Osceola sheriff's sergeant arrested on child-sex charge

I've known Chad Lakey for 9 years. I went to the academy with him and served along side of him as well. I don't believe a word of this garbage. Hmmm, oh by the way, back in 2008, I was raped by Chad Lakey. Ok, yeah, that happened. Chad is a good cop and a good person. I'm sure the truth will come out. I hope his agency stands behind him.

YEAH RIGHT wrote:

I've known Chad Lakey for 9 years. I went to the academy with him and served along side of him as well. I don't believe a word of this garbage. Hmmm, oh by the way, back in 2008, I was raped by Chad Lakey. Ok, yeah, that happened. Chad is a good cop and a good person. I'm sure the truth will come out. I hope his agency stands behind him.

One cop lies and the other swears to it. Get a life, creeps are in all occupations. What would you tell someone that you arrested? Answer: "Sure I believe you, but I must of heard that same story a million times today. We don't arrest innocent people".

"we don't arrest innocent people". Gee, that's a relief, now we can do away with those pesky trials and move right on to sentencing. Should save $$$ and clear out the back log of court cases we have pending. We don't arrest innocent people, gee I must have missed that in law school!

This is scary! The only thing I can say is "innocent until proven guilty" so we just have to wait to hear the truth! I pray that it isn't true!

Back in the day many people were burnt at the stake during the Salem with trials. Small minded people like you were around in those days too believing "children don't lie". I just hope not too many of your brainless relatives end up on a jury- if it goes that far. The truth will come out but we do not need people jumping too conclusions without all the facts.
In the mean time legal eagle remember, all it takes for probable cause to arrest you or a family member is another individual giving a sworn statement events occurred; period. So if one was to find themselves in a predicament such as this and exercised their right to counsel; they can very well find themselves arrested with their name all over the news with idiots like you posting comments on just someone's word. Unfortunately because of the reverse sexism of the statutes and the "poor pity the children" attitudes, this individual will have a hard time either way.

Dear Mc Gruff wrote:

Back in the day many people were burnt at the stake during the Salem with trials. Small minded people like you were around in those days too believing "children don't lie". I just hope not too many of your brainless relatives end up on a jury- if it goes that far. The truth will come out but we do not need people jumping too conclusions without all the facts.
In the mean time legal eagle remember, all it takes for probable cause to arrest you or a family member is another individual giving a sworn statement events occurred; period. So if one was to find themselves in a predicament such as this and exercised their right to counsel; they can very well find themselves arrested with their name all over the news with idiots like you posting comments on just someone's word. Unfortunately because of the reverse sexism of the statutes and the "poor pity the children" attitudes, this individual will have a hard time either way.

So what you are saying is the alleged victim is a liar and any potential juror is unqualified because of inherent prejudices and the statutes are working against the accused because of his occupation. Well, if that were all true maybe we should just say forget it, don't you just wish? The obligation of a LEO is "To Protect and Serve" NOT "Molest and Intimidate".

Nice Mc Gruff. Glad to see your such an intelligent individual. I'll try to type s l o w l y f o r y o u OK? What I said was simply that an arrest does not mean someone is guilty. I pointed out for your SSSLOW mind what it actually takes to get arrested. Common sense would then dictate that before you run off the mouth about someones guilt, review the facts not just headlines. I called for reason not to jump to conclusions as you and others like to do. I made no claim to innocents or guilt. If the facts came down to her statement versus his- no physical evidence who would you believe? Remember this could very well be the case and there has been more incidents of children lying than of those not. And you as well as all involved should be concerned about a legal system which subscribes one class of persons more credibility than others based soley upon sex, race or age.

Dear Mc Gruff wrote:

Nice Mc Gruff. Glad to see your such an intelligent individual. I'll try to type s l o w l y f o r y o u OK? What I said was simply that an arrest does not mean someone is guilty. I pointed out for your SSSLOW mind what it actually takes to get arrested. Common sense would then dictate that before you run off the mouth about someones guilt, review the facts not just headlines. I called for reason not to jump to conclusions as you and others like to do. I made no claim to innocents or guilt. If the facts came down to her statement versus his- no physical evidence who would you believe? Remember this could very well be the case and there has been more incidents of children lying than of those not. And you as well as all involved should be concerned about a legal system which subscribes one class of persons more credibility than others based soley upon sex, race or age.

When you enter the classes of people given more creditability you failed to mention occupations. You are being biased by insinuating that the child will have greater creditability when in reality it would be the LEO. On a stand in court, a Leo is cognizant of factors that sway a jury and is mature enough to alter testimony to suit the direction of questioning. A child would be more easily manipulated by an experienced ambulance chaser thus being at a disadvantage. I personally hold an adult to a higher standard of accountability than a juvenile no matter their classification. It won't be the first time a Leo, minister, teacher or care giver has shocked friends and family that held them in high regard when the evidence was shown. I bet you a dollar to a donut you will be suprised at the outcome unless the good ole boy network has their way.

Nice reference to LEO's and others having a different impact on juries. Again I'll try and write in slow words for you. I have neither said he was innocent or guilty. I just pointed out that people like you who like to jump to conclusions need to remember what it takes to have someone arrested versus convicted and not jump to any conclusions. As far as occupational bias...Maybe in 1950 or earlier there was some but not today. Especially not with COPS who are accused and arrested by other COPS. The general inclinations of most people are " surely Cops stick together so for this guy to be on trial, he must be guilty otherwise they would have covered it up by the blue line". truth is more often than not COPS when on the other side are treated differently by the system oftentimes out of political fear hidden by the terms " were held to a higher standard". In this case the COP fighting for his life, despite having an understanding of the system, has to fight testimony of other COPS and Legal Personnel as well as the emotional connections juries feel with children and females etc. What I was conveying is that if all there is in any case is one persons word against another, the ONLY way for someone to be found guilty is based upon "personal feelings" -prejudices- period. As far as difference in treatments for COPS, if this is the case of word versus word as alluded to with the beginning supporter; I'd be willing to bet there have been other similar cases without arrest warrants and many of those cases were not filed by the State Attorneys. In this case, if the assumptions of lack of evidence mentioned are true, this individual most likely was arrested in the manner he was and will be vigorously prosecuted because of the fact that he is a COP. Guarantee if this were a higher standing political figure this arrest might not have happened.