Police trying to trick utica Baby killer

Police trying to trick utica Baby killer

Posted in the Rome Forum

why

Ithaca, NY

#1 Jul 30, 2013
They are going to look near Big Lots in North utica tomorrow morning at 8:30 am. This to me sounds like a crock of crap! Why would they tell the news we are going to look at a place in advance? This is a ploy to see if the father reacts or goes to the place. They will just name places and if the baby was disposed of there they believe the father will react and try abd move the baby or cover his tracks. Believe you me, they have his phone tapped, wires and bugs in his house, in his car, they follow him everywhere with GPS!!! If they don't find the baby his phone will be tapped for the next 5 years minimum guaranteed!! Very old trick to say publicly where they are searching in hopes the dad will sneak away and try and move the baby and cover his tracks. As long as dad does nothing they can never prove his story false. They may have already found the baby and want to see if the dad knows where the baby is. Then they can prove he killed or at least disposed of the body.
R U RETARDED

Rome, NY

#2 Jul 30, 2013
Why would you even post this? Are you trying to help the SOB baby killer?
WTF

Ithaca, NY

#3 Jul 30, 2013
you are a POS for posting such a thing!! If this is true they need to track you down and arrest you for obstruction of justice!! You are just as big a scumbag as the baby killer. This is a new low even for topix. What a F-ING low life scum bag!!
anti spam

Earlville, NY

#4 Jul 30, 2013
I agree. The poster should be arrested
Date

Ithaca, NY

#5 Jul 30, 2013
What the hell is wrong with this person? The police FBI and everyone else is trying to get that low life baby killer off the streets and you have the audacity to write this? I know we have freedom of speech but this is BS!!
dustin

Brooklyn, NY

#6 Jul 30, 2013
I really don't get what "Why" is even saying. Whats so bad about what she-he wrote?
because

Ithaca, NY

#7 Jul 30, 2013
Why because if the idiot doesnt know cop tricks, he is warning him. He is obstructing justice in my book
sue

Georgetown, TX

#8 Jul 31, 2013
how do you know the baby is dead? could of been stolen or kidnapped.
lol

Ithaca, NY

#9 Jul 31, 2013
WTF wrote:
you are a POS for posting such a thing!! If this is true they need to track you down and arrest you for obstruction of justice!! You are just as big a scumbag as the baby killer. This is a new low even for topix. What a F-ING low life scum bag!!
While I agree they shouldnt have put this here, wtf is wrong with you to say thats as bad as killing a baby? WOW
scum

Saranac Lake, NY

#10 Jul 31, 2013
This sounds like you're btrying to warn him. Are you afraid his phone is tapped and this is how you communicate? Maybe I'll tip the police off to this mm post and your ip will be traced. Good luck scum bag baby killer supporter.

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#11 Jul 31, 2013
Seriously, you want to arrest someone for words they wrote?

The more heinous the speech, the more important it is that it be protected.
Incorrect

Blossvale, NY

#12 Jul 31, 2013
frankcor wrote:
Seriously, you want to arrest someone for words they wrote?
The more heinous the speech, the more important it is that it be protected.
Actually that is not true at all. There are many things people can say for which they can be arrested or held liable. You cannot say that you want somebody killed, and then offer to pay for it without facing consequences. You cannot incite violence, or instigate a hate crime without facing consequences. In fact, the more heinous the speech the more important it is to evaluate it on its own merits, and not hide behind the right to free speech.
One of the biggest misconceptions in society today is that free speech is a blanket cover all to protect anyone from saying anything. Even when there are not criminal consequences, there can be civil consequences for what you say.
In this case while I believe the original poster is an idiot and morally bankrupt for trying to help a possible murderer get away with crime, unfortunately there are really no legal ramifications to what he has posted. It is his opinion about what the police are trying to accomplish, and he does have a right to say that, and as repugnant as that may be, the best you can do is simply to have this thread removed.
info

Saranac Lake, NY

#13 Jul 31, 2013
So what's funny is, on the news this moring, they never say where police are looking. Where did the poster come up with Big Lots? Is that where they are looking today?

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#14 Jul 31, 2013
incorrect, you are incorrect. The original poster (TOP) neither incited violence nor instigated a hate crime, nor yelled "Fire" in a crowded theater.

I do appreciate that you said that there are no legal ramifications to what TOP posted. But then you compound your original error by insisting that he be censored.

For me, one of the most heinous forms of speech involves burning the US flag; that flag for which I fought in a war to defend. But I also fought for the right of heinous people to burn that flag.

You need to take the First Amendment serous all the time, even when you or your sense of morality are offended.
Incorrect

Blossvale, NY

#15 Aug 1, 2013
frankcor wrote:
incorrect, you are incorrect. The original poster (TOP) neither incited violence nor instigated a hate crime, nor yelled "Fire" in a crowded theater.
I do appreciate that you said that there are no legal ramifications to what TOP posted. But then you compound your original error by insisting that he be censored.
For me, one of the most heinous forms of speech involves burning the US flag; that flag for which I fought in a war to defend. But I also fought for the right of heinous people to burn that flag.
You need to take the First Amendment serous all the time, even when you or your sense of morality are offended.
No, you are incorrect. What I was referring to was your statement that "the more heinous the speech the more important it is to be protected". THAT is what indeed is incorrect,m and what I said was that the more heinous it is the more necessary it is that it be judges on its own merits. If you read it correctly I did NOT insist he be censored; in fact I stated that he could NOT, because he had done nothing illegal.

In fact I said that while he may be an idiot and morally bankrupt, he did nothing legally wrong. In addition, the examples I used followed the statement that there are many misconceptions about free speech, it was a stand-alone paragraph and in no way should have been inferred to be about the original poster; if you did that was an error in your reading comprehension, not my post.

Read my post again, you clearly did not comprehend it the first time.
Incorrect

Blossvale, NY

#16 Aug 1, 2013
Also, if you are somehow equating my "the best you can do is to have this thread removed" as an intention of censoring his speech, that is also incorrect. Removing a thread is not censorship, it is the right of anybody who is offended by what someone else posted. They have a right to request it just as the original poster has the right to make the statement, and in this case Topix moderators get to make the decision whether they want it to remain or not, regardless of the legal right to make the statement.

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#17 Aug 2, 2013
Incorrect wrote:
In addition, the examples I used followed the statement that there are many misconceptions about free speech, it was a stand-alone paragraph and in no way should have been inferred to be about the original poster;
Or perhaps you could have articulated it more clearly?
Incorrect wrote:
If you read it correctly I did NOT insist he be censored; in fact I stated that he could NOT, because he had done nothing illegal.
Are you sure about that? This is from your earlier post ...
Incorrect wrote:
It is his opinion about what the police are trying to accomplish, and he does have a right to say that, and as repugnant as that may be, the best you can do is simply to have this thread removed.
Again, misunderstood or misarticulated? I think my reading comprehension was fine in this case.

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#18 Aug 2, 2013
Incorrect wrote:
Also, if you are somehow equating my "the best you can do is to have this thread removed" as an intention of censoring his speech, that is also incorrect. Removing a thread is not censorship, it is the right of anybody who is offended by what someone else posted. They have a right to request it just as the original poster has the right to make the statement, and in this case Topix moderators get to make the decision whether they want it to remain or not, regardless of the legal right to make the statement.
Okay, now I get it. You just like to tip-toe on a razor's edge. Yes, removing a post because you disagree with it is not exactly the same thing as removing a post because it offends you. But the end result is the same -- silencing someone who spoke their mind. There is no guarantee of freedom from offensiveness.
Incorrect

West Hartford, CT

#19 Aug 2, 2013
frankcor wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, now I get it. You just like to tip-toe on a razor's edge. Yes, removing a post because you disagree with it is not exactly the same thing as removing a post because it offends you. But the end result is the same -- silencing someone who spoke their mind. There is no guarantee of freedom from offensiveness.
In this case, the end result is not the point. The point is the ability of the people who read and who monitor this board to decide for themselves what is appropriate and what is not. Quoting from my post really only does you good if it proves a point; you are simply restating what I said, and reaffirmed. Trying to squeeze tea from lemons still only gves you lemon juice, no matter hard you squeeze.

There is no walking on a razors edge here; I don't ever feel the need to dumb down my posts for anyone. You would garner more respect by simply admitting you misunderstood. My intentions were and are now abundantly clear, no matter how hard you try to twist them to save face.

Since: Jan 08

Rome

#20 Aug 6, 2013
I admit I misunderstood.

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.

Rome Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Adam plato (Jun '16) 2 hr Hescheating 15
Matthew V. Dupont (Aug '16) 2 hr Joe 3
Aleesa Hogan...lmfao 2 hr Lmao 8
Scarletts (Aug '10) 4 hr Lol 10
Ann Mendoza 5 hr I hate drama queens 5
Gay Men In Rome? (May '12) 6 hr SSQ50 5
what guys like to take it in the but? bi or gay (Aug '11) 6 hr WantMy1stUncut 2
druggies n dealers in rome 6 hr Kayla 43
Teugega/Back 9 connection 10 hr member 9

Rome Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rome Mortgages