And as you know, these "sermons" describing physical abuse by the father are uploaded to the internet and publicly available to anyone who wants to listen to what he says. So that's not leaping to any conclusions. It's acknowledging his own words. No one here is accusing him of anything he hasn't already admitted to.
Yes because they have to justify the overwhelming fire power brought into it. It's a decision either made by the DA or an ADA. What I do find odd but not unbelievable is the age of his wife. He's 73, and she looks to be half his age. The children look like her but he's old enough to be a grandfather to the oldest and a great grandfather to the youngest. Still, why the multiple SWAT teams? I kind of feel that they may be frantic to find something to accuse them of and it is political. Not in the sense of right wing left wing maybe, but in the sense that DAs are politicians and losing or to be made to look foolish is not an option IMO.
Yes because they have to justify the overwhelming fire power brought into it. It's a decision either made by the DA or an ADA. What I do find odd but not unbelievable is the age of his wife. He's 73, and she looks to be half his age. The children look like her but he's old enough to be a grandfather to the oldest and a great grandfather to the youngest. Still, why the multiple SWAT teams? I kind of feel that they may be frantic to find something to accuse them of and it is political. Not in the sense of right wing left wing maybe, but in the sense that DAs are politicians and losing or to be made to look foolish is not an option IMO.
This is new information to me. Do you have a link? Are these still available?
Yeah, I agree. As an adult, I've kept my faith primarily because I understood how very little Jesus would've approved of the way children are sometimes treated by either communities or families who claim to be religious.
I don't like it when an issue like child abuse gets tangled up with other things. If a child is being hurt, it's a problem whether the parent is a fundamentalist Baptist, a staunch atheist, conservative or liberal or anything else. People don't get to be immune from accountability because of their social position, their religion, their race, their nationality, or anything else. Nor for that matter should anyone be assumed to be abusive because of some group they belong to. The only thing we ought to look at when we determine whether child abuse is happening, is whether the child is actually being abused.
A religious community should not have to hide an abuser. We should fight that attitude of insularity, of us-versus-them, because it creates a culture of being unable to trust authorities, of isolating children and families to the point that reporting abuse feels like the lesser of two evils.
I noticed today that Amazon sells joint pain relief that has MSM in it...I also didn't realize it's basically a solid form of DMSO. Something my folks used all the time for arthritis and joint pain growing up - but in California you had to buy it as a solvent, not a pain reliever. (I have no idea if that is still the case, the garlic smell always drove us out of the house as kids)
I agree that child abuse should not be tangled up with anything else. Each case must be evaluated on its own unique set of facts. My concern about this case is that armed police were engaged in the removal of small children from their home and their mother. I've seen no justification for such extreme measures.
JMO
In general I agree that the focus should be on the abuse rather than religion. However, there are some red flags that ought not be overlooked, either. Just as conditions like addiction or alcoholism may increase the likelihood (but not guarantee) of abuse or neglect, so too can religious or political extremism or social isolation. While any one of these factors alone would not likely constitute cause for a warrant, let alone removal, when viewed in combination with reports by neighbors, the response by the children that they believed that their parents were poised to take the family into hiding if given the chance and whatever things were actually observed on the premises (which would include the named chemical and possibly others, the recorded sermons on chastening, evidence to support possible educational neglect such as a lack of planned lessons or adequate curricula, perhaps guns that not properly stored to prevent access--all kinds of possibilities) certainly tend to be supportive of the original removal.
As to the firepower used, while alarming perhaps to the children (recalling that it is the father's report we are relying on here and it may be somewhat overstated), still looks to me like normal precautions given that there may well have been unknown chemicals on site (for the hydroponics--but could also have been utilized for explosives) and almost certainly there were firearms, even if only used for hunting. There is no way around the removal of children being an inherently volatile situation with many unknowns regarding a family. We can be grateful that all went smoothly during the process. Still we need to acknowledge that this was never a given.
BBM. Where do you get that the children said the parents were taking them into hiding?
JMO
I believe it was included in one of the news reports. However, Michelle also responded to it in her video. The two older children told investigators that if they were allowed to stay with their parents overnight while the investigation continued (presumably awaiting results of blood tests, etc) that their parents would flee with them. This was backed up by a well-stocked travel trailer.
If a "well stocked travel trailer" was the basis for the removal decision, this case really was a ridiculous over-reach of authority.
JMO
If a "well stocked travel trailer" was the basis for the removal decision, this case really was a ridiculous over-reach of authority.
JMO
There were multiple factors for concern which have been repeatedly discussed in this thread.
All I've seen is speculation about the factors, i.e., that the parents intended to flee and that they had a well-stocked travel trailer. NEITHER of those factors should be the basis for removal of children from their home.
JMO