+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 109
 
  1. #21
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    So it comes down to spelling. Its OK to do someone wrong because they misspelled something. Another opportunity to deflect from the real issue. That seems like all you can come up with. This guy was a week into his promotion kinda egg on someone's face if they would have investigated him.
    Maybe taking on the system just isnt your game Randy. I know!! A spelling contest!!

  2. #22
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    But the Biased IA had to do with the conduct of a Deputy who the PD can not investigate. Hence when the Sheriff deferred to the Milton I A he side stepped a complaint against a Deputy.
    You need bias ply toilet paper because you are full of shit

  3. #23
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    You need bias ply toilet paper because you are full of shit
    Another way to sidestep the truth. If you think someone is full of shit state your FACTS. You never will because you cant.

  4. #24
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Another way to sidestep the truth. If you think someone is full of shit state your FACTS. You never will because you cant.

    RJ is Full of Shit Fact #1- Brenda Roe was never identified as the driver.

    False!! Not only was she identified, that night, she is currently being sued by the same asshole that claims she was never identified. Same asshole rhat refuses to acknowledge her by name.

  5. #25
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    RJ is Full of Shit Fact #1- Brenda Roe was never identified as the driver.

    False!! Not only was she identified, that night, she is currently being sued by the same asshole that claims she was never identified. Same asshole rhat refuses to acknowledge her by name.
    The real facts did both officers admit she left the scene without providing any information. A violation of the law and a charge brought forth in the IA. Yes. Does the law state if you are later identified does that violation go away? No How else would a person be charged if they are NEVER identified???? Did she meet the requirements of identification as described in Florida statutes NO.

  6. #26
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The real facts did both officers admit she left the scene without providing any information. A violation of the law and a charge brought forth in the IA. Yes. Does the law state if you are later identified does that violation go away? No How else would a person be charged if they are NEVER identified???? Did she meet the requirements of identification as described in Florida statutes NO.
    Ok please cite the statute you are referring to regarding the requirements of Identification.

  7. #27
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The real facts did both officers admit she left the scene without providing any information. A violation of the law and a charge brought forth in the IA. Yes. Does the law state if you are later identified does that violation go away? No How else would a person be charged if they are NEVER identified???? Did she meet the requirements of identification as described in Florida statutes NO.
    Mr Jones, your lack of legal knowledge and wisdom pertaining to Florida, despite your insistence of that is lawful and what is not, says you are definitely misinterpreting the law.

    1) If the lady left the scene with someone whom she knew was law enforcement, AFTER law enforcement arrived, rules out the possibility of prosecution. There is NO criminal intent. Your opinion that criminal intent occurred is incorrect. There was a reasonable assumption that MPD had sufficient information to cut her loose. Criminal Intent coupled with a Criminal Act constitutes a crime. No way in hell a jury is going to convict her even if it went to trial, but without probable cause, the officers could not arrest her. Call the SAO if you don't believe me.

    2) There is nothing in the state statutes that states as to how an individual has to be identified. For example, if someone lost their wallet, how can they be identified? Easy. Digital Driver License Picture. So if your claim is that Roe was never identified, or legally identified, well you're incorrect. She was identified. She's listed as the driver of Vehicle 1, and according to SRC Clerk of Courts, you are suing her.

    Sorry pal, but you need to contact the SAO and share your wisdom with them in how wrong they all are. Tell the judges that while you're at it. They all wrong and Randy Jones is always right. While you're at it tell Judge Simon that the defendant in your case was not identified as the driver. You will get a big fat goose egg "0."

  8. #28
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Mr Jones, your lack of legal knowledge and wisdom pertaining to Florida, despite your insistence of that is lawful and what is not, says you are definitely misinterpreting the law.

    1) If the lady left the scene with someone whom she knew was law enforcement, AFTER law enforcement arrived, rules out the possibility of prosecution. There is NO criminal intent. Your opinion that criminal intent occurred is incorrect. There was a reasonable assumption that MPD had sufficient information to cut her loose. Criminal Intent coupled with a Criminal Act constitutes a crime. No way in hell a jury is going to convict her even if it went to trial, but without probable cause, the officers could not arrest her. Call the SAO if you don't believe me.

    2) There is nothing in the state statutes that states as to how an individual has to be identified. For example, if someone lost their wallet, how can they be identified? Easy. Digital Driver License Picture. So if your claim is that Roe was never identified, or legally identified, well you're incorrect. She was identified. She's listed as the driver of Vehicle 1, and according to SRC Clerk of Courts, you are suing her.

    Sorry pal, but you need to contact the SAO and share your wisdom with them in how wrong they all are. Tell the judges that while you're at it. They all wrong and Randy Jones is always right. While you're at it tell Judge Simon that the defendant in your case was not identified as the driver. You will get a big fat goose egg "0."
    1 she didnt leave with law enforcement she left with a citizen that law enforcement called. Now you talk about criminal intent when PD finally located her and left instructions to call she never did.
    2 If she was identified by digital license why did both officers claim they didnt know who or where and never gave that info to RJ

  9. #29
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    1 she didnt leave with law enforcement she left with a citizen that law enforcement called. Now you talk about criminal intent when PD finally located her and left instructions to call she never did.
    2 If she was identified by digital license why did both officers claim they didnt know who or where and never gave that info to RJ
    Ok since you are totally clueless: NO CRIMINAL INTENT. Her not calling back doesn't mean Criminal Intent. Perhaps she was in a hospital getting treated? Since you also think you're a law scholar call the SAO like the other posters have told you instead of twisting the law to suit you.

    Also, since you, Jones, says she left with someone law enforcement called, are twisting the facts. She left with an acquaintance of hers, called by law enforcement on her behalf. Perhaps if you weren't going 60 in a 45 when you slammed into her, she could have called Sims herself.

  10. #30
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Ummmmm you COPS are like wrong and stuff

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •