Sheriffs Son Assault Report you won’t believe it

[Unregistered]

Then I guess its a good thing Peterson took taped statements, photos of the clothing, issued Miranda and more. But since he didn't do that or call sex crimes, I guess we can assume that the Sheriffs son did commit attempted sexual battery with an object. Tell me that you would want this case titled as information if it was two boys holding down your daughter and doing the same thing.

It was titled incorrectly. And no, I would be furious if this was my son or daughter who got attacked. The report should have been titled battery.

[Unregistered]

It was titled incorrectly. And no, I would be furious if this was my son or daughter who got attacked. The report should have been titled battery.

Sex batt, register that kid

[Unregistered]

You need penetration for a sex battt charge or attempted penetration for the attempt charge. Nothing in the fact pattern in that report indicates that was their intent. I’m not defending the behavior, I’m just explaining the law. It's a simple battery that we wouldn’t be able to make an arrest on based on the civil citation criteria.

It is at the very least agg batt.

784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Was the victim touched against his will? yes.
Did the offender use a deadly weapon? a bat qualifies as a deadly weapon.
Simple, Agg Bat

Now grabbing the ankle would be a misdemeanor but he is a principle in the crime so he would be charged with the highest crime.

There is an argument for an attempted sexual battery as the sexual battery statute clearly says that sexual battery includes vaginal or anal penetration with an object. Since it there was an attempted penetration it should go to the SAO for a filing decision. The fact is the whole thing should have been written up and turned over to the SAO for the appearance of impropriety.

[Unregistered]

It is at the very least agg batt.

784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Was the victim touched against his will? yes.
Did the offender use a deadly weapon? a bat qualifies as a deadly weapon.
Simple, Agg Bat

Now grabbing the ankle would be a misdemeanor but he is a principle in the crime so he would be charged with the highest crime.

There is an argument for an attempted sexual battery as the sexual battery statute clearly says that sexual battery includes vaginal or anal penetration with an object. Since it there was an attempted penetration it should go to the SAO for a filing decision. The fact is the whole thing should have been written up and turned over to the SAO for the appearance of impropriety.

Not sure the bat qualifies as a deadly weapon on the circumstances present here. You could present that charge but it wouldn’t fly. But speaking of morons, why don’t you explain to all of us in your infinite wisdom where you get penetration through a pair of pants? As much as you want to pretend a felony occurred here, the facts don’t support it.

[Unregistered]

Well, how about we put it this way. When a special needs child is being physically and/or emotionally tormented in a school bathroom by other students, and the public knows about it, they are less concerned about the specifics of the charge and more concerned about getting the BSO the hell out of Parkland, and hopefully out of Broward ASAP.

Pathological MONSTERS bully children with disabilities. Those who try to explain it away, need to GO AWAY.

[Unregistered]

Yawn ... sounds like routine horseplay with kids in high school.

Lol, what High School did you attend? Sheesh.....

[Unregistered]

If the buzz is true, its seems that "Parcheesi" may very soon be a nocturnal joke. dope

d12 mids ? Correct ? OOOOOh.....rutro

[Unregistered]

d12 mids ? Correct ? OOOOOh.....rutro

Ok you lost me there. What does OP alpha have to do with SI son and parcheesi?! Not judging, just intrigued.

[Unregistered]

Well, how about we put it this way. When a special needs child is being physically and/or emotionally tormented in a school bathroom by other students, and the public knows about it, they are less concerned about the specifics of the charge and more concerned about getting the BSO the hell out of Parkland, and hopefully out of Broward ASAP.

Pathological MONSTERS bully children with disabilities. Those who try to explain it away, need to GO AWAY.

Look I’m not disagreeing the policies don’t need to go back to the way they were. The problems with the promise program and civil citation are well documented now. But when you try to embellish the facts to get get a desired outcome you lose your credibility. If you want BSO out of Parkland be careful what you wish for. Because every community gets the police department they want. THERE IS A REASON BSO PARKLAND WAS HANDS OFF. The truth is that’s the community policing you demanded.

You can’t have it both ways. If you do go with a new department there will be a honeymoon period. Once that’s over reality will kick in and you may not get the department that worked there for so many years. Life ain’t all cupcakes.

[Unregistered]

Look I’m not disagreeing the policies don’t need to go back to the way they were. The problems with the promise program and civil citation are well documented now. But when you try to embellish the facts to get get a desired outcome you lose your credibility. If you want BSO out of Parkland be careful what you wish for. Because every community gets the police department they want. THERE IS A REASON BSO PARKLAND WAS HANDS OFF. The truth is that’s the community policing you demanded.

You can’t have it both ways. If you do go with a new department there will be a honeymoon period. Once that’s over reality will kick in and you may not get the department that worked there for so many years. Life ain’t all cupcakes.

point well taken; fair enough.