People of Raynham, get some sense and fire Lou Pacheco
As always, of course police want you to wait for them. Otherwise, most of them will be out of a job. It's the most immoral form of protectionism there is.
A janitor groped a 4-year-old boy in a public bathroom, and the boy's father rightfully wouldn't stand for it. He threw a solid punch to the janitor's head, and now the police are charging the father too -- with felony assault!
Everyone in the area needs to know that this "Market Basket" store now has a tacit policy of continuing to employ child molesters who were caught in the act, and that the Raynham police have a tacit policy of arresting you for defending your child. The chief can go to hell and be molested by every demon there:
Right there, the chief of the Raynham police said that if your child is attacked, if they don't believe other attacks will occur, that's too bad for you: they can let the person go. They believe a child molester will appear in court and won't necessarily attack again, but a father defending his child is a threat and/or flight risk?
Based on Pacheco's idiotic logic, the Raynham police need to arrest each other for making arrests. Of course they don't, because they've set themselves above "the law" that they expect everyone else to follow. They're claiming only they can execute judgment on who to arrest and not to arrest, and that the rest of us have no such right. That's impossible, because government's just powers come from the people, and legitimate government cannot do anything that people cannot legitimately do as individuals.
What this idiot Pacheco is saying that when one of my friends is home alone with her two girls, it's taking the law into her own hands if she shoots an intruder. Pacheco is saying that when that friend and I are worried about being carjacked, we can't act as "judge jury and executioner" by defending ourselves. How about the 26 people stabbed when Berlin's new train station had just opened, or any of the victims I enumerated who could only hope (and too often in futility) for the police to rescue them?
And do you know the biggest irony about this? Pacheco is trying to sound tough against online predators. He ought to realize there are plenty in the physical world, too. And as long as he declares it's the police's responsibility to respond rather than for people to defend themselves, then the asshole should stop wasting taxpayers' dollars by going to conferences. He should also stop worrying about young boys carrying plastic toy guns when there's a far greater danger that the boy will be attacked.
When it comes down to a parent and some creepy old man, the parent should get the benefit of the doubt. We have even more, namely the plain truth in front of us. There's no "question" about what happened: the molester confessed that he touched the boy, which is still a crime no matter how much it was "joking around." Yet the police arrested the father and didn't do anything beyond merely charging the janitor. That sonofabitch was even back at work right away!
If I were the father, the janitor would be lucky to escape with all his body parts intact. I swear to God, anyone who does that will find whatever little prick he has pulled out through his nostrils.
A janitor groped a 4-year-old boy in a public bathroom, and the boy's father rightfully wouldn't stand for it. He threw a solid punch to the janitor's head, and now the police are charging the father too -- with felony assault!
Everyone in the area needs to know that this "Market Basket" store now has a tacit policy of continuing to employ child molesters who were caught in the act, and that the Raynham police have a tacit policy of arresting you for defending your child. The chief can go to hell and be molested by every demon there:
But, Pacheco said, his officers had probable cause to believe that both parties had possibly committed arrestable felonies. Neither party had any record or warrantsIn other words, if your child is being assaulted, dial 911 and hope someone will come in time, that the police will throw the perp behind bars, and that the police will arrest the right person!
And while the father claims the incident was an outright sexual assault, there was an arguable dispute on the facts as the elderly man who could only speak through an interpreter, said he was "just joking around," he said.
He said his officers used their discretion not to arrest the man right away because the reason for an arrest is to protect the public by stopping the crime or similar ones from continuing and to ensure the parties will appear in court.
"None of those are the facts as I know them or as the officers knew them at the time. Innocent until proven guilty is still the law of the land and people on their own can’t become judge jury and executioner. That is not the way the system works," he said.
Right there, the chief of the Raynham police said that if your child is attacked, if they don't believe other attacks will occur, that's too bad for you: they can let the person go. They believe a child molester will appear in court and won't necessarily attack again, but a father defending his child is a threat and/or flight risk?
Based on Pacheco's idiotic logic, the Raynham police need to arrest each other for making arrests. Of course they don't, because they've set themselves above "the law" that they expect everyone else to follow. They're claiming only they can execute judgment on who to arrest and not to arrest, and that the rest of us have no such right. That's impossible, because government's just powers come from the people, and legitimate government cannot do anything that people cannot legitimately do as individuals.
What this idiot Pacheco is saying that when one of my friends is home alone with her two girls, it's taking the law into her own hands if she shoots an intruder. Pacheco is saying that when that friend and I are worried about being carjacked, we can't act as "judge jury and executioner" by defending ourselves. How about the 26 people stabbed when Berlin's new train station had just opened, or any of the victims I enumerated who could only hope (and too often in futility) for the police to rescue them?
And do you know the biggest irony about this? Pacheco is trying to sound tough against online predators. He ought to realize there are plenty in the physical world, too. And as long as he declares it's the police's responsibility to respond rather than for people to defend themselves, then the asshole should stop wasting taxpayers' dollars by going to conferences. He should also stop worrying about young boys carrying plastic toy guns when there's a far greater danger that the boy will be attacked.
When it comes down to a parent and some creepy old man, the parent should get the benefit of the doubt. We have even more, namely the plain truth in front of us. There's no "question" about what happened: the molester confessed that he touched the boy, which is still a crime no matter how much it was "joking around." Yet the police arrested the father and didn't do anything beyond merely charging the janitor. That sonofabitch was even back at work right away!
If I were the father, the janitor would be lucky to escape with all his body parts intact. I swear to God, anyone who does that will find whatever little prick he has pulled out through his nostrils.
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
4:06 PM
2 Comments:
Where do they think they live, Britain???
I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that there's no way for "the people" to fire him directly, because there's no election?
There's always a way to fire someone employed by the government, even if it's "the people" themselves descending on the police station with arms. It just takes enough of "the people" with balls to demand that the official be fired, and to "fire" the official themselves if they must.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home