Let's say I break into your house
MY OPINIONS
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.
Hmmm….
Okay, say I break into your house. When you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the liberal plans:
You are required to let me stay in your house.
You are required to add me to your family's insurance plan.
You are required to educate my kids.
You are required to provide other benefits to me & to my family.
By the way, my friend will do all of your yard work because he is also hard working and honest, except for that breaking in thingy. Can we just forget about that?
I know,….why don’t we call the break-in an "unconventional job search"?
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your
house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be here.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard working and honest, person, except for well, you know, the unconventional job search thingy.
And what a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
You don’t want to be a bigoted racist do you?
No? Good.
I’ll finish the dishes while my friend weed-eats.
After that, I’ll need a break to drop my kids off at Public School #123, and then go to the DMV to renew my driver’s license.
Tracy Phillips said:
Soooo.........
If the local sherrif implies, or even invites me to carry a concealed weapon without the legal formalities....
You see where I'm going with this?
If I manage to carry illegaly long enough that it becomes common knowledge that I do so, can we just give me immunity and a liscense?
After all, I been good.
Ain't shot nobody.
I'm not illegal, I'm just.....
an UNDOCUMENTED concealed weapon carrier right?
After all, the sherrif IMPLIED he would "look the other way".
If the local sherrif implies, or even invites me to carry a concealed weapon without the legal formalities....
You see where I'm going with this?
If I manage to carry illegaly long enough that it becomes common knowledge that I do so, can we just give me immunity and a liscense?
After all, I been good.
Ain't shot nobody.
I'm not illegal, I'm just.....
an UNDOCUMENTED concealed weapon carrier right?
After all, the sherrif IMPLIED he would "look the other way".
Vaughn Tolle said:
Tracy, saw the above while taking a break from that nasty thing called work, and so, will see if my distinction makes a substantive difference for you.
First, let it be clear I understand that the IP was addressing the issue of illegal aliens. So, a facile response would be that you're right, both are unlawful, and therefore should be treated the same.
But I'm seldom given to facile responses, so...
It is not "breaking and entering" for one to come into the property of another if there exists an invitation, expressed or implied. Thus, if the illegal alien is here due to being "invited" by a potential employer willing to violate the law, s/he has indeed committed an unlawful act, that is, crossing the border without compliance with the immigration law, but it isn't breaking and entering, a criminalization of the wrong known at common law as trespass. Thus, my belief that what we do to prevent the "breaking and entering" by stepped-up border enforcement preventing unlawful entry won't do a damn thing unless and until we do something to enforce the existing statutes prohibiting the employment, or in other words, cancel the invitation. Unless the invitation is canceled, then there cannot be a "breaking and entering".
Now, to go to your example, there is an invitation, taking your hypothetical, to carry concealed without the necessary permit. Again, there is a violation of the law; no question, but unless someone with authority stops the sheriff from issuing the invitation, and no one but the sheriff enforces the law, your likely to get away with it.
The difference here, to me, is that there exists another enforcement mechanism which potentially enforces the law against you; but where the enforcer (the federal government) is like the sheriff, not enforcing the immigration law against the employers, and, perhaps like the sheriff (although not stated in your hypothetical) dependent upon you, and others like you to retain the office, they and the workers here unlawfully will more likely than not continue to "get away with it" because there isn't any other potential enforcer present to prevent it.
Now, with all that out of the way, the rationale underlying my original post is that the "breaking and entering" analogy is wrong. Not that there should be different treatment for violators of the statutes, but rather that it is disingenuous to argue that those unlawfully here are no better than a burglar when no attempt is made to remove the incentive (the "invitation") to be here unlawfully. Should the invitation be revoked (to continue the analogy), then indeed the one here unlawfully is no more than a burglar, if those with the appropriate legal training will excuse the imperfect use of the term. Trivia: at common law, burglary was the crime committed by one who enters the dwelling house of another, at night, with the intent to commit a felony therein.
If you are still awake, I commend you.
First, let it be clear I understand that the IP was addressing the issue of illegal aliens. So, a facile response would be that you're right, both are unlawful, and therefore should be treated the same.
But I'm seldom given to facile responses, so...
It is not "breaking and entering" for one to come into the property of another if there exists an invitation, expressed or implied. Thus, if the illegal alien is here due to being "invited" by a potential employer willing to violate the law, s/he has indeed committed an unlawful act, that is, crossing the border without compliance with the immigration law, but it isn't breaking and entering, a criminalization of the wrong known at common law as trespass. Thus, my belief that what we do to prevent the "breaking and entering" by stepped-up border enforcement preventing unlawful entry won't do a damn thing unless and until we do something to enforce the existing statutes prohibiting the employment, or in other words, cancel the invitation. Unless the invitation is canceled, then there cannot be a "breaking and entering".
Now, to go to your example, there is an invitation, taking your hypothetical, to carry concealed without the necessary permit. Again, there is a violation of the law; no question, but unless someone with authority stops the sheriff from issuing the invitation, and no one but the sheriff enforces the law, your likely to get away with it.
The difference here, to me, is that there exists another enforcement mechanism which potentially enforces the law against you; but where the enforcer (the federal government) is like the sheriff, not enforcing the immigration law against the employers, and, perhaps like the sheriff (although not stated in your hypothetical) dependent upon you, and others like you to retain the office, they and the workers here unlawfully will more likely than not continue to "get away with it" because there isn't any other potential enforcer present to prevent it.
Now, with all that out of the way, the rationale underlying my original post is that the "breaking and entering" analogy is wrong. Not that there should be different treatment for violators of the statutes, but rather that it is disingenuous to argue that those unlawfully here are no better than a burglar when no attempt is made to remove the incentive (the "invitation") to be here unlawfully. Should the invitation be revoked (to continue the analogy), then indeed the one here unlawfully is no more than a burglar, if those with the appropriate legal training will excuse the imperfect use of the term. Trivia: at common law, burglary was the crime committed by one who enters the dwelling house of another, at night, with the intent to commit a felony therein.
If you are still awake, I commend you.
Vaughn Tolle said:
(Careening madly from topic to topic, a bit like a ball in a pinball machine totally out of control.....)
Speaking of the incentive to continue to invite the illegal aliens, today marks the effective date of the first step in the three step process to increase the federally mandated minimum wage. This step raises it to $5.85/hr. Now, tell me, will this result in increased "invitations", because I bet there are those who will continue to hire at the lower rate, relying on the obsolete notice poster, assuming the existence of the same in the workplace, if not lower. Will the illegal alien complain about the discrepancy? No, I think not. Meanwhile, the beat will go on about not being able to find anyone to fill the jobs, etc., etc. by those attempting to find some justification for their own violations of the statutes.
Speaking of the incentive to continue to invite the illegal aliens, today marks the effective date of the first step in the three step process to increase the federally mandated minimum wage. This step raises it to $5.85/hr. Now, tell me, will this result in increased "invitations", because I bet there are those who will continue to hire at the lower rate, relying on the obsolete notice poster, assuming the existence of the same in the workplace, if not lower. Will the illegal alien complain about the discrepancy? No, I think not. Meanwhile, the beat will go on about not being able to find anyone to fill the jobs, etc., etc. by those attempting to find some justification for their own violations of the statutes.
Vaughn Tolle said:
BTW, you may have noticed my propensity to use the adjective "unlawful" rather than "illegal". This is due to a law professor of mine who disdained the latter term, sneeringly remarking (in front of a class of 50 or so First Year Law Students who had been reduced to a quivering mass of gelatin) that "illegal" described a sick bird. Stuck with me, huh?
Tracy Phillips said:
When the law enforcement does not enforce the law,
it seems that EVERYONE (here legally) charged with a crime has a legitimate complaint.
That being, selective enforcement.
I'm not driving illegally, I'm just an undocumented motor vehicle operator...HA!
it seems that EVERYONE (here legally) charged with a crime has a legitimate complaint.
That being, selective enforcement.
I'm not driving illegally, I'm just an undocumented motor vehicle operator...HA!
Vaughn Tolle said:
Tracy, selective enforcement can be a "defense" in certain situations. Tough one to prove, but it's there, nonetheless.
Tracy Phillips said:
VT, I'm just a simple 'bottom line' guy.
The bottom line is, enforce the law.
Of course the law can be ammended.
We are a nation of laws,
poorly written and randomly enforced.
~~Frank Zappa~~
The bottom line is, enforce the law.
Of course the law can be ammended.
We are a nation of laws,
poorly written and randomly enforced.
~~Frank Zappa~~
Tracy Phillips said:
It just seems pretty easy to prove to me.
20 million people are here illegaly,
and we're fixen' to give them amnesty?
How about amnesty for all the pot smokers in jail right now?
(if possesion is their only crime)
20 million people are here illegaly,
and we're fixen' to give them amnesty?
How about amnesty for all the pot smokers in jail right now?
(if possesion is their only crime)
lindainks55 said:
From my perspective too many times law enforcement goes after the easy targets, doesn't have time for the more difficult and toots their horn all too loudly for this accomplishment.
Still have to (someday) tell you about my time on the wrong side of the law. I was not only an easy target, but someone (I suspect) saw me as easy dollars to spread around the system. What a nightmare! I have much less respect for LE and the system because of this incident.
Vaughn, you do an excellent job of explaining and helping see the less obvious.
Tracy, nothing is easy anymore. That which should be is the most difficult. The world is upside down, topsy turvy.
Still have to (someday) tell you about my time on the wrong side of the law. I was not only an easy target, but someone (I suspect) saw me as easy dollars to spread around the system. What a nightmare! I have much less respect for LE and the system because of this incident.
Vaughn, you do an excellent job of explaining and helping see the less obvious.
Tracy, nothing is easy anymore. That which should be is the most difficult. The world is upside down, topsy turvy.
Tracy Phillips said:
Linda, I too have a shitty story about L.E. abuse.
My ex-wife's little brother works for the KBI.
When he worked for the local sherrif, the little prick blatantly abused his position to help his sister get primary custody* (read as: child support).
I ended up getting probation out of the whole deal.
VT can attest to the fact that my sentence and probation terms were already decided behind the scenes, before I ever got to court.
The probation officer is a hardcore, by the books guy.
The kind that wooda got shot in the back in Nam.
Even he couldn't beleive the total abuse after he heard my story and checked the "facts".
First thing he did after that was cut my required visits with him from 1 weekly to 1 monthly.
The next time I saw him, he informed me that NEXT MONTH I would be having a SURPRISE urine test.
Yes, power corrupts.
Timmy, if you are still after me,
FUCK YOU.
I'm drug and alcohol free,
and legal in all respects that I am aware of.
My ex-wife's little brother works for the KBI.
When he worked for the local sherrif, the little prick blatantly abused his position to help his sister get primary custody* (read as: child support).
I ended up getting probation out of the whole deal.
VT can attest to the fact that my sentence and probation terms were already decided behind the scenes, before I ever got to court.
The probation officer is a hardcore, by the books guy.
The kind that wooda got shot in the back in Nam.
Even he couldn't beleive the total abuse after he heard my story and checked the "facts".
First thing he did after that was cut my required visits with him from 1 weekly to 1 monthly.
The next time I saw him, he informed me that NEXT MONTH I would be having a SURPRISE urine test.
Yes, power corrupts.
Timmy, if you are still after me,
FUCK YOU.
I'm drug and alcohol free,
and legal in all respects that I am aware of.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Yep, Tracy, that's generally the way (sentence and probation terms) it works, especially if there's a plea agreement involved. You didn't mention one, so I am not implying there was one, by the way. The reason this is so is due to the Sentencing Guidelines and the pre-sentencing report that are all part and parcel of the system.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Not suggesting at all this has anything to do with Tracy's situation, merely a hypothetical.
Facts: A & B are married, with children. One of them sues for divorce, and seeks primary (residential) custody of the children. The party seeking the residential custody of the children has a relative who is involved in L.E. S/he knows the other party has a tendency to occasionally use illegal drugs, or is prone to drinking a bit too much, from time to time. Set up the other party, compliments of the relative in L.E. for a bust. In domestic case, conveniently continued until after disposition of criminal matter, conviction is raised as a factor for the judge to consider on custody. Judge takes into consideration, determining that it is in the "best interests of the children" to not be placed in a residential situation where illegal drugs/abuse of alcohol is an issue, and so awards residential custody to the other party (never mind that s/he might not be the best parent, or that s/he has other issues for which s/he could be charged but is being protected by the L.E. relative). And, we have a winner!! (Actually, we have losers; both the set up parent, and the children. And the other spouse, to a degree as well. The only "winners" are the lawyers, if they are paid for their services.) Now, can we see why I avoid "Family Law" in my practice?
Facts: A & B are married, with children. One of them sues for divorce, and seeks primary (residential) custody of the children. The party seeking the residential custody of the children has a relative who is involved in L.E. S/he knows the other party has a tendency to occasionally use illegal drugs, or is prone to drinking a bit too much, from time to time. Set up the other party, compliments of the relative in L.E. for a bust. In domestic case, conveniently continued until after disposition of criminal matter, conviction is raised as a factor for the judge to consider on custody. Judge takes into consideration, determining that it is in the "best interests of the children" to not be placed in a residential situation where illegal drugs/abuse of alcohol is an issue, and so awards residential custody to the other party (never mind that s/he might not be the best parent, or that s/he has other issues for which s/he could be charged but is being protected by the L.E. relative). And, we have a winner!! (Actually, we have losers; both the set up parent, and the children. And the other spouse, to a degree as well. The only "winners" are the lawyers, if they are paid for their services.) Now, can we see why I avoid "Family Law" in my practice?
Tracy Phillips said:
VT just described what happened.
Only NO names have been changed.
Uncle Timmy was talking to an 8 year old kid, just as good 'ol loving, caring uncle Timmy........
right.
That was twenty years ago, and the crooked bastard MOVED RIGHT UP THE L.E. ladder.
Ya' know, his stewpud sister attended the court hearing. I pled guilt to possesion of less than 1 GRAM of pot. The plea was for paraphenalia, of course.
One pack of single wide tobacco papers.
This hearing was ONLY about possesion.
Here's the kicker....
When the proceedings were over, the Judge asked if there were any questions. The dumb bitch raised her hand and said, "How much will my child support be?"
(She was also intoxicated at the time, and did not understand what was going on. SHEESH)
Only NO names have been changed.
Uncle Timmy was talking to an 8 year old kid, just as good 'ol loving, caring uncle Timmy........
right.
That was twenty years ago, and the crooked bastard MOVED RIGHT UP THE L.E. ladder.
Ya' know, his stewpud sister attended the court hearing. I pled guilt to possesion of less than 1 GRAM of pot. The plea was for paraphenalia, of course.
One pack of single wide tobacco papers.
This hearing was ONLY about possesion.
Here's the kicker....
When the proceedings were over, the Judge asked if there were any questions. The dumb bitch raised her hand and said, "How much will my child support be?"
(She was also intoxicated at the time, and did not understand what was going on. SHEESH)
lindainks55 said:
Do they keep some sort of running tally and need to improve their "conviction" rate in order to continue or increase funding? This is how it seems to be. It also seems they make it easy to re-offend. Thus the tally is improved and the person who might have made enough mistakes to be "in the system" can't get out and get on with their lives. The system seems to hold on, discourage and hound until some become what the system needs -- a repeat offender.
My youngest son is an alcoholic; that's the way "I" see it, not him. Thus the problem I see will probably continue. He's a good man, one of those who haven't ever owned a shirt because he gives it to anyone who might need it. Sometimes I think he is avoiding taking on his own problems which overwhelm him by taking care of anyone / everyone else to the extent he can. Makes him feel much-needed satisfaction in accomplishment.
Anyway, he has a long-term relationship with LE. Mostly traffic (including DUI), one possession, and at one point was charged with (thankfully never convicted) a felony domestic violence charge. The kinds of people he is all-too often with sometimes are violent and take everyone down when they're going down. Through the years he has been a guest of Sedgwick County several times.
When he has straightened up for a period, is gainfully employed, seems to be looking people straight in the eye with some sort of respect for himself his unresolved problems with the law keep him down and discouraged. One day in October of 2005 he asked me to drive him to a meeting with a probation officer. He had accepted a plea bargain on that domestic violence charge which made it a misdemeanor and put him on probation for one year. The monies he didn't have were spread around in the requirements to pay for treatment (both for substance and another for conflict resolution) and all sorts of rigamaroll that ensured several parts of "the system" shared in revenue and he had so many appointments to make he couldn't be at work regularly all day... Part of keeping him "in the system" in my opinion.
His probation officer (a young woman) had called him AT WORK a few days before and told him he needed to present himself within some short amount of time (can't remember, but that day during work hours) for a drug screen. He explained he didn't have a car and wasn't sure the bus would get him there in the time allowed and that his employer had him on warning about his attendance.
I know, I know. Everyone reading this can see that I'm making excuses and probably am a big part of his inability to get past all this due to being the very best enabler there ever has been. Guilty as charged!
So I've told you waaay more than needed to be told. All without mentining the color dress I was wearing so take comfort I could have made this even longer and more boring before I got to the point.
I drive him to the probation officer and sure enough she has filed a bench warrant as she promised because he didn't come in when she called and told him to come in. So he goes off to jail.
I don't want him to lose everything he has. I hope when all this is over he will still own a bed and a couch and clothes and what it takes to set up independent housekeeping... So, the next day I go to the jail and sign the papers and wait and wait until they release his "property" to me which includes a key to his apartment. His rent is only paid through about the next 10 days and since I'm not enough of an enabler to pay his bond he will still be in jail until his scheduled court date in about a month.
I go to his apartment and begin packing. I've made arrangements for a truck and have men to lift heavy stuff. I'm packing in preparation to move everything to my garage / basement. From back in the bedroom of this tiny apartment I hear a woman's voice ask, "Who's here, what's going on?" Thinking it might be the apartment mgr. I come into the front room and see a young woman who has been inandoutinandout of son's life for the last few years. She is a co-drunk and they've gone on a journey from bad to worse together -- neither good for the other... Anyway, I tell her to leave, she starts off on a tirade of words no one needs to hear. I placed one hand (palms open) on each of her shoulders and while she walked a few steps backwards I guided her to the doorway. I didn't even need to push because she walked backwards, spewing obscenities, out the door to the landing of this second floor apartment. I hadn't locked myself in and she had walked in without knocking.
She is now outside the locked apartment door yelling she wants a sack of her things she left there, I will let her in or she will call the police AND if she calls them I WILL BE REALLY SORRY because she will have visible signs of my abuse to show "the cops." She even knew the legal words I would ultimately be charged with. Oh, how dumb I was / am!
I never stepped out of the apartment. I kept packing and ignored her pounding on the door and yelling. Within an hour there was a knock at the door accompanied by a man's voice identifying himself as Wichita Police. He asked what was going on, I told him. Weeeeellll, she had a much different story, had (typing from incident report: "VI / (her name) RPTS SI / (MY NAME) pushing and scratching her, causing minor visible injuries, in the presence of (two names listed) at listed time, date and location. Photos taken. *WRT*
I'll wrap this up. I had never been out of that apartment, not even an inch. I did touch her and under City Code Section 5.10.020 Battery deemed misdemeanor, any person who ... causes physical contact with another person when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This is punished by fine of not more than one thousand dollars or one year imprisonment or both...
I did touch her and I was angry and I did admit that to the officer. I didn't scratch her (also didn't push her to the ground or any of the other accusations) but she said I did and (GET THIS!) had two witnesses! Two women friends were down in the car waiting and although no contact occurred between her and I outside that apartment they evidently can see through walls and witnessed what she said happened.
So I was charged with 0510020A1 Battery Bodily Harm.
The way I found this out was about 10 days after the incident I was online looking for info on son's case (he is in jail remember) and found a warrant issued IN MY NAME. My birthdate, my address, this was ME. I called the warrant office, went to the warrant office to sign for a court date. I'm gonna stop now (IF ANYONE is still reading!)
It took longer because stupid ME thought I could go tell a judge the truth and this would be ended. NOPE! I was guilty. Truly, I was guilty. I hired a lawyer, paid him instead of any potential fine, the charges were dismissed. But all this took several months, three court appearances (well, showing up when SHE didn't and having it continued) and although I don't expect anyone to understand it wasn't a good time in my life. Municipal Court isn't a pleasant place to hang out.
The final day at this horrible place ONE OF HER WITNESSES showed up. She was asked to point me out (I was seated among all others in the spectator (probably not right term) part of the courtroom. She couldn't. She hadn't ever seen me actually. Anyway, that's when the charges were dismissed.
So began and ended my life as a criminal. (I hope!) I promise to be a good girl and never touch anyone without their permission. Especially not someone who knows the system.
My youngest son is an alcoholic; that's the way "I" see it, not him. Thus the problem I see will probably continue. He's a good man, one of those who haven't ever owned a shirt because he gives it to anyone who might need it. Sometimes I think he is avoiding taking on his own problems which overwhelm him by taking care of anyone / everyone else to the extent he can. Makes him feel much-needed satisfaction in accomplishment.
Anyway, he has a long-term relationship with LE. Mostly traffic (including DUI), one possession, and at one point was charged with (thankfully never convicted) a felony domestic violence charge. The kinds of people he is all-too often with sometimes are violent and take everyone down when they're going down. Through the years he has been a guest of Sedgwick County several times.
When he has straightened up for a period, is gainfully employed, seems to be looking people straight in the eye with some sort of respect for himself his unresolved problems with the law keep him down and discouraged. One day in October of 2005 he asked me to drive him to a meeting with a probation officer. He had accepted a plea bargain on that domestic violence charge which made it a misdemeanor and put him on probation for one year. The monies he didn't have were spread around in the requirements to pay for treatment (both for substance and another for conflict resolution) and all sorts of rigamaroll that ensured several parts of "the system" shared in revenue and he had so many appointments to make he couldn't be at work regularly all day... Part of keeping him "in the system" in my opinion.
His probation officer (a young woman) had called him AT WORK a few days before and told him he needed to present himself within some short amount of time (can't remember, but that day during work hours) for a drug screen. He explained he didn't have a car and wasn't sure the bus would get him there in the time allowed and that his employer had him on warning about his attendance.
I know, I know. Everyone reading this can see that I'm making excuses and probably am a big part of his inability to get past all this due to being the very best enabler there ever has been. Guilty as charged!
So I've told you waaay more than needed to be told. All without mentining the color dress I was wearing so take comfort I could have made this even longer and more boring before I got to the point.
I drive him to the probation officer and sure enough she has filed a bench warrant as she promised because he didn't come in when she called and told him to come in. So he goes off to jail.
I don't want him to lose everything he has. I hope when all this is over he will still own a bed and a couch and clothes and what it takes to set up independent housekeeping... So, the next day I go to the jail and sign the papers and wait and wait until they release his "property" to me which includes a key to his apartment. His rent is only paid through about the next 10 days and since I'm not enough of an enabler to pay his bond he will still be in jail until his scheduled court date in about a month.
I go to his apartment and begin packing. I've made arrangements for a truck and have men to lift heavy stuff. I'm packing in preparation to move everything to my garage / basement. From back in the bedroom of this tiny apartment I hear a woman's voice ask, "Who's here, what's going on?" Thinking it might be the apartment mgr. I come into the front room and see a young woman who has been inandoutinandout of son's life for the last few years. She is a co-drunk and they've gone on a journey from bad to worse together -- neither good for the other... Anyway, I tell her to leave, she starts off on a tirade of words no one needs to hear. I placed one hand (palms open) on each of her shoulders and while she walked a few steps backwards I guided her to the doorway. I didn't even need to push because she walked backwards, spewing obscenities, out the door to the landing of this second floor apartment. I hadn't locked myself in and she had walked in without knocking.
She is now outside the locked apartment door yelling she wants a sack of her things she left there, I will let her in or she will call the police AND if she calls them I WILL BE REALLY SORRY because she will have visible signs of my abuse to show "the cops." She even knew the legal words I would ultimately be charged with. Oh, how dumb I was / am!
I never stepped out of the apartment. I kept packing and ignored her pounding on the door and yelling. Within an hour there was a knock at the door accompanied by a man's voice identifying himself as Wichita Police. He asked what was going on, I told him. Weeeeellll, she had a much different story, had (typing from incident report: "VI / (her name) RPTS SI / (MY NAME) pushing and scratching her, causing minor visible injuries, in the presence of (two names listed) at listed time, date and location. Photos taken. *WRT*
I'll wrap this up. I had never been out of that apartment, not even an inch. I did touch her and under City Code Section 5.10.020 Battery deemed misdemeanor, any person who ... causes physical contact with another person when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This is punished by fine of not more than one thousand dollars or one year imprisonment or both...
I did touch her and I was angry and I did admit that to the officer. I didn't scratch her (also didn't push her to the ground or any of the other accusations) but she said I did and (GET THIS!) had two witnesses! Two women friends were down in the car waiting and although no contact occurred between her and I outside that apartment they evidently can see through walls and witnessed what she said happened.
So I was charged with 0510020A1 Battery Bodily Harm.
The way I found this out was about 10 days after the incident I was online looking for info on son's case (he is in jail remember) and found a warrant issued IN MY NAME. My birthdate, my address, this was ME. I called the warrant office, went to the warrant office to sign for a court date. I'm gonna stop now (IF ANYONE is still reading!)
It took longer because stupid ME thought I could go tell a judge the truth and this would be ended. NOPE! I was guilty. Truly, I was guilty. I hired a lawyer, paid him instead of any potential fine, the charges were dismissed. But all this took several months, three court appearances (well, showing up when SHE didn't and having it continued) and although I don't expect anyone to understand it wasn't a good time in my life. Municipal Court isn't a pleasant place to hang out.
The final day at this horrible place ONE OF HER WITNESSES showed up. She was asked to point me out (I was seated among all others in the spectator (probably not right term) part of the courtroom. She couldn't. She hadn't ever seen me actually. Anyway, that's when the charges were dismissed.
So began and ended my life as a criminal. (I hope!) I promise to be a good girl and never touch anyone without their permission. Especially not someone who knows the system.
Loading....