Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) Officer Caleb Rogers was arraigned today on charges of "burglary with a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon" for robbing the Rio Casino yesterday according to a press release from the LVMPD (see .pdf link above map). His bail was set at $250,000 after prosecutors made it known that Rogers is also suspected of robbing the Aliante Casino and Red Rock Casino (watch bail hearing below). The LVMPD has placed Rogers on administrative leave without pay pending the outcome of the case and an internal investigation. Rogers has not posted bail and is currently in custody at the Clark County Detention Center assigned to housing unit ST2C according to the Clark County Website (https://ift.tt/UwCuFYn). According to media reports, Rogers entered the Rio Casino on the 4100 block of South Valley View Boulevard where security had detained a suspect that responding officers recognized as one of their own. Exactly how Rogers tried to rob the Rio Casino is not clear at this time. One would think that a police officer would be trained well enough to pull off a simple robbery, but for whatever reason he wasn't any better at it than your average dopehead in this most recent case. He has been with the LVMPD since 2015, so it wasn't due to lack of experience. According to public records, Caleb Mitchell Rogers is a 33 year old resident of North Las Vegas, Nevada. He has no prior criminal history. #calebrogers #robbery #riocasino #aliantecasino #redrockcasinosource https://copblaster.com/blast/47756/cop-robs-casino-at-gunpoint-meet-officer-caleb-rogers-of-las-vegas-pd
Crackers out here playing dress up becareful if u in central florida they hope in ya dms tryna buy got my dawg pop aint that entrapment??? Grady been a hoe #undercoversnitchcoonuc
No wonder Kim Potter was smiling so bright in her mugshot. She had just gotten away with it (almost), but she had gotten the next best thing for her and she knew it. She got a conviction she knew would probably result in a slap on the wrist sentence and she was right. Today Judge Regina Chu sentenced Potter to just 24 months in state prison for First Degree Manslaughter. Potter gained national notoriety last year after being caught on her own body camera shooting Daunte Wright while yelling "taser taser taser." She later claimed to have mistaken her gun for her taser before accidentally killing Wright. Prosecutors sided with her early on and decided not to pursue more serious charges against her. An ordinary person would have been charged with murder and forced to prove themselves innocent in court, but police officers are almost always held to a different standard. That standard once again shows that there is more than one criminal injustice system in America, one for the police and another for the rest of us. As an ex-con, this author has seen far too many people get far more time for not hurting anyone than this woman received for actually killing somebody. I myself was sentence to 24 months in federal prison for sending someone a death threat via email. It was my first felony conviction. That entire time I would see people convicted of more serious things get lighter sentences and it made my blood boil. I saw sex offenders get probation because it was their first time getting caught and in some cases violent offenders getting less time because they were mentally ill. On the other end I saw countless non-violent offenders sentenced to decades behind bars for property crimes like bank robbery and victimless crimes like drug conspiracies. The whole time I was sitting there thinking I didn't molest or physically harm anybody so getting me time served shouldn't be a problem, but they threw the book at me and I got 24 months. Fast forward to today when somebody who actually killed somebody received the same sentence I received just for threatening to kill someone. I never thought I would see the day when I could say that people have gotten the same amount of time for actually killing people as I received just for threatening to do so. You watch Judge Chu's impose the sentence in the video below. #kimpotter #dauntewright #manslaughter #murder #reginachu
Cop Blaster received a letter from a convict at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana (USP) which details a dental nightmare strikingly similar to one this author suffered through at a different USP just a few years. The root cause of the problem seems to be a policy or custom by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) of denying dental care to inmates on lockdown status. Josh Stetzer is no stranger to being mistreated by the feds. Cop Blaster first covered Josh's struggle in 2019 when this author personally wrote about my experience in the Columbia County Jail in St. Helens, Oregon where I was being held on a United States Marshal (USM) hold. Also on a USM hold was Stetzer. When living in D-pod he showed me a bunch of paperwork from his case which made it overwhelming clear that a vindictive prosecutor was retaliating against him for winning an appeal (https://ift.tt/SL5CloP). Stetzer's mom posted a comment asking people to write him, so I did and among his responses were a recent letter post marked January 25th of this year which included a horrible story which brought back bad memories for me. Stetzer describes USP Pollock being placed on lockdown due to a native stabbing a guard shortly after a separate black on black stabbing. I doubt the yard was locked down for long after the black on black stabbing because the BOP doesn't care about black people, but they love their own and any attack on guard with a weapon by anyone will always be followed by an institution wide lockdown that lasts at least a few weeks. During those few weeks the medical staff does little more than deliver pills to your cell. If you want to see a doctor you're told to go to sick call when the lockdown is lifted. Medical care is seldom provided and requires a staff member to recognize a life or death emergency. Normally all an inmate must do to see the dentist is walk down to dental sick call on the right day of the week, but that is not possible if the institution is on lockdown. The results are stories like the following one transcribed directly from Stetzer's letter: "I had a loose tooth with extreme pain. I put in a medical request form that explained the issue. Well I got no response period. Well I was forced to pull it out and I have the tooth in my possession. I feel that is cruel and unusual punishment I was in extreme pain and left with no option but to pull it. I could not eat or sleep. Its wrong to have my medical issues ignored and I will hold onto this tooth as proof." - Josh Stetzer Stetzer's story reminded me of when I was stuck in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at USP Victorville for a few weeks with a bad tooth. It started with mild discomfort followed shortly by excruciating pain, swelling, and a throbbing sensation that never stopped day or night. The throbbing kept me from sleeping despite being heavily medicated. I submitted several requests for medical care accurately describing the problem, complained directly to the medical staff during sick call as well as pill line, and got nothing. The throbbing went on for 2-3 weeks until shortly before I was sent back to general population. When I got back to the yard a bunch of the other white guys in the chow hall were quick to point out how swollen my jaw looked. I walked straight down to dental sick call first thing the next morning and was able to see the dentist right away. In fact, my jaw was so swollen that the dentist noticed me sitting in the waiting room and moved me to the front of the line. Lucky for me we actually had a good dentist working there. I asked him to pull the tooth, but he said that wasn't necessary. He gave me penicillin to kill the swelling and gave me a root canal a few days later. He saved my tooth and I still have it to this day. It is not uncommon for a correctional facility to have a good doctor or a good dentist. The challenge is getting past the gatekeepers. Those gatekeepers consist primarily of physicians' assistants that think their job is to find excuses not to let you see the doctor or dentist (ex: https://ift.tt/nP1QWmY). Gatekeeping becomes much easier for them when they don't have to worry about anybody showing up for sick call. Then they feel free to ignore you unless it looks like you're dying and even then you're lucky if they notice (ex: https://ift.tt/nP1QWmY). Why does this happen? It happens for a few reasons. The BOP has policies for how to handled medical requests from inmates that are on lockdown either by virtue of a yard lockdown or being placed in the SHU. The policies allow them to satisfy the bare minimum requirements simply by looking inside your cell and saying you look fine. Complaints of serious pain unless combined with an obvious serious injury are blown off as attempts to get high on pain medication. The staff also has a custom of simply telling people that if they want to go to sick call at their earliest possible convenience not to go to SHU and not to do anything to get the yard locked down. The staff seems to think people will behave better if threatened with denial of medical care. That might make practical sense to people that work in corrections, but under the law everyone has the right to adequate healthcare no matter how they act. Healthcare at BOP facilities for general population inmates are already horribly inadequate and nothing justifies making things any worse for anybody. What can you do? Not much other than complain about it and hope somebody will do something. You can however help individual inmates get through it better by writing them or sending them stuff. To those ends if you would like to write Stetzer his information is as follows: Joshua Thomas Stetzer 74822-065 United States Penitentiary P.O. Box 2099 Pollock, LA 71467 You can also send him money via Western Union at https://ift.tt/oj845EV. Just select Federal Bureau of Prisons as the facility and be prepared to enter his information. Watch the video below to learn why tooth infections can be deadly in rare cases. Due to that risk it is not reasonable for BOP staff to ignore reports of tooth aches. Stetzer called his dental pain "cruel and unusual punishment" and we agree, but unfortunately the law requires more than just negligence to implicate the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The government must be at least deliberately indifferent which is typically judged under a recklessness standard. That requires a substantial risk of harm be known to a reasonable person in a defendants' shoes. A reasonable physician's assistant should know that swollen teeth pose a risk of death and should immediately inform a dentist of such things. "Dental care is one of the most important medical needs of inmates. Dental care that consists of pulling teeth that can be saved is constitutionally inadequate. Delays in dental care can also violate the Eighth Amendment, particularly if the prisoner is suffering pain in the interim." - ACLU The above quote cites several legal precents the citations of which are included in a PDF being uploaded with this article. Under the standards set forth by the ACLU, Stetzer's rights were clearly violated. Unfortunately, although it would be fairly easy to convince a room of academics that Stetzer's rights have been violated, the real word rarely works so well. In the real world there are so much bureaucratic and legal loopholes the government can use to avoid accountability that the best someone like Stetzer could hope for would be that somebody will engage in years of litigation that might persuade a judge to issue an order that sounds alright, but when applied only results in minor changes capable of meeting some technical requirements without doing anything to substantially improve anything. #usppollock #bophealthservices #uspvictorville
he is responsible for arrests of multiple people for meth and heroin in hawkins county and sullivan county with donna wallen of surgoisville as accomplice he has harly davidson and truck.he is a dealer as well #heissellingmeth
Every time you turn the news on we are seeing more and more cases of rogue police officers abusing their power, abusing our people, and the selling to the communities that they are the ones laying their lives on the line. Well, so does our military. Day in, day out but they dont turn on US citizens. Men, let me ask you this: As a man, how would you respond when you see a large angry man being overly physically abusive with a child while disciplining? How would you feel if an off duty cop that is throwing you around a public store and looks to your fianc and screams that he will beat the F out of her if she doesnt shut the H up, many times in a row? How would you feel when you ask your fianc to quickly go and get your phone to video record what is happening and the off duty cop threatens you if you leave the area? Not that she was ever detained, placed under arrest or told that under law she had to stay as he had never showed any identification or badge at that time. How would you feel if this angry off duty cop arrests you for assault, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest when in fact you were the one assaulted? And all for checking on a child. Women, let me ask you this: As a woman, how would you respond when a rogue off duty officer begins throwing your fianc around a grocery store just because he was protecting a child? How would you feel if a rogue off duty cop doesnt allow you to run to your car to get your phone to record (without being told you were detained)? How would you feel if this man in rage screams to you that he is going to beat the F out of you if you dont shut the H up (multiple times)? How would you feel if this anger fueled man charges you with disorderly conduct just for taking up for your fianc and asking this man to leave you alone as you or your fianc have done nothing wrong? All this was caught in store surveillance cameras. Court date is March 23rd, 2022. We need your prayers, support and sharing. Thank you all so very much. That's why I created a petition to Kingsport Police Chief, which says: Fair and transparent investigation into Daniel Horne and his behavior the night of incident. Will you sign my petition and help me reach my goal? Click here to add your name: https://ift.tt/NfaLetO We are called by God to speak up against injustice and oppression, and choosing to be silent when we should talk against it is just plain wrong. Silence Against Wrongdoing Means Supporting It There's a saying that goes, "silence means 'yes'." In this case, being silent and preferring not to speak up against wrongdoing actually means being "not in opposition to it" or "not being against it." In short, if we won't speak against wrongdoing, it means we are tolerating it, and in essence, supporting it. God of course doesn't want that. He said in Leviticus 5:1 that "If you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about, it is sinful to refuse to testify, and you will be punished for your sin." He will hold all those who should have spoken the truth against wrongdoing accountable for not saying what they should have. #danielhorne #kingsporttnnews #offdutycop #pray
Louisiana State Trooper Garrett Yetman was arrested Saturday morning on a felony charge of domestic abuse battery by means of strangulation and a misdemeanor charge of assault. He was booked into the Ascension Parish Jail where he currently remains pending a "Gwen's Law" hearing. The Louisiana State Police (LSP) has placed Yetman on administrative leave pending the outcome the case. A mugshot was released to the media featuring Yetman sporting what appears to be a Nazi haircut strikingly similar to that sported by former Reichsfuhrer of the Schutzstaffel (SS) Heinrich Himmler in the 1930s and 1940s. We don't know much about the case against Yetman. We know when he was arrested and what he has been charged with, but no other details appear to have been released at this time. We know that his full name is Garrett Cotter Yetman, he is 28 years old, stands six feet tall, and weights 180 pounds. The jail lists his residence as being in Baton Rouge, but we have public records linking him to a location in Walker. We don't know anything about his political leanings other than the fact that he appears to have registered to vote as a Republican in 2016. Beyond that we don't know if Yetman is a Nazi or just has a bad haircut. We do know that his haircut is the same one which has been adopted by the far-right in recent years. According to Esquire, Yetman's haircut has been sported by the likes of Richard Spencer and Eric Trump (https://ift.tt/UPHa91b), but that doesn't necessarily mean they are white supremacists. Brad Pitt and the rapper Macklemore have also sported what some might call the high and tight "Hitler Youth" haircut in recent years. Nobody is accusing either of them of being white supremacists. However, there is a variant of the high and tight haircut which is most common among white supremacists which Yetman appears to be sporting a variant of. Yetman, like Himmler, combs his hair back and slightly to the side, but Yetman does not appear to be using nearly as much grease as a typical Nazi, but that could be due to him just not having done his hair for awhile. There are other pictures of Yetman online in which he appears to have greased his hair in a manner strikingly similar to Himmler. We discovered that Yetman has a public Facebook profile at https://ift.tt/shnOdB6 which features several images of him sporting the "Hitler Youth" look. Due to Yetman not sporting "Hitler Youth" look in older photos we believed him to have adopted by in recent years. His Facebook profile looks normal otherwise except for one image in which he seems to be quoting himself in a text message as calling someone a "Dirty Little Slut" (https://ift.tt/ELwU4qj). Yetman also appears in a video about the 25th Infantry Division which he served with. On top of the haircut, Yetman is a deep south law enforcement officer working with an organization known for being racist. Just last week, Louisiana Governor Bel Edwards said that racism remains prevalent within the Louisiana State Police (https://ift.tt/Bfu1swZ). If Yetman's haircut is not the result of an accident at the barber shop then it is certainly in poor taste for a known member of an organization known for racism. We are not going as far as to call Yetman racist, but we are comfortable voicing our suspicions based on his haircut, who he works for, and what his employer is known for. Conclusion Law enforcement officers should not sport a high and tight "Hitler Youth" haircut unless they are willing to accept the suspicions that come with it. Sporting that haircut by no means makes someone a Neo-Nazi, but it certainly does not help alleviate suspicion. Learn more about Nazi hair in the video below. #garrettyetman #nazis #heinrichhimmler #domesticviolence #assault
Minneapolis Police officer Mark Hanneman shot and killed Amir Locke while serving a no knock warrant on his home a couple days ago. Body camera footage has since been released (embedded below) showing police open the front door with a key, yell "police search warrant" several times, Locke who'd obviously been sleeping under a blanket on his couch appeared to have been startled by the intrusion, grabbed his gun, and was shot dead. At no point did Locke point his gun at officers or otherwise attempt to use it against them. Locke seemed like somebody that responded defensively to being suddenly woken up in the worst possible way before he could possibly figure out what was really going on. Officers yelled commands including "show me your hands" and "get on the ground" but never told him to drop his gun. Still, it will be difficult to hold any of these officers accountable in a court of law. Hanneman's Likely Defense We think we already know what defense Hanneman is going to raise if by some slim chance he is criminally charged. He will say that he was asked to assist fellow officers with serving a search warrant, that he encountered an armed man during service of the warrant, the man did not comply with orders to show his hands or get on the ground, and he didn't have time do anything else before being forced to choose between opening fire and giving Locke the opportunity to shoot him. Claims against officers are legally required to be viewed from the point of view of a reasonable officer at the time without the benefit of hindsight. That means that you have to put yourself in Hanneman's shoes at the time he pulled the trigger and anything Hanneman should but didn't know about Locke at the time cannot be considered. Certainly someone should have done their homework and that person is more to blame for this than Hanneman. Whose Fault is This? We don't know who the target of the search warrant was, but the media has reported that the warrant itself was linked to a homicide case in a neighboring jurisdiction and Locke was not the target. The warrant itself has not been released to the media and we are not sure whose apartment it was. We don't think it was Locke's apartment mainly because the media keeps referring to the scene of the crime as "a downtown apartment" and never call it "his apartment." The fact that Locke appears to have been spending the night on the couch supports the theory that it was not his apartment because he would have been sleeping in bed if that were the case (unless he had a girlfriend that made him sleep on the couch of course). This will make it harder to blame investigators because although they are expected to figure out who lives in a dwelling and how that dwelling relates to their investigation before asking a judge for a search warrant, they are not expected to know if there is a random dude on the couch. If the investigator can show that the warrant was valid he too is probably off the hook. We honestly don't know if it was a valid warrant or not. Thus far the media does not seem to be alleging that officers had the wrong house. They're just saying that the victim was not named in the warrant or otherwise expected to be there. One might wonder if police had conducted better surveillance they might have known that there was a random dude in the apartment and wait for him to leave or at least make sure to keep him safe upon entry. Again, the courts are required to view this from the point of view of a reasonable officer at the time. That goes for Hanneman as well as the investigator(s). That said did Hanneman have other means to subdue Locke? Could he have used a taser or other less than lethal weapon? We don't think a taser is sufficient for dealing with someone armed with a gun. Using a taser in a gun fight is like brining a knife to a gun fight. Everything happened so quickly that Hanneman can probably say honestly that he did what he was trained to do. A SWAT officer is not like a normal officer. They are trained that the situation they're going into is probably more dangerous than most. They are basically assault teams that should not be deployed unless absolutely necessary, but police departments still use them liberally for things like no knock warrants or protests even when there are no known dangers. You can't blame a wolf for eating everything in a hen house because he is just being a wolf, but if someone put that wolf in there you can certainly blame them. Perhaps the true culprit here is police policy. Police Policy We believe that the no knock warrant contributed more to Locke's death than officer Hanneman personally. We say that because had Hanneman knocked on the door it would have woken Locke and Locke would have likely done everything he could not to appear threatening. You can't blame someone who is suddenly woken from a deep slumber for reaching for a gun or not being able to promptly follow police commands. At the same time it is difficult to blame an individual officer that was in a situation that would make any reasonable person fear for their safety. The question for us then turns to the cause of the no knock warrant and the policy of allowing them in the first place. The judge issued two warrants. One was a no knock warrant and the other was a regular warrant, so who decided to use the no knock warrant instead of the regular one? If that person was Hanneman then he has some serious explaining to do and we would say that his incompetent decision to use the no knock warrant was the driving force behind him shooting of an innocent person, so he should be liable for his death. However, the decision was probably made by someone further up the chain of command. If no knock warrants are to be allowed at all then heightened scrutiny must be required. Officers should not be able to obtain a no knock warrant unless they can demonstrate to the court a credible threat to their safety that would make knocking exceptionally dangerous. They should not be passed out like Halloween candy to any officer that might want the option of not knocking. City Restrictions of No Knock Warrants The city of Minneapolis recently implemented a new policy restricting the circumstances under which no knock warrants can be used. The statutory requirements state that in order to obtain a no knock warrant officers must explain: (1) why peace officers are seeking the use of a no-knock entry and are unable to detain the suspect or search the residence through the use of a knock and announce warrant; (2) what investigative activities have taken place to support issuance of the no-knock search warrant, or why no investigative activity is needed or able to be performed; and (3) whether the warrant can be effectively executed during daylight hours according to subdivision 1. (c) The chief law enforcement officer or designee and another superior officer must review and approve each warrant application. The agency must document the approval of both reviewing parties. (d) A no-knock search warrant shall not be issued when the only crime alleged is possession of a controlled substance unless there is probable cause to believe that the controlled substance is for other than personal use. See https://ift.tt/dzB7mJL. Under that policy, Minneapolis Interim Police Chief Amelia Huffman or her designee must personally approve every application for a no knock warrant to make sure the above criteria is met. This means that either someone lied to her (or her designee) to make her (or her designee) think the requirements were met or she (or her designee) recklessly approved the warrant. The former is quite common in law enforcement because cops often lie to make requirements appear met when they know that nobody can prove they knowingly lied or they don't think anyone will call them out for it. If the chief's approval process is nothing more than a rubber stamp then she (or her designee) is more to blame for Locke's death. The rubber stamp theory would explain why the MPD seeks so many no knock warrants. The lower level liar theory would put blame for Locke's death on someone further down the chain. That person could be identified simply by following the paper trail to the first person to write down the false information, but if asked that person would probably claim to have been given the information orally by someone else whose identity they cannot recall. In that case the public will never know whose fault this is. We would really like to know why Judge Peter Cahill issued the no knock warrant (https://ift.tt/veHUzL8). If that name sounds familiar that is probably because Cahill presided over the trial of Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. There are two likely reasons why Cahill issued the warrant. First, he might be just another rubber stamp in which case he is to blame for Locke's death because rubber stamping warrants is reckless. Second, the search warrant application contained false information that tricked Cahill into thinking the requirements were meant in which case a lower level liar is to blame. The Prime Suspects Since we don't know exactly which person or persons are primarily to blame for the death of Amir Locke, here are our three prime suspects. Officer Mark Hanneman, Interim Chief Amelia Huffman, and Judge Peter Cahill. If all three of them were to come together in support of transparency and tell the public why they approved the search warrant it would be much easier for us to determine exactly who is most to blame. Until then we will do all we can to make our voices heard and help others make theirs heard by publishing whatever we find as we figure out exactly who these people are. Who is Mark Hanneman? According to public records, Mark Thomas Hanneman is a 34 year old resident of Hutchinson, Minnesota. Our background check service provider lists him as owning the home at 16707 206th Circle, but they list 46 Grove Street SW as his current home address even though it appears to be owned by different people. Hanneman registered to vote at the Grove Street address in 2016 as a non-partisan. Our background check service has been known to give us outdated information in the past, but not too out dated, so usually unless someone has moved in the past 6-12 months or less it is accurate. We are including these addresses because we think they could be really useful for peaceful protesters that want to make their voices heard. We've learned over the years that just being there at the home of a government official is enough to know that they can hear you and it is not necessary to do anything beyond that. You don't need to break anything or hurt anybody to get the satisfaction that you've forced them to hear you. We ask as always that nobody use this information for any criminal purpose. Nobody has ever suffered physical injury or property damage as a result of having their address posted on this website and we don't want that to change. Who is Interim Chief Amelia Huffman? According to public records, Amelia Faye Huffman is a 49 year old resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her last known home address is listed as 2798 Dean Parkway. You can find her on LinkedIn at https://ift.tt/gphfXkz where she used the email address blueskympls[at]gmail.com to create her account. The email address ahuffman[at]mn.rr.com is also linked to her. We are sharing this lawfully obtained publicly available information about Huffman for the same reasons we did so with Hanneman. Likewise we ask that nobody use this information for any unlawful purpose. Who is Judge Peter Cahill? Peter A. Cahill has done a good job removing his information from online public records. We found an address posted somewhere, but couldn't verify it. Conclusion Someone is to blame for the wrongful death of Amir Locke, but we are not sure who that is? Most people blame the trigger man, but we think somebody needlessly put him in that situation in the first place. #markhanneman #amirlocke #petercahill #ameliahuffman
This person is a very well known Drug addict she has a long history of ripping off older men, than when the money runs out she makes up stories to the local police and tries to get the same people who helped her into trouble....BEWARE.. #joebeltzzz
Lauderhill Police officer Jamar Lee was recently arrested for soliciting a homeless woman he assumed to be a hooker while on duty back in 2020. He is now charged with one count of unlawful compensation and one count of misdemeanor battery. The Lauderhill Police Department (LPD) placed Lee on administrative leave without pay shortly after receiving a complaint from the victim. Lee is alleged to have approached a homeless woman while she was parked in the drive thru at a closed Dunkin Donuts. No doubt disappointed by the closure, Lee tried to salvage his trip by following the woman into an alley where he groped her, whipped his dick out, and told her to suck it if she wanted him to let her go. She touched it for a couple seconds before Lee was spooked by some noise and tried to move the party elsewhere. Lee told her to get in her car and follow him elsewhere, but she fled to her boyfriend's place instead. Investigators used GPS data from Lee's patrol vehicle to verify his whereabout and surveillance footage supported the victim's story. There should be more evidence, but Lee failed to activate his body camera and did not advise dispatch as to his whereabouts. According to public records, Jamar Marcus Lee is a 28 year old resident of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He is a registered Democrat whose only priors appear to be traffic violations. He had a LinkedIn profile at https://ift.tt/CxY3HXrkq which has since been taken down. Search engines do not have cached copies of the profile available, but the Google snippet appears to quote Lee as saying, "I am a detailed oriented organized self starter ready to showcase my creativity, education, valuable skills in logistics, customer service, and management." In our opinion, Lee is drastically undercharged. We think he should be charged with attempted sexual battery which includes attempted oral penetration (https://ift.tt/QycsiHrqU). Due to the power dynamic between an officer and a civilian it is not possible for a civilian to legally consent to any sexual act with an on duty officer. Had a sexual batter actually taken place, the following would apply to Lee: "The offender is a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), who is certified under s. 943.1395 or is an elected official exempt from such certification by virtue of s. 943.253, or any other person in a position of control or authority in a probation, community control, controlled release, detention, custodial, or similar setting, and such officer, official, or person is acting in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe that the offender is in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government." We think that this case needs to be viewed as if Lee scored. Had he not been spooked and that woman had done what he wanted he would be a successful rapist. We do not see the distinction between successful rapists and failed rapists when it comes to labeling someone a rapist. #jamarlee #prostitution #assault #sexoffenders #rape