mike priest not guilty

im gonna call it not guilty....no evidence and another morganaiken error in judgement

[Deputy Dooley]

You obviously know nothing of the case if you think there is no evidence.

You obviously know nothing of the case if you think there is no evidence.

But can it be introduced? He didn't 42 her but he was an idiot for even putting himself in that situation. The admin had to do what they did and I think if/when he gets his job back (I know he's not fired but he may as well be) he needs to be put under close supervision away from anything with a skirt. Mike needs to find another line of work whatever happens at trial.

GUILTY!!! IF you knew anything about the case and the creep that he is....soap on a rope Boyyyyyy.

[MOD 640]

Clean up the comments.

GUILTY!!! IF you knew anything about the case and the creep that he is....soap on a rope Boyyyyyy.

Is he a creep? Yes. Should he be a cop? No. Did he rape her? No.

[*]Sex of any kind on duty will cause you to lose your standards. And yes he was 10-8 on a signal 15. Check it yourself.[*]

He was 10-7, gave it on the radio. If he was 10-8 then he would have had Roy Kinsey not a private lawyer. Roy started his defense but when the SO said that it was off duty then PBA doesn't pick up the tab.

[Deputy Dooley]

I know a lot of you dont want your opinion contradicted by facts, so I will try to keep this short. It doesnt matter if he was 10-8 or 10-7. The charge has nothing to do with being on duty. The charge is that he used his position of authority in order to get sex, and that he committed a sexual battery while in control of the victim. And please notice that it doesnt say anywhere in the statute about being on duty. It is similar to Miranda warnings... it doesnt matter if the person is actually in custody, it only matters IF THEY THINK they are in custody. So if the victim in this case THOUGHT, BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, that he was on duty, then he was. He was in uniform, in his marked car. That is "on duty" as far as the public is concerned.

Statute reads as follows just for those of you who dont believe the above.

794.011.4g

A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person’s consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree
(g)?When the offender is a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined by s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), who is certified under the provisions of s. 943.1395 or is an elected official exempt from such certification by virtue of s. 943.253, or any other person in a position of control or authority in a probation, community control, controlled release, detention, custodial, or similar setting, and such officer, official, or person is acting in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe that the offender is in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government.

Does anyone know why the trial was delayed again?