I pit this violent sexual predator state trooper and the prosecutor who won't prosecute him.

This is from, appropriately enough, the Sandusky Register.
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/article/5202236

The article also states that, 5 years before, Vitte has spanked a girlfriend’s 5 year old son until his buttocks bled and then head-butted the boys mother when she argued with him about it.

WTF? What’s wrong with this prosecutor, and why is this guy still a trooper?

It’s too early in the morning to think about this too hard, but to me, “spanking” = “smacking with bare hands/open palms” and I can’t see how that would lead to outright bleeding, which would to my mind only be caused by using a switch or cane or some other non-bare-hand object.

Also, isn’t “{defendant} might have presented a defense that justified his alleged actions” kinda the whole point of a trial?

It’s a horrible situation, but I have to admit I’m inappropriately amused that this guy’s from Sandusky County. Wonder if he owns any paper towel rolls?

I know for a fact that it is possible.

Since when is headbutting someone who gets in your way of disciplining their child a crime? Fucking fascist socialist Obamacare bullshit.

I know. This guy is just concerned about the welfare of kids!

Yes. People don’t realize how much you can damage a small frail child with an open hand. It’s one of the main reasons I oppose spanking; too many people spank in anger and they don’t realize - or refuse to believe - they can really injure.

You know what I blame this on the breakdown of?
The family.
[sub]I think you forgot a smiley. [/sub]

It doesn’t sound like there was any sexual contact and from the description they couldn’t see each other. Wouldn’t the most they could charge him with be corruption of a minor, or something along those lines, for showing him porn? (not that it actually says the age of the kid)

I’m guessing the key is this:

So, the wife is claiming he admitted this, but if that’s all they have, then it ain’t much. Don’t let the “acknowledged” fool you. This looks like sloppy journalism to me.

The trooper admitted to it when he gave the excuse that he was simply educating the boy.

If you’re innocent of an act, your first impulse is to deny it. You don’t acknowledge it and make excuses.

Hitler?

No child’s behind left, huh?

:smiley:

Ooooooh - well played sir, well played. You win the interwebz today.

If the only admission was to the wife, though, do you see the uphill battle the prosecution has?

The defense could argue that this is hearsay, and inadmissible. The prosecution’s normal counter-argument would be that an admission of a crime is an exception to the hearsay rule, but in this case, this defense can argue that he didn’t – and doesn’t – see any criminal act in what he did, so that exception doesn’t apply.

That doesn’t fit with my understanding of the regarding admissions of party opponents. It’s only an admission if the declarant subjectively believes it to be one?

I think he’s thinking of a statement against penal interest. I suspect that probably does have a subjective compontent to it (becuase of the rationale behind it).

But I think you’re right that it’s just a statement by a party opponent. Unless the statement really was to his wife, and then the problem is pivilege not hearsay.

That would have been my assumption about why they weren’t prosecuting too. The prosecutor’s comments seem to indicate otherwise, though:

I’ll bet the people of Sandusky County feel very well served by their DA with this guy who is very likely a child molester and wife abuser licensed to carry a gun, arrest people and generally get away with all kinds of shit walking around with a badge on his chest. It will be easy to punish the prosecutor — just run a candidate against him in the next election, and have that candidate bring up the fact that he refused to prosecute this guy over and over and over again, using the terms “child molester” and “wife abuser” a lot. I don’t see how any halfway decent candidate could lose with a club like that in their hands.

In fact, this could work for a gubernatorial candidate, as the guy is a State Highway Patrol officer, and the State Highway Patrol chief is appointed by the governor. The opposing candidate could say, “No sanctions were taken against the child-molesting, wife-beating officer, do you want that officer arresting any member of your family? The SHP did not fire him, and the head of the SHP, who COULD fire him, was appointed by the incumbent! Therefore, both the governor and the SHP chief APPROVE child molesters and wife beaters being police officers! If elected my first move will be to FIRE the SHP chief if he refuses to remove this officer from the force!”

Once again, a slam-dunk win for a decent candidate. Not that decent candidates are plentiful these days.