Jump to content
prissythecat

Robert Kraft Video Evidence Thrown Out by Judge

Recommended Posts

I'm just not morally outraged (at all) by Kraft's actions. Since there is NO evidence of any human trafficking, I don't know how you could fairly view it as anything other than an old man doing something a little shady. There were obvious mistakes made by the police, but the underlying facts alone elicit a big fat MEH from me. Service exchange between two consenting adults just isn't something I'm gonna get worked up about.

 

If LEO were looking into human trafficking, I'm interested in their findings and view it as a worthwhile investigation. Busting a bunch of old men for.......just isn't a great allocation of resources IMO.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Like everyone else in the tape.   I said as much yesterday:

 

 

 

"This is where the evidence gathering failed:  the order was "not sufficiently precise so as to minimize recordings not related to the crimes under investigation".

 

The court's ruling goes into greater detail as to how they failed at minimization."

 

You want to keep making comments about my standing explanation (while still not grasping the concept), but you were wrong. Now are you man enough to admit it, or are you going to keep up this laughably snide attitude to cover your lack of understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'm just not morally outraged (at all) by Kraft's actions. Since there is NO evidence of any human trafficking, I don't know how you could fairly view it as anything other than an old man doing something a little shady. There were obvious mistakes made by the police, but the underlying facts alone elicit a big fat MEH from me. Service exchange between two consenting adults just isn't something I'm gonna get worked up about.

 

If LEO were looking into human trafficking, I'm interested in their findings and view it as a worthwhile investigation. Busting a bunch of old men for.......just isn't a great allocation of resources IMO.

 

I think it's more accurate to say that while looking into allegations of sex trafficking, they found people getting happy endings, and chose to charge them. Looking into allegations of sex trafficking isn't a bad thing, but they seem to be going down a dubious path.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

You want to keep making comments about my standing explanation (while still not grasping the concept), but you were wrong. Now are you man enough to admit it, or are you going to keep up this laughably snide attitude to cover your lack of understanding?

 

Why didn't the prosecutor argue that the motion to suppress the video should be denied on the grounds that the defendant has no standing to challenge the video taping?

 

Serious question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

I'm not arguing that Kraft or any of the johns could have stopped this.  I don't care either way if they go after the johns.  They are a town police force and are not going to solve all of this.   Maybe that individual place will close up and move to the next town though.  That's no solution really but I can see how Jupiter might think it benefited. 

The turnip truck is parked at 23rd and 5th.  Hurry up and hop back on.

So, when someone doesn’t agree with you, that means they fell off the turnip truck? 

 

I simply quoted an article, which discredits your crusade here, you ***** crayon chewer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why didn't the prosecutor argue that the motion to suppress the video should be denied on the grounds that the defendant has no standing to challenge the video taping?

 

Serious question...

 

They may very well have, however my whole point was that Kraft can't challenge the installation of the cameras, or the warrant authorizing the installation. It was not his business, nor his building, nor was the warrant targeting him. That's what standing means.

 

The real issue - the one he won on - was whether or not those cameras being there recording anyone who walked in violated his expectation of privacy. That's what the judge was talking about when he stated:

 

Quote

The Court finds that the search warrant does not contain required minimization guidelines, and the minimization techniques employed in this case did not satisfy constitutional requirements.

 

Kraft's rights weren't being violated by the cameras being there. His rights were violated because he has a right to privacy in the back room when receiving treatment, and the cops were filming him getting 'treatment' - then charging him - instead of shutting off the cameras (or otherwise disregarding what occurred.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

They may very well have, however my whole point was that Kraft can't challenge the installation of the cameras, or the warrant authorizing the installation. It was not his business, nor his building, nor was the warrant targeting him. That's what standing means.

 

The real issue - the one he won on - was whether or not those cameras being there recording anyone who walked in violated his expectation of privacy. That's what the judge was talking about when he stated:

 

 

Kraft's rights weren't being violated by the cameras being there. His rights were violated because he has a right to privacy in the back room when receiving treatment, and the cops were filming him getting 'treatment' - then charging him - instead of shutting off the cameras (or otherwise disregarding what occurred.)

 

Ok.  Thanks.  Didn’t mean to sound like a ball breaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevestojan said:

So, when someone doesn’t agree with you, that means they fell off the turnip truck? 

 

I simply quoted an article, which discredits your crusade here, you ***** crayon chewer. 

There is a difference between enough evidence to convict, enough to go to trial, and "no evidence".  The police saw enough to:

 

begin an investigation

continue it with warrants for months

speak out about it, in detail including plights of individual women

 

they clearly made mistakes and this case fell apart but it was not invented out of thin air.  I am willing to go out on a limb and guess that not many women want to move to a country where they don't speak the language, live in a strip mall with a pile of other women and service fat 70 year olds all day.  Maybe I belong on a turnip truck but Occum's a Shaver says nope.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

There is a difference between enough evidence to convict, enough to go to trial, and "no evidence".  The police saw enough to:

 

begin an investigation

continue it with warrants for months

speak out about it, in detail including plights of individual women

 

they clearly made mistakes and this case fell apart but it was not invented out of thin air.  I am willing to go out on a limb and guess that not many women want to move to a country where they don't speak the language, live in a strip mall with a pile of other women and service fat 70 year olds all day.  Maybe I belong on a turnip truck but Occum's a Shaver says nope.

Agree to disagree and move on to Bills talk? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, stevestojan said:

Agree to disagree and move on to Bills talk? 

Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

That's because it wasn't the unanimous opinion of the internet that "attacks" (no irony there right doc?) on poor McCoy were all "baseless".  In fact, there were many here on this very site who disagreed with your conclusion that McCoy is completely innocent of everything.

 

However, there was essential unanimity (I'm excepting for you, 4merper4mer and the 2 guys who said Kraft, et al had "no standing" to challenge the admissibility of the tape) on the internet regarding how this would go for Kraft.

 

Oh and it was "unanimous opinion of the internet" that Bobby was innocent of the charges leveled against him +/- that the video was definitely going to be thrown out?  LOL!  Yeah, OK. 

 

No, there was analysis presented for Bobby just like there was for Shady.  Again I didn't hear you mention any of it for Shady.  On the contrary, you're still clinging to what you want to believe and not the facts because you don't like him/think he's a POS.  Deny it if you want, you'll be fooling no one.  People don't spend pages upon pages talking about people or things that they care nothing about.

 

And the bottom line is that Shady didn't need a technicality to get off because he didn't commit a crime, unlike Bobby (which even you admitted).  Try as you might, as just can't get around that one.  It has nothing to do with hero worship, just the facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, stevestojan said:

Agree to disagree and move on to Bills talk? 

 

There's not much to talk about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like Goodell erasing Spygate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Just like Goodell erasing Spygate. 

 

If I got to pick which video to watch........I might learn something about football!

 

Beats :sick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Oh and it was "unanimous opinion of the internet" that Bobby was innocent of the charges leveled against him +/- that the video was definitely going to be thrown out?  LOL!  Yeah, OK. 

 

No, there was analysis presented for Bobby just like there was for Shady.  Again I didn't hear you mention any of it for Shady.  On the contrary, you're still clinging to what you want to believe and not the facts because you don't like him/think he's a POS.  Deny it if you want, you'll be fooling no one.  People don't spend pages upon pages talking about people or things that they care nothing about.

 

And the bottom line is that Shady didn't need a technicality to get off because he didn't commit a crime, unlike Bobby (which even you admitted).  Try as you might, as just can't get around that one.  It has nothing to do with hero worship, just the facts. 

 

 

No on innocent (I told you he was guilty).

 

Pretty much yes on the shaky ground re: the video and the traffic stop.  Why are you still struggling with this??

 

McCoy was filmed kicking a guy on the ground. You conceded this.  I don't know how else to help you at this point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they should ban the Patriots from the league for two years.   That should do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Oh and it was "unanimous opinion of the internet" that Bobby was innocent of the charges leveled against him +/- that the video was definitely going to be thrown out?  LOL!  Yeah, OK. 

 

No, there was analysis presented for Bobby just like there was for Shady.  Again I didn't hear you mention any of it for Shady.  On the contrary, you're still clinging to what you want to believe and not the facts because you don't like him/think he's a POS.  Deny it if you want, you'll be fooling no one.  People don't spend pages upon pages talking about people or things that they care nothing about.

 

And the bottom line is that Shady didn't need a technicality to get off because he didn't commit a crime, unlike Bobby (which even you admitted).  Try as you might, as just can't get around that one.  It has nothing to do with hero worship, just the facts. 

 

 

No I'm pretty sure that it's unanimous that Kraft's guilty on the internet.

 

Nearly unanimous that the video was in trouble and could get suppressed.

 

Pretty simple doc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Oh, there's a video all right.  And it will make its way to the public like they all do.

 

 

Go get your shinebox.

Why don’t you go get it for me? Then you can shine my shoes and Mr. WEO’s while we laugh at you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iinii said:

Why don’t you go get it for me? Then you can shine my shoes and Mr. WEO’s while we laugh at you. 

 

It's a day later.  I'll take that to mean you didn't find it.

 

But go ahead and laugh.  Save the biggest one for your hero being busted on video getting a handie (both front and back). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 6:56 PM, prissythecat said:

Video Evidenced Suppressed

 

Besides the video,   the bogus traffic stop used to identify Kraft was also thrown out

 

Bye bye Kraft charges?   Does this mean Weo wins over Doc by KO lol?

 

 

The Judge has a new Mercedes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CircleTheWagons99 said:

What a shocker. Florida ***** something else up....

 

But they sure get winter right!

 

 

(IMO of course...) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

It's a day later.  I'll take that to mean you didn't find it.

 

But go ahead and laugh.  Save the biggest one for your hero being busted on video getting a handie (both front and back). 

Kraft has something you can shine. 

Edited by iinii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Beerbelly said:

The Judge has a new Mercedes.

and 5 free messages at the Spa of his choice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...