IMPD officers arrested.

[churchmouse]

Were you able to see the original post Mr. Mouse, or are you referring to the the "."? That is a fine point too, it can either complete a sentence or act as a decimal point. Very versatile.

I can see the OP if I wish but I just let that roll.
No desire to get serious. No reason to do so that I can see.

 

[jsx1043]

I can see the OP if I wish but I just let that roll.
No desire to get serious. No reason to do so that I can see.

While my suspicious nature is still a little aroused, I agree. Discretion is the better part of valor.

 

[Sigblitz]

Ah, well, when I saw jsx's post, it was simply "."
This looked like simply a point. I thought you were complimenting his "."
Finding that humorous, I posted the picture.

Ok. We're on the same page.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Uh.....cause you'll get banned?

If you feel that strongly about something wouldn't that be an acceptable consequence?

 

[Sigblitz]

Actually, I'm a page ahead.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

The plot thickens now not only is “the forum” trying to protect its members the police department is both trying to protect and shame the officer at the same time by “timely” releasing the event and then suppressing the available information so only lawyers can see it. This place is beginning to feel more and more like home.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice try. MyCase is operated and controlled by The Office Of Judicial Administration.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree. I thought it from his very first post. I called it back in post #68. I'll eat an old sweaty leather holster if it turns out that this user hasn't been here before.

Kinky.

Uh.....cause you'll get banned?

What's a good banning between friends? I've already told CM if he has to ban me we're still friends and cheeseburgers on me. Maybe I can even sneak in from time to time under some assumed name and we can have Tom & Jerry type shenanigans. I love a good shenaniganing.

Or I'll just start my own forum. With blackjack. And hookers. And forget the forum.

The plot thickens now not only is “the forum” trying to protect its members the police department is both trying to protect and shame the officer at the same time by “timely” releasing the event and then suppressing the available information so only lawyers can see it. This place is beginning to feel more and more like home.

No. But Yes. But not really. It's 3D chess while everyone else is playing checkers, but with dice.

 

[Cameramonkey]

What's a good banning between friends? I've already told CM if he has to ban me we're still friends and cheeseburgers on me. Maybe I can even sneak in from time to time under some assumed name and we can have Tom & Jerry type shenanigans. I love a good shenaniganing.

Same.

I saw the post in question in the email update. If Churchmouse banned him for that without a warning I'd be PMing him to ask why he was in a grumpy mood.

 

[Route 45]

Nice try. MyCase is operated and controlled by The Office Of Judicial Administration.

Nice try, yourself. I see that you failed to mention that both IMPD and INGO have four initials and start with the letter "I."

Wake up, sheeple!

 

[jsx1043]

Nice try, yourself. I see that you failed to mention that both IMPD and INGO have four initials and start with the letter "I."

Wake up, sheeple!

Now that's pretty funny. And I know we have drone operators on the board so now we know who pilots the EIUAV. (Erection Inducing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle)

 

[jsx1043]

Maybe I can even sneak in from time to time under some assumed name...

Oh, you mean that happens? Huh, color me shocked....

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Nice try, yourself. I see that you failed to mention that both IMPD and INGO have four initials and start with the letter "I."

Wake up, sheeple!

I wouldn't make a very good spy.

 

[Dutchisaurus]

I was right or so it seems about the "As to this case only"

It does only pertain to individuals with multiple pending cases, to show that the hold is released by this court and may not be by other courts. Otherwise it would list bond or released on own recognizance.

It appears he has at least 2 other cases.

The Bibbs and Mitchell cases. Both of them are V City of Indianapolis.

Nothing nefarious just other cases.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I was right or so it seems about the "As to this case only"

It does only pertain to individuals with multiple pending cases, to show that the hold is released by this court and may not be by other courts. Otherwise it would list bond or released on own recognizance.

It appears he has at least 2 other cases.

The Bibbs and Mitchell cases. Both of them are V City of Indianapolis.

Nothing nefarious just other cases.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

You are really reaching now. The two cases you refer to are civil cases against him as an agent of the City of Indianapolis. Civil cases are not criminal cases and would not have a bond. So no, you are not "right or so it seems about the 'As to this case only.'" Keep trying.

 

[Dutchisaurus]

You are really reaching now. The two cases you refer to are civil cases against him as an agent of the City of Indianapolis. Civil cases are not criminal cases and would not have a bond. So no, you are not "right or so it seems about the 'As to this case only.'" Keep trying.

Uh no? They are other cases, 2 something elses as well. Just because they are civil cases does not mean he can't become a guest of the MCSD. Plenty of contempt charges and body attachment warrants have been placed on people from civil courts.

Like I said above "something else". I never said it was nefarious cases. He is a listed defendant in a total of 3 cases. That's why it says as to this case. If it we're just this case I would assume it would just says released on own recognizance or have bail details as other cases do.





Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Uh no? They are other cases, 2 something elses as well. Just because they are civil cases does not mean he can't become a guest of the MCSD. Plenty of contempt charges and body attachment warrants have been placed on people from civil courts.

Like I said above "something else". I never said it was nefarious cases. He is a listed defendant in a total of 3 cases. That's why it says as to this case. If it we're just this case I would assume it would just says released on own recognizance or have bail details as other cases do.





Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Well, according to the MCSD inmate lookup function he has never been booked in as a prisoner. Keep trying. I still want to know why you have such a hard on for him. If you aren't man enough to state it publicly, feel free to PM me.

 

[Dutchisaurus]

Well, according to the MCSD inmate lookup function he has never been booked in as a prisoner. Keep trying. I still want to know why you have such a hard on for him. If you aren't man enough to state it publicly, feel free to PM me.

I didn't say he was a prisoner. I just said it's possible to be a resident of the MCSD off a civil case.

That's why it says "as to this case only".
That line exists for cases where there are multiple open cases.

In this case it's 2 sue the city civil cases. Nothing nefarious.

As I said I had never seen the wording before so I was curious.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[tbhausen]

Back to our continuing education about probable cause affidavits, if we may?

Two questions:

Do media outlets have lawyers on staff that have immediate access to the restricted content on MyCase? I’m sure I have more to learn, but this would bother me just a bit, that they get to go right there, then write their stories, their headlines, filter and shape public perception, while we have to jump through hoops to see what they have immediate access to before they get behind the cameras and microphones? How many of us trust the news media to report impartially?

Also, suppose an attorney (or anyone else) gets access to an unredacted probable cause affidavit and distributes it publicly? Is this illegal? What are the ramifications?

edit: OK, I guess that was more than two questions, but they fall under two main subject areas.

 

[churchmouse]

Yeah this is getting interesting and becoming a learning experience.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Back to our continuing education about probable cause affidavits, if we may?

Two questions:

Do media outlets have lawyers on staff that have immediate access to the restricted content on MyCase? I’m sure I have more to learn, but this would bother me just a bit, that they get to go right there, then write their stories, their headlines, filter and shape public perception, while we have to jump through hoops to see what they have immediate access to before they get behind the cameras and microphones? How many of us trust the news media to report impartially?

Also, suppose an attorney (or anyone else) gets access to an unredacted probable cause affidavit and distributes it publicly? Is this illegal? What are the ramifications?

edit: OK, I guess that was more than two questions, but they fall under two main subject areas.

The media doesn't get unredacted copies. They get the same copy you would get at the clerk's office, and as far as I know use the same procedure you would. The last big incident I remember with affidavits posted was Richmond Hills. The files aren't up any longer, but the file name was "glennhultsredacted.pdf" etc, so that tells you which copy they got.

As far as legality, I *suspect* it's more civil liability, administrative law, and/or ethics complaints that could lead to loss of license then a criminal matter, but I don't actually know. It's not an area of law I've ever been trained in or expected to enforce.