Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/5/14 at 7:31 pm to Recruitingjunkie
quote:
If drake had property they were withholding from him such as his car or whatever his business be then they need to check themselves
You think they were going to let someone inside a crime scene just because he had property in there? He had no justified reason other than his car was in there. That was a retard move by him and he should have not acted that way. If a cop is saying you cant come through, it's a crime scene, and you have no justification, then you stay the frick back. He is an idiot. Doesnt matter how good he is with the ball in his hands.
DISCLAIMER: I am a Drake fluffer.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 7:35 pm to Recruitingjunkie
quote:
Probably better and more positive ideas than yours.
Maybe. That is why I asked what your system would look like.
quote:
I'm assuming you're just one of those posters who likes to comment on things that don't pertain to your liking.
I have yet to mention anything that is either to or not my liking. I'm assuming you are one of those posters that just goes 0 to hostile when you are asked to expand on your thoughts.
quote:
Please share first and we can debate
I like our current system almost as is. One of the changes I would make is already in the works. That is having a court appointed attorney only for what a defendant cannot afford. A la carte tax payer funded legal representation if you will.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 7:42 pm to Five0
A system I agree with is a system that allows state rights to trump federal rights with living and personal preferences voted upon. As far as police go, there is no room for zero tolerance toward someone who has rightful business to his or her property without any notice what so ever. From my understanding of the situation he was not informed of his car or why he could not go past and that is not by law information that can be kept from someone.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 8:07 pm to Recruitingjunkie
quote:
a system that allows state rights to trump federal rights
Posted on 7/5/14 at 8:07 pm to Recruitingjunkie
quote:
A system I agree with is a system that allows state rights to trump federal rights
He is charged with violating a state law and will be tried in a state court so you should be happy with this.
quote:
with living and personal preferences voted upon.
That is already the case. We have laws and we are a nation of laws, not men. Third world countries are nations of men, tyrannical men that make all the rules and decide what justice is for different people. No thanks.
quote:
there is no room for zero tolerance toward someone who has rightful business to his or her property
This is not a case of zero tolerance. It is the case of a closed crime scene. The police did not choose the scene, the offender did.
quote:
without any notice what so ever.
There is the issue of the crime scene tape. If you gotta be somewhere that is an emergency and you have no remedy....find a supervisor. If it is truly an emergency a PD like TPD has the resources to get you where you need to go.
quote:
From my understanding
Neither of us were there. Both of us would be remiss in relying on our understanding at the present momemnt.
quote:
he was not informed of his car
I do not know what this means.
quote:
why he could not go past and that is not by law information that can be kept from someone.
Yes it is. If this was a shooting, very little information would be released until family notifications are made. Now if Mr. Drake just walked through he would be charged. If he asked what was going on what could be explained to him most likely would be explained.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 8:28 pm to Five0
C'mon guys...can't we all just get along?
Posted on 7/5/14 at 8:35 pm to thatdude1985
I'm playing nice. 
Posted on 7/5/14 at 8:41 pm to Five0
Drake was in the wrong and was foolish for thinking he could into a crime scene. Dumb is just dumb and he has no legal ground and could be charged with interfering with an investigation.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 10:00 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
could be charged with interfering with an investigation.
He was.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 10:02 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
He was.
This post was edited on 7/5/14 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:40 am to Five0
quote:
He is charged with violating a state law and will be tried in a state court so you should be happy with this.
When I mentioned the system part I was not referring to the drake incident. I was just speaking in general about the US political system. It's just designed to appease a bunch of lazy dick heads that don't believe in working. If all of the rest of the working class decided to do the same then what would happen?
quote:
This is not a case of zero tolerance. It is the case of a closed crime scene. The police did not choose the scene, the offender did.
The whole point of this part of the incident was that police have no natural or lawful right to withhold information pertaining to your property away from you for any circumstance. If he was held accountable for having been inside the territory then they should have held him for questioning pertaining to the case. If they treated him as if he was a bystander then he has every right to attempt to either move his property or someone explain why. If they fail to do so then there is no lawful hold on him. Arresting him in the name of obstruction of justice is false and is an unlawful arrest. Each officer has a duty to explain to you why you may or may not do something. Crime scene or not if drake isn't an accomplice then he has rights to know why he cannot retrieve his belongings.
quote:
More detailed information that neither of us have.
If he walked through with no intent to receive explanation and disrupted crime scene investigation abruptly then they have a right to detain him, but still explain why then after he is detained. There is not one scenario where he is not allowed information pertaining to his property. That is my entire point. Unless he was just there to raise hell on purpose with no intent to solely receive information about his involvement and property then that is the only way that he should have ever been cuffed. Even then he shouldn't have been booked and processed. Not with his criminal history (assuming no felonies or multiple red flags)
Posted on 7/6/14 at 6:46 am to Recruitingjunkie
I think the report on aldotcom says that he was told he could not retrieve his car because it was an active crime scene. What don't you follow about this. He was told not to enter and take his car and he did..
So you are saying if condo 1 had a murder in it and you asked to go in and get your wallet and were told no then you have ever legal right to enter the crime scene and take your wallet. I am no lawyer but the situations are similar except for the severity of the crime.
So you are saying if condo 1 had a murder in it and you asked to go in and get your wallet and were told no then you have ever legal right to enter the crime scene and take your wallet. I am no lawyer but the situations are similar except for the severity of the crime.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 9:21 am to Recruitingjunkie
quote:
If he walked through with no intent
Google mens rae and get back to me on intent. He intended to violate the crime scene.
Now Google actus reus. He did violate the crime scene.
quote:
disrupted crime scene investigation abruptly then they have a right to detain him,
They have the duty to detain him and the PC to arrest him.
quote:
There is not one scenario where he is not allowed information pertaining to his property.
You have made this assertion numerous times. Could you please cite a statute to back up your claim. Particularly since he is chatted with this:
Section 13A-10-2 - Obstructing governmental operations.
(a) A person commits the crime of obstructing governmental operations if, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference or by any other independently unlawful act, he:
(1) Intentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental function; or
(2) Intentionally prevents a public servant from performing a governmental function.
(b) This section does not apply to the obstruction, impairment or hindrance of the making of an arrest.
(c) Obstructing governmental operations is a Class A misdemeanor.
Pay special attention to (A)(1)(2).
ETA:
"While investigators were working on the crime scene Kenyan Adam Drake told officers his vehicle was parked inside the crime scene and he wanted to get his vehicle. Officers told him he would not be able to get his vehicle until the scene was released by Tuscaloosa County Homicide. Drake became upset and went through the crime scene tape and entered the crime scene after being told not to by officers. Officers immediately took the suspect into custody and charged him with Obstructing Governmental Operations."
From: Birmingham News
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 9:29 am
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:42 am to Five0
at this point in the investigation they knew shots were fired and probably had no clue as to who was doing the shooting. So it would be prudent for them to suspect anyone who had a car in the crime scene as potential perps. So if Drake was not a suspect at that point his actions may be putting him in the suspect pool.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 10:58 am to mrbroker
Out they were looking for shell casings, bullet holes/bullets, or diagramming the scene as it was at the time off the crime. The list could go on and on. The point is it was an active investigation. Common sense should guide you over the legal jargon I posted.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 12:44 pm to Five0
Not disputing here at all. I follow this legal mess and find it unfathomable how any bama fan could put their crimson glasses on and defend what he did by saying he has his right to his property. I wonder if he was afraid of his property being searched? Why? Just throwing it out there.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 1:58 pm to mrbroker
No dispute. Just putting stuff out there to show things that could be an overriding factor to Mr Drake's "It's my world, y'all just live here attitude". Just pisses me off looking through my crimson glasses that someone with this much talent seems to be such a dumba$$.
Posted on 7/6/14 at 7:12 pm to Five0
I was once charged with obstructing government operations because I asked a police officer who was directing me to a street I wasn't aware of for directions to that street. I was stupid enough to make a deal to get the charges dropped because the officer didn't even lie in the report so it was clear to the prosecutor that I was innocent. I paid $50 (and a lawyer and bail) and had to take an anger management class because...I don't know why I guess because it was the cheapest class. My lawyer suggested I take the deal because he suspected the case would have to at least go to appeals because "no local judge is going to rule against an officer in a situation like this." I wish I had more money because I would have definitely won my case on appeal and then I would have sued and won because I was unlawfully detained, arrested, and charged with a crime I did not commit. The officer who arrested me deserves to lose his job and cops like him need to be sent a message that they aren't any better than any other citizen.
For me, I will never believe a charge of obstructing government operations is justified. Just seems like a catch-all for douchebag police officers to express their police state mentality.
For me, I will never believe a charge of obstructing government operations is justified. Just seems like a catch-all for douchebag police officers to express their police state mentality.
This post was edited on 7/6/14 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 7/6/14 at 8:03 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
For me, I will never believe a charge of obstructing government operations is justified. Just seems like a catch-all for douchebag police officers to express their police state mentality.
Cool. So maybe one day you or loved one will be the victim of a crime and my crew and I will just kick at the crime scene and get in the way of the law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs.
Page 3 of 5
Latest Alabama News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News