father punches man molesting his son and gets arrested

[Tech_Esq]

It's only an admission if he tells the court that's what happened. Up until then it's only hearsay, my report of the conversation I had with him. I can't give evidence of the truth of his statement, only that that was what he told me. As evidence it's pretty poor unless and until he admits it to the court. I'm not the trier of fact, I'm the investigator, I report the evidence I gather (and you have to accept that "evidence" is whatever will be allowed in front of the trier of fact) and it's presented, that's it.

Ok, slow down everybody. You are muddling up the CJ process. Cops have one job, lawyers have another and judges and juries yet another.

To make an arrest, the police in the US are required to have probable cause. To convict of a crime, courts must have been conviced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Statements made to police prior to arrest, during the course of an investigation are permitted to aide the police in their determination of probable cause to arrest. An admission of guilt is certainly a statement that should have been taken into account by the police.

Whether that statement would be admitted as evidence in court at some later time, is of no moment to the questions facing the police. Their questions are: was there a crime committed?; if so, who did it? Once they answered those questions to the standard required "probable cause," then my contention is that they should have made an arrest in the case of attempted child molestation or any other felony.

 

[Diuretic]

Absolutely positive. Unless he was beaten by the police. They did not even have to read him is Miranda rights since they were not initially even going to charge him with anything.

The way it works here, until the Cops plan to charge you they can question you, you do not have to answer, but if you do, they can use it as evidence.

Until he admitted he touched the child the cops had nothing to go on except that a man punched another man and made a claim as to why he did it.

Once he admitted he touched the child, they would then have to Mirandize him to continue the questions.

Okay, well here we're in a different position. The moment I decide that someone is a suspect then I have to give them what we call the "caution". They don't have to be in custody. And it's a bit contentious as to when the caution should be given. We've had cases where the judge, in a voir dire, has decided that the caution was given too late and that whole parts of the interview should be excised. But speaking as an ex-Detective I can tell you that I never asked anyone questions out of curiousity. I usually gave them the caution fairly early just to watch them either shit themselves or get all smug. Didn't matter to me, I had the evidence anyway

 

[Tech_Esq]

The article states that Mr Rodrigez could not speak a word of English...apparently, he did not understand what was going on or could not give his side of the story at that time....

Mr Rodriguez seems guilty as heck to me, but I can understand how law enforcement had to let the courts decide...

HOWEVER, I do think it seems ridiculous to charge the Father with assault, though legally, he did assault Mr. Rodriguez....But I view this as "using Force" to defend one's family or another human being, from HARM.....self defense.... and I am certain the courts and community will see it this way, when and if the Father's case, goes to court....a shame that it might come to this on the father.... personally, the DA should bring the pedophile's case up first, then drop the Father's charge accordingly.

care

We haven't really focused on the father here, but if the prosecutor went forward with trying him for misdemeanor assault, (assuming the facts are as reported), then the father would claim self-defense as an absolute defense to the charge of assault.

And, before we get started, he is entitled to make the self-defense claim and if anyone wants to say he isn't, link your support.

 

[Diuretic]

Ok, slow down everybody. You are muddling up the CJ process. Cops have one job, lawyers have another and judges and juries yet another.

To make an arrest, the police in the US are required to have probable cause. To convict of a crime, courts must have been conviced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Statements made to police prior to arrest, during the course of an investigation are permitted to aide the police in their determination of probable cause to arrest. An admission of guilt is certainly a statement that should have been taken into account by the police.

Whether that statement would be admitted as evidence in court at some later time, is of no moment to the questions facing the police. Their questions are: was there a crime committed?; if so, who did it? Once they answered those questions to the standard required "probable cause," then my contention is that they should have made an arrest in the case of attempted child molestation or any other felony.

Okay but given arrest is just a process then why would they arrest in this case?

 

[Diuretic]

We haven't really focused on the father here, but if the prosecutor went forward with trying him for misdemeanor assault, (assuming the facts are as reported), then the father would claim self-defense as an absolute defense to the charge of assault.

And, before we get started, he is entitled to make the self-defense claim and if anyone wants to say he isn't, link your support.

But that depends on the construction of necessity/self defence in the jurisdiction. How is it constructed in Massachusetts?

 

[Wow]

I hadn't realized the cops witnessed the molestation like they witness reckless driving. This changes everything. Though he wasn't written a ticket, he's being charged with a felony. But you are correct, what the hell is wrong with these cops that watched an undoubtably illegal immigrant molest a child and they just stood there and watched!!!

Do you have a problem with males?

 

[Ravi]

Okay but given arrest is just a process then why would they arrest in this case?

Exactly...even if they had, the both of them would have been right back out on the street because neither of them has priors. Seems pretty cost effective and rational to me, but what the heck do I know?

 

[Ravi]

Do you have a problem with males?

Of course. Unless they are molesting children.

 

[Wow]

Of course. Unless they are molesting children.

You either have a reading comprehension problem or you hate little boys being protected from molesters.
Did this 4 year old boy get what he really wanted? (I know this is how female Public school teachers think)

 

[Ravi]

You either have a reading comprehension problem or you hate little boys being protected from molesters.
Did this 4 year old boy get what he really wanted? (I know this is how female Public school teachers think)

In all honesty, I think you're an asshole.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Okay but given arrest is just a process then why would they arrest in this case?

Ahem..."Arrest is just a process" ...those would be your words, not mine. You defend them. Thanks for playing though.

 

[Diuretic]

Ahem..."Arrest is just a process" ...those would be your words, not mine. You defend them. Thanks for playing though.

What's the problem? Arrest is just a process of getting a person to court. It's possible to get someone to court on summons without arresting them. Where I am we are required to specifically state the reasons someone was arrested and not simply reported for a summons to be issued.

 

[Tech_Esq]

What's the problem? Arrest is just a process of getting a person to court. It's possible to get someone to court on summons without arresting them. Where I am we are required to specifically state the reasons someone was arrested and not simply reported for a summons to be issued.

Do they typically just hand out a piece of paper to suspected felons in Austrailia and figure that's good enough to get them to come in? Or, is it more common practice to have suspected felons post a bond to ensure their appearance in court?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What's the problem? Arrest is just a process of getting a person to court. It's possible to get someone to court on summons without arresting them. Where I am we are required to specifically state the reasons someone was arrested and not simply reported for a summons to be issued.

Just a process? Sure thing, remind me if I intend to commit a Felony for my first time to do it in Australia. I mean no record, turn over my passport, no reason to put me in jail right?

 

[Diuretic]

Do they typically just hand out a piece of paper to suspected felons in Austrailia and figure that's good enough to get them to come in? Or, is it more common practice to have suspected felons post a bond to ensure their appearance in court?

One of the criteria used to decide is seriousness of the offence. There are a few others. I should point out that is is just police policy.

The law of arrest in my state is pretty broad. A police officer can arrest any person without a warrant at any time of the day or night if that police officer reasonably suspects that person of committing an offence (any offence) or being about to commit any offence (again any offence) or having committed an offence.

That broad power of arrest is guided by police general orders (but they're only a guide as a police officer here can decide on the use of his or her authority as an individual and can't be ordered - except by a court in a warrant - to arrest anyone or in fact not to arrest anyone).

One of the other criteria is if the person was summonsed would they turn up?
If they would, then they can be summonsed, if there's a suspicion they wouldn't then they're arrested. But in case if they're arrested there's a presumption in favour of bail so they could be released on bail either on ther own recognisance or with a surety or two.

 

[Diuretic]

Just a process? Sure thing, remind me if I intend to commit a Felony for my first time to do it in Australia. I mean no record, turn over my passport, no reason to put me in jail right?

Wires crossed. The arrest is just a process of getting someone in front of a court.

In my jurisdiction we don't have felonies any longer, it's serious indictable, minor indictable or summary offence. If you commit a serious indictable offence you will probably be arrested (but not always) and then you may or may not get bail but you will face a committal and if committed then you will be tried.

 

[coolgeee]

The destruction of the family has been systematically carried out for years now. All power taken from our parents, the abilty to protect yourself, your family, and your property has been lost for sometime now.

All hail our dictator!

 

[My Winter Storm]

Parents have every right to protect their children if they see their children are in harms way. This was clearly one of those situations, and the father reacted accordingly. I cannot believe he was charged simply for protecting his child.

 

[sealybobo]

This is what the great state of MA does to parents who protect their kids from perverts.

Ma will not pass Jessica's law because it is too harsh. Authorities in MA will arrest a parent for stopping a pervert from fondling a child.

Indecent assault raises concern - Taunton, MA - The Taunton Gazette

Quick recap

A father of a 4 yr old sees a man snake his arm under a bathroom stall in a local supermarket and fondle his sons genitals. Said father opens the stall and punches the pervert, a 71 yr old employee of the supermarket, in the puss. The cops arrest the father for felony assault and let the pervert go. Said pervert was still working in the store after the incident.

On a local radio station, the atty general of MA, Martha Coakley, stated that authorities in MA discourage "self help" meaning that if you or your children are assaulted that you should just stand by and allow yourself or your kids to be victimized while you patiently wait for police to come and save you.

WTF is wrong with this picture.

And think I used to wonder why I left MA.

I know a guy who got caught peeping and while awaiting trial, got caught flashing! Now he will definitely do time. I met his girlfriend. After talking to me for 5 minutes she didn't have a clue who she was living with. Get this. He told her he was a diver. You know, saving lives and recovering bodies. He also told her he had leukemia and was going to go to switzerlnd. same lie he told us 2 yrs ago.

poor lady. she said she hadn't dated for 10 yrs and joe saved her and her family. and maybe so, but she also turned down a promotion to take care of him.

she said he went into such elaborate details about diving. I said, he probably picked that job so he could leave on a moments notice? then it hit her. I told her I can think of 5 lightbulbs that should have went off. she said he would always threaten to leave if she questioned him. they pray on people. and you would never think this guy was bad. he's the friendliest guy.

I even found out or confirmed he lied to me a few times. These people are very manipulative. Act innocent. Always have an answer.
in regards to this story you are talking about;

So the cops show up and this guy beat the shit out of the accused. I'm sure the assault will go away if the molesting ends up true.

or if it turns out the dads a dirtbag, maybe it won't.

 

[AllieBaba]

If this lady was up for a promotion, how exactly did this guy "save" her and her family?

Some people set themselves up to be victimized.