No Criminal Charges in Jonesboro Fost...

No Criminal Charges in Jonesboro Foster Kids Gift Exchange

There are 45 comments on the MSNBC story from Jan 17, 2011, titled No Criminal Charges in Jonesboro Foster Kids Gift Exchange. In it, MSNBC reports that:

Jonesboro Police say it may have been immoral or unethical, but what Department of Children and Family Services employees did with donated Christmas gifts for foster kids was not criminal.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at MSNBC.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
NOTKaty

Trumann, AR

#41 Jan 26, 2011
Katy,maybe her name is Katy,ever think about that? You're probably not the only "Katy" around.If you want to serve the families to the best of your ability maybe you ought to risk sticking your neck out and speaking out against this kind of activity that goes on in the agency that you work for.
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#42 Jan 26, 2011
maybe it was criminal wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that perhaps the actions were criminal. There is an arkansas law regarding the conduct of state employees. A state employee crosses the line when they do things to enrich themselves or others with whom they have a close personal relationship.
If items were exchanged to enrich others, taking their own argument, to enrich other children, then a transaction was done to enrich others. These were publicly donated funds and I do believe that law would apply. Certainly, actions were taken to enrich others. There may be arguments but certainly there were actions taken to enrich others and to fleece others and state employees took these actions. There is a credibility issue with the Jonesboro Police Department as you may have noticed lately. I think it is too late for "one term perrin" (who would not been mayor with a less controversial opponent) to correct his mistakes having become too personal with the department heads he is supposed to oversee and now even the city has been sued. The PD probably didn't even consider this law. You are right, this is a crock. There are handbooks for state employees online that detail this prohibited action.
First, the policmen were "victims" of this scam too. They donated $100 each to over 30 kids at DHS for x-mas presents. No one wants these scumbags prosecuted more that JPD.

Unfortunately, a DHS manual is not "Law" and one cannot be prosecuted for violating policy, fired yes. The call as to whether or not to prosecute is the prosecutor's not the policemen's.

Credibility problem - JPD? beacause they were sued? You are an idiot. Police Departments get sued all the time by guilty POS's. Losing the suit is what matters and JPD has not lost one in many years.

Lastly, Perrin had two oponents, not one.
sad

Lubbock, TX

#43 Jan 29, 2011
The whole thing is really sad that the kids are the ones who will suffer.
Katy

Blytheville, AR

#44 Jan 29, 2011
Katy the Adoption Worker wrote:
Please note that the Katy who submitted the comment above is NOT the Katy who is the Adoption Specialist for Craighead County DCFS. I suspect whomever she is is using my information as an alias, and I don't appreciate it. In nearly 9 years of service with the state, I've never been a participant in any investigation, and do not intend to be drug into this one! If you have comments to make, poster, feel free to use your own identity or Barney the big purple dinosaur's, but leave mine out of it! I just want to serve my kiddos and my families to the best of my ability, and go home to my own little family at night!
I think you're being completely ridiculous. Just because we happen to share a very common name means absolutely nothing. And, yes, my name is Katy. You're being totally neurotic and seem to be looking for attention. Nobody is trying to pull you into anything, though it looks like you're trying to put yourself in the middle of something that has nothing to do with you. I'm just sitting here laughing at your self-importance. It's time to grow up. Really. You're making yourself look like a nut.
perhaps it was criminal

Jonesboro, AR

#45 Jan 30, 2011
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the policmen were "victims" of this scam too. They donated $100 each to over 30 kids at DHS for x-mas presents. No one wants these scumbags prosecuted more that JPD.
Unfortunately, a DHS manual is not "Law" and one cannot be prosecuted for violating policy, fired yes. The call as to whether or not to prosecute is the prosecutor's not the policemen's.
Credibility problem - JPD? beacause they were sued? You are an idiot. Police Departments get sued all the time by guilty POS's. Losing the suit is what matters and JPD has not lost one in many years.
Lastly, Perrin had two oponents, not one.
I find it troubling that you use words idiot, when you do not know the law, i do not have time to post all of the laws but below is a start. As far as Police Departments getting sued all the time, in general, they are exempt from being sued unless they conspire to violate an individuals civil rights which started with Monroe V. Pape ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961.
There are notable exceptions such as in this link: http://www.iscfmma.com/ISCFNewsJulyAug05.htm
an exerpt: VALDOSTA A Lowndes County jury awarded the owners of a Remerton bar $900,000 after a six-day trial in a federal civil lawsuit against former Remerton police officers Tuesday. Herbie's Hideaway, LLC and William Spell, who owned the bar with his son Romain while it was open, filed suit on the basis that former Police Chief Mike Yates, former officer Terry Griffin and former investigator Mike Hattaway used police power to harass the business, plaintiffs' attorney Jim Tunison said---After Griffin and Yates left the force, court documents say police continued to harass the business with noise ordinances and harassing police conduct. Because of the excessive policing, patrons were deterred from frequenting the business, resulting in the demise of Herbie's.
As far as Perrin, I stand by my statement whether and he had one or five opponents is irrelevant. Although this is not related, the citizens approved a 1/2% tax for public safety and nothing was said about purchasing and building a new police station. Bait and switch, what is this man, a banker? I look forward to the next election for mayor of Jonesboro. I expect a robust discussion of the relevant topics, not a "neclear" war.

As far as laws concerning public employees they start with this statute:

21-8-304. Prohibited activities

(a) No public official or state employee shall use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or herself or his or her spouse, child, parents, or other persons standing in the first degree of relationship, or for those with whom he or she has a substantial financial relationship that are not available to others except as may be otherwise provided by law.

This goes on and if you can read, write, and understand the english language, you can see these things in law, not just a personnel manual.
Now who is the idiot?

It is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than to speak up and remove all doubt.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Craighead County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News SCU officers find pot, cash in suspect's home May 14 Guest 1
News Man fires at reported intruder, accidentally sh... Apr '18 Really 6
News Craighead County now owns Bono Lake (Sep '16) Mar '18 paddle creek 13
News Teen sentenced to 40 years in shooting of Arkan... Mar '18 survey 4
News Group holds annual severe weather seminar Mar '18 billy bob 1
News Other days Mar '18 Guest 1
News Police: EMT pulls knife on first responder (Apr '15) Feb '18 Pizza girl 13