Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't know that. Where do these non sequiturs end?
He pled guilty to what, "disorderly conduct", defined here as offering two kids a ride home? And of course he pled guilty. What's the alternative? Spending a lot more time and effort and possibly more money trying to defend himself?
In this case, the closest sort of disorderly conduct to what he did is "annoying people". But neither of the articles I read even mentioned the girls making a claim that he did something that should be considered annoying. You'd think that if they said "He winked at us" or some crap, they'da put that in the article. So even on the premises of annoyance (which is one helluva slippery slope, truth be told) or harrassment, there just wasn't a case here.
Point is, there wasn't even a suspicion that he broke a law unless it is actually, technically illegal to offer a kid a ride home. I'll assume that it isn't; otherwise, that would've been the charge. So there was nothing to plead guilty to in the first place.
Would you plead "guilty" to something you didn't do? Do you really think the police give you two years probation for just offering someone a ride, which they turned down? Last I checked, "disorderly conduct" was more than doing that. Think, Vic!
We don't know that. Where do these non sequiturs end?
He pled guilty to what, "disorderly conduct", defined here as offering two kids a ride home? And of course he pled guilty. What's the alternative? Spending a lot more time and effort and possibly more money trying to defend himself?
In this case, the closest sort of disorderly conduct to what he did is "annoying people". But neither of the articles I read even mentioned the girls making a claim that he did something that should be considered annoying. You'd think that if they said "He winked at us" or some crap, they'da put that in the article. So even on the premises of annoyance (which is one helluva slippery slope, truth be told) or harrassment, there just wasn't a case here.
Point is, there wasn't even a suspicion that he broke a law unless it is actually, technically illegal to offer a kid a ride home. I'll assume that it isn't; otherwise, that would've been the charge. So there was nothing to plead guilty to in the first place.
What more money would he need to spend since he had a lawyer for the trial? See since we never went to trial we don't have the actual police report nor the testimony on things. I think the fact he chased these girls down, and then lied to the police is what spurred the charges. Basically if things were so altruistic why would he lie about the 2 details when asked? I have had men and women offer me rides when i am walking in semi bad weather and i turn them down. But i'm sorry if a guy chased me into a residential neighborhood, asked how far away i lived, and if i needed a ride then i would be friggin creeped out. And multiply that some since these are little girls who are not as old and mature as i am.
Would you plead "guilty" to something you didn't do? Do you really think the police give you two years probation for just offering someone a ride, which they turned down? Last I checked, "disorderly conduct" was more than doing that. Think, Vic!
See i could see that if like he said he was moving and just didn't care enough to fight things to just get it out of the way. Because any time i have seen disorderly conduct in court its been such a minor things. A small fine, and once in awhile a suspended sentence but nothing like this. Anyway this guy hired and attorney then went to court and advised his client to plead guilty. Which to me shows that he didn't feel this guy had a shot at winning the case once he saw the facts.
Would you plead "guilty" to something you didn't do?
If it was easier and less costly in various ways to do so than to fight it, sure. I'd be bonkers to further punish myself (by spending more time, effort, and money) to establish my innocence with a jury, rather than accept the relatively small, simple punishment that comes from pleading guilty in a case like this.
Another reason he might've pled guilty is that he simply didn't know what he did wasn't actually disorderly conduct (If you wish to argue that, I'll need to see some references to a precedent set). Many of the people who replied to this thread don't seem to realize that, so it's very likely he didn't either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Do you really think the police give you two years probation for just offering someone a ride, which they turned down? Last I checked, "disorderly conduct" was more than doing that. Think, Vic!
I am thinking. That's why I didn't just hop on the bandwagon you seem to be strapped onto rather tightly. As for what cops will do, I've seen a cop literally run over a fellow classmate when I was in the fifth grade, and then keep going. It wasn't possible that he didn't see (or feel) what he had done.
So yes, I think a cop would do this. Only, in this case, they just went along with something that sounded about right. And the justice system beyond them failed to dismiss a groundless charge just as they apparently should've failed law school.
Quote:
"Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
makes unreasonable noise;
uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor."
Basically if things were so altruistic why would he lie about the 2 details when asked?
I'm not interested in whether he was being altruistic. "God told me" sounds like it was just as probable he was being impulsive or just unreasonably obedient to what he thought was God's will.
I'm also not interested in whether he intentionally lied. Lots of people lie when backed into a corner, doesn't always mean they're guilty.
Point is still that he didn't do anything illegal (I've yet to see even a claim made by the kids that he did), save maybe lying to the cops, not sure. It probably depends on what the lie is, whether it's against the law.
He told the police they were walking in a snowstorm and was concerned because they were not properly dressed, wearing no hoods, coats, or carrying no umbrellas . However surveillance cameras show they were dressed fine, and wearing coats and that police cars videos show there was no snow falling in the area. Also the police had concern when they went up to question him with his wife that the car happened to not be in his driveway. I think that and the lying are what spurred the police to charge him rather then let it go to be honest. And the fact he took a lawyer to court then still pled guilty shows the charges had some merit. A few of the reports also say the girls said he was acting suspiciously when he talked to him. Sadly without them being interviewed we don't know really what that entailed.
If it was easier and less costly in various ways to do so than to fight it, sure. I'd be bonkers to further punish myself (by spending more time, effort, and money) to establish my innocence with a jury, rather than accept the relatively small, simple punishment that comes from pleading guilty in a case like this.
Another reason he might've pled guilty is that he simply didn't know what he did wasn't actually disorderly conduct (If you wish to argue that, I'll need to see some references to a precedent set). Many of the people who replied to this thread don't seem to realize that, so it's very likely he didn't either.
I am thinking. That's why I didn't just hop on the bandwagon you seem to be strapped onto rather tightly. As for what cops will do, I've seen a cop literally run over a fellow classmate when I was in the fifth grade, and then keep going. It wasn't possible that he didn't see (or feel) what he had done.
So yes, I think a cop would do this. Only, in this case, they just went along with something that sounded about right. And the justice system beyond them failed to dismiss a groundless charge just as they apparently should've failed law school.
You think a $750 fine and two years probation is a "small, simple punishment"? As far as him not knowing what the charges were, he had a lawyer. He also had to pay the attorney. This thing cost him a lot of money, probably > $1000. And you don't think he's guilty as he pled?
You think a $750 fine and two years probation is a "small, simple punishment"? As far as him not knowing what the charges were, he had a lawyer. He also had to pay the attorney. This thing cost him a lot of money, probably > $1000. And you don't think he's guilty as he pled?
Again, guilty of what? The law has to be in the books before you can break it.
I thought it was 400. Yes, maybe I'd consider a $750 fine worth a shot at fighting against. I won't speculate on his reasoning. For all we know, he tried to fight it for the same reason he committed this non-crime of the century in the first place: "God told him to". And even without the difference in how much money it would cost to fight it, it's still an ordeal that takes up far more time and effort to fight than to just plead guilty, even after you've already started fighting. Maybe even moreso, because you've seen firsthand how long it's likely to drag out.
The reason I'm not focusing on things we can say make him more suspicious is that there are also things that make him less suspicious. Things like him being a family man, married with three kids of his own (two of them being girls). If he did manage to kidnap someone, it's not like he can take them home! And even if tried to take them to a motel, he's got people expecting him to be a certain place at a certain time. Hardly a situation conducive to a kidnapping lifestyle.
But of course we don't want to look at any of that, just like we don't want to acknowledge that there wasn't even the accusation of a crime in the first place, apart from maybe "We felt this way". Thought a crime was something a person DID, not something their alleged victim FELT... if even that sort of talk was put forth by the two girls in the police report. So far, I'm not seeing any evidence of it. I liken this to getting your car searched because you broke the law of driving a blue car on Saturday.
All the additional info I saw in the other link was that it wasn't snowing. Who cares? I don't think people need to be fined hundreds of dollars and put on probation because someone was creeped out. Did he touch them in any way? No. Did he attempt to force them into his car? No. He accepted their refusal of a ride and drove on. So where's the crime here?
good thing you aren't a detective or in any legal position.
Red flags. big deal a 700.00 fine, perhaps this guy was the next Ted Bundy and now his P.O. can keep an eye on him.
Good job by the police.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
