father punches man molesting his son and gets arrested

[Taomon]

Hey Tampon,

this is just one incident where victims have been charged while protecting themselves

And the "poor judgement" of cops seems to be an epidemic in MA. And the Atty general herself said the boy's father should not have attacked the pervert. The MA state legislature will not pass Jessica's law because it is too harsh on perverts, I guess we know whose rights are more important in MA The problem goes much deeper than 2 cops.

This hasn't been determined by the court as yet so what are you talking about? MA is very big on children's rights.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So you think both men should have been arrested on the spot and detained huh?

I don't agree but at least that's better than many of the others here that think the cops should have adjudicated the matter at the scene.

All I'm saying is that attempted child molestation and assault and battery are at least as serious as reckless driving and the process should not be less of an imposition than speeding over 80 MPH. I think that writing a ticket for child molestation is insufficient. Especially in this situation where the suspect admitted touching the child.

 

[Diuretic]

What's your opinion on what these cops did?

I get called to the store. There's an elderly man who shows signs of being assaulted. He identifies (big problem in itself but let's leave that for a moment) another man as having assaulted him. I question the alleged assaulter, he says he assaulted the alleged victim because the man allegedly tried to interfere with his son. The evidence is there for the assault. I wouldn't arrest the alleged assaulter but I would prepare a report for a summons to be issued. As for the alleged interferer, I wouldn't question him but I would treat the complaint from the father and the child as valid and have it investigated by someone else due to my involvement with the alleged assaulter.

 

[manifold]

All I'm saying is that attempted child molestation and assault and battery are at least as serious as reckless driving and the process should not be less of an imposition than speeding over 80 MPH. I think that writing a ticket for child molestation is insufficient. Especially in this situation where the suspect admitted touching the child.

Ok, got it.

But my crystal ball says the diddling ****** will be convicted and the dad won't even be tried. Any takers?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I get called to the store. There's an elderly man who shows signs of being assaulted. He identifies (big problem in itself but let's leave that for a moment) another man as having assaulted him. I question the alleged assaulter, he says he assaulted the alleged victim because the man allegedly tried to interfere with his son. The evidence is there for the assault. I wouldn't arrest the alleged assaulter but I would prepare a report for a summons to be issued. As for the alleged interferer, I wouldn't question him but I would treat the complaint from the father and the child as valid and have it investigated by someone else due to my involvement with the alleged assaulter.

Except the man ADMITTED he reached UNDER the Stall and touched the child. No guess work needed at all. All you have to do is decide if it was a "joke" for a 70 year old man to be fondling little boys in bathroom stalls.

 

[Ravi]

All I'm saying is that attempted child molestation and assault and battery are at least as serious as reckless driving and the process should not be less of an imposition than speeding over 80 MPH. I think that writing a ticket for child molestation is insufficient. Especially in this situation where the suspect admitted touching the child.

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!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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!!!

Once again you MORON, he ADMITTED he did it.

 

[Ravi]

I get called to the store. There's an elderly man who shows signs of being assaulted. He identifies (big problem in itself but let's leave that for a moment) another man as having assaulted him. I question the alleged assaulter, he says he assaulted the alleged victim because the man allegedly tried to interfere with his son. The evidence is there for the assault. I wouldn't arrest the alleged assaulter but I would prepare a report for a summons to be issued. As for the alleged interferer, I wouldn't question him but I would treat the complaint from the father and the child as valid and have it investigated by someone else due to my involvement with the alleged assaulter.

Thank you for that, it sounds pretty darn rational.

 

[Diuretic]

Except the man ADMITTED he reached UNDER the Stall and touched the child. No guess work needed at all. All you have to do is decide if it was a "joke" for a 70 year old man to be fondling little boys in bathroom stalls.

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.

 

[Ravi]

Ok, got it.

But my crystal ball says the diddling ****** will be convicted and the dad won't even be tried. Any takers?

I think you called it right.

 

[Ravi]

Except the man ADMITTED he reached UNDER the Stall and touched the child. No guess work needed at all. All you have to do is decide if it was a "joke" for a 70 year old man to be fondling little boys in bathroom stalls.

Sadly, you don't know that. But it's nice to see you put so much credibility in the press.

 

[Care4all]

Factually and historically incorrect.

Lets try some reality, shall we?

Women could not vote. White MEN had to create the amendment and pass it and then vote on it in the States to make it law. Pretty damn simple concept.

Blacks could not vote. Even after the 13th and 14th amendments they were prevented from voting. WHITE men dominated by massive numbers the Congress and still do. THEY voted to stop the South from preventing blacks from voting.

You are an ignorant person. The republicans were NOT liberal in 1964. There is even a quote floating around from one of their leaders saying he was going to be accused by the party of being liberal. Gosh if they were liberal, why would that be bad?

******* learn history you dumb ass.

Ahemmm, women/minorities/ non home owners...whoever..... could NOT VOTE, because of White men that created our country and laws to say such in the FIRST PLACE....Ravi is right...imo.

 

[manifold]

But it's nice to see you put so much credibility in the press.

Like he did with the FLDS raid you mean?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Once again you MORON, he ADMITTED he did it.

Thanks Gunny, it's like arguing with a steel wall. Nothing penetrates it.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks Gunny, it's like arguing with a steel wall. Nothing penetrates it.

And how confident would you be that the admission to the police would be admitted as evidence?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And how confident would you be that the admission to the police would be admitted as evidence?

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.

 

[Care4all]

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

 

[Ravi]

Like he did with the FLDS raid you mean?

Yep. RGS continues to be the biggest hypocrite at USMB.

 

[manifold]

Yep. RGS continues to be the biggest hypocrite at USMB.

No easy feat either.

 

[Ravi]

Hey!

btw, I like your new tagline.