...any man that lived there, knew what was going on. As far as I'm concerned, even if that person wasn't guilty of being a pedophile, their guilty by association.
How come all you see in the news story's is mostly women.
I've only seen one man that was at the ranch that was willing to be interviewed.
...the ''dads'' ... Like to see some of them stand in front of a camera and explain how they had 4 bride's, and the oldest one was 15 when she was married.
gypsyman
Okay, some more thoughts on this issue that gypsyman brought up. I know the questions you asked were probably rhetorical, but your thoughts apply to not only the TX group in question, but anyone in any location or particular situation. IF a crime has been committed, and IF any number of people had knowledge of the commission of that crime, then it is possible that every such person is guilty of something. I say this because most/all states have laws covering this circumstance. Therefore, ALL involved could face criminal charges IF the illegal act is discovered and therefore they should exercise their rights starting NOW! This is about as close to your guilt by association as you can come.
Or it is possible that NO illegal act has been committed but people, for some reason, are brought to the attention of a charging authority who believes that a violation may have occurred. Likewise in this case, as soon as it comes to a person's attention that he is being looked at with respect to the commission of a crime, he should exercise his rights.
Why? Because nothing has been proved at this point, a crime has only been alleged, and the actors in either situation enjoy the protections of our Constitution. Whether they are ultimately adjudged to be guilty or not guilty, or what your opinion of them is, is not even worthy of consideration at this point.
GEEEESE!!!
I'm trying to be brief, but it's REAL hard!
Some more pattern jury charges that may help with relation to the above scenarios and your questions.
1. The defendant is
presumed innocent until
proven guilty. It seems this is a concept that many have a hard time getting their head around. Where are you guys when I pick a jury?!
2. No person shall be convicted of any crime unless and until each element of the crime is
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3.
The burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged.
4.
There is no burden of proof upon the defendant whatever, and
the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove his innocence.There is one other commonly used charge that is directly related to the question at hand. This charge is based in part on the 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ..." Therefore the judge tells the jury that the defendant does not have to testify because the burden is upon the state to prove his guilt and they should not draw any inference based on the defendant's failure to testify. Of course, the 5th is also the basis for the Miranda Warning "right to remain silent."
With this basis maybe we can answer gypsyman's post.
1)
"any man that lived there, knew what was going on. As far as I'm concerned, even if that person wasn't guilty of being a pedophile, their guilty by association." Then any person that lived there and knew of any law that had been broken should also understand that they may become involved in a criminal investigation.
2)
How come all you see in the news story's is mostly women. See 1) above. The men were being investigated. And even though the failure to report a crime, conspiracy to commit or whatever charge would also apply to the women of the compound, everyone is thinking of men having sex with girls and these are just mothers trying to get their children back.
3)
...the ''dads'' ... Like to see some of them stand in front of a camera and explain how they had 4 bride's, and the oldest one was 15 when she was married. Why would they want to? (a) They don't have to justify or explain anything to anyone like you or me. (b) If it's a government agency doing the asking, our Constitution protects us from having to make any statement.
Lets say you live in DC and you have your great gran-daddy's muzzle loader that he used in the war of northern aggression to beat back the invading yankee hoards. Being rightfully proud of your heritage, the rifle, bayonet attached, is prominently displayed where anyone
inside your home can see it. One of your children's friends see it and tells his mother, who happens to be the chairperson of the neighborhood "Expand the Brady Bill" committee, about the "neat rifle that was used in the war and it's got a bayonet and everything" displayed in your house. In a rage that her innocent little darling was exposed to such a death dealing device she goes to your house loaded with lectures and demands based on her personal opinions and an incomplete understanding of the facts. You tell her to take a hike and shut the door in her face. See (a) above.
Even madder now, she calls the DC Police Hot Line and anonymously informs the authorities that you have an "assault rifle" in your home. Officer Friendly appears at your door and tells you about the tip and asks to come in and check out the weapon so that he can "help you" make sure there is no violation of the law or take care of any violation there may be before "this goes any further." You tell him to take a hike and shut the door in his face. See (b) above.
You will notice that we haven't even mentioned anything about whether or not the rifle was functional or whether or not your possession of the rifle complied with DC law. In other words, all this is going on and nobody really knows if a law was violated. But an anti-gun activist wants to see you punished because you obviously, although she has only heard stories, exemplify what she hates.
(As an aside: I should hope Officer Friendly wouldn't have shown up with a search warrant in hand at this time,
see the 4th Amendment, but unfortunately I have seen things... )
Your questions involved just a couple of our rights but they ALL should be jealously protected! If we didn't have them, in our scenario the anonymous tip would have lead to the breaking in of our door in the middle of the night and our being hauled off, never to be heard from or seen again.
I could go on and on and on and on, but I will not; now or hopefully ever again on the forum, for a number of reasons:
First, I'm here for fun. This stuff is much to serious to be treated lightly or discussed in a few words as I have attempted to do here.
Second, this is what I do for a living. I can't remember when I've spent this much time writing something for FREE!
Third and lastly, Someone could take my rantings as legal advice or an explanation of the law in general or as it applies to a particular circumstance of theirs. It is
not and should
not be considered as such by anyone. It is merely my pontificating and anyone who relies in any way on anything I have said here does so at their own peril. If you need legal advice contact a lawyer who practices in your jurisdiction.
