Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blinded by the Lombardis: Patriots Forum' started by Hoya81, Feb 22, 2019.
Actually they do.
So what's with the traffic stops?
They go around breaking tail lights to justify yanking them over?
Everyone speeds. Everyone fails to signal. Literally everyone.
Would they even need a pretext? They stopped the car for the purpose of investigating a crime. Even if they lied about the reason for the stop, they’re entitled to do that so long as the actual reason is legitimate, right?
This is a subtle point.
From the Kraft-ian defendant's point of view, we should work the whole issue backwards. Specifically, the first question is, "Does the warrant hold up absent those stops?"
If yes, their potential exclusion is meaningless in practical terms. Here, if I recall the other facts correctly from the affidavit, the answer is likely, yes, the warrant would stand on other grounds.
If no, then it triggers another series of inquiries, which goes into factual issues such as what the police said and did (was it a custodial stop, etc.) and procedural issues such as who has the standing to assert the illegality of those stops. There's a potential fruit of the poisonous tree issue as well, somewhere down the line.
But in general no, the police are not allowed to detain potential witnesses to a crime. There's nothing (in FL) that prevents them from asking one to stop and cooperate, and anyone can willingly help out the fuzz. But there's nothing (in FL) that generally requires one to stay in an area and provide information to the police.*
*Absent some duties imposed via employment/child endangerment issues and operating a motor vehicle. There are a few other exceptions as well, including declared states of emergency, and following officer directions via safety and crime scene issues, but in general, no, one does not have to be an informant and one never has to self-incriminate.)
So my point was, they seem to have obtained the warrant based on suspicion of trafficking which turns out to be unlikely or thin at best.
Instead they have a bunch of guys on solicitation charges and one person on a weak trafficking charge.
I guess I'm questioning whether a warrant based on trafficking can freely be used for solicitation charges instead?
I'd never heard of a video surveillance warrant granted for solicitation at a massage place.
As for the Jimmy Fund bet, I'm in but please make it clear what I'm betting on, Kraft dismissal vs not? Or something else?
Hey thanks! I claimed no knowledge of procedure. I was asking the lawyers that's all.
Generally, yes. Once you’ve got a legal search, you’re not required to ignore evidence of other crimes. Think a pile of coke on a table while the police execute a warrant based on an illegal weapons possession and it turns out that there are no guns there.
Dismissal based on the warrant being for a different crime, I thought. But sure, to make it more sporting, how about a ruling that the video evidence against Kraft has to be excluded?
Ok, excluded or any complete dismissal of Kraft charges regardless?
Do video surveillance warrants generally get granted for second degree misdemeanors?
I guess your pile of cocaine example makes sense but here we are going from a first degree felony warrant justification down to basically a traffic ticket for a first offense. There would seem to be a difference. Maybe not.
No worries, just kidding around about the offer of a wager. I think most of us non-lawyers are lucky if our knowledge about procedure reaches "regular Law & Order watcher" status.
If the charges are dismissed, btw, all the "Kraft gets off - again!" puns will be hilarious from the Post/Daily News, and then get gradually more obnoxious as they pile up from all corners.
I have a very basic understanding of law, but its starting to feel like the way Kraft is going to fight this is try to find errors in the police work and get the case thrown out on a technicality. I worry that if this works, depending on the error, all men charged will be able to use the same reason and their cases get thrown out. Wouldn't that destroy the sex trafficking case since there are suddenly no sex related offenders? Yes its still human trafficking but I'd imagine there is a much higher charge when it includes sex crimes as well.
Even if he gets the charges dropped, I don't think anyone is suddenly going to believe he is innocent short of a guy coming forward that looks exactly like Kraft and admits to impersonating him. I for one think its crazy what he did, and he should be punished but I don't really think it effects his legacy in my eyes. However, if spends thousands of dollars to find a fault that gets him out of a misdemeanor and community service at the expense of weakening a case against truly bad individuals? I'm not so sure
Exclusion’s fine. That’s the real point.
I dunno. I’d doubt they’re applied for.
It’s not at all clear this place was trafficking humans, so I wouldn’t get too worried just yet. If you think he needs to be punished for the crazy act of getting a hand job, well, we’ll just have to disagree there. He will most likely be punished though, so you’ll get your wish.
Or “Kraft Gets Another Happy Ending”.
Individual attorneys making sure the police followed the law on a case-by-case basis is the basic way our country provides oversight for it's various criminal justice systems. This is important because criminal justice systems are always ripe for abuse and mismanagement, which produces injustice - the very thing they're in place to fight.
Kraft has an attorney. Pretty much everyone arrested in connection to this will have an attorney, either hired or appointed. All of those attorneys will be looking to make sure the police followed the law.
RR, Its a Action movie Trope, But Lets use the Coke example above.
In your opionion (not professional but morally) if a cop broke into a home and found a pile of coke then arrested a guy, is that guy any less guilty? He had coke when he shouldnt have had coke.
(I would love to hear SOSHs opinion in general)
I am certainly not arguing against our system.....its about as good as can be expected, and the the flexibility and its intent to protect the innocent as much as possible is its main strength.
But "Defense" is a fascinating subject.
Instead of coke, what if a cop broke in (because he had a "Bad feeling") and found 3 kidnapped children.
Its a weird dichotomy.
But we have to do this to protect 1 truly innocent person even if 100 guilty get off.
I think Kraft is guilty. I think the crime is minor. I think he is getting a raw PR deal from the press. But hes guilty. The fact that I am rooting for him to find a loop hole just to shut all the naysayers up is strange.
Here I don't agree. He was, at best, colossally stupid and carless, and all public shame he gets is earned.
that's such a good typo you should leave it.
I think we’re way past caressing at this point.
The legal/moral distinction is an important one. But I think you're blurring right away with your questions. Shouldn't it be something like, "found a pile of coke, so is he any less morally culpable, regardless of whether he can be charged with a crime?"
Moral culpability is pretty fact dependent for me. I tend to be pretty libertarian about most things in isolation. That said, some things are hard to isolate, and I'm not really pro-drug-cartel. It's all on a spectrum though.
That's why he had a driver wait outside.
‘Kraft well serviced by attorneys, beats off rap’
don't be so premature, guys, let's keep it in our pants.
“Robert Kraft got his penis pulled on by a woman in a massage parlor.”
‘Breaking: Billionaire Has Sexual Relations’
So when the car got pulled over for speeding or not signalling, how was Kraft involved?
And didn't this happen twice? Or was he only pulled over once?
Go on, pull the other one why don’t ya.
I think he was pulled twice, and stopped once.
Yeah, yeah, but there are two charges against him. If he got stopped once by cops, WHY GO BACK the next day???
And how does his driver getting pulled over involve Kraft?
You know that happens when we get too excited.
If anyone wondered what week 2 of dick jokes looks like...
I'm still waiting on the video for week one.
There’s a petition calling for Gillette to drop its name from the stadium.
Good opportunity for Lubriderm or Kleenex to jump in.
Human Trafficking is a completely different crime from prostitution or soliciting prostitution. They can overlap venn-like.
The guys were popped for soliciting. The gals, I presume, would be charged with prostitution.
What is the illegal act? Getting nude? Someone touching your peepee? Ejaculation? Penetration?
Cops doesn't address that issue, so I don't know.
Wasn't erotic massage legal in RI?
We were so much better with the Puritans.
Prostitution was decriminalized in RI from 1980 to 2009. The results were a bit startling on one hand but make sense in the other.
I’d imagine the answer is as simple as ‘the transfer of money’.
Well not just a transfer of money
This seems to cover it all:
Or a really good zipper manufacturer.
I usually wear sweats to get a massage, and I’m not even getting jerked off.
How about Orchids of Asia Stadium? I mean they could probably pay for it with luxury suite "amenities".
Kraft is being ordered to appear at the hearing at the end of the month
Kraft might have some sans-a-belt slacks, but he's not wearing sweats. Think of your market demographics, man!
They should have moved the stadium to Rhode Island back during those "it's all ok if you're indoors" years...
Sigh. His attorney will make an appearance for him.
What? That makes no sense.
All you. IMHO, the main problem with using English instead of Latin is that people can read our bullshit now.
So his court appearance is 3-28? He's got this.
Are you speaking as a lawyer or a Catholic?