Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been watching some news videos as well as Larry King videos in which the FLDS women were being interviewed. I keep hearing the mantra of "We want our children back, they took away our children" over and over again. When asked point-blank if the sect believes in marrying young, underage girls to older men, that question is evaded and the mantra (above) continues. When asked by Larry King if this goes on (spiritual marriages of underage girls to older men), they paused, and the first woman didn't say anything. When Larry King asked the question again and clarified it by saying, "It doesn't happen or it doesn't happen to your knowledge?", the woman then responded: "Not to my knowledge". When Larry King pursued the same question with the two other women up front, they also hesitated, and then repeated the same thing. They seem to be pleading ignorance. Is this a legal defense that the FLDS can use, seriously? It seems to me that the proof is in the pudding, meaning that pregnancy has been observed in the girls that were evacuated. Not only were they currently pregnant, but also many already have young children, babies, toddlers. Does it take Einstein to figure out that these girls were indeed impregnated and had children (and continue to have children) as teen-agers? Did anyone notice the fact that there are no teen-age young men or young men at all, that the men at this compound are older men? Does this make sense to anyone? It seems that the women in front of the news camera are crying one thing, but the evidence points to a whole different picture; that of statutory rape.
I've been watching some news videos as well as Larry King videos in which the FLDS women were being interviewed. I keep hearing the mantra of "We want our children back, they took away our children" over and over again. When asked point-blank if the sect believes in marrying young, underage girls to older men, that question is evaded and the mantra (above) continues. When asked by Larry King if this goes on (spiritual marriages of underage girls to older men), they paused, and the first woman didn't say anything. When Larry King asked the question again and clarified it by saying, "It doesn't happen or it doesn't happen to your knowledge?", the woman then responded: "Not to my knowledge". When Larry King pursued the same question with the two other women up front, they also hesitated, and then repeated the same thing. They seem to be pleading ignorance. Is this a legal defense that the FLDS can use, seriously? It seems to me that the proof is in the pudding, meaning that pregnancy has been observed in the girls that were evacuated. Not only were they currently pregnant, but also many already have young children, babies, toddlers. Does it take Einstein to figure out that these girls were indeed impregnated and had children (and continue to have children) as teen-agers? Did anyone notice the fact that there are no teen-age young men or young men at all, that the men at this compound are older men? Does this make sense to anyone? It seems that the women in front of the news camera are crying one thing, but the evidence points to a whole different picture; that of statutory rape.
they are not pleading ignorance, they know that if they confess to a tv camera, that the confession can be used against them in a court of law.
"Not to my knowledge" that it may or may not be happening is legal defense.
"Not to my knowledge" that it may or may not be against the law, is not a legal defense.
they are not pleading ignorance, they know that if they confess to a tv camera, that the confession can be used against them in a court of law.
"Not to my knowledge" that it may or may not be happening is legal defense.
"Not to my knowledge" that it may or may not be against the law, is not a legal defense.
Exactly. DH and I were watching that interview carefully and it was QUITE obvious these women have been coached (and yes, they are represented by legal counsel - so they have definitely been coached).
We decided their answers were along the lines of Clinton's- "Depends on what the definition of is, is."
They were asked about underage marriage - "I would never consent to that." DH laughed. All that means is - the women had no voice in whether or not their daughters were grabbed up and raped.
And another one: "there is no evidence of that." Well, DUH. They don't keep records!!! How can you even prove a birth if it takes place on a compound, behind closed walls, and no birth certificate is issued by the state?
Pretty ludicrous. They are fooling no one. I feel for these women b/c they are brainwashed zombies.
It also depends on what they feel underage marriage is...to them 14 or 15 might be ok so to them their answer may be truthful. Also, I'm sure that not all of these women were raped. If they are raised to believe that getting married at the age of 15 and having babies is normal I'm sure some of them were bound to believe that it was OK. I only feel empathy if the women were imprisoned there; I'm sure some of the women rather enjoy their lifestyle.
It also depends on what they feel underage marriage is...to them 14 or 15 might be ok so to them their answer may be truthful. Also, I'm sure that not all of these women were raped. If they are raised to believe that getting married at the age of 15 and having babies is normal I'm sure some of them were bound to believe that it was OK. I only feel empathy if the women were imprisoned there; I'm sure some of the women rather enjoy their lifestyle.
You make a very good point. I do think that it all has to do w/ what they are taught and are raised to believe.
It's a horrible situation in the eyes of today's society but there was a time in our relatively young country when being married by 15 was not at all uncommon and being single at 22 was spinsterish. To some degree it's different strokes for different folks...
That being said, we as a society have developed laws we feel are "correct". Pedophilia is abhorrent to most of us these days but it was commonplace in many countries though out history. At then end of the day, no matter what you believe you are bound by the laws of the society where you reside it's sort of irrelevant whether they enjoyed it, went willingly or by force. When the law says "no" you're obligated to abide by that or potentially face the consequences of your actions.
The FLDS community is not above the law and in this case ignorance is not a defense as it's impossible that people living in such close proximity could remain unaware of what was happening around them.
Azbo, I agree. They most likely were aware of certain illegal acts. However, if someone didn't subject their own children to that sort of abuse then they shouldn't have their children taken away. Perhaps "failure to report a crime" or some type of law would apply...
Azbo, I agree. They most likely were aware of certain illegal acts. However, if someone didn't subject their own children to that sort of abuse then they shouldn't have their children taken away. Perhaps "failure to report a crime" or some type of law would apply...
I think we will see that many of these children and mothers are re-united - if not all of them. It is the men they are going after.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
