Runaway Convert

[Zslone2]

He/She was just giving a counter example to what we heard about Muslims doing to their children so it was fair to make a Christian example just to say there isn't any difference based on religion. While i feel bad for the girl I don't know enough to accurately say she should go back with her parents or be put into foster care or something like it. I don't feel she should go back to the pastor seeing how she met him over the internet and I don't trust his side of the case. While what you say expresses her beliefs don't forget the Pastor if he was able to implant the thought of her parents killing her for converting he would also be able to manipulate her when investigated by the police. I'm not saying she should go back to her parents nor the pastor I'm saying more evidence needs to be brought up before anyone can accurately make a decision. Words alone mean nothing if from the Defendant and Plaintiff. You need evidence and witnesses not just words alone to make a decision so I want to hear none of its her words from her mouth and the parents could be lying don't forget the girl could be lying to. While I hope the issue is resolved and everything taken care of it won't be until chat logs are pulled up and neighbors interviewed.  

[Tirissana]

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

It's a hell of a lot better than turning her back prematurely into the hands of those who might kill her.

That's circumstantial. We don't even know if they will actually do it though.

@Neko: No. Her parents came here to America. She could've taken the citizenship test and is an American citizen. We honestly don't know. She could have a green card.

The girl saying that her father told her that he was going to kill and disavow her is circumstantial? You would send her back after she told you she fled because her father threatened to kill her (which is eyewitness testimony)? We all want to believe the best in others but in cases like this you can't turn a kid back to her family because you'd rather believe that Christians brainwashed her then that her parents might be a danger to her. I hope this gets settled soon for the sake of all who are involved but it needs to be done right. Better to be safe then sorry.

It is circumstantial. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

We don't know if the parents will do her any harm. And it's pretty foolish and ignorant to even say that her parents will harm her in any way shape or form. I think the pastor did more harm to her by trying to brainwash her into thinking that her parents, who brought her into the world, would wish to do harm to her. If they wanted to do harm to her then why would they bring her to America in the first place?

Try putting yourself in their shoes. How do you think they would feel learning about these allegations? If your child made these allegations against you, would you want to harm them or would you be upset, that the not only would say such horrid things about you but about the religion you brought them up in?

Yes you have Muslim killing members of their family, but need I remind you that here in America, you have people butchering their children, stoning them, drowning them and even eating their brains all because they're supposedly possessed by the Devil or that God told the mothers to do it. Let me ask you this: If you think that a Muslim family killing their family is so ghastly, then why is it okay for a Christian mother to dismember their children because God told them so? Aren't they both equally ghastly?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


That's the very first line from the source that you sited.

Right now I'm putting myself in the kids shoes and the fact that she directly said that her father threatened to kill her, she said she didn't feel safe, that's enough to draw up some serious concerns. I don't care if the family seems kind and loving, some people are quite good at manipulating others and putting on a show.

I'm not saying that the girl should be kept from her parents indefinitely, all I'm saying is that they need to look into the allegations made. The girl was in contact over the internet, it can't be that difficult to pull up some chat logs from those she was in contact with.

Why are you bringing abuse by Christians into this, it has no relevancy to the case unless your only issue is that you assume that this is all about religious discrimination, although in that case you would be the one who was discriminating based on religion. We can't let that blind us. The kid said that she was in danger of being killed, there's no evidence to suggest that she's lying, she could have possibly been brainwashed and before any further action is taken that's what needs to be found out.

Assumptions either way aren't very useful and could be potentially damaging. If the family are really kind and loving then yes, I feel horrible for them and I think they should look into taking action against the pastor she ran off to. But I don't know that and neither do you and when someone feels their life is in danger, when someone claims that another has threatened to harm or kill them, then as a society we cannot just look the other way before checking it out.

Semi if you actually knew anything about religions or criminal cases, then you would know that Muslims aren't the only group who has it's wack jobs. I used Christian examples to show that Muslim isn't the only group. Or have you neglected the fact that the crimes I've mentioned were executed by mentally insane Christian women.

And as I stated, without actual physical evidence, her words don't prove s**t. Circumstantial evidence is not enough to make a criminal case. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. So why are you appealing to ignorance or do you just don't understand how the justice system actually works? neutral  

[Wrath of Ezekiel]

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Nines19

On the one hand, I'm thinking, "She couldn't have waited another year?"
On the other, I'm thinking, "What if the parents are just saying that to look good for the media?"

I doubt they're saying it to look good, Nines. Think about where we are. I mean honestly, they can't really do any harm to her.

Really? Asqa Parvez  

[Tirissana]

True Colours of Destiny

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Nines19

On the one hand, I'm thinking, "She couldn't have waited another year?"
On the other, I'm thinking, "What if the parents are just saying that to look good for the media?"

I doubt they're saying it to look good, Nines. Think about where we are. I mean honestly, they can't really do any harm to her.

Really? Asqa Parvez

Umm Destiny, we're talking about America, which is where the girl we're talking about lives. To be exact I believe she is currently in Florida. stare  

[Zslone2]

Yea someplace in the Florida Legal System.  

[Semiremis]

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

It's a hell of a lot better than turning her back prematurely into the hands of those who might kill her.

That's circumstantial. We don't even know if they will actually do it though.

@Neko: No. Her parents came here to America. She could've taken the citizenship test and is an American citizen. We honestly don't know. She could have a green card.

The girl saying that her father told her that he was going to kill and disavow her is circumstantial? You would send her back after she told you she fled because her father threatened to kill her (which is eyewitness testimony)? We all want to believe the best in others but in cases like this you can't turn a kid back to her family because you'd rather believe that Christians brainwashed her then that her parents might be a danger to her. I hope this gets settled soon for the sake of all who are involved but it needs to be done right. Better to be safe then sorry.

It is circumstantial. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

We don't know if the parents will do her any harm. And it's pretty foolish and ignorant to even say that her parents will harm her in any way shape or form. I think the pastor did more harm to her by trying to brainwash her into thinking that her parents, who brought her into the world, would wish to do harm to her. If they wanted to do harm to her then why would they bring her to America in the first place?

Try putting yourself in their shoes. How do you think they would feel learning about these allegations? If your child made these allegations against you, would you want to harm them or would you be upset, that the not only would say such horrid things about you but about the religion you brought them up in?

Yes you have Muslim killing members of their family, but need I remind you that here in America, you have people butchering their children, stoning them, drowning them and even eating their brains all because they're supposedly possessed by the Devil or that God told the mothers to do it. Let me ask you this: If you think that a Muslim family killing their family is so ghastly, then why is it okay for a Christian mother to dismember their children because God told them so? Aren't they both equally ghastly?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


That's the very first line from the source that you sited.

Right now I'm putting myself in the kids shoes and the fact that she directly said that her father threatened to kill her, she said she didn't feel safe, that's enough to draw up some serious concerns. I don't care if the family seems kind and loving, some people are quite good at manipulating others and putting on a show.

I'm not saying that the girl should be kept from her parents indefinitely, all I'm saying is that they need to look into the allegations made. The girl was in contact over the internet, it can't be that difficult to pull up some chat logs from those she was in contact with.

Why are you bringing abuse by Christians into this, it has no relevancy to the case unless your only issue is that you assume that this is all about religious discrimination, although in that case you would be the one who was discriminating based on religion. We can't let that blind us. The kid said that she was in danger of being killed, there's no evidence to suggest that she's lying, she could have possibly been brainwashed and before any further action is taken that's what needs to be found out.

Assumptions either way aren't very useful and could be potentially damaging. If the family are really kind and loving then yes, I feel horrible for them and I think they should look into taking action against the pastor she ran off to. But I don't know that and neither do you and when someone feels their life is in danger, when someone claims that another has threatened to harm or kill them, then as a society we cannot just look the other way before checking it out.

Semi if you actually knew anything about religions or criminal cases, then you would know that Muslims aren't the only group who has it's wack jobs. I used Christian examples to show that Muslim isn't the only group. Or have you neglected the fact that the crimes I've mentioned were executed by mentally insane Christian women.

And as I stated, without actual physical evidence, her words don't prove s**t. Circumstantial evidence is not enough to make a criminal case. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. So why are you appealing to ignorance or do you just don't understand how the justice system actually works? neutral

There are crazy 'whack jobs' everywhere, I don't believe I or anyone else ever even suggested otherwise. I never said Muslims were the only group all I said was that those other cases you brought up were irrelevant to this one because they aren't, let's stick to the present situation.

The definition of circumstantial evidence which you provided is above in red but I'll post it again:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


The girl claims to have actually heard her father threaten her well being as well as her mother. An eyewitness account is not circumstantial evidence, eyewitness is defined as:

eye·wit·ness (wtns)
n.
A person who has seen someone or something and can bear witness to the fact.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eyewitness

Rifqa claims to have heard her parents threaten her life. The big question is, why do you think it's okay to then force her to go back to her parents without fully checking this out in order to make sure that she will not be harmed?

As you said, all people are capable of committing horrendous acts but this isn't about all people it's about Rifqa and her family and making sure that she will be safe. This isn't something we can take lightly, get rid of your religious bias and think about the girl.

I hope she will be returned to her parents soon but first you have to make sure that she will be okay, that she was just confused.  

[Tirissana]

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

The girl saying that her father told her that he was going to kill and disavow her is circumstantial? You would send her back after she told you she fled because her father threatened to kill her (which is eyewitness testimony)? We all want to believe the best in others but in cases like this you can't turn a kid back to her family because you'd rather believe that Christians brainwashed her then that her parents might be a danger to her. I hope this gets settled soon for the sake of all who are involved but it needs to be done right. Better to be safe then sorry.

It is circumstantial. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

We don't know if the parents will do her any harm. And it's pretty foolish and ignorant to even say that her parents will harm her in any way shape or form. I think the pastor did more harm to her by trying to brainwash her into thinking that her parents, who brought her into the world, would wish to do harm to her. If they wanted to do harm to her then why would they bring her to America in the first place?

Try putting yourself in their shoes. How do you think they would feel learning about these allegations? If your child made these allegations against you, would you want to harm them or would you be upset, that the not only would say such horrid things about you but about the religion you brought them up in?

Yes you have Muslim killing members of their family, but need I remind you that here in America, you have people butchering their children, stoning them, drowning them and even eating their brains all because they're supposedly possessed by the Devil or that God told the mothers to do it. Let me ask you this: If you think that a Muslim family killing their family is so ghastly, then why is it okay for a Christian mother to dismember their children because God told them so? Aren't they both equally ghastly?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


That's the very first line from the source that you sited.

Right now I'm putting myself in the kids shoes and the fact that she directly said that her father threatened to kill her, she said she didn't feel safe, that's enough to draw up some serious concerns. I don't care if the family seems kind and loving, some people are quite good at manipulating others and putting on a show.

I'm not saying that the girl should be kept from her parents indefinitely, all I'm saying is that they need to look into the allegations made. The girl was in contact over the internet, it can't be that difficult to pull up some chat logs from those she was in contact with.

Why are you bringing abuse by Christians into this, it has no relevancy to the case unless your only issue is that you assume that this is all about religious discrimination, although in that case you would be the one who was discriminating based on religion. We can't let that blind us. The kid said that she was in danger of being killed, there's no evidence to suggest that she's lying, she could have possibly been brainwashed and before any further action is taken that's what needs to be found out.

Assumptions either way aren't very useful and could be potentially damaging. If the family are really kind and loving then yes, I feel horrible for them and I think they should look into taking action against the pastor she ran off to. But I don't know that and neither do you and when someone feels their life is in danger, when someone claims that another has threatened to harm or kill them, then as a society we cannot just look the other way before checking it out.

Semi if you actually knew anything about religions or criminal cases, then you would know that Muslims aren't the only group who has it's wack jobs. I used Christian examples to show that Muslim isn't the only group. Or have you neglected the fact that the crimes I've mentioned were executed by mentally insane Christian women.

And as I stated, without actual physical evidence, her words don't prove s**t. Circumstantial evidence is not enough to make a criminal case. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. So why are you appealing to ignorance or do you just don't understand how the justice system actually works? neutral

There are crazy 'whack jobs' everywhere, I don't believe I or anyone else ever even suggested otherwise. I never said Muslims were the only group all I said was that those other cases you brought up were irrelevant to this one because they aren't, let's stick to the present situation.

The definition of circumstantial evidence which you provided is above in red but I'll post it again:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


The girl claims to have actually heard her father threaten her well being as well as her mother. An eyewitness account is not circumstantial evidence, eyewitness is defined as:

eye·wit·ness (wtns)
n.
A person who has seen someone or something and can bear witness to the fact.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eyewitness

Rifqa claims to have heard her parents threaten her life. The big question is, why do you think it's okay to then force her to go back to her parents without fully checking this out in order to make sure that she will not be harmed?

As you said, all people are capable of committing horrendous acts but this isn't about all people it's about Rifqa and her family and making sure that she will be safe. This isn't something we can take lightly, get rid of your religious bias and think about the girl.

I hope she will be returned to her parents soon but first you have to make sure that she will be okay, that she was just confused.

Where's the proof that she heard it? How can you be so sure that she's not lying?

I'm not being biased. I'm being LOGICAL! You're the one who's being religiously biased. neutral

Also read the whole page and re-read the red statement again. neutral Stop picking and choosing what to follow and taking things out of context.  

[Semiremis]

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

The girl saying that her father told her that he was going to kill and disavow her is circumstantial? You would send her back after she told you she fled because her father threatened to kill her (which is eyewitness testimony)? We all want to believe the best in others but in cases like this you can't turn a kid back to her family because you'd rather believe that Christians brainwashed her then that her parents might be a danger to her. I hope this gets settled soon for the sake of all who are involved but it needs to be done right. Better to be safe then sorry.

It is circumstantial. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

We don't know if the parents will do her any harm. And it's pretty foolish and ignorant to even say that her parents will harm her in any way shape or form. I think the pastor did more harm to her by trying to brainwash her into thinking that her parents, who brought her into the world, would wish to do harm to her. If they wanted to do harm to her then why would they bring her to America in the first place?

Try putting yourself in their shoes. How do you think they would feel learning about these allegations? If your child made these allegations against you, would you want to harm them or would you be upset, that the not only would say such horrid things about you but about the religion you brought them up in?

Yes you have Muslim killing members of their family, but need I remind you that here in America, you have people butchering their children, stoning them, drowning them and even eating their brains all because they're supposedly possessed by the Devil or that God told the mothers to do it. Let me ask you this: If you think that a Muslim family killing their family is so ghastly, then why is it okay for a Christian mother to dismember their children because God told them so? Aren't they both equally ghastly?

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


That's the very first line from the source that you sited.

Right now I'm putting myself in the kids shoes and the fact that she directly said that her father threatened to kill her, she said she didn't feel safe, that's enough to draw up some serious concerns. I don't care if the family seems kind and loving, some people are quite good at manipulating others and putting on a show.

I'm not saying that the girl should be kept from her parents indefinitely, all I'm saying is that they need to look into the allegations made. The girl was in contact over the internet, it can't be that difficult to pull up some chat logs from those she was in contact with.

Why are you bringing abuse by Christians into this, it has no relevancy to the case unless your only issue is that you assume that this is all about religious discrimination, although in that case you would be the one who was discriminating based on religion. We can't let that blind us. The kid said that she was in danger of being killed, there's no evidence to suggest that she's lying, she could have possibly been brainwashed and before any further action is taken that's what needs to be found out.

Assumptions either way aren't very useful and could be potentially damaging. If the family are really kind and loving then yes, I feel horrible for them and I think they should look into taking action against the pastor she ran off to. But I don't know that and neither do you and when someone feels their life is in danger, when someone claims that another has threatened to harm or kill them, then as a society we cannot just look the other way before checking it out.

Semi if you actually knew anything about religions or criminal cases, then you would know that Muslims aren't the only group who has it's wack jobs. I used Christian examples to show that Muslim isn't the only group. Or have you neglected the fact that the crimes I've mentioned were executed by mentally insane Christian women.

And as I stated, without actual physical evidence, her words don't prove s**t. Circumstantial evidence is not enough to make a criminal case. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. So why are you appealing to ignorance or do you just don't understand how the justice system actually works? neutral

There are crazy 'whack jobs' everywhere, I don't believe I or anyone else ever even suggested otherwise. I never said Muslims were the only group all I said was that those other cases you brought up were irrelevant to this one because they aren't, let's stick to the present situation.

The definition of circumstantial evidence which you provided is above in red but I'll post it again:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


The girl claims to have actually heard her father threaten her well being as well as her mother. An eyewitness account is not circumstantial evidence, eyewitness is defined as:

eye·wit·ness (wtns)
n.
A person who has seen someone or something and can bear witness to the fact.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eyewitness

Rifqa claims to have heard her parents threaten her life. The big question is, why do you think it's okay to then force her to go back to her parents without fully checking this out in order to make sure that she will not be harmed?

As you said, all people are capable of committing horrendous acts but this isn't about all people it's about Rifqa and her family and making sure that she will be safe. This isn't something we can take lightly, get rid of your religious bias and think about the girl.

I hope she will be returned to her parents soon but first you have to make sure that she will be okay, that she was just confused.

Where's the proof that she heard it? How can you be so sure that she's not lying?

I'm not being biased. I'm being LOGICAL! You're the one who's being religiously biased. neutral

Also read the whole page and re-read the red statement again. neutral Stop picking and choosing what to follow and taking things out of context.

I don't care what religion it is all I care about is making sure that Rifqa is okay. If someone who was raped came up and told you that it happened would you automatically be convinced she was lying? What if you knew the accused and they seemed kind? Would you tell her she's lying, or would you help her and make sure that he was okay.

Which one seems more logical to you?  

[Tirissana]

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


That's the very first line from the source that you sited.

Right now I'm putting myself in the kids shoes and the fact that she directly said that her father threatened to kill her, she said she didn't feel safe, that's enough to draw up some serious concerns. I don't care if the family seems kind and loving, some people are quite good at manipulating others and putting on a show.

I'm not saying that the girl should be kept from her parents indefinitely, all I'm saying is that they need to look into the allegations made. The girl was in contact over the internet, it can't be that difficult to pull up some chat logs from those she was in contact with.

Why are you bringing abuse by Christians into this, it has no relevancy to the case unless your only issue is that you assume that this is all about religious discrimination, although in that case you would be the one who was discriminating based on religion. We can't let that blind us. The kid said that she was in danger of being killed, there's no evidence to suggest that she's lying, she could have possibly been brainwashed and before any further action is taken that's what needs to be found out.

Assumptions either way aren't very useful and could be potentially damaging. If the family are really kind and loving then yes, I feel horrible for them and I think they should look into taking action against the pastor she ran off to. But I don't know that and neither do you and when someone feels their life is in danger, when someone claims that another has threatened to harm or kill them, then as a society we cannot just look the other way before checking it out.

Semi if you actually knew anything about religions or criminal cases, then you would know that Muslims aren't the only group who has it's wack jobs. I used Christian examples to show that Muslim isn't the only group. Or have you neglected the fact that the crimes I've mentioned were executed by mentally insane Christian women.

And as I stated, without actual physical evidence, her words don't prove s**t. Circumstantial evidence is not enough to make a criminal case. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. So why are you appealing to ignorance or do you just don't understand how the justice system actually works? neutral

There are crazy 'whack jobs' everywhere, I don't believe I or anyone else ever even suggested otherwise. I never said Muslims were the only group all I said was that those other cases you brought up were irrelevant to this one because they aren't, let's stick to the present situation.

The definition of circumstantial evidence which you provided is above in red but I'll post it again:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something


The girl claims to have actually heard her father threaten her well being as well as her mother. An eyewitness account is not circumstantial evidence, eyewitness is defined as:

eye·wit·ness (wtns)
n.
A person who has seen someone or something and can bear witness to the fact.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eyewitness

Rifqa claims to have heard her parents threaten her life. The big question is, why do you think it's okay to then force her to go back to her parents without fully checking this out in order to make sure that she will not be harmed?

As you said, all people are capable of committing horrendous acts but this isn't about all people it's about Rifqa and her family and making sure that she will be safe. This isn't something we can take lightly, get rid of your religious bias and think about the girl.

I hope she will be returned to her parents soon but first you have to make sure that she will be okay, that she was just confused.

Where's the proof that she heard it? How can you be so sure that she's not lying?

I'm not being biased. I'm being LOGICAL! You're the one who's being religiously biased. neutral

Also read the whole page and re-read the red statement again. neutral Stop picking and choosing what to follow and taking things out of context.

I don't care what religion it is all I care about is making sure that Rifqa is okay. If someone who was raped came up and told you that it happened would you automatically be convinced she was lying? What if you knew the accused and they seemed kind? Would you tell her she's lying, or would you help her and make sure that he was okay.

Which one seems more logical to you?

She would have to comply with the police and let their foresnic department take samples of her DNA, see if she was penatrated in any way shape or form, and have them take tests, etc. Which is proper procedure. If she does not do this, or the tests prove that she wasn't raped at all or that the sex was actually consentual then she was lying. The police are trained to be able to tell if someone is lying. neutral Unless there is substantial physical evidence then her account doesn't hold weight in court. neutral And if it did then it would send an innocent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. This is why our justice system is pathetic.  

[Semiremis]

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

She would have to comply with the police and let their foresnic department take samples of her DNA, see if she was penatrated in any way shape or form, and have them take tests, etc. Which is proper procedure. If she does not do this, or the tests prove that she wasn't raped at all or that the sex was actually consentual then she was lying. The police are trained to be able to tell if someone is lying. neutral Unless there is substantial physical evidence then her account doesn't hold weight in court. neutral And if it did then it would send an innocent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. This is why our justice system is pathetic.

So then you agree that when such a claim is made it should be looked into and not dismissed prematurely?  

[Tirissana]

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

She would have to comply with the police and let their foresnic department take samples of her DNA, see if she was penatrated in any way shape or form, and have them take tests, etc. Which is proper procedure. If she does not do this, or the tests prove that she wasn't raped at all or that the sex was actually consentual then she was lying. The police are trained to be able to tell if someone is lying. neutral Unless there is substantial physical evidence then her account doesn't hold weight in court. neutral And if it did then it would send an innocent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. This is why our justice system is pathetic.

So then you agree that when such a claim is made it should be looked into and not dismissed prematurely?

Yes however, the victim should be in the care of immediate family members or family friends instead of the state. neutral  

[Semiremis]

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

She would have to comply with the police and let their foresnic department take samples of her DNA, see if she was penatrated in any way shape or form, and have them take tests, etc. Which is proper procedure. If she does not do this, or the tests prove that she wasn't raped at all or that the sex was actually consentual then she was lying. The police are trained to be able to tell if someone is lying. neutral Unless there is substantial physical evidence then her account doesn't hold weight in court. neutral And if it did then it would send an innocent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. This is why our justice system is pathetic.

So then you agree that when such a claim is made it should be looked into and not dismissed prematurely?

Yes however, the victim should be in the care of immediate family members or family friends instead of the state. neutral

Even if the accused was a member of her family?  

[Tirissana]

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

She would have to comply with the police and let their foresnic department take samples of her DNA, see if she was penatrated in any way shape or form, and have them take tests, etc. Which is proper procedure. If she does not do this, or the tests prove that she wasn't raped at all or that the sex was actually consentual then she was lying. The police are trained to be able to tell if someone is lying. neutral Unless there is substantial physical evidence then her account doesn't hold weight in court. neutral And if it did then it would send an innocent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. This is why our justice system is pathetic.

So then you agree that when such a claim is made it should be looked into and not dismissed prematurely?

Yes however, the victim should be in the care of immediate family members or family friends instead of the state. neutral

Even if the accused was a member of her family?

I'm saying grandparents, aunts, uncles grown cousins, guardians, godparents, family friends. neutral Thus why I said IMMEDIATE family.  

[Semiremis]

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Semiremis

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

She would have to comply with the police and let their foresnic department take samples of her DNA, see if she was penatrated in any way shape or form, and have them take tests, etc. Which is proper procedure. If she does not do this, or the tests prove that she wasn't raped at all or that the sex was actually consentual then she was lying. The police are trained to be able to tell if someone is lying. neutral Unless there is substantial physical evidence then her account doesn't hold weight in court. neutral And if it did then it would send an innocent to jail for a crime they didn't commit. This is why our justice system is pathetic.

So then you agree that when such a claim is made it should be looked into and not dismissed prematurely?

Yes however, the victim should be in the care of immediate family members or family friends instead of the state. neutral

Even if the accused was a member of her family?

I'm saying grandparents, aunts, uncles grown cousins, guardians, godparents, family friends. neutral Thus why I said IMMEDIATE family.

The definition of immediate family is this: Spouse, parents and grand parents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted and step members are also included in immediate family. See also first degree relative.


http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediate-family.html

Parents are included in that.

If there were family members she could live with who were deemed to be safe then she probably would have ran to them or would have already been sent there, remember the family isn't from the US they moved from Sri Lanka.

Why don't you want to let the social workers do their job, that's what they are there for. Do you hate Christianity so much that you have to assume they are the villains? and remember I already stated the Rifqa's family seemed like loving people and if so then she should be returned to them as soon as possible but due to the nature of Rifqa's claim, we can't just turn our backs on the situation without looking into it, that would be stupid.  

[Semiremis]

Maybe this will help to put things into perspective:

Raising Stakes: Sexual, Physical Abuse Claims
The teen and her lawyer raised the stakes for the hearing in documents filed this week, accusing her family of physical and sexual abuse and claiming that they are involved with an Islamic extremist organization.

John Stemberger, Bary's lawyer, told ABCNews.com the teen was sexually and physically abused by her relatives.

Rifqa "was sexually abused by her uncle and the mother was aware and never reported it," Stemberger said. "There was physical abuse by the father. He smacked her with great force, enough to slam her across the room.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8474381

So I guess there are more relatives there but the uncle at least is included as one of the accused. The family says that she is being manipulated, that they love her and that all though they would prefer her to be a Muslim she will be allowed to practice her religion.

@ Tsukiyo, If you were sitting there listening to what Rifqa was saying, if you were in a position of authority, you would take the words of her family, call her a liar and then send her back home without really looking into the case?