Actually they do.Well it’s not like any of the masseuses have people lining up to shake their hands....[emoji57]
Actually they do.Well it’s not like any of the masseuses have people lining up to shake their hands....[emoji57]
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?Everyone speeds. Everyone fails to signal. Literally everyone.
This is a subtle point.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?
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.That’s generally not how this works. Either the evidence was sufficient for the warrant or not, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the search.
$50 to the Jimmy Fund?
Hey thanks! I claimed no knowledge of procedure. I was asking the lawyers that's all.You're betting against a guy whose knowledge of procedure appears to derive chiefly from Law and Order. It's not even sporting.
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.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?
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?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?
Ok, excluded or any complete dismissal of Kraft charges regardless?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?
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.Hey thanks! I claimed no knowledge of procedure. I was asking the lawyers that's all.
Exclusion’s fine. That’s the real point.Ok, excluded or any complete dismissal of Kraft charges regardless?
I dunno. I’d doubt they’re applied for.Do video surveillance warrants generally get granted for second degree misdemeanors?
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.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
Or “Kraft Gets Another Happy Ending”.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.
Be sure.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
I agreeRR, Its a Action movie Trope, But Lets use the Coke example above.
I think Kraft is guilty. .
Here I don't agree. He was, at best, colossally stupid and carless, and all public shame he gets is earned.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
I think we’re way past caressing at this point.I agree
Here I don't agree. He was, at best, colossally stupid and caress, and all public shame he gets is earned.
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?"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.
That's why he had a driver wait outside.Here I don't agree. He was, at best, colossally stupid and carless, and all public shame he gets is earned.
‘Kraft well serviced by attorneys, beats off rap’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.
Or “Kraft Gets Another Happy Ending”.
don't be so premature, guys, let's keep it in our pants.‘Kraft well serviced by attorneys, beats off rap’
“Robert Kraft got his penis pulled on by a woman in a massage parlor.”don't be so premature, guys, let's keep it in our pants.
‘Breaking: Billionaire Has Sexual Relations’“Robert Kraft got his penis pulled on by a woman in a massage parlor.”
Too literal?
So when the car got pulled over for speeding or not signalling, how was Kraft involved?That's why he had a driver wait outside.
Go on, pull the other one why don’t ya.don't be so premature, guys, let's keep it in our pants.
I think he was pulled twice, and stopped once.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?
You know that happens when we get too excited.don't be so premature, guys, let's keep it in our pants.
I'm still waiting on the video for week one.If anyone wondered what week 2 of dick jokes looks like...
Good opportunity for Lubriderm or Kleenex to jump in.There’s a petition calling for Gillette to drop its name from the stadium.
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/879/206/038/gillette-is-exploiting-victims-of-human-trafficking-the-best-men-can-be/
Prostitution was decriminalized in RI from 1980 to 2009. The results were a bit startling on one hand but make sense in the other.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.
Well not just a transfer of moneyI’d imagine the answer is as simple as ‘the transfer of money’.
[/i][/i](a) “Prostitution” means the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.
(b) “Lewdness” means any indecent or obscene act.
(c) “Assignation” means the making of any appointment or engagement for prostitution or lewdness, or any act in furtherance of such appointment or engagement.
(d) “Sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; or the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation; however, the term does not include acts done for bona fide medical purposes.
Or a really good zipper manufacturer.Good opportunity for Lubriderm or Kleenex to jump in.
I usually wear sweats to get a massage, and I’m not even getting jerked off.Or a really good zipper manufacturer.
How about Orchids of Asia Stadium? I mean they could probably pay for it with luxury suite "amenities".Good opportunity for Lubriderm or Kleenex to jump in.
BOSTON (CBS) – Patriots owner Robert Kraft must appear in a Florida courtroom later this month to face prostitution charges, according to a newly filed court document.
A notice of hearing in Kraft’s case was filed Thursday, setting the owner’s arraignment for March 28 at 9 a.m.
In capital letters, the document says, “THE DEFENDANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS HEARING.” The document adds that a failure to appear will result in a” bond forfeiture, or revocation of own recognizance (O.R.) and a Capias/Warrant being issued for your arrest.”
Previous court documents in the case indicated that Kraft would not be required to appear.
Kraft might have some sans-a-belt slacks, but he's not wearing sweats. Think of your market demographics, man!I usually wear sweats to get a massage, and I’m not even getting jerked off.
They should have moved the stadium to Rhode Island back during those "it's all ok if you're indoors" years...How about Orchids of Asia Stadium? I mean they could probably pay for it with luxury suite "amenities".
Sigh. His attorney will make an appearance for him.Kraft is being ordered to appear at the hearing at the end of the month
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/03/07/robert-kraft-prostitution-arraignment/
All you. IMHO, the main problem with using English instead of Latin is that people can read our bullshit now.Sigh. His attorney will make an appearance for him.
Kraft is being ordered to appear at the hearing at the end of the month
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/03/07/robert-kraft-prostitution-arraignment/
Are you speaking as a lawyer or a Catholic?All you. IMHO, the main problem with using English instead of Latin is that people can read our bullshit now.