Jailed for taking electricity worth 5 cents !
- Thread starter HTSS_TR
- Start date
- Status
FWIW, I've emailed the Chamblee Police Cheif Mike Johnson (respectfully, of course). I have a huge issue with the fact that this may have been a 911 call. Calling 911 for non-emergency services is [censored], 911 is an already overloaded system in many parts of the country. For such trivial matters, this really was hanled all wrong, by many parties. It should have been reported to school administrators FIRST. Ultimately, school property is their responsibility.
Originally Posted By: KenO
I've dealt with police many times, unfortunately. Never, ever called them myself. I'd say roughly 1/3 of the officers that have pulled me over for a traffic citation have been respectful, and I was absolutely calm and respectful to them in return. When pulled over, the vehicle is always turned off, window down (except last time, drivers window was broken - so, door opened), both hands on the steering wheel. Always ask permission before reaching for ANYTHING.
However, you're putting them on a pedastal. They aren't special. They're people, and yes, they're risking their lives, but THEY MADE THAT CHOICE - don't force their problems on me. The other 2/3 of officers who've pulled me over had obvious power trips and/or god complexes. Especially lower-level municipality police. Most state police I've dealt with had far better things to do. And with police getting this military firepower lately, things are quickly turning into a police state. It's important to know your rights, and for example, if you have an officer screaming at you on the side of the road - I wouldn't hesitate to tell him to go F himself and write me the ticket, or arrest me. It's happened once before.
And you know what else? There are statistics out there that show that it's not that dangerous to be a cop but it is dangerous to be around them and that they get acquitted at insanely high rates because it's their account vs someone else's or nobody.
The fear of crime and terrorism in our society has led to militarization and overreaction by law enforcement.
This is a fact. When force and caution are justified, I sympathize with the police but it cannot be their modus operandi with everyday situations.
I've dealt with police many times, unfortunately. Never, ever called them myself. I'd say roughly 1/3 of the officers that have pulled me over for a traffic citation have been respectful, and I was absolutely calm and respectful to them in return. When pulled over, the vehicle is always turned off, window down (except last time, drivers window was broken - so, door opened), both hands on the steering wheel. Always ask permission before reaching for ANYTHING.
However, you're putting them on a pedastal. They aren't special. They're people, and yes, they're risking their lives, but THEY MADE THAT CHOICE - don't force their problems on me. The other 2/3 of officers who've pulled me over had obvious power trips and/or god complexes. Especially lower-level municipality police. Most state police I've dealt with had far better things to do. And with police getting this military firepower lately, things are quickly turning into a police state. It's important to know your rights, and for example, if you have an officer screaming at you on the side of the road - I wouldn't hesitate to tell him to go F himself and write me the ticket, or arrest me. It's happened once before.
And you know what else? There are statistics out there that show that it's not that dangerous to be a cop but it is dangerous to be around them and that they get acquitted at insanely high rates because it's their account vs someone else's or nobody.
The fear of crime and terrorism in our society has led to militarization and overreaction by law enforcement.
This is a fact. When force and caution are justified, I sympathize with the police but it cannot be their modus operandi with everyday situations.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Guys, the cop's not in the forum. Kissing his glutes isn't going to make you look good or buy you a margin of safety.
Neither is the thief. So why are you kissing his?
Well, because the "thief" represents us, including you.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Guys, the cop's not in the forum. Kissing his glutes isn't going to make you look good or buy you a margin of safety.
Neither is the thief. So why are you kissing his?
Well, because the "thief" represents us, including you.
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
And you know what else? There are statistics out there that show that it's not that dangerous to be a cop but it is dangerous to be around them and that they get acquitted at insanely high rates because it's their account vs someone else's or nobody.
You're so right.
In the past 6 months, here in Toronto there have been at least 6 fatalities, in once instance, a cop shot a teen with a small blade 9 times in succession at a distance of at least 5 yards, after less than 2 minutes on the scene- because the kid called him a P___y. Of course, the cop watchdog the SIU, are all retired cops.
They are absolutely OUT OF CONTROL.
And you know what else? There are statistics out there that show that it's not that dangerous to be a cop but it is dangerous to be around them and that they get acquitted at insanely high rates because it's their account vs someone else's or nobody.
You're so right.
In the past 6 months, here in Toronto there have been at least 6 fatalities, in once instance, a cop shot a teen with a small blade 9 times in succession at a distance of at least 5 yards, after less than 2 minutes on the scene- because the kid called him a P___y. Of course, the cop watchdog the SIU, are all retired cops.
They are absolutely OUT OF CONTROL.
Most dangerous jobs in America / fatalities per 100,000 workers in 2011:
Fishermen 129 pays $28k no pension
Logger 116 pays $30k no pension
Sanitation 37 $33k
#12 Police 16 $51k and up to 80% pension with 3% annual COLA. Police officers live as long as non police officers.
Don't believe the police hype to justify more salary, benefits, excessive force and immunity.
Fishermen 129 pays $28k no pension
Logger 116 pays $30k no pension
Sanitation 37 $33k
#12 Police 16 $51k and up to 80% pension with 3% annual COLA. Police officers live as long as non police officers.
Don't believe the police hype to justify more salary, benefits, excessive force and immunity.
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Most dangerous jobs in America / fatalities per 100,000 workers in 2011:
Fishermen 129 pays $28k no pension
Logger 116 pays $30k no pension
Sanitation 37 $33k
#12 Police 16 $51k and up to 80% pension with 3% annual COLA. Police officers live as long as non police officers.
Don't believe the police hype to justify more salary, benefits, excessive force and immunity.
+1 It is all hype in a struggle for more money and power.
Most dangerous jobs in America / fatalities per 100,000 workers in 2011:
Fishermen 129 pays $28k no pension
Logger 116 pays $30k no pension
Sanitation 37 $33k
#12 Police 16 $51k and up to 80% pension with 3% annual COLA. Police officers live as long as non police officers.
Don't believe the police hype to justify more salary, benefits, excessive force and immunity.
+1 It is all hype in a struggle for more money and power.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
It all boils down to that this guy was trespassing and stealing.
So why wasn't the tennis coach arrested, put in jail overnight and charged?
Especially since the police spoke to the school who informed them about the owners status with respect to tennis court usage.
Since neither he or the tennis coach are charged with trespass following a police investigation and cooperation from the school, are we to assume he had permission to be on the courts?
In which case, why bring up the topic in the official statement if not to mold the thinking of those reading it that this is a bad guy? Just like the opaque reference to him being difficult by an officer who can't even spell.
The evidence is pointing me to the fact that the owner thought what he was doing was no big deal, the officer decided to over reach his authority by going into the car, the owner was none too impressed with his conduct and wouldn't be bullied, so the police decided to teach him a lesson without realizing the value of the theft.
Hence Fords own comment that the theft was less than $100 an that a theft is a theft and his bosses admission that Ford was feeling defensive when he made the statement.
They realize now that they behaved disproportionately, that they should have issued a warning and that they are going to be ridiculed for this. Expect the case to be dropped.
It all boils down to that this guy was trespassing and stealing.
So why wasn't the tennis coach arrested, put in jail overnight and charged?
Especially since the police spoke to the school who informed them about the owners status with respect to tennis court usage.
Since neither he or the tennis coach are charged with trespass following a police investigation and cooperation from the school, are we to assume he had permission to be on the courts?
In which case, why bring up the topic in the official statement if not to mold the thinking of those reading it that this is a bad guy? Just like the opaque reference to him being difficult by an officer who can't even spell.
The evidence is pointing me to the fact that the owner thought what he was doing was no big deal, the officer decided to over reach his authority by going into the car, the owner was none too impressed with his conduct and wouldn't be bullied, so the police decided to teach him a lesson without realizing the value of the theft.
Hence Fords own comment that the theft was less than $100 an that a theft is a theft and his bosses admission that Ford was feeling defensive when he made the statement.
They realize now that they behaved disproportionately, that they should have issued a warning and that they are going to be ridiculed for this. Expect the case to be dropped.
All in all,,this was a large bust and I'm sure this will look good in the officers personnel folder. O, the days of common sense are gone forever.......................mercy.
Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
All in all,,this was a large bust and I'm sure this will look good in the officers personnel folder. O, the days of common sense are gone forever.......................mercy.
Agreed.
But the parent should have asked permission from school administrators FIRST before he plugged his car into school property.
It is interesting that the child is going to a school outside of the county the family lives in. Why is that, it is a bit unusual to say the least.
Was the police officer a county or town PD or was it a dedicated
school officer? It would have been more civil to simply unplug the car from the outlet and place a notice on the vehicle explaining why it was disconnected.
HOWEVER.. it also sounds like patel was not allowed on school property BEFORE this incident occurred. So he was warned before about being on school property. If he had been warned before and blatantly disobeyed a warning to stay off school grounds I can see a reason why he was arrested.
So in reality Mr. Patel was arrested for trespassing on school property after being repeatedly warned to stay away.
All in all,,this was a large bust and I'm sure this will look good in the officers personnel folder. O, the days of common sense are gone forever.......................mercy.
Agreed.
But the parent should have asked permission from school administrators FIRST before he plugged his car into school property.
It is interesting that the child is going to a school outside of the county the family lives in. Why is that, it is a bit unusual to say the least.
Was the police officer a county or town PD or was it a dedicated
school officer? It would have been more civil to simply unplug the car from the outlet and place a notice on the vehicle explaining why it was disconnected.
HOWEVER.. it also sounds like patel was not allowed on school property BEFORE this incident occurred. So he was warned before about being on school property. If he had been warned before and blatantly disobeyed a warning to stay off school grounds I can see a reason why he was arrested.
So in reality Mr. Patel was arrested for trespassing on school property after being repeatedly warned to stay away.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
All in all,,this was a large bust and I'm sure this will look good in the officers personnel folder. O, the days of common sense are gone forever.......................mercy.
Agreed.
But the parent should have asked permission from school administrators FIRST before he plugged his car into school property.
It is interesting that the child is going to a school outside of the county the family lives in. Why is that, it is a bit unusual to say the least.
Was the police officer a county or town PD or was it a dedicated
school officer? It would have been more civil to simply unplug the car from the outlet and place a notice on the vehicle explaining why it was disconnected.
HOWEVER.. it also sounds like patel was not allowed on school property BEFORE this incident occurred. So he was warned before about being on school property. If he had been warned before and blatantly disobeyed a warning to stay off school grounds I can see a reason why he was arrested.
So in reality Mr. Patel was arrested for trespassing on school property after being repeatedly warned to stay away.
But why was a 911 call made, by somebody who was NOT in authority of the school?
Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
All in all,,this was a large bust and I'm sure this will look good in the officers personnel folder. O, the days of common sense are gone forever.......................mercy.
Agreed.
But the parent should have asked permission from school administrators FIRST before he plugged his car into school property.
It is interesting that the child is going to a school outside of the county the family lives in. Why is that, it is a bit unusual to say the least.
Was the police officer a county or town PD or was it a dedicated
school officer? It would have been more civil to simply unplug the car from the outlet and place a notice on the vehicle explaining why it was disconnected.
HOWEVER.. it also sounds like patel was not allowed on school property BEFORE this incident occurred. So he was warned before about being on school property. If he had been warned before and blatantly disobeyed a warning to stay off school grounds I can see a reason why he was arrested.
So in reality Mr. Patel was arrested for trespassing on school property after being repeatedly warned to stay away.
But why was a 911 call made, by somebody who was NOT in authority of the school?
Luckily it was not George Zimmerman's electrical outlet.
Who the [censored] is Mr Patel?
And if he didn't have permission to be on the court, why haven't they charged him and the coach with trespass?
Instead they've worded a statement to make it appear he was already a troublemaker.
Maybe he was, but he is innocent until proven guilty and the police are not doing a good job of this.
- Couldn't find the owner despite the tennis court being in full view
- Entered the car without a warrant
- Couldn't spell in the police report
- Making it seem the owner was being difficult but no arrest on the scene nor afterwards and no charges connected to this allegation
- Making it seem that the owner had no permission to be on the courts and had been trouble before but no charges for him or the coach
- Not aware of the value of the theft
- Handcuffing and 15 hours in jail for 5c
- Saying you would do it again
- Police chief distancing himself from the Sergeants comments and judgement by saying he was being defensive when he said that
- Admitting the officer went into the car without providing his reasoning
- Saying its the owners fault for being difficult suggesting revenge was the reason for the arrest timing and overnight stay
And if he didn't have permission to be on the court, why haven't they charged him and the coach with trespass?
Instead they've worded a statement to make it appear he was already a troublemaker.
Maybe he was, but he is innocent until proven guilty and the police are not doing a good job of this.
- Couldn't find the owner despite the tennis court being in full view
- Entered the car without a warrant
- Couldn't spell in the police report
- Making it seem the owner was being difficult but no arrest on the scene nor afterwards and no charges connected to this allegation
- Making it seem that the owner had no permission to be on the courts and had been trouble before but no charges for him or the coach
- Not aware of the value of the theft
- Handcuffing and 15 hours in jail for 5c
- Saying you would do it again
- Police chief distancing himself from the Sergeants comments and judgement by saying he was being defensive when he said that
- Admitting the officer went into the car without providing his reasoning
- Saying its the owners fault for being difficult suggesting revenge was the reason for the arrest timing and overnight stay
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
It all boils down to that this guy was trespassing and stealing.
So why wasn't the tennis coach arrested, put in jail overnight and charged?
I wasn't there, but your answer lies in your previous post. The thief was, wait for it, *stealing*. Was the tennis coach?
Why were they called there again? Because a guy was stealing.
Were they called there because someone was playing tennis on a tennis court? No.
Here's the thing. If the bozo kept his trap shut, said "Sorry, I won't do it again." It would of ended there. More than likely.
But no, he got an attitude. And when you do, you play a game you can't win.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
It all boils down to that this guy was trespassing and stealing.
So why wasn't the tennis coach arrested, put in jail overnight and charged?
I wasn't there, but your answer lies in your previous post. The thief was, wait for it, *stealing*. Was the tennis coach?
Why were they called there again? Because a guy was stealing.
Were they called there because someone was playing tennis on a tennis court? No.
Here's the thing. If the bozo kept his trap shut, said "Sorry, I won't do it again." It would of ended there. More than likely.
But no, he got an attitude. And when you do, you play a game you can't win.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
The sad thing about this is that every single person in this thread has committed a crime (likely several) that they have not been punished for.
That's quite likely true. But he's the one who got caught stealing a few cents of electricity and got bagged for it. Others not being caught or punished isn't an excuse for those who are.
The sad thing about this is that every single person in this thread has committed a crime (likely several) that they have not been punished for.
That's quite likely true. But he's the one who got caught stealing a few cents of electricity and got bagged for it. Others not being caught or punished isn't an excuse for those who are.
Some here have clearly settled on "the man is keeping me down" side of the fence and you are entitled to your opinion.
But to me the guy was trespassing despite a prior warning, is using public utility without permission, (ya, it's stealing) and refused to acknowledge law enforcement upon their arrival to investigate.
It's gets really full of win when he falsely accuses a cop of causing damage to his vehicle too.
My guess is the judge won't be laughing this out of court.
But to me the guy was trespassing despite a prior warning, is using public utility without permission, (ya, it's stealing) and refused to acknowledge law enforcement upon their arrival to investigate.
It's gets really full of win when he falsely accuses a cop of causing damage to his vehicle too.
My guess is the judge won't be laughing this out of court.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
It all boils down to that this guy was trespassing and stealing.
So why wasn't the tennis coach arrested, put in jail overnight and charged?
I wasn't there, but your answer lies in your previous post. The thief was, wait for it, *stealing*. Was the tennis coach?
Why were they called there again? Because a guy was stealing.
Were they called there because someone was playing tennis on a tennis court? No.
Here's the thing. If the bozo kept his trap shut, said "Sorry, I won't do it again." It would of ended there. More than likely.
But no, he got an attitude. And when you do, you play a game you can't win.
The point about the coach is the insinuation made by the police chief that the owner was trespassing.
If he was trespassing, then so was the coach. If it bothered the school that he was yet again on their property, then they would have asked for him and the coach to be charged.
But they have not. So for me, the police account and decision to make an insinuation about this has holes in it.
As to keeping his trap shut, at the time of the incident, the officer had no evidence that a crime was in progress. And the vehicle owner seems to truly believe he was not doing anything illegal. So the owner finds that someone has entered his car and asks him what is going on. His account is that the officer ignored him, claimed the vehicle was abandoned and threatened to arrest him. But in the end he did not arrest him then or later for his attitude.
I don't know who to believe in terms of the conversation but we do know the officer entered the vehicle without permission and without evidence that there was a crime being committed.
Maybe I would stay quiet too out of fear of the police, but that is not the requirement of at citizen when a police officer interferes or enters your property without permission.
If that was George Zimmermans car and it was dark so he didn't recognize the uniform, maybe he could have shot the officer and gotten away with it.
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
It all boils down to that this guy was trespassing and stealing.
So why wasn't the tennis coach arrested, put in jail overnight and charged?
I wasn't there, but your answer lies in your previous post. The thief was, wait for it, *stealing*. Was the tennis coach?
Why were they called there again? Because a guy was stealing.
Were they called there because someone was playing tennis on a tennis court? No.
Here's the thing. If the bozo kept his trap shut, said "Sorry, I won't do it again." It would of ended there. More than likely.
But no, he got an attitude. And when you do, you play a game you can't win.
The point about the coach is the insinuation made by the police chief that the owner was trespassing.
If he was trespassing, then so was the coach. If it bothered the school that he was yet again on their property, then they would have asked for him and the coach to be charged.
But they have not. So for me, the police account and decision to make an insinuation about this has holes in it.
As to keeping his trap shut, at the time of the incident, the officer had no evidence that a crime was in progress. And the vehicle owner seems to truly believe he was not doing anything illegal. So the owner finds that someone has entered his car and asks him what is going on. His account is that the officer ignored him, claimed the vehicle was abandoned and threatened to arrest him. But in the end he did not arrest him then or later for his attitude.
I don't know who to believe in terms of the conversation but we do know the officer entered the vehicle without permission and without evidence that there was a crime being committed.
Maybe I would stay quiet too out of fear of the police, but that is not the requirement of at citizen when a police officer interferes or enters your property without permission.
If that was George Zimmermans car and it was dark so he didn't recognize the uniform, maybe he could have shot the officer and gotten away with it.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jrustles
The sad thing about this is that every single person in this thread has committed a crime (likely several) that they have not been punished for.
That's quite likely true. But he's the one who got caught stealing a few cents of electricity and got bagged for it. Others not being caught or punished isn't an excuse for those who are.
Actually it could be if you can demonstrate accepted norms of behavior.
Let's say for example a parent attends an event at the same school and wants to charge their spare camcorder battery. Or a sibling is bored and needs to plug in their iPad. Or a parent is running low on coolant and fills up from a spigot.
If these similar instances can be shown to be generally accepted usage of utilities in public spaces, he may have a case to say he wasn't doing anything different yet there are no investigations and prosecutions of these other incidents.
Originally Posted By: jrustles
The sad thing about this is that every single person in this thread has committed a crime (likely several) that they have not been punished for.
That's quite likely true. But he's the one who got caught stealing a few cents of electricity and got bagged for it. Others not being caught or punished isn't an excuse for those who are.
Actually it could be if you can demonstrate accepted norms of behavior.
Let's say for example a parent attends an event at the same school and wants to charge their spare camcorder battery. Or a sibling is bored and needs to plug in their iPad. Or a parent is running low on coolant and fills up from a spigot.
If these similar instances can be shown to be generally accepted usage of utilities in public spaces, he may have a case to say he wasn't doing anything different yet there are no investigations and prosecutions of these other incidents.
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Who the [censored] is Mr Patel?
And if he didn't have permission to be on the court, why haven't they charged him and the coach with trespass?
Instead they've worded a statement to make it appear he was already a troublemaker.
Maybe he was, but he is innocent until proven guilty and the police are not doing a good job of this.
- Couldn't find the owner despite the tennis court being in full view
- Entered the car without a warrant
- Couldn't spell in the police report
- Making it seem the owner was being difficult but no arrest on the scene nor afterwards and no charges connected to this allegation
- Making it seem that the owner had no permission to be on the courts and had been trouble before but no charges for him or the coach
- Not aware of the value of the theft
- Handcuffing and 15 hours in jail for 5c
- Saying you would do it again
- Police chief distancing himself from the Sergeants comments and judgement by saying he was being defensive when he said that
- Admitting the officer went into the car without providing his reasoning
- Saying its the owners fault for being difficult suggesting revenge was the reason for the arrest timing and overnight stay
The tennis courts, which unlike the school is not locked, has nothing to do with anything. He didn't have permission to use their power outlet.
Do you have anything besides the Leaf's owner that the statement was worded the way he claims it was?
Who claims anything was worded that makes him appear a troublemaker? Outside of the owner?
Now for the rest.
The officer didn't need to find the owner of the unlocked vehicle that was stealing electricity.
The officer had probable cause. Why? Electricity was being stolen. In other words, a crime was in progress.
Spelling? Does not negate the fact a crime was being committed.
So he wasn't arrested at the scene. And, he was arrested afterward. By DeKalb County, not Chamblee.
He had no permission to use the school's outlet. Ever. It has nothing to do with tennis courts. And why keep bringing the coach up? He didn't steal anything.
Nobody is aware of the value of the theft. First of all, the police do not carry meter readers. Second, obviously the car owner doesn't know either. Especially as he's admitted to doing it5 multiple times. And by the way, how would the cop know how long he's been there? Not relevant anyway.
Handcuffing? That's what they do when you're arrested. And again, where is the proof it was only 5 cents? The car owner? Sure, like he wouldn't lie....
Saying he would do it again? That is what is called an admission of guilt. And since anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...... (Idiot should of kept his mouth shut, but he is arrogant)
What the chief says about it doesn't really matter. And which one? Marc Johnson, police chief and city manager of Chamblee, said, "Bottom line: if he had just said, 'Sorry I can just unplug,' there wouldn't have been a report."
Revenge? If that was true, it would of happened right away. Instead, he was arrested 11 days later warrant for misdemeanor theft.
In Georgia: Misdemeanor Theft
A theft is a misdemeanor when it involves property with a value of $500.00 or less. There is an exception for Theft by Shoplifting.
It should be noted that for a second misdemeanor theft, there is a mandatory minimum fine of $250. A third such conviction carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 30 days or home confinement of 120 days.
So if the arrogant idiot does it again, that so called 5 cents will get very expensive.
Who the [censored] is Mr Patel?
And if he didn't have permission to be on the court, why haven't they charged him and the coach with trespass?
Instead they've worded a statement to make it appear he was already a troublemaker.
Maybe he was, but he is innocent until proven guilty and the police are not doing a good job of this.
- Couldn't find the owner despite the tennis court being in full view
- Entered the car without a warrant
- Couldn't spell in the police report
- Making it seem the owner was being difficult but no arrest on the scene nor afterwards and no charges connected to this allegation
- Making it seem that the owner had no permission to be on the courts and had been trouble before but no charges for him or the coach
- Not aware of the value of the theft
- Handcuffing and 15 hours in jail for 5c
- Saying you would do it again
- Police chief distancing himself from the Sergeants comments and judgement by saying he was being defensive when he said that
- Admitting the officer went into the car without providing his reasoning
- Saying its the owners fault for being difficult suggesting revenge was the reason for the arrest timing and overnight stay
The tennis courts, which unlike the school is not locked, has nothing to do with anything. He didn't have permission to use their power outlet.
Do you have anything besides the Leaf's owner that the statement was worded the way he claims it was?
Who claims anything was worded that makes him appear a troublemaker? Outside of the owner?
Now for the rest.
The officer didn't need to find the owner of the unlocked vehicle that was stealing electricity.
The officer had probable cause. Why? Electricity was being stolen. In other words, a crime was in progress.
Spelling? Does not negate the fact a crime was being committed.
So he wasn't arrested at the scene. And, he was arrested afterward. By DeKalb County, not Chamblee.
He had no permission to use the school's outlet. Ever. It has nothing to do with tennis courts. And why keep bringing the coach up? He didn't steal anything.
Nobody is aware of the value of the theft. First of all, the police do not carry meter readers. Second, obviously the car owner doesn't know either. Especially as he's admitted to doing it5 multiple times. And by the way, how would the cop know how long he's been there? Not relevant anyway.
Handcuffing? That's what they do when you're arrested. And again, where is the proof it was only 5 cents? The car owner? Sure, like he wouldn't lie....
Saying he would do it again? That is what is called an admission of guilt. And since anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law...... (Idiot should of kept his mouth shut, but he is arrogant)
What the chief says about it doesn't really matter. And which one? Marc Johnson, police chief and city manager of Chamblee, said, "Bottom line: if he had just said, 'Sorry I can just unplug,' there wouldn't have been a report."
Revenge? If that was true, it would of happened right away. Instead, he was arrested 11 days later warrant for misdemeanor theft.
In Georgia: Misdemeanor Theft
A theft is a misdemeanor when it involves property with a value of $500.00 or less. There is an exception for Theft by Shoplifting.
It should be noted that for a second misdemeanor theft, there is a mandatory minimum fine of $250. A third such conviction carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 30 days or home confinement of 120 days.
So if the arrogant idiot does it again, that so called 5 cents will get very expensive.
We don't know if the school told the tennis coach not to be there.
We do know the school told the vehicle owner not to use the tennis courts due to the problems they indicated they had in the past with him using the courts while school was in session.
So it's possible that only the vehicle owner was trespassing and not the tennis coach. Or at the very least, the school had not told the tennis coach not to use their tennis courts.
But apparently, the school did inform the vehicle owner not to use the courts. Not only did he disregard that legitimate instruction, but he went a step further and decided to charge his car whilst there as well.
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
It all boils down to that this guy was trespassing and stealing.
So why wasn't the tennis coach arrested, put in jail overnight and charged?
I wasn't there, but your answer lies in your previous post. The thief was, wait for it, *stealing*. Was the tennis coach?
Why were they called there again? Because a guy was stealing.
Were they called there because someone was playing tennis on a tennis court? No.
Here's the thing. If the bozo kept his trap shut, said "Sorry, I won't do it again." It would of ended there. More than likely.
But no, he got an attitude. And when you do, you play a game you can't win.
The point about the coach is the insinuation made by the police chief that the owner was trespassing.
If he was trespassing, then so was the coach. If it bothered the school that he was yet again on their property, then they would have asked for him and the coach to be charged.
But they have not. So for me, the police account and decision to make an insinuation about this has holes in it.
As to keeping his trap shut, at the time of the incident, the officer had no evidence that a crime was in progress. And the vehicle owner seems to truly believe he was not doing anything illegal. So the owner finds that someone has entered his car and asks him what is going on. His account is that the officer ignored him, claimed the vehicle was abandoned and threatened to arrest him. But in the end he did not arrest him then or later for his attitude.
I don't know who to believe in terms of the conversation but we do know the officer entered the vehicle without permission and without evidence that there was a crime being committed.
Maybe I would stay quiet too out of fear of the police, but that is not the requirement of at citizen when a police officer interferes or enters your property without permission.
If that was George Zimmermans car and it was dark so he didn't recognize the uniform, maybe he could have shot the officer and gotten away with it.
We do know the school told the vehicle owner not to use the tennis courts due to the problems they indicated they had in the past with him using the courts while school was in session.
So it's possible that only the vehicle owner was trespassing and not the tennis coach. Or at the very least, the school had not told the tennis coach not to use their tennis courts.
But apparently, the school did inform the vehicle owner not to use the courts. Not only did he disregard that legitimate instruction, but he went a step further and decided to charge his car whilst there as well.
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
It all boils down to that this guy was trespassing and stealing.
So why wasn't the tennis coach arrested, put in jail overnight and charged?
I wasn't there, but your answer lies in your previous post. The thief was, wait for it, *stealing*. Was the tennis coach?
Why were they called there again? Because a guy was stealing.
Were they called there because someone was playing tennis on a tennis court? No.
Here's the thing. If the bozo kept his trap shut, said "Sorry, I won't do it again." It would of ended there. More than likely.
But no, he got an attitude. And when you do, you play a game you can't win.
The point about the coach is the insinuation made by the police chief that the owner was trespassing.
If he was trespassing, then so was the coach. If it bothered the school that he was yet again on their property, then they would have asked for him and the coach to be charged.
But they have not. So for me, the police account and decision to make an insinuation about this has holes in it.
As to keeping his trap shut, at the time of the incident, the officer had no evidence that a crime was in progress. And the vehicle owner seems to truly believe he was not doing anything illegal. So the owner finds that someone has entered his car and asks him what is going on. His account is that the officer ignored him, claimed the vehicle was abandoned and threatened to arrest him. But in the end he did not arrest him then or later for his attitude.
I don't know who to believe in terms of the conversation but we do know the officer entered the vehicle without permission and without evidence that there was a crime being committed.
Maybe I would stay quiet too out of fear of the police, but that is not the requirement of at citizen when a police officer interferes or enters your property without permission.
If that was George Zimmermans car and it was dark so he didn't recognize the uniform, maybe he could have shot the officer and gotten away with it.
- Status
Similar threads
