Springs woman arrested for false reporting in raid

[lily]

I had a feeling that something was just not right with that phonecall (http://kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8192184&nav=menu580_1)



Springs woman arrested for false reporting in raid

Authorities were looking for who they thought was a 16-year-old girl that
tipped them off saying she was forced to marry a 50-year-old man at a
polygamist compound in Texas.

Authorities couldn't find that girl and now we may know why.

A Colorado Springs woman was arrested on charges of false reporting to
authorities and is being investigated for her alleged involvement in the
call that tipped authorities off to possible abuse at the Texas polygamist
compound.

Police say they arrested 33-year-old Rozita Swinton at her home on
Wednesday. The Texas Rangers were in Colorado Springs apparently as part of
their investigation involving the compound in Texas.

They left and have not filed any charges on Swinton and the Colorado Springs
Police spokesman said he could not discuss any aspects of the Texas case.

Our sister station KMGH in Denver found out that this is not the first time
Swinton has been arrested on charges of making false reports to authorities.
According to records the charge against Swinton was made in connection to
calls received by police in February indicating she was 13 years old and
trapped in a basement-- all a lie.

[Go Fish]

Who the Hell does she think she is? Breaking up a child rape-ring like that?
Did they give an address where I can send a check for her defense fund?

[lily]

Fish, that really isn't the point........the warrant was made on that phone call.

[Pookie]

That doesn't surprise me at all. But now what's going to happen?
Wonderful.
Purrs,
Pookie

[ScareCrow]

I've been saying this since day one, I never believed this phone call was legit and have criticized the authorities for not checking the legitimacy of the call first.

Who the Hell does she think she is? Breaking up a child rape-ring like that?
Did they give an address where I can send a check for her defense fund?Honestly I'm surprised at you GoFish. As a conservative I would think you would be one of the first wanting the constitutional rights of these people protected first and foremost.

Were these people breaking the law, most likely but they are still afforded the same constitutional rights as every other citizen in the United States. Simply breaking the law isn't enough, there has to be enough probable cause to issue a warrant.

I really shouldn't have to post this but I will just in case there are ignorant people reading this,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seizedThe above certainly wasn't followed in this case.

[Buck Laser]

This is disturbing. I think the fundamentalist LDS folks are loonies, but it seemed plausible that major sexual abuse was going on. We really have to wonder what's going on here. It may yet turn out that the girls were abused, in which case the cops were justified in going in. In my view, protection of the rights of children trumps freedom of religion.

I'm gonna wait and see what comes of this before I get on my soapbox.

[Go Fish]

I don't care if Jeffery Dahmer made the call. No one really thinks that those poor little rape victims are going to returned to the control of those sick fucks who may or may not have a legitimate case, do you?
It isn't like everyone within 300 miles of that place didn't know that child molestation was going on. Get real. That's like having a fenced-in Muslim compound of that size and not knowing that there was jihad going on. Unh-huh.
How's this? Nobody else was successful in stopping the sexual abuse of children until this "criminal" bullshitted the cops into shutting it down. I'll send the check. Hopefully she has a list of names of the people she talked to over the years who blew her off, because they are de facto accomplices in every one of those rapes.
And to think: Cindy Sheehan hasn't even been quoted on this yet.

[lily]

Fish......you can stand on your soapbax and preach.........but it still doesn't change the fact that the phone call that prompted the warrant was fake......this is going to change the whole thing. They wanted to go in and raid them......they didn't care. You can't do that in the United States....even Texas.

You're acting like all 416 or 460 children, depending on which paper you are reading were raped and abused......and that just isn't true. You may not like their religion, but freedom of religion is tolerated here in the United States and again.......even Texas. If laws were broken, I'm sure they will be prosecuted.......but unless I'm wrong, all information seized is now no good. I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

[Go Fish]

Fish, that really isn't the point........the warrant was made on that phone call.

If I knew that 12 year-olds were being raped, I'd have lied, too.

[ScareCrow]

I don't care if Jeffery Dahmer made the call. No one really thinks that those poor little rape victims are going to returned to the control of those sick fucks who may or may not have a legitimate case, do you?
It isn't like everyone within 300 miles of that place didn't know that child molestation was going on. Get real. That's like having a fenced-in Muslim compound of that size and not knowing that there was jihad going on. Unh-huh.
How's this? Nobody else was successful in stopping the sexual abuse of children until this "criminal" bullshitted the cops into shutting it down. I'll send the check. Hopefully she has a list of names of the people she talked to over the years who blew her off, because they are de facto accomplices in every one of those rapes.
And to think: Cindy Sheehan hasn't even been quoted on this yet.

So you are saying the 4th amendment means nothing to you? I see, the Constitution is only good when it supports your viewpoint, otherwise it's as worthless as used toilet paper.

[Go Fish]

So you are saying the 4th amendment means nothing to you? I see, the Constitution is only good when it supports your viewpoint, otherwise it's as worthless as used toilet paper.

As I understand things, you wouldn't violate the constitution to prevent a little girl from being raped by an old man. Thanks for admitting that in a public forum. That's easily the sickest thing I've heard in years.

[Phyxius]

No you're not. You're going to wait until somebody tries to make this President Bush's fault. You're more worried about the rapists' civil rights than the welfare of those poor little girls. I hope that you had the good sense not to reproduce.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/catfight.gif http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/beatinoff.gif

:lmao:

[Go Fish]

Thanks, Phyxius. Everyone who views that post will be a little stupider when they are done. Keep on rockin'.
That said.......did you have an opinion?

[Phyxius]

Thanks, Phyxius. Everyone who views that post will be a little stupider when they are done. Keep on rockin'.
That said.......did you have an opinion?

Yes, but it would just get FP'd... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/lmao.gif

[Phyxius]

Does anyone else think that Go Fish may be pulling a Colbert homage on us all?

Just sayin'...:ponder:

[Troubadour]

Who the Hell does she think she is? Breaking up a child rape-ring like that?
Did they give an address where I can send a check for her defense fund?

Something many people don't understand: If there's a case where an unobjectionable law (e.g., don't make false police reports) must, in your moral judgment, be broken due to situational moral reasons, then after that situation has passed you need to admit what you've done and accept the consequences. To do otherwise is to immediately disprove your claim of moral justification, because you have not taken responsibility for anything - you've simply acted as you pleased and assumed others would excuse it, placing yourself above the law and above the rights of other people who have to obey it. If one is not willing to accept those consequences in exchange for the moral good that has allegedly been done, then the entire rationalization is a lie: It doesn't take very strong motivation to break rules you don't have to follow, but if people are held to account for their actions, they will not lightly break the law. You're not a hero for ignoring everyone else's rights in order to save or protect someone - you're a hero for sacrificing YOUR OWN rights by doing so and accepting the consequences. A lesson Jack Bauer and every immoral, narcissistic idiot who idolizes his character ought to learn.

[AlanC]

It seems like there are a lot of holes in this one. Where exactly did this woman make the call, and what agency recieved it.

Police acting in good faith to investigate a call that alleges a crime being committed are following procedure. The arrests would be good even if it later proves that the original information was fabricated by an outside party.

The fact that this woman lied about who she was on a phone call would not invalidate the police actions that followed unless they had some magic way to know the call information was false.

When a 9-1-1 call is received, you don't first engage in an investigation of the caller before you act on the call itself.

This could lead to charges against the woman as well, but it will not change the case against the polygamists.

[Sublimating]

I'm trying to separate fact from fiction here :help:

Subsequent to the raid what evidence of abuse was found? I have heard that there are pregnant minors and a sex room...is this true?

If this case is built on the grounds that the children are in danger as a result of the religious practices of the FLDS wouldn't it logically follow that they (the state) should remove all the children in FLDS homes?

[ScareCrow]

As I understand things, you wouldn't violate the constitution to prevent a little girl from being raped by an old man. Thanks for admitting that in a public forum. That's easily the sickest thing I've heard in years.

As it stands, there still isn't any hardcore proof that any little girls have been raped by old men in that ranch. Do I believe they were, yes but that is irrelevant. There is a good reason that the Constitution protects us from these sorts of searches. If you truly believe that this is correct then why not just throw out the rest of the Constitution, next we can start banning guns because they might be used to murder someone. I'm willing to bet that one would piss you off though. Do you want America to be run like the Nazi's ran Germany? As such a profound defender of the Constitution I am still shocked that you are not up in arms over it being so blatantly ignored in this situation. Maybe the only way to change your mind is if a false report is made against you with some planted evidence, care to give your address.

BTW, I've seen much more sick things written by you in this forum.

[Trish]

This woman was arrested for OTHER calls made over a period of time - not the 911 calls that prompted the raid. In those calls she is a "person of interest." They don't know yet if she was the one that made those 2 calls. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5713823.html

Even if she turns out to be the person responsible for those 2 particular calls, the evidence seized at the compound won't be jeopardized unless authorities KNEW that the call was bogus. That's going to be the litmus test - if they knew, or had reason to know the calls were fake at the time they acted.

[apdst]

but it still doesn't change the fact that the phone call that prompted the warrant was fake......this is going to change the whole thing. They wanted to go in and raid them......they didn't care.

The phone call added to their probable cause. How it could be considered, "fake", when there was actually a crime being committed, I don't know. It would have been fake, if they showed up and no laws were being broken.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Once again, this is why I and a few others were contesting this case from the beginning.

[Buck Laser]

Once again, this is why I and a few others were contesting this case from the beginning.
This doesn't dismiss the case yet, Os. I don't think they can fairly drop the whole thing until they determine whether or not any children have been sexually abused. Go Fish thinks I wanna let everybody go because the person who dimed them misrepresented who she was. But if the investigation determines probable cause for prosecution, they should go after them.

This is why being a liberal requires some tolerance for ambiguity. We simply don't know what actually happened, but the welfare of children is an overwhelming reason to investigate. I really hope you don't think otherwise.

[AlanC]

Once again, this is why I and a few others were contesting this case from the beginning.

If they committed the crime, it will go forward regardless of the nature of the 9-1-1 call.

[apdst]

If they committed the crime, it will go forward regardless of the nature of the 9-1-1 call.

As well it should. It sucks when criminals walk on a BS technicality.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I have no problem with people being recognized and given due process, I do have a problem with one phone call, that didn't come from there, giving the state grounds to take hundreds of children into state custody with little to no proof.

For those that they have proof against, may justice be served through due process, for those that are simply being held and/or seperated just because they "associate" with each other is ridiculous.

[Go Fish]

Something many people don't understand: If there's a case where an unobjectionable law (e.g., don't make false police reports) must, in your moral judgment, be broken due to situational moral reasons, then after that situation has passed you need to admit what you've done and accept the consequences. To do otherwise is to immediately disprove your claim of moral justification, because you have not taken responsibility for anything - you've simply acted as you pleased and assumed others would excuse it, placing yourself above the law and above the rights of other people who have to obey it. If one is not willing to accept those consequences in exchange for the moral good that has allegedly been done, then the entire rationalization is a lie: It doesn't take very strong motivation to break rules you don't have to follow, but if people are held to account for their actions, they will not lightly break the law. You're not a hero for ignoring everyone else's rights in order to save or protect someone - you're a hero for sacrificing YOUR OWN rights by doing so and accepting the consequences. A lesson Jack Bauer and every immoral, narcissistic idiot who idolizes his character ought to learn.

Who is Jack Bauer?

[Go Fish]

As it stands, there still isn't any hardcore proof that any little girls have been raped by old men in that ranch. Do I believe they were, yes but that is irrelevant. There is a good reason that the Constitution protects us from these sorts of searches. If you truly believe that this is correct then why not just throw out the rest of the Constitution, next we can start banning guns because they might be used to murder someone. I'm willing to bet that one would piss you off though. Do you want America to be run like the Nazi's ran Germany? As such a profound defender of the Constitution I am still shocked that you are not up in arms over it being so blatantly ignored in this situation. Maybe the only way to change your mind is if a false report is made against you with some planted evidence, care to give your address.

BTW, I've seen much more sick things written by you in this forum.

It is a simple common courtesy to thank someone for giving you the opportunity to assail them, Scarecrow. Had I not posted here, you wouldn't have this chance to veer off-topic and spend the bandwidth discussing your opinion of me. Let me offer you a heartfelt "You're Welcome" in advance.
If you will be so kind as to go back and read the content of my post, you'll see that the important element of this whole disgusting story is that little girls are no longer sex slaves to the degenerate bastards who violated their constitutional rights.
If a succession of mothers, 17 years old and younger doesn't constitute "hard evidence", I don't know what does. You state that you believe that those girls were being raped by their "husbands" but you clearly think it's okay because somewhere there's a chance of a litigious "out"?
If this phone call invalidates the entire operation, will you cheer when those little girls are herded back into the compound for some more "lovin'"?

[lily]

If I knew that 12 year-olds were being raped, I'd have
lied, too.

........but the person making the call didn't know that......she was a kook.

As I understand things, you wouldn't violate the constitution to prevent a
little girl from being raped by an old man. Thanks for admitting that in a
public forum. That's easily the sickest thing I've heard in years.

There has been no trial nor any testimony as far as I've head......what I
have heard is a lot of allegations made by the media.

[apdst]

but the person making the call didn't know that......she was a kook.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn, sometimes.

[lily]

This woman was arrested for OTHER calls made over a period of time - not the 911 calls that prompted the raid. In those calls she is a "person of interest." They don't know yet if she was the one that made those 2 calls. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5713823.html

Even if she turns out to be the person responsible for those 2 particular calls, the evidence seized at the compound won't be jeopardized unless authorities KNEW that the call was bogus. That's going to be the litmus test - if they knew, or had reason to know the calls were fake at the time they acted.

Well, Trish, I think a reasonable person could make the assumption it was her, I mean why seal the case and why on earth would you call up the very person who left the church and not the police?


Officers found several items indicating a possible connection between
Swinton and calls regarding FLDS compounds in Colorado City, Arizona, and
the one near Eldorado.


"In her little baby voice, she said, 'If you rescue me, and I get out of here, do you think the black people will hurt me?' " Walker said. "She had done her homework. She knew it was a racist cult. We know that these kids are very frightened of black people.

"The Texas Rangers told us she was obsessed with the FLDS. They confiscated tons of material on the FLDS (in the search of Swinton's home). She even gave real addresses and real names of FLDS people."

[Go Fish]

This doesn't dismiss the case yet, Os. I don't think they can fairly drop the whole thing until they determine whether or not any children have been sexually abused. Go Fish thinks I wanna let everybody go because the person who dimed them misrepresented who she was. But if the investigation determines probable cause for prosecution, they should go after them.

This is why being a liberal requires some tolerance for ambiguity. We simply don't know what actually happened, but the welfare of children is an overwhelming reason to investigate. I really hope you don't think otherwise.

Stop sucking up to me, Buck. Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then. Contrast this brouhaha with what Reno and Clinton did in Waco. If there was ever a dark day in the history of American constitutional guarantees, that was it. Instead of rescuing imperiled children, Wesley Clark had them incinerated.

[Go Fish]

Even a blind hog finds an acorn, sometimes.

I swear to Christ that I did not see this before responding to Buck. Did your family vacation in the Thousand Islands? I'm laughing pretty hard!

[ScareCrow]

It is a simple common courtesy to thank someone for giving you the opportunity to assail them, Scarecrow. Had I not posted here, you wouldn't have this chance to veer off-topic and spend the bandwidth discussing your opinion of me. Let me offer you a heartfelt "You're Welcome" in advance.

Now if this isn't someone in a glass house throwing one hell of a large stone! Believe me, if I were assailing you I would be banned already as I have a tendency to go a bit overboard. I'm simply puzzled how someone so conservative could turn a blind eye to the Constitution. There is a reason that 4th amendment was put there and even though it makes the job of law enforcement tougher at times, it protects the rights of the innocent first and foremost.


If you will be so kind as to go back and read the content of my post, you'll see that the important element of this whole disgusting story is that little girls are no longer sex slaves to the degenerate bastards who violated their constitutional rights.

I have debated on how to respond to this part. I'm torn between arguing that the boys should have been left and only the girls taken if only they were at risk, asking since when being associated with people or a religion constitutes a crime worthy of having your children taken away, or asking how brainwashed some Americans are to believe everything the press tells them. Many Americans must have very large brains to possess so much ignorance.

If a succession of mothers, 17 years old and younger doesn't constitute "hard evidence", I don't know what does. You state that you believe that those girls were being raped by their "husbands" but you clearly think it's okay because somewhere there's a chance of a litigious "out"?

There you go putting words into my post. Please show me where I ever said that the actions of these "husbands" were okay. I've actually said the opposite, I believe there are criminals at that ranch that do deserve to face consequences for their actions. I have also said that I believe two wrongs never make a right and we can't justify the way by the means, we can't violate Constitutional protections just to put away a few rapists. Due process needs to be followed to protect the innocent, even in this case. I refer to my signature in this incident.

If this phone call invalidates the entire operation, will you cheer when those little girls are herded back into the compound for some more "lovin'"?

I will cheer only when justice is brought the proper way against those who deserve it, and nobody else. Saying that because there are 16 and 17 year old girls who are pregnant or who have children makes everyone in that community a criminal would make almost every citizen in every city in the country a criminal. It's not like pregnant 16 and 17 year olds are confined to this little ranch in Texas.

[Go Fish]

Now if this isn't someone in a glass house throwing one hell of a large stone! Believe me, if I were assailing you I would be banned already as I have a tendency to go a bit overboard. I'm simply puzzled how someone so conservative could turn a blind eye to the Constitution. There is a reason that 4th amendment was put there and even though it makes the job of law enforcement tougher at times, it protects the rights of the innocent first and foremost.




I have debated on how to respond to this part. I'm torn between arguing that the boys should have been left and only the girls taken if only they were at risk, asking since when being associated with people or a religion constitutes a crime worthy of having your children taken away, or asking how brainwashed some Americans are to believe everything the press tells them. Many Americans must have very large brains to possess so much ignorance.



There you go putting words into my post. Please show me where I ever said that the actions of these "husbands" were okay. I've actually said the opposite, I believe there are criminals at that ranch that do deserve to face consequences for their actions. I have also said that I believe two wrongs never make a right and we can't justify the way by the means, we can't violate Constitutional protections just to put away a few rapists. Due process needs to be followed to protect the innocent, even in this case. I refer to my signature in this incident.



I will cheer only when justice is brought the proper way against those who deserve it, and nobody else. Saying that because there are 16 and 17 year old girls who are pregnant or who have children makes everyone in that community a criminal would make almost every citizen in every city in the country a criminal. It's not like pregnant 16 and 17 year olds are confined to this little ranch in Texas.

"It's not like pregnant 16 and 17 year olds are confined to this little ranch in Texas." - Scarecrow

They're not anymore, and I celebrate that fact.

[ScareCrow]

"It's not like pregnant 16 and 17 year olds are confined to this little ranch in Texas." - Scarecrow

They're not anymore, and I celebrate that fact.

They never were. I would be willing to bet there is at least one pregnant 16 or 17 year old girl in the area you live in. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't at least know of someone who knows a 16 or 17 year old girl who was pregnant or has a child. Maybe all the American children should just be taken from their parents and raised by the Government, that sounds like a great conservative view from you Go Fish.

[Go Fish]

It ain't gonn'a work, Scarecrow. You're throwing your bucket into a dry well. You jumped the shark and I'm done discussing this with you.