7-Year-Old Handcuffed Over Lunch Money by Police

[revelarts]

Seven-Year-Old Handcuffed Over Lunch Money Dispute



The family of a 7-year-old New York boy is suing police and the city (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/family-year-nyc-boy-handcuffed-18357584) for $250 million, saying cops handcuffed and interrogated the boy for ten hours after a scuffle over lunch money at school.
Wilson Reyes, a student at Public School 114 in the Bronx reportedly got into a fight with a fellow student in December after he was accused of taking $5 of lunch money that had fallen on the ground in front of him. Responding to a complaint of assault and robbery, the police were called and took the boy to the local police precinct where officers allegedly handcuffed and interrogated him for ten hours, according to the lawsuit.
“Imagine how I felt seeing my son in handcuffs,” Wilson’s mother, Frances Mendez, told the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_are_cuff_guys_with_kid_eaRQ39892kXQndMJkDgY9J ?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Local). “It was horrible. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing,” she said.
The claim, filed by family attorney Jack Yankowitz, accuses the NYPD, among other things, of false imprisonment, physical, verbal, emotional and psychological abuse, and deprivation of Reyes’ constitutional rights.
Robbery charges against the boy were later dropped, and the NYPD, though it disputes the accusations in the suit, is investigating the incident.
“While the lawyer’s claims are grossly untrue in many respects, including fabrication as to how long the child was held, the matter is nonetheless being reviewed by the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau,” Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne told ABC News in an emailed statement.
New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio was critical of the NYPD in a statement (http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/news/2013-01-30/de-blasio-seven-year-olds-don%E2%80%99t-belong-handcuffs) posted on the New York City Public Advocate’s website.
“Seven-year-olds don’t belong in handcuffs,” he said. ”As a parent, I wouldn’t stand for this in one of my kids’ schools. Our school system’s over-reliance on the NYPD as a disciplinary tool traumatizes our young people, sows distrust in our communities and drains vital city resources away from responding to genuine crimes. This has to stop.”
Calls placed to Public School 114 were not immediately returned.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/seven-year-old-handcuffed-over-lunch-money-dispute/

[taft2012]

Always two sides to every story.

A day in the police station could have turned this aspiring perp around. Maybe. But now he's learned the lesson; be a victim. His mother doesn't give a rat's ass that he's a little thug. She just sees money.

www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bully-victim-speaks-article-1.1251351 (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bully-victim-speaks-article-1.1251351)



Seth Acevedo breaks down in tears after explaining his side of the bullying story, in which he says he was robbed and punched by 7-year-old Wilson Reyes in the Bronx.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1251859.1359610762!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/seven31n-10.jpg

^^^ the real victim. As always, completely forgotten.

How does this all turn out?

Mom will get some money out of a lawsuit. She'll get to prance her fat ass around the ghetto wearing Prada for a few years, until the money runs out. The kid goes on to become a career criminal.

Juveniles don't get put into cells behind bars in police stations, so they get handcuffed to a rail.

"ZOMG! That's unthinkable!"

^^^ The same people who say that would have a completely different take if the cop guarding the kid in the station house had to turn his back for a second to answer a phone, the kid bolts out the door, out of the station house into the path of a car and becomes a road pie.

Then when the city is being sued because this little savage was in their custody, the same person would be sitting on a jury saying:

"ZOMG! Why didn't the police just cuff the kid to a chair or something?"

Never can win with liberals and pothead conservatives.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1251202.1359565701!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/reyes-1-0130.jpg

Your average good 7 year-old kid would be bawling his eyes out if handcuffed inside a police station.

Little Wilson here looks like he's already accepted "the life" and plans to be doing this more often.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Wait... I'm supposed to believe the little thin stick of a kid was beating up the huge kid and stealing from him?

[revelarts]

amazing,

So Taft it's the kids fault and it's the parents fault, they are wrong. and the Cops are right. and the 7 year old is obviously hopelessly on the road to a life of crime. 10 hours handcuffed to a police station wall is good training for the 7 year old.
So basically the police should be arresting 2nd graders all over the country then Taft? for bullying (assault) and stealing lunch money (larceny).
Police are needed in the Halls of the schools to get the perps because the kids and the parents are no good. but the police are.

another case of NO bigfoot here. cops are always right.

welcome to America, it's not a police state, the police just know better, so shut up while we cuff your kid.

[Marcus Aurelius]

amazing,

So Taft it's the kids fault and it's the parents fault, they are wrong. and the Cops are right. and the 7 year old is obviously hopelessly on the road to a life of crime. 10 hours handcuffed to a police station wall is good training for the 7 year old.
So basically the police should be arresting 2nd graders all over the country then Taft? for bullying (assault) and stealing lunch money (larceny).
Police are needed in the Halls of the schools to get the perps because the kids and the parents are no good. but the police are.

another case of NO bigfoot here. cops are always right.

welcome to America, it's not a police state, the police just know better, so shut up while we cuff your kid.

Safer than going where the shooters are.

[revelarts]

Taft the response you gave here is an example of 1 reason the public doesn't trust police anymore.
And why some don't like police.

There's NO reason why cops need to take a 7 year kid to the police station over lunch money and 2nd graders fighting.

It's BS to the Nth degree.

IF and I say IF the cops want to "teach kid a lesson" (cops should have never been near the school over this BTW) IF that was the point then they MUST get the parents permission 1ST.
you don't kidnap kids from school and chain them to the freaking station wall all day over BS $5 then call the parents and assume your doing the family a freaking favor.

I wonder if there should be terms limits on police work, the mind set some police get over time is ... ur ... argh..
extremely poor to say the least.

[taft2012]

So your alternative is .... what?

Have the police ignore what amounts to a robbery in the penal law?

Assume the parents are going to handle it?

When somebody beats somebody up and takes their money, that is a robbery. You can soften the words up all you like.

Somehow, I think if it was your kid on the losing end here you'd be singing a different story.

Police arrive at policies after decades of civil litigation. Let the parents handle this one? Then the next day the kid really lays a beating on the soft fat kid, and bam-o, a huge lawsuit for failing to take police action. You have the luxury of isolating a case with blinders on... police agencies do not have that luxury.

Pothead conservatives. *Sigh*

[Marcus Aurelius]

Taft the response you gave here is an example of 1 reason the public doesn't trust police anymore.
And why some don't like police.

There's NO reason why cops need to take a 7 year kid to the police station over lunch money and 2nd graders fighting.

It's BS to the Nth degree.

IF and I say IF the cops want to "teach kid a lesson" (cops should have never been near the school over this BTW) IF that was the point then they MUST get the parents permission 1ST.
you don't kidnap kids from school and chain them to the freaking station wall all day over BS $5 then call the parents and assume your doing the family a freaking favor.

I wonder if there should be terms limits on police work, the mind set some police get over time is ... ur ... argh..
extremely poor to say the least.

How else can libtards teach children that the government knows what is best for them?

[revelarts]

So your alternative is .... what?
Have the police ignore what amounts to a robbery in the penal law?
Assume the parents are going to handle it?
When somebody beats somebody up and takes their money, that is a robbery. You can soften the words up all you like.
Somehow, I think if it was your kid on the losing end here you'd be singing a different story.
Police arrive at policies after decades of civil litigation. Let the parents handle this one? Then the next day the kid really lays a beating on the soft fat kid, and bam-o, a huge lawsuit for failing to take police action. You have the luxury of isolating a case with blinders on... police agencies do not have that luxury.

Pothead conservatives. *Sigh*

taft i'd hoped you'd put the shovel down and step away but i guess not.
''whats my alternative too 2nd grade school theft ''??, man on man.

Hey Jim, or any other admin, we got another problem here.
I need Tafts IP to give to my lawyers.

he just called me a "pothead"!!!
THAT'S LIBEL BUDDY!!
well technically it's defamation under NewYork law

Under New York law, the elements of a defamation claim are:



a false statement;
published to a third party without privilege or authorization;
with fault amounting to at least <A class=glossary-term href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/glossary/8/lettern#term222"><ABBR title="When a person fails to exercise the care that a reasonable, prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances, that person is said to be negligent.">negligence</ABBR>;
that caused special harm or defamation per se. (http://www.citmedialaw.org/glossary/8/lettern#term222)



You'll be getting summons in few days. I have no alternative but to take you to court.
It's da law.

you might beat the charge, but you won't forget the ride my friend.
And maybe it will teach you a lesson. maybe not.

Just for clarity. I'm kidding.

[jimnyc]

Hey Jim, or any other admin, we got another problem here.
I need Tafts IP to give to my lawyers.


Just for clarity. I'm kidding.

For a very quick second, and at a glance, I was like "Oh no, another effing feud!" :lol:

And to stay on topic, I think they should have waterboarded the thieving little bastard!

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, on the one hand, bullying is wrong, so the kid did deserve punishment. However, getting arrested over a basic schoolyard thing between two kids is just fucked up.

I note everyone taking one side or the other entirely. Here's the problem with that: what if the "victimized" kid started, then cried foul to teachers or some such? I can think of several examples of kids who do just that, crying "he hit me", but conveniently forgetting to mention their own part in getting hit.

And seriously, $250 MILLION dollars?! Nothing that boy went thru is worth anything close to that much money. I mean, sweet Jesus, just get an apology for the overstep, and move on with your life.

[aboutime]

Okay, on the one hand, bullying is wrong, so the kid did deserve punishment. However, getting arrested over a basic schoolyard thing between two kids is just fucked up.

I note everyone taking one side or the other entirely. Here's the problem with that: what if the "victimized" kid started, then cried foul to teachers or some such? I can think of several examples of kids who do just that, crying "he hit me", but conveniently forgetting to mention their own part in getting hit.

And seriously, $250 MILLION dollars?! Nothing that boy went thru is worth anything close to that much money. I mean, sweet Jesus, just get an apology for the overstep, and move on with your life.


DragonStryk72. Lawyers, and Lawsuits are the reason so many people make stuff up, or create problems in their miserable life in order to get a FREE RIDE anyway they can.
If the government can't provide them everything they want, and need FOR FREE. They run to Lawyers who are nothing but Overpriced Ambulance Chasers who make money...Whether they WIN or LOSE.

Why does anyone think about how most POLITICIANS have Law backgrounds, which explains WHY they appear to run for offices that PAY LITTLE...when they are always making money on somebody else's Troubles????

[revelarts]

Okay, on the one hand, bullying is wrong, so the kid did deserve punishment. However, getting arrested over a basic schoolyard thing between two kids is just fucked up.

I note everyone taking one side or the other entirely. Here's the problem with that: what if the "victimized" kid started, then cried foul to teachers or some such? I can think of several examples of kids who do just that, crying "he hit me", but conveniently forgetting to mention their own part in getting hit.

And seriously, $250 MILLION dollars?! Nothing that boy went thru is worth anything close to that much money. I mean, sweet Jesus, just get an apology for the overstep, and move on with your life.

I didn't mention what the parents want at all. I agree it's crazy money.

the whole incident seems blown way outta proportion by all sides..

[Kathianne]

I agree with the public advocate, the NYPD should not be 'a disciplinary arm of the schools.' The very nature of this incident, was well within the schools ability to handle.

No police department I know of would get involved in a $5 lunch money dispute, for obvious reasons. I think CH is still missing, but both of us agreed that one reason for the already existing resource officers, paid for jointly by police/schools is to identify and intervene on such possible concerns as this boy. If he had been accused before of stealing or some other anti-social behaviors, but had yet to be 'caught,' this would have been an ideal time for a meeting with him, resource officer, and psychologist or social worker.

If it was a real 'first time' and there really was a question of finding the money on the floor, again a teachable moment of how the school for 6 hours a day, is family, and 'what if it was YOU that dropped the money?' Would you want it returned? Why? What if that was supposed to pay for someone's lunch for 2 days and they were going to go hungry? Again, what if it were you?

Police should be called to schools for fights that are beyond the ability of normal adults to handle, (mostly high school, but some middle school kids are big); any weapons that pose a substantial risk to students and staff, (not Hello Kitty bubble guns. That's a kid's problem, well within the school's ability to handle,); drugs, alcohol, etc.

K-4th grade should be educated that the police, like teachers, and other caring adults are there to help children, not lock them up. Indeed, if a child is in serious danger from a parent or caretaker and no one is listening, they should know that they can get help from the police.

[taft2012]

Just for clarity. I'm kidding.

Too bad. I would have loved to have gotten you on the stand, under oath, and asked you if you've ever smoked pot. :dance:

That said, you example doesn't hold up. You are citing a civil law, which the police do not enforce in NY. The police enforce criminal laws. You can't go out an arrest somebody for defamation of character here.

In NYC, the police have responsibility for security in the schools. We have 5000 non-armed peace officer School Safety Agents in 1400 schools. Additionally, the police also patrol the schools. We have about 30,000 police officers in NYC, and 1.1 million school students. The reason the Police Department was tasked with this is because the schools were overrun with robberies, assaults, and rapes that the teachers tried to bury.

Now, did the police belong near the school in Newtown? Or do we have to check with liberals and pothead conservatives every time before we respond?

You have to have clear guidelines in a situation like this with as many police and kids out there as we have. If the police are allowed to say "Awww, they're just kids", then the next day the bully can take it another step, then another, and then maybe permanently injure the victim. In which case it would the victim's parents who say "We told the police 3 or 4 times, and each time they did nothing, and said 'Awww, they're just kids' and now my son is permanently disabled. We're going to sue!!!"

Think it can't happen like that? Think it never has? Think this story would have made the newspapers too if little Wilson has permanently disfigured the fat kid, or worse, after the police had been called 3 or 4 times?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but in domestic dispute/violence cases all discretion has been removed from police across the country. When slapping the cuffs on a husband the police will usually tell him, "You can thank OJ Simpson for this." That was the result of too many cops saying "Ah, he's just blowing off some steam."

Furthermore, the law says when a felony (robbery is a felony) is committed the police must arrest if the perpetrator is 7 years-old or older.

Additionally, we track every felony in this city, and track how the cases are closed, ie., arrest, can't identify perp, etc. There's no closure for "Aww, they're just kids." When the police commissioner has to explain crime statistics and closure rates to the City Council, they don't want to hear, "Well, we have a lot of robberies that we didn't make arrests on because they're just kids."

I could go on and on about this, but I can't overcome ignorance of the profession. Yeah, maybe if we were in Mayberry where the sheriff knows all the kids and can keep track of them all, maybe things wouldn't have to be this way. In NYC, five different cops could have responded to 5 different episodes between these kids, and all of them walked away saying "Awww, they're kids"... and there would be no record of any of it. None that is, until one day when the fat kid turned up dead.

Then there's a mega-lawsuit. Stringent guidelines are the result of municipalities learning how to protect themselves, and that is done by protecting everyone.


I agree with the public advocate, the NYPD should not be 'a disciplinary arm of the schools.' The very nature of this incident, was well within the schools ability to handle.

The Public Advocate is a douchebag whose job it is to organize protests against the city. I've never heard of such an absurd elected position before in my life.


No police department I know of would get involved in a $5 lunch money dispute

You never heard of the NYPD? The most famous and storied police department in history?

There's a bunch of TV shows about 'em.

[Kathianne]

The Public Advocate is a douchebag whose job it is to organize protests against the city. I've never heard of such an absurd elected position before in my life.



You never heard of the NYPD? The most famous and storied police department in history?

There's a bunch of TV shows about 'em.

Then the NYPD is more than wrong. They are abusing police powers and actually helping to create a generation of children that will not turn to police for help, viewing them as a threat. Great job there, Taft. Great spokesman you are.

[Marcus Aurelius]

furthermore, the law says when a felony (robbery is a felony) is committed the police must arrest if the perpetrator is 7 years-old or older.

link?

Here's one for you...

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny1-2.htm

18. "Juvenile offender (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/nyresponsible.htm)" means (1) a person thirteen years old who is criminally responsible (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/nyresponsible.htm) for acts constituting murder in the second degree as defined in subdivisions one and two of section 125.25 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#tny125_25) of this chapter; and (2) a person thirteen, fourteen or fifteen years of age is criminally responsible (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/nyresponsible.htm) for acts constituting murder in the second degree as defined in subdivision one and two of section 125.25 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#tny125_25) and in subdivision three of such section provided that the underlying crime for the murder charge is one for which such person is criminally responsible (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/nyresponsible.htm); and a person fourteen or fifteen years of age is criminally responsible (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/nyresponsible.htm) for acts constituting the crimes defined in section 135.25 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#135.25) (kidnapping in the first degree); 150.20 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#150.20) (arson in the first degree); subdivisions one and two of section 120.10 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#120.10) (assault in the first degree); 125.20 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#tny125_20) (manslaughter in the first degree); subdivisions one and two of section 130.35 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#130.35) (rape in the first degree); subdivisions one and two of section 130.50 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#130.50) (sodomy in the first degree); 130.70 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#130.70) (aggravated sexual abuse); 140.30 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#140.30) (burglary in the first degree); subdivision one of section 140.25 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#140.25) (burglary in the second degree); 150.15 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#150.15) (arson in the second degree); 160.15 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#160.15) (robbery in the first degree); or subdivision two of section 160.10 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#160.10) (robbery in the second degree) of this chapter; subdivision four of section 265.02 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm#art265) of this chapter, where such firearm is possessed on school grounds, as that phrase is defined in subdivision fourteen of section 220.00 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%282%29.htm#tny220_00) of this chapter; or section 265.03 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28b%29.htm#art265) of this chapter, where such machine gun or such firearm is possessed on school grounds, as that phrase is defined in subdivision fourteen of section 220.00 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%282%29.htm#tny220_00) of this chapter; or defined in this chapter as an attempt (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny1-2.htm#art110) to commit murder in the second degree (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#tny125_25) or kidnapping in the first degree (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3%28a%29%281%29-.htm#135.25).

If NY state law says a Juvenile offender is defines as "a person fourteen or fifteen years of age" where do you come up with the 'they are required by law to arrest a 7 year old, if said 7 year old by definition cannot be considered a juvenile offender???

[DragonStryk72]

Too bad. I would have loved to have gotten you on the stand, under oath, and asked you if you've ever smoked pot. :dance:

That said, you example doesn't hold up. You are citing a civil law, which the police do not enforce in NY. The police enforce criminal laws. You can't go out an arrest somebody for defamation of character here.

In NYC, the police have responsibility for security in the schools. We have 5000 non-armed peace officer School Safety Agents in 1400 schools. Additionally, the police also patrol the schools. We have about 30,000 police officers in NYC, and 1.1 million school students. The reason the Police Department was tasked with this is because the schools were overrun with robberies, assaults, and rapes that the teachers tried to bury.

Now, did the police belong near the school in Newtown? Or do we have to check with liberals and pothead conservatives every time before we respond?

You have to have clear guidelines in a situation like this with as many police and kids out there as we have. If the police are allowed to say "Awww, they're just kids", then the next day the bully can take it another step, then another, and then maybe permanently injure the victim. In which case it would the victim's parents who say "We told the police 3 or 4 times, and each time they did nothing, and said 'Awww, they're just kids' and now my son is permanently disabled. We're going to sue!!!"

Think it can't happen like that? Think it never has? Think this story would have made the newspapers too if little Wilson has permanently disfigured the fat kid, or worse, after the police had been called 3 or 4 times?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but in domestic dispute/violence cases all discretion has been removed from police across the country. When slapping the cuffs on a husband the police will usually tell him, "You can thank OJ Simpson for this." That was the result of too many cops saying "Ah, he's just blowing off some steam."

Furthermore, the law says when a felony (robbery is a felony) is committed the police must arrest if the perpetrator is 7 years-old or older.

Additionally, we track every felony in this city, and track how the cases are closed, ie., arrest, can't identify perp, etc. There's no closure for "Aww, they're just kids." When the police commissioner has to explain crime statistics and closure rates to the City Council, they don't want to hear, "Well, we have a lot of robberies that we didn't make arrests on because they're just kids."

I could go on and on about this, but I can't overcome ignorance of the profession. Yeah, maybe if we were in Mayberry where the sheriff knows all the kids and can keep track of them all, maybe things wouldn't have to be this way. In NYC, five different cops could have responded to 5 different episodes between these kids, and all of them walked away saying "Awww, they're kids"... and there would be no record of any of it. None that is, until one day when the fat kid turned up dead.

Then there's a mega-lawsuit. Stringent guidelines are the result of municipalities learning how to protect themselves, and that is done by protecting everyone.

Actually, having grown up in NY, and having trained for security there, $5 is not felony theft. Felony theft is only $1000 or more, unless it was perpetrated against the government itself.

[fj1200]

You never heard of the NYPD? The most famous and storied police department in history?

There's a bunch of TV shows about 'em.

Link to NYPD Blue where Sipowicz clocked a mope with a phone book over lunch money.

[red states rule]

Always two sides to every story.

A day in the police station could have turned this aspiring perp around. Maybe. But now he's learned the lesson; be a victim. His mother doesn't give a rat's ass that he's a little thug. She just sees money.

www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bully-victim-speaks-article-1.1251351 (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bully-victim-speaks-article-1.1251351)

[/h]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1251859.1359610762!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/seven31n-10.jpg

^^^ the real victim. As always, completely forgotten.

How does this all turn out?

Mom will get some money out of a lawsuit. She'll get to prance her fat ass around the ghetto wearing Prada for a few years, until the money runs out. The kid goes on to become a career criminal.

Given a choice between facing by mom and dad - or staying in the holding cell - I would have chose the holding cell

[logroller]

Too bad. I would have loved to have gotten you on the stand, under oath, and asked you if you've ever smoked pot. :dance:

That said, you example doesn't hold up. You are citing a civil law, which the police do not enforce in NY. The police enforce criminal laws. You can't go out an arrest somebody for defamation of character here.

In NYC, the police have responsibility for security in the schools. We have 5000 non-armed peace officer School Safety Agents in 1400 schools. Additionally, the police also patrol the schools. We have about 30,000 police officers in NYC, and 1.1 million school students. The reason the Police Department was tasked with this is because the schools were overrun with robberies, assaults, and rapes that the teachers tried to bury.

Now, did the police belong near the school in Newtown? Or do we have to check with liberals and pothead conservatives every time before we respond?

You have to have clear guidelines in a situation like this with as many police and kids out there as we have. If the police are allowed to say "Awww, they're just kids", then the next day the bully can take it another step, then another, and then maybe permanently injure the victim. In which case it would the victim's parents who say "We told the police 3 or 4 times, and each time they did nothing, and said 'Awww, they're just kids' and now my son is permanently disabled. We're going to sue!!!"

Think it can't happen like that? Think it never has? Think this story would have made the newspapers too if little Wilson has permanently disfigured the fat kid, or worse, after the police had been called 3 or 4 times?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but in domestic dispute/violence cases all discretion has been removed from police across the country. When slapping the cuffs on a husband the police will usually tell him, "You can thank OJ Simpson for this." That was the result of too many cops saying "Ah, he's just blowing off some steam."

Furthermore, the law says when a felony (robbery is a felony) is committed the police must arrest if the perpetrator is 7 years-old or older.

Additionally, we track every felony in this city, and track how the cases are closed, ie., arrest, can't identify perp, etc. There's no closure for "Aww, they're just kids." When the police commissioner has to explain crime statistics and closure rates to the City Council, they don't want to hear, "Well, we have a lot of robberies that we didn't make arrests on because they're just kids."

I could go on and on about this, but I can't overcome ignorance of the profession. Yeah, maybe if we were in Mayberry where the sheriff knows all the kids and can keep track of them all, maybe things wouldn't have to be this way. In NYC, five different cops could have responded to 5 different episodes between these kids, and all of them walked away saying "Awww, they're kids"... and there would be no record of any of it. None that is, until one day when the fat kid turned up dead.

Then there's a mega-lawsuit. Stringent guidelines are the result of municipalities learning how to protect themselves, and that is done by protecting everyone.
if smoking pot ever in one's life qualifies them henceforth as a pothead, then assuredly a person having ever used a firearm deserves the label of gun nut.
as for the fat kid ending up dead; shoulda listened to the First Lady.

So far as aww, they're just kids-- how many physical altercations occur between children?
Id venture to guess that in the last 25 years, not less than 100 million. Yet how many involved a kid dying? A few thousand, counting suicides? Bulling is a serious problem; but handcuffing a seven year old??? Shock and awe must be the rally cry in juvenile law enforcement circles.

[taft2012]

Then the NYPD is more than wrong. They are abusing police powers and actually helping to create a generation of children that will not turn to police for help, viewing them as a threat. Great job there, Taft. Great spokesman you are.

Did you read any of what the victim had to say? The little punk wanted to fight with him and victim said "No, the police will arrest us." The punk said, "Nah, we're too young."

Did you see the picture of the punk in the station house? Was he crying and bawling like you'd expect of a normal kid? No.

And you'd be the first one in line crapping that "the police didn't do anything" if this continued on and the fat kid got really hurt eventually.

Oh, and another thing.... if the police actually took it upon themselves to use their own discretion and not make arrests in cases like this, and the situation developed into one where the fat kid did get seriously hurt or killed...

.... then the police officers involved become *PERSONALLY* liable, which means they could be personally sued and lose everything. Think it's never happened? Think again.

So here's the question for you little Miss ACLU; would you risk everything you own, and risk having your own family financially ruined and homeless, for this little smart alec shit kid? Yeah, I'm sure you would.

But it's ok, I've been doing this work over 25 years.... and you, you post on an internet forum. So obviously you've got a keen grasp of the issue. Carry on.

[Kathianne]

Did you read any of what the victim had to say? The little punk wanted to fight with him and victim said "No, the police will arrest us." The punk said, "Nah, we're too young."

Did you see the picture of the punk in the station house? Was he crying and bawling like you'd expect of a normal kid? No.

And you'd be the first one in line crapping that "the police didn't do anything" if this continued on and the fat kid got really hurt eventually.

Oh, and another thing.... if the police actually took it upon themselves to use their own discretion and not make arrests in cases like this, and the situation developed into one where the fat kid did get seriously hurt or killed...

.... then the police officers involved become *PERSONALLY* liable, which means they could be personally sued and lose everything. Think it's never happened? Think again.

So here's the question for you little Miss ACLU; would you risk everything you own, and risk having your own family financially ruined and homeless, for this little smart alec shit kid? Yeah, I'm sure you would.

But it's ok, I've been doing this work over 25 years.... and you, you post on an internet forum. So obviously you've got a keen grasp of the issue. Carry on.

Taft, you are not a credit to criminal justice, not if you really see things the way you bellow on the internet.

[taft2012]

So far as aww, they're just kids-- how many physical altercations occur between children?
Id venture to guess that in the last 25 years, not less than 100 million. Yet how many involved a kid dying? A few thousand, counting suicides? Bulling is a serious problem; but handcuffing a seven year old??? Shock and awe must be the rally cry in juvenile law enforcement circles.

Not all physical altercations are felonies. If one kid just punched another kid in the face that would be an assault misdemeanor. Kids are very rarely arrested for that. They get what kids call the "JD" card and their parents told.

But when you punch someone in the face to take their property from them, if becomes a robbery. That's a felony.

So, at what age then do we start arresting kids for robbery? New York State says 7. Is 12 a more realistic age?

The question you should be asking yourself is; this kid is robbing other kids at the age of 7. Would we be better off letting him run around robbing other kids for another 5 years before arresting him? By age 12 he'd be a seasoned felon, all accomplished legally.

I used the example of OJ Simpson as one of how if responding officers used their own discretion and didn't make arrests, the situation can progress to a lethal one. Cops responded to that house over and over. If I responded today in the afternoon, and Joe responded the next night, and Phil responded at 2 in the morning the next day.... there's obviously a problem there, but nothing is on paper tracking the problem. And then two people wound up dead.

I don't know how much ghetto policing you've done, but believe me, things can escalate over time to deadly consequences. And not just deadly, but how about if the fat kid loses an eye or some other permanently disabling injury.

Who here among us... is willing to *NOT* take police action in a case like this, and give Wilson Punk a break, leave the fat kid at the mercy of Wilson Punk again for another beating and robbery... and on top of all of that, take the personal financial liability upon yourselves and your families if Wilson Punk does something worse next time?


link?

Here's one for you...

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny1-2.htm


If NY state law says a Juvenile offender is defines as "a person fourteen or fifteen years of age" where do you come up with the 'they are required by law to arrest a 7 year old, if said 7 year old by definition cannot be considered a juvenile offender???

A Juvenile Offender is a different distinction than a Juvenile Delinquent.

Juvenile Offender is a distinction that classifies certain felonies at certain age groups, making the juvenile offender eligible to be tried as an adult.

Society learned that the "Awww, he's a just kid" formula meant you had 15 year-old kids working as professional hitmen for mobs.

Juvenile Delinquency is a distinction that starts at age 7.

So a 15 year-old who commits murder may be tried as an adult if classified as a juvenile offender.

A 7 year-old who commits murder will always be a juvenile delinquent.

Any more questions?


Taft, you are not a credit to criminal justice, not if you really see things the way you bellow on the internet.

I'm not bellowing. I'm making solid points.

I'd like an answer to the question; Would you take upon yourself and your family, the personal financial liability involved in giving this Wilson Punk a break on the premise that he wouldn't do something worse to the fat kid in the future?

Simple question. Answer?


Actually, having grown up in NY, and having trained for security there, $5 is not felony theft. Felony theft is only $1000 or more, unless it was perpetrated against the government itself.

Just so you're aware, your training was probably right, you just remember it incorrectly.

A simple $5 theft is petit larceny, a misdemeanor. Theft of over $1000 is grand larceny a felony.

However, anything you take by use of force, by physical force or threat of a weapon.... is a robbery. A felony.

So if someone sticks a gun in your face and says "Give me your money", and you only have a quarter in your pocket... it's still a robbery. A felony.

BTW: the law also includes retaining the property. So if you put your purse down and someone picks it up and starts to walk away with it.... If you say "Hey, give it back!" and they say, "Go away or I'll punch you in the face!"... again, that's a robbery.

I'm here all day folks...

[taft2012]

The question becomes; How did things get this way?

The answer is: money.

Somewhere in the distant past, police did things exactly how you would like them in this instance. And somewhere in the past someone got hurt worse, or maybe even killed, because the police did nothing the first one, two, or three times, etc. (Nicole Simpson anyone?)

The City, Police Department, and probably some poor cop, got sued up to the eyelids and lost.

And it was people, just like yourselves, who sat on that jury and said "Tsk, tsk. The police should have done something. They should have arrested that punk, the law allows them to!"

Monday morning policing is nothing new.

[revelarts]

Sierra Adamson interviews Dr John Eterno, retired NYPD Captain, about the main problems with the NYPD which he attributes to management and culture within the department. He also speaks about some solutions to these problems and what people in the community can do to help bring changes with NYPD policies.

"...The NYPD culture is the problem,
It's not taught in training, but the informal norms picked up day to day...."

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2AELn94E2MM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ok3Kh8726m8?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[taft2012]

Sierra Adamson interviews Dr John Eterno, retired NYPD Captain, about the main problems with the NYPD which he attributes to management and culture within the department. He also speaks about some solutions to these problems and what people in the community can do to help bring changes with NYPD policies.

"...The NYPD culture is the problem,
It's not taught in training, but the informal norms picked up day to day...."

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2AELn94E2MM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>



<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ok3Kh8726m8?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


..... and this has what exactly to do with what we're speaking about?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613667#post613667)
link?

Here's one for you...

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny1-2.htm


If NY state law says a Juvenile offender is defines as "a person fourteen or fifteen years of age" where do you come up with the 'they are required by law to arrest a 7 year old, if said 7 year old by definition cannot be considered a juvenile offender???




A Juvenile Offender is a different distinction than a Juvenile Delinquent.

Juvenile Offender is a distinction that classifies certain felonies at certain age groups, making the juvenile offender eligible to be tried as an adult.

Society learned that the "Awww, he's a just kid" formula meant you had 15 year-old kids working as professional hitmen for mobs.

Juvenile Delinquency is a distinction that starts at age 7.

So a 15 year-old who commits murder may be tried as an adult if classified as a juvenile offender.

A 7 year-old who commits murder will always be a juvenile delinquent.

Any more questions?


Yes, the same one I had before. Got a LINK for the proof that NYPD is REQUIRED by law to arrest a 7 year old for the alleged theft of $5.00, which YOU called a felony.

I noticed a lot of big words in your response, but curiously... no link.

[Marcus Aurelius]

But it's ok, I've been doing this work over 25 years.... and you, you post on an internet forum. So obviously you've got a keen grasp of the issue. Carry on.

You've been citing non-existent laws for 25 years? wow. Impressive.

[taft2012]

Yes, the same one I had before. Got a LINK for the proof that NYPD is REQUIRED by law to arrest a 7 year old for the alleged theft of $5.00, which YOU called a felony.

I noticed a lot of big words in your response, but curiously... no link.

As explained *I* do not call it a felony. The New York State Penal Law calls it a felony.

And I further explained how taking a single penny can be felony....

You want a link.... Google the New York State Penal Law.... and look up robbery.

I assume you're submitting to the distinction between Juvenile Offender and Juvenile Delinquent?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613751#post613751)
Yes, the same one I had before. Got a LINK for the proof that NYPD is REQUIRED by law to arrest a 7 year old for the alleged theft of $5.00, which YOU called a felony.

I noticed a lot of big words in your response, but curiously... no link.


As explained *I* do not call it a felony. The New York State Penal Law calls it a felony.

And I further explained how taking a single penny can be felony....

You want a link.... Google the New York State Penal Law.... and look up robbery.

I assume you're submitting to the distinction between Juvenile Offender and Juvenile Delinquent?

It's not MY job to prove something YOU said.

You said this, or a varient, more than once in this thread...

So, at what age then do we start arresting kids for robbery? New York State says 7.

YOU claimed it is NY state law that police arrest the 7 yr old in this case on a charge of felony robbery. All I asked is that YOU link to the relevant state law that specifies this.

Twice now I've asked, and twice you've danced around it.

I can only conclude that you're full of shit and cannot prove your statement.

Now, link to the law, or shut the fuck up about it and your alleged 25 years of experience. Dumb ass.

[taft2012]

Yes, it's quite obvious I'm full of shit. :laugh:

I believe it's Penal Law section 160....

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yes, it's quite obvious I'm full of shit. :laugh:

I believe it's Penal Law section 160....

Show me in Penal law section 160 where it REQUIRES police to arrest someone suspected for a felony, beginning at age 7 as you've indicated it says.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hey, dumb ass...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/J/160

160 simply defines what robbery is. It does not state that police are required to arrest someone suspected of robbery, beginning at age 7, as you've repeatedly claimed.


I did find this, however...

http://www.nysba.org/Content/ContentFolders45/SpecialCommitteeonAnimalsandtheLaw/TeenAnimalCruelty/4.Siobhan.OGrady.Juvenile.Crimes.Family.Court.mate rials.pdf

...governed by the Family Court Act, not standard NY State penal law...

Juvenile Delinquency practice is governed by the Family Court Act (“FCA”)
􀂾 FCA § 301.2(1) defines “juvenile delinquent”:
o “Juvenile delinquent” means a person over seven and less than
sixteen years of age, who, having committed an act that would
constitute a crime if committed by an adult, (a) is not criminally
responsible for such conduct by reason of infancy, or (b) is the
defendant in an action ordered removed from a criminal court to the
family court pursuant to article seven hundred twenty-five of the
criminal procedure law.
􀂾 The Penal Law of the State of New York (“Penal Law”) defines “crime” in §
10.00(6):
o “Crime” means a misdemeanor or a felony.
􀂾 Penal Law §§ 10.00(4) and 10.00(5) respectively define “misdemeanor” and
“felony”:
o “Misdemeanor” means an offense, other than a “traffic infraction,” for
which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of fifteen days
may be imposed, but for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment
in excess of one year cannot be imposed.
o “Felony” means an offense for which a sentence to a term of
imprisonment in excess of one year may be imposed.
􀂾 Sentencing for juvenile delinquents is governed by FCA §§ 350
through 355 and is detailed on page 10-13.
If there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed, a police officer
can make an arrest or issue a juvenile report

CAN, not IS REQUIRED TO.

So, to sum up...


A crime (misdemeanor or felony), committed by a juvenile delinquent (over seven and less than
sixteen years of age) CAN result in arrest (a police officer can make an arrest) or (the issue of a juvenile report). The arrest is NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, as you claimed.


You FAIL, taft.

[revelarts]

....So your alternative is .... what?
Have the police ignore what amounts to a robbery in the penal law?
Assume the parents are going to handle it?
...
Pothead conservatives. *Sigh*


Too bad. I would have loved to have gotten you on the stand, under oath, and asked you if you've ever smoked pot. :dance:...



You see this is a hazard of being a police officer. They see people at their worse everyday
So eventually SOME tend to assume the worse of everyone and push that view as a fact on people who "claim" innocents. And often assume they are just lying.
Assuming that I must have smoked pot because I'm a more libertarian style christian conservative.
Assuming from one photo that the 7 yr old kid is not acting like he's innocent, not like a typical 7 yr old, so he's GOING TO BE a REPEAT CRIMINAL.
I mean jeezz louiez .
So how many 7 yr olds do the NYPD handcuff to the walls so you have reference for that Taft? geez.

But the flip side is that some cops Assume the the officer is always right. That a L.E.O. behaving badly -criminally- is like seeing Bigfoot.

[revelarts]

The question becomes; How did things get this way?

The answer is: money.....



videos...
..... and this has what exactly to do with what we're speaking about?
As you said , "The question becomes; How did things get this way?" the answer is... refer to video
And human nature, power and all that

[revelarts]

....
A day in the police station could have turned this aspiring perp around. Maybe. But now he's learned the lesson;
How does this all turn out? The kid goes on to become a career criminal.
Juveniles don't get put into cells behind bars in police stations, so they get handcuffed to a rail.
"ZOMG! That's unthinkable!"
...
Never can win with liberals and pothead conservatives.
Your average good 7 year-old kid would be bawling his eyes out if handcuffed inside a police station.
Little Wilson here looks like he's already accepted "the life" and plans to be doing this more often.

Did you read any of what the victim had to say? The little punk wanted to fight with him and victim said "No, the police will arrest us." The punk said, "Nah, we're too young."
Did you see the picture of the punk in the station house? Was he crying and bawling like you'd expect of a normal kid? No.
.....

NIP IT!

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HqEIt-rQqbM?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vQcNEGrjn1M?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yes, it's quite obvious I'm full of shit. :laugh:

I believe it's Penal Law section 160....

The part in bold above is the smartest thing I've ever seen you post here.

[aboutime]

The part in bold above is the smartest thing I've ever seen you post here.


Marcus. Now I understand why we've never heard Obama, or Holder talk about how smart they are.

They must know. THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT! Which now explains why? They both have BROWN EYES.

[taft2012]

Show me in Penal law section 160 where it REQUIRES police to arrest someone suspected for a felony, beginning at age 7 as you've indicated it says.

Ummm, it doesn't

Penal Law statutes describe the law, not arrest guidelines.

*YOU* said that *I* said a $5 theft is a felony. I pointed to the Penal Law statute. I presume that now that you've read it you understand now that a $5 theft can be a felony, and not because I said so.

[taft2012]

Hey, dumb ass...

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/J/160

160 simply defines what robbery is. It does not state that police are required to arrest someone suspected of robbery, beginning at age 7, as you've repeatedly claimed.


I did find this, however...

http://www.nysba.org/Content/ContentFolders45/SpecialCommitteeonAnimalsandtheLaw/TeenAnimalCruelty/4.Siobhan.OGrady.Juvenile.Crimes.Family.Court.mate rials.pdf

...governed by the Family Court Act, not standard NY State penal law...


CAN, not IS REQUIRED TO.

So, to sum up...


A crime (misdemeanor or felony), committed by a juvenile delinquent (over seven and less than
sixteen years of age) CAN result in arrest (a police officer can make an arrest) or (the issue of a juvenile report). The arrest is NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, as you claimed.


You FAIL, taft.

A Juvenile Report can not be prepared for a felony.....

I can point to the NYState Penal Law and show you statutes that outlaw adultery, abortion, and consensual sodomy. The laws remain but have been annulled by decades of court rulings. It's the same with the NYState Criminal Procedure Law. I'm not about to go digging through decades-old court rulings that decided too many black people were arrested for doing x while x amount of white people were let go for the same crime. These rules were in place when I started, so they are way old.

But since you're stamping your feet and demanding a link, I'll direct you to the NY police guidelines, which are always updated by court rulings, whereas the Penal Law and CPL are not.

http://ksapublications.info/app/pg/PG215.pdf

Where does it say a 7 year-old who commits a felony must be arrested? Section 215-09


A juvenile MUST be taken into custody and charged with juvenile delinquency when an act, if committed by an adult, would be a felony, Unlawful Assembly or any
misdemeanor listed in P.G. 208-07, “Photographable Offenses.”


Edit: I can sense you're gonna ask "Who says a 7 year-old is a juvenile delinquent?" So I'll pre-empt that with this from the same source:


JUVENILE DELINQUENT - A person over seven (7) and less than sixteen (16) years of age who commits an act, which if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime.
If you feel like doing some more reading, you can learn the difference between a juvenile delinquent and a juvenile offender, when Juvenile Reports can be prepared, etc.

But by all means, keep the questions coming. I'm here to help.

[taft2012]

Now, since I've patiently answered all of your questions, perhaps you can address the question I'm asking now for the 3rd time?

Would you be willing to put your livelihood on the line, as well as all of your personal wealth, to take a risk not arresting this Wilson Punk on the belief that he wouldn't do something worse to the fat kid... and risk being sued into poverty because you failed to follow arrest laws?

Nah, you ain't that brave.

[taft2012]

“Juvenile delinquent” means a person over seven and less than
sixteen years of age, who, having committed an act that would
constitute a crime if committed by an adult, (a) is not criminally
responsible for such conduct by reason of infancy, or (b) is the
defendant in an action ordered removed from a criminal court to the
family court pursuant to article seven hundred twenty-five of the
criminal procedure law.
􀂾 The Penal Law of the State of New York (“Penal Law”) defines “crime” in §
10.00(6)

Since you highlighted this, I might as well explain this too.

"not criminally responsible" doesn't mean they don't get arrested. Obviously they get arrested. That just means they don't get tried in Criminal or Supreme Court like adults (unless they are Juvenile Offenders, which is what the Juvenile Offender law is all about).

They are prosecuted by lawyers from the NYC Corporation Counsel in Family Court. You find much of the juvenile equivalent to the NYState Criminal Procedure Law in the Family Court Act.

You keep posting stuff that you obviously don't have a clue about what it means. WTF did you *THINK* this meant? :laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

But since you're stamping your feet and demanding a link, I'll direct you to the NY police guidelines, which are always updated by court rulings, whereas the Penal Law and CPL are not.

http://ksapublications.info/app/pg/PG215.pdf

Where does it say a 7 year-old who commits a felony must be arrested? Section 215-09

A juvenile MUST be taken into custody and charged with juvenile delinquency when an act, if committed by an adult, would be a felony, Unlawful Assembly or any
misdemeanor listed in P.G. 208-07, “Photographable Offenses.”



from your link...


3... Have parent/guardian notified.
They kept the kid at the school for 4 hours, then in police custody for a further 6 hours... all BEFORE contacting his parents. So, that procedure wasn't followed.

As to the arrest... with 25 alleged years of experience, you should know there is a difference between being TAKEN INTO CUSTODY... and being ARRESTED.

YOU claimed it is law that the 7 year old be arrested. Penal Code disagrees with you, as does your own source...


A juvenile MUST be taken into custody and charged with juvenile delinquency when an
act, if committed by an adult, would be a felony, Unlawful Assembly or any
misdemeanor listed in P.G. 208-07, “Photographable Offenses.”

You seriously suck at this.

BTW, there is not a chance in hell that any court in this country would agree with you that a police patrol guide outweighs or is more enforceable than Penal Code or the Family Court Act.

Especially when the effective date on the patrol guide is 1/2000... 12 years old., and 2006 is the most recent Family Code Law revision.

Wow. You really do suck at this.


Additionally...
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/FCT/1/1/115


The family court has exclusive original jurisdiction over...</pre>
(vi) proceedings concerning juvenile delinquency as set forth in article three.</pre>

Gee, a police patrol guide doesn't take precedence over the FCA? Wow... who'd have thunk it.

[Marcus Aurelius]

[/B]
Since you highlighted this, I might as well explain this too.

"not criminally responsible" doesn't mean they don't get arrested. Obviously they get arrested. That just means they don't get tried in Criminal or Supreme Court like adults (unless they are Juvenile Offenders, which is what the Juvenile Offender law is all about).

They are prosecuted by lawyers from the NYC Corporation Counsel in Family Court. You find much of the juvenile equivalent to the NYState Criminal Procedure Law in the Family Court Act.

You keep posting stuff that you obviously don't have a clue about what it means. WTF did you *THINK* this meant? :laugh2:

I can see your 25 years of experience were a complete waste. Whomever you worked for should sue you to get your salary and benefits money back, because you robbed them.

[taft2012]

As to the arrest... with 25 alleged years of experience, you should know there is a difference between being TAKEN INTO CUSTODY... and being ARRESTED.

It says taken into custody AND CHARGED.... how is being taken into custody and charged with a crime not being arrested? What is it then? A weekend in the Bahamas?



YOU claimed it is law that the 7 year old be arrested. Penal Code disagrees with you, as does your own source...

No it doesn't, unless you remove words like you did.




You seriously suck at this.

BTW, there is not a chance in hell that any court in this country would agree with you that a police patrol guide outweighs or is more enforceable than Penal Code or the Family Court Act.

1. I never said the guide outweighs the law.
2. At this point you're just being a seriously willfully ignorant dickhead.

I explained already... if we went only by the Penal Law we would still be arresting people for consensual sodomy (which the NY State Supreme Court declared unconstitutional decades ago), abortion, and adultery. Law enforcement is a tad more complicated than a troll with a Google predilection can master in an afternoon. It takes cross-referencing numerous sources. The Patrol Guide is updated to keep up with court rulings.... whereas the Penal Law and CPL obviously are not.


Especially when the effective date on the patrol guide is 1/2000... 12 years old., and 2006 is the most recent Family Code Law revision.

Those are procedures that haven't needed changing in years. Those that do... in that particular on-line edition, are updated to either 2009 or 2010.

Yet.... you feel more confident quoting a Penal Law that still has consentual sodomy, abortion, and adultery listed as crimes? How antiquated is your feeble mind?


Wow. You really do suck at this.

Gee, if that's the case I wonder why everybody else backed off, except you, leg-humper extraordinaire.



Additionally...
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/FCT/1/1/115


Gee, a police patrol guide doesn't take precedence over the FCA? Wow... who'd have thunk it.

1. I never said it did.
2. WTF are you talking about?

You know what? Everytime I proven you wrong, you just jump onto something else, some shred of something that I have to chase down, on and on and on.... Now it's how long the police took to notify the parents.

How do you know how long it took them to notify Wilson Punk's mother? Maybe she just took a long time to show up. ...

But anyway, I'm done with your retardedness....You know you've been savagely and brutally pwned.

[taft2012]

BTW: feel free to come into my town and smoke some pot.

I'll take you into custody and charge you with a crime... it won't be like you're under arrest or anything... :laugh2:

[taft2012]

BTW: for those reading with any interest (this isn't for Dickheadus Maximus)... there are exceptions to the must arrest for felonies.

In cases without witnesses or complainants identifying a known perpetrator, like if a dead body is found alone somewhere, and an investigation has to build up a case against a suspect.... in those cases the police do not determine when probable cause exists for an arrest, but rather the prosecuting attorneys.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It says taken into custody AND CHARGED.... how is being taken into custody and charged with a crime not being arrested? What is it then? A weekend in the Bahamas?



No it doesn't, unless you remove words like you did.




1. I never said the guide outweighs the law.
2. At this point you're just being a seriously willfully ignorant dickhead.

I explained already... if we went only by the Penal Law we would still be arresting people for consensual sodomy (which the NY State Supreme Court declared unconstitutional decades ago), abortion, and adultery. Law enforcement is a tad more complicated than a troll with a Google predilection can master in an afternoon. It takes cross-referencing numerous sources. The Patrol Guide is updated to keep up with court rulings.... whereas the Penal Law and CPL obviously are not.



Those are procedures that haven't needed changing in years. Those that do... in that particular on-line edition, are updated to either 2009 or 2010.

Yet.... you feel more confident quoting a Penal Law that still has consentual sodomy, abortion, and adultery listed as crimes? How antiquated is your feeble mind?



Gee, if that's the case I wonder why everybody else backed off, except you, leg-humper extraordinaire.




1. I never said it did.
2. WTF are you talking about?

You know what? Everytime I proven you wrong, you just jump onto something else, some shred of something that I have to chase down, on and on and on.... Now it's how long the police took to notify the parents.

How do you know how long it took them to notify Wilson Punk's mother? Maybe she just took a long time to show up. ...

But anyway, I'm done with your retardedness....You know you've been savagely and brutally pwned.

I haven't seen that much backspin since the last PGA event I went to :laugh:

The amount of assumptions, contradictions, outright lies, etc. in your post is staggering. THAT is why everyone else 'backed off'. They decided you were a lost, slightly insane, cause. I held out a little hope. It appears to have been misplaced hope.

The depth of your FAIL, is now complete.

Your narcissistic personality simply cannot handle someone like me who refuses to allow you to pass off complete nonsense as fact.

[Marcus Aurelius]

1. I never said the guide outweighs the law.
2. At this point you're just being a seriously willfully ignorant dickhead.

You said...


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by taft2012 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=613944#post613944)


But since you're stamping your feet and demanding a link, I'll direct you to the NY police guidelines, which are always updated by court rulings, whereas the Penal Law and CPL are not.
Wouldn't something that is more up to date on the law, outweigh something that is more outdated?

Dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

BTW: for those reading with any interest (this isn't for Dickheadus Maximus)... there are exceptions to the must arrest for felonies.

In cases without witnesses or complainants identifying a known perpetrator, like if a dead body is found alone somewhere, and an investigation has to build up a case against a suspect.... in those cases the police do not determine when probable cause exists for an arrest, but rather the prosecuting attorneys.

So, now your backspin is complete. First, it was 'the law says they must arrest the 7 year old for a felony'... now it's 'there are exceptions'.

The dpeth of your stupidity astounds, it truly does.

[Marcus Aurelius]

BTW: feel free to come into my town and smoke some pot.

I'll take you into custody and charge you with a crime... it won't be like you're under arrest or anything... :laugh2:

You couldn't charge me with jaywalking, dumb fuck.:laugh:

[taft2012]

You said...


Wouldn't something that is more up to date on the law, outweigh something that is more outdated?

Dumb ass.

Well Dickheadus Maximus, I think we've reached a conclusion here; you can't read.

When I say, "I don't feel inclined to go digging through decades-old archives of state court rulings, so instead I'll show you what the police guide says" your addled beehive of a skull translates that into "the guide outweighs the law."

When something says the "the police will take into custody and charge" your addled beehive of a skull translates that into "it doesn't mean arrest!" I've been arresting people under this procedure for over 25 years. I think if it did not mean "arrest" somebody would have told me that long before now.

Then, when this obvious comprehension problem is pointed out to you, your troubled soul bluts out "You're backpedalling!"

This is truly a waste of time.

[taft2012]

Actually, before I go, I'll give you a *FOURTH* shot at this question.

I presume you would at least acknowledge at this point that the officers were mandated, by Department policy at least, to arrest this kid, that they had a juvenile delinquent who had committed a felony.

In which case,



Would you be willing to put your livelihood on the line, as well as all of your personal wealth, to take a risk not arresting this Wilson Punk on the belief that he wouldn't do something worse to the fat kid... and risk being sued into poverty because you failed to follow Department policy?
:laugh2:

[LadyGunSlinger]

I have a 7 year old daughter.. She's very sweet and shy so she's not the bully type.. However, were she to do something wrong I expect the school to handle it, call me and we go from there. I dare any Police Dept to come and handcuff my daughter over some playground BULLSHIT. I'd smack a fuckin lawsuit on them in two seconds flat. Lastly, what kind of a person thinks it's ok to handcuff a 7 year old?? My daughter still believes in Santa Claus.. There's something very wrong with some of you in this thread.

[taft2012]

I have a 7 year old daughter.. She's very sweet and shy so she's not the bully type.. However, were she to do something wrong I expect the school to handle it, call me and we go from there. I dare any Police Dept to come and handcuff my daughter over some playground BULLSHIT. I'd smack a fuckin lawsuit on them in two seconds flat. Lastly, what kind of a person thinks it's ok to handcuff a 7 year old?? My daughter still believes in Santa Claus.. There's something very wrong with some of you in this thread.

Me, me, me.

I, I, I.

Public policy doesn't get forged based on your personal situation.

OK, so what if it was your 7 year-old daughter who was getting beaten up and robbed?

I explained why kids are handcuffed. We don't put them in cells behind bars like we do adults. If we don't handcuff them they could bolt out the station house into traffic, get hurt or worse, and then we get sued.

And then people like you, sitting on the jury in the lawsuit against the city, would sit there nodding your head when the attorney suing the city said "all they had to would have been handcuff him to the rail like they're supposed to do." The police are never right, are they?

If one thing has changed since I was a kid, it's not the kids, it's the parents. Parents these days are more like defense attorneys than parents.

Here's a little pointer to help you going forward: Don't want your kid handcuffed? Then teach the little savage not to beat up other kids and steal from them. It's a valuable lesson for their entire lives.

[LadyGunSlinger]

Me, me, me.

I, I, I.

Public policy doesn't get forged based on your personal situation.

OK, so what if it was your 7 year-old daughter who was getting beaten up and robbed?

I explained why kids are handcuffed. We don't put them in cells behind bars like we do adults. If we don't handcuff them they could bolt out the station house into traffic, get hurt or worse, and then we get sued.

And then people like you, sitting on the jury in the lawsuit against the city, would sit there nodding your head when the attorney suing the city said "all they had to would have been handcuff him to the rail like they're supposed to do." The police are never right, are they?

If one thing has changed since I was a kid, it's not the kids, it's the parents. Parents these days are more like defense attorneys than parents.

Here's a little pointer to help you going forward: Don't want your kid handcuffed? Then teach the little savage not to beat up other kids and steal from them. It's a valuable lesson for their entire lives.

People like me?? You don't even know me so don't place some fictious situation in my lap and count me present. 7 year olds in handcuffs is fucked up.. You can try to spin it all you like but it comes down to being totally WRONG no matter how you slice it.. Hauling in babies in handcuffs over fuckin lunch money??? REALLY?? Totally twisted. Like I said.. COME AND TRY IT with my daugher.

[taft2012]

People like me?? You don't even know me so don't place some fictious situation in my lap and count me present. 7 year olds in handcuffs is fucked up.. You can try to spin it all you like but it comes down to being totally WRONG no matter how you slice it.. Hauling in babies in handcuffs over fuckin lunch money??? REALLY?? Totally twisted. Like I said.. COME AND TRY IT with my daugher.

Again...

Me, me, me.

I, I, I.

I'll try again, maybe I'll get an answer this time....

What would you like done if this had been your kid getting beaten up and robbed? The victim's mother had met with the school and Wilson Punk's parents in the past, yet this pattern continued.

As the mother of the victim here, what would *YOU* want done?

[LadyGunSlinger]

Again...

Me, me, me.

I, I, I.

I'll try again, maybe I'll get an answer this time....

What would you like done if this had been your kid getting beaten up and robbed? The victim's mother had met with the school and Wilson Punk's parents in the past, yet this pattern continued.

As the mother of the victim here, what would *YOU* want done?

You can sit this child in the back of your patrol car with the parent and take them down to the station if thats what you're getting at. Growing up we had fights constantly in our school and after school.. No one was arrested and handcuffed.. The SCHOOL can handle this shit.. EXPEL the boy for good.. Make the parents find a new school and be responsible for his behavior.

[taft2012]

You can sit this child in the back of your patrol car with the parent and take them down to the station if thats what you're getting at. .

... in which case, history shows children like this get scared and try to dart away. For their own safety they are cuffed, not put behind bars like adults. It protects the child and the taxpayers.

You assume all parents come running down to the scene when the police call them. More often than not we get "You keep him" over the phone. I've made lots of these phone calls to parents. How many have you made?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Well Dickheadus Maximus, I think we've reached a conclusion here; you can't read. Actually, I read exactly what you said. The problem is, you're not very bright.

When I say, "I don't feel inclined to go digging through decades-old archives of state court rulings, so instead I'll show you what the police guide says" your addled beehive of a skull translates that into "the guide outweighs the law."
It's a perfectly logical conclusion... when you were asked to link to the law that supported your original statement, you said you didn't have time... then you said you didn't feel like it, but her's a police report, which is always more updated than the penal code. Any logical person would conclude that since you felt the police report was more up to date, that you also felt it outweighed penal code. Simple logic appears lost on you. Possibly a consequence of your narcissistic personality disorder. BTW, I already showed you that the Penal Code and Family Court Act were more recent than your 2000 report.

When something says the "the police will take into custody and charge" your addled beehive of a skull translates that into "it doesn't mean arrest!" I've been arresting people under this procedure for over 25 years. I think if it did not mean "arrest" somebody would have told me that long before now. I highly doubt you were ever on that side of a badge. Your complete misunderstanding of Penal Code and the Family Court Act give you away completely.

Then, when this obvious comprehension problem is pointed out to you, your troubled soul bluts out "You're backpedalling!" You did backpedal, dumb ass. You first said 'law says must arrest the 7 year old for a felony'... then after you had your ass handed to you a few times, dropped back and punted to 'there are exceptions'. Live with your FAIL, dumb ass. Be a man.

This is truly a waste of time.
Yes, you are a waste of time, as well as skin and oxygen.


My comments in RED above.

[LadyGunSlinger]

... in which case, history shows children like this get scared and try to dart away. For their own safety they are cuffed, not put behind bars like adults. It protects the child and the taxpayers.

You assume all parents come running down to the scene when the police call them. More often than not we get "You keep him" over the phone. I've made lots of these phone calls to parents. How many have you made?


I don't have to do your fucking job to have an opinion.. and I think you're way out of line in regard to treating a freaking 7 year old as a criminal over a school fight.. Im hopeful there aren't many cops out there who think as you do.

[Marcus Aurelius]

People like me?? You don't even know me so don't place some fictious situation in my lap and count me present. 7 year olds in handcuffs is fucked up.. You can try to spin it all you like but it comes down to being totally WRONG no matter how you slice it.. Hauling in babies in handcuffs over fuckin lunch money??? REALLY?? Totally twisted. Like I said.. COME AND TRY IT with my daugher.

Don't you find it interesting how Daft has decided which kid is guilty of what,even without all evidence being presented, etc.? Typical with a narcissistic personality like his. If you don't agree with his stance, you're just wrong... period.

[taft2012]

I don't have to do your fucking job to have an opinion.. and I think you're way out of line in regard to treating a freaking 7 year old as a criminal over a school fight.. Im hopeful there aren't many cops out there who think as you do.

You're entitled to your opinion, uninformed as it it.

So when the police take the kid into custody, and he runs away and gets turned into a road pie by a passing truck, and his mother sues because her little darling was killed in police custody, would you consider the police negligent for not restraining the kid?

[taft2012]

Don't you find it interesting how Daft has decided which kid is guilty of what,even without all evidence being presented, etc.? Typical with a narcissistic personality like his. If you don't agree with his stance, you're just wrong... period.

Can you argue without putting false arguments in my mouth? This is like the 5th time you've done it.

I've asked the you the same question four times now.... yet you refuse to answer.

Speaks volumes of you, asshat.

[LadyGunSlinger]

Don't you find it interesting how Daft has decided which kid is guilty of what,even without all evidence being presented, etc.? Typical with a narcissistic personality like his. If you don't agree with his stance, you're just wrong... period.

Yea that exactly how he seems.. The frightening thing is-- he's a cop.. or so I am gathering.

[LadyGunSlinger]

Can you argue without putting false arguments in my mouth? This is like the 5th time you've done it.

I've asked the you the same question four times now.... yet you refuse to answer.

Speaks volumes of you, asshat.

Wow, that's precisely what you did to me.. Put false arguments in my own position.. voiced your pathetic reasoning on to me.. Look in the mirror.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yea that exactly how he seems.. The frightening thing is-- he's a cop.. or so I am gathering.

The closest this bozo ever came to being a cop was dressing up as a Keystone cop for Halloween.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614102#post614102)
Don't you find it interesting how Daft has decided which kid is guilty of what,even without all evidence being presented, etc.? Typical with a narcissistic personality like his. If you don't agree with his stance, you're just wrong... period.



Can you argue without putting false arguments in my mouth? This is like the 5th time you've done it.

I've asked the you the same question four times now.... yet you refuse to answer.

Speaks volumes of you, asshat.

Let's use your mouth then, shall we??


Here's a little pointer to help you going forward: Don't want your kid handcuffed? Then teach the little savage not to beat up other kids and steal from them. Assumes guilt.


I presume you would at least acknowledge at this point that the officers were mandated, by Department policy at least, to arrest this kid, that they had a juvenile delinquent who had committed a felony. Assumes guilt.


His mother doesn't give a rat's ass that he's a little thug. Assumes guilt.


The little punk wanted to fight with him and victim said "No, the police will arrest us." The punk said, "Nah, we're too young." Assumes guilt.


Did you see the picture of the punk in the station house?Assumes guilt.

Your own words convict you, you narcissistic little dirt bag.

[taft2012]

These issues are weighed very heavily by the Department, as well as the City and State themselves. They are the result of long years of trial and error, lawsuits, litigation, judicial rulings, etc. Factors that the kneejerk "ZOMG!" reaction do not factor in.

The Department has initiated a Velcro "flex cuff" restraint as a trial project, as an alternative for kids instead of using the traditional steel handcuffs. All personnel who work in the schools have been issued them. However, kids being slippery little eels usually find a way to wriggle out of them, so I don't know if the project will endure to go citywide. Also, you'd have to keep the kid's hands behind him the whole time, which is also cruel when he has to sit around for a few hours. So using the lock steel handcuffs to secure him to a rail is the better option.

To the larger question of arresting kid; it's good.

Part of the problem is that before the Police Department assumed the role of security in schools in 1999, was that teachers too often let these issues fester. In the inner cities, this is a serious problem. So when a kid starts beating up and robbing other kids at age 7, by the time he's 15 he's been robbing people most of his life. Then when he turns 16.... BAM! Suddenly he's arrested for doing the same thing he's been doing all along (without repercussion) and now has an adult felony record, as opposed to a court sealed juvenile record.

Couple that little statistic with the one that has less than half of NYC's students completing high school, and you have a recipe for an exploding permanent welfare underclass. A high school dropout with a felony arrest record? Good luck getting a job, even if you were so inclined to.

And the result? A population of welfare recipients and career criminals.

These are the results desired and pursued by liberals... not conservatives.

[LadyGunSlinger]

The closest this bozo ever came to being a cop was dressing up as a Keystone cop for Halloween.


Ok, that's funny.. I don't care who you are! :laugh:

[taft2012]

Let's use your mouth then, shall we??

Assumes guilt.

OK, if that's your standard then you're assuming the fat kid crying into the camera is a congenital liar.

You sick sick sick bastard.

[taft2012]

Yea that exactly how he seems.. The frightening thing is-- he's a cop.. or so I am gathering.

And I'm terrified that you're a parent.

You claim your child to be a "little angel".... yet instead of having any sympathy whatsoever for the victim here, you're siding with the little thug's mother. If your child was truly a "little angel" you wouldn't worry about her being handcuffed, your first thoughts would be "what if she's victimizied?"

The logical assumption would be that you're raising a little monster too.

[Marcus Aurelius]

OK, if that's your standard then you're assuming the fat kid crying into the camera is a congenital liar.

You sick sick sick bastard.

I have not made a single post on the guilt or innocence or either child involved. YOU, on the other hand, as I proved above, have repeatedly assumed guilt of one child.

I wonder which one of us the board thinks is more open minded?

[Marcus Aurelius]

And I'm terrified that you're a parent.

You claim your child to be a "little angel".... yet instead of having any sympathy whatsoever for the victim here, you're siding with the little thug's mother. If your child was truly a "little angel" you wouldn't worry about her being handcuffed, your first thoughts would be "what if she's victimizied?"

The logical assumption would be that you're raising a little monster too.

Again, assumes guilt.


Dumb ass.

[taft2012]

Again, assumes guilt.


Dumb ass.

Let's see.... what have you assumed?

That Juvenile Offenders = Juvenile Delinquents. Wrong
That theft of $5 can't be a felony. Wrong again.
That police can't arrest 7 year-olds... Wrong yet again.

In fact, you've assumed nothing correctly in this thread.

And isn't it time you answered my question?

Or should I ask it a 5th time?

[taft2012]

Wow, that's precisely what you did to me.. Put false arguments in my own position.. voiced your pathetic reasoning on to me.. Look in the mirror.

Maybe you could answer this question now:

So when the police take the kid into custody, and he runs away and gets turned into a road pie by a passing truck, and his mother sues because her little darling was killed in police custody, would you consider the police negligent for not restraining the kid?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hey, Dumb ass! (yes, YOU, Taft...)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/nypd-falsely-arrests-wilson-reyes-7-five-dollar-theft

Robbery charges were filed against Reyes, but were dropped on December 26, 2012, after another classmate admitted to the theft.

Game... Set... Match, fuckwad.

[LadyGunSlinger]

And I'm terrified that you're a parent.

You claim your child to be a "little angel".... yet instead of having any sympathy whatsoever for the victim here, you're siding with the little thug's mother. If your child was truly a "little angel" you wouldn't worry about her being handcuffed, your first thoughts would be "what if she's victimizied?"

The logical assumption would be that you're raising a little monster too.

What the fuck is your problem? You don't know me or my daughter.. I know my daugher is a kid who will make mistakes .. she's not perfect.. that doesn't mean she should be treated like a common criminal at 7 yrs old.. She's never harmed a fly much less hit anyone.. Yes, she does things that get her in to trouble at times but what kid doesn't? You sound like a full fledged RETARD..

[Marcus Aurelius]

Let's see.... what have you assumed?

That Juvenile Offenders = Juvenile Delinquents. Wrong
That theft of $5 can't be a felony. Wrong again.
That police can't arrest 7 year-olds... Wrong yet again.

In fact, you've assumed nothing correctly in this thread.

And isn't it time you answered my question?

Or should I ask it a 5th time?

wow, you really are stupid, aren't you. You get your ass handed to you, and you ignore it or change the subject.

Classic narcissism. Seek professional help before you hurt someone.

[taft2012]

Hey, Dumb ass! (yes, YOU, Taft...)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/nypd-falsely-arrests-wilson-reyes-7-five-dollar-theft


Game... Set... Match, fuckwad.

Yeah, you might want to keep reading other sources fuckwad. The fat kid said it was Wilson Punk and this other kid.

Old news....

[LadyGunSlinger]

Hey, Dumb ass! (yes, YOU, Taft...)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/nypd-falsely-arrests-wilson-reyes-7-five-dollar-theft


Game... Set... Match, fuckwad.

Oooohh ouch.. That had to hurt! Nicely played. ;-):yourock:

[taft2012]

What the fuck is your problem? You don't know me or my daughter.. I know my daugher is a kid who will make mistakes .. she's not perfect.. that doesn't mean she should be treated like a common criminal at 7 yrs old.. She's never harmed a fly much less hit anyone.. Yes, she does things that get her in to trouble at times but what kid doesn't? You sound like a full fledged RETARD..

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. From "little angel" to a "kid who will make mistakes."

A parent who was the kid of a true "little angel" would have watched that video of the fat kid crying and cried along with him.

The parent of a developing monster would side with Wilson Punk and his mom.

Case closed on that. Now, to the question:

So when the police take the kid into custody, and he runs away and gets turned into a road pie by a passing truck, and his mother sues because her little darling was killed in police custody, would you consider the police negligent for not restraining the kid?

[LadyGunSlinger]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. From "little angel" to a "kid who will make mistakes."

A parent who was the kid of a true "little angel" would have watched that video of the fat kid crying and cried along with him.

The parent of a developing monster would side Wilson Punk and his mom.

Case closed on that. Now, to the question:

So when the police take the kid into custody, and he runs away and gets turned into a road pie by a passing truck, and his mother sues because her little darling was killed in police custody, would you consider the police negligent for not restraining the kid?

I never said my daughter was a little angel to begin with.. She is to me but I know she has faults like any of us.. You're a JOKE and you've already had your azz handed to you by Marcus in this thread so keep digging dummy.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yeah, you might want to keep reading other sources fuckwad. The fat kid said it was Wilson Punk and this other kid.

Old news....

The 'fat kid' said it was Reyes... Wilson Reyes... Reyes was the 7 year old arrested, and whom YOU have assumed throughout this thread is guilty... Reyes was the one detained for 10 hours... and now Reyes has been cleared... and you want to deflect and add a second kid? Who is this second kid that is suddenly the real guilty person? Was he arrestred? Where are all the news stories about him? Why aren't his parents suing?

Because he doesn't exist. Not in the context of who was detained, handcuffed, and held for 10 hours without due process.


Seth Acevedo breaks down in tears after explaining his side of the bullying story, in which he says he was robbed and punched by 7-year-old Wilson Reyes in the Bronx.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bully-victim-speaks-article-1.1251351#ixzz2JlRexrJD



The 'fat kid' claimed Wilson Reyes did it... and the charges have been dropped because another kid admitted doing it.

Let's see your evidence this is incorrect. Dumb ass.

[taft2012]

I have a 7 year old daughter.. She's very sweet and shy so she's not the bully type..

You're right. You didn't use the words "little angel," you just drew that picture.

Really sounds like a kid you have to worry about getting handcuffed by the police.

Now back to the question:

So when the police take the kid into custody, and he runs away and gets turned into a road pie by a passing truck, and his mother sues because her little darling was killed in police custody, would you consider the police negligent for not restraining the kid?

[taft2012]

The 'fat kid' claimed Wilson Reyes did it... and the charges have been dropped because another kid admitted doing it.

Let's see your evidence this is incorrect. Dumb ass.

They hide confidential information like this in newspapers and on television, cockbreath.


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/342527


That child gave a different account, telling the New York Daily News that Wilson and another boy approached him and both reached into his pocket before Wilson struck him in the face.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614134#post614134)

The 'fat kid' claimed Wilson Reyes did it... and the charges have been dropped because another kid admitted doing it.

Let's see your evidence this is incorrect. Dumb ass.



They hide confidential information like this in newspapers and on television, cockbreath.


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/342527

That child gave a different account, telling the New York Daily News that Wilson and another boy approached him and both reached into his pocket before Wilson struck him in the face.



You're actually saying that newspapers and tv will hide information on the kid that admitted taking the money, but not hide information on the kid falsely accused and later cleared of taking the money?

Also, I looked at your linked page, and the quote you posted doesn't exist on it. Why is that?

You're incredibly stupid, you know that, don't you?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Oh well, I'm off to tailgate at the Flyers game I'll come back after the game and see if Daft needs some more smacking around :laugh:

[taft2012]

You're actually saying that newspapers and tv will hide information on the kid that admitted taking the money, but not hide information on the kid falsely accused and later cleared of taking the money?

No, I'm saying you're a dick for not having a clue about what you're speaking about.


Also, I looked at your linked page, and the quote you posted doesn't exist on it. Why is that?



Shit, you're right. I had two windows open, copied the quote from one site and the link from the other. This link has the quote.

Here you go, knob-bobber.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=8975409

Fifth paragraph:



That child gave a different account, telling the New York Daily News that Wilson and another boy approached him and both reached into his pocket before Wilson struck him in the face.

[taft2012]

Oh well, I'm off to tailgate at the Flyers game I'll come back after the game and see if Daft needs some more smacking around :laugh:

Or you're just running away because you're been asploded?

The Flyers game doesn't start until 7:00 tonight.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Or you're just running away because you're been asploded?

The Flyers game doesn't start until 7:00 tonight.

No shit the game doesn't start until 7. Did you not see the word TAILGATE, dumb ass? Who tailgates at the start of game time? Flyers kicked ass.

Now, would you like me to continue to spank you around the thread, or have you had enough?

[Marcus Aurelius]

No, I'm saying you're a dick for not having a clue about what you're speaking about.


my original quote...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614134#post614134)

The 'fat kid' claimed Wilson Reyes did it... and the charges have been dropped because another kid admitted doing it.

Let's see your evidence this is incorrect. Dumb ass.
What in there is untrue, and shows I don't know what I am talking about? Do tell.

Here's another one...

The 'fat kid' said it was Reyes... Wilson Reyes... Reyes was the 7 year old arrested, and whom YOU have assumed throughout this thread is guilty... Reyes was the one detained for 10 hours... and now Reyes has been cleared... and you want to deflect and add a second kid? Who is this second kid that is suddenly the real guilty person? Was he arrested? Where are all the news stories about him? Why aren't his parents suing?

Because he doesn't exist. Not in the context of who was detained, handcuffed, and held for 10 hours without due process.What in there was untrue, fuckwad?

[Marcus Aurelius]

No, I'm saying you're a dick for not having a clue about what you're speaking about.



Shit, you're right. I had two windows open, copied the quote from one site and the link from the other. This link has the quote.

Here you go, knob-bobber.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=8975409


That child gave a different account, telling the New York Daily News that Wilson and another boy approached him and both reached into his pocket before Wilson struck him in the face.
Fifth paragraph:

Let's see the paragraph you omitted, dumb ass...


Wilson's family claimed the boy was falsely accused of stealing $5 that was dropped on the ground and picked up by another student, leading to a physical altercation between him and another child, according to the Post.


That child gave a different account, telling the New York Daily News that Wilson and another boy approached him and both reached into his pocket before Wilson struck him in the face.


Interesting that you'd leave out the paragraph above, as it corroborates the Reyes boys story, and explains why the charges against him were dropped.

Of course, you have no interest in honesty or reality in this case.

Consider yourself well and truly smacked down, dumb ass.

[taft2012]

No shit the game doesn't start until 7. Did you not see the word TAILGATE, dumb ass? Who tailgates at the start of game time? Flyers kicked ass.

Yeah, everybody shows up and sits around in an empty parking lot for 6 hours. What fun. :laugh2:


Now, would you like me to continue to spank you around the thread, or have you had enough?

Please continue.

I was actually afraid you truly did run away. This thread is one of the most compelling and amusing train wrecks I've ever seen.

You are like a football player who time-after-time stops on the 10 yard-line, thinking he's scored and starts doing a flamboyant touchdown dance, only to be brutally tackled in mid-dance by about six defensemen.:laugh2:

Please, start dancing again...:laugh2:

[taft2012]

Interesting that you'd leave out the paragraph above, as it corroborates the Reyes boys story, and explains why the charges against him were dropped.


And that quote that I sinisterly and with malice intent omitted was...


Wilson's family claimed the boy was falsely accused of stealing $5 that was dropped on the ground and picked up by another student, leading to a physical altercation between him and another child, according to the Post.

Well gee whiz. That changes everything. The kid who got arrested said "I didn't do it."

Well uncuff him, walk him out the door, and give him the key to the city! :laugh2:

What exactly does that "corroborate"? :laugh2:



If you ever get a chance to visit a prison facility.... stand at the end of a long corridor of cells and shout down the corridor "Is there anyone here who did NOT commit the crime they have been convicted of?"

It might be an eye-opening experience for one as clueless as you.

[taft2012]

my original quote...

My original quote


Yeah, you might want to keep reading other sources fuckwad. The fat kid said it was Wilson Punk and this other kid.

To which you had a spastic attack and asked for evidence, which I provided in the form of this published quote:


That child gave a different account, telling the New York Daily News that Wilson and another boy approached him and both reached into his pocket before Wilson struck him in the face.

[taft2012]

I realize you want to keep taking this thread down winding corridors away from the more important elements of the story I've established, so that on some irrelevant shred of an irrelevant fact (such as whether or not a second kid was involved) so you can do your flamboyant flamingo touchdown dance.

The point of the thread was "ZOMG! Lookit what the police did!"

I have established that this incident was a felony. In fact, it is a more severe felony than originally thought by the police since Wilson acted in concert with a second kid, elevating this from a Robbery in the 3rd degree to a Robbery in the 2nd degree.But you should already know that, because I directed you to the Penal Law section on Robbery.

I have established that Wilson was a juvenile delinquent under NYState law, and even took the time to correct you and explain the difference between a juvenile delinquent and a juvenile offender.

I provided the Department guidelines that mandate the police to arrest Wilson under these circumstances.

I explained why we handcuff everyone we arrest, particularly children.

So now, to get this discussion back on course, and away from tit-for-tat exchanges about what was published in what newspaper where and when, let's get back to the main topic:

What did the police do wrong here?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yeah, everybody shows up and sits around in an empty parking lot for 6 hours. What fun. :laugh2:



Please continue.

I was actually afraid you truly did run away. This thread is one of the most compelling and amusing train wrecks I've ever seen.

You are like a football player who time-after-time stops on the 10 yard-line, thinking he's scored and starts doing a flamboyant touchdown dance, only to be brutally tackled in mid-dance by about six defensemen.:laugh2:

Please, start dancing again...:laugh2:

I went back and looked at a few threads you've posted in. Seems like whenever you get proven wrong repeatedly, you end up dropping the topic of the thread and concentrating on some kind of damage control, in what appears to be an effort to prove to everyone the person who smacked you around (in this case, me), didn't really do so. Looks like not many people are convinced by your damage control efforts.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Interesting that you'd leave out the paragraph above, as it corroborates the Reyes boys story, and explains why the charges against him were dropped.



And that quote that I sinisterly and with malice intent omitted was...

Wilson's family claimed the boy was falsely accused of stealing $5 that was dropped on the ground and picked up by another student, leading to a physical altercation between him and another child, according to the Post.





Well gee whiz. That changes everything. The kid who got arrested said "I didn't do it."

Well uncuff him, walk him out the door, and give him the key to the city! :laugh2:

What exactly does that "corroborate"? :laugh2:



If you ever get a chance to visit a prison facility.... stand at the end of a long corridor of cells and shout down the corridor "Is there anyone here who did NOT commit the crime they have been convicted of?"

It might be an eye-opening experience for one as clueless as you.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that, based on Reyes 'story', and the 'corroboration by the kid who admitted taking the money', the charges against Reyes were dropped. You still think he was guilty, and in the face of evidence and the dropping of the charges, you continue to think so.

Sad. Also proves you were never on the other side of a badge. Maybe you cleaned the bathrooms in a police station, but that's as far as you could possibly have gotten in one... unless it was as a perp.

[taft2012]

I went back and looked at a few threads you've posted in. Seems like whenever you get proven wrong repeatedly, you end up dropping the topic of the thread and concentrating on some kind of damage control,

Really?

So where is your spirited defense that juvenile delinquents and juvenile offenders are interchangeable terms?

Where is your explanation that being "taken into custody and charged" does not mean "arrested"?

What is your explanation for posting the law that says youths under the age of 16 are guilty by reason of infancy, as if you even had a clue as to what that means?

This whole thread is you acting like a frog, leaping from one lilypad to another.

[Marcus Aurelius]

My original quote


Yeah, you might want to keep reading other sources fuckwad. The fat kid said it was Wilson Punk and this other kid.

To which you had a spastic attack and asked for evidence, which I provided in the form of this published quote:

That child gave a different account, telling the New York Daily News that Wilson and another boy approached him and both reached into his pocket before Wilson struck him in the face.



Point 1: Who the fuck is Wilson Punk? I have seen ZERO stories in the media about a kid called Wilson Punk... other than your single story, which doesn't appear to match any of the other published accounts.

Point 2: The 'that child' the quote refers to, is the 'fat kid', dumb ass. Of course his version of events is different than the accused Reyes kid. Since another boy admitted to taking the money, and all charges were dropped against Reyes, the 'fat kids' version of events was obviously not believable enough for the police to press charges against Reyes.

So, as I've pointed out to you numerous times in this thread... you are wrong... you have lied... you have danced around being proven a liar... and you have no understanding of law, police work, or the criminal justice system in NY as it applies to children... and you refuse to accept the FACT that the police determined Reyes was not guilty and let him go, dropping all charges.

You may continue to pick minor points, or whine about how 'tailgating is stupid', or whatever. None of that changes the fact you lost in this thread. Be a man and admit it, or slink away.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Really?

So where is your spirited defense that juvenile delinquents and juvenile offenders are interchangeable terms?

Where is your explanation that being "taken into custody and charged" does not mean "arrested"?

What is your explanation for posting the law that says youths under the age of 16 are guilty by reason of infancy, as if you even had a clue as to what that means?

This whole thread is you acting like a frog, leaping from one lilypad to another.

Thus proving my last point about how you'll continue to pick on meaningless points in the thread, and ignore your own huge errors, lies, omissions and continue to ignore the fact that the police DROPPED ALL THE CHARGES against the Reyes boy.

[taft2012]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that, based on Reyes 'story', and the 'corroboration by the kid who admitted taking the money', the charges against Reyes were dropped. You still think he was guilty, and in the face of evidence and the dropping of the charges, you continue to think so.

Sad. Also proves you were never on the other side of a badge. Maybe you cleaned the bathrooms in a police station, but that's as far as you could possibly have gotten in one... unless it was as a perp.

It's immaterial whether I, or any other cops, thinks someone is guilty. That's not our job. The job is to make arrests based upon probable cause.

How do you perceive police work operates?

Victim: Officer, that man punched me in the face and took my wallet.
Officer: (to accused) Did you punch him in the face and take his wallet?
Accused: Why, no officer. I did not.
Officer: Well, there's clearly nothing for me to do here. I'll just be about my business. You two gentleman have a nice day.

Dropping charges against a 7 year-old is no indication he didn't do it. The Corporation Counsel does it with kids every day. It amounts to finger wagging and saying "Don't do it again, now go."

I don't know why they dropped the charges. They're not the Police Department, they don't answer to us, we don't answer to them.

If I had to guess: the Corporation Counsel not only prosecutes juvenile delinquents, they also defend the city against lawsuits like the one brought by this kid's mother. I would assume that since they drop cases like this every day, keeping this one would look like malicious prosecution on their part in the suit the kid's mother is bringing.

[taft2012]

Thus proving my last point about how you'll continue to pick on meaningless points in the thread, and ignore your own huge errors, lies, omissions and continue to ignore the fact that the police DROPPED ALL THE CHARGES against the Reyes boy.

And here's the main thrust:

Why were the charges dropped?

Was it because the police did something wrong?

Something improper? Something illegal? Something outside department guidelines?

[Marcus Aurelius]

you know, there was a narcissistic little freak just like you over on USMessageboard.

His big claim to fame was that Obama secretly ran NATO and could order them to do whatever he wanted.

He got shot down repeatedly, proven wrong repeatedly, but the more he got shot down, the stronger he argued. until he got to the point were he started fixating on unimportant minutia and ignored the fact he had ever said anything about Obama running NATO.

Sounds a lot like you.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's immaterial whether I, or any other cops, thinks someone is guilty. That's not our job. The job is to make arrests based upon probable cause.

How do you perceive police work operates?

Victim: Officer, that man punched me in the face and took my wallet.
Officer: (to accused) Did you punch him in the face and take his wallet?
Accused: Why, no officer. I did not.
Officer: Well, there's clearly nothing for me to do here. I'll just be about my business. You two gentleman have a nice day.

Dropping charges against a 7 year-old is no indication he didn't do it. The Corporation Counsel does it with kids every day. It amounts to finger wagging and saying "Don't do it again, now go."

I don't know why they dropped the charges. They're not the Police Department, they don't answer to us, we don't answer to them.

If I had to guess: the Corporation Counsel not only prosecutes juvenile delinquents, they also defend the city against lawsuits like the one brought by this kid's mother. I would assume that since they drop cases like this every day, keeping this one would look like malicious prosecution on their part in the suit the kid's mother is bringing.

Point 1: Yes, because charges are always maintained after proof is provided that the accused is innocent (as in, SOMEONE ELSE ADMITTED TO DOING IT, PROVING THE ACCUSED DID NOT DO IT, DUMB ASS!!!)

Point 2: Every story that mentions the charges being dropped, says the police dropped the charges after another boy admitted to taking the money. How you can sit there with a straight face and claim the police didn't drop the charges is extremely amusing to me.

[taft2012]

you know, there was a narcissistic little freak just like you over on USMessageboard.

His big claim to fame was that Obama secretly ran NATO and could order them to do whatever he wanted.

He got shot down repeatedly, proven wrong repeatedly, but the more he got shot down, the stronger he argued. until he got to the point were he started fixating on unimportant minutia and ignored the fact he had ever said anything about Obama running NATO.

Sounds a lot like you.

It's not that difficult a question, so just answer it Shitstain.

What did the police do that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

[taft2012]

Point 1: Yes, because charges are always maintained after proof is provided that the accused is innocent (as in, SOMEONE ELSE ADMITTED TO DOING IT, PROVING THE ACCUSED DID NOT DO IT, DUMB ASS!!!)

Point 2: Every story that mentions the charges being dropped, says the police dropped the charges after another boy admitted to taking the money. How you can sit there with a straight face and claim the police didn't drop the charges is extremely amusing to me.

Even *IF* Wilson didn't do it, which is a big if....

What did the police do wrong? Someone says, "That guy punched in the face and took my money.".... that's probable cause to arrest.

And the police made the arrest, as they are supposed to.

So I'll ask again; What did the police do that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

[revelarts]

police can do no wrong Taft, we know, ok. we got it. thanks.
NewYork and Chicago police are especially saintly.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And here's the main thrust:

Why were the charges dropped? Because another boy admitted to doing it, dumb ass.

Was it because the police did something wrong? See point one.

Something improper? Something illegal? Something outside department guidelines?
Yes, they did do somethign improperly... as per YOUR OWN SOURCE. Remember that police report manual you linked to? Remember the point very early ion where it said notify parents? They waited 10 hours to do so. I defy you to show me in ANY police manual, Penal Code, or Family Law Act where the police are allowed to detain a 7 yr old for 10 hours without parental notification.

Dumb ass.

http://ksapublications.info/app/pg/PG215.pdf

REVISION TO PATROL GUIDE 215-09, “OFFENSE COMMITTED
BY A CHILD UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE (OTHER THAN A
JUVENILE OFFENDER)”

3...Have parent/guardian notified.





It's the 3rd thing in your procedural manual. Not a chance in Hell they were allowed to take 10 hours to do this. There's one thing they did wrong and did not follow procedure on, dumb ass.

[taft2012]

police can do no wrong Taft, we know, ok. we got it. thanks.
NewYork and Chicago police are especially saintly.

I didn't say they can do no wrong.

I asked: What did they do in this case that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

And there doesn't seem to be an answer, so I guess that wraps this up.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Even *IF* Wilson didn't do it, which is a big if....

What did the police do wrong? Someone says, "That guy punched in the face and took my money.".... that's probable cause to arrest.

And the police made the arrest, as they are supposed to.

So I'll ask again; What did the police do that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

Point 1: Yes, it is apparent that you feel you know more about this case than the police who investigated it. Why don't you go up to NY and expalin to them how wrong they are and take the little Reyes boy back into custody for them. Dumb ass.

Point 2; asked and answered... repeatedly. You appear to be too stupid to accept the response.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I didn't say they can do no wrong.

I asked: What did they do in this case that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

And there doesn't seem to be an answer, so I guess that wraps this up.

It's been answered multiple times in this thread, you just ignore ti and continue to claim victory. Typical narcissistic behavior patterns. You really do need to seek some professional assistance before you hurt someone (I could care less if you hurt yourself).

[taft2012]

It's the 3rd thing in your procedural manual. Not a chance in Hell they were allowed to take 10 hours to do this. There's one thing they did wrong and did not follow procedure on, dumb ass.

So after all of this.... that's it?

That's all?

Not, "ZOMG! A a 7 year-old was arrested"?
Arrested for a $5 theft?
Not that kids that age can't be arrested?
Not that being taken in custody isn't being arrested?
Not that he was handcuffed?

And after all of that you are now assuming (and we all know how you feel about assumptions) that it took the police 10 hours to call Wilson's mother and she showed up in a hot minute. Of course you wouldn't assume they called her and she took her sweet time getting there.

And btw; this is what the department has to say about the 10 hour claim.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/01/wilson-reyes-7-year-old-handcuffed-over-5-lawsuit-claims/



Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne told ABC News:
"While the lawyer's claims are grossly untrue in many respects, including fabrication as to how long the child was held, the matter is nonetheless being reviewed by the Internal Affairs Bureau."

So, I guess this pretty much wraps up this bullshit.

[taft2012]

It's been answered multiple times in this thread,

Humor me, tell me one more time:

What did the police do in this case that was illegal, improper, or outside Department guidelines?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614399#post614399)

It's the 3rd thing in your procedural manual. Not a chance in Hell they were allowed to take 10 hours to do this. There's one thing they did wrong and did not follow procedure on, dumb ass.



So after all of this.... that's it?

That's all?

Not, "ZOMG! A a 7 year-old was arrested"?
Arrested for a $5 theft?
Not that kids that age can't be arrested?
Not that being taken in custody isn't being arrested?
Not that he was handcuffed?

And after all of that you are now assuming (and we all know how you feel about assumptions) that it took the police 10 hours to call Wilson's mother and she showed up in a hot minute. Of course you wouldn't assume they called her and she took her sweet time getting there.

And btw; this is what the department has to say about the 10 hour claim.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/01/wilson-reyes-7-year-old-handcuffed-over-5-lawsuit-claims/


Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne told ABC News:
"While the lawyer's claims are grossly untrue in many respects, including fabrication as to how long the child was held, the matter is nonetheless being reviewed by the Internal Affairs Bureau."

So, I guess this pretty much wraps up this bullshit.

You must have 'missed' the part where I said this was one thing they did wrong, and it was from YOUR source. Typical that you'd cherry pick and spin to make things seem the way you want them to.

Yes, by all means, lets just believe what the department has to say. Fuck the witnesses. Fuck the evidence, right?

Dumb ass. You can keep claiming the thread is over as often as you wish. Doesn't make it so.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Humor me, tell me one more time:

What did the police do in this case that was illegal, improper, or outside Department guidelines?

read the answers previously posted, dumb ass.

[taft2012]

You must have 'missed' the part where I said this was one thing they did wrong, and it was from YOUR source. Typical that you'd cherry pick and spin to make things seem the way you want them to.

Yes, by all means, lets just believe what the department has to say. Fuck the witnesses. Fuck the evidence, right?

Dumb ass. You can keep claiming the thread is over as often as you wish. Doesn't make it so.

So that's it? The arrest and the handcuffing was fine then?

Good, that's the point I've been trying to make all along.

Moving on, you chose to believe Wilson's mother. Fine, that's your prerogative.

You say "fuck the evidence"... but what's your evidence that he was there for 10 hours?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Not, "ZOMG! A a 7 year-old was arrested"? YOU said the law REQUIRED the 7 yr old be arrested, I proved the law says CAN BE, not MUST be. Even a mental midget like you should be able to tell the difference.
Arrested for a $5 theft? YOU claimed the law required he be arrested for a felony in this case. Myself and others repeatedly proved this to be incorrect. You ignored those posted.

Not that kids that age can't be arrested? No one ever said kids that age CANNOT be arrested. We said the law does not REQUIRED it.

Not that being taken in custody isn't being arrested? terminology differences. If you're going to hang your entire position on this, you're a much weaker debater than I thought possible.

Not that he was handcuffed? I don't recall anyone stating it was not legal for them to handcuff the Reyes boy. I do recall people stating it was 'wrong', in a moral sense. Dumb ass.

my comments in RED above

[taft2012]

read the answers previously posted, dumb ass.

I did. The only thing you seem to have is this 10 hour thingee, which you claim to have evidence of, but which you haven't produced.

The department is disputing that.

So is that it? Anything else illegal, improper, or outside department guidelines?

[taft2012]

my comments in RED above

Whoa! Epic backpedaling.

Meanwhile, what did the police do in this case that illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

[Marcus Aurelius]

So that's it? The arrest and the handcuffing was fine then? Don't put words into peoples mouths. It make you look desperate and foolish. Well, more desperate and foolish in your case.

Good, that's the point I've been trying to make all along. Doubtful.

Moving on, you chose to believe Wilson's mother. Fine, that's your prerogative. I don't believe I have expressed an opinion on whether or not I believe either side. Please, show me the post where I said I believed Reyes, his other, the 'fat kid' as you call him, or anyone else. I have been arguing facts. YOU have been arguing that Reyes was guilty from the first post, as I pointed out several times, pasting your quotes that indicate a belief of guilt on the Reyes boys part... even AFTER another kid admitted to doing it and the police dropped the charges.

You say "fuck the evidence"... but what's your evidence that he was there for 10 hours? No, you essentially have said fuck the evidence throughout this thread, with your posts indicating your belief that Reyes was guilty, even AFTER charges were dropped when another boy confessed.

the level of FAIL in your posts, is staggering.

[taft2012]

the level of FAIL in your posts, is staggering.

I think it's quite obvious your Google policing is impressively FAIL.

I'll try again, and keep trying....


What did the police do in this case that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by taft2012 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614407#post614407)


Not, "ZOMG! A a 7 year-old was arrested"? YOU said the law REQUIRED the 7 yr old be arrested, I proved the law says CAN BE, not MUST be. Even a mental midget like you should be able to tell the difference.
Arrested for a $5 theft? YOU claimed the law required he be arrested for a felony in this case. Myself and others repeatedly proved this to be incorrect. You ignored those posted.

Not that kids that age can't be arrested? No one ever said kids that age CANNOT be arrested. We said the law does not REQUIRED it.

Not that being taken in custody isn't being arrested? terminology differences. If you're going to hang your entire position on this, you're a much weaker debater than I thought possible.

Not that he was handcuffed? I don't recall anyone stating it was not legal for them to handcuff the Reyes boy. I do recall people stating it was 'wrong', in a moral sense. Dumb ass.





Whoa! Epic backpedaling.

Meanwhile, what did the police do in this case that illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

pack-peddling my ass. Learn to read, dumb ass. Go re-read my posts regarding the matters above, and show me SPECIFICALLY, with copies of my own words, where I back-peddled.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I think it's quite obvious your Google policing is impressively FAIL.

I'll try again, and keep trying....


What did the police do in this case that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

asked, and answered... repeatedly. I am coming to the conclusion that you have some sort of mental defect, in addition to the textbook narcissism.

I am sad for you.

[taft2012]

pack-peddling my ass. Learn to read, dumb ass. Go re-read my posts regarding the matters above, and show me SPECIFICALLY, with copies of my own words, where I back-peddled.

We're quite aware of your earlier gibberish that you posted that you clearly didn't understand, as in "being taken into custody and charged" =/= "arrested" :laugh2:

We're at the point now of: what did the police do that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

[taft2012]

asked, and answered... repeatedly. I am coming to the conclusion that you have some sort of mental defect, in addition to the textbook narcissism.

I am sad for you.

No, not at all. All I'm seeing this is 10 hour thing, and that's in hot dispute.

Break it down for me: What did the police do that was:
1. Illegal
2. Improper
3. Outside guidelines

[Marcus Aurelius]

I did. The only thing you seem to have is this 10 hour thingee, which you claim to have evidence of, but which you haven't produced.

The department is disputing that.

So is that it? Anything else illegal, improper, or outside department guidelines?

Literally every story in the media has a version of the following...


Officers showed up at PS X114 on Dec. 4 at about 10:20 a.m., and handcuffed and held Wilson in a room there for four hours. They then hauled him off to the 44th Precinct station house for another six hours of interrogation and verbal abuse, according to a $250 million claim against the city and the NYPD.

PLEASE.. tell me you can add 4 and 6, and that you come up with 10.

If the 10 hour figure wasn't accurate, SOMEONE, SOMEPLACE, would have questioned it and reported differently, and it would have taken off like wildfire. It didn't. Sporadic mention of an un-named police source is all you have to prove otherwise.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614418#post614418)
pack-peddling my ass. Learn to read, dumb ass. Go re-read my posts regarding the matters above, and show me SPECIFICALLY, with copies of my own words, where I back-peddled.



We're quite aware of your earlier gibberish that you posted that you clearly didn't understand, as in "being taken into custody and charged" =/= "arrested" :laugh2:

We're at the point now of: what did the police do that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

In other words, you cannot prove any back-peddling, so your pack-peddling from saying I back-peddled.

You're pathetic. Manu o. PROVE I back-peddled, using my exact words in this thread.

You can't.

[taft2012]

Literally every story in the media has a version of the following...



PLEASE.. tell me you can add 4 and 6, and that you come up with 10.

If the 10 hour figure wasn't accurate, SOMEONE, SOMEPLACE, would have questioned it and reported differently, and it would have taken off like wildfire. It didn't. Sporadic mention of an un-named police source is all you have to prove otherwise.

So we're still on the 10 hour thing? I keep asking is that it?

In your view, the police did nothing else wrong, other than this disputed 10 hour issue?

[Marcus Aurelius]

So we're still on the 10 hour thing? I keep asking is that it?

In your view, the police did nothing else wrong, other than this disputed 10 hour issue?

Again, please show me, in my own words, where I said this.

You do this to everyone you attempt to 'debate'. You put words in their mouths, and claim victory. Nice try, but it doesn't work on me.

[taft2012]

Again, please show me, in my own words, where I said this.

You do this to everyone you attempt to 'debate'. You put words in their mouths, and claim victory. Nice try, but it doesn't work on me.

I didn't say you said it.... I'm asking.

Did the police do anything else in your view, other than this 10 hour issue, that was illegal, improper, or outside guidelines?

[taft2012]

Well, I guess that wraps this up.

Regarding the 10 hour issue; the Department will be able to produce time-stamped radio transmissions of the police bringing the kid into the stationhouse, time-stamped command log entries, and time-stamped surveillance cameras showing the kid entering and exiting the station house.

If the Deputy Commissioner is saying the 10 hour claim is a flagrant lie.... then he obviously knows something and has reviewed the evidence.

All of this evidence will be shown to the lawyer and this case will disappear from the dockets quite quietly.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here's an example of proper police procedures regarding juveniles, from CT. I would think that NY should not be any different, but I am still looking for specific information from NY.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0291.htm


ARRESTING JUVENILES

The procedures for handling juvenile offenders lay out a set of options for the arresting officer, which are:
1. give a verbal warning and release the individual; wasn't done.

2. conference with the juvenile, the parent(s), teachers, or other people;wasn't done
3. refer the juvenile to Youth Services or another community agency;wasn't done

4. make a non-custodial arrest using a juvenile summons and complaint and a promise to appear in court;wasn't done
5. make a custodial arrest and release using a juvenile summons;wasn't done
6. make a custodial arrest based on an arrest warrant; or wasn't done

7. make a custodial arrest and subsequent transfer to juvenile detention. wasn't done





Non-custodial Arrest
The procedures for a non-custodial arrest using a juvenile summons are complaint and promise to appear are:
1. notify the juvenile and his or her parent or legal guardian of the arrest; done after 10 total hours of custody

2. serve the juvenile summons on the child and his or her parent, guardian, or other person having control of the child; and not done, as charges were dropped.

3. request that the parent, guardian, or other person execute the written promise to appear portion of the juvenile summons, which entails them promising to appear in court at the time and place the summons specifies.not done, as charges were dropped.

If the parent, guardian, or other person refuses to sign the summons, the officer still releases the juvenile, but makes a notation on the summons that the parent, guardian, or other person refused to sign. not done, as charges were dropped.



Parental Notification. After arresting a juvenile, an officer must notify the juvenile's parent or legal guardian regarding:

1. the whereabouts of the child, not done for 10 hours

2. the nature of the charges, and not done for 10 hours
3. the police department's planned course of action. not done for 10 hours



http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/juvenile_law/juvenile-detention.htm

The Officer is required to immediately notify the minor’s parent or guardian of the arrest. The minor is allowed two completed phone calls, to a parent and also to an attorney. If the officer decides on detention, he must take the minor before a Probation Officer within 24 hours of his arrest. The Probation Officer has the power to release the minor, order informal counseling, informal probation, or order a petition filed against him, upon release or while kept in custody.

Didn't happen for 10 hours.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Well, I guess that wraps this up. hardly, dumb ass.

Regarding the 10 hour issue; the Department will be able to produce time-stamped radio transmissions of the police bringing the kid into the stationhouse, time-stamped command log entries, and time-stamped surveillance cameras showing the kid entering and exiting the station house. 6 plus 4, dumb ass... remember?

If the Deputy Commissioner is saying the 10 hour claim is a flagrant lie.... then he obviously knows something and has reviewed the evidence. Of course. But the kid who said he didn't do it, and was later proven to be telling the truth when another kid confessed... HE was a lying little punk and is still guilty... right? Dumb ass.

All of this evidence will be shown to the lawyer and this case will disappear from the dockets quite quietly. Want to bet your posting privileges on that?

my comments in RED above.

[taft2012]

Here's an example of proper police procedures regarding juveniles, from CT. I would think that NY should not be any different, but I am still looking for specific information from NY.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0291.htm

Dude, you're losing your mind and just being absurd now. Again, you're posting stuff that you have no knowledge of, and frankly, neither do I because its from Conn.

Seriously, I didn't bother reading past the first line....


The procedures for handling juvenile offenders lay out a set of options for the arresting officer, which are:
1. give a verbal warning and release the individual; wasn't done.

I have no idea of what these guidelines are, but really.... Do you *HONESTLY* believe that if a 15 year-old shot and killed someone the police officer has the option of giving a verbal warning and releasing the kid? You honestly don't think there's a mandate out there somewhere in Conn. law that the officer MUST arrest the kid?
:laugh2:

[taft2012]

I guess it's safe to assume you couldn't find anything illegal, improper, or outside guidelines these officers did.

So now you are going to try to find something, because right now you don't know of anything.....


:laugh2:

"According to a state supreme court ruling in Helena, Montana in 1932...." :laugh2:

What a dope.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614434#post614434)

Here's an example of proper police procedures regarding juveniles, from CT. I would think that NY should not be any different, but I am still looking for specific information from NY.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0291.htm



Dude, you're losing your mind and just being absurd now. Again, you're posting stuff that you have no knowledge of, and frankly, neither do I because its from Conn.

Seriously, I didn't bother reading past the first line....

The procedures for handling juvenile offenders lay out a set of options for the arresting officer, which are:
1. give a verbal warning and release the individual; wasn't done.


[/COLOR]I have no idea of what these guidelines are, but really.... Do you *HONESTLY* believe that if a 15 year-old shot and killed someone the police officer has the option of giving a verbal warning and releasing the kid?You honestly don't think there's a mandate out there somewhere in Conn. law that the officer MUST arrest the kid?
:laugh2:





You really aren't very bright, are you.

First thing I said was that it was from CT, but that the NY procedures were not likely all that different, and that I was still looking for specific NY procedures.

As for the 'lay out a set of options', NONE of them were done. The officers didn't do ANYTHING they should have, from a list of options they had.

The fact you didn't bother to read anything past that, proves you have no real interest in the truth, justice, the law, or reality... only in what YOU have already predetermined. Sad.

It also means you missed this...


http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/c...-detention.htm (http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/juvenile_law/juvenile-detention.htm)
The Officer is required to immediately notify the minor’s parent or guardian of the arrest. The minor is allowed two completed phone calls, to a parent and also to an attorney. If the officer decides on detention, he must take the minor before a Probation Officer within 24 hours of his arrest. The Probation Officer has the power to release the minor, order informal counseling, informal probation, or order a petition filed against him, upon release or while kept in custody.


10 hours later is not immediately, dumb ass.

I also noticed you completely ignored my challenge... here it is again...


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by taft2012 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=614433#post614433)


All of this evidence will be shown to the lawyer and this case will disappear from the dockets quite quietly. Want to bet your posting privileges on that?



Got the balls to bet your right to post on this board, that the case will disappear like you claim it will? Here's the bet...

If the case disappears, I will have my account perma-banned. No sock puppets, complete IP ban to prevent me from posting ever again.

If the case does NOT disappear, you will have your account perma-banned. No sock puppets, complete IP ban to prevent you from posting ever again.

You got the balls???

[Marcus Aurelius]

I guess it's safe to assume you couldn't find anything illegal, improper, or outside guidelines these officers did.

So now you are going to try to find something, because right now you don't know of anything.....


:laugh2:

"According to a state supreme court ruling in Helena, Montana in 1932...." :laugh2:

What a dope.

You can ASSume anything you like. Doesn't magically make you right.

You must be on something.

[taft2012]

You really aren't very bright, are you.

First thing I said was that it was from CT, but that the NY procedures were not likely all that different, and that I was still looking for specific NY procedures.


No, they're obviously entirely different, and if you had a fekkin' clue you'd have figured that out already based on what I've already told you.

"Juvenile Offender" is obviously their lowest classification of juvenile in Conn., since they can let juvenile offenders go with a verbal reprimand.

As I already explained to you, in NYS our "Juvenile Offender" is the most serious class of juvenile, wherein juveniles are tried as adults in state supreme court.


As for the 'lay out a set of options', NONE of them were done. The officers didn't do ANYTHING they should have, from a list of options they had.

Options in Conn. based upon definitions of "juvenile offender" that neither you or I are familiar with.

But my question does raise a point. You are not dumb enough (I think) to think that if a 15 year-old kid shoots and kills someone on the street, that the officer has the option of giving him a verbal warning and releasing him, do you? Whether in NY or Conn?

[Marcus Aurelius]

No, they're obviously entirely different, and if you had a fekkin' clue you'd have figured that out already based on what I've already told you.

"Juvenile Offender" is obviously their lowest classification of juvenile in Conn., since they can let juvenile offenders go with a verbal reprimand.

As I already explained to you, in NYS our "Juvenile Offender" is the most serious class of juvenile, wherein juveniles are tried as adults in state supreme court.



Options in Conn. based upon definitions of "juvenile offender" that neither you or I are familiar with.

But my question does raise a point. You are not dumb enough (I think) to think that if a 15 year-old kid shoots and kills someone on the street, that the officer has the option of giving him a verbal warning and releasing him, do you? Whether in NY or Conn?

A... straw man.
B... you're still ignoring my challenge. No balls, huh. Not surprising. Go back to cleaning the toilets in the police station, dumb ass. You've FAILed.

[taft2012]

A... straw man.
B... you're still ignoring my challenge. No balls, huh. Not surprising. Go back to cleaning the toilets in the police station, dumb ass. You've FAILed.

Lol, you're nuts. First you were posting stuff that you were clueless about, now you're posting stuff we both have no idea of what it means, and are expecting a meaningful exchange to result.:laugh2: Woooo, get the butterfly nets.



But a good question comes out of this; Do you think the police can allow a 15 year-old who just shot and killed someone on the street to leave with only a verbal warning? And if not, why?

Seriously, if you find the answer we can actually have a meaningful discussion. Maybe.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Lol, you're nuts. First you were posting stuff that you were clueless about, now you're posting stuff we both have no idea of what it means, and are expecting a meaningful exchange to result.:laugh2: Woooo, get the butterfly nets.



But a good question comes out of this; Do you think the police can allow a 15 year-old who just shot and killed someone on the street to leave with only a verbal warning? And if not, why?

Seriously, if you find the answer we can actually have a meaningful discussion. Maybe.

Your continued use of a strawman argument (an asinine one at that), and continued refusal to even acknowledge my challenge is very telling. It must just kill you to have someone on this board who doesn't back down from your nonsense and proclaim you God, huh.

[taft2012]

Got the balls to bet your right to post on this board, that the case will disappear like you claim it will? Here's the bet...

If the case disappears, I will have my account perma-banned. No sock puppets, complete IP ban to prevent me from posting ever again.

If the case does NOT disappear, you will have your account perma-banned. No sock puppets, complete IP ban to prevent you from posting ever again.

You got the balls???

I predict this; the city will make an offer of around $100K to settle the suit out of court, which is basically what Bloomberg is always bitching about, the Corporation Counsel settling so many lawsuits like this. It basically saves them some legal legwork and court costs.

If you think this will go to trial and the lawyer is going to try for $250 million.... I'll take that bet.

[Marcus Aurelius]

time to go finish cooking the wings for the SB party tonight. Please, consider my challenge an open one. I will. I'll be back to smack you around some more tomorrow.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I predict this; the city will make an offer of around $100K to settle the suit out of court, which is basically what Bloomberg is always bitching about, the Corporation Counsel settling so many lawsuits like this. It basically saves them some legal legwork and court costs.

If you think this will go to trial and the lawyer is going to try for $250 million.... I'll take that bet.

First, you said it would disappear. NOW you say it will be settled out of court, which is certainly NOT disappearing.

Your back-peddling is astounding. You should join a circus.

Now, either accept my challenge as made, of be known as the complete dumb ass we all already feel you are.

[taft2012]

time to go finish cooking the wings for the SB party tonight. Please, consider my challenge an open one. I will. I'll be back to smack you around some more tomorrow.

Please PROMISE me you'll be back tomorrow.

I love watching your touchdown dances on the 10 yard-line, with you gleefully waving the 1908 police manual from Tasmania in the air, and then getting crushed by six defensemen. :laugh2:

I can't take my eyes off this trainwreck. Best thread EVER!

[taft2012]

First, you said it would disappear. NOW you say it will be settled out of court, which is certainly NOT disappearing.

Your back-peddling is astounding. You should join a circus.

Now, either accept my challenge as made, of be known as the complete dumb ass we all already feel you are.

Maybe you live in a shotgun shack in the Ozarks (which would explain a lot)... but in NYC, if you're suing the city for $250 million and you take $100K to go away and shut up, in NYC that's what we call quietly disappearing. Happens all the time.

But, hey, if this is such a solid case then they would obviously shoot for the $250 million, right? Why settle for a measly $100K?

Put up or shut up, bitch. :laugh2:

[cadet]

Seven-Year-Old Handcuffed Over Lunch Money Dispute




http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/seven-year-old-handcuffed-over-lunch-money-dispute/

What the hell is wrong with america??? Cops involved? The kid needed smacked, and told to apologize! Done and done!
Freakin idiots...

[taft2012]

The kid needed smacked, and told to apologize! Done and done!
Freakin idiots...

Not a bad idea. It worked in the past. But who do you propose administer the smack?

Certainly not the police. Hell, look at how the public reacted to the handcuffs. Imagine if the police started smacking kids?

The parents maybe?

Any American parent not delusional to the point that they actually could recognize their kid did something wrong, and adminstered a smack, would then be vulnerable to the domestic violence laws that mandate the police to take action against the parents.

It's a mess.

And obviously it's all the cops' fault.

[revelarts]

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mPKUUH7ytUo?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Da laws da law




Taft , do you arest everyone that breaks any law that you know of?
I'll answer that for you.
NO!

no cop does, this "I have to, or I'll lose my job or worse" seems to be BS to me Taft i'm sorry.
there a Million laws on the books and thankful (i guess) they are selectively enforced.
I'd like to think applied with common sense.

[taft2012]

Da laws da law


Taft , do you arest everyone that breaks any law that you know of?
I'll answer that for you.
NO!

no cop does, this "I have to, or I'll lose my job or worse" seems to be BS to me Taft i'm sorry.
there a Million laws on the books and thankful (i guess) they are selectively enforced.
I'd like to think applied with common sense.

You don't have to be sorry that you don't understand.

Not every law is a crime, so no, not everyone who breaks the law has to be arrested. For instance, if you drive through a stop sign I don't have to arrest you. I don't even have to give you a ticket. A traffic offense is neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, it is a violation (in some jurisdictions known as a petty offense), which is probably what the lemonade stand was.

In some particular cases, they do have to make arrests. Such as felonies.

Law enforcement used to employ common sense... but as you see in the guidelines I posted, that was removed.

Not my fault, so why pick on me? That's something to take up with the courts and your elected officials.

Sort of like the old saying; "Don't shoot the messenger."

[logroller]

You don't have to be sorry that you don't understand.

Not every law is a crime, so no, not everyone who breaks the law has to be arrested. For instance, if you drive through a stop sign I don't have to arrest you. I don't even have to give you a ticket. A traffic offense is neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, it is a violation (in some jurisdictions known as a petty offense), which is probably what the lemonade stand was.

In some particular cases, they do have to make arrests. Such as felonies.

Law enforcement used to employ common sense... but as you see in the guidelines I posted, that was removed.

Not my fault, so why pick on me? That's something to take up with the courts and your elected officials.

Sort of like the old saying; "Don't shoot the messenger."
Uh huh. Thanks for that; what you leave out is that when that infraction is enforced by a court, and the accused refuses to pay the fine believing the law to be unjust, then they can be charged with contempt of court, criminally, resulting in imprisionment. The only saving grace is that any criminal trial affords the accused a trial by jury, which in turn has the power of nullification...but of course, you can't tell a jury that.

[taft2012]

Uh huh. Thanks for that; what you leave out is that when that infraction is enforced by a court, and the accused refuses to pay the fine believing the law to be unjust, then they can be charged with contempt of court, criminally, resulting in imprisionment. The only saving grace is that any criminal trial affords the accused a trial by jury, which in turn has the power of nullification...but of course, you can't tell a jury that.

I'm not an expert on the court system, but as I understand it there is no trial for contempt of court. The judge can toss you in the can at his/her will. You get a chance to argue your case, if you lose, smarter to just pay.

[taft2012]

To give you a better understanding Rev...

Say you get dispatched to a family dispute at 7:00 pm. The wife called up 911 saying her husband is beating her. You arrive and she's crying that she doesn't want him arrested, even though he whacked her with the iron and gave her a black eye. She says they've made up and he says he's going to go cool off for the night at his brother's house. State law and department guidelines say you must arrest the husband, but since she doesn't want him arrested, and he says he's leaving for the night, you decide to exercise your common sense and not arrest him.

At 11:00 pm you get a call back to the same location. You arrive and find that the husband never left, and now the wife is dead.

First thing investigators do is pull the 911 runs, and say "Hey Rev, you were just here 4 hours ago."

Then the 911 tape from 7:00 pm gets pulled, and internal affairs shows up to talk to you.

You know what you got sitting in your lap right now? A big, fat, steaming pile of shit.

What seemed like common sense only 4 hours earlier suddenly doesn't look so smart anymore.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm not an expert on the court system....

as the rest of this thread shows :laugh:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Maybe you live in a shotgun shack in the Ozarks (which would explain a lot)... but in NYC, if you're suing the city for $250 million and you take $100K to go away and shut up, in NYC that's what we call quietly disappearing. Happens all the time.

But, hey, if this is such a solid case then they would obviously shoot for the $250 million, right? Why settle for a measly $100K?

Put up or shut up, bitch. :laugh2:

I made a challenge... you are simply to chicken shit to accept it.

I win.

[taft2012]

I made a challenge... you are simply to chicken shit to accept it.

I win.

Not my fault you're too dumb to understand what I said. Take the challenge or be my bitch, which you already are anyway. :laugh2:

And no, I'm not an expert on the court system, just as judges and lawyers and not experts on police work. You really haven't a clue about anything related to this topic of discussion, do you?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Not my fault you're too dumb to understand what I said. Take the challenge or be my bitch, which you already are anyway. :laugh2:

And no, I'm not an expert on the court system, just as judges and lawyers and not experts on police work. You really haven't a clue about anything related to this topic of discussion, do you?

So, in your tiny little narcissistic mind, you not taking my challenge (the first one made in this thread), is perfectly acceptable... but my not taking your pathetic little pussy of a challenge is indication of lack of intelligence?

wow. You are one sad, pathetic little self deluded mental midget. Enjoy your life in your mommy's basement, freak.

[taft2012]

So, in your tiny little narcissistic mind, you not taking my challenge (the first one made in this thread), is perfectly acceptable... but my not taking your pathetic little pussy of a challenge is indication of lack of intelligence?

wow. You are one sad, pathetic little self deluded mental midget. Enjoy your life in your mommy's basement, freak.

Hey, I laid out perfectly reasonable terms, you won't take them. Bitch. Not that it matters much, because in NYC a case like this can take 5 to 10 years to settle, even with an out of court $100K go away payment. By then it would all be forgotten and wouldn't even make the newspapers.

But keep going. The more you distract with this the more (you hope) people will forget the savage drubbing you've taken in this thread.:laugh2:

[taft2012]

I win.

Yeah. BTW: How are you coming along compiling that list of illegal, improper, and outside guidelines acts committed by the police in this case. Have you consulted the juvenile justice practices of the Maldives yet?

:laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hey, I laid out perfectly reasonable terms, you won't take them. Bitch. Not that it matters much, because in NYC a case like this can take 5 to 10 years to settle, even with an out of court $100K go away payment. By then it would all be forgotten and wouldn't even make the newspapers.

But keep going. The more you distract with this the more (you hope) people will forget the savage drubbing you've taken in this thread.:laugh2:

I laid out perfectly reasonable terms, you won't take them. Bitch

[taft2012]

I laid out perfectly reasonable terms, you won't take them. Bitch

$100K is a lot closer to 0 than $250 million. I'm the one leaving all the leeway. How'd you get to be such a $249,900,000 chicken shitted bitch?

[Marcus Aurelius]

$100K is a lot closer to 0 than $250 million. I'm the one leaving all the leeway. How'd you get to be such a $249,900,000 chicken shitted bitch?

You said it would disappear, I said it wouldn't. I bet my posting rights, you were too scared to do so. No shame, you're a pussy. Revel in your pussydness.

[Kathianne]

Hey, I laid out perfectly reasonable terms, you won't take them. Bitch. Not that it matters much, because in NYC a case like this can take 5 to 10 years to settle, even with an out of court $100K go away payment. By then it would all be forgotten and wouldn't even make the newspapers.

But keep going. The more you distract with this the more (you hope) people will forget the savage drubbing you've taken in this thread.:laugh2:

I may be missing something here, can't bother to watch the pissing contest here. However, seems you are saying that it may be that the 'jd's mother' may or has been offered $100k to go away and avoid court? If I'm reading the snippets correctly, that would be good advice via Taft? If so, wouldn't the better advice have been to tell the school to handle the problem and save the police department $100k?

[taft2012]

wouldn't the better advice have been to tell the school to handle the problem and save the police department $100k?

That might work well in some better and more intimate suburban and urban settings, but it's much harder in inner city settings, where huge bureaucracies oversee massive anonymous behemoth agencies.

In NYC we have 1.1 million students attending 1400 schools. In addition to grading on standardized exams, part of the evaluation system of how well principals administer their schools is how well they maintain order. So any criminal incident within their schools weighed against them in their evaluation. So what began happening is that a point was eventually reached where some principals were reporting *NOTHING*, including crimes as high as robbery and rape within the schools.

So discretion about what the schools have to report to the police was also taken away. Principals obviously hate this. I gave an example a few weeks back about the principal of Jamaica High School, who 5 years ago issued a memo to all school staff that they are not to call 911 unless conferring with him or an assistant principal first. A young girl began suffering from a seizure and school staff smugly refused to 911, knowing full well he was speaking of criminal incidents, not medical emergencies. As a result of long delay in getting medical assistance, the girl suffered permanent damage.

This whole failure on the part of principals to report incidents in their schools is what lead the city to place school security under the realm of the Police Department, which has made our inner city schools much safer.

[taft2012]

You said it would disappear, I said it wouldn't. I bet my posting rights, you were too scared to do so. No shame, you're a pussy. Revel in your pussydness.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2275/1533557385_502d479752.jpg?v=0

Porktass Unrealus must learn to come to grips with being brutally pwned and publicly humiliated. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

That might work well in some better and more intimate suburban and urban settings, but it's much harder in inner city settings, where huge bureaucracies oversee massive anonymous behemoth agencies.

In NYC we have 1.1 million students attending 1400 schools. In addition to grading on standardized exams, part of the evaluation system of how well principals administer their schools is how well they maintain order. So any criminal incident within their schools weighed against them in their evaluation. So what began happening is that a point was eventually reached where some principals were reporting *NOTHING*, including crimes as high as robbery and rape within the schools.

So discretion about what the schools have to report to the police was also taken away. Principals obviously hate this. I gave an example a few weeks back about the principal of Jamaica High School, who 5 years ago issued a memo to all school staff that they are not to call 911 unless conferring with him or an assistant principal first. A young girl began suffering from a seizure and school staff smugly refused to 911, knowing full well he was speaking of criminal incidents, not medical emergencies. As a result of long delay in getting medical assistance, the girl suffered permanent damage.

This whole failure on the part of principals to report incidents in their schools is what lead the city to place school security under the realm of the Police Department, which has made our inner city schools much safer.

No other way to say it, what a f'd up system. Sending kids to those schools is basically neglect by the parents. Never such a good case made for homeschooling or vouchers.

[taft2012]

No other way to say it, what a f'd up system. Sending kids to those schools is basically neglect by the parents. Never such a good case made for homeschooling or vouchers.

It's gotten way better over the past 15 years. The Teacher's Union is still a major stumbling block to reform, but the city is doing an endrun around them by shutting down failing public schools and opening more charter schools, which do not employ union teachers.

Some schools, like Stuyvesant High School and Bronx Science, rank up there among the best big city schools in the country. Sadly, some of the ghetto schools are still among the worst. The Police Department assuming the task of security in the schools has restored order to the point that those who want to learn at least have a chance to, but we're still hovering at about a citywide graduation rate of 40-50%.

[taft2012]

but we're still hovering at about a citywide graduation rate of 40-50%.

Allow me to correct myself. New York City's Public School graduation rate last year was 65%, so we've gotten better than I thought. Up 19% since 2005.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-11/new-york-city-high-school-graduation-rates-set-record-last-year.html


New York City set a record in 2011 as 65.5 percent of its high-school students graduated in four years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg (http://topics.bloomberg.com/michael-bloomberg/) said.

It marked the 10th-straight year of higher graduation rates and a 19-point increase since 2005, the mayor said in an e-mail statement today. Schools that have opened since 2006, including those replacing institutions deemed to be failing, had double the rates of the ones they replaced, the mayor said.

By comparison, Chicago public schools hope to hit 60% this year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/cps-highest-graduation-ra_n_1587525.html




At a time when Chicago Public Schools are in the spotlight as teachers have authorized a strike, the district released a projected graduation rate that could be record-breaking.


With more than 18,500 students graduating from CPS this year, the district predicts its graduation rate will hit 60.6 percent this year (http://www.wbez.org/news/chicago-public-schools-claims-record-graduation-numbers-99959) for students who were freshmen in the 2007-2008 school year, the highest it's been since at least 1999, according to WBEZ. That percentage includes predictions about seniors enrolled in summer school or fifth year programs to fulfill their graduation requirements.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2275/1533557385_502d479752.jpg?v=0

Porktass Unrealus must learn to come to grips with being brutally pwned and publicly humiliated. :laugh2:

You said it would disappear, I said it wouldn't. I bet my posting rights, you were too scared to do so. No shame, you're a pussy. Revel in your pussyness.

[taft2012]

You said it would disappear, I said it wouldn't. I bet my posting rights, you were too scared to do so. No shame, you're a pussy. Revel in your pussyness.

And it will. Standard "get lost" payments are in the $30k to $35k range. Since this was a little more high profile I'm allowing up to $100k, but I'm pretty sure it will fall far short of that, depending on the attorney assigned.

I know cops that have been in cases where the city was sued and argued vociferously against the city giving the litigant any money, but the Corporation Counsel told them they were aware the case was BS, but it was actually cheaper for the city to toss $30k at the problem than to do the prep work to get the through the first few steps of the court process.

That's what "disappears" means in NYC. Now, your town of Pigs Knuckle, Pennsylvania may only get sued once every 20 years, and that case may go to court immediately because the dockets are backed up for years, so practices may vary there. :laugh2:

And at this point I'm just having fun yanking your chain and watching you dance like monkey for me. This case won't be settled for 5 to 10 years. At that point, if either one of us still even remembered, we'd probably have to file a Freedom of Information request to find out what happened, only to learn the results of the case are sealed due to an agreement between the two parties. That sealing is also something the city usually insists on. IOW, we'll never find out.

Now enough facts, let's get back to business; put up or shut up, bitch! :laugh2:

[taft2012]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2275/1533557385_502d479752.jpg?v=0

:laugh:

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2275/1533557385_502d479752.jpg?v=0

:laugh:

posting pictures of your last family reunion is immaterial to the point of this thread.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And it will. Standard "get lost" payments are in the $30k to $35k range. Since this was a little more high profile I'm allowing up to $100k, but I'm pretty sure it will fall far short of that, depending on the attorney assigned.

I know cops that have been in cases where the city was sued and argued vociferously against the city giving the litigant any money, but the Corporation Counsel told them they were aware the case was BS, but it was actually cheaper for the city to toss $30k at the problem than to do the prep work to get the through the first few steps of the court process.

That's what "disappears" means in NYC. Now, your town of Pigs Knuckle, Pennsylvania may only get sued once every 20 years, and that case may go to court immediately because the dockets are backed up for years, so practices may vary there. :laugh2:

And at this point I'm just having fun yanking your chain and watching you dance like monkey for me. This case won't be settled for 5 to 10 years. At that point, if either one of us still even remembered, we'd probably have to file a Freedom of Information request to find out what happened, only to learn the results of the case are sealed due to an agreement between the two parties. That sealing is also something the city usually insists on. IOW, we'll never find out.

Now enough facts, let's get back to business; put up or shut up, bitch! :laugh2:

You said it would disappear, I said it wouldn't. I bet my posting rights, you were too scared to do so. No shame, you're a pussy. Revel in your pussyness.

[taft2012]

You said it would disappear, I said it wouldn't. I bet my posting rights, you were too scared to do so. No shame, you're a pussy. Revel in your pussyness.

And I explained what "disappear" means here. Now, put up or shut up, bitchazz. :laugh:

[taft2012]

Best. Thread. Ever.

:lol::clap:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Best. Thread. Ever.

:lol::clap:

It took a nose dive when you started posting family reunion pics.

[taft2012]

http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/10/03/nypd-lawsuits-surge/



Lawsuits against the city’s police soared to a record 2,004 cases entering the courts in the year that ended July 1.


That’s a 28 percent increase over the previous fiscal year, as recorded in the recently released Mayor’s Management Report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/ops/downloads/pdf/mmr0912/0912_mmr.pdf). It indicates that the flood of cases brought against the New York City police — which have seen a 63 percent rise over the last decade — has not subsided.


Because cases against the NYPD can take at least two to three years to conclude, a spike now means that payouts for court judgments and settlements are likely to squeeze the city budget in coming years.


City Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr., who chairs the council Public Safety Committee, contends that too many cases gets settled regardless of actual wrongdoing, and that the Law Department should be taking even more to trial.


“Their policy is to settle way too many cases,” said Vallone about the Law Department. “If the Corporation Counsel only settled cases where the police department were wrong, the police could learn a bunch of stuff from that. But if they settle for reasons unknown, then it makes it much harder for police to know.”


To save millions of dollars down the road, the city’s approach to police claims, said Vallone, should be “settle when you’re guilty, learn from it, and fight like hell if you’re not.”

http://queenscourier.com/2013/claims-against-nypd-up-in-2012/


Councilmember Peter Vallone, chair of the Public Safety Committee, defended the NYPD. Vallone said claims against cops surge when the Corporation Counsel of the city’s Law Department settles too many “nuisance” cases regardless of merit.


“The Corporation Counsel settles everything, and they settle for reasons that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence,” he said.

“When you settle cases when the police are not doing anything wrong, it’s going to lead to more and more cases and more tax money being wasted.”



:lol: Well, there you go, bitch. Two independent sources confirming EVERYTHING I've said.

Now why would I take a bet where any payout, no matter how small, would make me the loser, when it's well known to anyone with a brain (which disqualifies you) that the city hands out nominal payments on huge lawsuits to make them disappear?

The terms I offered were more than fair. Now grow a pair and take the bet, or admit your epic pussy status.

Oh, the epic pwnage! :laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/10/03/nypd-lawsuits-surge/

Lawsuits against the city’s police soared to a record 2,004 cases entering the courts in the year that ended July 1.


That’s a 28 percent increase over the previous fiscal year, as recorded in the recently released Mayor’s Management Report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/ops/downloads/pdf/mmr0912/0912_mmr.pdf). It indicates that the flood of cases brought against the New York City police — which have seen a 63 percent rise over the last decade — has not subsided.


Because cases against the NYPD can take at least two to three years to conclude, a spike now means that payouts for court judgments and settlements are likely to squeeze the city budget in coming years.


City Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr., who chairs the council Public Safety Committee, contends that too many cases gets settled regardless of actual wrongdoing, and that the Law Department should be taking even more to trial.


“Their policy is to settle way too many cases,” said Vallone about the Law Department. “If the Corporation Counsel only settled cases where the police department were wrong, the police could learn a bunch of stuff from that. But if they settle for reasons unknown, then it makes it much harder for police to know.”


To save millions of dollars down the road, the city’s approach to police claims, said Vallone, should be “settle when you’re guilty, learn from it, and fight like hell if you’re not.”


http://queenscourier.com/2013/claims-against-nypd-up-in-2012/


Councilmember Peter Vallone, chair of the Public Safety Committee, defended the NYPD. Vallone said claims against cops surge when the Corporation Counsel of the city’s Law Department settles too many “nuisance” cases regardless of merit.


“The Corporation Counsel settles everything, and they settle for reasons that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence,” he said.

“When you settle cases when the police are not doing anything wrong, it’s going to lead to more and more cases and more tax money being wasted.”



:lol: Well, there you go, bitch. Two independent sources confirming EVERYTHING I've said.

Now why would I take a bet where any payout, no matter how small, would make me the loser, when it's well known to anyone with a brain (which disqualifies you) that the city hands out nominal payments on huge lawsuits to make them disappear?

The terms I offered were more than fair. Now grow a pair and take the bet, or admit your epic pussy status.

Oh, the epic pwnage! :laugh2:




Please mark in red above, the specific mention of this case, where it says this case specifically will disappear as you claimed it would. Do that, and you can claim victory. If not, your still a pussy know nothing who posts family reunion pictures when he gets flustered.

[taft2012]

Please mark in red above, the specific mention of this case, where it says this case specifically will disappear as you claimed it would. Do that, and you can claim victory. If not, your still a pussy know nothing who posts family reunion pictures when he gets flustered.

Please pay attention pussyboy....

I said this affirms what I said about the city commonly paying off nuisance lawsuits against the police regardless of whether or not the police actually committed any misconduct. It further affirms what I said about cases averaging 5 to 10 years to resolve. It further affirms what I said about nominal payouts being made to make nuisance cases disappear.

I didnt' say these stories are speaking specifically about this particular case, and if that shoddy strawman is the best you can muster at this point, you may as well just run up the white flag.

I've proven what I meant about "disappear"... now it's time for you to show a bit of testicular fortitude. Put up or shut up, bitch. :laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Please mark in red above, the specific mention of this case, where it says this case specifically will disappear as you claimed it would. Do that, and you can claim victory. If not, your still a pussy know nothing who posts family reunion pictures when he gets flustered.

Please pay attention pussyboy....

I said this affirms what I said about the city commonly paying off nuisance lawsuits against the police regardless of whether or not the police actually committed any misconduct. It further affirms what I said about cases averaging 5 to 10 years to resolve. It further affirms what I said about nominal payouts being made to make nuisance cases disappear.

I didnt' say these stories are speaking specifically about this particular case, and if that shoddy strawman is the best you can muster at this point, you may as well just run up the white flag.

I've proven what I meant about "disappear"... now it's time for you to show a bit of testicular fortitude. Put up or shut up, bitch. :laugh2:

Immaterial.

This nonsense does nothing to prove your contention that this particular story will disappear. Now, either you can prove it, or you cannot. Since you're too much of a pussy to bet your posting rights, you obviously cannot prove your statement.

Put up or shut up, bitch.

[taft2012]

Immaterial.

This nonsense does nothing to prove your contention that this particular story will disappear. Now, either you can prove it, or you cannot. Since you're too much of a pussy to bet your posting rights, you obviously cannot prove your statement.

Put up or shut up, bitch.

You made an assumption on what I meant, and when I explained what "disappear" means in NYC regarding lawsuits, and provided ample evidence to support that, you backpedaled in the most transparently chicken-shitted manner imaginable.:lol:

Now that your chickenshit status is apparent to all, let's continue.

Of what purpose would this wager be? If 5-10 years down the road, NYC gives this woman a check for $30,000 to "just go away", equaling less than 1/10 of 1% of what she sued for...

.... and that payments of that sort are commonly made regardless of any impropriety, illegal, or outside guidelines behavior on the part of the police (established fact)....

.... then, what exactly is the point of the wager?

And finally, how are you coming along on that project to identify any illegal, improper, or outside the guidelines behavior on the part of the police in this matter? :laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

You made an assumption on what I meant... :laugh2:

no, I took your exact words and expected you to abide by them. That appears to be a mistake with you, as you change the meaning of your own words like the rest of us change underwear.

[taft2012]

no, I took your exact words and expected you to abide by them. That appears to be a mistake with you, as you change the meaning of your own words like the rest of us change underwear.

Yes, you knew precisely what I meant by "disappear"... even after I've provided irrefutable evidence to support what I meant. :laugh2:

So what do you presume to be the basis for the success of this lawsuit?

In order to be successful they would have to demonstrate some behavior by the police that was illegal, improper, or outside the guidelines which was...?

:rolleyes:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yes, you knew precisely what I meant by "disappear"... even after I've provided irrefutable evidence to support what I meant. :laugh2:

So what do you presume to be the basis for the success of this lawsuit?

In order to be successful they would have to demonstrate some behavior by the police that was illegal, improper, or outside the guidelines which was...?

:rolleyes:

please show me the post where I said the lawsuit would be successful, dip-shit.

YOU claimed it would disappear, I said it would not. I don't recall saying the suit would be successful.

Your spin is amusing, but furthers your FAIL with each post you make.

[taft2012]

please show me the post where I said the lawsuit would be successful, dip-shit.



That's true enough. It's tough trying to figure out WTF you're talking about at this point.

Are you saying Wilson's mother has a case? Or that she doesn't have a case?

Or that she might have a case? What might that case be based on?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=615530#post615530)

please show me the post where I said the lawsuit would be successful, dip-shit.

That's true enough. It's tough trying to figure out WTF you're talking about at this point.

Are you saying Wilson's mother has a case? Or that she doesn't have a case?

Or that she might have a case? What might that case be based on?

I accept your capitulation. Please, be gracious in your defeat. Take it like a man.

[taft2012]

I accept your capitulation. Please, be gracious in your defeat. Take it like a man.

A question is a capitulation in your world? :laugh2:

Don't expect me to end this, this is waaaaay too entertaining.