trespassing will get you thrown in jail. (Charged for Loitering / Prowling)

[Venix]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: alfa147x
I never said i was not doing any thing wrong... ?

So what's the problem? You were doing something wrong, got caught. Man up and take the consequences.

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: rivan
Why is the cop wrong for holding someone accountable to the law? Did the cop lead the kid to the site and say, "Hey! Go take pics! The worst I'll do is give you a warning!"?

I mean, why the hell is it so hard for you to accept that someone broke a law, then was held accountable for it?

What the fuck? It's people like you, who eschew any personal responsibility for one's actions, that make this world so damned difficult to live in.

The purpose of the law and the police force is to protect the community. What benefit is there in making criminals out of kids who caused no damage, hurt no one, and made no attempt to flee?

The legal system is (or was) based on the concept of "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea"--a guilty act requires a guilty mind. Unfortunately, many people today are more concerned with punishment than justice, which gives us this horrible "he broke the law, so he must be punished" attitude. This shitty attitude and the shitty laws it spawns are why America has an astounding percentage of its population in prison.

As far as personal responsibility, there are plenty of ways to make the kids responsible for their actions without arresting them on felony charges. A good cop will do whatever he can to avoid putting someone through the system. Lazy cops just arrest as a first resort and let someone else deal with the problem.

Of course, this all assumes that the OP and his friend are telling the truth.

Another sane and reasonable person on here. Thank god.

Well, he just admitted he knew he wasn't supposed to be there. He realizes his guilt.

As for being obsessed with the punishment, I'm not. Where there is a law, there must be consequences for breaking it, else it will have no influence - that's common sense. What's bothering me here is that this kid a) did something wrong, then b) is refusing to accept responsibility for it.

I'm not arguing the validity of the law. I'm not arguing anything but someone admittedly doing something they knew to be against the law, then being too immature to accept the consequences. The purpose of laws are to provide structure to society. The purpose of the police is to enforce the law, NOT to interpret it - there's nothing lazy about that. It's why we pay judges - to handle the careful consideration of the circumstances and to mete out appropriate consequences. I don't see an arrest, holding some bail money (you get that back if you show up for your court dates) and what will likely end up being some community service and a sealed juvenile record as anything out of the realm of reason for this.

The way I see it, construction sites are dangerous places - the cop was protecting the kid from himself if nothing else - and perhaps protecting the construction company from the lawsuit that would have resulted if the OP had slipped and impaled himself on a piece of rebar.

If I park my car on McDonald's landscaping, I expect to get towed. There's no sign about not parking on the grass at McDonald's. And yet, if I did it, and I got towed, the last thing I'd do is try to make a stink about it.

My point is that punishing someone for the sake of punishment (i.e. simply because he broke a law) benefits no one. The purpose of the law is to provide a safe, civilized society; if an arrest does nothing to further that goal, it is wrong.

In fact, the police generally have very wide latitude with deciding when to make an arrest. Good cops will consider the totality of the circumstances before hauling someone off to jail. In this situation, a good cop would have warned or ticketed them, or maybe taken them to the station and called their parents.

In any case, America has been heading further and further down the "there must be consequences for breaking a law" path, and I don't think that anyone is happy with the results.

 

[manowar821]

Well that's just plain mean.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: Venix
My point is that punishing someone for the sake of punishment (i.e. simply because he broke a law) benefits no one. The purpose of the law is to provide a safe, civilized society; if an arrest does nothing to further that goal, it is wrong.

In fact, the police generally have very wide latitude with deciding when to make an arrest. Good cops will consider the totality of the circumstances before hauling someone off to jail. In this situation, a good cop would have warned or ticketed them, or maybe taken them to the station and called their parents.

In any case, America has been heading further and further down the "there must be consequences for breaking a law" path, and I don't think that anyone is happy with the results.

edited:

It's not punishing him for the sake of punishment - he was trespassing, and knew it. Besides, there's been no punishment handed out, yet; that's a judge's privilege. If he's found guilty after a judge considers the totality of the circumstances then he'll see some punishment.

Look, I'm not saying this kid should get prison time. As I mentioned above, I think a couple dozen hours of community service should make him a little more thoughtful about the next time he breaks a law. Personally, I don't want cops deciding guilt or innocence, and I don't think most other people do either.

Sometimes warnings cut it, sometimes they don't. I personally don't think you should be taking a 17-year-old trespasser's word (innocuous as he seems here) and assume it's the whole story. And if nothing else, I'm inclined to at least hear the cop's half before calling his judgement poor, as you appear to have. It's just another person hopping on the ATOT-anti-cop bandwagon.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Google is a wonderful thing:

Two Teenagers Charged In Sex Crime

SUGAR HILL Georgia (AP) ? Two Sugar Hill (Burett) teenagers have been charged with sex crimes while trespassing on a local construction site. The teens vehicle was spotted by a Burett police officer while on routine patrol. Upon investigating the lone vehicle, the teens were observed having sex with a goat and photographing it. The teens were taken into custody and upon a search of their vehicle, a credit card stolen in a residential burglary was found in the center console of the vehicle.
advertisement
The teens were charged with PC 4108, ?Carnal knowledge of a farm animal? and later were released into the custody of their parents after paying $2800 bail. They are due in court to face the charges in two weeks. The goat was returned to his owner, no worse for the wear.

ZING

 

[Ricemarine]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Google is a wonderful thing:

Two Teenagers Charged In Sex Crime

SUGAR HILL Georgia (AP) ? Two Sugar Hill (Burett) teenagers have been charged with sex crimes while trespassing on a local construction site. The teens vehicle was spotted by a Burett police officer while on routine patrol. Upon investigating the lone vehicle, the teens were observed having sex with a goat and photographing it. The teens were taken into custody and upon a search of their vehicle, a credit card stolen in a residential burglary was found in the center console of the vehicle.
advertisement
The teens were charged with PC 4108, ?Carnal knowledge of a farm animal? and later were released into the custody of their parents after paying $2800 bail. They are due in court to face the charges in two weeks. The goat was returned to his owner, no worse for the wear.

ZING

OH SNAP :shocked:
Second/First biggest ownage thread of the year?...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Ricemarine

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Google is a wonderful thing:

Two Teenagers Charged In Sex Crime

SUGAR HILL Georgia (AP) ? Two Sugar Hill (Burett) teenagers have been charged with sex crimes while trespassing on a local construction site. The teens vehicle was spotted by a Burett police officer while on routine patrol. Upon investigating the lone vehicle, the teens were observed having sex with a goat and photographing it. The teens were taken into custody and upon a search of their vehicle, a credit card stolen in a residential burglary was found in the center console of the vehicle.
advertisement
The teens were charged with PC 4108, ?Carnal knowledge of a farm animal? and later were released into the custody of their parents after paying $2800 bail. They are due in court to face the charges in two weeks. The goat was returned to his owner, no worse for the wear.

ZING

OH SNAP :shocked:
Second/First biggest ownage thread of the year?...

Oldsmoboat wrote that himself, tard.

 

[Ricemarine]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Ricemarine

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Google is a wonderful thing:

Two Teenagers Charged In Sex Crime

SUGAR HILL Georgia (AP) ? Two Sugar Hill (Burett) teenagers have been charged with sex crimes while trespassing on a local construction site. The teens vehicle was spotted by a Burett police officer while on routine patrol. Upon investigating the lone vehicle, the teens were observed having sex with a goat and photographing it. The teens were taken into custody and upon a search of their vehicle, a credit card stolen in a residential burglary was found in the center console of the vehicle.
advertisement
The teens were charged with PC 4108, ?Carnal knowledge of a farm animal? and later were released into the custody of their parents after paying $2800 bail. They are due in court to face the charges in two weeks. The goat was returned to his owner, no worse for the wear.

ZING

OH SNAP :shocked:
Second/First biggest ownage thread of the year?...

Oldsmoboat wrote that himself, tard.

It still applies right (to me)? :laugh:
I april fooled myself

 

[Schfifty Five]

The credit card excuse was total BS. Why would your friend not destroy it in some way: cut it up, bend it up, scratch it up, etc. Why would he choose to keep it in his car. It's not like it takes very long to destroy a CC.

and Icebergslim is a DUMBASS.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: mugs


Oldsmoboat wrote that himself, tard.

LOL :laugh:

 

[rikadik]

This isn't as clean cut an issue as some seem to think.

The OP shouldn't rely too much on what is said in (b)-(f) of the quoted ordinance, and should think more carefully about what they say.

The list of circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted in subsection (b) is non-exhaustive. The fact that the OP did not take flight and so on does not mean that alarm is not warranted.

There is nothing in the facts to suggest that the procedure under subsection (c) was not followed. In fact from what the OP says there is little doubt that the officer afforded him "an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted". The OP says he explained his story and identification, and was then arrested six minutes later.

Subsection (d) can only relates to conviction so is not relevant for questioning the arrest, and furthermore is only relevant if the subsection (c) procedure was not followed, which seems unlikely.

Subsection (e) is irrelevant as there were no signs (apparently).

So the ultimate question is... is the OP snooping around a construction site at night enough to "warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity"?

I'd say yes. I think his real defense lies in arguing the opposite, that there was no cause for alarm. Relying on subsections (b)-(f) appears unhelpful on the available facts.

EDIT: for an assortment of grammatical errors