Jailed for taking electricity worth 5 cents !

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
I am shocked, shocked to see most of you have no problem for a cop to enter your car without warrant or any reasonable suspicion.

I was wondering something similar. With all the new laws and zero tolerance stuff going on, is it possible that the law is such that entry on school property constitutes consent to search?

 

[KenO]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: Vikas
I am shocked, shocked to see most of you have no problem for a cop to enter your car without warrant or any reasonable suspicion.

I was wondering something similar. With all the new laws and zero tolerance stuff going on, is it possible that the law is such that entry on school property constitutes consent to search?


On that note, am I the only one who seems to care about an arbitrary person (non-school administrator) using 911 for a non-emergency call?

 

[jrustles]

Hey Mykl, do you stop before the line at every stop sign and hold your vehicle there for a minimum of 3 seconds? Have you ever knowingly or unknowingly exceeded the posted speed limit, even if by inches per hour in excess? Have you ever buckled up after having put your car in gear, in your life?

I guess you want the cops to harass you then.

 

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Some people wake up with a chip on their shoulder and are confrontational by nature. This guy with the Leaf could be one of those personalities.


I lol'd. You began describing a lot of the law enforcement out there, only to then appropriate the statement to regular citizens who just want to live their lives.

Imagine, a citizen driven by 'a chip on their shoulder' persuing and harrassing cops for any daily petty crimes they commit.

To all these hard-talkers that want to talk about "emotions" and legal zeal, keep pretending you're some type of SS robot operating under legal orders, while the rest of humanity acts like humans; flawed emotional humans complete with discretion, diligence, compassion, humility and empathy- character traits that are absent in the psychopath. You wouldn't send your own mother to jail or put her through that over something so petty, or stealing a piece of gum and mouthing off to a cop about how petty he's being. And if you would, even to make a point, then maybe you're a psychopath.

Quote:

But when participants imagined pain to others, these regions [of the brain] failed to become active in high psychopaths. Moreover, psychopaths showed an increased response in the ventral striatum, an area known to be involved in pleasure, when imagining others in pain.


This explains a lot about comments we are seeing.

Several people seem rabid that the Leaf owner should get what he deserves.

And in their rabidity, they are missing the points being made.

If theft is theft, which is the opinion of the sergeant who signed the arrest warrant and several of you have repeated you agree with that, then yes plugging in for cellphone without asking, is the same as this.

But one or two of you are saying simultaneously that theft is theft, no matter the amount, but for an electric car it is different.

Think about what you're saying for a moment.

Several of you are saying this person got what he deserved. If he gets proportionate treatment in court, then that's fine. But no way can I agree that 15 hours in jail is what a fellow citizen deserves for this incident. Jrustles explanation of yours, and presumably the polices pleasure centers may explain the difference in opinion here.

You would soon change your mind if it was your mother, sister or daughter in jail overnight wouldn't you?

As Vikas has said, none of you are worried that the police did a search of private property.

I'm leaning towards the fact that several of you have a dislike for this person for several reasons and / or of other things he represents to you and are willing to project your anger on him.

I'm also leaning towards the fact that the police feel they are above the law and this person was not going to be intimidated. By entering a private vehicle for no reason apart from a belief you can get away with it, the police officer has displayed his disregard for the rights of citizens and his attitude about his power vs yours.

 

[KenO]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Some people wake up with a chip on their shoulder and are confrontational by nature. This guy with the Leaf could be one of those personalities.


I lol'd. You began describing a lot of the law enforcement out there, only to then appropriate the statement to regular citizens who just want to live their lives.

Imagine, a citizen driven by 'a chip on their shoulder' persuing and harrassing cops for any daily petty crimes they commit.

To all these hard-talkers that want to talk about "emotions" and legal zeal, keep pretending you're some type of SS robot operating under legal orders, while the rest of humanity acts like humans; flawed emotional humans complete with discretion, diligence, compassion, humility and empathy- character traits that are absent in the psychopath. You wouldn't send your own mother to jail or put her through that over something so petty, or stealing a piece of gum and mouthing off to a cop about how petty he's being. And if you would, even to make a point, then maybe you're a psychopath.

Quote:

But when participants imagined pain to others, these regions [of the brain] failed to become active in high psychopaths. Moreover, psychopaths showed an increased response in the ventral striatum, an area known to be involved in pleasure, when imagining others in pain.


This explains a lot about comments we are seeing.

Several people seem rabid that the Leaf owner should get what he deserves.

And in their rabidity, they are missing the points being made.

If theft is theft, which is the opinion of the sergeant who signed the arrest warrant and several of you have repeated you agree with that, then yes plugging in for cellphone without asking, is the same as this.

But one or two of you are saying simultaneously that theft is theft, no matter the amount, but for an electric car it is different.

Think about what you're saying for a moment.

Several of you are saying this person got what he deserved. If he gets proportionate treatment in court, then that's fine. But no way can I agree that 15 hours in jail is what a fellow citizen deserves for this incident. Jrustles explanation of yours, and presumably the polices pleasure centers may explain the difference in opinion here.

You would soon change your mind if it was your mother, sister or daughter in jail overnight wouldn't you?

As Vikas has said, none of you are worried that the police did a search of private property.

I'm leaning towards the fact that several of you have a dislike for this person for several reasons and / or of other things he represents to you and are willing to project your anger on him.

I'm also leaning towards the fact that the police feel they are above the law and this person was not going to be intimidated. By entering a private vehicle for no reason apart from a belief you can get away with it, the police officer has displayed his disregard for the rights of citizens and his attitude about his power vs yours.



Well stated. Thank you.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: KenO
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Some people wake up with a chip on their shoulder and are confrontational by nature. This guy with the Leaf could be one of those personalities.


I lol'd. You began describing a lot of the law enforcement out there, only to then appropriate the statement to regular citizens who just want to live their lives.

Imagine, a citizen driven by 'a chip on their shoulder' persuing and harrassing cops for any daily petty crimes they commit.

To all these hard-talkers that want to talk about "emotions" and legal zeal, keep pretending you're some type of SS robot operating under legal orders, while the rest of humanity acts like humans; flawed emotional humans complete with discretion, diligence, compassion, humility and empathy- character traits that are absent in the psychopath. You wouldn't send your own mother to jail or put her through that over something so petty, or stealing a piece of gum and mouthing off to a cop about how petty he's being. And if you would, even to make a point, then maybe you're a psychopath.

Quote:

But when participants imagined pain to others, these regions [of the brain] failed to become active in high psychopaths. Moreover, psychopaths showed an increased response in the ventral striatum, an area known to be involved in pleasure, when imagining others in pain.


This explains a lot about comments we are seeing.

Several people seem rabid that the Leaf owner should get what he deserves.

And in their rabidity, they are missing the points being made.

If theft is theft, which is the opinion of the sergeant who signed the arrest warrant and several of you have repeated you agree with that, then yes plugging in for cellphone without asking, is the same as this.

But one or two of you are saying simultaneously that theft is theft, no matter the amount, but for an electric car it is different.

Think about what you're saying for a moment.

Several of you are saying this person got what he deserved. If he gets proportionate treatment in court, then that's fine. But no way can I agree that 15 hours in jail is what a fellow citizen deserves for this incident. Jrustles explanation of yours, and presumably the polices pleasure centers may explain the difference in opinion here.

You would soon change your mind if it was your mother, sister or daughter in jail overnight wouldn't you?

As Vikas has said, none of you are worried that the police did a search of private property.

I'm leaning towards the fact that several of you have a dislike for this person for several reasons and / or of other things he represents to you and are willing to project your anger on him.

I'm also leaning towards the fact that the police feel they are above the law and this person was not going to be intimidated. By entering a private vehicle for no reason apart from a belief you can get away with it, the police officer has displayed his disregard for the rights of citizens and his attitude about his power vs yours.



Well stated. Thank you.


+2 nicely put

 

[javacontour]

I don't think anyone is in favor of cops abusing their status.

What I'm saying is for folks to use their heads. Maybe the vehicle owner was right. Let's assume he was. Let's assume that he had not been told by the school to not use the tennis courts. Let's assume there had not been any prior run ins between him and the school administration. Let's assume that he didn't cop an attitude about the police officers polluting cop car.

It's a situation where you have to examine the possible outcomes. Even if the cop is wrong, he can, likely legally and possibly illegally, make your life miserable for some period of time. All he has to do is say he thought he saw you go for a weapon, and you are cuffed up and in the squad, at best.

The school grounds, or when the deputy comes to serve the warrant, is not the time or place to plead your case. That time is in the courtroom.

It's a dual edged sword. Such tactics can be used on the truly troublesome. But they can also be used on someone percieved to be flaunting the authority of the officer.

I am not saying we should blindly obey. I'm saying fight where you have the best chance of winning. A one on one with the cop in public is not the best choice for a battlefield.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I don't think anyone is in favor of cops abusing their status.

What I'm saying is for folks to use their heads. Maybe the vehicle owner was right. Let's assume he was. Let's assume that he had not been told by the school to not use the tennis courts. Let's assume there had not been any prior run ins between him and the school administration. Let's assume that he didn't cop an attitude about the police officers polluting cop car.

It's a situation where you have to examine the possible outcomes. Even if the cop is wrong, he can, likely legally and possibly illegally, make your life miserable for some period of time. All he has to do is say he thought he saw you go for a weapon, and you are cuffed up and in the squad, at best.

The school grounds, or when the deputy comes to serve the warrant, is not the time or place to plead your case. That time is in the courtroom.

It's a dual edged sword. Such tactics can be used on the truly troublesome. But they can also be used on someone percieved to be flaunting the authority of the officer.

I am not saying we should blindly obey. I'm saying fight where you have the best chance of winning. A one on one with the cop in public is not the best choice for a battlefield.


Bravo!

 

[The_Jeff]

Originally Posted By: KenO


On that note, am I the only one who seems to care about an arbitrary person (non-school administrator) using 911 for a non-emergency call?


A call for service for a (believed) crime in progress is a legit use of the 911 service, even if it's a petty crime.

It'd be nice if they had universal non-emergency numbers, like 912, but that's an area code IIRC.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Hey Mykl, do you stop before the line at every stop sign and hold your vehicle there for a minimum of 3 seconds? Have you ever knowingly or unknowingly exceeded the posted speed limit, even if by inches per hour in excess? Have you ever buckled up after having put your car in gear, in your life?

I guess you want the cops to harass you then.


If I am harassed by the police because I was breaking the speed limit, I may not enjoy the situation, but at the end of the day I understand that I was participating in an activity that brought law enforcement attention to myself.

For me to come on a web forum and scream 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' or 'OMG POLICE ABUSE' because I got a speeding ticket would be retarded, just like saying that it's unconstitutional for the police to arrest someone for theft when there was sufficient evidence to do so.

Under normal circumstances where the subject of the officer's attention was at least polite enough to take advantage of their right to ****, I would quickly tell you that the police's reaction to this was heavy handed and unnecessary. But if you're a tool-bag about it I have a really difficult time feeling sympathy when someone is treated with the same lack of respect they showed the other person.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: TrevorS

the officer had no evidence that a crime was in progress.


Was the car being charged at a designated charging station?

It's a rhetorical question. He was on school property charging his car without their permission. Since he did not have their permission to use the outlet, he was...... stealing.



There are two schools of thought...

1) If it's not explicitly forbidden, it's okay.
2) One must gain explicit permission for it to be okay.

The school never felt it was an issue, and has not issued a sign/ policy about their electricity. They felt the Leaf owner's presence during school hours was an issue (distracting to the students? Security?) and warned him about that. The school has a power vacuum about its electricity policy; noone wanted to step up and set policy. Those in authority were following #1.

However, a concerned citizen felt like #2 was happening and called the police. The attitude of the Leaf owner allowed the formerly neutral Police to also feel like #2 was happening.

The variety of responses to this thread include 1 & 2 and aren't seeing eye-to-eye.


The school more than likely never thought it would be an issue as they couldn't conceive that some one who can afford a Leaf couldn't afford to charge it.

Like the chief said, "Bottom line: if he had just said, 'Sorry I can just unplug,' there wouldn't have been a report." But no, he was arrogant enough to think he knew better.

And the guy's ignorance, "I didn't know it was illegal", is no excuse.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You have no legal basis for your arguments. You're going on emotion. And the law does not work on emotion.

Never, ever, had a problem with them. Not when I broke traffic laws, not when I pulled a weapon to stop some fool from attacking me.

I've been pulled over because I was a block away form a 7/11 that got robbed. It was a quick look, I wasn't who they were looking for. I've been subject to random DUI checkpoints. Do I get upset? No. They're doing their job.

Many of you are funny. You complain of how the police are a street gang, then whine to the heavens when they don't handle some problem they really have no business dealing with. Or when you get caught breaking a law that you think shouldn't be.



I don't believe I'm going from emotion.



You are. Your entire presentation is based on how you feel, or what you think the way it should be.

In every post of yours, you have cited no case law to back up anything. You keep pushing questions that have no basis in law.

As an example, over and over again you bring up this tennis coach. He has nothing whatsoever with the Leaf owner stealing, and yet you keep bringing him up.

Or you equate someone charging cell phones or plugging in a laptop with this guy. And yet, you do not provide any case law to back that.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Trajan



The school more than likely never thought it would be an issue as they couldn't conceive that some one who can afford a Leaf couldn't afford to charge it.

Like the chief said, "Bottom line: if he had just said, 'Sorry I can just unplug,' there wouldn't have been a report." But no, he was arrogant enough to think he knew better.

And the guy's ignorance, "I didn't know it was illegal", is no excuse.



Exactly. Not only that again it is being lost in the thread that this subject was warned AT LEAST ONCE BEFORE regarding being on school property.

I would be interested to know if he has a rap sheet of any kind.

The officer also had reasonable suspicion to enter the vehicle when he saw it was plugged into school property electric power. Technically it IS theft.

This guy was being BELLIGERENT and obstructive when the officer asked him simple direct questions regarding the matter.

He invited further scrutiny of himself, instead of conceding his actions were incorrect and wrong and politely dismissing himself from the situation.

AGAIN IF THE SUBJECT WOULD HAVE SIMPLY CONCEDED HIS BEING IN THE WRONG THE OFFICER WOULD HAVE MOST CERTAINLY GAVE THE PERP A WARNING AND SENT HIM ON HIS WAY WITH NO ARREST PENDING.


Also I agree that so many folks are interested in endlessly
bashing the police, but when THEY need their assistance they can't stop whining about how enough wasn't done in that circumstance or they didn't get to the scene in two seconds flat.

 

[KenO]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trajan
You have no legal basis for your arguments. You're going on emotion. And the law does not work on emotion.

Never, ever, had a problem with them. Not when I broke traffic laws, not when I pulled a weapon to stop some fool from attacking me.

I've been pulled over because I was a block away form a 7/11 that got robbed. It was a quick look, I wasn't who they were looking for. I've been subject to random DUI checkpoints. Do I get upset? No. They're doing their job.

Many of you are funny. You complain of how the police are a street gang, then whine to the heavens when they don't handle some problem they really have no business dealing with. Or when you get caught breaking a law that you think shouldn't be.



I don't believe I'm going from emotion.



You are. Your entire presentation is based on how you feel, or what you think the way it should be.

In every post of yours, you have cited no case law to back up anything. You keep pushing questions that have no basis in law.

As an example, over and over again you bring up this tennis coach. He has nothing whatsoever with the Leaf owner stealing, and yet you keep bringing him up.

Or you equate someone charging cell phones or plugging in a laptop with this guy. And yet, you do not provide any case law to back that.



Where is your case law to back up any of the ridiculous claims you've made??

 

[fdcg27]

While I rarely agree with you, in this case, you're right on point.
The driver of the Leaf was on property that is subject to whatever restrictions the local school board decides to make.
He had been told by administrators with the authority to do so that he was not permitted on the property.
He willfully entered the property in any event.
He willfully plugged his Leaf into an outlet not intended for public use, whether it was marked as such or not.
He then decided to engage in a war of words with a patrol cop, the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
He is arguably guilty of theft.
He is inarguably guilty of stupidity and is a Darwin Award candidate.
All of us have had interactions with cops.
Probably none of us have turned a simple response to a call by a concerned citizen into the circus this genius has managed.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
While I rarely agree with you, in this case, you're right on point.
The driver of the Leaf was on property that is subject to whatever restrictions the local school board decides to make.
He had been told by administrators with the authority to do so that he was not permitted on the property.
He willfully entered the property in any event.
He willfully plugged his Leaf into an outlet not intended for public use, whether it was marked as such or not.
He then decided to engage in a war of words with a patrol cop, the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
He is arguably guilty of theft.
He is inarguably guilty of stupidity and is a Darwin Award candidate.
All of us have had interactions with cops.
Probably none of us have turned a simple response to a call by a concerned citizen into the circus this genius has managed.


Well done. I especially enjoyed the Darwin Award Candidate part, he could possibly take that award. I hope this tool never needs the assistance of the Police, if so they should let him rot, but they won't.

 

[The_Jeff]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
While I rarely agree with you, in this case, you're right on point.
The driver of the Leaf was on property that is subject to whatever restrictions the local school board decides to make.
He had been told by administrators with the authority to do so that he was not permitted on the property.


He was told to not play tennis during school hours. Then he came back on Saturday for tennis and car-charging. In my state under trespassing law those in authority can set precise limits. The school administration strikes me as pretty easy going. "Hey, don't distract the algebra class with your short shorts!!"

Quote:

He willfully entered the property in any event.
He willfully plugged his Leaf into an outlet not intended for public use, whether it was marked as such or not.

What if someone plugged in one of those robot ball-shooting gizmos? Scoreboard? Tennis sock dryer? They'd be using taxpayer electricity for their own amusement. Why would a school board design/approve a tennis court with an outlet? (Rhetorical question, it's probably at the base of a light pole and the electrician used its box as a pull point anyway.)
Quote:

He then decided to engage in a war of words with a patrol cop, the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight.
He is arguably guilty of theft.
He is inarguably guilty of stupidity and is a Darwin Award candidate.

Yup. Dumb, dumb, dumb. However, in one smart move, he isn't admitting a guilty feeling for taking the electricity, so he doesn't premeditate his definition of "theft". In a dumb move, he put a dollar value on it, giving himself motive for not spending that nickel at home.

 

[TrevorS]

A few of you are still making comments and leaping to conclusions not borne out by the facts.

The police statement said he was allowed to use the court if he sought permission.

We have no indication whether at the time he was there he had permission or not.

We do seem to agree that he hasn't been charged with trespassing.

So comments that he was there when he wasn't supposed to be are not true because you've come to that conclusion. It may be true, but the evidence is not definitive on that point.

I see that several questions I have posed have gone unanswered eg does the theft justify 15 hours in jail prior to a court case.

The responses seem to be yes he does because we don't agree with what he did, theft is theft, he picked a fight with the police, he shouldn't have been there.

Well your feelings and suppositions are not enough to jail somebody. We have the due process of law to ensure the police or a mob do not treat people as guilty before the evidence has been examined independently with both sides being given the chance of equal representation.

Nobody is denying he took electricity without explicit permission.

But several people seem to be in denial that private property should not be searched and in denial that it is not ok to incarcerate a citizen for 15 hours for a 5c theft after they had 11 days to investigate.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: KenO

Let me guess - you & Trajan HAVE to be Obama voters, aren't you?? Thats the only thing that makes sense here.


Couldn't care for him, TBH. Seems about as insincere, untrustworthy and personally motivated as the best of them.
Proof that pigeon holing is usually never accurate

Statements like that show just how hollow his arguments are.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
But several people seem to be in denial that private property should not be searched and in denial that it is not ok to incarcerate a citizen for 15 hours for a 5c theft after they had 11 days to investigate.


You're still in denial of the concept of probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

The officer had a reasonable belief that the vehicle was abandoned. You can't prove that he didn't. And he didn't find anything incriminating as it was.

The officer broke no law searching it.

As I explained earlier, but you and others just go right past it. An unlocked vehicle on school property, the owner was not with the vehicle. And said vehicle was plugged into an outlet stealing power that he did not pay for. Which, again, is a crime.

It doesn't serve you to claim people are "jumping to conclusions not born out by facts.". as you have not presented *any* thing that would be recognized in a court as facts.

Bad spelling doesn't matter. A tennis coach doesn't matter. Claiming that a police report shows him to be a trouble maker, which is true by his own actions by the way.

The only fact that matters is he got caught stealing. Now of course he can defend himself in court, which is how it works, though his statement that he's done it many times before is no help.

But he can't argue that he couldn't find anyone to ask and prevail. He can't argue that he didn't know it was illegal and prevail. And he certainly can't use drinking water or people charging cell phones et al while inside the school as a defense and expect not to be laughed into a fine, if any.

Now, the judge could decide to just have him pay court costs and sentence him to time served. (Not familiar enough with Georgia law, not living or travelling there.)

But I guarantee you, if he is as arrogant in the courtroom as he was at the school, he could very well spend time as a guest there for contempt of court.