Woman sues cop who asked for date after giving ticket

[adoucette]

Which is expected, given your reactionary authoritarian streak.

LOL
Typical Ad hominum.

There is nothing non-obtrusive or non-threatening about a police officer following you home after citing you and leaving notes on your car expressing sexual interest in you.

No sexual reference was made in the note and if that single note was the extent of the interaction over the last 2 months it is clearly non-obtrusive and non-threatening.

Especially given the frequency of sexual harassment/rape by police officers who pull over female drivers for traffic violations/suspicion of DUI.

Really?

I suppose you have supporting DATA on the frequency of sexual harrassment and Rape by police officers who pull over female drivers for traffic violations/suspicion of DUI to support your allegation that she had reason to be worried?

Not do anything, you mean, except justifiably worry about how this authority figure who had already tracked her down might respond to sexual rejection?

I suspect no more than any woman does when accepting a date from a larger man and getting in his car. Part of living.

The initial act of tracking her down and leaving a note was stalking and an abuse of power totally irrespective of anything that did or did not occur after that.

Not really as he did not confront her.
And of course he had her address, it is in his ticket book.
So if she is that paranoid she should worry about everyone she gives her licence to for identification since she would never know which ones DID stalk her.

Yeah, and just look at what that slut was wearing! Obviously she wanted it.

He never touched her, but you want to imply that he did and you used a rape reference to suggest it.

 

[Trooper]

Apparently, she's trying to use the California Legislature enacted Vehicle Code Section 1808.21, which congressed passed after the case of Rebecca Schaeffer. It's on a need to know basis, which he had when he pulled her over.

"According to the legislation, a stalker is defined as "someone who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another victim and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place the victim or victim's immediate family in fear of their safety." There must be at least two incidents to constitute the crime and show a "continuity of purpose" or credible threat."

I doubt that she'll win but he could lose his job from conduct unbecoming of an officer. It depends on whether or not they like him.

Personally, I don't think he did anything wrong. She waited a while to file. So obviously, she told someone, who then said "Hey, maybe you have a case...$$$"

 

[billvon]

AShe waited a while to file. So obviously, she told someone, who then said "Hey, maybe you have a case...$$$"

Or she thought "holy shit, it's a cop! If I go to the courts I'll end up in even more trouble, because they protect their own."

 

[adoucette]

Apparently, she's trying to use the California Legislature enacted Vehicle Code Section 1808.21, which congressed passed after the case of Rebecca Schaeffer. It's on a need to know basis, which he had when he pulled her over.

"According to the legislation, a stalker is defined as "someone who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another victim and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place the victim or victim's immediate family in fear of their safety." There must be at least two incidents to constitute the crime and show a "continuity of purpose" or credible threat."

And from what has been written, there was not a second note, so as you pointed out, stalking as a charge doesn't apply (and there was no threat at all implied by the note).

I doubt that she'll win but he could lose his job from conduct unbecoming of an officer. It depends on whether or not they like him.

With any luck he'll get a short reprimand and life will go on.

Personally, I don't think he did anything wrong. She waited a while to file. So obviously, she told someone, who then said "Hey, maybe you have a case...$$$"

That's kinda what it looks like to me as well.
But hey, I've apparently got a reactionary authoritarian streak

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I had the opposite reaction.

The note supposedly said: "he would understand if Paredes did not get in touch"

So apparently he simply put the ball in her court in a very unobtrusive and non-threatening way.
If she wanted to meet him she could let him know and if not she didn't have to do anything.

What I find interesting is this note was left Oct 22nd and there is no indication that she responded OR that he had any further contact save that one note.

Which if true, then in my mind that is neither stalking or an abuse of power.

But I am curious, if that is all there is to this, why wait over 2 months, and then file the suit?

That's a good point, she probably started talking to her friends and someone said let me check with a lawyer friend and the lawyer said we have a case if you want to pursue it. The fact is she will most likely get paid off without ever going to court. how could she pass that up?

 

[quadraphonics]

Typical Ad hominum.

Yeah, so? I notice that you don't even bother to deny the charge. And anyway, ad hominem is only fallacious if it's pursued in exclusion of substance, which is not the case here. You are reliably - apparently, reflexively - deferential towards authority figures, and in particular the police, whether they're macing peaceful protestors, stalking women at their homes, or who knows what else.

No sexual reference was made in the note

The note contained an invitation for a dinner date, and contained an explicit description of the victim as "attractive." Those are overtly sexual references.

and if that single note was the extent of the interaction over the last 2 months it is clearly non-obtrusive and non-threatening.

That single note was itself clearly obtrusive and threatening. Just because he (putatively) stopped stalking her after this incident, doesn't imply that what he did wasn't stalking.

Really?

I suppose you have supporting DATA on the frequency of sexual harrassment and Rape by police officers who pull over female drivers for traffic violations/suspicion of DUI to support your allegation that she had reason to be worried?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=driving+while+female

I suspect no more than any woman does when accepting a date from a larger man and getting in his car. Part of living.

It's interesting that you'd equate the situation of this generic woman who wants nothing to do with this police officer, to that of a woman who has freely accepted an invitation to go on a date and decided to get into a vehicle driven by a physically superior man. Apparently all women in the USA are to be understood as having indicated sexual/romantic interest in any and every police officer in the country, and also having freely chosen to place themselves into the physical control of the same? Or what?

Not really as he did not confront her.

There is no requirement of "confrontation" in the definition of "stalking" (quite the opposite, actually) nor "abuse of power."

And of course he had her address, it is in his ticket book.

That's exactly why his use of such to pursue his personal sexual interest in her was exactly an unacceptable abuse of his power and position.

So if she is that paranoid she should worry about everyone she gives her licence to for identification since she would never know which ones DID stalk her.

We don't know who she does and does not worry about, nor what practices she follows when it comes to showing her ID to people.

What we do know, is that the one guy she has complained about did actually use the information to stalk her.

We also know that her expectation that police officers would not so abuse such information is reasonable, and well-founded in law and practice. By abusing his power, this officer has eroded the trust that the public has in police officers not to (illegaly!) misuse personal information gained through police duties. This will make it that much more difficult for other police officers to effectively, safely, and efficiently perform their duties.

He never touched her, but you want to imply that he did and you used a rape reference to suggest it.

I'm pointing out that you are engaged in a cheap game of victim blaming - or, in the case of female victims of sexual harassment or other sex crimes, "slut shaming." It's a standard part of the discourse on such matters, reliably emanating from authoritarian and patriarchal perspectives as a means to innoculate against charges of misconduct and preemptively discredit victims. Which is exactly your program here.

 

[quadraphonics]

Or she thought "holy shit, it's a cop! If I go to the courts I'll end up in even more trouble, because they protect their own."

Point is that these vacuous suppositions about what we're supposed to read from the tea leaves of filing dates are just that - there's no real conclusions to be garnered from that, and anybody who suggests otherwise is obviously just pushing some agenda and looking for a cheap talking point.

 

[quadraphonics]

But hey, I've apparently got a reactionary authoritarian streak

You can try the glib dismissal all you want, but the reliability with which you rush to the defense of the authorities every time they are caught doing something wrong will undermine you. Not to mention, the insecurity evident in your need to be seen laughing this charge off here. If you really wanted to prove me wrong, you'd ignore this particular charge, and meanwhile build up some credibility by waiting for a chance to be seen criticizing an abuse of police authority.

 

[adoucette]

You can try the glib dismissal all you want, but the reliability with which you rush to the defense of the authorities every time they are caught doing something wrong will undermine you. Not to mention, the insecurity evident in your need to be seen laughing this charge off here. If you really wanted to prove me wrong, you'd ignore this particular charge, and meanwhile build up some credibility by waiting for a chance to be seen criticizing an abuse of police authority.

Oh BS, I could care less what you think of me Quad, just pointing out your typical leap to an Ad Hominum.

The mark of someone with a weak argument.

The fact is he didn't do anything to harm or scare or intimidate that women.

At most it was slightly poor judgement on his part.

Of course you would hang him for it.

Big surprise there.

 

[Bells]

Personally, I don't think he did anything wrong. She waited a while to file. So obviously, she told someone, who then said "Hey, maybe you have a case...$$$"

You do not think a police officer, who stops someone to give them a ticket, then goes back to the station and uses Government resources he has full access to, to find out where that someone lives, drives to her house and leaves a note on her car telling her that he can't stop thinking about her and to please go out with him, has done nothing wrong?

Would you think differently if he raped her or killed her?

The very fact that he abused his position as a police officer to use police resources to track down a woman he had stopped while on patrol, to find out where she lives so he could ask her out means he should be fired.

It is a complete and utter breach of privacy. I work for the Government and if I so much as look at someone's file that I have no reason to be looking at (such as to find out where that person lives so I can go there to ask them out), I'd be fired. Instantly.. And if the breach is severe enough, such as the one in this case, I would be prosecuted.

 

[scheherazade]

I went back and read the article again.

The suit, which seeks unspecified payments in damages, also accuses Collins of using his "authority and position as a police officer not to protect the public, but to attempt to manipulate the plaintiff into going out on a date with him."

Why is it suddenly all about the money?

The lawsuit also names Stickney Police Chief Joseph Kretch and the village of Stickney.

What's this all about, if not money?

I'm rather curious now to hear how this all comes together. The legal system comes up with some very bizarre outcomes.

 

[gmilam]

You do not think a police officer, who stops someone to give them a ticket, then goes back to the station and uses Government resources he has full access to, to find out where that someone lives, drives to her house and leaves a note on her car telling her that he can't stop thinking about her and to please go out with him, has done nothing wrong?

Would you think differently if he raped her or killed her?

The very fact that he abused his position as a police officer to use police resources to track down a woman he had stopped while on patrol, to find out where she lives so he could ask her out means he should be fired.

It is a complete and utter breach of privacy. I work for the Government and if I so much as look at someone's file that I have no reason to be looking at (such as to find out where that person lives so I can go there to ask them out), I'd be fired. Instantly.. And if the breach is severe enough, such as the one in this case, I would be prosecuted.

How do you know he went through government resources? He filled out her address on the ticket when he wrote it. And, as has been pointed out, most people are in the phone book.

I'll agree that it was bad form and unprofessional on his part.

 

[Trooper]

You do not think a police officer, who stops someone to give them a ticket, then goes back to the station and uses Government resources he has full access to, to find out where that someone lives, drives to her house and leaves a note on her car telling her that he can't stop thinking about her and to please go out with him, has done nothing wrong?

Do we know if he went back to the office to obtain her address? I was under the assumption that dispatch could provide the address when he ran the license plate and/or, when he asked to see her driver’s license. My address is on my diver’s license.

It is a complete and utter breach of privacy. I work for the Government and if I so much as look at someone's file that I have no reason to be looking at (such as to find out where that person lives so I can go there to ask them out), I'd be fired. Instantly.. And if the breach is severe enough, such as the one in this case, I would be prosecuted.

He had a reason to look it up, he gave her a ticket, remember?

Would you think differently if he raped her or killed her?

It would be different had he let her out of the ticket, if she’d agree to go out with him. Now, that is abusing your authority. Rape? Killed? He asked her out, for Christ’s sake.

The very fact that he abused his position as a police officer to use police resources to track down a woman he had stopped while on patrol, to find out where she lives so he could ask her out means he should be fired.

Should we also string Dawkins up for the elevator incident? Holy shit, can’t a man ask a woman out anymore? Gee, rejection and a frivolous lawsuit to boot.

He left one little note….Ooooh, so scary.

She's a friggin money hungry bitch. Hopefully, this will prevent other's from asking her out.

 

[adoucette]

I'm pointing out that you are engaged in a cheap game of victim blaming - or, in the case of female victims of sexual harassment or other sex crimes, "slut shaming." It's a standard part of the discourse on such matters, reliably emanating from authoritarian and patriarchal perspectives as a means to innoculate against charges of misconduct and preemptively discredit victims. Which is exactly your program here.

More BS.

I haven't blamed her for anything and to equate leaving a note that identifies oneself and asks someone if they would like a date to a sex crime is to make a HUGE expansion of the definition of what constitutes a sex crime or conversely to demean the latter.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Moderator edit: Scrubbing moderated content.

Maybe she got more scared the more time went by and or tried to talk herself out of filing lawsuit for a couple of months.
At any rate, it is not up to you or I to decide if lawsuit is "frivolous".
Pretty sure, though, if you were to "punch" her "in the face for filing this frivolous lawsuit", that the lawsuit she filed against you for doing just that would not be "frivolous". Also, why did you feel it so important to publish her address? Remember my moniker!!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Which is expected, given your reactionary authoritarian streak.



There is nothing non-obtrusive or non-threatening about a police officer following you home after citing you and leaving notes on your car expressing sexual interest in you.

Especially given the frequency of sexual harassment/rape by police officers who pull over female drivers for traffic violations/suspicion of DUI.

If I were this officer's superior, he'd be out of work immediately.



Not do anything, you mean, except justifiably worry about how this authority figure who had already tracked her down might respond to sexual rejection?



The initial act of tracking her down and leaving a note was stalking and an abuse of power totally irrespective of anything that did or did not occur after that.



Yeah, and just look at what that slut was wearing! Obviously she wanted it.

Where did that ; "Yeah, and just look at what that slut was wearing! Obviously she wanted it." come from?!!
I saw no references to her clothing or pictures. And what would it matter, anyway. Just because you find someone attractive, surely does not mean "They want it"!!??!!
I find lots of ladies attractive, but i am pretty sure they do not look at me and think "Gee, I hope he makes sexual advances toward me!!" As a matter of fact , I think I would be pretty worried about any of them if they did indeed think that and go so far as to let me know!! Remember my moniker!!

 

[adoucette]

Yeah, so? I notice that you don't even bother to deny the charge. And anyway, ad hominem is only fallacious if it's pursued in exclusion of substance, which is not the case here. You are reliably - apparently, reflexively - deferential towards authority figures, and in particular the police, whether they're macing peaceful protestors, stalking women at their homes, or who knows what else.

Yeah, most people dislike police, right up until they need one.
I know quite a few and tend to find most of them pretty nice people and I've heard their daily stories and so yes, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I'm quite familiar with people like you as well though.

The note contained an invitation for a dinner date, and contained an explicit description of the victim as "attractive." Those are overtly sexual references.

No Quad, telling a woman they are attractive and asking for a dinner date are NOT overtly sexual references.

That single note was itself clearly obtrusive and threatening. Just because he (putatively) stopped stalking her after this incident, doesn't imply that what he did wasn't stalking.

No Quad, as Trooper's post explained:

a stalker is defined as "someone who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another victim and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place the victim or victim's immediate family in fear of their safety." There must be at least two incidents to constitute the crime and show a "continuity of purpose" or credible threat."

His single note does not come anywhere close to any rational description of STALKING.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=driving+while+female

And your Google Search returned mainly hits from Saudi Arabia, but what it does seem to show is that in the US it is a rather rare occurrence, and if found to be true, it is punished severely.

 

[Bells]

Do we know if he went back to the office to obtain her address? I was under the assumption that dispatch could provide the address when he ran the license plate and/or, when he asked to see her driver’s license. My address is on my diver’s license.

Evangelina Paredes accuses Stickney cop Chris Collins of violating her privacy by searching motor-vehicle records for her address, then leaving a handwritten note on her car windshield outside her apartment two days after she was ticketed.

[Source]
​

He had a reason to look it up, he gave her a ticket, remember?

Unfortunately, he went further than that, didn't he?

It would be different had he let her out of the ticket, if she’d agree to go out with him. Now, that is abusing your authority. Rape? Killed? He asked her out, for Christ’s sake.

If a police officer searches the "motor-vehicle records" for someone's address to commit a crime, it would matter to you, correct?

But if he searches those records for his own personal reasons (asking someone out is not police business) and personal gain, you have no issues with that?

Should we also string Dawkins up for the elevator incident? Holy shit, can’t a man ask a woman out anymore? Gee, rejection and a frivolous lawsuit to boot.

I don't think you quite understand the extreme breach of privacy that happened here. He used his access at the 'DMV' to find out where she lives so he could go there and ask her out.

He used his position to get personal information about her and then drove to where she lived. It is unprofessional and a breach of her privacy. Are there no privacy laws in the US? What? Government employees are able to use their access to such sites to look up people they fancy?

She's a friggin money hungry bitch. Hopefully, this will prevent other's from asking her out.

And he is obviously a psycho who is using his status as a police officer to access government files to look up where women live so he can drive to their homes and ask them out.

And hopefully he not only loses his job, but is charged with invasion of privacy and breaching the public trust as a police officer.

 

[Gustav]

More BS.

I haven't blamed her for anything and to equate leaving a note that identifies oneself and asks someone if they would like a date to a sex crime is to make a HUGE expansion of the definition of what constitutes a sex crime or conversely to demean the latter.

you are ignoring the circumstances and manner the date was requested. while sexual harassment is a matter for civil courts, there can be facets of that offense that could possibly be criminal in nature.

for instance, the actions of the cop can be construed as stalking

I'm pointing out that you are engaged in a cheap game of victim blaming - or, in the case of female victims of sexual harassment or other sex crimes, "slut shaming." It's a standard part of the discourse on such matters, reliably emanating from authoritarian and patriarchal perspectives as a means to innoculate against charges of misconduct and preemptively discredit victims. Which is exactly your program here.

/wipes tears

 

[Gustav]

on a lighter note.....

What can I do if someone is stalking or harassing me?

* Think about your safety and get help. The first thing to do is call the police

/laughs