From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: Walking her to the car.
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 07:34:42 GMT

	Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but, DC didn't
see any reason to edit his postings as he had said he would in the other
thread.  So, I am only editing out reposts of my statements.

In article <1992Aug18.004555.9534@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> In article <1992Aug17.173756.9518@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>
>> 	(Deleted to save space)
>>>
>>>No, you are not dealing with it sequentially. The ploice spot you following
>>>her, or she waves them down. Her story gets explained, and as far as the police
>>>are concerned, you fit the profile of so many other rapists they have dealt
>>>with or astudied or heard about.
>>>
>>>At that time you get arrested for (fill in the blank) AND resisting arrest.
>>>
	(Deleted some of my reposts)
>
>When they stopped to question you, they have the legal right to frisk you to
>make sure you do not have any weapons. You turned away, thus interfering in
>official police business of frisking you. They tried to place you under arrest
>for said crime, you jerked away, thus adding resisting arrest to your charges.
>
>Or, you walked against the signal.
>
>Or you jaywalked.
>

	Resisting arrest:  Common crime, from what I have seen.  Usually
the police have to have some evidence (scratcher, marks otherwise) or, why
wouldn't they be busting people left and right?
	As far as making up crimes, how come then, many police are
protesting any opposition to the bill proposed that would allow them to
disperse people who are congregating on a street corner after a certain
time?  Why not just arrest the lot of them?  Get a baddy wagon down there
and have those people driven off... May save a lot of effort in trying to
solve various crimes later.  This measure was proposed as an anti-gang
measure, by the way.

>Pick one. It is your word against theirs.

	Sure is.  Thats why, of course, so many people get off for crimes
that they were caught red handed committing, for various reasons, some of
them technicalities, some of them not so technical.
	Also, I believe, to actually arrest someone and bring them to the
station for a misdemeanor like jay walking, etc, the police would have to
furnish proof.  Otherwise, they would give me a ticket.

	(more of my stuff deleted)
>
>Wrong. You intent was to stop them from frisking you. Your intent was to jerk
>away when they tried this.
>
>Intent is no longer an issue.


>> 
>>>You now go downtown while a follow-up cruiser is sent to the party to collect
>>>evidence that you:
>>>
>>>1. Were chatting with her.
>>>2. Offered to escort her
>>>3. Followed her AGAINST her wishes.
>> Dont forget 4)  Stated to several people that I was going out to make sure
>> she or he got home safely.  
>
>So? Nice cover. I imagine a smart rapist would say soemthing like this. You are
>college educated. Created a nice cover for yourself before you left.
>
	Of course, 1) Anyone saying that what I was actually trying to do
when telling them where and what I was doing, I was actually making a cover
of myself would have their statements removed as speculation.
	2) The people who would say that I told them that I was following
her would also mention that I have done this doxzens of times before.  If I
am such a smart rapiost, then why haven't I succeeded before?  Of course,
this becomes irrelevant, due to 1.


>
>> 
>>>
>>>By that time, the police are not looking for "truth", they are looking for
>>>evidence, because they have committed themselves to proving you are a criminal.

	(more stuff of mine deleted)
>
>Really? You think a jury is going to buy that you escorted this person AGAINST
>THEIR WISHES out of altruistic reasons? You forced her to have an escort, maybe
>you also wanted to force her to "show appreciation" for you chivalry.
>
>
	Maybe, but, again, that would be speculation.  Again, something
that would be stricken from the trial record.
>> 
>>>If they fail, you go free AND get to sue them. 

	(more stuff of mine deleted)
>
>Only because they make sure they have "reasonable suspicion" before arresting.
>
>And, all they need to have for that is their word against yours.
>

	Yup, they do indeed have to state that I had done something AT THE
TIME OF THE ARREST OR SEARCH to give them just cause.  Now, perhaps they
will decide that following someone is just cause for a search.  Fine by me.
Understandable.  But, then, how would they prove that I *was* following her
(unless I admitr it, which, thinking about it, I probably wouldn't unless I
had a lawyer with me, if the cops were assholes) and that she wasnt just
pissed or something?  Imagine scenario:  Woman goes somewhere on date with
guy.  She gets pissed for some reason and leaves, guy follows her out and
she decides that she will flag down a cop and complain.  Hell, in this
scenario, the guy is closer to her, pand he does not have any witnesses at
all to say that he was going to make sure of her safety.
	
>> 
>>>
>>>That means you have to defend youself against said charges, while they try to
>>>plea bargain you down to something petty you will agree to rather than risk
>>>prison time.
>> 

>
>This is an interference and resisting case! What kind of "evidence" do you
>think they must bring into court??? Handwritten diagrams you made in advance? A
>crowd of on-lookers to say you resisted?

	Oh, yeah, THATS why I have noticed that the streets are so safe now
a days!  Because all of the police conducting arrests throw in charges that
they don't need to prove...  I say bullshit.  If police can get soimeone
convicted without having to establish proof that is beyond a reasonable
doubt then what good is the legal system?  You would have people being
busted and arrested left and right for shit.  Hell, what I want to know is
why, if the system is as screwed as you say, wasn't Rodney King convicted
of interference, resisting etc?  Hell, it was on film that he "jerked away"
and even once tried to get up...  DC, if the legal syatem worked that way,
we'd all be in jail.  I am not saying that it is all flowers and roses,
but, your statements are WAY to unrealisticallyy grim.  There is NO WAY IN
HELL THAT I WOULD BE IN ANY LEGAL TROUBLE AT ALL.  Like I said before, I
would most likely jkust be given a wanrning to go home.  In which case, I
would ask the officers to make sure she got to where she was going safely.
And then I would wave goodbye to them.
	It seems that thewre will be no poossible compromise here.
Therefore, it is not a topic that warrants discussion.
	(Oh, by the way.  A friend of mine was out one night at the lake,
after the parks were closed.  A policeman came up to him, asked him to
leave, and my friend slugged the cop.  You know what?  Not only did my
friend get NO FINES, CONVICTIONS OR ANY PUNISHMENT AT ALL, but the cop was
told, by the judge, that he should not worry about people walking along the
lake... He should instead go after people who were actually commiting some
"real crime".  And my friend HIT the officer!  Hell, if things were as DC
said, my friend would have pretty damn near had every charge on th e books
levied against him, and of course, the officer wouldn't have to prove
anything at all...)

	Read on, there is more of my stuff that has been deleted...
>
>She wil get up there and tell the jury you wanted to go home with her, and she
>was afraid of you because you were following her.
>
>(And if you don't think she would be afraid, ask those dozen female friends how
>they would feel if some guy at a party asked to take them home, and when they
>declined, he were to follow her home from about 50 feet back. Ask them if they
>might just be terrified of said individual.  She is going to look at you as
>apervert who was out after her. She is going to look at the police as her
>rescuers. Every bit of her testimony is going to be geared towards helping lock
>you up.)
>
>No, they will get up there and say they worried that you had a weapon because
>you were following her and they suspected you of being a rapist. They tried to
>pat you down, but you did not let them. Then they tried to arrest you but you
>resisted.
>
>Both of them are going to testify to that.
>
>And you are going to get up there and say "I was following her to protect her
>from rapists, and I did nto resist."
>
>Who would YOU believe if you were the jury? The potential victim and two
>police officers that stopped you, or the person who was following a yourg lady
>against her wishes late at night?
>
>> 
>>>
>>>And, do NOT make the mistake of thinking a crack bust is bigger than taking a
>>>rapist off of the streets to a cop. Crack busts are a nuisance that does
>>>nothing--by the time the perp is being booked, he or she has been replaced, and
>>>someone is happy to buy from them. Catching a rapist means you have protected
>>>innocent people from harm.
>> 
	(more of my stuff deleted, since I am such a nice guy.  Oops, I
forgot.  I am violating any moral rights a person may have to re read my
postings.  Damn.  Well, if anyone objects, please tell me so.  Of course I
will probably keep doing it anyway...)
>
>They would know you are innocent of resisting. But if they believed you a
>potential rapist, they might be willing to cut a few corners to lock you up
>BEFORE your victims start adding up.
>
>
>Cops I work with love trials--it is gravy duty if during their shift, and
>overtime WITHOUT going to their shift if they are second or third.
> 
>
>
>How are they going to get caught? Yu counting on someone with a cam corder
>recording an uneventful stop with no beating? (You said you would go
>peacefully) You think they will call the station to tel them there was video of
>police making a calm arrest where no one's rights were violated?
>
>
>> 
>>>
>>>DC
>>>
>>>PS. Remember, being innocent is only a good defense if you can prove it is true
>>>AND it nullifies what you have been charged with.
>>>
>
>Let me explain something to you. Perjury is something that happens in almost 
>every trial. You would not believe what some people make up. ("My car was stolen
>the day of the damage. I was going to fill out a police report, but it was
>Sunday. By Monday my car was returned to where I had left it. So I didn't go
>fill out the report. That is how my car was there but I didn't do it." I am not
>making this up--I was delivering documents to the court when this testimnoy was
>being given.) Further, perjury is rarely, IF EVER, prosecuted. (grand jury is
>the exception) Why? Because either the guilty is convicted anyway, or there was
>not enough evidnce to convict which means you can't prove perjury.
>
>Cops, and other defendants, worry about perjury charges the same way you and I 
>worry about not taking a found $10 bill down to the police station. (So it's
>rightful owner can claim it.)
>
>DC
>
>

	Just want to add that it is sad but true that so called
date-rapists (Whats in a name?  Scum by any other name would be as foul)
are hardly ever prosecuted, let alone convicted.  This is due in part to
male chauvinism, in part to some women making up stories to get an ex
boyfriend  some trouble, and partly due to the fact that the system isnt
perfect.  Still, I'd rather see a guilty man go free than see an innocent
one be locked away.
	
Sam 
Newsgroups: talk.rape