• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dad Arrested for Taking Daughter’s Phone as Punishment

Sheesh, I got the belt to the ass and a good grounding whenever I acted like a total moron.
 
radcen said:
I just want to shake my head in disbelief.
Click to expand...

Not surprised the whole situation stems from what looks like a pretty bitter divorce. What I am surprised at is that it actually went to a jury. I'm sure mom was hell on wheels threatening all sorts of bad things if the case was dumped, but still, if there was ever a case for prosecutorial discretion, this is it. As eye poppingly silly as this is, it's also pretty sad that a relationship between father and daughter was severed over this.
 
radcen said:
I just want to shake my head in disbelief.
Click to expand...

Reading the article it actually isn't that unreasonable, and it isn't really about a dispute between a Dad and his daughter, its a dispute between a Dad and his ex-wife. Summary for people who didn't read it:

Dad and Mom are divorced. Dad is watching the twelve year old daughter who is sending irresponsible texts on her phone and decides to take the phone. However the Mom insisted the phone belongs to her and asks for it back, the Dad refuses. The mom goes to the police who then go to the Dad to get the phone back at the Moms request. The Dad refuses and the police leave but file a theft of property citation which the Dad receives, but does not respond to. After not responding to the citation a warrant is issued for his arrest and the Dad decides to take this to trial. After the trial he is acquitted by directed verdict due to insufficient evidence.

He probably should have returned the phone and sought a custodial injunction regarding cellphone usage depending on their arrangement with their daughter, since this is really just a fight between divorcees with their daughters cellphone being used as a proxy.
 
Sherman123 said:
Reading the article it actually isn't that unreasonable, and it isn't really about a dispute between a Dad and his daughter, its a dispute between a Dad and his ex-wife. Summary for people who didn't read it:

Dad and Mom are divorced. Dad is watching the twelve year old daughter who is sending irresponsible texts on her phone and decides to take the phone. However the Mom insisted the phone belongs to her and asks for it back, the Dad refuses. The mom goes to the police who then go to the Dad to get the phone back at the Moms request. The Dad refuses and the police leave but file a theft of property citation which the Dad receives, but does not respond to. After not responding to the citation a warrant is issued for his arrest and the Dad decides to take this to trial. After the trial he is acquitted by directed verdict due to insufficient evidence.

He probably should have returned the phone and sought a custodial injunction regarding cellphone usage depending on their arrangement with their daughter, since this is really just a fight between divorcees with their daughters cellphone being used as a proxy.
Click to expand...

But what a twist the media story! It nearly pictures the USA as an oppressive government like today's China, former USSR, or Byzantium. The things media do for ratings these days!
 
Hari Seldon said:
Come on, this was a divorced couple dispute. The ex-wife was being a super prick!
Click to expand...

Sounded to me like it was the father being a super-prick. He could just have given the phone back to the ex-wife and it would have all been over. The article said it was him that wanted it taken to a jury trial. I agree that the arrest in the night was ridiculous, but so was his escalating of the incident into a court case. How the prosecutors allowed it to get to court I cannot fathom.
 
Reading this it is more about the douchebag ex wife and her cop fiance than the legal system. Judge ordered the jury they must find not guilty. Done...over.
 
While staying with her father...the 12 year old daughter was using her mother's iphone... to make inappropriate text messages?

That begs all kinds of questions. The dad was right to take the phone from the daughter...but he was wrong not to give it back to the mother when she asked. I don't know why the court sided with him....unless there's more to the story that we don't know...which begs all kinds of questions.
 
Crovax said:
Well there's your problem



The courts worked and he was found innocent.
Click to expand...

Do US courts find people innocent? In England, for example, they find people 'not guilty' which is not at all the same thing.
 
Andalublue said:
Sounded to me like it was the father being a super-prick. He could just have given the phone back to the ex-wife and it would have all been over. The article said it was him that wanted it taken to a jury trial. I agree that the arrest in the night was ridiculous, but so was his escalating of the incident into a court case. How the prosecutors allowed it to get to court I cannot fathom.
Click to expand...

And what would that have taught the child? That its ok to bully people to get your own way?

And since the mom disagreed that the child sent a rude text it is obvious that the child would have gotten the phone back right away if the dad had given it to the mother. And what would that have taught the child? That certain rude things are OK to say so long as certain people that she hangs around with don't think its rude?

Dad did the right thing all the way imo.

But hey, I'm certain mom is pleased, she's made it to where dad can't have a relationship with his daughter. It's too bad that he gave up so easily. If it had been me I would have sued for visitation rights and made sure that the child was forced to come to my house.
 
Sweden said:
Do US courts find people innocent? In England, for example, they find people 'not guilty' which is not at all the same thing.
Click to expand...

No. The verdict is "Not Guilty". IIRC There have been a few cases where the verdict was "innocent", but those are extremely rare.
 
Sweden said:
Do US courts find people innocent? In England, for example, they find people 'not guilty' which is not at all the same thing.
Click to expand...

Not guilty and innocent are the same thing in the US. We live under the doctrine innocent until proven guilty. And with the double jepordy clause a not guilty verdict is essentially proven innocent.
 
Moot said:
While staying with her father...the 12 year old daughter was using her mother's iphone... to make inappropriate text messages?

That begs all kinds of questions. The dad was right to take the phone from the daughter...but he was wrong not to give it back to the mother when she asked. I don't know why the court sided with him....unless there's more to the story that we don't know...which begs all kinds of questions.
Click to expand...

Actually even if the mom bought the phone she gave it to the child. Which means the child owns the phone. As a parent you have the right to take away a child's property.
 
As per usual from Yahoo, the headline is sensationalized clickbait.

The real issue is between the mom and dad.
 
Crovax said:
Not guilty and innocent are the same thing in the US. We live under the doctrine innocent until proven guilty. And with the double jepordy clause a not guilty verdict is essentially proven innocent.
Click to expand...

They're SUPPOSED to be the same thing. However, in reality, it is pretty much never treated as the same.
 
Kobie said:
The real issue is between the mom and dad.
Click to expand...

And mommies new cop husband.

A conflict between three people isn't that what the Democrat usually refer to as self-determination
 
Complete failure to co-parent. In situations like these, with apparent animosity between the two parents, one of two things need to happen. Either the parents need to discuss the limits TOGETHER before setting them so they are on the same page, or each parent needs to support and/or not get involved in the limit setting of the other parent. One thing, though. It seems as if the incident happened in September, and by January, the dad still had the cell phone. That is FAR too long for a limit to have an appropriate effect. At that point, he wasn't punishing the daughter. He was punishing his ex-wife. Both of them acted like idiots.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And what would that have taught the child? That its ok to bully people to get your own way?

And since the mom disagreed that the child sent a rude text it is obvious that the child would have gotten the phone back right away if the dad had given it to the mother. And what would that have taught the child? That certain rude things are OK to say so long as certain people that she hangs around with don't think its rude?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would have taught her that you don't pursue vendettas with your ex-wife by using your kids as bait. I've a feeling the daughter is better off not having a relationship with the manipulative prick. Not that the mother sounds any better.
Dad did the right thing all the way imo.

But hey, I'm certain mom is pleased, she's made it to where dad can't have a relationship with his daughter. It's too bad that he gave up so easily. If it had been me I would have sued for visitation rights and made sure that the child was forced to come to my house.[/QUOTE]You're not a divorced dad, by any chance, are you?
 
This is prime example of two divorced parents being complete a-holes.

Did the article say the biological father had the phone for over 3 months before any of the court/arrest nonsense ever took place?
3 months?

A child caught in the middle of two parents being morons.

Probably would have been cheaper for the mother to just buy the girl a new phone.
I hope the mother paid a good chunk of change for court fees and lawyers and whatnot.
 
Sherman123 said:
Reading the article it actually isn't that unreasonable, and it isn't really about a dispute between a Dad and his daughter, its a dispute between a Dad and his ex-wife. Summary for people who didn't read it:

Dad and Mom are divorced. Dad is watching the twelve year old daughter who is sending irresponsible texts on her phone and decides to take the phone. However the Mom insisted the phone belongs to her and asks for it back, the Dad refuses. The mom goes to the police who then go to the Dad to get the phone back at the Moms request. The Dad refuses and the police leave but file a theft of property citation which the Dad receives, but does not respond to. After not responding to the citation a warrant is issued for his arrest and the Dad decides to take this to trial. After the trial he is acquitted by directed verdict due to insufficient evidence.

He probably should have returned the phone and sought a custodial injunction regarding cellphone usage depending on their arrangement with their daughter, since this is really just a fight between divorcees with their daughters cellphone being used as a proxy.
Click to expand...
I knew the fine print would take away what the bold title claimed. Happens all the time.
 
Andalublue said:
Sounded to me like it was the father being a super-prick. He could just have given the phone back to the ex-wife and it would have all been over. The article said it was him that wanted it taken to a jury trial. I agree that the arrest in the night was ridiculous, but so was his escalating of the incident into a court case. How the prosecutors allowed it to get to court I cannot fathom.
Click to expand...
Actually, insisting on a jury trial is sometimes good strategy for one's own self-defense. Prosecutors have been been known to drop charges entirely when the defendant stands his ground. Also, on really specious cases, juries have been known to acquit simply because they felt the charges were ridiculous.

Don't confuse the absurdity of the situation with individual strategy for avoiding a conviction. Sometimes you're forced into doing whatever you have to do.
 
VanceMack said:
Reading this it is more about the douchebag ex wife and her cop fiance than the legal system. Judge ordered the jury they must find not guilty. Done...over.
Click to expand...
This! And only a couple people have caught this. This is what really jumped out at me. I believe, but it's only speculation as I have no way to prove it, that he never would have been arrested had there not been a cop involved with the mother.

That being said... the father was right to take the phone. If the mother did indeed buy it, then the father was in the wrong to not return it to her later when she asked, but this faux pas on his part is minor compared to her borderline psychotic tendencies.

As far as the verdict. He lost time, money (in defense), gained an arrest record, was publicly humiliated (by being arrested), and lost a relationship with his daughter. He may have prevailed in court and avoided a conviction, but he didn't "win" by any stretch of the imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom