4 ms·

> 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.

by 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.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    The guy who was actually there says they are false. Meh. I’d rather believe people than obviously corrupt/biased systems.
    - baps 3y ago
      https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock "When one looks at the evidence in this case, no reasonable person could conclude that the defendant did not send e-mails, text messages, and have the phone conversations regarding having sex with a 12-year-old girl."
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        Sigh. After going on and on about how the state failed to actually prove the submitted evidence is actually true (merely circumstantial), but they aren’t allowed to do anything about it until a trial actually happens. Surprisingly, it looks like the trial never happened. Seems a little suspicious, does it not?
        baps 3y ago
        Seems like this judgement is discussing a procedural error from the prosecution, not that he didn't try to meet a 12-year-old girl in the back of her uncle's van to rape her. But who knows, maybe he'll return to the thread and explain what he thought he was doing when arrested in that police sting and what all those emails, texts and phone calls he exchanged with undercover investigators were about, if not that.
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Where the “procedural error” was literally proving the evidence is true. If the evidence isn’t true, then it’s pretty clear his only crime might simply be being profiled and arrested. We don’t know, and probably never will. Jumping to the assumption that he’s guilty from unverified evidence seems wrong to me. On a pretty fundamental level.

by gwd 3y ago

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.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  The guy who was actually there says they are false. Meh. I’d rather believe people than obviously corrupt/biased systems.
  - baps 3y ago
    https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock "When one looks at the evidence in this case, no reasonable person could conclude that the defendant did not send e-mails, text messages, and have the phone conversations regarding having sex with a 12-year-old girl."
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Sigh. After going on and on about how the state failed to actually prove the submitted evidence is actually true (merely circumstantial), but they aren’t allowed to do anything about it until a trial actually happens. Surprisingly, it looks like the trial never happened. Seems a little suspicious, does it not?
      - baps 3y ago
        Seems like this judgement is discussing a procedural error from the prosecution, not that he didn't try to meet a 12-year-old girl in the back of her uncle's van to rape her. But who knows, maybe he'll return to the thread and explain what he thought he was doing when arrested in that police sting and what all those emails, texts and phone calls he exchanged with undercover investigators were about, if not that.
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Where the “procedural error” was literally proving the evidence is true. If the evidence isn’t true, then it’s pretty clear his only crime might simply be being profiled and arrested. We don’t know, and probably never will. Jumping to the assumption that he’s guilty from unverified evidence seems wrong to me. On a pretty fundamental level.