Another Utah influencer arrested, or, pride cycles

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Sure. Is it like California or some nutty place where criminals get a slap on the wrist?

Not really.

 

Quote

Or do the punishments generally fit the crime? 

 

Most of the convictions and sentencing I've seen have been proper.

 

 

 

[LDSGator]

34 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Not really.

 

 

Most of the convictions and sentencing I've seen have been proper.

 

 

 

Florida is basically the same. People remember Casey Anthony but then they ignore the sentencing that this idiot got. 
 

https://www.wfla.com/news/hillsborough-county/bayshore-driver-gets-24-years-in-prison-for-street-racing-crash-that-killed-young-mom-toddler/amp/

 

Florida juries are usually, but not always heavy law and order types

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, LDSGator said:

@Just_A_Guy and @mirkwood

Is Utah known for harsh sentences?

Utah judges don’t tend to have much discretion on felony sentencing.  They can only impose the statutory period and specify whether the sentences (if there are multiple counts) run concurrent or consecutive (in this case, four sentences of 1-15 years, running consecutively; but Utah has a separate statute limiting consecutive terms on second-degree felonies to a total of 30 years).  The case is then handed over to the state board of pardons and parole, which decides when a person may be eligible for release.  Theoretically one would think there would be a 4-year minimum, but I’ve heard well-placed sources suggest that if Mom reeeeally impressed the parole board at their first meeting (likely to occur sometime this fall) then they may declare her eligible at that point.

Given the public furor that has come out with this document release, I think the parole board will be under a lot of pressure to keep her locked up.  

[Just_A_Guy]

21 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

[1]Thing I think was the scariest were Police were going through the house at the ready position, as if they were ready to shoot someone or expected someone to come out attacking them. 

[2]Another unanswered question, why was Hildebrandt on her phone with her attorney?  Was she aware she had done something questionable already and wanted to have the attorney ready the instant the authorities showed up?

 

1.  At that point, for all law enforcement knew, they could be walking into another Waco.

2.  Per the police report that has been released, officers responding to the neighbors’ house actually bumped into Jodi in her car, who seemed out of breath and mentioned she was “looking for a boy”.  The officers didn’t tell her they’d found the child but mentioned that they, too, were looking for that boy; and the officers then proceeded to the neighbors’ house to see him.  Once they talked to him and learned there was still at least one sibling at Jodi’s house, they went there; and by that time she’d already given up her search and was back at her home.

She knew she was busted before the cops even showed up on her door.

Edited March 29 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

Maybe the story hasn’t hit Florida yet, but I just asked my true crime loving wife if she ever heard of the case. Nope. 

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

Standard building clearing tactics. I think you're looking for a reason to complain about the police.

Standard buildinglearance tactics, rifle slung downwards.  I think you're looking for a reason to complain about the police.

Wrong.  See above.

I am not looking for a reason, I haven't seen police doing something like that previously.  Perhaps it's because I haven't been on the wrong side of the Law.

HOWEVER, if that's what the police do to look for kids...and it's standard...you are right...I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM with CIVILIAN POLICE doing such stuff.

I did not know that was a standard protocol for Utah police, and finding out from you that it is a standard protocol does not actually make me feel any better about that situation portrayed in the video.

Why would your standard protocol be to be guns out when making first contact with a child (that they were looking for).  I can understand why a kid would be scared to even talk in that situation even if they were a normal kid that hadn't been abused!

The video does NOT make it clear they are clearing the building, it seemed to state they were trying to find children.  It could have been both, but in that instance there needs to be a protocol where there is SOMEONE the children can approach with out fear.  You can have others covering that individual, but you need to have someone the children will be less likely to be scared of than everyone having guns drawn searching for a child. 

IN MY OPINION of course, and obviously, I am not a police officer in Utah (or anywhere else for that matter).

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  At that point, for all law enforcement knew, they could be walking into another Waco.

2.  Per the police report that has been released, officers responding to the neighbors’ house actually bumped into Jodi in her car, who seemed out of breath and mentioned she was “looking for a boy”.  The officers didn’t tell her they’d found the child but mentioned that they, too, were looking for that boy; and the officers then proceeded to the neighbors’ house to see him.  Once they talked to him and learned there was still at least one sibling at Jodi’s house, they went there; and by that time she’d already given up her search and was back at her home.

She knew she was busted before the cops even showed up on her door.

 

1.  That makes a little more sense, they probably should have mentioned something like that in the Video (or if they did, I didn't catch that).  It makes sense why they'd be clearing the house then, though I'd still say they should have at least one person for the children to approach or to approach the children (unless they felt the children were going to be attacking the officers as well, which wasn't the impression I get).  Have that person covered by others, but someone who doesn't have a pistol drawn approaching a child to talk to them and coax them more comfortably (and yes, later in the video it shows such individuals, but initial contact should not be a surprise to anyone that a child would be scared of strange men, even if they were officers, with guns drawn trying to talk to them). 

2.  Holy Smokes...that's crazy!  So, that indicates she KNEW what she was doing was wrong!  That's insane.  She was knowingly doing something she knew was illegal or would get her into legal trouble!?  Why would she knowingly do such a thing?  That blows my mind!  I guess some people do these things (and I know they do, but it never ceases to amaze me), but in this instance with kids...just...I can't even imagine why.  She was supposed to be helping them and instead...she knowingly was doing terrible things.  Terrible.  Atrocious.  I can see why people are so angry about this.

[Vort]

36 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

CIVILIAN POLICE

What does this mean?

[mirkwood]

@JohnsonJones you are either ignorant of building clearing tactics or looking to complain.  With your expressed attitude about the topic you are wrong in either case.  I really do not think you want to understand the reasons or care.  Your attitude shows.  See @Just_A_Guy's first point.  Nope, NO APOLOGIES for practicing proper building clearing tactics.  

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

What does this mean?

Same question. Aren’t all police civilians?

[zil2]

17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Same question. Aren’t all police civilians?

Well, there are military police.  And perhaps he's using the term to distinguish from non-local law enforcement (like FBI), but then, they're as "civilian" as local LEOs...

Anywho, hate to break it to you, @JohnsonJones, but they're right - this is normal and expected and good police behavior when they're going into a situation where they don't know what they're going to find.  You seem to be under the impression that they were just "looking for a child" and therefore that's all they should expect to find.  In reality, they were clearing a building.  Putting the guns away just because a child was in front of them could have gotten them killed (e.g. if there was some nut job hiding in some part of the house not yet cleared).

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Well, there are military police.  And perhaps he's using the term to distinguish from non-local law enforcement (like FBI), but then, they're as "civilian" as local LEOs...

Anywho, hate to break it to you, @JohnsonJones, but they're right - this is normal and expected and good police behavior when they're going into a situation where they don't know what they're going to find.  You seem to be under the impression that they were just "looking for a child" and therefore that's all they should expect to find.  In reality, they were clearing a building.  Putting the guns away just because a child was in front of them could have gotten them killed (e.g. if there was some nut job hiding in some part of the house not yet cleared).

I also think most cops have enough self control where they won’t open fire and blow away a 4 year old. 

[zil2]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I also think most cops have enough self control where they won’t open fire and blow away a 4 year old. 

Yeah, child was never in danger.  I expect JJs complaint is that the guns would be scary to the kid - tough luck, kid, your safety is more important.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Yeah, child was never in danger.  I expect JJs complaint is that the guns would be scary to the kid - tough luck, kid, your safety is more important.

True, their safety is more important. Sadly, these kids are going to need major, major therapy in the future. They’ve had enough bad luck. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 3/29/2024 at 5:08 PM, Vort said:

What does this mean?

I was in the military.  I saw combat.  I've cleared buildings.  We had MORE rules as military than what I saw in the video and that was years ago. (Edit: to be clear, I do not know the rules for the Utah police on how they clear buildings, my only experience is with military situations).

Those who are NOT military, are civilians.  There are MANY civilians who want to claim they are not (for example, today, I am a civilian, I am no longer in the military).

Police in the United States are not Military.  Most Military forces are prevented from doing police roles in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act.  However, States MAY have military in the form of their National Guard which can act in that role under the direction of the Governor or whoever is over them in the State.  They are distinctly identified differently than Civilians in general. 

Your general Police officers are NOT military, they are a civilian force (which also means there is an easier process for them to be fired in general and they also have certain rights as citizens that military do not have when acting in their official military duties).  A military member gives up certain rights in their roles due to keeping good order and discipline in the military which civilians normally do not have to abide by.  There are items which a military member can be punished for where as a Civilian may be fired, but cannot be punished.  (For example, you lose certain rights to free speech while in your capacity as a military member, you lose the ability to be free from search without a warrant while on a military installation and if you live on base, they can search your quarters without a warrant, in theory adultery is a punishable offense amongst others whereas civilians will not get jail time for this type of crime). There are crimes in the UCMJ which you can go to prison for which are not punishable if you do them as a civilian. 

On 3/29/2024 at 6:32 PM, mirkwood said:

@JohnsonJones you are either ignorant of building clearing tactics or looking to complain.  With your expressed attitude about the topic you are wrong in either case.  I really do not think you want to understand the reasons or care.  Your attitude shows.  See @Just_A_Guy's first point.  Nope, NO APOLOGIES for practicing proper building clearing tactics.  

Maybe I am (clarification: ignorant of the Utah Police's building clearing tactics when involving little kids sitting on a floor with no weapons or hostility).  I was in the military and in the front lines.  This means clearing buildings (though sometimes that would be more like huts and holes).  There was probably a lot more hostility and enemy combatants at times than what I imagine most police would see in a lifetime.  Lots of gunfire.

You mistake me as wanting an apology of some sort?  I am not after an apology, I was looking for an explanation that made sense.  Time stamp of 7:42 with an officer with a rifle approaching a child.  There was another officer that seemed to be accompanying them.  The child did not appear to be hostile or a threat.  They could have had the other officer holster their weapon and approach the child to be less threatening.  The entire conversation seemed ridiculous to me as the officer talking was a stranger with a weapon.   If nothing else, he could have remained and covered another officer who was less threatening (and later they have one, but not that initial conversation).

I don't think you've ever been on the front lines wondering if a kid is being used and is going to blow you up and try to kill you.  It's a terrible situation.  IF you HAVE to kill a kid, or worse, kill one by accident, it is a scar that you will NEVER get over.  It doesn't matter how justified people may say or tell you, unless you are some sort of psychopath, this is a scar you cannot really ever recover from.  You will have nightmares about it for the rest of your life. 

If you see something like this video where I point it out, even if you were just the witness to it, you will (unless, of course, you are the aforementioned psychopath) you will probably have questions.

In that light, it would make sense to have a different policy or approach to spell out a situation like this.  It protects both the child and the officer.  I would rather die than shoot an innocent child on my own accord today, and I can't imagine anyone who would have a different opinion. 

Maybe you have been in that type of situation, maybe you have not.  I can only relate my own thoughts and feelings on it, and seeing that portion made me uncomfortable with how it was dealt with. 

You can say it's ignorance of police procedures (and perhaps it is, as I stated, I am NOT a police officer in any way, shape or form).  I am not anti-police.   I've not really followed the case closely, and the video is probably my first real exposure to the case and what happened in it in any great detail. 

What part of this

Quote

The video leaves me with more questions than answers.  Maybe that's what it's supposed to do as I expect it's an advertisement for a show?

Did you interpret as being

Quote

  I think you're looking for a reason to complain about the police.

Rather than asking for an explanation?

Edited March 31 by JohnsonJones

[LDSGator]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

was in the military.  I saw combat.  I've cleared buildings.  We had MORE rules as military than what I saw in the video and that was years ag

I respect you for your service. I never served in the armed forces. 
 

I trust my local police force WAY more than I trust the army when it comes to arresting local thugs and not shooting small children. 

[mirkwood]

@JohnsonJones  If you have the experience you say (I'm taking you at your word that you do) then you know how safe that child was and how ridiculous your concerns are.

 

Timestap 7:40 so you can see clearly what you will also see in the next picture.  Rifle slung downwards.

 

 

 

Time stamp 7:42 the rifle is slung.  Non threatening.  Puh-leeze JJ...puh-leeze.  

 

 

 

 

My bonafides on the topic:

 

I am 26 year officer (still working.)

I am a building clearing instructor.

I am an active shooter/rapid response instructor.

I am a MACTAC instructor (counter terrorist active shooter stuff.)

 

You are really reaching JJ.

[JohnsonJones]

On 3/31/2024 at 8:58 AM, LDSGator said:

I respect you for your service. I never served in the armed forces. 
 

I trust my local police force WAY more than I trust the army when it comes to arresting local thugs and not shooting small children. 

I would probably ALSO trust the police force far more when it comes to arresting people.

The military is trained more to kill then to restrain (or detain), at least the portions I served in and when I served.

Edited April 4 by JohnsonJones

[Suzie]

On 3/29/2024 at 4:04 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  At that point, for all law enforcement knew, they could be walking into another Waco.

2.  Per the police report that has been released, officers responding to the neighbors’ house actually bumped into Jodi in her car, who seemed out of breath and mentioned she was “looking for a boy”.  The officers didn’t tell her they’d found the child but mentioned that they, too, were looking for that boy; and the officers then proceeded to the neighbors’ house to see him.  Once they talked to him and learned there was still at least one sibling at Jodi’s house, they went there; and by that time she’d already given up her search and was back at her home.

She knew she was busted before the cops even showed up on her door.

It looks like she had her lawyer on speed dial, same for Pam Bodtcher's husband. When the police told him that they found Franke's children in a state of starvation etc, the guy didn't even flinch. This case is getting crazier by the minute particularly during Kevin Franke's interview where he described himself as the "resident exorcist" trying to help Jodi (who claimed to be Satan's bride). He also stated that paranormal activity was going on in the house while Jodi was staying with the family. The most interesting part is when he said that the Bishop and another Church leader were helping Jodi and they were giving her blessings in order to "cast out evil spirits from her" and because they weren't successful, they suggested Jodi to move in with the family. Really? Hmmmm doesn't sound right.

On top of it all, Ruby decided to stay in Jodi's bedroom where they spent hours behind closed doors and they slept on the same bed. No comment on that one! However, here comes a contradiction. Kevin first stated that Ruby "invited" him to leave but then later on he stated that he left after growing tired of this lunacy. So he leaves HIS children in that crazy environment with no one to protect them? He has no contact with them for a WHOLE year??? Just because those are Ruby's rules?? Who is she, God? He worships her like a goddess EVEN though he knows what she did to their children! When he is told during the police interview that his children were found emaciated (let's think about that for just a second!), he didn't ask ONCE how they are doing and if he can see them. Not. One. Question!!!!! The only thing he asked was if Ruby was okay "because I love my wife". What the....And he is seeking custody of these children??? Sorry for the extra question marks but this case has me infuriated. Just like when Jodi claims to be a psychologist when she is NOT!

The truth is that both parents have been abusive towards the children way before Jodi came to the picture. I am just hoping justice is served because 4 years behind bars isn't enough for what they did to these poor babies.

 

[Traveler]

On 3/29/2024 at 6:58 PM, LDSGator said:

Same question. Aren’t all police civilians?

It is my understanding that in the USA police are obtained from the citizenry of our country.  But when acting in their duty that they are not acting as citizens but rather as officers of the law.

 

The Travelert

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Be careful who you put your trust in. There are false Christs in this world.

[JohnsonJones]

On 4/6/2024 at 12:23 PM, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that in the USA police are obtained from the citizenry of our country.  But when acting in their duty that they are not acting as citizens but rather as officers of the law.

 

The Travelert

TLDR;  Police officers are Civilians in the same way other Civil Servants are Civilians.  Fire Fighters, Judges, Animal Catchers, County Coroner, Dispatchers and others are also Civil Servants and are considered civilians in the same light that Police and deputies are considered civilians.  They are hired by the local and state governments and serve the public and their elected officials rather than the Federal military or a military service.   They are given power and authority from the people to perform those duties.  Some of these powers and authorites grant them the ability to do things that the normal populace are not allowed to do (would be illegal for the populace to do).  The Term Civilian is generally used by the military to define those who are fighting (the military) in uniform, vs. those who are not part of the military and are part of the populace.  You don't want a military force to be the police, you WANT them to continue to be Civil Servants like other Civil servants are. 

 

Police, historically, have been counted as civilians.  Sometimes it is more obvious (voting for a sheriff which comes from the populace) and at times less obvious.  Traditionally this meant those on the police or deputies were coming from the local community, were locals from the citizenry, and had a VESTED interest in the community as they were FROM that community.  (military is not necessarily invested in the local populace and can be used against the populace).

In the past 40 years there has been a militarization of the police.  Some find it somewhat alarming, others feel it gives the police more unity and more structure. 

I'll give multiple angles on how this has affected various processes and society.

One problem some see with this is that police no longer see themselves as part of the community or part of the citizenship in some areas.  Instead, they have adopted a police vs. the people (which...if I don't have to tell you, is bad in multiple ways as that was one of the primary things that have caused the rise of such lovely things as the Nazi's, or later, the solidification of control by lovely individuals such as Stalin and other Communist leaders who used the police against the populace rather than FOR the populace).  They call others civilians (even, ironically, at times, the military) and they consider themselves something separate.

In fact, with the militarization of the Police, some consider themselves a quasi military rather than a civilian force.

The problem with this is that US law forbids the Federal military from enforcing laws in the US and tradition and interpretation of the Constitution disallows it as well (Link a).*  The police came about BECAUSE they were a civilian force.  IF the police ever outright declare they are not a civilian force and are instead...a military organization, it causes an instant problem in regards to the US laws and traditions regarding military and militarization in regards to law enforcement. In addition, it directly conflicts with their jobs as Civil Servants and what a Civil Servant is supposed to do as well as the powers granted to them. (hired by the public and for the public benefit, or by representatives of the public FOR public benefit...military is NOT for public benefit generally, but for defense).

The National Guard fills a peculiar gap in that though it is a military force, it is considered more of a Governor's local militia when under a Governor and when used are NOT considered a Federal military.  IT MAY be considered a local MILITIA and hence a type of military, but NOT the Federal Military.  There is a difference between the Federal Military and militia.  National Guard are considered active military only when activated and commanded by the US government (and hence why they only get the military benefits when they have been activated BY the US government).  They CAN be used in a public servant role, but when activated by the Federal government are NOT public servants, do NOT serve the public, and are normally in a military capacity fighting against those who are NOT members of our nation (except in cases of insurrection).

This division that some departments see when they label those who are not police as civilians creates a divide which means that, at least in theory, mentally those police do NOT see themselves as well integrated or a part of the communities they supposedly serve.   This can have serious ramifications of which we have seen in communistic nations and other places where tyranny rules with the police more as enforcers for the rulers rather than protectors of the people.

On the otherhand, the militarization has had some beneficial markers as well. 

Less police officers die in relation to previous years (so even if numbers go up, in the same situations and percentage wise, they have decreased) due to training and emphasis on various factors which have led police to be a safer occupation than Loggers, Pilots, Derrick operators in oil and gas, Roofers, Garbage collectors, Delivery Drivers, Farmers and more.  Over 20 other occupations are more dangerous today then being a police officer.  This is directly due to the changes we have had for the police force in the past few decades. (Link 1, Link 2)

In addition, police themselves are less likely to be corruptible (there is STILL corruption, obviously, but less supposedly occurs with the structures and order that they've installed over the past few decades) overall. 

Finally, it has led to better training overall in regards to knowing their job, what they are doing, and many other aspects of their occupation.

The big thing though, is that Police are not military, but are in a group that we know as Civil Servants (or that's how they are supposed to be defined).  Most would say Civil Servants (and there are many government workers that fall into this group, not just police, but most of those would NEVER claim not to be a civilian) are civilians as per how that term as been used over past century (it is a term to divide between those who fight in wars, such as the military, and those who do not, which are civilians). 

In that light, though there ARE police that will claim they are not civilians (and scarily enough, some US citizens seem to support this idea) in the United States, IN THE US, police are civilians though they may be granted more power to enforce laws and such in their duties as Civil Servants.

Civil Servants are civilians that are NOT military but are public servants or public employees, normally paid by the local governments and employed with certain duties granted to them BY that government (such as a DA who is paid by the city or county, or other city and county positions like the Sheriff, the Chief of the Fire Department...AND of course, the Chief of Police/Sheriff, etc). 

 

*

Quote

Despite the ignominious origins of the law itself, the broader principle that the military should not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian government is a core American value. It finds expression in the Constitution’s division of power over the military between Congress and the president, and in the guarantees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, which were in part reactions to abuses committed by the British army against American colonists.

Though this is NOT a new thing and was taught in civics classes in High School when I was a boy, I've learned the US educational system has gone downhill in many areas.  I expect that what I said above may be unpopular among some crowds today, especially those who favor having a military force as police over the land rather than Police being servants of the people and serving as a type of Civil Servant (and all that it includes) instead.  The police being Civil Servants is actually one of the items which helps guarantee our freedoms as they are granted certain powers and authorities from the local or state governments they are hired by (that military cannot and do not receive) and serve as a barrier between the military and the people, as well as were seen as the PROTECTORS of law and order in society for many decades previous due to their roles in this area. 

They have a distinctive job different than that of the military.

Asking if they are civilians is akin to asking if Fire Officers are civilians or not, or if the Animal catcher is a civilian or not, or if a judge is a civilian or not, or if the DA is a civilian or not, or if the Health Officers are civilians or not (actually, there IS an exception to this one, the Commissioned Corp of the Public Health service are considered Uniformed members in the US and I believe are able to also claim benefits from the  VA).  They are civil servants with duties, powers, and authorities assigned to them.  Many of them are integrated with each other.  For example, a police officer may be able to do temporary items without a judge or DA, but due to the powers and authority of a Judge, a Judge is required in many of the things an officer is able to do in the performance of their duties.   This applies to many various Civil Servants in pursuit of their duties. 

In the US having the police this way is a GOOD thing.  Unlike other nations where police are reportable to someone like a King or the Federal government, because the police are under a more local government (unless you are part of the Federal Police corp or FBI or other Federal service) they are reportable to the people and the people's representatives rather than a military force, military commander, or the Federal government.