Posted on 06/10/2003 9:37:44 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
An Alachua County college student in jail on marijuana charges was raped over the weekend by his cell mate, a man already being held on sexual battery charges, authorities said Monday.
The 19-year-old student was serving four weekends in jail on charges of delivering marijuana, said Alachua County Sheriff's Sgt. Jim Troiano. Last weekend was the first weekend of his sentence.
His cell mate held a ballpoint pen to the teenager's neck at about 9 p.m. Friday and then forced himself on him, Troiano said. A member of the victim's family reported the incident to authorities on Saturday.
Jail detention officers, who check the cells at least once an hour, heard nothing and nothing was reported to them Friday, Troiano said.
Randolph Jackson, 35, was charged with sexual battery. Jackson has been in jail since July on charges of sexual battery in a different case that is still pending.
The two were put in a cell together because they were both charged with felonies, Troiano said. Also, there was very little room in the jail last weekend, Troiano added. There were 918 inmates and the jail's capacity is 920.
"If there was space available, absolutely we would rather keep our weekenders in a pre-designated area," Troiano said. "But because we don't have much space available we have to do with circumstances on hand."
Inmates are assigned to cells based on their charges, their history and other factors, he said.
These two inmates were being held in a two-man cell in pod 1-B. Inmates who are awaiting trial or who don't yet have a jail classification are kept in this section, Troiano said.
Jail officials don't house inmates who are charged with misdemeanors, which are less serious crimes, with those who have felony charges, he said.
Troiano said this was the first sexual battery reported at the jail in the memory of jail officials.
Jackson never showed any signs of having sexual tendencies toward other inmates, Troiano added. He has since been moved to his own cell.
Huh??? LeRoy's whole being on FR is pushing the Libertarian pro-drug line, IMO. He usually posts from around 8:00 AM till 5:00 PM eastern standard time, M-F, pushing the same old stuff, and if he is at loss of words for a reply, his usual reply in that situation is,
"Prove your accusation" or something in that vein.
Sheesh after watching LeRoy stating the same thing for six months a pattern develops.
Whoops that right, I'm sorry, that is Libertarian profiling. Sue or throw my butt in jail for being Libertarian incorrect.
Let's do the math on this...
The way it is now, an 1/8 ounce of weed costs one around 30 bucks. You'll get 10 to 15 joints out of this 1/8 ounce. A skinny joint. Not some big ol' Ganja. A skinny weed, is buzz for two people two times. So, you'll get between 20 to 30 "buzzes" for around a buck a piece. This is the going rate because of logistics problems with smuggling. Now if you do away with this cost, I really think the Fed could regulate and tax just as they do with booze, I think it would be cheaper than it is now.
Granted, supply is abundant, but that supply would need to multiply possibly even ten fold if legalization occurred. There are a lot of folks who do not smoke because of the risk involved... seizures etc. Once they say, okay Joe Six Pack feel free to light up if you’re twenty one or older, a whole lotta folks are headin’ to the new local pot distributor. A whole lotta folks! There are not too many places per capita, that require drug screening. The hammer from the law is what's keeping the users to a minimum.
BTW, at present, I do not use the stuff...
"Prove your accusation"
No, if someone makes a claim without providing evidence, I often reply, "Provide evidence for your claim."
Oddly, they seldom do.
Geez, I was just getting ready to post, "Right on!"
Huh, I guess the tin foil sins of the grandfather are automatically passed onto the grandchild even though that grandchild will sign into law a partial birth abortion ban, that Clinton wouldn't sign.
Whatever AG.
They would do more of it if you would at least acknowledge their effort with a statement like, "Thanks for the verification. It proves your point and shows me how wrong I was".
Try more of that. It should help.
Whereas your #1 issue seems to be pro-murder and #2 issue seems to be pro-rape.
There's no 'tin foil' about it. In fact, it was the central issue in the 1952 campaign and the reason Prescott lost his Senate re-election that year. Bush Sr's position was a key issue in the 1976 campaign and why he switched before 1980.
We were not talking about the grandson, but rather the son who had a history of support or softness on abortion and who was on the ballot in 1992, when I made my decision to vote for Perot. The grandson clearly has rejected his forebears' pro-abortion past.
Isn't that the way closet leftists work?
A tad harsh, true. "Misguided" would be a better description.
Huh? I don't get how questioning a cryptic newspaper article from a liberal university town makes one pro-murder and pro-rape.
Is anything which is not illegal, such as abusing alcohol, "validated"?
LOL! That is funny since Perot, the person you voted for, didn't expilicitly state he was pro-life and it was an open secret that his wife was a bigwig in the Texas chapter of Planned Parenthood.
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.