4 ms·

> If the charges were dropped; does it really matter what they have to say? Obviously you don't owe anyone here an explanation. But you're the one who seem to

• withinboredom 3y ago
  > you're the one who seem to want us to believe that you were innocent enough that throwing you out of the flat was completely unjust persecution; if that's what you want, then it's reasonable to expect you to account for how such a charge came to be filed against you. Maybe you should check who you are replying to. I was originally answering your question about how things could take that long. I have no idea about OP, but I also provided an example of how cops will misconstrue things to simply get an arrest. In my own personal life, my parents had a cop search my car because they thought I was dealing drugs. The cop found a small ripped piece of paper (from who knows what), and claimed it was from rolling papers. So, I trust a cop saying "this is why X" about as far as you can throw toilet paper up their tree. > rom a Baysean probability perspective, given no other evidence than what has been presented in this thread so far, which is more likely -- that the charges were dropped because they were a complete fantasy from the beginning, or because there were legal technicalities that would have made a conviction difficult? In my experience, there is a far greater probability that they are completely fabricated nonsense.
  • gwd 3y ago
    > Maybe you should check who you are replying to. Looks like we both need to look at who we're replying to more closely -- this is my first post in the thread. ;-) > In my own personal life, my parents had a cop search my car because they thought I was dealing drugs. The cop found a small ripped piece of paper (from who knows what), and claimed it was from rolling papers. Right, so in this case, the question of "How would you account for the fact that police claimed a bit of paper was rolling paper for marijuana" is answered in part by the first sentence: The cop went in believing that drugs were almost certainly present (because a child's own parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what. "How would you account for the fact that it this police detective claims to have had a conversation in which John Doe agreed to meet at place X to pay for sex with a 12-year-old" is less easy to construct.
    • withinboredom 3y ago
      > Looks like we both need to look at who we're replying to more closely -- this is my first post in the thread. ;-) lol > The cop went in believing that drugs were almost certainly present (because a child's own parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what. Perhaps could be reworded: The cop went in believing that a pedophile were almost certainly present (because a child's parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what. For all we know, the parents were abusing the child and the child wanted to tell someone they trusted. The parent(s) found out and made some shit up. I don't know man. People do some weird shit. I once climbed up the side of an apartment building to beat my friends taking the stairs, just to surprise them. I'm sure an onlooker might think I was going to rob someone. It's like that old bias thing: A man takes an old lady's purse, is he a criminal? I left out a crucial detail, the old lady handed her son the purse.
      • baps 3y ago
        > The cop went in believing that a pedophile were almost certainly present (because a child's parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what. The articles I linked above state that it was a sting operation. The perpetrator thought he was paying $500 to the uncle of a 12-year-old girl (who was apparently still slightly too old for his liking) so that he could rape her, but really this was a scenario set up by the police to gather evidence, with the goal of preventing future harm to an actual child.