9 photos
Old Hags Past and Present
[QUOTE=StymieChula;6724489]You guys are funny I guess cause your all so f kin stupid.
You guys knock Willie who is a Real contributor to this forum.
Willie don't go around attacking people if you disagree with him bigstud47 does.
Let me ask you guys a simple question can you respond to any post from bigdud47 ?? NOOO you can't.
Your forced to read his REPLY he don't have original post of his own you dumbass's.[/QUOTE]Thanks StymieChula for coming to my defense. Champions don't take criticism personally (not that I'm a champion in the slightest!) I just report and recommend my favorites to you guys and try and help. But, am I a "White Knight"? Probably, but because of my age I tend to get excited about these women because they have and some still continue to provide a great experience, usually free of drugs and drama and in a great setting for a fair price. Tired of my reviews and posts? That's okay because I'm resigning from the debating society and heading off the way of my heroes and mentors like Bonerific, Erickson73 and RoadWarrior2 K who helped me tremendously years ago when I was a babe in the woods and world of mongering and to whom I'm eternally grateful! I will just continue to see my favorites from time to time and as long as my health allows and junior still works and leave all the reviews and reporting to you younger guys. So, farewell, adieu and adios! You won't have Willie24 to kick around anymore! But, here's some pictures of my "old hags"! Too bad if you never had a chance to see any of them, they were and all the best over the last decade. Cheers Willie.
Theoretical versus reality
[QUOTE=VincentGambini;6723346]Yes, of course LE wants to "attempt to gather evidence of intent" prior to making an arrest. That would obviously be true for any investigation for any crime, hobby related or otherwise. One must keep in mind though that what constitutes "evidence" will be different in every single case. People routinely believe every DUI will have video recordings and breath test results. That is absolutely not true. While I've never done a thorough review of that issue, I'd guess less than 50% (probably closer to 30%) of cases have both of those. Same goes for hobby related arrests, some will have incriminating text messages, some will not. I am personally aware of a case where an individual replied to an ad on STG, he texted the "provider" to inquire as to where she was located, an address, a time to meet and to let her know he had arrived at the location. He NEVER mentioned money, fees, costs, sex, nothing that would be considered incriminating. He went into the room and, again, mentioned nothing about sex or money. He was arrested and prosecuted. He received a plea to an amended charge, probation and fines. Rather than face the uncertainty of a trial, not to mention costs, possible incarceration and any public embarrassment, he accepted the offer and moved on. Additionally, LE is protected by qualified immunity, meaning that, so long as they reasonably acted within the scope of their official capacity, they cannot be sued. In the real life example I just detailed, had that person decided to sue (entering a plea aside) LE likely would be found to have acted reasonably within the scope of his official capacity and, in turn, been protected from a lawsuit. While my guess is he would have been found not guilty at a criminal trial, at the civil trial for the lawsuit against LE, the facts of posting the ad, the person replying to the ad and then meeting the "provider" at the hotel would almost certainly be sufficient for LE to prevail. With the lower burden of proof for a civil trial versus a criminal trial, the arrested individual likely loses the civil trial despite winning the criminal trial.
As to your comment of not being "unique in that a settlement for (your) wrongful arrest & legal fees" wouldn't prevent you from pursuing all legal remedies, the individual I detailed above was married, had high school age children and a fairly white collar occupation with a nice income. My belief is that those factors played into his decision to accept the plea offer to the lesser charge.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AveImperator14;6723639]Qualified Immunity protects the individual officers from being sued personally not the department for wrongful arrest. So again. Your friend did nothing illegal & allowed himself to be bullied into pleading guilty to a crime that he didn't commit. Cops can arrest you illegally for anything in any circumstance since they are doing it illegally, following the law is no protection from an illegal arrest (hence what makes it illegal.) I actually once was arrested for drunk driving after refusing to do the field sobriety test & requesting a breathalyzer. As I was over 5 years sober at the time it was a test that I knew I would pass. The cop trying to be cute refused to do it and instead arrested me to take down to the station for a blood test which of course came back 0. 00%. He left so mad after I had been making fun of him for being dumb and even the other cops were chuckling at arresting a guy with a 5 year sober medallion in his pocket for drunk driving (then one of them gave me a ride back to my car.) So your premise that cops can just arrest you cause they want to like that cop did when he was staked outside the strip club looking to arrest drunk drivers but since I wasn't drunk driving then the charges were dropped and the cop was definitely going to be mocked for quite a while among his cop peers for that one.[/QUOTE]It's unclear to me what point it was you intended to convey. In my post above (which you partially deleted) I stated that a civil lawsuit stemming from the detailed arrest would likely be unsuccessful and I stated that would be due to qualified immunity and the difference in the level of proof necessary to prevail. As to such a trial, I indicated the evidence would include the ad that had been posted, the person replying to that ad, continued communications and, ultimately, meeting the "provider" at the hotel. While such evidence may well be insufficient for a conviction at a criminal trial, I strongly suspect the outcome would be much different in a civil trial, the OJ Simpson case comes to mind. While you provided some detail as to a possible DUI arrest sometime ago, it's unclear if you were actually arrested, what with the comment of another officer taking you back to your car. Additionally, you did not offer any detail as to whether you initiated a civil lawsuit after your interaction with law enforcement.
Going back to my first post in this conversation, I stated that you were "mostly correct" in your comment of "don't do anything illegal" so as to avoid being arrested. You further stated that "escorting is totally legal" and "any business discussion" could be had "after you both have gotten naked / exposed" if that was what you were "so inclined" to do. If we're being honest, that's likely the exact intent for damn near every interaction described by every anonymous poster on this board, myself included. Of course we're looking to avoid arrest, of course we want to take steps to ensure that outcome, but, that act is precisely what we are "so inclined" to do. Hence the inability to prevail in a civil lawsuit. I'm personally unaware of any lawsuit for a false arrest with the facts we've been discussing; an ad on a site known for such transactions, a person replying to that ad, there being an ongoing discussion to set up a meeting, ultimately meeting the "provider" and being arrested, though without discussion as to sex and money. My guess is you would be hardpressed to find such a lawsuit, even harder to find one where the plaintiff prevailed.
