Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Deus Irae]

As I said, fairy tale.

Your post was idiotic. The last line was beyond ridiculous. You should actually feel bad for having written such nonsense.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Because they committed the crime and it’s a plea bargain.

Oh on the contrary. Case in point: My daughter's boyfriend was sopping at WalMart. Young guy, early 20s. Has cart full of stuff. Pays for it then leaves the register. He a12 pack of soda that he had put on the rack under the main cart that he forgot to have scanned. They called the police and they charge him with shoplifting. He apologized told them he forgot about it and offered to pay for it but no dice. They brought him in a back room set up for this kind of thing and s ared him into not fighting the charge because they said the judge would find him guilty anyway and would be 10 times worse on him if he just didnt plead guilty. Now the kid has that on his record and it was just a mistake.

 

[XLIX]

Oh on the contrary. Case in point: My daughter's boyfriend was sopping at WalMart. Young guy, early 20s. Has cart full of stuff. Pays for it then leaves the register. He a12 pack of soda that he had put on the rack under the main cart that he forgot to have scanned. They called the police and they charge him with shoplifting. He apologized told them he forgot about it and offered to pay for it but no dice. They brought him in a back room set up for this kind of thing and s ared him into not fighting the charge because they said the judge would find him guilty anyway and would be 10 times worse on him if he just didnt plead guilty. Now the kid has that on his record and it was just a mistake.

If he has it on his record then they didn't drop charges, so the above story is not a good analogy.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Bullshlt
I take the side that is opposite the people talking crap
If this thread were about burying kraft before the facts come out, I would have been arguing that is wrong without knowing the facts.
My argument is not pro any side, it’s pro truth and fact.

I have never, not once, not ever, said i know trafficking is happening or that the authorities were right.
I said that facts are facts and until there are facts to dispute it, then we start from the assumption the facts we have been given are true. Then when more facts come out we assess them and when all us said and done we conclude.

I see you refuse to answer my question though. See you have an agenda, a bias, and a side. I do not.

LOL Facts are facts until facts to dispute them? Jesus Andy. Guilty until proven innocent. Right, no agenda Andy

 

[PP2]

Oh on the contrary. Case in point: My daughter's boyfriend was sopping at WalMart. Young guy, early 20s. Has cart full of stuff. Pays for it then leaves the register. He a12 pack of soda that he had put on the rack under the main cart that he forgot to have scanned. They called the police and they charge him with shoplifting. He apologized told them he forgot about it and offered to pay for it but no dice. They brought him in a back room set up for this kind of thing and s ared him into not fighting the charge because they said the judge would find him guilty anyway and would be 10 times worse on him if he just didnt plead guilty. Now the kid has that on his record and it was just a mistake.

I'm by no means pro-cop. I know they're out to do a job not be everyone's friend, but I find this extremely dubious. Didn't the kid listen to the Miranda warning given to him- that he had the right to silence, the right to seek an attorney, and the right to stop answering questions at any time?

 

[PatsWSB47]

If he has it on his record then they didn't drop charges, so the above story is not a good analogy.

I get that. was making the point that people can be scared into decisions based on the fear of what more severe a penalty would be if they dont play ball

 

[XLIX]

I get that. was making the point that people can be scared into decisions based on the fear of what more severe a penalty would be if they dont play ball

Well the fact that some people are stupid does not change the fact that in some cases (like when a person is guilty and the authorities can prove it), admitting guilt in exchange for dropping charges can be a good deal.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I'm by no means pro-cop. I know they're out to do a job not be everyone's friend, but I find this extremely dubious. Didn't the kid listen to the Miranda warning given to him- that he had the right to silence, the right to seek an attorney, and the right to stop answering questions at any time?

he has no experience to go on. Read the rights them scared the crap out him challenging them

 

[PatsWSB47]

Well the fact that some people are stupid does not change the fact that in some cases (like when a person is guilty and the authorities can prove it), admitting guilt in exchange for dropping charges can be a good deal.

Agree, but an innocent person who thinks he'll lose and has no means to fight it may think it's a good deal too. It works both ways. People can get stupid when they're scared. Cops know this. Lots of false confessions have be given by scared people

 

[venecol]

 

[venecol]

 

[PP2]

he has no experience to go on. Read the rights them scared the crap out him challenging them

Hopefully he sues the **** out of them.

 

[Hyped]

I thought you were talking about misconduct surrounding this case.
This is where I lose the trafficking argument.
I see it this way, two scenarios.
1) based upon the warrants in the similar cases we have seen, the investigation was for prostitution. (I’m sure it can be argued that you have to establish prostitution and make arrests to begin going after traffickers) so if the warrant was not about trafficking how do you argue why would they prosecute prostitution without trafficking?
2) if this warrant in krafts case did include trafficking investigations the arrest is still a consequence of a police investigation

Perhaps what you are saying is they wouldn’t make soliciting prostitution arrests unless the prostitute was trafficked?
The warrants we have seen do not indicate that.

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that the DA's office can decide which cases to prosecute and which cases aren't worthy of prosecution. With this case no longer a human trafficking case, it is now only a misdemeanor case for 15 or so men in which the DA already offered to drop all charges in exchange for "acknowledgement that a guilty verdict was likely". Now, the DA can dig in their heels and prosecute this case...but they will be going up against the best lawyers in the state of Florida backed by Kraft's deep pockets...and the other 14 dudes apparently are willing to go along for the ride with their own attorneys. Best case scenario for the DA is to have the judge clear the parameters of the search warrant to include RECORDING so they can make the video admissible in court...and EVEN THEN...Kraft is only gonna get a slap on the wrist...a hefty fine...and almost definitely NO JAIL TIME. And the only "win" the DA would get is ruining Kraft's reputation and making the NFL suspend Kraft. They can only win if they embarrass Kraft further. But on the other hand the DA risks losing this case which would be an egg on their faces.

I don't care about the technicalities for this case...my perspective is whether this is even worth prosecuting? If this were some normal dude without deep pockets...would this even go to trail?

Wait.
They ARE prosecuting. They are NOT releasing a video nor have the said they would. They said if a foil request is made after the case is over the law says they provably have to grant it. In fact they said it CANNOT UINDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be released while the case is pending. So they literally can’t risk it being released then deemed inadmissible.
Release of the video has nothing to do with the case because LE isn’t “releasing it”. The Florida sunshine laws are the issue and THEY determine whether someone requesting a copy of the video can get it.

If you are saying you think LE is going to post it on the internet, that’s just not accurate.

Finally eliminating the video doesn’t end the case because the evidence would be the testimony of the police officers who were monitoring the surveillance cameras.

I am not sure they are prosecuting. A lot of grandstanding going on now....the video's admissibility will play a major part in this, IMO. If the video is knocked out...the case is dead in water. And police officers testifying? From the same department known for misconduct....and the same cops who would then now have been told by a judge that they RECORDED things illegally. Any lawyer worth his salt would destroy the credibility these cops on the stand easily.

Just my 2 cents...but IMO this case is dead in the water already and not worth the DA's time. The DA should punt and take the win in ruining Kraft's reputation. The NFL will still try to get the tape, IMO....and they will still suspend Kraft which would hurt Kraft more than a conviction that is a long shot at the very best.

 

[Ring 6]

Oh on the contrary. Case in point: My daughter's boyfriend was sopping at WalMart. Young guy, early 20s. Has cart full of stuff. Pays for it then leaves the register. He a12 pack of soda that he had put on the rack under the main cart that he forgot to have scanned. They called the police and they charge him with shoplifting. He apologized told them he forgot about it and offered to pay for it but no dice. They brought him in a back room set up for this kind of thing and s ared him into not fighting the charge because they said the judge would find him guilty anyway and would be 10 times worse on him if he just didnt plead guilty. Now the kid has that on his record and it was just a mistake.

I’m talking about the people in Florida who were caught soliciting prostitution and were offered a plea bargain.

 

[Ring 6]

he has no experience to go on. Read the rights them scared the crap out him challenging them

Are you saying they took him from Walmart to court and required a plea on the spot?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Breakdown of the two major “sides” arguing here:

I’m seeing in general people who mistrust the police, and perhaps authority on a deeper level, and those who feel strongly about privacy (anti-sureveillance, Snowden stuff), are naturally supcisous of the PD - myself included - and are naturally suspecting that the PD is “the bigger problem here” and the idea of them being corrupt/overzealous is potentially very scary and dangerous in the way our society is heading.

Those who don’t have those strong feelings see a red-handed guilty billionaire doing gymnastics with the law, because he has the money and resources to do so, with the police department being spun into the bad guys when the focus should be on BK himself. And that type of thing is not good for society either, when someone clearly broke the law but has money and connections to all go away.

And both sides think the burden of proof lies with the other.

Is that a fair take?

Also, I’d like to point out that regardless of this entire debate, it’s another issue on ethically if you agree with this Sunshine law? To me it seems pretty darn stupid. What’s wrong with a written description of the event in public records? Kind of a warped, perverted voyeurism in Florida if you ask me. And that video seems to be the real issue here that’s holding back Kraft and the PD from reaching an agreement.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Are you saying they took him from Walmart to court and required a plea on the spot?

No but they told him the judge would go 10 times harder in him if he fought the charge and that he'd lose anyway so it wss better just to appear and plead guilty. Some cops think everyone is guilty and think every confession no matter how they get it is therefore okay

 

[Ring 6]

No, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that the DA's office can decide which cases to prosecute and which cases aren't worthy of prosecution. With this case no longer a human trafficking case, it is now only a misdemeanor case for 15 or so men in which the DA already offered to drop all charges in exchange for "acknowledgement that a guilty verdict was likely". Now, the DA can dig in their heels and prosecute this case...but they will be going up against the best lawyers in the state of Florida backed by Kraft's deep pockets...and the other 14 dudes apparently are willing to go along for the ride with their own attorneys. Best case scenario for the DA is to have the judge clear the parameters of the search warrant to include RECORDING so they can make the video admissible in court...and EVEN THEN...Kraft is only gonna get a slap on the wrist...a hefty fine...and almost definitely NO JAIL TIME. And the only "win" the DA would get is ruining Kraft's reputation and making the NFL suspend Kraft. They can only win if they embarrass Kraft further. But on the other hand the DA risks losing this case which would be an egg on their faces.

You have an odd outlook on this. The DAs job is to prosecute people who commit crimes. It isn’t to “win” by embarrassing someone. They don’t get egg on their face if they lose. This isn’t a bunch of teenagers on social media obsessed with what people may say about them.
I don’t understand how they are “digging in their heels” when they offered a plea bargain and it was rejected. What else should they do? Say “oh you don’t want the plea bargain for the crime you committed, no problem, never mind we will drop it”.
By this argument they should just throw out
any crime that isn’t severe.

I don't care about the technicalities for this case...my perspective is whether this is even worth prosecuting? If this were some normal dude without deep pockets...would this even go to trail?

Of course it would there are 299 others.
You have to ask if it weren’t an arrogant rich guy wouldn’t the olea bargain be accepted.

I am not sure they are prosecuting.

They charged him and are going to trial. That’s called prosecuting.

A lot of grandstanding going on now....the video's admissibility will play a major part in this, IMO. If the video is knocked out...the case is dead in water.

No it isn’t. There are witnesses. Do you think the only crimes that get convictions are ones with video of them being committed?

And police officers testifying? From the same department known for misconduct.

Oh come on. You think you read something about misconduct somewhere so now every cop in that county will not be allowed to testify?

...and the same cops who would then now have been told by a judge that they RECORDED things illegally

Wow. A take being inadmissible (if that happened) does not mean it was obtained illegally. They had a warrant.

. Any lawyer worth his salt would destroy the credibility these cops on the stand easily.

Oh great. Now you are arguing that the credibility of someone you never met and no nothing about would easily be destroyed because their boss said “hit the record button we have a warrant” and you think you rad something somewhere.
Let me be clear here, because people in this thread consistently make up things meaning something that wasn’t said.
Police have and do break the rules. Some are not credible. Some lie. You have absolutely nothing to conclude that THESE cops did any of that.

Just my 2 cents...but IMO this case is dead in the water already and not worth the DA's time. The DA should punt and take the win in ruining Kraft's reputation. The NFL will still try to get the tape, IMO....and they will still suspend Kraft which would hurt Kraft more than a conviction that is a long shot at the very best.

Kraft ruined his own reputation.
A district attorney isn’t trying to win by embarrassing people they are trying to prosecute law breakers and get justice.

 

[Ring 6]

Breakdown of the two major “sides” arguing here:

I’m seeing in general people who mistrust the police, and perhaps authority on a deeper level, and those who feel strongly about privacy (anti-sureveillance, Snowden stuff), are naturally supcisous of the PD - myself included - and are naturally suspecting that the PD is “the bigger problem here” and the idea of them being corrupt/overzealous is potentially very scary and dangerous in the way our society is heading.

Those who don’t have those strong feelings see a red-handed guilty billionaire doing gymnastics with the law, because he has the money and resources to do so, with the police department being spun into the bad guys when the focus should be on BK himself.

And both sides think the burden of proof lies with the other.

Is that a fair take?

I think the burden of proof lies on both sides.
Both of the things you describe above are feelings and biases and people are bending the facts or making up facts to suit their bias.

I think the difference here is that we have a pretty good understanding of what the evidence that he committed the crime is.

We have pretty much zero story from krafts side that disputes the facts.

So one side, my side, is everything we see indicates he did it and until we see more to dispute that, as of now, it seems obvious.

At this point the only way to dispute that is to
1) argue he can get off on a technicality (if which there is yet no proof one exists)
2) prove innocence by attacking those accusing him of being guilty (the police suck and lie and cheat so they did something and kraft had innocent)
3) deflect (kraft is charged with soliciting a prostitute during an investigation that has chatter it was related to trafficking. So let’s argue that there wasn’t trafficking to deflect that kraft is equally guilty whether the prostitute in question was also being trafficked or not)
4) argue the crime doesn’t deserve punishment

 

[PatsWSB47]

Breakdown of the two major “sides” arguing here:

I’m seeing in general people who mistrust the police, and perhaps authority on a deeper level, and those who feel strongly about privacy (anti-sureveillance, Snowden stuff), are naturally supcisous of the PD - myself included - and are naturally suspecting that the PD is “the bigger problem here” and the idea of them being corrupt/overzealous is potentially very scary and dangerous in the way our society is heading.

Those who don’t have those strong feelings see a red-handed guilty billionaire doing gymnastics with the law, because he has the money and resources to do so, with the police department being spun into the bad guys when the focus should be on BK himself.

And both sides think the burden of proof lies with the other.

Is that a fair take?

Anyone who has a profession has the danger of only seeing things through their own lense. The old saying "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail" kind of fits what I'm saying. I work in the health care industry. Patients that see a surgeon always seems to need an operation. That same patient goes to a chiropractor and they prescribe physical therapy. Anyone can lose perspective.


.