Comments about ‘Texas Ranger says raid of Warren Jeffs' FLDS compound vindicated’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 11 2011 3:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
ClarkKent
Bountiful, Utah

"After viewing all the evidence, Long said there remains little doubt in his mind that the FLDS used religion as a pretext to run "an international criminal enterprise" that trafficked in young girls. He remains unconvinced that ranch residents have learned anything from the raid."

Then go after all the assets of the church undeer the RICO Act. This is the only way to finally bust up all of these abusers.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

"The call later turned out to be a hoax..."

Yes, Jeffs should be locked away for a long, long time--and in the general prison population.

Still, am I the only one that finds a raid based on a false call at all troubling?

But, I guess the end justifies the means, eh?

ClarkKent
Bountiful, Utah

Chris B, I don't find it troubling, so long as the police had no reason to believe the call was false at the time of the raid. Otherwise, the police would never be able to act on a call unless and until they could prove the call is not a hoax.

22ozn44ozglass
Southern Utah, UT

While I am all for prosecuting Jeff's and his ilk, the constitutional and civil rights of over 100 children and their parents were violated. As none of the male children were candidates for "marraige", there was no need to remove them from the home. It was also not necessary to remove all of the girls 8-10 yrs and younger. Babies who were still nursing and todlers were removed and separated from their care givers as well, and none of these groups of children were at imminent risk of being married(sexually abused)to anyone.

Futhermore, removing the perpetrators instead of the children would have resulted in much less trauma to the children and would have been best practice. Texas set in motion the dynamics for RAD in young children and did so without just cause.

By making this a CPS and Family Court matter, the rules of evidence are very lax compared to a district criminal court, and Texas used this fact as a way of getting the evidence that they did not have. In a strictly criminal case much of the evidence would not have been admissable

The Constitution was not honored and upheald in this raid

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The raid on the YFZ compound was based on lies, lies that were exposed as impossible as they were about to enter the compound.

They went in on false pretenses and were fully shown they were false at entry and still went in.

The people who they forcibly dragged away have all been returned.

The claim that imprisoning Jeffs vincdicates this action is hard to prove. It appears that one of the key items of evidence was already in government control as a result of the FBI having arrested Jeffs.

Others who have been imprisoned may have only been so on evidence from the unconstitutional raid, but Jeffs was not. We should not allow rights-trampling police to use this to sway us to giving them more rights to march on people with their jack-boots.

The ends do not justify the means. Arresting people involved in sexual-relations with minors is not good enough reason to abandon the constitution. It is better that criminals remain free than that our system becomes corrupted.

Gruffi Gummi
Logan, UT

@ClarkKent:

The authorities may and should act upon a "probable cause" warrant, but once the cause is proved bogus, then the evidence gathered as a result of the search should be ruled inadmissible.

Why? Because otherwise it would be possible for the authorities to arrange bogus reports and fabricate "probable causes" based on them, whenever they wanted. This would practically nullify the 4th Amendment.

In Jeffs' case, admitting the evidence collected during the raid was particularly troubling, because it wasn't necessary. There was the DNA evidence, totally sufficient to secure his conviction. So, why was the Constitution violated? "BECAUSE WE CAN, BECAUSE WE ARE THE OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT, AND YOU, SERFS, HAVE NO RIGHTS".

If I were a juror, I would vote "guilty" with regard to the charges supported by DNA, and "not guilty" to the charges based on unconstitutional evidence.Just to show my disapproval for both parties' actions.

DrUte
Woods Cross, UT

Interesting comments from non-Texans.

You probably have to have had some exposure to Texas and Texans in order to understand and appreciate their perspective.

That was a Captain of the Texas Rangers commenting in this article. In the eyes of law-abiding Texans this is a respected and revered public safety officer.

Having spent ten years in and around Tom Green County, I'm certain there is general acceptance of the modus operandi pursued by the Rangers, CPS, and the Texas state judicial system, just as I am also certain virtually the entire law-abiding local population feel Jeffs has had his day in court, and he could have or should have raised all of the defense arguments mentioned in the comments here.

The total jury deliberation time of 30 minutes speaks volumes.

Case closed: Life in prison, a dangerous deviant is off the streets, and Mr. Jeffs has received the judgment of his peers. In Texas, by Texans, for Texans.

From this point onward it's "no dinero", "no tequila", and certainly "no amor".

The message is supremely clear --- you just don't mess with Texas.

Well Read
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

To those responses who sound much like Jeff's followers I would suggest the Texas officials had no choice - they had to investigate the accusations. Once they entered the ranch and observed the young teens and pre-teens who were pregnant it did not matter if the call was bogus - they were bound by law to investigate and prosecute what they found at the ranch.

To ignore what was found and witnessed was not an option.

There is NO defense for what was found at the Ranch. Religion is a smoke screen used by the whole group of Jeff's followers. Religious freedom does not cover actions that are against the law.

Jim
Mesa, Az

When a CPS agency receives an referral regarding child abuse or maltreatment, they are duty bound to investigate. Investigations can be substantiated or unsubstantiated. However, that does not mean that an investigator ignores evidence outside of the referral as was the case in Texas. To say what they did was unconstitutional is absurd. It is like a policeman pulling over a driver for speeding and finding a dead body in the car. The dead body is not ignored because the policeman was only looking at speeding.

morpunkt
Glendora, CA

To all those who feel there was injustice to the Constitution, what if your own daughters were lured into that mess?

camotim
Council Bluffs, IA

Prosecution under RICO? Not under this administration. If FLDS can be prosecuted under RICO then can many islamic organizations which financially and otherwise support the incumbent president. Which really gulls the left as they have no problem with anything muslims do while condemning anything done by those who might even be called Christian in the most grevious of error.

Tom Smith
Sandy, UT

If "Texas Law" is so deviant from United States Constitutional law, then Texas needs to either succeed from the Union or be censured by the 49 other States. This kind of law and reasoning just doesn't fit with the rest of the Union.

ShereeK
WASHINGTON, UT

I believe it is a misconception that young teenage girls are "trafficked" or "recruited" to the FLDS, there is no need. They have PLENTY of their own children. I believe the raid was constitutional whether the impetus for it was a hoax or not. We have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Evidence taken in the raid should be legitimate given the legal protection rights of children. I feel child porn should be treated in the same manner. It is wrong to exploit our little children under any "religous" guise. Would it be any different if someone started the "Church of Child Sexual Exploitation" and expect that to be protected under religous freedom? If so - I am moving.

cherryH
LOS ANGELES, CA

Warren Jeffs was sentenced to prison for life for his crimes after being found guilty recently of sexual assault. It will be at least 35 years until Jeffs is eligible for parole. Resource for this article: Warren Jeffs given life sentence for crimes against children. He should have think twice before he made those acts that led him to imprisonment.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

We sound like Jeffs followers because we say "the ends do not justify the means" and "protecting the constitution is more important than sending one criminal to jail". I think some people need to improve reading comprehension skills.

The think about freedoms is that they need to apply to those who we do not like, otherwise if people decide they do not like what we are doing, what will defend us?

Texas is part of the United States, which means that the government is supposed to respect the 4th admendment. The heavy-handed attitude of the rangers and the "don't mess with Texas" chanters tells me that the courts need to take a long and hard look at the ways rights are being trampled on by the government of Texas.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

No the real question is if a hoax call can get these children taken away, then how can you and your family act as if they are safe when a hoax call could just as easily take away your own children.

If CPS is "duty bound" to investigate every call, even if it clearly originates in another state, than we need to change the operating rules for CPS so they adhere to the constitution.

Transaction7
Commerce, Texas

I dont know who made the actually or allegedly false report to CPS. That is a crime, but, in this case, no jury would convict.

CPS is required to investigate any and all reports of serious abuse. Just between you and me, they, and the local authorities to whom they refer these, dont, even with the most solid evidence of sexual abuse, and the courts drop the ball on others CPS determines are real.

Once the investigating officer discovers evidence of a crime while executing a legitimate warrant, the fact that the report that led to that warrant turns out to have been untrue is legally irrelevant as the officer is entitled to rely on a warrant. You dont need a warrant to notice that a group contains a striking number of pregnant underage girls and investigate the situation anyway.

Three cheers for the Texas Rangers!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments