I'm sure 99.9 percent of the people getting arrested most likely are guilty of the crime. The very few who are innocent is part of the system flaw, but it's a trade off for security. Anyways, you said the charge is disclosed, so people who have a bit of intelligence in their brain can accurately judge between evil humans and petty trouble makers.

And if the ones who are innocent and have a decent amount of brain cells that still work, can reclaim their dignity if anyone challenges them.

Holy smokes! Convicted murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc. maybe...............but this is incredible. I looked at a couple and they were minor offenses not judged yet. I'd lawyer up and if not convicted sue for defamation and unauthorized publication of their face. Crime don't pay but privacy rights might yield a huge pay day.

This just adds to the proof that you are guilty until proven innocent. Your life is turned up-side down; your family is humiliated; your friends shun you. After the trial, when you are found not guilty, try and get your life back. Impossible!
Watch those crime shows on A&E or MSNBC. While most suspects eventually confess, look for that one suspect that has to prove his/her innocence before the police begin looking at someone else. And heaven help that someone else. If they can't prove their innocence, they will spend a few days in jail while the police bend the evidence to suit their case.
I am a firm supportor of the police, but to see some of these gun tottin, badge carrying goons operate makes me want to *itch slap them. More than once I found myself screaming at the TV because of some moronic remark made by a seasoned detective. My favorite is "I saw immediately that something wasn't right." With insight like that, they should be playing the lottory.

I agree, Jarasan. I know there is always a police blotter, but I've never seen anything like this. Joker, although it's true that most people are guilty, our justice system is supposed to guarantee due process.   Maybe I've been naive, but the Sheriff's Office has a "Find Out Who's in Jail Today" site. On this site anyone who has been arrested has an arrest card. This has the date of birth, height, weight, and more.   As I said before, I've never been arrested, and I agree some of these people are probably repeat offenders, but "arrested" doesn't mean guilty.

Once I was late for work, got pulled over for speeding and paid the fine the very next day. I then took that stupid driving school. Keep in mind this was just a ticket on the way to work. The county got the records mixed up and, thank goodness, I wasn't out of town when I got a letter saying my license was being suspended for non-payment of a fine. It's hard to explain, but you elect to take a course so you don't get points & your insurance company isn't notified. I think FL gives you 3 chances every 5 years, not sure. Anyway, there are 2 fines shown, and the difference when you take the course (which is a joke) is about $20. The reason they were going to suspend my license was because of the $20 difference since I had a copy of the canceled check.   I faxed a copy of the certificate from the school along with the receipt from the post office showing I sent it certified, plus the signed receipt, and got an "Oops, I'm sorry for the error" from the clerk. The record was expunged.   What if I were stopped by a rogue cop and arrested for driving with a suspended license, my picture was posted on a number of web sites with all my personal information? Glad I'm a White female (and kinda cute. lol) But, seriously. Mistakes happen. Never saw this before.

Check here for a daily log of who was booked into the jail. See their charges, see their mug shots.

http://www.colliersheriff.org/Index.aspx?page=1987

I guess I'm a little more sensitive today because a family of 6 was murdered by the father last night. The cops had been to his home many times on a domestic abuse call. Why wasn't he in jail? Where is his photo? Oh, I know. It's all over the paper now that he killed his wife and 5 babies.   Last year a man shot a cop in the face when the officer was trying to break up an argument. Turned out he had 20 felony arrests, INS tried to deport him but Cuba wouldn't take him back. They released him..something about his rights being violated. The system is really screwed up.

GasMeterGuy, guess I was typing when you posted. Thanks for your comment. I agree. It seems small, but people don't forget seeing your face on an arrest site even if you are found innocent or there's a case of mistaken identity.

Just want to make sure the comment "glad I'm a White female" wasn't taken the wrong way. I meant that I'm not a person who is usually profiled by cops.

Boy, I'm glad someone at Walgreen's told me when my brake light was out. Maybe I'd be on the 6:00 news tomorrow.

Tampa Bay Mug Shots: Index:
http://mugshots.tampabay.com/

Perhaps the system is working exactly as it's intended to work, which is to say against us. :-/

Too bad the media focuses on the crimes of its readers instead of the crimes of our leaders. With this kind of "reporting", no wonder newspapers are tanking.

Thanks TC - so it's true what my mother said. Always wear clean underwear when you go out. You never know where you'll end up. :-)

Time*treat, not to change the subject, but after seeing the new health care proposal, I can't say our government is trying to help consumers, but continuing to stuff the pockets of the corporations. Maybe they'll start posting the "mug shots" of the people who don't buy health insurance.

Yes, Rick. I do think they focus on the crimes of our leaders, but only when they make good TV viewing. I have different views from many people here, and I still think we made the right choice (considering the alternative) but nobody wants to be a victim of a corrupt government.   

People love Reality TV I guess. We've gotten so used to turning on the news and hearing about murders, child rape, war, police corruption, hate crimes, that they search for the things that attract viewers. I don't think this is any different.

By the way, I was once going to start a blog about Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" but I was really concerned I'd be misunderstood. Nobody in her right mind would defend a grown man or woman who takes advantage of children or solicits them for sex, but they set a very dangerous precedence. Sting operations should not be profit making TV shows hosted by entertainers. There has to be a slant to something like that. If they didn't catch all these guys, they wouldn't have a show. As much as I'd like to spit on most of them, I felt their rights were violated, especially since most of them were lured into a home and had no prior record. One man committed suicide. They should have had their day in court before their families, including young children, saw them on television as sex offenders.   Now I'm wondering if I should post this remark. Again, I am not defending perverts, but the same way Jay Leno finds all the idiots who don't know who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or who shot Abraham Lincoln, anyone whose goal is to get high ratings for their sponsors is not a police force and shouldn't be setting people up for the public's entertainment. NBC made millions on this show.

oops - typo - meant "set a dangerous precedent"   (not precedence) But you all know what I meant!   :-)

Justx:
I for one applaud your comments. I wish more people were willing to openly express their views on such controversial topics.

We cannot afford to believe that "most people are guilty" of the crimes with which they've been charged. The ABA web site contains a very interesting study entitled, "Crossing the Line: Responding to Prosecutorial Misconduct." The truth is, prosecutors and police officers are held to a very low standard concerning the laws which govern their professional behavior. Today, both are more likely to break the law or to commit misconduct while they indulge their respective obsessions for more convictions in the interest of furthering their careers. According to the ABA report, modern prosecutors routinely suppress evidence and suborn perjury, and police officers don't even flinch when they feel they need to lie under oath if that's what it takes to secure a conviction against a defendant. The focus is no longer on Truth and Justice, but has shifted dramatically to, "What can I make a jury believe?" The more convictions wrapped up by a prosecutor, the more likely it is that he'll become a judge, a federal district attorney or even a congressman. It's scary to think of the Constitutional damage they can do in such positions, but the truly innocent defendants whom they've victimized find it nearly impossible to have them charged with the serious crimes they've committed to reach those lofty heights.

     Here's an excerpt:

     "To date, prosecutorial misconduct - even the most egregious - has largely gone unchecked. See Gershman, Misconduct, supra at vi, ("Relatively few judicial or Constitutional sanctions exist to penalize or to deter misconduct; the available sanctions are sparingly used and, even when used have not proved effective."). In January, 1999, the Chicago Tribune published a five-part series entitled, "Trial and Error: How Prosecutors Sacrifice Justice to Win." Analyzing thousands of cases, the newspaper found that since 1963 at least 381 defendants have had their convictions reversed, either because the prosecutor suppressed exculpatory evidence or suborned perjury. Alarmingly, of those 381 cases, not one of those prosecutors was convicted of a crime. Not one was barred from practicing law. Instead, many saw their careers advance, becoming judges or district attorneys. One became a congressman."

This is the accepted condition of our current "System of Justice." Prosecutors and police officers are considered to be above the laws they're charged with upholding by virtue of their positions and the uniforms they wear. When a police officer finds himself under investigation for a crime he's committed, he can simply resign, and the investigation is immediately terminated. Then, he can go down the road and join the force in the next county, or in the next town, and continue practicing his criminal conduct. Personally, my own recent experience with the criminal justice system has led me to conclude that the "honest cop" has become the exception rather than the rule. The "Boys in Blue" have become the largest and best-organized criminal gang in the country, and they will protect each other from criminal accountability at all costs, even if it means sending one or more of us to prison for crimes we didn't commit. They KNOW the likelihood that they'll ever face criminal charges is extremely remote, and so they have virtually NOTHING to fear from the "System" they so deftly exploit at the expense of the citizens they're charged with protecting.

Regarding "Reality TV," I don't think we love those shows as much as producers and broadcasters do. They're extremely cheap to produce, and I think people watch them because it seems THAT'S ALL THAT'S ON at any given time on any given channel. TV Land, for example, has almost completely alienated their most loyal viewers with their current and continuous onslaught of "new" reality shows while sacrificing the old favorites which built their network. Programs such as "The Cougar," "Runway Models," "She's Got the Look" and other such excrement make me want to send them a letter telling them of my own lame ideas for crappy TV shows. "Lawn Mower Man," for example, would follow the naughty sexual exploits of a hunky but chronically unemployed 23-year-old pot smoker who lives in his parents' basement. With lawn mower in tow, he goes door-to-door seeking romantic interludes all over town, offering to mow the lawns of lonely housewives while their husbands toil away at the office. Naturally, mayhem ensues when the husbands finally get suspicious and ask why the second camera crew is following them around at work (I SAID it was a lame idea, but I think it's sufficient to enable me to call myself a "television producer" once it's picked up).

I also agree with your comments concerning "To Catch a Predator." Personally, I have no use for sexual predators, whether they prey on children of either sex or grown women. However, the men "exposed" on this documentary (I've never seen a woman accused on the show, but I've never watched an entire episode) have not actually committed a crime, since the "victim" is imaginary. The premise of the program is, "Well, they demonstrated an INTENT to commit a crime because they didn't know the child wasn't real." Conversely, if I called the cops and reported the little neighbor boy just told me he had murdered his imaginary friend, would he be charged as an adult because he INTENDED to kill someone who doesn't exist? This account WAS actually related to me several years ago by the kid who lived next door, but my wife used to babysit Chad, and I knew he had a very active imagination. He was only five years old and was being raised by his single mother who was very "active" on the dating circuit. At the time, I dismissed the incident as a cry for attention, and thought that Chad was allowed to watch too much television without censorship or guidance from his mother. That was nearly seventeen years ago. Chad is now 22 years old and will graduate from college soon (with a 3.9 GPA, I might add). He's very well-adjusted and has probably forgotten the incident with his imaginary friend.

With the occasional exception of those few who were previously convicted for the same crime, "To Catch a Predator" serves little purpose other than to ruin the lives and marriages of otherwise productive members of society. They lose their jobs and families, they're forced to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys if they elect to defend themselves (which brings its own adverse publicity). Further, they carry the label of "Convicted Felon" and must subsequently register as "Sex Offenders" for the remainder of their lives, EVEN THOUGH NO CRIME HAS TAKEN PLACE. I think most of them, and the general public, would be better served by the implied warning of being publicly embarrassed by the camera crews, and I believe that those who have no prior criminal record would likely be terrified to indulge their deviant thoughts in the future.
     
It's not my intention to defend perverts, either, but this show exploits the law for the sake of easy convictions and market share. For the most part, enticing or eliciting specific sexual thoughts or behavior by baiting a trap with imaginary victims DOES NOT keep our children safe from actual molesters and sexual predators (unless, of course, we have equally imaginary kids). I realize my comments here have left me vulnerable to personal attacks, and I welcome any questions or critical comments from those who oppose my views on this subject or who have missed the point of my diatribe (begging the permission of the blogger).

To be clear, I believe anyone who harms children should be subjected to the harshest legal and physical punishments available, and I certainly don't mean to convey that I condone or eve

Sorry for the long-winded response - here's the final paragraph:

To be clear, I believe anyone who harms children should be subjected to the harshest legal and physical punishments available, and I certainly don't mean to convey that I condone or even tolerate such behavior. However, when the actual intended "victim" is a police officer who gets his rocks off by trolling juvenile chat rooms and posing as an oversexed child, it seems to me that he has serious psychological issues of his own which should be addressed with equal ferocity.

     Jim