How can cops do this?

[Ameesh]

fvck the police!

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: JetBlack69

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy

honestly is it theft it is moved from one part of campus to another?
its like if i walk into my friend's house pick up his TV and walk to another part of the house set it down and walk out....is that considered theft? i think not......

I would think so. Comparing a house to a campus is not accurate.

Considering Jeff took a tree that is not his and put it in a room that is not his in a building that he doesn't own, I see a lot of problems.

Who owns the tree? According to Webster theft: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

Jeff is guilty of theft, however the cop (campus police?) didn't write him up for it, only about the drinks in his dorm room.

GoBadgrs, what do you mean by arrested? Hancuffed and taken to jail?

He's down in lakeshore. They put him in handcuffs and had him sit in the hall while they searched his room. Then he was written and underage possession ticket and allowed to go back in his room.

And Luvly, we hear so much about your threats to ignore us, when will you ever follow through on them? Maybe the reason that I'm so blatantly rude to you is that I no longer want your opinion and I'm hoping you'll just shut the hell up and ignore me.

I need to know which dorm this was in and who the RA is - I just might know them This whole situation is comical in a way. My off the top of my head guess is it's in Bradley - lots of Frosh, community atmosphere (haven't seen trees in other dorms), potentially a$$hole housefellows, etc.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: luvly
Ness1496, back to a) Don't make me dig up ideas that no member stated at all and was solely mine.

But supposing your statement is true about I intentionally posting same view that's already been stated, what's your problem? Are those views intellectual property? As far as I know, none is a view that it's impossible for someone to independently come by. They're mostly common knowledge. In this case, do you know my background to presume that I'm ignorant of laws and must have stolen someone's idea? I had touched this subject long time ago during another discussion (i.e., the case of seizure and reading of a student's journal).

b) Again, you're acting as a spokesperson. I'm afraid you're mixing up the opinions of busibodies with the actual persons involved. I would like you to show that--in every instance--the individual who asked for advice/inputs felt and stated publicly that I had acted condescending. I don't care what busibodies say, as I do care how the person whom it concerns perceives it.

c) No, I did not contradict myself. What I said is, I am willing to admit to being wrong, but how could someone say you're wrong on a subjective matter? What I do admit to is non-subjective matters. All of the instances that I'm criticised for not giving in are the subjective cases. You will not find me refuse to concede to an empirical evidence presented or a source cited with credence (i.e., a qualified authority). I can, nonetheless, be persuaded by reasoning on subjective matters.

a) What the HELL? did you not read anythintg I said last time?

b) In regards to this thread, GoBadgrs completely called you out on ASSumming that this was all sorts of crap about him being white and what not.... I'd say that's a clear indication of the situation. Not only that, but you were clearly in the wrong and you STILL try to somehow defend yourself saying that even if you are wrong we don't deserve to hear you fess up or some crap like that. I don't need to prove crap to you. I know you've done it, I've seen it and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way... after all, how many times have you read a post telling you shut up or something to that extent... and how many times have you seen it said to me?

c) The fact here is that you were clearly in the wrong in your original post in this thread. It was totally uncalled for and gobadgrs clearly didn't like it. You were wrong, but here we sit, arguing over that fact while you try and dodge the subject.



Eat me. I'm not going to point things out anymore than I already have, because you just keep trying to take your stupidity in other directions.

 

[GoingUp]

I'm not certain, but I'm almost 100% sure that it was campus police. Ive never seen a normal police officer in the dorms at all.

Jeff's Uncle is a lawyer and he happens to be our families lawyer as well. Hes an excellent one at that. Jeffs going to take this thing to court and fight it, so I'll keep you posted on what happens.

 

[dabuddha]

He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

But didn't he have alcohol and he's underage? I just saw this thread and didn't read all the posts (hence the reason I'm asking)

 

[alkemyst]

sort of warranted....what if they took say the tv and microwave from the student kitchen and said it was a joke too?

Bottom line is don't take things that aren't yours and screw with them....

I hope he does get out of this though....sounds like he didn't anticipate this kind of thing in retailiation.

Å

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

But didn't he have alcohol and he's underage? I just saw this thread and didn't read all the posts (hence the reason I'm asking)

Then you should read it, because otherwise your post is off-target.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

The rules for searching rooms are probably different at different campuses but i know at mine with the fire drill thing the have a fire marshall or fireman with an RA accompany them to walk through rooms if A) you leave the door unlocked or B) just to randomly check rooms for fire hazards......they don't actually search anything they just make sure you don't have any george formans or candles or any other fire violations sitting out in the open....and if you were dumb enough to leave alcohol or anything else out in the open they HAD to write you up or the RA would get in trouble .....and most people would rather CYA than have the resident not get in trouble.

also i know a campus is different than a house but its an anology it should be treated similarly........
and the definition of steal is "To take (the property of another) without right or permission." ......i would take this to mean take the property of another without permission off their property .........though another part of the definition states "To move, carry, or place surreptitiously. " but i don't think that is a common usage definition of stealing.

to use another example if someone picks up your calculator off a table and places it in your backpack ....are you going to say that person stole the calculator altough it is still in your possesion or on your property? I personally wouldn't but i don't know about you guys

 

[psianime]

At my college dorm the police can search your room at anytime... but the RAs don't have the same power.

I agree with the police charging the person with theft because a lot more pranks will be done if "no one cared" and there were no consquences.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: psianime
At my college dorm the police can search your room at anytime... but the RAs don't have the same power.

I agree with the police charging the person with theft because a lot more pranks will be done if "no one cared" and there were no consquences.

No, actually, they cannot search your room at anytime. The Constitution doesn't get sheared in half by you signing a housing agreement.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

But didn't he have alcohol and he's underage? I just saw this thread and didn't read all the posts (hence the reason I'm asking)

Then you should read it, because otherwise your post is off-target.

So you're saying he didn't have alcohol or that he isn't underage?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

But didn't he have alcohol and he's underage? I just saw this thread and didn't read all the posts (hence the reason I'm asking)

Then you should read it, because otherwise your post is off-target.

So you're saying he didn't have alcohol or that he isn't underage?

Read the thread.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

But didn't he have alcohol and he's underage? I just saw this thread and didn't read all the posts (hence the reason I'm asking)

Then you should read it, because otherwise your post is off-target.

So you're saying he didn't have alcohol or that he isn't underage?

Read the thread.

I did. You can't answer the question?

 

There are missing facts in this case. Examples:

1) at the time the police asked if he knew anything about it, were they in his room?

2) If they were in his room, did not he permit the police to come into his room?

3) Does not that mean that if permitted them to come into his room, then, at the time of the confession, the police and he were in his room?

4) How come your friend's account of the event does not state that he told the police that he and others (by definition, accomplices) took the tree? Is he (or are you) just ommitting this because he (or you) didn't feel it was necessary to tell you (or us), even though he did tell the police? Or did he really not tell the police that he had other accomplices?

5) If he did mention the fact that he did it with other friends, were they visited? If so, how were their encounters with the police?

6) What happened to the Christmas tree? It would seem pointless if the police came in there and left without helping the RA. So does this mean that the girl was questioned later, and she permitted them to take it out of her room? Or did the RA ask the police not to bother?

7) Did your friend smell of alcohol, behave erratically or anything like that?

8) Was the tree an artificial or natural tree?

9) How sizeable was this tree?

10) How tall or wide was his desk (i.e., dimensions)?

An answer to some questions about the distinction of a dorm and a home (i.e., the limits of privacy): College officials cannot "consent to the warrantless search of" students' dormitory rooms.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

But didn't he have alcohol and he's underage? I just saw this thread and didn't read all the posts (hence the reason I'm asking)

Then you should read it, because otherwise your post is off-target.

So you're saying he didn't have alcohol or that he isn't underage?

Read the thread.

I did. You can't answer the question?

If you read the thread then the question would answered. I'm not going to waste my time when you can't read the fvcking thread and see that it was an illlegal search.

 

[AMCRambler]

Meh! He got nailed fair and square. Just because he didn't think the police were going to search his room doesn't make his posession alright. It sucks and I feel for him. The underage drinking laws in this country have gotten too strict imo. Take that stupid law when you buy any kind of alcohol they now ID everyone with you. I tried to buy a six pack when my girlfriend was with me. She was 20 and I'm 23 so they wouldn't sell it to me. My girlfriend doesn't even drink beer. Not sure if that one is state law or federal law, but it's pretty pointless. If you were buying booze to drink with your underage friends, then all you have to do is tell them to wait in the car.
Anyhow seems like they shouldn't have been allowed to search the apartment, but the fact that he had the booze still remains. Shouldn't break the law unless you're prepared to face the consequences, should be the moral of this story.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

But didn't he have alcohol and he's underage? I just saw this thread and didn't read all the posts (hence the reason I'm asking)

Then you should read it, because otherwise your post is off-target.

So you're saying he didn't have alcohol or that he isn't underage?

Read the thread.

I did. You can't answer the question?

If you read the thread then the question would answered. I'm not going to waste my time when you can't read the fvcking thread and see that it was an illlegal search.

Ahh I see reading comprehension is not your friend I never did ask if the search was illegal.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Meh! He got nailed fair and square. Just because he didn't think the police were going to search his room doesn't make his posession alright. It sucks and I feel for him. The underage drinking laws in this country have gotten too strict imo. Take that stupid law when you buy any kind of alcohol they now ID everyone with you. I tried to buy a six pack when my girlfriend was with me. She was 20 and I'm 23 so they wouldn't sell it to me. My girlfriend doesn't even drink beer. Not sure if that one is state law or federal law, but it's pretty pointless. If you were buying booze to drink with your underage friends, then all you have to do is tell them to wait in the car.
Anyhow seems like they shouldn't have been allowed to search the apartment, but the fact that he had the booze still remains. Shouldn't break the law unless you're prepared to face the consequences, should be the moral of this story.

Agreed which was the point to my post actually. Unfortunately some people failed to see this.

 

[Lyfer]

I guess the joke blew up in Jeff's face.


But the cops searching without a warrant? Dunno about that.

 

[Kyteland]

We moved the entire contents of my RA's room in to the floor study lounge once while he was taking a shower. Man, that was funny. I'm glad he had a sense of humor....

 

In response to your enquiry about the police going to the location he mentioned: You have not told us if they even visited the lady at the end. Does your friend know if they did? It seems he only knows much about what they did to him, or what happened to him. He may have been too distraught to check if they had gone to the girl.

You say they should have checked the girl's room, not his. Aren't you creating a false dichotomy? They are not obligated to trust his account of the location of the tree or search there first. Checking his property first--following his confession (usually a probable cause)--would be meaningful, in case he had indeed stolen the tree (as confessed) but hidden it in his room. Again, facts such as the dimension of his desk, the tree and other factors would help to support or disqualify the avenue. People have made confessions to crimes but lied about location of evidence. You're assuming the police is omniscient to know all facts of the matter. The purpose of their presence was to investigate the matter and solve the problem if possible. Also, checking the girl's room, as opposed to the guy's, might be a violation of her rights if she didn't permit it, and there was no probable cause or no warrant.

About the arrest: Arresting does not mean booking the suspect or charging him. They didn't have to do that. At the time they approached him, a crime had been alleged. He confessed to it. Maybe after doing a search the RA asked not to press charges; maybe they concluded that not finding the tree there meant he was more likely being truthful about it being a joke or made it insufficient to sustain his detention or arrest. The presence of police usually attracts attention. It's possible someone came in and spoke to collaborate his story; or the tree was returned. There are endless possibilities. Until we know the complete story or have an opportunity to ask your friend relevant questions, it's hard to know the facts or truth of the matter and efficiently apply the law.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: luvly
In response to your enquiry about the police going to the location he mentioned: You have not told us if they even visited the lady at the end. Does your friend know if they did? It seems he only knows much about what they did to him, or what happened to him. He may have been too distraught to check if they had gone to the girl.

You say they should have checked the girl's room, not his. Aren't you creating a false dichotomy? They are not obligated to trust his account of the location of the tree or search there first. Checking his property first--following his confession (usually a probable cause)--would be meaningful, in case he had indeed stolen the tree (as confessed) but hidden it in his room. Again, facts such as the dimension of his desk, the tree and other factors would help to support or disqualify the avenue. People have made confessions to crimes but lied about location of evidence. You're assuming the police is omniscient to know all facts of the matter. The purpose of their presence was to investigate the matter and solve the problem if possible. Also, checking the girl's room, as opposed to the guy's, might be a violation of her rights if she didn't permit it, and there was no probable cause or no warrant.

About the arrest: Arresting does not mean booking the suspect or charging him. They didn't have to do that. At the time they approached him, a crime had been alleged. He confessed to it. Maybe after doing a search the RA asked not to press charges; maybe they concluded that not finding the tree there meant he was more likely being truthful about it being a joke or made it insufficient to sustain his detention or arrest. The presence of police usually attracts attention. It's possible someone came in and spoke to collaborate his story; or the tree was returned. There are endless possibilities. Until we know the complete story or have an opportunity to ask your friend relevant questions, it's hard to know the facts or truth of the matter and efficiently apply the law.

Keep trying

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dabuddha
He breaks the law and so he's going to sue the police?

Uhhh.... sounds like taking it to court means he isn't going to plea out and plans to fight the validity of both charges.

But didn't he have alcohol and he's underage? I just saw this thread and didn't read all the posts (hence the reason I'm asking)

Then you should read it, because otherwise your post is off-target.

So you're saying he didn't have alcohol or that he isn't underage?

Read the thread.

I did. You can't answer the question?

If you read the thread then the question would answered. I'm not going to waste my time when you can't read the fvcking thread and see that it was an illlegal search.

Ahh I see reading comprehension is not your friend I never did ask if the search was illegal.

No, I know exactly what you are trying to do, and that's the reason I refuse to play into it. You are trying to say that what he did was illegal so, it doesn't matter what ethical boundaries were broken. You're not going to pull that on me. Just because he was underage or had alcohol doesn't mean his rights under the Constitution are suspended.