Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Joker]

Please stop with the "human trafficking!!!" hue and cry. It's been idiotic since it was first broached by Bohump County Sheriff Buford B. "Buck" Batwanger...here's some hints why...

why do you think all these THOUSANDS of rub and tug joints operate with seeming impunity across the country...when they are run by at least six major Chinese TRIAD families based in (here it comes sports fans) mainland China?.... with entrenched generational representation in the U.S.? What country is a MAJOR THREAT to the security of the United States of America? How does the US get useful, strategic intel on China? By sending Max Headroom clones undercover into the mainland? It's a quid pro quo and it's been well established for DECADES. Idiot local yokel politicians blathering "human trafficking!!!" and roiling up an extensive bee's nest is CONTRARY to the interests of the United States of America. It is in the interest of the United States to tacitly allow the Triads to conduct their business in exchange for VITAL intel that only they can provide the CIA, NSA and Department of State.

So, if some idiotic jihad is launched using "human trafficking!!!" as its war cry, I guarantee it will be eviscerated by investigation taken up by the FBI, IRS and every other punitive branch of the federal government that can be brought to bear. Get this through your heads...the reason WHY these women are in their 50's is because they are TONG. They are like low level soldiers and associates of the once feared Italian mob. Remember, the US government intelligence agencies used the mob decades back when the mob had real power. It's the same story today, only the players have changed.

 

[maust]

Soooo...this is still a thing?

(sorry...I'll show myself out now)

 

[IcyPatriot]

So going forward ... when responding to a post ...

Can we use the term "here's the rub"

 

[brdmaverick]

Kraft’s real crime is causing Pats fans to go at each other even in the glow of a championship.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks for the level-headed reply, but if you're correct that they hadn't seen the video live, then that takes us to the idea that they simply pulled Kraft over because they saw him leaving the spa and him merely leaving a legally operating business is not sufficient probable cause to be pulled over. As someone else mentioned, it would be like a cop pulling someone over just because they left a bar. I think that's the point people are trying to make here.

They pulled him over because they had a warrant to stake out an illegal prostitution operation.
If a bar was a front for drug dealing and the police got enough evidence to be granted a warrant, then yes, they would stop people leaving a bar.

So based on this, the prosecutor may be up sh*t creek, because they're reduced to proving that was Kraft on the surveillance video if the judge doesn't allow for the traffic stop ID to be utilized.

Based on what? You making up something out of your total misunderstanding of what I’d allowed or not?
Again, part of their investigation was a process of stopping people leaving to identify them. They stopped a bunch of them.
You seem hung up on not understanding that the police went before a judge with enough evidence to ENSURE probable cause.
It was not a legally operating business it was a business conducting prostitution and being investigated for it.

 

[Antdawg]

They pulled him over because they had a warrant to stake out an illegal prostitution operation.
If a bar was a front for drug dealing and the police got enough evidence to be granted a warrant, then yes, they would stop people leaving a bar.


Based on what? You making up something out of your total misunderstanding of what I’d allowed or not?
Again, part of their investigation was a process of stopping people leaving to identify them. They stopped a bunch of them.
You seem hung up on not understanding that the police went before a judge with enough evidence to ENSURE probable cause.
It was not a legally operating business it was a business conducting prostitution and being investigated for it.

The NY Post article quoting Eric Snyder lays it out way better than I could and you can scoff at it all you want, but the man has way more credentials than all of us combined when it comes to this matter. It answers all the questions you've asked me.

Do you really see no problem with the police pulling someone over after leaving a business, because they have a warrant at said business and NOT tell the person they're pulling over why they're being pull over? THAT is where the issue is. They can't just fudge that and even if they could, it looks extremely shady when you're doing so in trying to pin a non-violent, victimless misdemeanor on a 77 year old man who has no prior run-ins with the law.

 

[LJRomanoff]

Kraft’s real crime is causing Pats fans to go at each other even in the glow of a championship.

That would have happened regardless. If not this it would have been something else.

 

[maust]

That would have happened regardless. If not this it would have been something else.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

You can't just look at a perp on tape and say "that is Bob Kraft" with 100% certainty. They're going to need more than that, hence the traffic stop and ID check to begin with.

You don't need 100%. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Look at Triumph's post #2810 w a photo of Robert Kraft. If someone handed you that photo,and asked who it was, are trying to say you couldn't say it was Kraft???????
and many a person has been convicted with just video evidence if it is clear enough......

 

[Ring 6]

The NY Post article quoting Eric Snyder lays it out way better than I could and you can scoff at it all you want, but the man has way more credentials than all of us combined when it comes to this matter. It answers all the questions you've asked me.

He is speculating from the perspective of a defense attorney. He was not affirmative about any of his opinions, he just said maybe, could be, if, and , but.

Do you really see no problem with the police pulling someone over after leaving a business, because they have a warrant at said business and NOT tell the person they're pulling over why they're being pull over?

First of all it’s not whether I have a problem, it’s whether it’s allowable.
If you have probable cause to question a suspect there is absolutely no requirement at all that you tell them, truthfully or at all, the reason you pulled them over. Read that again. It’s the piece you can’t get past which blows up your entire argument.

Take a step back. There is a suspected criminal operation happening. You get a warrant to surviel it. You put cameras inside so you can see what happened.
As the “patrons” leave, which you expect to be the ones breaking the law on tape, you ask them who they are.
This is all 100% legal.
There is no legal requirement that you tell them why you are asking.
They do not have to comply.

THAT is where the issue is. They can't just fudge that

They 100% can. The burden of probable cause is having probable cause not explaining what your probable cause is.

and even if they could, it looks extremely shady when you're doing so in trying to pin a non-violent, victimless misdemeanor on a 77 year old man who has no prior run-ins with the law.

Huh?
How are they pinning a crime on anyone?
We all understand kraft did commit a crime right?
What they did was look at the suspects leaving a potential crime scene and ask them their name, so when they find out if they committed a crime they know who they are.

You act like kraft did nothing wrong and was set up and entrapped by being pulled over and if they didn’t truck him into being pulled over he wouldn’t have committed a crime.
Your viewpoint is bizarre.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

something something something human trafficking something something Chinese triads something something something something…

Rich dumdum got handy in strip mall massage parlor. I don't know what they usually do to dum-dums when that happens. Are there a lot of Johns doing jail time for being Johns? I know it's considered really hard-core to name and shame the Johns, right? Like, reading their names on the air? Okay, that box is checked at the national level.

I think they're doing really high-visibility enforcement, and I guess, if they're trying to get everybody to think trafficking when they see massage parlors that's good, if that's where massage parlors come from.

Heck, same with all prostitution, perhaps with the exception of the legal stuff in Nevada, perhaps. If it's all about a form of slavery not a "victimless crime," busting Joe average doesn't matter, and busting Kraft does. That's cool.

Now that said, do they need to really step up vice squad busts? Because these establishments, just going by what "they say," don't seem to be considered really illegal. I mean, shouldn't they be closing these places? Couldn't they raid them and get the evidence they need fairly easily? Or just replicate the camera sting here?

Or do I not understand something? Is it really hard to get this sort of evidence in general, but everything went right in this massage parlor?

So if it's a matter of stopping trafficking, and we're all on one page on this, here's hoping they're all gone in a year. It seems really doable, if that really is the goal.

 

[Antdawg]

We all understand kraft did commit a crime right?

Sorry buddy, you've lost me for good with the above. Kraft is innocent until proven guilty. We have yet to even hear his defense and you've already convicted him. At least let the man make a defense if he so chooses. I'm done.

 

[VectorPrime]

Sorry buddy, you've lost me for good with the above. Kraft is innocent until proven guilty. We have yet to even hear his defense and you've already convicted him. At least let the man make a defense if he so chooses. I'm done.

We’re not a court of law. We’re free to judge whether we think he’s innocent or a dirty old man who got caught as we see fit.

 

[tom444]

S.F. Giants CEO and his wife:

 

[maust]

We’re not a court of law. We’re free to judge whether we think he’s innocent or a dirty old man who got caught as we see fit...

...or at least as Andy sees fit

 

[ivanvamp]

No, it's not a crap justification at all.

If there were no First Amendment porn almost certainly would be outlawed along with prostitution (and people paying and being paid to make porn could be prosecuted as prostitutes and johns and pimps) . But since porn, unlike prostitution, is a piece of media, the First Amendment protects it and blocks what would have been the default state of prosecuting the participants.

No it’s total crap. Putting a camera in front of people getting paid to screw (and then making further profit off it by selling the videos) doesn’t somehow make it better or more moral. If one is legal, the other should be legal, and vice versa.

 

[RayClay]

Favorite name for this episode so far is “Tug Rule” how about you all?

"Do my job"

 

[RayClay]

Hahahahaha that's hilarious. Quite the rationalization. (not by you, Tony...this isn't a shot at you)

Since the citizens decision which has put every politician on the auction block, prostitution is definitely legal and protected by the constitution. Since money is now a form of speech,paying for a prostitute is merely expressing your approval using money instead of words, since money is now the same as speech. thanks a lot justice Roberts.

 

[Soliel]

Since the citizens decision which has put every politician on the auction block, prostitution is definitely legal and protected by the constitution. Since money is now a form of speech,paying for a prostitute is merely expressing your approval using money instead of words, since money is now the same as speech. thanks a lot justice Roberts.

Don’t ya just love a whole bunch of convolluted nonsense? Always brightens my day. I wonder if elan musk is right and this is all a simulation

 

[Ring 6]

Sorry buddy, you've lost me for good with the above. Kraft is innocent until proven guilty. We have yet to even hear his defense and you've already convicted him. At least let the man make a defense if he so chooses. I'm done.

In a court of law he is innocent until proven guilty. In reality it’s blatanty obvious he committed a crime. Even a fool understands that.