theres more freedom of speech here than youre facebook page

[Unregistered]

[Posted from CHARLOTTECOUNTYFLCOPWATCH's IP address - Sysop]

Youre organization is more corupt than i could have even imagined,i no everything about the corrupt charlotte county,florida,sheriff,its all online,did i say im going to ruin his family and church that he preachs at,no,i do think its xtremely sick that he lies and comits perjury and then preachs in church sunday about how sining is bad

[Sysop]

It took me (5) minutes to get the name, address, business and LOTS of photos of the ass clown behind "Cop Watch" He cleans houses for a living. I wasn't surprised based on his ability to put a sentence together. I bet he looks cute in a French maid outfit ...Right Andrew?

I received a complaint on the above post as follows:

"SO YOU ALLOW THREATS AND POSTING NAMES AND INFO? YOU KNOW MY WEB SITES AND PARTNERS SITES ARE PRETTY LARGE TO,WE COULD POST THESE THREATS THERE TO LET OTHERS KNOW WHATS GOING ON THERE,ITS UP TO YOU"

The above post obviously struck a cord and, while the complaint is unsigned, let's just say that it came from a very familiar IP address.

To answer the question in the above complaint, in short, YES. There is nothing wrong with posting a legal threat, posting names and posting information. The person making the complaint threatened to use his websites and partners' sites in an attempt to damage LEOAFFAIRS.COM if we do not remove the constitutionally protected content. Not to worry, I'm not running down to file an extortion complaint (at this time) and I'm not removing the content.

If you want to run a CHARLOTTECOUNTYFLCORRUPTION website and a CHARLOTTECOUNTYFLCOPWATCH Facebook page and YouTube channel, you have assumed the role of a public figure. As such (and especially due to the type of content on your sites), you are more susceptible to criticism and ridicule (legally) than others. There is nothing wrong with cleaning houses for a living or having poor sentence structure. There is also nothing illegal about someone starting a Facebook page containing information about you (and your family), especially since you do that and more on your social media outlets against LEOs. If you feel threatened and want to report what's happening on websites and to authorities, knock yourself out. Your summation that the poster (and presumed deputy) is breaking the law shows that understanding constitutional law is not in your wheelhouse. BTW, as a test I did a WhoIs check on charlottecountyflcorruption.info and came up with a name, address, phone number and email address. I Google'd the name and came up with information on another business as well a pictures and more (all publicly available on the internet).

[Unregistered]

[Posted from CHARLOTTECOUNTYFLCOPWATCH's IP address - Sysop]


U win,u have proven u r all corupt as hell

[Unregistered]

There is also nothing illegal about someone starting a Facebook page containing information about you (and your family), especially since you do that and more on your social media outlets against LEOs. If you feel threatened and want to report what's happening on websites and to authorities, knock yourself out. Your summation that the poster (and presumed deputy) is breaking the law shows that understanding constitutional law is not in your wheelhouse.

I'm sorry Mr. Admin but I have to interject here. You list your location as Tampa, are you an attorney or are you a police officer? I only ask this because you are portraying yourself as a constitutional law expert. At the same time, you are giving legal advice but on a LEO website as an Admin.

With that aside, you are absolutely incorrect in your legal analysis. What's most bothersome about your reply is what you claim to be perfectly legal is actually very much against Florida law. Anyone that participates in the activities mentioned in this thread could face criminal charges. Especially, when acting in the manner in which they and you have both described.

FL Stat 817.568(4) says "Anyone who uses someone else’s personally identifying information without that person’s permission in an attempt to harass that person commits the crime of criminal use of personal identification information to harass." The statute goes on to say in (5) "if the information was facilitated or furthered by the use of a public record" the offense is elevated to a felony of the third degree.

See here http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/.../0817.568.html

Furthermore, in regards to the use of information or pictures of the gentleman's children;
817.568(6) says, "It’s a second-degree felony in Florida to willfully use the personal information of a person under the age of 18 without that person’s permission, or the permission of the minor’s parent or legal guardian."

[Unregistered]

Unfortunately you've stepped into a tricky area. If the information you've obtained is not copyrighted, publically available, and you're the one that either posted it or approved it to be posted you've given permission. That's why people are always told to be careful what they post online. If you read the agreements that most people just scroll through and click agree you'll see you're in many instances giving permission for the information you post to be used. If this rather disturbed citizen has decided to put himself, family, including children out there then shame on him.

[Unregistered]

I'm not a "cop" but a police officer asked if I could find out the identity of an Internet troll. (That Mr. Sheets) would be you. I have all the information about you, your regular facebook account, your wife's account and tons of photos of your wife and the asian kid... I will bet he's a better speller than you.

Now based on the response from the moderator I can give out all your personal information which will be supported by public pages where you have posted. So, here's the deal Andy. Stop posting your anti-cop horse shit here or I will make a FB webpage that's ALL ABOUT YOU. As Clint said.... do you feel lucky PUNK?...

First, I am going to state that I am NOT affiliated with Cop Watch, although I am a member of various conservative political organizations which the founder of Cop Watch is also a member of. I will also state I am not nearly as anti-CCSO as the Cop Watch founder, probably most deputies in this county I don't have a problem with, I actually support law enforcement officers who follow the Constitution, and frankly I think those idiot heathens in Ferguson burning down legitimate businesses over a jaywalking, drug using shoplifter need to be taken out and shot regardless of what anyone has to say about Wilson, but I am not CCSO's number one fan either as there are at least a few on the force here which should (in my opinion) not have badges, one of them is a detective, and I take issue with government corruption or misconduct wherever I see it. I also have a tendency to want to point out when someone is wrong.

That said, this comes straight out of the Florida Statutes:

“Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

.............

So, to me, according to that Florida Statute, if one were to create a Facebook page specifically to attack the Cop Watch founder, "causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose," (s)he would be committing a first degree misdemeanor, or even a third degree felony if (s)he brought the Cop Watch founder's friends into the equation. That statute is very vague, a slick person could probably come up with some legitimate purpose for virtually anything, but I've known of people being charged with cyberstalking for far less. Sorry, but someone who is close friends with law enforcement should know better. One may argue that Cop Watch is also cyberstalking, but it gets tricky there because the Statute also states "The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests." Just my two cents, take it with a grain of salt if you wish because I'm not an attorney.

As for the person who said about giving permission for things posted online to be used, this is not entirely true. Everything varies by website. Anything you post on Wikipedia is licensed for reuse under the GFDL. Things posted on social media, however, are not automatically released into the public domain. If one uploads a picture to Facebook, for example, Facebook has the right to reuse the image for certain things, but that doesn't mean John Doe can take it and upload it to his own website without permission, or that Money Making Conglomerate LLC can take it and use it as the cover of a book. Certain uses are fair use, but social media pictures are not in the public domain by default. If they were, companies could steal each other's logos and use the excuse that their competitor had uploaded their logo to Facebook and Twitter. Reusing images taken from social media without the permission of the creator could constitute copyright infringement. Again, just my two cents.

[Sysop]

I'm sorry Mr. Admin but I have to interject here. You list your location as Tampa, are you an attorney or are you a police officer? I only ask this because you are portraying yourself as a constitutional law expert. At the same time, you are giving legal advice but on a LEO website as an Admin.

With that aside, you are absolutely incorrect in your legal analysis. What's most bothersome about your reply is what you claim to be perfectly legal is actually very much against Florida law. Anyone that participates in the activities mentioned in this thread could face criminal charges. Especially, when acting in the manner in which they and you have both described.

FL Stat 817.568(4) says "Anyone who uses someone else’s personally identifying information without that person’s permission in an attempt to harass that person commits the crime of criminal use of personal identification information to harass." The statute goes on to say in (5) "if the information was facilitated or furthered by the use of a public record" the offense is elevated to a felony of the third degree.

See here http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/.../0817.568.html

Furthermore, in regards to the use of information or pictures of the gentleman's children;
817.568(6) says, "It’s a second-degree felony in Florida to willfully use the personal information of a person under the age of 18 without that person’s permission, or the permission of the minor’s parent or legal guardian."

There are several points about your above rebuttal post that I simply find amazing. Don't get too excited, as that was not meant as a compliment.

For starters, you ask all kinds of questions about my background and experience while challenging my statements, yet anonymously quote statutes and interpret them. Amazing! If you simply Google "Sysop" you will quickly discover that it stands for System Operator. With bulletin board systems (BBSs) this was a common handle for the operator to use which I've kept over the years. My identity (unlike yours) is also no secret. I am the co-founder of this site and my name is Chip DeBlock. I retired almost 2 years ago from the Tampa Police Department after 30 years of service...I was a corporal at the time. You can read my bio online if you're that interested. I also graduated from USF with a BA in Criminal Justice and have had extensive training in constitutional and criminal law. However, the only person saying that I'm a constitutional law expert is you. I still stand by everything I said and here is why:

I hate it when people (like you) take quotes out of context while omitting some of the information. It reminds me of some media sources. Under this string I made a post on 08/10/15 at 1903 hours stating "If the above information is publicly available there is no violation of our Terms of Use. Depending on how the user set up the pending Facebook page, there could also be no legal ramifications from doing so." That information, no matter what you think, is on the money. I've also read Facebook's policies and, although there are restrictions allowing only supportive pages of individuals, you can also set up protest/awareness pages.

The 817 Florida State statutes that you're so fond of quoting cover Fraudulent Practices. The section you like, Part 1 (False Pretenses and Frauds, Generally), actually appears before Part II (Credit Card Crimes) for a reason. You are attempting to use these statutes for something they were not intended. If your interpretation were correct a newspaper would be guilty of committing a crime when publishing the name of a person without their consent. In addition, FSS 817.568(4) requires harassment and FSS 817.568(6) requires fraud. Making the general public aware of what someone is doing or exposing them is not harassment. Also, who ever said anything about posting pictures of someone's child?

If you respond to this post, I expect you to properly identify yourself as I have. This site only grants you the luxury of being anonymous in instances such as being afraid of retribution from an employer...which clearly does not apply to you.

[Unregistered]

Chip,

Is there any way you can ban these trolls under the ToU? If you flip around through our board you will see that Andrew is high jacking every thread on it. Typically his anti-cop rants have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Since so many of my brothers can't resist being baited by trolls, he has made the board unusable.

Thanks,

Unregistered

[Unregistered]

There are several points about your above rebuttal post that I simply find amazing. Don't get too excited, as that was not meant as a compliment.

For starters, you ask all kinds of questions about my background and experience while challenging my statements, yet anonymously quote statutes and interpret them. Amazing! If you simply Google "Sysop" you will quickly discover that it stands for System Operator. With bulletin board systems (BBSs) this was a common handle for the operator to use which I've kept over the years. My identity (unlike yours) is also no secret. I am the co-founder of this site and my name is Chip DeBlock. I retired almost 2 years ago from the Tampa Police Department after 30 years of service...I was a corporal at the time. You can read my bio online if you're that interested. I also graduated from USF with a BA in Criminal Justice and have had extensive training in constitutional and criminal law. However, the only person saying that I'm a constitutional law expert is you. I still stand by everything I said and here is why:

I hate it when people (like you) take quotes out of context while omitting some of the information. It reminds me of some media sources. Under this string I made a post on 08/10/15 at 1903 hours stating "If the above information is publicly available there is no violation of our Terms of Use. Depending on how the user set up the pending Facebook page, there could also be no legal ramifications from doing so." That information, no matter what you think, is on the money. I've also read Facebook's policies and, although there are restrictions allowing only supportive pages of individuals, you can also set up protest/awareness pages.

The 817 Florida State statutes that you're so fond of quoting cover Fraudulent Practices. The section you like, Part 1 (False Pretenses and Frauds, Generally), actually appears before Part II (Credit Card Crimes) for a reason. You are attempting to use these statutes for something they were not intended. If your interpretation were correct a newspaper would be guilty of committing a crime when publishing the name of a person without their consent. In addition, FSS 817.568(4) requires harassment and FSS 817.568(6) requires fraud. Making the general public aware of what someone is doing or exposing them is not harassment. Also, who ever said anything about posting pictures of someone's child?

If you respond to this post, I expect you to properly identify yourself as I have. This site only grants you the luxury of being anonymous in instances such as being afraid of retribution from an employer...which clearly does not apply to you.

The threat was obvious as a means of facilitating harassment against an individual and his family. I really don't care because I don't know anything about this site or the history here but you're stretching and you know it. I guess hiding somewhere near a fellow citizens home with a sniper rifle to protect him from the illegal harassment of local law enforcement is also a perfectly legal. It's not technically an illegal threat so I'm guessing it will stay up here.

[Sysop]

Chip,

Is there any way you can ban these trolls under the ToU? If you flip around through our ***** you will see that Andrew is high jacking every thread on it. Typically his anti-cop rants have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Since so many of my brothers can't resist being baited by trolls, he has made the ***** unusable.

Thanks,

Unregistered

Actually, YES. The story surrounding Andrew's bad experience with police can and should be isolated to one (1) specific thread. That way the only people reading it are the ones who want to. As for posts having nothing to do with the topic at hand (no matter who they are from), they can be removed. If you're willing to help out with reporting them, I'll help out with making sure they get moved.

Hope this helps and thanks for asking!