Why do you guys keep whiffing by saying "I'd do her"? The clever answer, served up on a silver platter, is clearly "I'd hit it"
After a response like this, there is only one logical conclusion....you do NOT watch enough CSI. Seriously, even if you want to go as far as saying let's look at only physical evidence - i.e. ignore the clear prior mental history, records of alibis, etc., there should still be physical evidence. Brooks said he hadn't even seen the girl in months. Were the bruises fresh? If so, where did the attack take place? How did it take place? Did he hit you with his fist, his palm? Fingerprints in the apartment or home? Bruises consistent with both the story and the likelihood of it coming from a man - I find it hard to believe the girl could have injured herself in such a way that a little investigation could have at least ruled out Brooks. There are so so so many physical things that could be done. The fact of the matter is that each of the main officers on the case should be fired immediately. God forbid a murder case, or a terrorist case, or something really really really serious comes in and we get dipwads like this on the case....we're screwed.
that woman should be locked up for the rest of her life.. she ruined two peoples lives and could have got away with it if she finally kept her mouth shut or moved away. its too scary for me.. the idea some psycho can come in and ruin your life so easily. How would you feel if someone did that to you? that why you have to be careful who you associate yourself with and who you date. I have a feeling this guy slept with her and dumped her and she was trying to get some kind of revenge. J *trying to show some decorum
If you want to blame anyone besides the woman (who should be blamed, not the police) for this, blame other "men" who beat and kill women in domestic violence disputes. Had they any balls, it wouldn't make this woman's story so believable to the police.
I disagree. Cops are not supposed to be biased. They're supposed to do their job. Nothing can excuse the fact that this guy was locked up for 3 months in a max prison, before a back ground check was made. No soup for you.
It's not bias to look at it that way. It's not unreasonable to expect the cops to use past experiences in similar cases to make an arrest. I'd be willing to bet that 999 out of a 1,000 times a woman goes to the police with markings like this, it's a legitimate case. BTW, the guy should've gotten a better lawyer apparently.
I just don't get it. If an officer chooses to arrest and lock the guy up for 3 months, simply because of past experience, how is this not bias?
Don't give it any more thought. Rocketman95 would be singing an entirely different tune if it happened to him.
Just like you would if you were the police officer who arrested him. What's your point? I'd be more pissed off at my crummy lawyer who couldn't get me out of jail for three months and at the b**** who made up the story. I'm not going to get into a semantic argument with you swilkins. You get my point.
I agree with some points that the Police could have done a better job, but I cant pin the blame on them. If a woman that looked ravaged went to any police station and said you attacked them 99/100 times you would go to jail no more questions asked. It sucks he couldnt get bail (the system failed him in this instance) It sucks the woman was crazy (becareful who you date) It sucks the police werent more thorough (lawsuit coming) but to blame it all on the Police is ignorant. Our system is flawed, and the police are human. He will sue get a crapload of money and move on. Hopefully the psycho will get locked up forever. J
So goes the argument for racial profiling I should not blame cops for pulling me over because I'm black and in a nice car but I should blame black folx that stole nice rides Rocket River
