Posted on 05/05/2021 1:18:09 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Authorities in Arizona say they have arrested a former Border Patrol agent suspected in a string of rapes going back more than two decades...that occurred from 1999-2001 in the Phoenix suburbs of Mesa, Gilbert and Chandler, as well as the city of Bisbee in southeastern Arizona.
He was arrested Tuesday in the southeastern Arizona city of Sierra Vista with the help of law enforcement agencies including U.S. Marshals and the FBI. The Border Patrol cooperated.
(Excerpt) Read more at ktla.com ...
“His eyes seem awfully close together. I used to know what that meant at one time.”
Sign of a predator. Prey have eyes wide apart so they can see predators.
how would you feel if one of the victims was your daughter?
Two possibilities...he’s guilty,or he’s an outspoken supporter of Trump’s border security policy.
Fetal alcohol syndrome?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Would you say that to your wife? Or daughters?
He made a comment, a VALID comment, on statute of limitations.
That’s actually an iffy thing, depending on the state.
If the state goes to court and actually files a case against ‘John Doe,’ or ‘Jane Doe,’ it can go past the normal limits.
Also, if the suspect has kept ‘trophies’ from his victims and a search is is done properly using the trophies they can be the basis of theft charges. Charge, convict, and then make the convicted person serve the sentences all sequentially.
If a prosecutor really wants to be efficient, they can. I don’t mean to imply they can be dipshits...just thinking out of the normal box, so to say......
yikes
nice language/s
i get your point, but you are no better when you word like that.
You couldn’t detect the sarcasm, I laid it on pretty thick
Surprisingly neither of you could detect the sarcasm
I am glad you intended it as sarcasm. It does NOT come across that way. (sorry)
I am not being facetious.
I would think my comment was so ridiculous that it wouldn’t need a “sarc” tag.
I personally believe there should be no statue of limitations on any crime, especially violent crimes.
The statue of limitations does serve a purpose.
And a previous poster gave a great example.
Let’s say 20 years from now a ‘witness’ claims you were the one that robbed his store.
Now you USED TO have documentation like receipts from places that would prove you were elsewhere- but do you still have receipts from everything you did 20 years ago?
Memories fade, exculpatory evidence disappears...
I think it would be pretty easy to beat a case of an eye witness that all of sudden after 20 years claims that you robbed a store with zero evidence to back it up - it would be hearsay and they wouldn’t prosecute based on only hearsay
Eyewitness is not hearsay.
Very different.
I’m not trying to debate you on this- I just did not realize your first statement was meant to be sarcastic, and point out WHY we have statute of limitations.
You can research for more info if that helps understand the reasoning past me simple example. I would recommend you do that.
I get it, I just feel like way more people get away with crimes because of a statute of limitations than people falsely convicted 20 years after a crime
Suspected in a string of rapes
Or a no border patrols propaganda?.
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.