.
 
The only people saying the kids are gettign dicked is the press.

NO CHARGES have been filed.
 
The state had no cause for warrants before the bs phonecall. Now, they're taking DNA & putting kids in state custody buit they haven't even filed frivolous charges? Something stinks here & it ain't the unwashed Branch Davidians wannabes.
 
2minkey said:
golly jim you've bent over so far backwards to defend an absurd point of view, that it's gonna require surgical intervention for you to be able to see the sun again.
Click to expand...

Yet you fail to answer the simple question: Besides the titles given the participants -- lover vs. spouse -- what is the difference between a multi-sexual relationship between many lovers under the consenting adults laws and a multi-sexual relationship between those who believe in polygamy?

There are the obvious:

Neither is registered with the state.

Both are non-monogamous.

One is legal, and the other is not, based merely on the titles of the participants.

One is religious and the other secular.

So what is the difference in these two types of multi-sexual relationships? Why are the religious criminals and the secular law abiding?
 
spike said:
They're not trying use evidence against the kids. Just finding out who their daddy is.



If they needed to know who is the father of the retarded person I see nothing wrong with a swab.

Why on earth would you be against finding out who these kids parents are? That is pretty retarded.
Click to expand...

I am against the Constitutional rights of these kids being violated for the "greater good". You are willing to run roughshod over them to get these people at any and every cost. You couldn't care less about their rights, or who gets hurt in the process, as long as your own moral indignation is assuaged.
 
spike said:
I understand the law just fine Jim. If they're innocent there's nothing to worry about. Although you keep trying to declare them innocent before all the facts are in.
Click to expand...

You are right. I am declaring them -- here and now for all to see -- as innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence before a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.

There. Does that satisfy you? Now, what are you going to formally and publicly declare?

I just declared what is the codified law of the land and the instructions given to every jury seated in a criminal case.

What say you?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Speak for yourself, pal.

Yet in a later post...

Med check time, Sparky.
Click to expand...

Try reading for comprehension. PLEASE!

The first post was reality. The second is my belief.

INKARA1 ASKED:

Two, since Lori and I aren't members of any particular religion, when we do get married, will it be invalid according to you?
Click to expand...

I ANSWERED:

No. Marriage is no longer a rite of religion; and that is what is lost on most people. It is a rite of the state and you only do so by their permission. You buy their document, you pay their fees, and they ALLOW you to marry. Without the document, and without the fee, they deny you their permission to marry.
Click to expand...

Try this. Go to your pastor and ask him to marry you. His first question will be "Do you have a marriage license?" If not, he cannot marry you. You do not need a new marriage license to REMARRY as you are already married and are merely restating your vows.

The first duty of your pastor after marrying anyone is to file the marriage license with the STATE not the church. Church records are handy but far from legal.

But go find yourself a pastor who WILL marry you without a state issued license and see if you are considered married for the purposes of the law -- wills, bank accounts, taxes, common property, real property, etc. Without the document from the state you are NOT considered married IN THE EYES OF THE LAW the same law you serve every day as a sworn officer.
 
spike said:
If you belong to a church that believes in ritual sodomy of 5 year old boys you can bet your ass the state is going to interfere.
Click to expand...

So now you have these people involved in "ritual sodomy of 5 year old boys" yet the authorities have declared that there has been no evidence of any sexual abuse whatsoever to the boys in custody.

You hate these people so much that you are willing to say, do, or believe anything to "get" them.

This church's "prophet" is a convicted sex offender, there is a bunch of evidence against other members yet you want to declare them innocent out of hand.
Click to expand...

They are innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence before a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.

Who cares?
Click to expand...

Yes, your personal moral indignation and hatred of these people and religion in general -- except Islam, of course -- trumps everything.
 
Inkara1 said:
The law says it's illegal to fuck an underage girl unless you're LEGALLY married to her. Either these people have been filing the paperwork at the county clerk-recorder's office to marry these 14-year-olds, which I doubt since they're taking on more than one wife which is illegal, or we're only talking about some of the law.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part in some of the stories which speaks of many of the marriages being monogamous? These poeple don't believe in the secular state or their records. They will go to their graves with those beliefs which are being strengthened with every act the state takes against them.

Again, an underage girl is a nebulous term depending on where you are standing at the moment you fuck her. In SC you can fuck a fourteen-year-old on Monday perfectly legally; and yet you can go to prison and end up on a sexual offender list for fucking a girl in CA the day before her eighteenth birthday on the following Friday.
 
so it almost sound like you are saying that it's okay to ignore the law if you disagree with it.

hold on... here it comes... lord siva the destroyer told me that paying income taxes to an earthly body such as the goverment is wrong... cha ching! tax exempt until they pry my wang out of my cold, dead fingers! yeeeeeah!

(as an aside... south carolina is fucked up. how come you're familiar with the law there, on this particular topic?)
 
2minkey said:
so it almost sound like you are saying that it's okay to ignore the law if you disagree with it.

hold on... here it comes... lord siva the destroyer told me that paying income taxes to an earthly body such as the goverment is wrong... cha ching! tax exempt until they pry my wang out of my cold, dead fingers! yeeeeeah!
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they are tax protestors on the level of Gordon Kahl. They render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.

(as an aside... south carolina is fucked up. how come you're familiar with the law there, on this particular topic?)
Click to expand...

Because I know how to look things up when in a discussion.

http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

Are you in favor of a consistent national age of consent law; and what age should that be?
 
i didn't say they are tax protesters either.

okay, let's rephrase. let us say that i form my own wacky branch of hinduism, but this time, we take our holy teachings from the extra arms on vishnu. those teachings include the taking of blanket boys, sorta like in the spartan military tradition. therefore this passionately held religious doctrine tells us to plook boys of no more than 12 years of age. that is the law! so sayeth vishnu's left middle arm! are you going to argue with my religion? is the plooking okay if the boys are born into it, as opposed to kidnapped... er, converted?

i'm not about to start a state's rights v fed argument, jimbo, but i do think south carolina is a little fucked up and i do think peoples should be at least 18 before they start fucking. one would think that most states would be smart enough to figure out some version of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top