AR - Fully-Armed Sheriffs Remove 7 Homeschool Children from 'Prepper' Family

[Kimster]

Don't get personal. :nono: Use the alert feature if someone is out of line. :tyou:

 

[Margo/Mom]

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.

This is new information to me. Do you have a link? Are these still available?

 

[Margo/Mom]

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.

I suspect that the firepower was warranted based on the suspicion that the family might be armed, and possibly desperate. In the best of cases, domestic disputes and be very volatile, with family members turning on LE.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

I've thought it was politically motivated from the beginning. The Sheriff is newly elected.

JMO

 

[MsFacetious]

This is new information to me. Do you have a link? Are these still available?

Sermons are linked at the beginning of the thread:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...mily&p=11425780&highlight=sermon#post11425780

 

[chaotic_idealism]

Their religious outlook is so normal in their neighborhood that it's probably pretty close to irrelevant to their case, except possibly as a cover or rationalization for what's going on in the home. The question isn't whether they're religious or conservative; the question is whether they mistreated those kids. If we conclude that abuse was going on in that home, that's not the same thing as assuming the abuse was due to religion. When abuse happens in religious households, it gets flavored with religion, but it's still abuse and it's done for all the usual reasons--parents who don't care, parents who want to dominate their kids, parents who just have a mean streak and need someone small and vulnerable to take it out on.

 

[daisytrail]

I want to say a special thanks to you, chaotic_idealism, for the courage that you have shown in recounting your experiences. Aspects of your experiences match mine. We are not only intellect but also our emotions, and what we felt during our childhoods about how our parents treated us should never be invalidated. There is a conspiracy of either silence or defensiveness around parental misdeeds. Some people think it is disrespectful to speak out about parental mistreatment, that it is disloyal. That is an attitude with which I strongly disagree. Abuses of the power that parental authority (and the societal cover-up, let us say) should always give way to a just evaluation by the child. Children should have their voices heard. It is sad that so many have to grow up to feel safe to speak.

 

[chaotic_idealism]

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.

 

[MyBelle]

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 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.

No religious community is allowed to hide an abuser. The Catholic Church most certainly was not allowed to do that nor should any other religious community. I've seen no evidence that has happened in this case. The children were removed without any religious community interference.

JMO

 

[Backwoods]

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 believe that MSM and MMS are two very different substances, aren't they?

 

[Margo/Mom]

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.

 

[MyBelle]

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?

I highly doubt it is "normal" to utilize two law enforcement agencies to remove children from their home. I'm relying on the news media reports that two law enforcement agencies participated. None of them reported it was a volatile situation. That many officers was unnecessary.

JMO

 

[sweetheart29]

Two law enforcement agents could have been 4 police office and with that many kids they would need 3 or four cars to move them. Asuming that no kids were in the front seat and only two in the back seat.

 

[Margo/Mom]

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.

 

[MyBelle]

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

 

[BeginnersLuck]

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.

 

[TrackerSam]

If a "well stocked travel trailer" was the basis for the removal decision, this case really was a ridiculous over-reach of authority.

JMO

ITA. Have they been charged with anything? Are they under arrest? We have control of your children, if you ever hope to get them back you will agree to our terms.

 

[forthelost]

They were apparently discussed at the hearing, which none of us saw.

 

[MyBelle]

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

 

[808paradise]

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

With all due respect, the Judge issued a gag order. We will probably never know what all the factors are. It seems though, that whatever they were, they were enough for DSHS, LE and the Judge to all agree to remove the children.