Wrongful/False Arrest?

[CGRAY]

And yes, in essence to did answer twice. And I appreciate your input. The stupidity in your comment was not needed. But you have supplied the answer I was seeking.

 

[dave33]

CGREY, You keep on compounding your problems. You are a bit confused about the law and how the system works. You have basically confessed to a crime and have done so voluntarily. You need to step back, enlist the help of an attorney and follow his/her advice.

As far as the law and the significance of intent, that is a non-issue at this point. In the future when going through the legal procedure, you can explain this issue then, for now listen to your attorney. goodluck.

 

[Logical Heretic]

What daves sayin is you implicated yourself in your interview with the police. The best way to not do that is to never answer any questions and if they ask you why you ran when you saw them tell them you were jogging. If you dont know every law(no one does) then speaking to the police is a great way to spend the night in jail. You have a constitutional right not to speak to them. Exercise it in the future. Unless you need their approval or get some kind of ego gratification out of trying to convince them what a great guy you are keep your lips sealed.

I watch these reality murder shows on tv and Im always astounded how many people implicate themselves. They freely admit they were present and it was a robbery but they "didnt kill that guy". Congrats you get 5 years off your very long sentence.

 

[Logical Heretic]

Well, from what I read, PI's are immune to stalking laws since they clearly have legitimate reason for their surveillance which is without question to be not to harass or intimidate but to gather information.

I thought thats what you were doing to be honest. Gathering information.

 

[CGRAY]

Well, yes, I was trying to gather information. But I was not acting in the capacity of a PI or LE so I am not immune. All I'm trying to ascertain is whether or not it was legal to arrest me which apparently it was. Conviction will be entirely different. I have no worries as to conviction as I don't see how they can prove my intent to be harassing or intimidating (which it wasn't) and secondly, it doesn't matter. Under the circumstances faced (which you all are not aware of since I did not mention because it was completely irrelevant to false arrest), Id do the exact same thing again today if needed. Lawful or not, you do what you have to under the circumstances and "stalking" is very light compared to where the situation was escalating to.

Thanks for all's input. I will post an update once things are settled for anyone else's future reference.

 

[swalsh411]

I wouldn't be so confident but good luck. Stay out of the woods.

 

[CGRAY]

Well, since the civil side is resolved (assuming no one has something new to add that changes things), how do you see a guilty verdict coming out of this? Assuming that "with the intent to harass or intimidate" was not thrown into the code just for ****s and giggles, how could I possibly be found guilty? Clearly, with my intent supported by the victim's own statement, I did not intend to harass and/or intimidate. What grounds does the prosecution have to secure a conviction?

 

[antrc170]

I have no worries as to conviction as I don't see how they can prove my intent to be harassing or intimidating (which it wasn't)

Don't be so sure about that. You need an attorney.

The DA will probably attempt present several things to show your intent...

1. You continually stalked the victim after confirming the residence of the child.
2. You knew the victim had legal custody of the child.
3. You used law enforcement or the threat of law enforcement to perform a "welfare" check on the child without any evidence of endangerment, which can be argued is harassment to intimidate the victim into giving up custody the child.
4. Any communication you or your gf had with the victim that indicates that you would stop following them or stop calling law enforcement for a "welfare" check will greatly enhance the DA's argument.
5. You are not the legal guardian or relative of the minor child and have no standing in a custody battle.

Whether you like to hear it or not, these things add up to show you as a bf willing to threaten or intimidate the victim to get your gf's child back. I would also be willing to be that the victim will testify that he/she felt harassed and intimidated to the point where the ex felt the need to stand his ground and chase you off.

You're argument of "Well, that's not what I intended to do" won't go very far by itself.

 

[CGRAY]

Don't be so sure about that. You need an attorney.

The DA will probably attempt present several things to show your intent...

1. You continually stalked the victim after confirming the residence of the child.
2. You knew the victim had legal custody of the child.
3. You used law enforcement or the threat of law enforcement to perform a "welfare" check on the child without any evidence of endangerment, which can be argued is harassment to intimidate the victim into giving up custody the child.
4. Any communication you or your gf had with the victim that indicates that you would stop following them or stop calling law enforcement for a "welfare" check will greatly enhance the DA's argument.
5. You are not the legal guardian or relative of the minor child and have no standing in a custody battle.

Whether you like to hear it or not, these things add up to show you as a bf willing to threaten or intimidate the victim to get your gf's child back. I would also be willing to be that the victim will testify that he/she felt harassed and intimidated to the point where the ex felt the need to stand his ground and chase you off.

You're argument of "Well, that's not what I intended to do" won't go very far by itself.

Okay, I appreciate your response. Apparently I didn't explain well OR there is some jumping to conclusions going on.

1. We never knew where the child was being kept. That is what we were trying to ascertain.

2. The "victim" did not have custody. The "victim" is the father's tweeker gf. The father turned out to be in the next county. That didn't come to light until the emergency court hearing on the following Friday for temporary custody.

3. We never used LE as a tool for threatening. LE informed us that they were willing to perform a welfare check if we could tell them where the child was. The Father did not tell the Sheriff when directed to do so.

4. There was no communication with the "victim". She waved and taunted us when we drove by the first time. That was the extent of all communication.

5. Not sure how that is relevant to the charge.

By no means am I arguing with you, just want to make sure you have the accurate information in front of you in order to give an opinion. I appreciate your input.

 

[Logical Heretic]

I would also be willing to be that the victim will testify that he/she felt harassed and intimidated to the point where the ex felt the need to stand his ground and chase you off.

Thats what I was thinking. If she testifies that she felt harassed(true or not) it might be all they would need to guarantee a conviction.

Where I live you can shoot someone dead if you are in fear of serious bodily injury. So's I looked up the legal definition of serious bodily injury and iirc it said an injury that takes more than 6 weeks to heal. A deep cut or a broken bone would be sufficient it would seem. Not so much that you have one but that you feared that you might. Fear itself is grounds for homicide.

Next time tell em your scopin the woods to build a tree fort.

 

[Banned_Princess]

Okay, I appreciate your response. Apparently I didn't explain well OR there is some jumping to conclusions going on.

1. We never knew where the child was being kept. That is what we were trying to ascertain.

2. The "victim" did not have custody. The "victim" is the father's tweeker gf. The father turned out to be in the next county. That didn't come to light until the emergency court hearing on the following Friday for temporary custody.

3. We never used LE as a tool for threatening. LE informed us that they were willing to perform a welfare check if we could tell them where the child was. The Father did not tell the Sheriff when directed to do so.

4. There was no communication with the "victim". She waved and taunted us when we drove by the first time. That was the extent of all communication.

5. Not sure how that is relevant to the charge.

By no means am I arguing with you, just want to make sure you have the accurate information in front of you in order to give an opinion. I appreciate your input.

your problem is you cant stop talking, explaining, debating... the reason you are in this trouble is because you tried to talk yourself out of trouble, you talked yourself into jail for a week, why haven't you learned this essential life lesson even after 2 pages of us trying to tell you.

At this point you should be looking into lawyers to get you the best deal, or you can see what the DA wants to do at arraignment, (or first appearance,) and agree with that, or be represented by a lawyer. there is no room for you to talk in court and thats for your best interest.

I STRONGLY suggest you say little more, to anybody about this, and let a actual lawyer talk for you.

 

[CGRAY]

Thats what I was thinking. If she testifies that she felt harassed(true or not) it might be all they would need to guarantee a conviction.

The victim has already stated that I was there to find the child. The code states MY intent. Whether or not the victim "felt harassed" is not mentioned in the code whatsoever. Only MY intent.

I'm not trying to 'talk my way" out of anything. I'm presenting an accurate depiction of the events and am hoping someone can shed some insight as to how I could conceivably be found guilty. One person has done so, however their opinion was apparently based upon untrue assumptions regarding the events.

 

[Ohiogal]

Ohiogal, where did you get this from? I have found nothing that states it is a defense to "stalking" if you are related to the person. Can you clarify this please.

My point is you followed a legal stranger to get to the child. You were not doing that for any LEGAL reason.

 

[Banned_Princess]

The victim has already stated that I was there to find the child. The code states MY intent. Whether or not the victim "felt harassed" is not mentioned in the code whatsoever. Only MY intent.

I'm not trying to 'talk my way" out of anything. I'm presenting an accurate depiction of the events and am hoping someone can shed some insight as to how I could conceivably be found guilty. One person has done so, however their opinion was apparently based upon untrue assumptions regarding the events.

for you to be found not guilty, you need a lawyer to plea your case to the DA or to a jury. So at this point you should be thinking if you are going to chose a lawyer who will listen to your story, and put the proper spin on it...or if you are just going to go with what settlement the DA will give lawyerless you. (hint, DA save the bottom line for lawyers and legal aids.)
Its how the system works, and right now you are in the system.

 

[Ohiogal]

The victim has already stated that I was there to find the child. The code states MY intent. Whether or not the victim "felt harassed" is not mentioned in the code whatsoever. Only MY intent.

I'm not trying to 'talk my way" out of anything. I'm presenting an accurate depiction of the events and am hoping someone can shed some insight as to how I could conceivably be found guilty. One person has done so, however their opinion was apparently based upon untrue assumptions regarding the events.

The CHILD is LEGALLY not yours to find> The child was with a legal custodian of which this person WAS NOT the legal custodian. You could not have followed HER to get to the child because the child was with dad. As for tweeker and other slams? Watch yourself stalkerboy.