User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:24:57 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again. A very sandy thread.  And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. I also posted previously the dictionary definitions of defend and explain. They are not that dissimilar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:28:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. Also, BTW, in that case the suspect molester didn't stand around and state he was exercising his right to remain silent...he fled on foot. Are you seriously telling me that any LEO will simply stand there and not treat that as highly suspicious behavior, or when the fleeing suspect does not immediately stop treat that as resisting arrest/refusal to obey lawful commands? If so, LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:33:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was, keep lying. Or rather, please explain how the statement highlighted in red was incorrect. Not how you felt it applied to the issue, but was an incorrect statement. You can't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your statement to the claim was BS and had nothing to do with the claim despite your attempt to make it so. Post proof that arfcom LEOs have supported child molestation. I don't have to, wasn't my claim. And again, you are revising your claim, you highlighted my statement in red, said it was BS. It was a factual statement. Your refusal to admit this continues to stand as a testament to your hypocrisy and lack of integrity. It was not fact. It had nothing to do with the claim. Keep swinging though. It was, keep lying. Or rather, please explain how the statement highlighted in red was incorrect. Not how you felt it applied to the issue, but was an incorrect statement. You can't. That was your opinion. Keep swinging though. I read the thread and every single officer that I know is an officer is explaining why he could run and have no consequences not that agreed with him for running. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:34:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will not say it is 'defending a child molester' but I do find it interesting that we have two different incidents where police want to detain a person, in one instance that person is accused of making 'threatening gestures' and in the other, sexual misconduct with a child. In both cases the person in question does not meekly allow himself to be detained, but puts up some form of resistance (Fleeing while pursued by deputies vs backing away and not putting the camera down) For only one of those two individuals does Bama come in and state that in some areas of this country it is lawful to not comply by fleeing for not violating the law that the cops are attempting to detain or arrest him for. That's pretty telling. Difference: A crime allegedly being committed, in the presence of an officer, at the time of the detention (this thread) and Crime allegedly occurring 5 years prior, not in the presence of an officer (other thread) You can't force someone to attend a consensual interview. They had no warrant, no probable cause for arrest, they were not responding to the scene where a crime was alleged to have just occurred. You can't detain someone for questioning 5 years after the fact and force them to participate in an interview. Not sure why this is hard to understand. You can't detain someone for reasonable suspicion 5 years after the fact. Terry v. Ohio. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:35:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also, BTW, in that case the suspect molester didn't stand around and state he was exercising his right to remain silent...he fled on foot. Are you seriously telling me that any LEO will simply stand there and not treat that as highly suspicious behavior, or when the fleeing suspect does not immediately stop treat that as resisting arrest/refusal to obey lawful commands? If so, LOL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. Also, BTW, in that case the suspect molester didn't stand around and state he was exercising his right to remain silent...he fled on foot. Are you seriously telling me that any LEO will simply stand there and not treat that as highly suspicious behavior, or when the fleeing suspect does not immediately stop treat that as resisting arrest/refusal to obey lawful commands? If so, LOL. He was at a open interview. He does not have to say a thing or explain anything to anybody. Lawful commands of what? "Stop and come back here and have a consensual interview with CPS" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:44:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Anyone read the story linked by tomislav?
It reads like the guy may have admitted to doing it to investigators. check out the part in bold. http://www.rawstory.com/2014/01/prosecutors-wont-charge-ohio-trooper-who-masturbated-with-boy-to-teach-him-about-sex/ a quote from the article Investigators said name removed told his wife he was attempting to teach the boy about sex, The Sandusky Register reported.
“name removed’s reasoning is the fact that he did not want (the boy) to feel pressured on feeling the need to have to have sex with someone, when he can fix those needs by masturbating to porn,” wrote Deputy Sean O’Connell after speaking to the trooper’s wife. [name removed] claimed a dresser blocked their view of each other as they masturbated, according to the report. Authorities said he engaged in such activities twice with the boy about five years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:44:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was at a open interview. He does not have to say a thing or explain anything to anybody. Lawful commands of what? "Stop and come back here and have a consensual interview with CPS" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. Also, BTW, in that case the suspect molester didn't stand around and state he was exercising his right to remain silent...he fled on foot. Are you seriously telling me that any LEO will simply stand there and not treat that as highly suspicious behavior, or when the fleeing suspect does not immediately stop treat that as resisting arrest/refusal to obey lawful commands? If so, LOL. He was at a open interview. He does not have to say a thing or explain anything to anybody. Lawful commands of what? "Stop and come back here and have a consensual interview with CPS" So you are saying that a police officer will not interpret a person who flees as a suspicious behavior? BS A police officer telling a fleeing suspect to stop is not a lawful order? BS You really are the most intellectually dishonest person I have had the misfortune to have discussions with on this site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:48:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was your opinion. Keep swinging though. I read the thread and every single officer that I know is an officer is explaining why he could run and have no consequences not that agreed with him for running. You probably ought to look up the definition of opinion. In that thread known LEOs defended his fleeing as legal. Defend/explain both mean essentially the same thing. They didn't have to SUPPORT or ENCOURAGE fleeing, as that is not what I said they did. But they absolutely offered defense of it by describing the means that it was legal. Although let's be honest for a second (I know, hard to ask of you) if I run from a police officer and make him chase me down, it probably isn't ending well for me, and you're probably not on GD defending/explaining how it is my legal right to flee from an interview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:55:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember one old cop that arrested a guy who asked him, "Are you going to tell me my rights?" The old cop said, "Yeah. Shut up." 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once the cop says you are being detained and are under arrest, does he have any legal obligation to tell you right then and there what you are being arrested for? Nope. Don't have to read you your rights either. I remember one old cop that arrested a guy who asked him, "Are you going to tell me my rights?" The old cop said, "Yeah. Shut up."
Honestly, sounds like the cop tried to do the guy a favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:55:51 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also posted previously the dictionary definitions of defend and explain. They are not that dissimilar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again. A very sandy thread. And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. I also posted previously the dictionary definitions of defend and explain. They are not that dissimilar. So now defending and explaining are basically the same thing? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:57:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you are saying that a police officer will not interpret a person who flees as a suspicious behavior? BS A police officer telling a fleeing suspect to stop is not a lawful order? BS You really are the most intellectually dishonest person I have had the misfortune to have discussions with on this site. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. Also, BTW, in that case the suspect molester didn't stand around and state he was exercising his right to remain silent...he fled on foot. Are you seriously telling me that any LEO will simply stand there and not treat that as highly suspicious behavior, or when the fleeing suspect does not immediately stop treat that as resisting arrest/refusal to obey lawful commands? If so, LOL. He was at a open interview. He does not have to say a thing or explain anything to anybody. Lawful commands of what? "Stop and come back here and have a consensual interview with CPS" So you are saying that a police officer will not interpret a person who flees as a suspicious behavior? BS A police officer telling a fleeing suspect to stop is not a lawful order? BS You really are the most intellectually dishonest person I have had the misfortune to have discussions with on this site. No you just don't know what you are talking about as usual concerning LE. This was five years from the time of the incident. They had no PC and no warrant to arrest him while leaving a consensual interview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 4:58:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So now defending and explaining are basically the same thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again. A very sandy thread. And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. I also posted previously the dictionary definitions of defend and explain. They are not that dissimilar. So now defending and explaining are basically the same thing? Do you defend your claim? Can you explain your claim? samey samey in that context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:01:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you defend your claim? Can you explain your claim? samey samey in that context. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. I also posted previously the dictionary definitions of defend and explain. They are not that dissimilar. So now defending and explaining are basically the same thing? Do you defend your claim? Can you explain your claim? samey samey in that context. Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:03:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone read the story linked by tomislav? It reads like the guy may have admitted to doing it to investigators. check out the part in bold. http://www.rawstory.com/2014/01/prosecutors-wont-charge-ohio-trooper-who-masturbated-with-boy-to-teach-him-about-sex/ a quote from the article Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone read the story linked by tomislav? It reads like the guy may have admitted to doing it to investigators. check out the part in bold. http://www.rawstory.com/2014/01/prosecutors-wont-charge-ohio-trooper-who-masturbated-with-boy-to-teach-him-about-sex/ a quote from the article Investigators said name removed told his wife he was attempting to teach the boy about sex, The Sandusky Register reported.
“name removed’s reasoning is the fact that he did not want (the boy) to feel pressured on feeling the need to have to have sex with someone, when he can fix those needs by masturbating to porn,” wrote Deputy Sean O’Connell after speaking to the trooper’s wife. [name removed] claimed a dresser blocked their view of each other as they masturbated, according to the report. Authorities said he engaged in such activities twice with the boy about five years ago. reads to me like his wife was telling the reporting officer that the suspect made these statements to her, but I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:03:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. I also posted previously the dictionary definitions of defend and explain. They are not that dissimilar. So now defending and explaining are basically the same thing? Do you defend your claim? Can you explain your claim? samey samey in that context. Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? According to the story the police followed him a mile. They must have thought so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:05:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So now defending and explaining are basically the same thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see the blue liners found a technicality only tangentially related to the thread and harped on it until they got some staff action against a "cop hater". Again. A very sandy thread. And one of them, when caught in the same sort of technicality, refuses to acknowledge it and is standing by it. Huh. Its not my fault you can't understand the difference between defending and explaining why someone can leave and does not have to be forced to confess at a voluntary interview. I also posted previously the dictionary definitions of defend and explain. They are not that dissimilar. So now defending and explaining are basically the same thing? Yes, per the dictionary, they essentially are. Really, can you not have a discussion without using the stupid rofl smiley? It doesn't bother me, it just strikes me as incredibly juvenile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:06:11 PM EDT
[#17]
This thread certainly got derailed...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:07:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No you just don't know what you are talking about as usual concerning LE. This was five years from the time of the incident. They had no PC and no warrant to arrest him while leaving a consensual interview. Once again, if you are gonna sit there and tell me that if a person turns and runs from a police escorted interview when sexual molestation comes up, that any LEO is gonna simply throw up his hands and not view that as suspicious behavior and apprehend said person, I'm telling you right now you are chock full of shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:08:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:08:57 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? He's just talking out his ass backtracking at this point, I fully expect him to respond with some sort of smiley in lieu of an intellectually honest argument that doesn't defy all logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:10:04 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. There is also a world of difference between simply stating that you are no longer complying with said interview based on 5th amendment or whatever, and turning and fleeing on foot. You are being deliberately obtuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:11:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. I wonder why the police followed him a mile..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:12:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, per the dictionary, they essentially are. Really, can you not have a discussion without using the stupid rofl smiley? It doesn't bother me, it just strikes me as incredibly juvenile. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So now defending and explaining are basically the same thing? Yes, per the dictionary, they essentially are. Really, can you not have a discussion without using the stupid rofl smiley? It doesn't bother me, it just strikes me as incredibly juvenile. Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. You do realize that one can explain something and not defend it right? For example. I do not agree with DUI checkpoints therefore I will not defend them. But I can explain that they are upheld by a SCOTUS decision and technically legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:12:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<snip> I would imagine that people start to video when they think the encounter is going sideways. I hope I never see the day that people have to wear body cams 24/7 to defend themselves against cops An Orwellian like future is all but inevitable but not because of some over-eager badge. We live in a ridiculously over-litigious society with over 1 million lawyers in the U.S. for about 318 million people - compare that to other comparable Nations and think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:13:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once again, if you are gonna sit there and tell me that if a person turns and runs from a police escorted interview when sexual molestation comes up, that any LEO is gonna simply throw up his hands and not view that as suspicious behavior and apprehend said person, I'm telling you right now you are chock full of shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No you just don't know what you are talking about as usual concerning LE. This was five years from the time of the incident. They had no PC and no warrant to arrest him while leaving a consensual interview. Once again, if you are gonna sit there and tell me that if a person turns and runs from a police escorted interview when sexual molestation comes up, that any LEO is gonna simply throw up his hands and not view that as suspicious behavior and apprehend said person, I'm telling you right now you are chock full of shit. There is no legal requirement to talk to CPS police escorted or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:14:28 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is also a world of difference between simply stating that you are no longer complying with said interview based on 5th amendment or whatever, and turning and fleeing on foot. You are being deliberately obtuse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. There is also a world of difference between simply stating that you are no longer complying with said interview based on 5th amendment or whatever, and turning and fleeing on foot. You are being deliberately obtuse. Please point out where the person is under the same rules, laws, and guidelines for talking to CPS as they are the police. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:15:43 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no legal requirement to talk to CPS police escorted or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No you just don't know what you are talking about as usual concerning LE. This was five years from the time of the incident. They had no PC and no warrant to arrest him while leaving a consensual interview. Once again, if you are gonna sit there and tell me that if a person turns and runs from a police escorted interview when sexual molestation comes up, that any LEO is gonna simply throw up his hands and not view that as suspicious behavior and apprehend said person, I'm telling you right now you are chock full of shit. There is no legal requirement to talk to CPS police escorted or not. Just go back to the emotes, you're wasting data on this guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:16:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread certainly got derailed...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:17:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder why the police followed him a mile..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. I wonder why the police followed him a mile..... Good question but it still doesn't mean anything legally since CPS and Police do not have the same set of rules and guidelines. Maybe the police stopped once they realized that he doesn't have to talk to CPS, they didn't have any PC to arrest him on, and they didn't have a warrant for his arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:17:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just go back to the emotes, you're wasting data on this guy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No you just don't know what you are talking about as usual concerning LE. This was five years from the time of the incident. They had no PC and no warrant to arrest him while leaving a consensual interview. Once again, if you are gonna sit there and tell me that if a person turns and runs from a police escorted interview when sexual molestation comes up, that any LEO is gonna simply throw up his hands and not view that as suspicious behavior and apprehend said person, I'm telling you right now you are chock full of shit. There is no legal requirement to talk to CPS police escorted or not. Just go back to the emotes, you're wasting data on this guy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:17:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder why the police followed him a mile..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. I wonder why the police followed him a mile..... Probably took them that long to think, "Well, what are we going to do if we catch him." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:20:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good question but it still doesn't mean anything legally since CPS and Police do not have the same set of rules and guidelines. Maybe the police stopped once they realized that he doesn't have to talk to CPS, they didn't have any PC to arrest him on, and they didn't have a warrant for his arrest. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Explaining why a person can leave a consensual interview is not the same as defending the POS child molester for doing so. What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. I wonder why the police followed him a mile..... Good question but it still doesn't mean anything legally since CPS and Police do not have the same set of rules and guidelines. Maybe the police stopped once they realized that he doesn't have to talk to CPS, they didn't have any PC to arrest him on, and they didn't have a warrant for his arrest. running from an interview by CPS is legal. but usually ends badly. Running from the police when suspected of a crime is PC for arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:22:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably took them that long to think, "Well, what are we going to do if we catch him." Yeah, probably something like that. Screwy situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:22:34 PM EDT
[#34]
This thread is a fucking shit show.
God damn Tom just fucking swallow you pride and edit the post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:22:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once again, if you are gonna sit there and tell me that if a person turns and runs from a police escorted interview when sexual molestation comes up, that any LEO is gonna simply throw up his hands and not view that as suspicious behavior and apprehend said person, I'm telling you right now you are chock full of shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No you just don't know what you are talking about as usual concerning LE. This was five years from the time of the incident. They had no PC and no warrant to arrest him while leaving a consensual interview. Once again, if you are gonna sit there and tell me that if a person turns and runs from a police escorted interview when sexual molestation comes up, that any LEO is gonna simply throw up his hands and not view that as suspicious behavior and apprehend said person, I'm telling you right now you are chock full of shit. You can call me full of shit if that makes you feel better, but here is no legal basis to stop someone if they refuse to talk to you or CPS about an incident that occurred 5 years prior. Whether they say, "I don't want to give a statement" or they turn around and run makes no difference. I've had suspects get up and walk out of follow up interviews. I imagine other investigators have as well. That's how it goes. If they're not under arrest and I can't detain them, they're free to leave. I make sure they know that too. Getting serious cases tossed in suppression hearings isn't fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:24:57 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone read the story linked by tomislav? It reads like the guy may have admitted to doing it to investigators. check out the part in bold. http://www.rawstory.com/2014/01/prosecutors-wont-charge-ohio-trooper-who-masturbated-with-boy-to-teach-him-about-sex/ a quote from the article Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone read the story linked by tomislav? It reads like the guy may have admitted to doing it to investigators. check out the part in bold. http://www.rawstory.com/2014/01/prosecutors-wont-charge-ohio-trooper-who-masturbated-with-boy-to-teach-him-about-sex/ a quote from the article Investigators said name removed told his wife he was attempting to teach the boy about sex, The Sandusky Register reported.
“name removed’s reasoning is the fact that he did not want (the boy) to feel pressured on feeling the need to have to have sex with someone, when he can fix those needs by masturbating to porn,” wrote Deputy Sean O’Connell after speaking to the trooper’s wife. [name removed] claimed a dresser blocked their view of each other as they masturbated, according to the report. Authorities said he engaged in such activities twice with the boy about five years ago. Seems to me,that is what his wife reported to the police... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:25:32 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Running from the police when suspected of a crime is PC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What? Running away aint RS and failure to stop when asked PC? Not when it is a consensual meeting. There is no legal requirement for you to speak to CPS. I wonder why the police followed him a mile..... Good question but it still doesn't mean anything legally since CPS and Police do not have the same set of rules and guidelines. Maybe the police stopped once they realized that he doesn't have to talk to CPS, they didn't have any PC to arrest him on, and they didn't have a warrant for his arrest. Running from the police when suspected of a crime is PC. Not when it is a consensual interaction with CPS it is not. He was not detained for questioning by the Police. He was under no obligation to be there or say anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:33:10 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can call me full of shit if that makes you feel better, but here is no legal basis to stop someone if they refuse to talk to you or CPS about an incident that occurred 5 years prior. Whether they say, "I don't want to give a statement" or they turn around and run makes no difference. I've had suspects get up and walk out of follow up interviews. I imagine other investigators have as well. That's how it goes. If they're not under arrest and I can't detain them, they're free to leave. I make sure they know that too. Getting serious cases tossed in suppression hearings isn't fun. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No you just don't know what you are talking about as usual concerning LE. This was five years from the time of the incident. They had no PC and no warrant to arrest him while leaving a consensual interview. Once again, if you are gonna sit there and tell me that if a person turns and runs from a police escorted interview when sexual molestation comes up, that any LEO is gonna simply throw up his hands and not view that as suspicious behavior and apprehend said person, I'm telling you right now you are chock full of shit. You can call me full of shit if that makes you feel better, but here is no legal basis to stop someone if they refuse to talk to you or CPS about an incident that occurred 5 years prior. Whether they say, "I don't want to give a statement" or they turn around and run makes no difference. I've had suspects get up and walk out of follow up interviews. I imagine other investigators have as well. That's how it goes. If they're not under arrest and I can't detain them, they're free to leave. I make sure they know that too. Getting serious cases tossed in suppression hearings isn't fun. Hmmm, generally speaking an interview by CPS (no arrest powers, do they advise of Miranda prior to questioning?), not done at a station or while in cuffs, police there to standby and cover CPS if the interview go sideways (physical reaction to some very likely awkward questions/allegations). All signs of non-custodial interview where I work. You can follow them, but no real RS/PC for stop/detention. Sucks, from the angle that most people hate child molesters, but agree laws and shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:36:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not when it is a consensual interaction with CPS it is not. He was not detained for questioning by the Police. He was under no obligation to be there or say anything. The story didnt say if the police caught him or not, or if he was detained when they caught him. Just that he wasnt charged for running. The story is vague as hell. and full of ambiguious language to boot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:37:05 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
running from an interview by CPS is legal. but usually ends badly. Running from the police when suspected of a crime is PC for arrest. I would agree, if wife made the report the night of the incident. Officers show up to investigate and he runs, absolutely. You would certainly be able to detain him for a reasonable amount of time while you did the initial investigation. But, 5 years later? That would be unlawful detention IMO. Several days later would still be stretching it. Similar to warrant-less arrests. If you can establish a crime was just committed and you have PC at the scene, arrest him. But, going back after the fact after some time has passed, you better get an arrest warrant first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:38:17 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The sotry didnt say if the police caught him or not, or if he was detained. Just that he wasnt charged for running. The story was vague as hell. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not when it is a consensual interaction with CPS it is not. He was not detained for questioning by the Police. He was under no obligation to be there or say anything. The sotry didnt say if the police caught him or not, or if he was detained. Just that he wasnt charged for running. The story was vague as hell. Yeah the original article wasn't very well written |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:39:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As for example: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=4&anc=8434515#i8434515 A play on the 'Oh Well' that earns selective bans, it seems. Especially when she was murdered. Well, technically her 'civil rights were violated in such a way as to result in her death', but in the real world, that is murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Ya, for your impartial investigation. You probably don't need me to explain the concept of 'equivocation' to you. Such as claiming, for instance, that in this particular case, it's probably A-OK to run from the police. Where the perp just so happens to have a badge. And murder? I gotcha murder right here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Wrong_Address_in_Atlanta_results_in_92_year_old_woman_shot_dead__3_cops_shot.html&page=3 And that's ignoring the 'he was holding a PS3 controller so I had to shoot' ones. Please use the "Link to this Post" feature as a link to page 3 of an 8 page thread isn't helpful. Explaining the legal intricacies of an event in no way constitutes "defended child molestation." Quite the stretch you are attempting. As for example: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=4&anc=8434515#i8434515 ...She shot the cops and the cops shot her. She fucked up and died for it. The Officers will recover, thank God... A play on the 'Oh Well' that earns selective bans, it seems. Especially when she was murdered. Well, technically her 'civil rights were violated in such a way as to result in her death', but in the real world, that is murder. Here is you problem you believe what you want. I was explaining that an interview with child protective services is voluntary meaning he could not be compelled to comply with the request. Him fleeing the scene is not illegal. The officers are only there in case things get sideways. I've done those exact same type protection details many times. As to the ATL thread many people were making statements about till it came out that the whole thing was a farce on behalf of the officers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:44:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
" They've defended everything from murder to child molestation, just because the perpetrators had a badge." You cant get much more simpler than that... if cops on this board have defended child molesters, then prove it. It isnt that hard.  Quoted:
BS. He clearly said that officer who are members of this forum have "defended everything from murder to child molestation". That's not even in the same ballpark as "benefit of the doubting". If he meant what you are saying he did, he made the worst mis-type I've ever seen. Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff? 
I said in that thread the trooper was a scumbag or other such term. I was explaining how a CPS investigation is conducted and that from what I could tell he did not break the law by fleeing the CPS interview because a person cannot be compelled to take part in such action. Therefore it was not illegal for him to leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:46:01 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would agree, if wife made the report the night of the incident. Officers show up to investigate and he runs, absolutely. You would certainly be able to detain him for a reasonable amount of time while you did the initial investigation. But, 5 years later? That would be unlawful detention IMO. Several days later would still be stretching it. Similar to warrant-less arrests. If you can establish a crime was just committed and you have PC at the scene, arrest him. But, going back after the fact after some time has passed, you better get an arrest warrant first. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
running from an interview by CPS is legal. but usually ends badly. Running from the police when suspected of a crime is PC for arrest. I would agree, if wife made the report the night of the incident. Officers show up to investigate and he runs, absolutely. You would certainly be able to detain him for a reasonable amount of time while you did the initial investigation. But, 5 years later? That would be unlawful detention IMO. Several days later would still be stretching it. Similar to warrant-less arrests. If you can establish a crime was just committed and you have PC at the scene, arrest him. But, going back after the fact after some time has passed, you better get an arrest warrant first. Sounds good to me. but it still seems odd that he would run from police, for a mile, knowing full well he could be setting himself up for all kinds of trouble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:46:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The story didnt say if the police caught him or not, or if he was detained when they caught him. Just that he wasnt charged for running. The story is vague as hell. and full of ambiguious language to boot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not when it is a consensual interaction with CPS it is not. He was not detained for questioning by the Police. He was under no obligation to be there or say anything. The story didnt say if the police caught him or not, or if he was detained when they caught him. Just that he wasnt charged for running. The story is vague as hell. and full of ambiguious language to boot. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:47:12 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was that guy from a thread 8 or 9 years ago a cop? Hard to tell, what with the hidden badges. 
Volunteer TBL, though. So you hinge the argument on someone who may or may not meet the proof of your statement that you were asked to cite? The "Volunteer TBL" kind of shows your bias too. Well, I'll gladly review W2s or whatever to verify employment, but that is of course far from the only Oh Well in that thread, of course. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/519673_.html&page=3&anc=8434392#i8434392 Again comments made before everyone knew what actually happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:48:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0489/4081/products/calvin-pissing-on-blue-line-tshirt_1024x1024.jpg?v=1429109774 GD makes me want to pick this shirt up. Careful, if you're that easily influenced GD will have you feeling like a tranny too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:53:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will not say it is 'defending a child molester' but I do find it interesting that we have two different incidents where police want to detain a person, in one instance that person is accused of making 'threatening gestures' and in the other, sexual misconduct with a child. In both cases the person in question does not meekly allow himself to be detained, but puts up some form of resistance (Fleeing while pursued by deputies vs backing away and not putting the camera down) For only one of those two individuals does Bama come in and state that in some areas of this country it is lawful to not comply by fleeing for not violating the law that the cops are attempting to detain or arrest him for. That's pretty telling. Please post the law that a requires a person to comply with a Child Protective Services interview, that would include the mandatory police detention of said person to comply with the interview request. I will be waiting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:53:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. I never said it was justifying molestation. I specifically said it WASN'T justifying molestation. Go back and read. What I said, which was highlighted in red, was 100% factual. Not opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It wasn't factual because it was an opinion. Your opinion. You seem to think that someone attempting to offer an explanation for why things happened the way they did equate to justifying molestation. The FACT remains that no one in that thread justified or attempted to justify anyone molesting anyone. Which goes back to the whole issue at hand, that Tomislav said LEOs here have justified murder and molestation, which is not true. Wrong. I never said it was justifying molestation. I specifically said it WASN'T justifying molestation. Go back and read. What I said, which was highlighted in red, was 100% factual. Not opinion. Then why are we arguing?? That was the whole issue. Tomislav used that as his explanation as to what he was referring to when he said Arfcom LEOs were justifying molestation. Geez louise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 5:53:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I said in that thread the trooper was a scumbag or other such term. I was explaining how a CPS investigation is conducted and that from what I could tell he did not break the law by fleeing the CPS interview because a person cannot be compelled to take part in such action. Therefore it was not illegal for him to leave. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
" They've defended everything from murder to child molestation, just because the perpetrators had a badge." You cant get much more simpler than that... if cops on this board have defended child molesters, then prove it. It isnt that hard. Quoted:
BS. He clearly said that officer who are members of this forum have "defended everything from murder to child molestation". That's not even in the same ballpark as "benefit of the doubting". If he meant what you are saying he did, he made the worst mis-type I've ever seen. Again, I'm more defending Tomislav against a ban than his statement, but if you read the thread he linked to, which was about a police officer who had admitted to the activity in question (masturbating in front of a child) there are those choosing to argue for why he wasn't charged with fleeing from deputies. That is on some level offering a defense for the actions of an admitted child molester. I agree, not defending child molestation, (and I wouldn't say Bama is a child molester defender) but if you're going to hash words, hash words. Ban-able offense? Seems like an overreaction and a standard not so equally applied across GD conversations. It seems Tomislavs crime was not phrasing it as "defended the actions of an admitted child molester" as that would be technically correct. But is that semantic argument worth catching action from site staff?
I said in that thread the trooper was a scumbag or other such term. I was explaining how a CPS investigation is conducted and that from what I could tell he did not break the law by fleeing the CPS interview because a person cannot be compelled to take part in such action. Therefore it was not illegal for him to leave. Before you run up your BS flag, I specifically stated that I did not construe what you said to be a defense of child molestation. Bolded for your leisure. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
