Arrested for possession and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia? Check. Resist arrest? Check. Hey, lets plan on claiming sexual assault as part of a master plan to escape custody.
Bobby Waddle decided to file the false report of sexual assault, so he would be taken to the hospital, which worked, but he didn't count on being guarded at the emergency room for more than eight hours. That appears to be where his "plan" went awry.
As he was being examined at the hospital deputies reviewed security tapes, interviewed other offenders and listened to visitation and telephone conversations. Police realized that no one but Mr. Waddle was in his cell. It was all part of a plan to use the jail and court system to get released.
Waddle will, along with the other charges above, now have a charge of filing a false report and the prosecutor is asking for reimbursement of over $1,000 to cover the costs of investigating the false claim.
Link:
http://www.newspressnow.com/localnews/28494174/detail.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
”Bobby Waddle decided to file the false report of sexual assault, so he would be taken to the hospital, which worked, but he didn't count on being guarded at the emergency room for more than eight hours.”
Ah, the utility of the false rape claim. It can even be used by men to try to effect a desired outcome (not that men are as likely to succeed as are woman, given that men do not enjoy so strong a presumption of honesty as is afforded to women. Still, in the right situation, even men will be treated as if victims of sexual violence simply because they’ve claimed to be (there is probably a great deal that could be said about this particular situation serving as a reflection of the latent understanding about male-on-male “prison rape”, and it’s prevalence).
”Waddle will, along with the other charges above, now have a charge of filing a false report and the prosecutor is asking for reimbursement of over $1,000 to cover the costs of investigating the false claim.”
Good!
Now, if only prosecutors could see the exact same value in pursuing charges against woman who are caught making FRA’s. I’ve long argued that even if they face no real jail time (misdemeanor charges, special consideration for “first time offenders”, etc.), they still need to be charged if only for the purposes of having it appear on their records, and for the ability to recover damages (for the costs to law enforcement –who, BTW, actually incur costs for each any every crime alleged to them, and in no way “bloat their budgets” by accepting rape allegations).
I’ll spare you all my soapbox rant about the need for laws which will recognize false allegations as a criminal act perpetrated against the falsely accused, recognizing the latter as having been the victim of the crime until a time when it will be a better fit to the lead story.
I’ll spare you all my soapbox rant about the need for laws which will recognize false allegations as a criminal act perpetrated against the falsely accused, recognizing the latter as having been the victim of the crime until a time when it will be a better fit to the lead story.
slwerner,
I know Pierce has asked before, but how about writing it up as a post contribution? I for one would love to read it.
ESB - "I for one would love to read it."
I've posted the "core" of it a number of times, but I've been a somewhere between too busy and too lazy to do the leg work of researching the actual laws involved. If I were to do an actual article, I will need to get that done first.
But, since you ask...
It basically comes down to this: the statutes which are currently available to be used to charge false accusers, whether they be the misdemeanor charges for false reporting to police or even felony charges for lying under oath (to a grand jury, for instance) only recognize the State (Law Enforcement and the Criminal Justice System) as the “victims” of those crimes.
The multitude of harms that actually befall the real victims (the falsely accused) are considered to be a libel offenses, which the Criminal Justice System will not take up, but are rather the domain of the Civil Courts.
A guy may lose hid job and more due to a false allegation, but his only course for redress of his financial losses are via a suit in civil court.
I would contrast this to, for example, a case of a drunk driver causing an accident (property damage and/or medical damages). In those cases, those who suffer losses due to the accident ARE recognized as being victims, and are treated as such by law enforcement. As part of any adjudication of the case against the driver who caused the accident, prosecutors routinely include a requirement for restitution to be made. This not only allows the prosecutor to act as an advocate for the victims in criminal court, it also allows for a court order for restitution to be made without the need to pursue the matter in (at the victims expense) in a separate civil court action.
But, when only the state is seen as the victim of the crime of false reporting or lying under oath, the real victim is “locked out” of there due rights under the “Victims Rights Acts” of most (if not all) states. They have no “official say” in how the case against their false accusers will be handled. They can demand justice all they want, but neither police nor prosecutors have a defined duty to consider those demands.
A low that would recognize them as the victims of a crime (being falsely accused) would change all that.
It’s a rather simplistic explanation, to be sure, and based only on my “understanding” of the law In Colorado (exclusively), but I am unaware of any state which has extant statutes which actually allow the falsely accused to be recognized as the victims of a criminal act.
I’ve put this out a number of times, hoping to get some feed back, but thus far, you are the first to express any interest.
Thanks for your response. I have to think that the societal unwillingness to view men as victims (and since 99% of false sexual assault/rape accusations are made against men), this has some bearing as to why we don't see a law such as that enacted.
I hearkens back to the oppression olympics that the SGI/Radfems like to play. State that we need to do more to support the falsely accused of rape, and you get the diatribe about how rape of women is so much worse.
We'll have to change the attitude towards the falsely accused, before any type of legal protection is afforded. And while we are starting to see stiffer sentences handed out, again, the "victim" in the cases of these false allegations is seen as the state, not the falsely accused. This is going to take some work.
The mass hysteria, and the dropping of legal protections for men in relationships with women, are turning women and hetereo-sexual relationships into legal liabilities.
Is it constitutional to use state and federal funds for these re-sexualisation efforts??
Post a Comment