Peeping Tom Gets Worked By Homeowner - Page 10

Steve · 28th January 2019, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

But that is not right. The police report mentions two other witnesses: one is a neighbor who lived in the building Beckham and Cassidy were found in front of, whom the report says "heard the commotion outside his window and ran out" whereupon Beckham yelled at him to call 911. We know the police spoke to him, because the report specifically mentions that he gave a sworn statement (and forgets to redact his name - oops!). And the other witness is Beckham's daughter, who is named in the report, and who said she had just exited the shower and was getting dressed when Cassidy was at her window. It is possible that this information came purely from Beckham himself; but I very highly doubt it, firstly since he was outside the house when he spotted Cassidy and likely wasn't aware of precisely what his daughter was doing in her bedroom at that moment; and secondly because I don't find it likely that the officer would put her full name (which it clearly does, though it is redacted) in the report without having at least talked to her directly, especially given her importance as a potential witness of Cassidy's actions.

But even if we discount those, it wasn't only Beckham's statement either. Firstly, Cassidy tried to escape while Beckham was being interviewed, and had to be recaptured and handcuffed by the police. That's not incriminating, perhaps; but it's attention-getting in all the wrong ways. Then, the police report says that after he was given a medical examination, the officer interviewed Cassidy at the hospital, and that Cassidy was uncooperative there as well. More specifically, Cassidy refused to really provide an alternate account of the events outside Beckham's house, when the police asked him for his story. Which is his legal right of course; but the officer only made the decision to arrest and book him after and in light of all those facts, NOT at the scene immediately after Beckham's sole testimony.

But the arrest and charge isn't the final word. Cassidy is perfectly entitled to choose to defend himself in court to a judge and/or jury rather than to police if that's his wont; in point of fact, he's entitled to not actively defend himself even in court. But as things stood, what the officer was faced with was a situation where one man gave an account that incriminated the other, and the accused person refused to contest it when given the chance. Filing the charge was logical. One runner refusing to leave the starting line doesn't stop the other one from going in the books as the winner of the race.

When a person is trying to keep a spin going reality can be rather inconvenient.

Checkmite · 28th January 2019, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

When a person is trying to keep a spin going reality can be rather inconvenient.

If it helps, I think Thermal is less dead-set on Beckham specifically being absolutely wrong, and more upset that it looked to him like everyone was refusing to consider even the possibility due to what Cassidy is accused of.

I can only assure everyone that in my particular case that's not it. I genuinely feel that certain crimes justify a certain level of force by witnesses to capture and hold someone for police if they choose that risk; and I genuinely don't feel that Cassidy's injuries in specific, which a doctor decided didn't require any treatment, do not indicate an excessive level of force was used. But, I DO feel there is a limit.

As a point in support, I'll re-invoke a case I recalled earlier, where a man caught another man in the act of sexually assaulting his young son and proceeded to pulp the offender's face. In that instance, I agree that forceful intervention was necessary; and given the man was actually in the process of assaulting the child when he was spotted, I would even go as far as to say that more force to subdue him than would be justified in subduing Cassidy, for instance, was be allowable. But even so, I did NOT agree with the amount of force the father ended up using in that case; it was far, far more than was ever reasonably necessary to subdue the offender. Visibly the guy didn't just have a bruise and a busted lip; his face looked like something you'd pull out of the freezer to thaw the night before Thanksgiving.

Thermal · 28th January 2019, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

But that is not right. The police report mentions two other witnesses: one is a neighbor who lived in the building Beckham and Cassidy were found in front of, whom the report says "heard the commotion outside his window and ran out" whereupon Beckham yelled at him to call 911. We know the police spoke to him, because the report specifically mentions that he gave a sworn statement (and forgets to redact his name - oops!).

The name in the report is Antonio. That's Beckham (we call him Tony but his actual name is Antonio). The other tenant at 2050 was evidently not named or spoken to on the scene.

Quote:

And the other witness is Beckham's daughter, who is named in the report, and who said she had just exited the shower and was getting dressed when Cassidy was at her window. It is possible that this information came purely from Beckham himself; but I very highly doubt it, firstly since he was outside the house when he spotted Cassidy and likely wasn't aware of precisely what his daughter was doing in her bedroom at that moment; and secondly because I don't find it likely that the officer would put her full name (which it clearly does, though it is redacted) in the report without having at least talked to her directly, especially given her importance as a potential witness of Cassidy's actions.

The paragraph these statements are made begins with "I spoke with the B/M, identified as [Antonio Beckham] and he stated the following:" He does not mention speaking to anyone else in this paragraph or anywhere else in the report except Cassidy. Police reports are pretty exacting about who they spoke to and a brief description of them. We can be virtually positive that the details of the daughter were being recounted by Beckham.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

If it helps, I think Thermal is less dead-set on Beckham specifically being absolutely wrong, and more upset that it looked to him like everyone was refusing to consider even the possibility due to what Cassidy is accused of.

Yeah, pretty much. To interpret TB's actions, we need some kind of legal standard, which I think is pretty ambiguous as written (citizens arrest, in particular). I've been trying since the OP to discuss the generality, then apply it to Beckham to see if it flies. Hasn't worked in ten pages, and I don't imagine it will start anytime soon. See ya on the next one.

LTC8K6 · 1st February 2019, 02:32 PM

The prosecutor can drop the charges, the judge can dismiss the charges, etc.

The judge or prosecutor can also decide that Beckham used excessive force.

There is still plenty of opportunity for Beckham to need to legally defend his actions.

LTC8K6 · 1st February 2019, 02:35 PM

Cassidy's bond was listed at $1,500.00 previously.

I just checked and it's now listed as $5,000.00

Checkmite · 2nd February 2019, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Cassidy's bond was listed at $1,500.00 previously.

I just checked and it's now listed as $5,000.00

That's curious. I wonder why the increase. Was it actually raised at some point, or was the original amount simply misreported?

baron · 2nd February 2019, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

As a point in support, I'll re-invoke a case I recalled earlier, where a man caught another man in the act of sexually assaulting his young son and proceeded to pulp the offender's face. In that instance, I agree that forceful intervention was necessary; and given the man was actually in the process of assaulting the child when he was spotted, I would even go as far as to say that more force to subdue him than would be justified in subduing Cassidy, for instance, was be allowable. But even so, I did NOT agree with the amount of force the father ended up using in that case; it was far, far more than was ever reasonably necessary to subdue the offender. Visibly the guy didn't just have a bruise and a busted lip; his face looked like something you'd pull out of the freezer to thaw the night before Thanksgiving.

I remember that. I thought the father was pretty restrained, considering.

LTC8K6 · 2nd February 2019, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That's curious. I wonder why the increase. Was it actually raised at some point, or was the original amount simply misreported?

Not sure, both numbers are from the detention center inmate search.

AJM8125 · 2nd February 2019, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Cassidy's bond was listed at $1,500.00 previously.

I just checked and it's now listed as $5,000.00

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That's curious. I wonder why the increase. Was it actually raised at some point, or was the original amount simply misreported?

Mr. Cassidy's first court appearance was 30 January - seems the felony charges were dropped, misdemeanor charges were filed and bail was increased to $5,000. Cassidy has plead not guilty. Next court date is 19 February.

https://applications.mypalmbeachcler...ndingPage.aspx

(Free court records search, just click 'continue as guest'.)

The Norseman · 2nd February 2019, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Mr. Cassidy's first court appearance was 30 January - seems the felony charges were dropped, misdemeanor charges were filed and bail was increased to $5,000.

I'm feeling comfortable enough to say I called it; there was no way they could support that felony they originally were trying for.

cullennz · 2nd February 2019, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Mr. Cassidy's first court appearance was 30 January - seems the felony charges were dropped, misdemeanor charges were filed and bail was increased to $5,000. Cassidy has plead not guilty. Next court date is 19 February.

https://applications.mypalmbeachcler...ndingPage.aspx

(Free court records search, just click 'continue as guest'.)

So ten pages and in the end the sick dude only got charged with voyeurism.

Quote:

Penalties for Voyeurism in Florida

A violation of Florida Statute Section 810.14 for voyeurism can be charged as a misdemeanor in the first degree which is punishable by up to 12 months in the county jail and a $500 fine.

If a person has previously been convicted of this crime or adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court, then a second offense can be charged as a third-degree felony which is punishable by up to five years in Florida State Prison and a $5,000 fine.

Be lucky if he even gets a fine.

mgidm86 · 2nd February 2019, 10:50 PM

Well then I am fine with the ass kicking even more.

Minoosh · 3rd February 2019, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

So ten pages and in the end the sick dude only got charged with voyeurism.

Voyeurism I get but can can it also be considered trespassing? There's also the matter of fleeing from police (don't know if that's a crime in itself).

I don't know what else he can get charged with based on what he actually did. He didn't rape or even touch the girl so it's not sexual assault or sexual abuse. He's obviously not considered dangerous. With luck he tops out at a peeping Tom and is not someone who would graduate to physical harm.

Being a sleaze is not actually a crime.

cullennz · 3rd February 2019, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Voyeurism I get but can can it also be considered trespassing? There's also the matter of fleeing from police (don't know if that's a crime in itself).

I don't know what else he can get charged with based on what he actually did. He didn't rape or even touch the girl so it's not sexual assault or sexual abuse. He's obviously not considered dangerous. With luck he tops out at a peeping Tom and is not someone who would graduate to physical harm.

Being a sleaze is not actually a crime.

Totally hope so too

quadraginta · 3rd February 2019, 05:40 AM

Interesting that his charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors and his bail amount was more than tripled.

The Norseman · 3rd February 2019, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Interesting that his charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors and his bail amount was more than tripled.

Yup. Sounds like a slam-dunk case of excessive bail (which is unconstitutional) to me but hey, he's only a homeless mentally-ill pervvy dude so who cares, amirite?

28th January 2019, 06:31 PM	#361
Steve Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,843	Originally Posted by Checkmite But that is not right. The police report mentions two other witnesses: one is a neighbor who lived in the building Beckham and Cassidy were found in front of, whom the report says "heard the commotion outside his window and ran out" whereupon Beckham yelled at him to call 911. We know the police spoke to him, because the report specifically mentions that he gave a sworn statement (and forgets to redact his name - oops!). And the other witness is Beckham's daughter, who is named in the report, and who said she had just exited the shower and was getting dressed when Cassidy was at her window. It is possible that this information came purely from Beckham himself; but I very highly doubt it, firstly since he was outside the house when he spotted Cassidy and likely wasn't aware of precisely what his daughter was doing in her bedroom at that moment; and secondly because I don't find it likely that the officer would put her full name (which it clearly does, though it is redacted) in the report without having at least talked to her directly, especially given her importance as a potential witness of Cassidy's actions. But even if we discount those, it wasn't only Beckham's statement either. Firstly, Cassidy tried to escape while Beckham was being interviewed, and had to be recaptured and handcuffed by the police. That's not incriminating, perhaps; but it's attention-getting in all the wrong ways. Then, the police report says that after he was given a medical examination, the officer interviewed Cassidy at the hospital, and that Cassidy was uncooperative there as well. More specifically, Cassidy refused to really provide an alternate account of the events outside Beckham's house, when the police asked him for his story. Which is his legal right of course; but the officer only made the decision to arrest and book him after and in light of all those facts, NOT at the scene immediately after Beckham's sole testimony. But the arrest and charge isn't the final word. Cassidy is perfectly entitled to choose to defend himself in court to a judge and/or jury rather than to police if that's his wont; in point of fact, he's entitled to not actively defend himself even in court. But as things stood, what the officer was faced with was a situation where one man gave an account that incriminated the other, and the accused person refused to contest it when given the chance. Filing the charge was logical. One runner refusing to leave the starting line doesn't stop the other one from going in the books as the winner of the race. When a person is trying to keep a spin going reality can be rather inconvenient.
Steve Illuminator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 4,843	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

28th January 2019, 07:12 PM	#362
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist TLA Winner Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 23,153	Originally Posted by Steve When a person is trying to keep a spin going reality can be rather inconvenient. If it helps, I think Thermal is less dead-set on Beckham specifically being absolutely wrong, and more upset that it looked to him like everyone was refusing to consider even the possibility due to what Cassidy is accused of. I can only assure everyone that in my particular case that's not it. I genuinely feel that certain crimes justify a certain level of force by witnesses to capture and hold someone for police if they choose that risk; and I genuinely don't feel that Cassidy's injuries in specific, which a doctor decided didn't require any treatment, do not indicate an excessive level of force was used. But, I DO feel there is a limit. As a point in support, I'll re-invoke a case I recalled earlier, where a man caught another man in the act of sexually assaulting his young son and proceeded to pulp the offender's face. In that instance, I agree that forceful intervention was necessary; and given the man was actually in the process of assaulting the child when he was spotted, I would even go as far as to say that more force to subdue him than would be justified in subduing Cassidy, for instance, was be allowable. But even so, I did NOT agree with the amount of force the father ended up using in that case; it was far, far more than was ever reasonably necessary to subdue the offender. Visibly the guy didn't just have a bruise and a busted lip; his face looked like something you'd pull out of the freezer to thaw the night before Thanksgiving.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

28th January 2019, 09:16 PM	#363
Thermal Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either Posts: 7,065	Originally Posted by Checkmite But that is not right. The police report mentions two other witnesses: one is a neighbor who lived in the building Beckham and Cassidy were found in front of, whom the report says "heard the commotion outside his window and ran out" whereupon Beckham yelled at him to call 911. We know the police spoke to him, because the report specifically mentions that he gave a sworn statement (and forgets to redact his name - oops!). The name in the report is Antonio. That's Beckham (we call him Tony but his actual name is Antonio). The other tenant at 2050 was evidently not named or spoken to on the scene. Quote: And the other witness is Beckham's daughter, who is named in the report, and who said she had just exited the shower and was getting dressed when Cassidy was at her window. It is possible that this information came purely from Beckham himself; but I very highly doubt it, firstly since he was outside the house when he spotted Cassidy and likely wasn't aware of precisely what his daughter was doing in her bedroom at that moment; and secondly because I don't find it likely that the officer would put her full name (which it clearly does, though it is redacted) in the report without having at least talked to her directly, especially given her importance as a potential witness of Cassidy's actions. The paragraph these statements are made begins with "I spoke with the B/M, identified as [Antonio Beckham] and he stated the following:" He does not mention speaking to anyone else in this paragraph or anywhere else in the report except Cassidy. Police reports are pretty exacting about who they spoke to and a brief description of them. We can be virtually positive that the details of the daughter were being recounted by Beckham. Originally Posted by Checkmite If it helps, I think Thermal is less dead-set on Beckham specifically being absolutely wrong, and more upset that it looked to him like everyone was refusing to consider even the possibility due to what Cassidy is accused of. Yeah, pretty much. To interpret TB's actions, we need some kind of legal standard, which I think is pretty ambiguous as written (citizens arrest, in particular). I've been trying since the OP to discuss the generality, then apply it to Beckham to see if it flies. Hasn't worked in ten pages, and I don't imagine it will start anytime soon. See ya on the next one.
	__________________ "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

1st February 2019, 02:32 PM	#364
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 21,352	The prosecutor can drop the charges, the judge can dismiss the charges, etc. The judge or prosecutor can also decide that Beckham used excessive force. There is still plenty of opportunity for Beckham to need to legally defend his actions.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

1st February 2019, 02:35 PM	#365
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 21,352	Cassidy's bond was listed at $1,500.00 previously. I just checked and it's now listed as $5,000.00
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

2nd February 2019, 01:32 PM	#366
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist TLA Winner Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 23,153	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Cassidy's bond was listed at $1,500.00 previously. I just checked and it's now listed as $5,000.00 That's curious. I wonder why the increase. Was it actually raised at some point, or was the original amount simply misreported?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

2nd February 2019, 02:49 PM	#367
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627	Originally Posted by Checkmite As a point in support, I'll re-invoke a case I recalled earlier, where a man caught another man in the act of sexually assaulting his young son and proceeded to pulp the offender's face. In that instance, I agree that forceful intervention was necessary; and given the man was actually in the process of assaulting the child when he was spotted, I would even go as far as to say that more force to subdue him than would be justified in subduing Cassidy, for instance, was be allowable. But even so, I did NOT agree with the amount of force the father ended up using in that case; it was far, far more than was ever reasonably necessary to subdue the offender. Visibly the guy didn't just have a bruise and a busted lip; his face looked like something you'd pull out of the freezer to thaw the night before Thanksgiving. I remember that. I thought the father was pretty restrained, considering.
baron Guest Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,627

2nd February 2019, 07:02 PM	#368
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 21,352	Originally Posted by Checkmite That's curious. I wonder why the increase. Was it actually raised at some point, or was the original amount simply misreported? Not sure, both numbers are from the detention center inmate search.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

2nd February 2019, 07:38 PM	#369
AJM8125 Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 20,406	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Cassidy's bond was listed at $1,500.00 previously. I just checked and it's now listed as $5,000.00 Originally Posted by Checkmite That's curious. I wonder why the increase. Was it actually raised at some point, or was the original amount simply misreported? Mr. Cassidy's first court appearance was 30 January - seems the felony charges were dropped, misdemeanor charges were filed and bail was increased to $5,000. Cassidy has plead not guilty. Next court date is 19 February. https://applications.mypalmbeachcler...ndingPage.aspx (Free court records search, just click 'continue as guest'.)
	__________________ The better you get, the harder you work. Last edited by AJM8125; 2nd February 2019 at 07:40 PM.

2nd February 2019, 08:35 PM	#370
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,161	Originally Posted by AJM8125 Mr. Cassidy's first court appearance was 30 January - seems the felony charges were dropped, misdemeanor charges were filed and bail was increased to $5,000. I'm feeling comfortable enough to say I called it; there was no way they could support that felony they originally were trying for.

2nd February 2019, 08:54 PM	#371
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 15,035	Originally Posted by AJM8125 Mr. Cassidy's first court appearance was 30 January - seems the felony charges were dropped, misdemeanor charges were filed and bail was increased to $5,000. Cassidy has plead not guilty. Next court date is 19 February. https://applications.mypalmbeachcler...ndingPage.aspx (Free court records search, just click 'continue as guest'.) So ten pages and in the end the sick dude only got charged with voyeurism. Quote: Penalties for Voyeurism in Florida A violation of Florida Statute Section 810.14 for voyeurism can be charged as a misdemeanor in the first degree which is punishable by up to 12 months in the county jail and a $500 fine. If a person has previously been convicted of this crime or adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court, then a second offense can be charged as a third-degree felony which is punishable by up to five years in Florida State Prison and a $5,000 fine. Be lucky if he even gets a fine.
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

2nd February 2019, 10:50 PM	#372
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 5,295	Well then I am fine with the ass kicking even more.
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 5,295	__________________ Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.

3rd February 2019, 01:45 AM	#373
Minoosh Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 8,874	Originally Posted by cullennz So ten pages and in the end the sick dude only got charged with voyeurism. Voyeurism I get but can can it also be considered trespassing? There's also the matter of fleeing from police (don't know if that's a crime in itself). I don't know what else he can get charged with based on what he actually did. He didn't rape or even touch the girl so it's not sexual assault or sexual abuse. He's obviously not considered dangerous. With luck he tops out at a peeping Tom and is not someone who would graduate to physical harm. Being a sleaze is not actually a crime.
Minoosh Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 8,874

3rd February 2019, 02:22 AM	#374
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 15,035	Originally Posted by Minoosh Voyeurism I get but can can it also be considered trespassing? There's also the matter of fleeing from police (don't know if that's a crime in itself). I don't know what else he can get charged with based on what he actually did. He didn't rape or even touch the girl so it's not sexual assault or sexual abuse. He's obviously not considered dangerous. With luck he tops out at a peeping Tom and is not someone who would graduate to physical harm. Being a sleaze is not actually a crime. Totally hope so too
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

3rd February 2019, 05:40 AM	#375
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 23,229	Interesting that his charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors and his bail amount was more than tripled.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

3rd February 2019, 12:15 PM	#376
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,161	Originally Posted by quadraginta Interesting that his charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors and his bail amount was more than tripled. Yup. Sounds like a slam-dunk case of excessive bail (which is unconstitutional) to me but hey, he's only a homeless mentally-ill pervvy dude so who cares, amirite?