I never understood the logic behind that. Obviously the kid already thinks they have something to cry about, or they wouldn't be crying.
:shrug:
K_Jo, don't do this with little Guinevere - it's dumb.
Need Attorney In St. Mary's
- Thread starter glazeteresa
- Start date
I never understood the logic behind that. Obviously the kid already thinks they have something to cry about, or they wouldn't be crying.
:shrug:
K_Jo, don't do this with little Guinevere - it's dumb.
Jeff
Stop Staring!!!!!
<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY id=collapseobj_usercp_reputation><TR><TD class=alt2></TD><TD class=alt1Active id=p2434825 width="50%">Need Attorney In St....</TD><TD class=alt2 noWrap>10-23-2007 10:12 AM</TD><TD class=alt1 width="50%">HOMO PHOBE!</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
He was working on the 19th. He wasn't working this weekend. I see how the charge is entered, however this must be something in their system. I now understand why the guy said he was charged with child abuse 2nd degree. I would also submit there was a detective supervisor involved in the charging document and this guy would NOT have been arrested for a simple spanking.Charge No: 001Description:CHILD ABUSE: 2ND DEG -CUST
Statute: CR.3.601.(d)Description:CHILD ABUSE:CUSTODIAN
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 0173MO/PLLrobable Cause:X
Incident Date From: 10/19/2007 To: 10/19/2007 Victim Age:
Charge No: 002Description
Statute: 27.121.(b).(2)Description
Amended Date: CJIS Code:2 0050MO/PLL
Incident Date From: 10/19/2007 To: 10/19/2007 Victim Age:
Charge No: 003Description:RESISTING ARREST
Statute: CLDescription:RESISTING ARREST
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 4801MO/PLL
Incident Date From: 10/19/2007 To: 10/19/2007 Victim Age:
Related Person Information
(Each Person related to the case other than the Defendant is shown)
Name:KOCH, S B
Connection:WITNESS/POLICE OFFICER
Agency Code: MSPAgency Sub-Code:9082Officer ID:1927
Name:
Connection:WITNESS/POLICE OFFICER
Agency Code: ZRAgency Sub-Code:18Officer ID:0202
Name:SMITH, TIMOTHY JAMES
Connection:SURETY COMPANY
Address: 1741 TRENT STREET
City: CROFTONState:MDZip Code:21114
Name:GEORGE, MICHAEL
Connection:COMPLAINANT/POLICE OFFICER
Agency Code: ZRAgency Sub-Code:18Officer ID:0185
Name:GEORGE, M OFFR
Connection:COMPLAINANT
Event History Information
Event Date Comment
DOCI 10/19/2007 SC ISSUED 071019
INIT 10/19/2007 071019;00005000.00;HDOB;010;CASH;4056
CMIT 10/19/2007 DEFENDANT COMMITTED;071019;SMJ
BOND 10/19/2007 071019;00005000.00;PCT ; ; ;010
RELS 10/19/2007 DEFENDANT RELEASED FROM COMMITMENT
--------------------
That is the way they entered the data in the judiciary system and they show Officer George as the complainant. Could he have made this arrest off duty?
Not true
Thats not true. Everyone thinks because people get the police involved someone did something wrong. There was a time where parents treated their children (and wives) like property and did abuse them. Having first hand knowlege of child abuse cases (not this one in particular), I can say that if a parent gets arrested for child abuse, then there is a reason. It isn't simply because they spanked their child. There is some sort of injury to the child which occurred, or some other mitigating circumstances which prompted the arrest.
The police and social services work hard to make sure that families are kept together and children are protected. This doesn't mean that parents are told not to parent or are prevented from physically disciplining their children.
Thats not true. Everyone thinks because people get the police involved someone did something wrong. There was a time where parents treated their children (and wives) like property and did abuse them. Having first hand knowlege of child abuse cases (not this one in particular), I can say that if a parent gets arrested for child abuse, then there is a reason. It isn't simply because they spanked their child. There is some sort of injury to the child which occurred, or some other mitigating circumstances which prompted the arrest.
The police and social services work hard to make sure that families are kept together and children are protected. This doesn't mean that parents are told not to parent or are prevented from physically disciplining their children.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I wonder why everyone thinks that when the police get involved, someone did something wrong?
There is an alleged reason, an accusation that may or may not have merit. That's what you MEANT to say, right?
No. I meant to say what I said. While your statement fixes it for you, if I wanted to say police respond to allegations and then investigate the allegations to either negate them or confirm them I would have. lol.
You cannot get arrested for simply swatting your kid. If you beat the #### out of the kid in front of witnesses, that's a whole nother story. AND they do not just come arrest you - they investigate the complaint.
The insinuation is that the cops targeted this guy because he's gay, which we also know is bull####. How would anyone even know he was gay unless he was sucking face with his "partner" in full public view?
Very well put!
Roberta
OLD WISE ONE
I never understood the logic behind that. Obviously the kid already thinks they have something to cry about, or they wouldn't be crying.
The logic behind this is, STOP WHINNING!!. Get it??
Chainsaw Slayer
New Member
I gay people were not allowed to have kids we wouldn't have problems like this.
I don't understand this? Are you trying to say if gay people weren't allowed? I am not certain on the numbers, but I'm pretty sure straight people abuse their kids as well.
Lugnut
I'm Rick James #####!
Good lord, Pandora calls you out, shows you the system entry AND an excerpt from md code, and you can't even say "Whoops, I was wrong."
Classic!
I did send Pandora green karma for correcting me. This is something new in the law, but not in the commissioner's manual. I admit when I am wrong. So if I didn't admit it to all, let me say sorry. Feel better?Good lord, Pandora calls you out, shows you the system entry AND an excerpt from md code, and you can't even say "Whoops, I was wrong."
Classic!
Chainsaw Slayer
New Member
Yes thats what I'm saying. I don;t thik gay people shoul dbe alowed to have kids. It is not a good envirnment for a kid to grow up in. Yes I do relize strait people do abuse thier kids as well.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I have every bit of respect for police I can, but they can be wrong. It's not the job of the police to determine guilt, but probable guilt.
So, my point was to point out to you that when you say it's wrong to think that just because the police are involved someone did something wrong, you were right. And, that the reason people think that is because police officers often have the attitude of "you wouldn't get arrested if you weren't doing something wrong". I just thought it was funny that you said something correct about people's misperceptions, and then explained why they have that misperception with your attitude.
Vince
......
WTF,O
These types of threads =
ps: Neither Pete or myself were even close to our predictions! But, Pete wins
I had a good hand. Should have never folded. Dayum.Vince said:
Agee
Well-Known Member
I had a good hand. Should have never folded. Dayum.
Cueing the Kenny Rodgers song...
I thought it's legs would of grown longer and faster!
MMDad
Lem Putt
In his defense, the law became effective October 1, 2003. You don't really expect him to keep up with the up to the minute changes to the law, do you?Good lord, Pandora calls you out, shows you the system entry AND an excerpt from md code, and you can't even say "Whoops, I was wrong."
Classic!
Last edited:
Its the job of the police to determine probable cause, not probable guilt.
I have read the next paragraph a couple of times and can't understand what you are trying to say?
My stance is this. Police get called to a scene, they investigate, determine probable cauese or lack there of and make a decision. It's up to the courts, and you the jurors to make a determination of guilt.
As far as my attitude, I don't get that. My attitude is what I just said. As far as being wrong about the initial thing, I sent Pandora karma thanking her for pointing it out. I didn't realize it was important to apologize to everyone else, but I did that in a later thread.
Police are human, they can be wrong, but it seems that most expect us to be superhuman and not make mistakes.
FerretRescue
bite me
I am not too sure about that.
(2) A person is guilty of child abuse in the first degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a child. Child abuse in the first degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years.
(3) A person is guilty of child abuse in the second degree if any of the following apply:
(a) The person's omission causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child or if the person's reckless act causes serious physical harm to a child.
(b) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act likely to cause serious physical or mental harm to a child regardless of whether harm results.
(c) The person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that is cruel to a child regardless of whether harm results.
(4) Child abuse in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years.
(5) A person is guilty of child abuse in the third degree if the person knowingly or intentionally causes physical harm to a child. Child abuse in the third degree is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years.
(6) A person is guilty of child abuse in the fourth degree if the person's omission or reckless act causes physical harm to a child. Child abuse in the fourth degree is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year.
(7) This section does not prohibit a parent or guardian, or other person permitted by law or authorized by the parent or guardian, from taking steps to reasonably discipline a child, including the use of reasonable force.
I am not sure about MD but this was true in Michigan.
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
I thought probably cause was something needed for a warrentless search, like of a car pulled over that smells like pot - then looking for the pot without a warrent? I thought the job of the officer was to determine who probably performed a crime, not the probable cause of a crime?
I used the word "guilt" because it seemed you were saying that the police determine the guilt of a person when you said that if someone gets arrested they were doing something wrong.
I agree here, too. I was very wordy and could have used punctuation a little better. Here's what I was trying to say:
You made the statement that people think just because the police get invovled, then someone did something wrong. You (correctly) stated that thinking like that is incorrect.
Then, you said (later in your post) that if someone gets arrested for spanking their child, they did something wrong.
Do you see the attitude that you shared was the same as the attitude that you claimed was wrong in your first statement?
I was merely pointing out that the attitude you shared was exactly why people have the misperception they have.
Exactly, that is what I was saying. "Alleged" child abuse, etc. Not, it happened because the officer claimed it happened. It happened the way the officer claimed if and only if the alleged criminal is convicted of the alleged crime.
I did not address that. I could not care less. Everyone makes mistakes!
I can speak for no one else, but I don't expect that. I just expect that the police know this, and don't act like their word is any better than anyone else's.
Last edited: