DA defends decision to drop burglary charges

Registered Sex Offender walks into home, assaults woman
and the Prosecutor doesn't even charge him with assault.
Notice the comments by people in New Mexico.

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/47818.html
DA defends decision to drop burglary charges

Sex Offender Listing
http://www.nmsexoffender.dps.state.n....class?id=1235

By Jason Auslander The New Mexican August 13, 2006

Sex offender allegedly entered assault victim's home through unlocked
door

To his alleged latest victim, the fact that a man with a more than
20-year history of sexual violence could be let out of jail seems
``preposterous.''

But Santa Fe District Attorney Henry Valdez said he had no choice but
to dismiss a charge of aggravated burglary against Mark Catanach, who
allegedly walked into a next-door neighbor's house in the middle of the
night in July and assaulted one of two women living there.

And Valdez took issue Saturday with a story about Catanach, 43, in that
day's New Mexican that characterized Catanach's alleged actions toward
two female neighbors as a break-in. Valdez said Catanach allegedly
entered the women's home through an unlocked door and, therefore, broke
nothing to get in.

Moreover, he said, in order to prove a felony charge against Catanach
like aggravated burglary -- the charge against him that was dismissed
Thursday -- prosecutors must determine he entered the home to commit a
theft or another felony.

``That's what we're struggling with,'' Valdez said.

The alleged attack on the woman would be legally characterized as a
battery -- which is a misdemeanor.

To the 36-year-old woman who lives in the house Catanach allegedly
entered just before 2 a.m. July 18, that explanation -- which led to
Catanach being released from jail Thursday -- defies logic.

The woman said her interaction with Deputy District Attorney Shari
Weinstein, who called Wednesday to tell her that Catanach was to be
released from jail, was infuriating.

``She said the law doesn't allow her to keep someone in jail for more
than 10 days, and I said, `Why not? He broke into my home,' and she
said, `He didn't break in. You left the door open,' as if that's OK,''
said the woman, who didn't want to be identified by name. ``It was like
she was implying it was my fault or something.''

Another woman who was temporarily staying at the house told police July
18 that she heard the wood floor outside her room creaking, went to
investigate, and a man put one hand on the back of her neck and the
other over her mouth, and pulled her toward him. She broke out of his
grip and screamed, and the man fled. She said the man was about 6 feet
1 inch tall and appeared to weigh about 160 pounds.

The woman who spoke Saturday, who was not the woman attacked, said as
the man was running away, she yelled that she was going to call police,
and the man, who had a limp, began to run faster down the street. She
also saw his clothes, she said.

The next morning, the woman who was attacked saw Catanach outside his
house next door and instantly recognized him -- with 100 percent
certainty, she told police -- as the intruder. The other woman said she
immediately recognized in the morning that Catanach was wearing the
same clothes as the man who had broken into their house, and he also
had the same limping gait, though she never saw his face.
Valdez said a defendant can only be held for 10 days before he or she
must be indicted by a grand jury or released. Also, he said Weinstein
was not trying to be rude to the woman but was merely attempting to
explain the law, which the woman found objectionable.

``(Weinstein) wasn't giving her the answer she wanted,'' Valdez said.

Court records show that since the age of 19, Catanach has been
repeatedly convicted of violent sexual crimes -- including raping a
14-year-old boy in 1983, molesting an adult woman in 1981 and making
sexual advances on a juvenile in 1986. Catanach's most recent
conviction came in 1993, when he pleaded guilty to criminal sexual
contact of a minor and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was
released from prison in May 2001 and has been registered on the New
Mexico sexual offenders Web site ever since, where he is described as
being 155 pounds and 6 feet 1 inch tall.

However, a former Santa Fe police officer and current member of another
area law enforcement agency said Saturday that Catanach's criminal
record didn't begin when be turned 18.

``This guy has been a sexual predator-deviant since he was probably
about 14 or 15 years old,'' said the former officer, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity. ``He has an extensive juvenile history.''

The former officer said Catanach was committed to the state hospital in
Las Vegas, N.M., when he was about 16 until his 18th birthday for
treatment as a sex offender. Another ranking area law enforcement
official confirmed Catanach was arrested when he was a juvenile for
molesting a boy.

``You bet your boots he's dangerous,'' the former officer said. Asked
if he had any advice for the woman living next door to Catanach, he
said, ``If the lady doesn't have a shotgun, she probably ought to get
one.''

Because of Catanach's history, the woman interviewed Saturday who lives
in the house said she now lives in fear.

``I've had nightmares,'' said the woman, who hadn't had previous
interactions with Catanach. ``I couldn't sleep for days. I don't sleep
very well (now). Everyone wants me to move, but I don't want to move. I
don't want some (jerk) to make me have to make changes.''

Valdez -- who, as an assistant district attorney, signed the plea
agreement with Catanach on the rape charges in 1984 -- said his office
is ``well aware'' of Catanach's history. He also said in a phone
interview Saturday that his office is aggressive in prosecuting sex
crimes, though he said he wasn't implying Catanach planned to commit a
sex crime during the July 18 incident.

Furthermore, Valdez said a defendant's prior history often isn't
allowed to be considered in a trial because juries must decide a
person's guilt or innocence based solely on the incident being tried.
He said prosecutors plan to decide how to pursue the case against
Catanach early next week.

``It doesn't matter what I think. It's what we can prove,'' he said.

Contact Jason Auslander at 995-3877 or .


Comments

By Mark Weinstein (Submitted: 08/16/2006 9:15 am)
CataNUT should babysit for the D.A.'s family...that would be justice.


By elizabeth Armijo (Submitted: 08/15/2006 11:16 am)
I bet if these 2 ladies had shot him for being in thier home, then the
DA would have something to file in court against them for lets say
"attempted murder" if they only by some change only wounded him or if
they did kill him then they would be up for murder.

Just slap him on the hand and let him go do it to another person until
it really does come down to someone really getting hurt or killed.

What kind of justice is this?



By Phil Maestas (Submitted: 08/14/2006 8:39 pm)
Henry Valdez, you are a lousy D.A.!

By David Lopez (Submitted: 08/14/2006 10:12 am)
Lock your doors. This ahole got into the house through an unlocked
door, according to the article. This way there's proof enough to
charge the ahole with a felony when he has to break a window or door to
get into the house, or even better, he might just move on to the next
house and leave you alone.

By randy echter (Submitted: 08/14/2006 10:04 am)
I remember when my home town had a burglar breaking into houses and he
wasn't getting caught.He kept bothering everyone.One of the residents
was advised by a policeman that if the guy was seen trying to break
in,"go ahead and shoot him,I'll come help you pull him inside the
house",so as to avoid prosecution.

I guess that's what we really have in this society,every person for
themselves("every man for himself", the saying goes).


By Cheryl Maes (Submitted: 08/14/2006 10:02 am)
Probably a relative of HV

By Mark Weinstein (Submitted: 08/14/2006 9:50 am)
I understand that DA's only can work with what's in the books but this
is a town with a Judge Gallegos who lied and falsefied records and is
walking the street without even a fine...people with 10 DWI's are a
diamond dozen...how about vandalism? everywhere....a very high rate of
sexual assaults and Meth...well meth is more availble than water...I
love this city and I am willing to stick it out but unfortunately, the
protection of the individual falls on the individual and often, the
punishment for defending yourself is greater than it would be for
attacking another human being. I am not a fan of Texas but I do like
their laws!

By Mark Weinstein (Submitted: 08/14/2006 9:42 am)
Same last name, no relation!

Why is everyone making such a big deal...he was probably there to
borrow some milk and put his hand around her mouth so that she wouldn't
wake anyone up....
What a great gentleman and so nice of the D.A's office to recognize
that...I wonder if Mr. Catanach wanted to borrow some milk from Mr.
Valdez's house in the middle of the night...pehaps from his mother,
sister, wife and or daughter...what would Mr. Valdez do? I know that I
would certainly offer Mr. Catanach a glass of milk and some lead to go
with it!


By Pat DeLay (Submitted: 08/14/2006 9:35 am)
The question begs to be asked. Who is Catanach related to? How
politically connected is he? That's where I would look first.

By Dave Heath (Submitted: 08/14/2006 9:12 am)
Well I don't know there DA's Office ... how about criminal trespassing
and kidnapping ... hey, she got away on her own but she certainly was
held against her will.

By Dave Heath (Submitted: 08/14/2006 9:11 am)
Well I don't know there DA's Office ... how about criminal trespassing
and kidnapping ... hey, she got away on her own but she certainly was
held against her will.

By Dennis Smith (Submitted: 08/13/2006 8:57 pm)
Henry Valdez: If this guy is re-elected, we deserve what we get. I am
positive there are lawyers out there who can figure out how to
prosecute a long-term offender who creeps into a woman's house early in
the morning and then grabs her. I will bet that even a misdemeanor
conviction would violate this guy's probation, and be sufficient to put
him away for years. Henry Valdez: Don't forget this guy when elections
role around.

By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/13/2006 6:26 pm)
I agree. This is a matter for the Legislature to take up.

By Steve van Dresser (Submitted: 08/13/2006 6:18 pm)
Khal, I don't disagree with your latest, but my point is that it not
the responsibility of the District Attorney to make laws. If New
Mexico needs a three strikes law, it is not the fault of the DA that it
doesn't have one. Mr. Valdez is carrying out his duties in a
responsible way, given current law. All the raging against him, in
this case, seems to be misplaced.

By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/13/2006 6:11 pm)
Mr. van Dresser, if there is an excellent chance that a perp will never
learn, then another victim should not have to be sacrificed on the
altar of justice before we can do something about it. I go back to my
earlier post: a three strikes law. My version is this: if you are
convicted of a third violent felony or violent misdemenor after two
previous felony convictions, you get 25 yrs straight time. No parole,
no time off for good behavior. No soft-headed judges or parole boards.
I would include drunk-driving crashes where a victim is hurt as a
violent felony/misdemenor. The Supremes have upheld these
three-strikes laws in general.

That still leaves the chance open that a convict would see the light of
freedom at some point in life, but would also send the message that
repeat offenders who don't learn the lesson the first or second time
will be off the streets for a long, long time where they can do us no
harm. Since at least some offenders outgrow crime as they get older, it
might work.

I agree with you on most of the legal points you made in your 5:20
post. However, society needs to defend itself against those who
repeatedly endanger others. A Constitutional means of doing this
should be made law.

I don't personally prefer the shotgun approach and prefer non violence
myself. That is why I suggest the three strikes law. But the bottom
line is this: we all have the bottom-line right to defend ourselves. If
society cannot keep us safe from someone who will do to us that which
allows us to use deadly force in our defense, the final line of defense
for an individual, and that individual's human right, is to put the
center of the assailant in the gunsights and commence firing

By stephen SPRAITZ (Submitted: 08/13/2006 6:08 pm)
they burned that guys childhood home he owned to the ground in
Washington State before he got out of prison because the guy had no
other place to live.

in a similar situation.

and the best defensive rounds are 'Extreme Fang-Faced' anti Terror
rounds, to look at a cartridge scares you

www.gunbroker.com






By randy echter (Submitted: 08/13/2006 5:47 pm)
I say Catanach was released because of space realities.....just
speaking generally,because that's a trend,I read.

I used to think police were to come running when trouble was happening
but now I understand they come after the fact to fill out reports as to
what happened.For that reason,I guess all things considered,I should
have a good 6 shot 12 gauge pump shotgun to catch the attention of
would be attackers,robbers,and other miscreants I might encounter.

But I have doubts.I heard you are 20 times more likely to have your gun
used ON you as opposed to using it to defend yourself.That would
suck,buy and supply your killer the weapon and ammo.


By randy echter (Submitted: 08/13/2006 5:32 pm)
Our prisons are very full and what you see here is overflow.He had to
be let out because another criminal newly sentenced was coming to
occupy his cell and took precedence.Rotation more than serve the time
and be released.Time to study Sheriff Arpio's Arizona prison camps
where he stores them in tents to cut costs and facilitate storing so
many like he's dealing with.


By Steve van Dresser (Submitted: 08/13/2006 5:20 pm)
You can't string up a sexual predator for life because he is a scary
scumbag. You have to prove to a jury that he has committed a specific
crime. The only crime that has been committed in this case seems to be
simple assault. The District attorney shouldn't be expected to
prosecute crimes that haven't yet been committed, crimes which might
have been committed, or crimes for which the punishment has already
been meted out. This guy had finished a jail term of eight years.
Getting out after serving your sentence isn't a crime in itself. You
just have to wait until he commits a crime for which the punishment is
severe. You can't put him away for life for what he did the other
night; it's not within the range of punishments for that crime as
provided by the law. If you don't like the law, change it. But if
everybody who ever slapped another person was put away for life, I
suspect that many of us would be spending our lives in prison,
including me.

By paul david (Submitted: 08/13/2006 4:39 pm)
The police do not prevent crime. Just because someone scared you
doesn't mean the police have the duty or the right to lock that person
up. Fortunately, in this country, the presumption is against locking
people up, though that is clearly changing. Locking people up is and
ought to be the last resort.

If you've got a creepy neighbor, what do you do? I would recommend
talking to him. Seriously. Alternatively, when living in rough
neighborhhoods in other states, I have put scary icons on my front
porch or front lawn; items that suggest witchcraft or scary
supernatural forces that superstitious lowlifes might choose to avoid.
Worked very well, though it does tend to repel friendly neighbors as
well.





By Mark Bahti (Submitted: 08/13/2006 2:47 pm)
And Weinsten is still not held accountable for this:

"In February, sheriff's deputies pulled Catanach over for speeding on
N.M. 14 and allegedly found 30 hypodermic syringes, three packets of
cocaine and marijuana in his car. The charges were dismissed for lack
of evidence, Weinstein said, but she would not explain the dismissal
further."



By Elisha Wray (Submitted: 08/13/2006 2:18 pm)

``It doesn't matter what I think. It's what we can prove,'' he said.
(Valdez)

Valdez you have proved to us what he has done, it really is what you
think...but your not really thinking at all!!


By William Burke (Submitted: 08/13/2006 12:49 pm)
Khalil: Your recommandations for shotguns are excellent. I have a
12-guage 870 Remington 20-inch barrel "Wingmaster" (turkey gun, and the
perp's certainly a turkey) with a recoil-absorbing stock that makes
recoil virtually nonexistent. Wish I knew the manufacturer's name. The
"ratchet" sound it makes when a shell is chambered makes a perp's heart
freeze and will send them on their way, one and all.

I'd like to also point out that, unlike a Rottweiler, a shotgun only
needs to be fed when it's needed.

By William Burke (Submitted: 08/13/2006 12:29 pm)
STEVE: you seem to suggest some woman should sacrifice herself to rape
or worse in order that this demon *might* be put away forever (though I
doubt the "forever" part in NM. That's weak and disgusting. This demon
has no compassion for his victims; why should we have any for him?

Maybe we could leave a young schoolgirl chained outside the nearby
school as bait? You like that idea, Steve? Victim-haters like you
always do.

I recently moved to NM from VA, where a guy like Catanach wouldn't have
committed this crime, because he'd long ago have been put in prison so
deep they'd have to pump air in to him.

By Cris Sanchez (Submitted: 08/13/2006 10:51 am)
This is not the first of many other instances when DA Henry Valdez
interprets the law as he sees fit. But, fortunately, he has to face
re-election from time to time, during which time his record of actions
such as this one, should be heavily publized. Forget about his soft
smile and political friendliness.


By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/13/2006 10:46 am)
Good question, Mr. Butler. Would deadly force be authorized at 2 a.m.
with an unauthorized stranger entering your home and grabbing you by
the throat? Somehow, I too worry about the Official Answer to that
question. What if I forgot to lock the windows? Would that be
equivalant to a welcome mat? I would hope there is something in the law
saying that unlawful entry is a crime.

What's that old adage? "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by
six".

By Calvin College (Submitted: 08/13/2006 10:04 am)
Just what do these in name only ( protectors of the innocent ) have in
there pipe ? A person dosn't have to be blind in one eye and can't see
out of the other to know this hairball ( Catanatch ) is a life long
criminal and will never stop until put down, far away for good. If an
animal is rabid there taken care of, so what's the differance here.

By Jerry Romer0 (Submitted: 08/13/2006 10:02 am)
Joe,

Law enforcement agencies in this area are sick and tired of Henry
Valdez and Sheri Weinstein. They do not support this DA's office
because of their laziness. Rather then prosecute cases they look for
excuses to dismiss cases or plea the cases down to next to nothing so
they can show the cases as a close cases. The New Mexican show
investigate the conviction rate of homicide trials prosecuted by the
Valdez administration. The experienced attorney have left the DA's
office because they do not want to be associated with that department.

This man entered a home at 2 AM. Weather of not the door unlocked is
not the case. The entry was unauthorized. This predators past speaks
for itself. He was up to no good. Valdez is teaching criminals how to
skirt the system. That's embarrassing.


By Joe Montoya (Submitted: 08/13/2006 9:25 am)
Henry Valdez always appears to have excuses for his action or in-action
in numerous cases. Perhaps he needs a long and permanent vacation from
the Office of District Attorney. I am sure criminals that career
criminals are happy in having him in the position!

By Thomas Butler (Submitted: 08/13/2006 8:28 am)
Something begs clarification here. If the DA does not consider entering
a home through an unlocked door a crime then what does that imply for
one's right to defend their home with deadly force? The advice to get a
shotgun may well be very bad advice if not tempered by a caution not to
use it under the circumstances of this case. It sounds like DA Valdez
would charge the defender and not the perp. Personally I would defend
my home, unlocked door or no, and take my chances with a jury of my
peers. But what a hassle that would be.

By Steve van Dresser (Submitted: 08/13/2006 8:28 am)
Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. What he actually intended is really
immaterial. The question is what did he do and what can the prosecutor
prove about his intent. He didn't sexually assault, and on that basis,
it would be very difficult to prove that he intended to do so in the
current instance. He also didn't rob so the intent of doing that might
also be difficult. It seems he could still be charged with the
misdemeanor assault. I suspect that you just can't hold somebody in
jail for a longer period of time on a misdemeanor charge. The article
says that the complaint was that he was released from jail, not that he
wouldn't be prosecuted.

By katherine sienicki (Submitted: 08/13/2006 8:08 am)
Oh yeah, anybody remember a girl named Marissa?

By David ONiell (Submitted: 08/13/2006 8:06 am)
Criminal tress pass? Assault? Those are crimes to be prosecuted-
misdemeanors or not-
The fact my door is open or unlocked is not an invitation to be
assaulted.
Whats' next- the rape victim invited it by wearing shorts???
Prosecuting aggressively a convicted sex offender will help insure a
real sentence the NEXT time they offend-
Sex offenders have a ~ 99.99% recidivism rate, anyway-
This reminds me of my first encounter with the NM Criminal justice
System- the
24-year old drunk w/ four prior DUI's who ran into me, no BAC warrant,
was doing 80 in a 50 MPH zone, admitted to everyone on the scene he
'had a 12-pack', ignored every court date until he was jailed for
beating up his girl friend 4 5 months later, and got- FOUR DAYS in
jail. At least the judge sentenced the loser to an inpatient rehab.


By katherine sienicki (Submitted: 08/13/2006 8:04 am)
Yes Steve, that may all be true. But as I think we have all learned in
the last few years sexual predation is a crime of a different nature.
It is psychologicaly different than stealing a dvd player for cash.
Sexual predators do not rehabilitate and reassimilate into society the
way other criminals do. For that reason it should be treated
differently. Knowing this, why wait for the next victim? This situation
makes it clear that there will be one. This isn't an isolated incident.
This is pathologically motivated and therefore should be treated
differently.
Oh yeah, by the way, this guy lives about five houses away from Carlos
Gilbert Elementary school. Does that bid bit of information change
things for anyone? Would it change things if he lived next door to
Henry Valdez or Shari Weinstein? or their kids?
The overwhelming message here is that a sexual predator can stalk
around your house, enter, attack you , and if he doesn't steal anything
or you're strong enough to defend yourself, then there is no crime. Ha!
What planet are we on here? What about the constitutional right to be
secure in your person and property? Meaningless? Be honest how would
you feel if this guy was waiting outside the door of your bedroom.....
just waiting, innocently enough? Not stealing anything, just hanging
out in your home, without your permission, without your knowledge, ...
just waiting in the middle of the night.... while you sleep... for
what? For YOU! Would it feel like a crime then?

By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/13/2006 7:59 am)
How the heck do you know what was intended, Mr. van Dresser? Given his
past predilections for sexual assault and his assault on the person in
question, your assumption that there was no sexual assault "intended"
is a leap of faith. I'm not sure the intended victim as the same level
of faith you do.

Lock the doors indeed. I'll amend my earlier suggestion: a third strike
can be a misdemenor battery or assault charge.

By Steve van Dresser (Submitted: 08/13/2006 7:37 am)
The information presented in the article suggests that the highest
offense that Catanach committed on the date in question was a
misdemeanor. There was no break-in because the door wasn't locked and
there was no sexual assault intended or committed. Nothing in the
story suggests that the perp's actions were innocent, but nothing
suggests that they rise to the level of a felony, either. The DA can
only prosecute the crimes that were committed, not the ones that might
have been committed. For his prior sexual offenses, he was sentenced
to and served many years in prison, according to the story.

He has already been punished for his past offenses -- you can't put him
back in jail for those, unless he were out on parole, which he
apparently wasn't. Nothing in his present trespass seems related to
his history of crime, so it's hard to introduce the old case data to
provide evidence to prosecute the current case.

One thing the victim can certainly do to prevent a recurrence of an
incident of this kind is to lock her doors. It doesn't mean that a
career criminal won't break in next time, but if one does, at least it
will be the kind of felony crime that the victim wishes had been
committed and prosecuted. As much as you might want to see a former
felon off the street, if his behavior doesn't constitute a felony, you
can't expect him to be prosecuted for a crime he didn't, but might
have, committed.


By Jack Rokowski (Submitted: 08/13/2006 7:28 am)
They schould make him a school director or a judge.....would fit the
rest of New Mexico clowns

By David ONiell (Submitted: 08/13/2006 7:21 am)
And people wonder why this state is a laughing stock when it comes to
issues of criminal justice-

By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 08/13/2006 7:16 am)
The D.A. is bound by the law in how he can bring charges. On the other
hand, the advice given by that former Santa Fe police officer is good.
There are numerous brands of shotguns, many of which can be purchased
with short, "brush" barrels, and which make excellent home defense
weapons-- better than a handgun. I have been told that virtually every
criminal instinctively knows the sound of a round being chambered into
a pump-action shotgun, and instinctively runs away from the sound very
fast. The running away part is an optimal result.

Perhaps for a small person, a 20 gauge would be easier to handle but
still have excellent stopping power. Some of the folks who lurk here
probably have good recommendations. I personally like both my Ithaca
Mod. 37 and Remington 870 with "deer barrel" option.

I suppose those who are gun-adverse can acquire a Rottweiler.

On the legal front, seems like NM needs a "three strikes for felons and
you're out" law. I don't like the California law because the third
strike can be a simple shoplifting charge. We can take advantage of
their folly and do better.

By Bill Williams (Submitted: 08/13/2006 6:53 am)
So, let's assume the woman was walking down the street and not in her
home. A man putting one hand behind her neck and the other over her
mouth is not assault?????? Letting him go free is ridiculous. Maam, I
highly recommend you keep your doors locked at all times and legally
purchase a registered firearm (if you don't have one already). Also, go
the extra step to get a conceal permit. Mr. Valdez, you better hope
that Catanach doesn't seriously hurt someone. I'm sure the attorneys
reading this would agree, it would be a sure win........and to the
officer out there that revealed the juvenile history - thanks for
coming forward and for your honesty.

By Julian Sanchez (Submitted: 08/13/2006 6:44 am)
I believe it's time for Henry Valdez to go! I don't know judicial
procedures might be but common sense says he walked into a private home
in the early morning and assaulted I believe that's a crime!
Valdez is all screwed up! Now if it would have happen to him law
enforcement would have been called in numbers and that would have been
a big issue!
Something is very wrong with is incident!

By Deborah Love (Submitted: 08/13/2006 6:08 am)
This is OUTRAGEOUS. He entered a home uninvited but b/c the door was
unlocked it can't be proven why he entered??? COME ON! He's a
convicted sex offender with a history of sexual assaults dating back to
his teens. His next attack should be attributed to the DA's office.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Why did you "ot" this Dan?

Greegor wrote:
Why did you "ot" this Dan?

Gee, I wonder if it could be that you posted a story on a problem with
prosecution of cases without enough evidence to proceed in
alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking, and
alt.support.foster-parents?

In fact, what your little jolly shot at authority, a habit of yours,
proves, stupid is my argument about why the state might not have been
able to proceed in a child sexual molestation case.

In fact, that happens rather a lot.

It's very hard to gather sufficient evidence to bring charges.

Of course dimwits that think they know the law will insist on GASP!
VIOLATION THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ALLEDGED PERP...or at least
wanting someone ELSE to do it.

So, did you agree that man should have been charged with more than he
was?

If so, Greg, how do you explain your "protector of the Constitution"
pretense here and your support for violating someone's constitutional
rights in this case?

You are a fraud, Greg.

Plain and simple.

And your attacks on families coming here makes obvious you are either a
nutcase or a real agent provocateur for CPS or some other government
agency. How about Iowa's Attorney's General office?

Was it them that sent you on "sabbatical," doing their dirty work here?

Kane

Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.

Greegor wrote:
Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.

I have too much going on to keep up with the mind reading you require.

Post the article in attributions next time.


I don't think that was the argument, Greg. I believe you just moved the
goal posts.

Was it about a parole violation, or something else?

If you don't pull up the original message with attributions and our
exchanges to this point, I'll presume you just like again.

You can run, but you can't hide, Greg.

0:-]

0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.

My argument was that there was insufficient evidence of the charges
claimed to prosecute.

You are going on his past...and if you know anything about trial rules
you would know that cannot be considered in trial. You can only charge
and judge based on the crime in the charges.

Past does not matter.

If you do not think so, you need to look up the laws, and the rules of
the court.

But don't do that, you'll run out of things to bitch about almost
immediately.

The DA had NOTHING to go on. Only that he had entered through an
unlocked door.

You constantly jump to conclusions, you run on your emotions...which are
pretty damned wild and ranting bull**** mostly, and you don't come to
logical and FACT BASED conclusions.

"Registered Sex Offender walks into home, assaults woman
and the Prosecutor doesn't even charge him with assault.
Notice the comments by people in New Mexico."

I did not ARGUE ABOUT COMMENTS, PAROLE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING BUT THAT
THE PROSECUTOR LIKELY COULD NOT MOUNT A GOOD CASE TO CHARGE THIS ****.

I don't like the man, I'd shoot his ass and make make damn sure he was
in my house when it happened, and the door wouldn't mattered.

In most states (can't speak at the moment about NM) if someone enters,
and refuses to leave, advances and will not stop on command, you can
shot to stop him. Often that means until he stops moving. And it's not
hard in those states to prove you were afraid for your life.

The women, had she been armed, and used her gun likely would have not
been charged with anything.

A grand jury would have had a field day with it, for about ten minutes
reviewing the circumstances.

Why people do not learn the self defense and defense of the home in
their state is beyond me.

Why they do not keep a gun for defensive purposes is even more of a
puzzle. It's not like we don't have enough pervs and nuts running about,
now is it?

Now what the puckering hell was it you wanted to argue about related to
what I ACTUALLY SAID, you stupid git?


I have too much going on to keep up with the mind reading you require.

Post the article in attributions next time.


I don't think that was the argument, Greg. I believe you just moved the
goal posts.

Was it about a parole violation, or something else?

If you don't pull up the original message with attributions and our
exchanges to this point, I'll presume you just like again.

You can run, but you can't hide, Greg.

0:-]

0:- wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.

My argument was that there was insufficient evidence of the charges
claimed to prosecute.

You are going on his past...and if you know anything about trial rules
you would know that cannot be considered in trial. You can only charge
and judge based on the crime in the charges.

Past does not matter.

If you do not think so, you need to look up the laws, and the rules of
the court.

But don't do that, you'll run out of things to bitch about almost
immediately.

The DA had NOTHING to go on. Only that he had entered through an
unlocked door.

You constantly jump to conclusions, you run on your emotions...which are
pretty damned wild and ranting bull**** mostly, and you don't come to
logical and FACT BASED conclusions.

"Registered Sex Offender walks into home, assaults woman
and the Prosecutor doesn't even charge him with assault.
Notice the comments by people in New Mexico."

I did not ARGUE ABOUT COMMENTS, PAROLE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING BUT THAT
THE PROSECUTOR LIKELY COULD NOT MOUNT A GOOD CASE TO CHARGE THIS ****.

I don't like the man, I'd shoot his ass and make make damn sure he was
in my house when it happened, and the door wouldn't mattered.

In most states (can't speak at the moment about NM) if someone enters,
and refuses to leave, advances and will not stop on command, you can
shot to stop him. Often that means until he stops moving. And it's not
hard in those states to prove you were afraid for your life.

The women, had she been armed, and used her gun likely would have not
been charged with anything.

Or, she shot might have shot her grandson dead cause she thought he was
a 'burglar'. That's a much more likely outcome - wannabe cowboys usually
end up shooting themselves or another family member while waiting for
the 'bad' men.

James Browns Soul wrote:
0:- wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.

My argument was that there was insufficient evidence of the charges
claimed to prosecute.

You are going on his past...and if you know anything about trial rules
you would know that cannot be considered in trial. You can only charge
and judge based on the crime in the charges.

Past does not matter.

If you do not think so, you need to look up the laws, and the rules of
the court.

But don't do that, you'll run out of things to bitch about almost
immediately.

The DA had NOTHING to go on. Only that he had entered through an
unlocked door.

You constantly jump to conclusions, you run on your emotions...which
are pretty damned wild and ranting bull**** mostly, and you don't come
to logical and FACT BASED conclusions.

"Registered Sex Offender walks into home, assaults woman
and the Prosecutor doesn't even charge him with assault.
Notice the comments by people in New Mexico."

I did not ARGUE ABOUT COMMENTS, PAROLE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING BUT THAT
THE PROSECUTOR LIKELY COULD NOT MOUNT A GOOD CASE TO CHARGE THIS ****.

I don't like the man, I'd shoot his ass and make make damn sure he was
in my house when it happened, and the door wouldn't mattered.

In most states (can't speak at the moment about NM) if someone enters,
and refuses to leave, advances and will not stop on command, you can
shot to stop him. Often that means until he stops moving. And it's not
hard in those states to prove you were afraid for your life.

The women, had she been armed, and used her gun likely would have not
been charged with anything.

Above are my comments. Kane

Below, someone's response. In a sock, of course.

Or, she shot might have shot her grandson dead cause she thought he was
a 'burglar'. That's a much more likely outcome - wannabe cowboys usually
end up shooting themselves or another family member while waiting for
the 'bad' men.

I'm going to invite you to provide proof of your claim and at the same
time introduce you to my friends, well some of them, at talk.politics.guns

There's a number of them that are excellent researchers and maintain
repositories of actual data on such things, as I am and do myself.

But you aren't likely to believe me...so, can I assume you are saying
that people are more likely, if they have a gun or guns in their home to
shot a family member than an intruder or themselves?

If I am framing this incorrectly, I hope you'll correct me, and
introduce yourself to talk.politics.guns.

Feel free on your way in, to stop, do a little research, and bring your
evidence for your claims with you.

Best wishes, Kane

0:- wrote:
James Browns Soul wrote:
0:- wrote:
0:- wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Kane, There most certainly WAS enough evidence to violate this pervs
PAROLE.

My argument was that there was insufficient evidence of the charges
claimed to prosecute.

You are going on his past...and if you know anything about trial
rules you would know that cannot be considered in trial. You can only
charge and judge based on the crime in the charges.

Past does not matter.

If you do not think so, you need to look up the laws, and the rules
of the court.

But don't do that, you'll run out of things to bitch about almost
immediately.

The DA had NOTHING to go on. Only that he had entered through an
unlocked door.

You constantly jump to conclusions, you run on your emotions...which
are pretty damned wild and ranting bull**** mostly, and you don't
come to logical and FACT BASED conclusions.

"Registered Sex Offender walks into home, assaults woman
and the Prosecutor doesn't even charge him with assault.
Notice the comments by people in New Mexico."

I did not ARGUE ABOUT COMMENTS, PAROLE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING BUT
THAT THE PROSECUTOR LIKELY COULD NOT MOUNT A GOOD CASE TO CHARGE THIS
****.

I don't like the man, I'd shoot his ass and make make damn sure he
was in my house when it happened, and the door wouldn't mattered.

In most states (can't speak at the moment about NM) if someone
enters, and refuses to leave, advances and will not stop on command,
you can shot to stop him. Often that means until he stops moving. And
it's not hard in those states to prove you were afraid for your life.

The women, had she been armed, and used her gun likely would have not
been charged with anything.

Above are my comments. Kane

Below, someone's response. In a sock, of course.

Or, she shot might have shot her grandson dead cause she thought he
was a 'burglar'. That's a much more likely outcome - wannabe cowboys
usually end up shooting themselves or another family member while
waiting for the 'bad' men.

I'm going to invite you to provide proof of your claim and at the same
time introduce you to my friends, well some of them, at talk.politics.guns


Can't you folks on the gun group do something with this deluded state
agent? You know him as Kane/d'geezer/Donald L. Fisher.

He spams his neighbors children to usenet so his boss can cash in on
adoption bonuses - he stalks, harasses, and falsely accuses innocent
parents already abused by an out of control child welfare agency.

He constantly rants that parents who spank their children are 'child
abusing thugs' - rants for laws to imprison spanking parents and then
has the nerve to post quotes from the founding fathers and the
constitution in his sig.

We're having a ball over on ASCPS watching this perverted koo-koo flop
like a fish. I knew the gun comment would send him over the edge, but I
didn't think he'd involve you folks on the gun group.

Ten Hut - at ease - carry on men.



There's a number of them that are excellent researchers and maintain
repositories of actual data on such things, as I am and do myself.

But you aren't likely to believe me...so, can I assume you are saying
that people are more likely, if they have a gun or guns in their home to
shot a family member than an intruder or themselves?

If I am framing this incorrectly, I hope you'll correct me, and
introduce yourself to talk.politics.guns.

Feel free on your way in, to stop, do a little research, and bring your
evidence for your claims with you.

Best wishes, Kane