Quiet as a Mouse

Shelbyville, IN

#47 Sep 18, 2012
I feel sad for Rick's wife, she's a nice girl
stumped poop

United States

#48 Sep 18, 2012
Rick's wife is a witch too. I don't blame Rick one bit for going there. Women are to blame when their men stray.
Anonymous

Wabash, IN

#49 Sep 18, 2012
I see the thing has gone over your heads.

Unless the police walked in while someone was yanking his willie, or he indicated that sex was desired to an undercover cop, then the statements made are unfounded.

Patronizing a prostitute? How is anyone to know if illicit sexual activity has taken place, if it isn't taking place?

Rick hasn't the burden to prove his innocence. He has only to indicate that he's a victim of circumstance.
2 CENTS

Batesville, IN

#50 Sep 18, 2012
Anonymous wrote:
I see the thing has gone over your heads.
Unless the police walked in while someone was yanking his willie, or he indicated that sex was desired to an undercover cop, then the statements made are unfounded.
Patronizing a prostitute? How is anyone to know if illicit sexual activity has taken place, if it isn't taking place?
Rick hasn't the burden to prove his innocence. He has only to indicate that he's a victim of circumstance.
Take off the rose colored glasses people ! He was there for happy ending.He get's around town enough to know what was going on there. If he didn't he's the only business man in town who didn't.
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#51 Sep 18, 2012
2 CENTS wrote:
Take off the rose colored glasses people! He was there for happy ending. He get's around town enough to know what was going on there. If he didn't he's the only business man in town who didn't.
In criminal court, guilt isn't determined by probabilities ("beyond a reasonable doubt") like it is in civil court ("a preponderance of evidence"). The prosecution has its work cut out, and thank goodness, the state has the burden of proof. Otherwise, none of us are safe.

So how does the prosecution prove "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" without:(1) walking in on an illicit act, or (2) an undercover cop being solicited for an act of sex?

Be mindful that the charge isn't even for solicitation. Its for patronizing a prostitute. What is it to "patronize?" ...

1. To act as a patron to; support or sponsor.
2. To go to as a customer, especially on a regular basis.
3. To treat in a condescending manner.

So, is it any more offensive to frequent a place that advertises to provide a massage than it is to go to a particular gas station or grocery store? Maybe Rick has arthritis and he needs the touch. Have you ever had someone to walk on your back? Asians do it, and boy, do they know how!

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

Now, that's MY kind of happy ending.
The Bare is where

United States

#52 Sep 19, 2012
Wonder if Gary went there? Or were the women too old?
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#53 Sep 19, 2012
As far as getting a massage, does it matter how old they are? And if it did, then wouldn't one want a more experienced person doing it?
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#54 Sep 19, 2012
Nopo wrote:
As far as getting a massage, does it matter how old they are? And if it did, then wouldn't one want a more experienced person doing it?
For Pete's sake!

Somebody is (or some people are) in serious need of a reality check. The alleged prostitute taken into custody is 57 years old. She's older than Rick.

The following is taken from page 2 of this thread. Read on ...
Nopo wrote:
Here is the WTRE press release....

http://www.ask4direct.com/news/wtre

[An excerpt]

Information released from Greensburg City Police Chief Stacey Chasteen. Right Touch Massage Therapy at 1030 North Lincoln was the focus of authorities for about a 3-month period and on Thursday, police made their move - taking the business operator 57-year old Jenny McMurry, also know as Hui Y. Xie, into custoday on allegations involving promoting prostitution, class C felony, prostitution as a class A misdemeanor, and corrupt business influence, class C felony.

Police then, with assistance of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Human Trafficking/Vice Unit and Indiana State Police, continued to staff the business for the day Thursday resulting in four arrests on allegations of patronizing a prostitute, a class A misdemeanor. Police took into custody 54-year old Rick Adams and 34-year old Ryan Powers of Greensburg. And 59-year old Robert Uptmor of Centerville, Ohio and 56-year old Jerrold Grose of Cincinnati.

[End of excerpt]
It doesn't pass the common sense test.

Who would throw good money at a "prostitute" old enough to be someone's grandmother?
You Must Not Get Out Much

United States

#55 Sep 19, 2012
Nopo wrote:
As far as getting a massage, does it matter how old they are? And if it did, then wouldn't one want a more experienced person doing it?
Do you not get out much? I believe that low class individual was trying to make a joke, not matter how tasteless, in asking the prostitute's age and referring to Gary Bare and his child molestation criminal charges. He/she/it was taking the two news stories about sexual crimes and crossing them. I take it you don't read the Greensburg Daily Snooze much...
2 CENTS

Batesville, IN

#56 Sep 19, 2012
[In criminal court, guilt isn't determined by probabilities ("beyond a reasonable doubt") like it is in civil court ("a preponderance of evidence"). The prosecution has its work cut out, and thank goodness, the state has the burden of proof. Otherwise, none of us are safe.)

So you personally know what evidence they have on him?
1. If you are a member of law enforcement or the courts and know the charges then it is highly inappropriate for you to discuss it here.

2.If you are not a member of either and heard it from someone who is then it is inappropriate of them to discuss with you.

3.If you heard it from Rick then he should be very disappointed that a friend he confided in is discussing it here
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#57 Sep 19, 2012
2 CENTS wrote:
So, you personally know what evidence they have on him?

1. If you are a member of law enforcement or the courts and know the charges, then it is highly inappropriate for you to discuss it here.

2. If you are not a member of either and heard it from someone who is, then it is inappropriate of them to discuss with you.

3. If you heard it from Rick, then he should be very disappointed that a friend he confided in is discussing it here.
My answer to #1 is, "I'm not a member of law enforcement or the court system. The charge was published in the WTRE press release."

My answer to #2 is, "I didn't hear anything from one who is."

My answer to #3 is, "I didn't hear anything from Rick."

I initially responsed to the following ...
2 CENTS wrote:
Take off the rose colored glasses people! He was there for happy ending. He get's around town enough to know what was going on there. If he didn't, he's the only business man in town who didn't.
I wouldn't, and won't, change what I wrote....

[Quote]

In criminal court, guilt isn't determined by probabilities ("beyond a reasonable doubt") like it is in civil court ("a preponderance of evidence"). The prosecution has its work cut out, and thank goodness, the state has the burden of proof. Otherwise, none of us are safe.

[End of quote]

I don't have to know what evidence the police has gathered. I need only to know that as an American citizen, Rick has constitutional rights afforded to him under the Bill of Rights and if these aren't respected, then we're all in a world of hurt.

America isn't some place located in another town, county, or state. The treatment of American rights isn't something that is locally exempt.

Here's the bottom line ... the woman might well be Jezebel herself in the modern sense! But the sign in front doesn't advertise the establishment as a place to get one's rocks off. It induces people to enter the premises for a massage. Rick entered, and unless he was observed while engaged in an act of improper sex or solicited for improper sex, then nothing is proven.

I really don't care if he buried his stuff in the woman, or that he didn't. I care that law enforcement has done their job and that the court system will do its job.

When the state pursues the life, liberty, or property of an American citizen, then the verdict REALLY SHOULD be "beyond a reasonable doubt." In this instance, Rick's good name, reputation, honor, and integrity are at stake. In the eyes of the law, one's good name, reputation, honor, and integrity represent a property interest.
one huge dumb buck

Greensburg, IN

#58 Sep 19, 2012
NOPO you are so stupid. its gullible people like you that get scammed. if you think that any of these guys were there to get less then a hand job your dumber then anyone ever. If your dad was involved in the law at all which i seriously doubt! he should have been saying the same thing as the sheriff from smokey and the bandit! boy there is no way that you could have come from my loins when i get home im hitting your mother right in the mouth!
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#59 Sep 20, 2012
You are dumber than rocks. I wrote ... "I really don't care if he buried his stuff in the woman, or that he didn't."

I'll spell it out in words a child can understand.

It doesn't matter to me if he f*cked her. What matters is what the justice system will present as evidence. Guilt shouldn't be assessed on the "expectation" or the "probability" of circumstance. Guilt should only be assessed on the proof of occurrence. THAT is the state's burden.

Do we have liberty to break laws of the land? Absolutely not. But, it is for the apparatus of government to prove that liberty is abused. If it can't, then our system errs on the side of innocence.

THAT is what my father couldn't understand.

The People are the authority in this country.

If that is too much for you to absorb, then might I suggest you read the first ten Amendments to the Constitution? Is it too troublesome to have a REAL feel for what America stands for ... personal liberties and protection of those liberties?
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#60 Sep 20, 2012
Has the Bill of Rights taken you out of sorts?
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#61 Sep 21, 2012
Nopo wrote:
If that is too much for you to absorb, then might I suggest you read the first ten Amendments to the Constitution? Is it too troublesome to have a REAL feel for what America stands for ... personal liberties and protection of those liberties?
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America ...

[Quote]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[End of quote]

Why do you suppose these prohibitions of government were grouped together?

Couldn't they have been addressed separately in different amendments, or do you suppose the Founding Fathers thought there was an interconnectivity of citizen's rights?
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#62 Sep 21, 2012
C'mon, "One huge dumb buck" ... Can't you answer?
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#63 Sep 21, 2012
Yeah, that's right!

I went to the last page and sure enough, "One huge dumb f*ck" has rated the First Amendment as spam, clueless, and nuts. Let's see if he rates the Second Amendment the same....

[Quote]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[End of quote]

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#64 Sep 21, 2012
Willlywillywill wrote:
how good are the handjobs at the asian massage parlor?
kjh
Nopo

Wabash, IN

#65 Sep 21, 2012
The Third Amendment to the Constitution....

[Quote]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

[End of quote]
tooscaredtosay

Greensburg, IN

#66 Sep 22, 2012
Nopo wrote:
Yeah, that's right!
I went to the last page and sure enough, "One huge dumb f*ck" has rated the First Amendment as spam, clueless, and nuts. Let's see if he rates the Second Amendment the same....
[Quote]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
[End of quote]
Nopo, you shouldn't quote the second admendment. People that honor the bill of rights, do not vote for those that want to destroy the bill of rights. The spam, clueless and nuts rating is about you, not the bill of rights.
I am not Rick, but you can blame him if you like.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greensburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
valeo 36 min wondering 1
Greensburg Christian Academy (Test Out Program) (Mar '09) 6 hr Garrettman 100
Manus for Mayor 14 hr History 105 37
dccs & gcs Jun 26 Who are you 8
VIDEO of City of Greensburg IN Public meetings (Dec '11) Jun 24 Jean Johannigman 246
Presidental Election 2016 Jun 24 Chilli J 11
Local Politics Do you approve of Jean Leising as State Senator? (Jul '14) Jun 24 Lady 19
More from around the web

Greensburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Greensburg Mortgages