Posted on 01/27/2016 12:09:03 PM PST by Beave Meister
TODAY they are, back in 2012 they cost well over $500........And in case you try to point to various carriers offering such phones for a ridiculously low amount, you're not going to find it because the typical two year contracts cleverly hide the additional cost for the smart phone itself......
It will probably be a chip implanted into his brain with antennae embedded into his earlobes and he dials out by thinking of the phone number. He closes his eyes to see texts flashed on the back of his eyelids. He hears and talks through a regular Bluetooth headset and his Facebook comments appear on his wristwatch/display as he thinks of them.
If you are making the argument that mom owns the account, then you are likely correct.
Was the account stolen?
Want to bet the police figured that out before they made the arrest?
Don't know that they cared who owned the account. The physical property was what was alleged to have been stolen. Whether the mom continued paying the bill on the account is not really relevant to the father taking physical possession of the phone.
That is one point. I don't consider it the most significant point involved. A pissing contest over a trivial costing phone evolved into a day in jail, a $1,500.00 bond, a trial, and an abuse of police authority.
I may have no legitimate interest in objecting to the dysfunctionality of that family, but when law enforcement is deliberately misused to further a vendetta, *THAT* is something that needs to be corrected by official action.
The Father has been civilly and perhaps criminally injured, and the instigators need to be held accountable for it.
Momma's husband needs to be on the carpet (if not on trial) for abuse of power.
Even so, unless there is some proof that the mother was "renting" the phone to the daughter, or the daughter was "borrowing" the phone, the phone was the property of the daughter because the mother gave it to her.
It therefore falls under the prerogative of the father to let her have it or not.
This assertion that the phone was the property of the mother is false on the very face of it. That was a deliberate lie used to justify a theft claim.
“The police should stop responding to theft cases? “
Under the circumstances I think showing up at 2am was a little weird. Unless mom was trying to get dad bumped off.
The real problem here is between the father and his ex-wife, the child’s mother. Probably should be settled in the courts about the custody of the daughter.
Oh yeah, that’s right, dads don’t get much of a shake there either.
Too late now anyway, he will have to wait for his daughter to grow up if she ever does and comes back to her father so she can have a dad.
Divorce sucks.
They better care who owned the account and who's paying the bill.
If my name is on the contract and I'm paying my kid's cell phone bill, I own the account AND the phone, no matter what my kid wants to think.
I'm not necessarily saying ex-wife was blameless. But, if it's hers (Mom's), ex-husband must give it back to her (Mom). Put it in a box and ship it to her! Problem solved.
Because yes, while the minor child is in Dad's care, he has every right to forbid her the use and possession of the phone or anything else, no matter who owns it.
But, this is just the sort of sh*t that happens when adults act like infants.
That’s great! LOL! But, my son is a millennial who does not like the idea of government knowing too much about us, so I’m guessing my grandson will not be making use of that technology while my son has any say in it.
If the contract sale of the phone stipulates that the phone remain the property of the buyer until the terms of the contract are fulfilled, then you have an argument.
I doubt that was the terms of the contract. My understanding is that people could buy those phones and do with them as they please.
I'm not necessarily saying ex-wife was blameless. But, if it's hers (Mom's), ex-husband must give it back to her (Mom). Put it in a box and ship it to her! Problem solved.
And she would promptly give it back to the daughter for whom she bought it, and against the Father's wishes. The only difference is it would be secretive and behind his back.
But, this is just the sort of sh*t that happens when adults act like infants.
That may be what initiated it, but when it crossed the line into malfeasance of government office, it became both a civil and criminal matter.
The Cop husband should have told his wife that he was not going to get involved in this petty dispute, and that she should just drop it.
Instead, he used his authority and connections to harass a man.
Deliberate intimidation. It was an effort to show him that they were in charge, and he better cave or worse would happen later.
I would say the arrest and trial were more serious than the phone. Seems something needs to be done about abuse of power on the police side. Probably not what the wife was trying to do, but it should be the result.
That is my thinking. This trivial phone issue exposed a far more serious matter of corruption and influence in public officials.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.