If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Utah Daily Herald Extra)   If you have an outstanding warrant for rape, you may want to avoid flirting with a uniformed police officer   (heraldextra.com) divider line 190
    More: Dumbass, police officers, arrest warrants, rapes  
•       •       •

6176 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2012 at 9:54 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-11 09:55:27 AM
Got it!
 
2012-01-11 09:56:34 AM
I guess a perk of being a female cop is that you can do background checks on guys who hit on you.
 
2012-01-11 09:58:10 AM
A) This guy is an idiot
B) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)
C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!
 
2012-01-11 09:58:42 AM
Dude was definitely barking up the wrong tree. Why not go hit on the softball team, or any chick in SF driving a Subaru. Pffff.
 
2012-01-11 09:58:52 AM

imprimere: A) This guy is an idiot
B) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)
C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!


She's on duty, she did the right thing.
 
2012-01-11 09:59:47 AM

Tat'dGreaser: imprimere: A) This guy is an idiot
B) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)
C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.


You can't be serious?
 
2012-01-11 09:59:51 AM

imprimere: C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!


She asked him for his name, he was dumb enough to give his full, real name to her. That kind of stupidity should be criminal anyway.
 
2012-01-11 10:00:57 AM

Tat'dGreaser: imprimere: A) This guy is an idiot
B) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)
C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.


Running a background check on a citizen for talking to you is the right thing?
 
2012-01-11 10:01:44 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: imprimere: C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She asked him for his name, he was dumb enough to give his full, real name to her. That kind of stupidity should be criminal anyway.


A) This guy is an idiot

Covered that.
 
2012-01-11 10:02:35 AM
They Thought They Were Free
 
2012-01-11 10:02:38 AM
Wow, that pretty much sums up the American justice system right there. The guy only has an outstanding warrant. He hasn't been convicted much less even had a trial. And there's this cop assuming that he's guilty and refusing to give him a chance. It's so typical that it makes me sick.
 
2012-01-11 10:03:03 AM

imprimere: Tat'dGreaser: imprimere: A) This guy is an idiot
B) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)
C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.

You can't be serious?


I'd bet that every woman who has ever worn a badge has run a background check on a guy who hit on her. It's a logical thing to do to avoid guys like this.
 
2012-01-11 10:03:51 AM
We'll have to bring in expert Whoopi Goldberg to determine which type of rape it was.
 
2012-01-11 10:04:47 AM

Tat'dGreaser: imprimere: A) This guy is an idiot
B) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)
C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.


Can you show me the law that says you are not allowed to flirt with a cop?
 
2012-01-11 10:07:24 AM
Jesus fark the Fark he-man woman-haters hate train is off and running. Cops *always* do this while on duty. Years ago I missed the last bus home and asked one for directions, he got suspicious (because sleeping through an hour bus ride to and from work I should totally know the walking directions) and 'offered me a ride home'. Which was mostly just an excuse to get the long hair in the back of the cruiser, run my ID 'because we have to do that any time we get someone in the car' and ask if he could 'take a look through my bag, just procedure you know?'. He was kinda pissed and silent during the ride when it turned out he didn't have an excuse to do anything but take me where he said he was going to. The advice in the headline is correct, if you're going to be a criminal, don't make it so damn easy for them. They do this, because sadly, there are a significant number of idiots who do just that. End of the day, it's no different than running plates as they're sitting in traffic and having one come up 'ticket issued yesterday for reckless driving-suspended license' and going...'Hmmm...I wonder.'
 
2012-01-11 10:09:17 AM

cgraves67: imprimere: Tat'dGreaser: imprimere: A) This guy is an idiot
B) This guy is probably scum-of-the-earth (if he's guilty of rape)
C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!
She's on duty, she did the right thing.
You can't be serious?
I'd bet that every woman who has ever worn a badge has run a background check on a guy who hit on her. It's a logical thing to do to avoid guys like this.


Back in J. Edgar Hoover's era, FBI agents were required to run background checks on the broads in whom they were interested, so as to neither embarrass the bureau by being caught dating a criminal, nor be lured into a honey trap by a foreign agent.
 
2012-01-11 10:11:06 AM
You know, I'll probably get a lot of flame out of this one but why isn't this database available to *all* of us?

I know a lot of fathers/brothers/etc. would feel a *little* better knowing their daughter/sister/etc. was dating someone who *didn't* turn up with a police background check for rape.

Why is this limited to only cops or people who *pay* for a background check on someone? Or am I just unaware of some free facility that's hard to find because the government is running it?

/and don't give me that privacy crap, I could turn up in a public court and watch this guy's trial if I wanted to, no one said they are guilty, but many of us would like to know at least *who* has an outstanding charge for rape.
 
2012-01-11 10:11:44 AM

Mr. Cat Poop: Running a background check on a citizen for talking to you is the right thing?


Guy is being shady, she runs his name. What have you never talked to the cops before?

This would be a completely different story if she hit on him back.
 
2012-01-11 10:11:48 AM

spentmiles: Wow, that pretty much sums up the American justice system right there. The guy only has an outstanding warrant. He hasn't been convicted much less even had a trial. And there's this cop assuming that he's guilty and refusing to give him a chance. It's so typical that it makes me sick.


or, we could not punish people for their outstanding warrants, and the justice system could collapse because avoiding criminal liability is as easy as not showing up for your trial.

warrants become outstanding when you fail to appear (not because you're guilty). Perhaps it's sad, but when you are accused you have to show up and defend yourself. I can't think of a functioning penal system that requires much less (unless you want everyone to sit in jail from the time of arrest to trial... which is a greater infringement of the rights of the accused)
 
2012-01-11 10:12:07 AM

imprimere: C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.

Can you show me the law that says you are not allowed to flirt with a cop?


My guess is that the guy was creepy and she figured there was something off. Whatever prompted her to bother, she was right to do so.

Also, when you have an outstanding warrant, nobody has to "find a reason" to run you in. The fact that you exist is now the reason. If he hadn't had a warrant, nothing would have happened.
 
2012-01-11 10:13:39 AM
It's her f*cking job to find criminals. One just happened to walk up and hit on her. She did a good job. If you don't like it, don't hit on a f*cking uniformed officer you idiot.
 
2012-01-11 10:16:15 AM

Gabrielmot: You know, I'll probably get a lot of flame out of this one but why isn't this database available to *all* of us?

I know a lot of fathers/brothers/etc. would feel a *little* better knowing their daughter/sister/etc. was dating someone who *didn't* turn up with a police background check for rape.

Why is this limited to only cops or people who *pay* for a background check on someone? Or am I just unaware of some free facility that's hard to find because the government is running it?

/and don't give me that privacy crap, I could turn up in a public court and watch this guy's trial if I wanted to, no one said they are guilty, but many of us would like to know at least *who* has an outstanding charge for rape.


The problem is that she wasn't even considering dating this guy. According to the article, she said she wasn't interested and then ran a check.

Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?
 
2012-01-11 10:16:37 AM

Gabrielmot: You know, I'll probably get a lot of flame out of this one but why isn't this database available to *all* of us?

I know a lot of fathers/brothers/etc. would feel a *little* better knowing their daughter/sister/etc. was dating someone who *didn't* turn up with a police background check for rape.

Why is this limited to only cops or people who *pay* for a background check on someone? Or am I just unaware of some free facility that's hard to find because the government is running it?

/and don't give me that privacy crap, I could turn up in a public court and watch this guy's trial if I wanted to, no one said they are guilty, but many of us would like to know at least *who* has an outstanding charge for rape.


they have not been proven guilty; the publication could (1) contaminate or bias any potential jurors or triers of fact at his trial, (2) punish the accused without due process of law, and (3) privacy is actually a big deal.
 
2012-01-11 10:16:54 AM
He's going to get many chances to date in lock-up, and raped.
 
2012-01-11 10:17:39 AM
And seriously, in case the tone of the rest of my comment doesn't show it enough, I'm not usually going to be siding with the cops. Ever. They've farked over a friend of mine who seriously needed their help, and unless and until I see society do something to atone for that, and I mean a serious, hardcore, cop took a bullet for a kitten balancing of scales, fark all of them.

But not for this. It's just kind of part and parcel of the job.
 
2012-01-11 10:19:40 AM

imprimere: Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?


Yes. Absolutely and without question. Why on Earth would it not be? Explain your reasoning.
 
2012-01-11 10:21:02 AM

freewill: imprimere: C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.

Can you show me the law that says you are not allowed to flirt with a cop?

My guess is that the guy was creepy and she figured there was something off. Whatever prompted her to bother, she was right to do so.


So, being 'creepy' is now against the law?

Also, when you have an outstanding warrant, nobody has to "find a reason" to run you in. The fact that you exist is now the reason. If he hadn't had a warrant, nothing would have happened.

Ah, the old 'if you have nothing to hide' argument. So, why not have officers run checks on everyone they come in contact with? Why not have them stop people at random and run checks? Why don't we have to carry papers at all times to show that we have nothing to hide?
 
2012-01-11 10:25:58 AM

freewill: imprimere: Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?

Yes. Absolutely and without question. Why on Earth would it not be? Explain your reasoning.


So, a cop should run a background check on everyone they come in contact with? They should spend their entire shift just running background checks on every person they see?

By your reasoning, it would be perfectly OK for everyone to be made to wear electronic bracelets that transmit their names and locations. This could be fed to a computer that makes pepetual checks. After all, this is just streamlining the process of what you clearly think is OK.
 
2012-01-11 10:26:08 AM
What do you think cops do when they're sitting at a red light? They're farking running the plates of the farker in front 'em!

Cops go fishing all the time, fact of life. This guy sleazed up to a parked cop and git busted for a warrant. I'd say that's a pretty logical sequence of events.
 
2012-01-11 10:26:49 AM

imprimere: Ah, the old 'if you have nothing to hide' argument. So, why not have officers run checks on everyone they come in contact with?

They do, you're an idiot.

Why not have them stop people at random and run checks?
You really think they care about your dim tail light, or the depth of the treads on your tire when they pull you over? You're an idiot.

Why don't we have to carry papers at all times to show that we have nothing to hide?
You're also an over-reacting nancy-boy idiot.
 
2012-01-11 10:28:51 AM
Only on fark does a sleazy rapist jerk become the victim of cop-hate.

/Really?
 
2012-01-11 10:28:54 AM
Not sure if troll or not..
 
2012-01-11 10:30:29 AM

loaba: What do you think cops do when they're sitting at a red light? They're farking running the plates of the farker in front 'em!

Cops go fishing all the time, fact of life. This guy sleazed up to a parked cop and git busted for a warrant. I'd say that's a pretty logical sequence of events.

 
2012-01-11 10:30:50 AM

annitabonghit: Not sure if troll or not..


quote fail... leaving with head hung low.
 
2012-01-11 10:31:27 AM

LowbrowDeluxe: imprimere: Ah, the old 'if you have nothing to hide' argument. So, why not have officers run checks on everyone they come in contact with?
They do, you're an idiot.

Why not have them stop people at random and run checks?
You really think they care about your dim tail light, or the depth of the treads on your tire when they pull you over? You're an idiot.

Why don't we have to carry papers at all times to show that we have nothing to hide?
You're also an over-reacting nancy-boy idiot.


You are so compelling in your arguments and name-calling. You sure showed me.

So, cops abuse their authority. It happens all the time, so logically, it must be OK. And I'm the idiot.

I truly hope whatever happened to your friend happens to you in an amplified manner. Hell, sounds like your friend deserved it. I don't see how the cops could have possibly done anything wrong.
 
2012-01-11 10:32:55 AM

loaba: Only on fark does a sleazy rapist jerk become the victim of cop-hate.

/Really?


You don't have to defend one to hate the other.
 
2012-01-11 10:33:07 AM
Finally, an argument.

imprimere: Ah, the old 'if you have nothing to hide' argument.


No, it isn't that argument at all. A warrant is an order for your arrest. If that order had not been given, he would not have been arrested. There doesn't have to be a law against flirting with the officer because there is probable cause to arrest him for something else.

The only reason the officer has to run a name is because they are unable to memorize all of the warrants. If there were only three warrants and they learned all of their names that morning, would you still see a problem with her busting him when she recognized it?

So, why not have officers run checks on everyone they come in contact with?

Many do exactly this.

Why not have them stop people at random and run checks? Why don't we have to carry papers at all times to show that we have nothing to hide?

Apples and oranges, totally dishonest argument. There was no search. He was not stopped. He happily gave her his name trying to get laid, and, in doing so, happily informed the police of the location of a wanted suspect. It wasn't even a trick, like those "you have won a prize" letters designed to lure wanted suspects out of homes that the police can't search. He was speaking directly to an officer in uniform.

Zero sympathy.
 
2012-01-11 10:34:42 AM

imprimere: freewill: imprimere: C) What a coont of a cop! This guy is flirting with me, I better find a reason to run him in!

She's on duty, she did the right thing.

Can you show me the law that says you are not allowed to flirt with a cop?

My guess is that the guy was creepy and she figured there was something off. Whatever prompted her to bother, she was right to do so.

So, being 'creepy' is now against the law?

Also, when you have an outstanding warrant, nobody has to "find a reason" to run you in. The fact that you exist is now the reason. If he hadn't had a warrant, nothing would have happened.

Ah, the old 'if you have nothing to hide' argument. So, why not have officers run checks on everyone they come in contact with? Why not have them stop people at random and run checks? Why don't we have to carry papers at all times to show that we have nothing to hide?


So you're fine with people that MAY have commited rape (possibly even rape rape) running loose with out a trial or anything?

How do you stand on people that may have commited murder? Are you ok with them running around?

It's not like she picked some random guy off the street and made up charges to get him arrested.

An idiot hit on a UNIFORMED cop. Something about the guy struck her odd. She checked him out. Found out her had AN OUTSTANDING WARRANT for rape. Then arrested him for the OUTSTANDING WARRANT.

And to answer your question, no, being creepy is not against the law. But seeing how she didn't arrest him for being "creepy", I don't see the reason for your question.

Now if you seem creepy, then yes by all means. I want the cops to check the person out. That's their job. THEIR JOB! If someone seems "creepy", "suspect", "shifty", or whatever, they should check the person out.

It's called police work. That's kinda what police are supposed to do.

I know. If the police didn't catch him in the middle of raping someone, then they shouldn't do anything.

Having typed all this, I'm now wondering if I bit at a Troll... hmmmmm
 
2012-01-11 10:35:29 AM

imprimere: freewill: imprimere: Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?

Yes. Absolutely and without question. Why on Earth would it not be? Explain your reasoning.

So, a cop should run a background check on everyone they come in contact with? They should spend their entire shift just running background checks on every person they see?

By your reasoning, it would be perfectly OK for everyone to be made to wear electronic bracelets that transmit their names and locations. This could be fed to a computer that makes pepetual checks. After all, this is just streamlining the process of what you clearly think is OK.


They do run checks on everyone they come in contact with. They run them on the guy in front of them at a light, they run them on the guy who pulls over to change a blown tire, and they probably run them on the lady in front of them at the McDonalds drive-thru. If you call 911, they run a check on you before they arrive at the scene of the emergency, be it an auto accident, a crime in progress, or a kitten stuck in a tree.

Why? Because they can. Because they really don't have much else to do besides running a radar gun. Because many criminals have been caught that way.
 
2012-01-11 10:35:52 AM

imprimere: Gabrielmot: You know, I'll probably get a lot of flame out of this one but why isn't this database available to *all* of us?

I know a lot of fathers/brothers/etc. would feel a *little* better knowing their daughter/sister/etc. was dating someone who *didn't* turn up with a police background check for rape.

Why is this limited to only cops or people who *pay* for a background check on someone? Or am I just unaware of some free facility that's hard to find because the government is running it?

/and don't give me that privacy crap, I could turn up in a public court and watch this guy's trial if I wanted to, no one said they are guilty, but many of us would like to know at least *who* has an outstanding charge for rape.

The problem is that she wasn't even considering dating this guy. According to the article, she said she wasn't interested and then ran a check.

Let's say that she went to her local doughnut shop. For whatever reason, she runs a background check on the guy behind the counter who is serving her. It turns out that he has a warrant for rape. She busts him. Is this perfectly OK?


Yes, but not for the reason you think. Once a bench warrant has been issued for someone, it is the duty of any law enforcement officer that comes into contact with them to take them immediately into custody and deliver them to the issuing court (in medieval times, under the doctrine of "hue and cry" it would have been YOUR job as well). Running a search of a police maintianed database is not a "Search" under any meaning of the term found in the Fourth Amendment. Therefore cops can run a search on that database whenver they please. they could for instance, assign an officer to search every name mentioned in the morning newspaper if they so desired.

There's no "right not to be arrested pursuant to a valid warrant" found in the 4th amendment nor in the 14th's protection of the right to privacy
 
2012-01-11 10:40:00 AM
imprimere: loaba: Only on fark does a sleazy rapist jerk become the victim of cop-hate.

/Really?

You don't have to defend one to hate the other.



Sorry - I'm with FreeYOURwillY on this. Dude has a warrant (and farking knows it) and he still chesters up to a police car to make time with the lady cop. Dude is an idiot and he got what he deserved.

/ seriously kids, when you have a warrant it would be really smart to avoid the cops. Just say'n.
 
2012-01-11 10:42:11 AM

imprimere: So, a cop should run a background check on everyone they come in contact with? They should spend their entire shift just running background checks on every person they see?


Think about what you're actually arguing, here.

A warrant has been issued because prior police work has already established that there is probable cause to arrest this person for a crime. You claim that no officer should check for outstanding warrants without further cause.

In other words, you can rape someone, have evidence against you that leads to the issuance of a warrant, and as long as you stay out of trouble after that, you believe that you should be able to walk around free, casually chatting up the police at every turn, and expect that you will not be identified and arrested.

If that's not what you're arguing, tell us.
 
2012-01-11 10:42:53 AM
Another person goes on the list of Grade-A Stupid.
 
2012-01-11 10:43:33 AM
"So, a cop should run a background check on everyone they come in contact with? They should spend their entire shift just running background checks on every person they see?"

Most departments make a minimum number of "contacts" a part of their officers' performance evaluations.

As its' been mentioned, they run a background check on you regardless of reason of contact. example - about six weeks ago, my teenage sons' jeep sheared a drive belt and he called me to pull him home. While we were hooking the chains up, the local po-po came by the scene and waited behind us till we got the vehicles off the road. Before that, the first thing he did was run both our licenses.

It may be shiatty, but its' standard procedure. Their job is to put people in jail, duh.
 
2012-01-11 10:46:12 AM
Please stop using the term "background check" when referring to what she did. A background check provides you with an entire criminal history of a subject, and that kind of request needs to be approved by a supervisor and the proper paperwork has to be completed.

She ran a warrant check on this guy... a request through NCIC to see if the guy currently has an outstanding warrant. The answer you get back from NCIC is a simple "yes or no." It's not an invasion of privacy... she didn't learn anything about his criminal history or what kind of groceries he buys.

How does checking to see if someone has an active arrest warrant invade their privacy?
 
2012-01-11 10:46:56 AM
"Apples and oranges, totally dishonest argument. There was no search. He was not stopped. He happily gave her his name trying to get laid"

IMO, you're a damn fool if you try to hit on/flirt with/date/etc someone who has the power to take away your freedom and even your life.

I dont' care how hot she/he may be..........
 
2012-01-11 10:47:49 AM

spentmiles: Wow, that pretty much sums up the American justice system right there. The guy only has an outstanding warrant. He hasn't been convicted much less even had a trial. And there's this cop assuming that he's guilty and refusing to give him a chance. It's so typical that it makes me sick.


Say what? Let's give you a quick lesson in the American justice system. A judge must issue a warrant for arrest. Once that warrant is issued, all peace officers are required by law to apprehend and arrest the said individual. Note that after the arrest, the police have finished their business in said case. The accused is then arraigned in a court of law to determine if there is sufficient evidence to bound the accused over for trial. If there isn't, he is released. If bound over, he may or may not be granted release on bail, but this has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, but only if he is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The decision for this is strictly the judges. A prosecutor may make a recommendation, but that is all it is. Later there is a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
 
2012-01-11 10:49:27 AM
Mr. Cat Poop: "Running a background check on a citizen for talking to you is the right thing?"

If they're being obnoxious, suspicious or creepy, sure.
We have no idea if the *only* thing this guy did draw attention to himself was hit on the cop.
 
2012-01-11 10:51:17 AM

JackieRabbit: spentmiles: Wow, that pretty much sums up the American justice system right there. The guy only has an outstanding warrant. He hasn't been convicted much less even had a trial. And there's this cop assuming that he's guilty and refusing to give him a chance. It's so typical that it makes me sick.

Say what? Let's give you a quick lesson in the American justice system. A judge must issue a warrant for arrest. Once that warrant is issued, all peace officers are required by law to apprehend and arrest the said individual. Note that after the arrest, the police have finished their business in said case. The accused is then arraigned in a court of law to determine if there is sufficient evidence to bound the accused over for trial. If there isn't, he is released. If bound over, he may or may not be granted release on bail, but this has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, but only if he is a flight risk or a danger to the community. The decision for this is strictly the judges. A prosecutor may make a recommendation, but that is all it is. Later there is a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.


DUN-DUN
 
2012-01-11 10:51:54 AM

Brother Head: being creepy is not against the law.


Thank God.
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report