beamishbo

beamishbo t1_j7g1kb2 wrote

Reply to comment by Remerez in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

So is the article. It's also extremely poorly researched, which is the worst offense, because it would have taken perhaps 30 minutes of research to verify some of the things it asserts as fact.

9

beamishbo t1_j7e4rh2 wrote

Reply to comment by instantcoffee69 in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

Here's my hot take, which I'm guessing will get downvoted into oblivion.

The article came out on Wednesday, and didn't mention anything about the evidentiary hearing on Friday. That information was provided in the comment added on Thursday.

That hearing was, like everything else that happens in every court except juvenile court, a matter of public record. As would have been anything filed by either the defense attorney or the prosecutor in the matter.

Presumably, information would have come out at that hearing about what was in that call and why officers responded the way they did. RTD chose not to report on this and we don't have any information about what happened at that hearing.

This article reads like there is a lot of information missing, yet people seem very eager to fill in the gaps - as we can see from your comment that the cops "arrested a random black dude."

The article also can't decide if it wants to praise the prosecutor for dismissing bogus charges or condemn them along with the entire system. Its .. a weird and confusing article.

28

beamishbo t1_j7e37we wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

Where are you getting the idea that the police failed to disclose the reason for the call, or the idea that the call didn't match the person who was arrested? None of that is even alluded to in the article. The only thing mentioned is the fact that a judge ruled the context of the call inadmissible the Friday before.

5

beamishbo t1_j7e3317 wrote

Reply to comment by MsKawasaki in RPD lies again! by MeanMasheen5

He's correct though. Charges can be brought a few ways - a basic search in the court system (public record) shows this case was brought on warrant and made it though general district court up to circuit. That means the prosecutor and at least one judge thought there was probable cause for the assault - presumably before the 911 call was ruled inadmissible.

−3

beamishbo t1_isopxgu wrote

So .

We had this issue for years in a rental. Had them removed, hole patched, and less than a year later they were back. My understanding after having a professional inspector come out is that unless you actually go in and clean out the area where they were staying (new insulation etc) they will keep coming back.

Never hated squirrels until we had attic squirrels. Good luck.

4