• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Former officer Rolfe accused of violation terms of his bond

You feel a burning need to profit from this discussion?

If we go that route, we'll have an endless argument about what reliable proof is, fed info by dishonest spin doctors, intent on shaping a narative in an intense political battle. Will be a classic case of there being three truths.

Your grand total potential winnings (from me) are: I'll acknowledge you are right and I am wrong if that becomes obvious to a rational observer.

An honest exchange is worth more than a few bucks in your pocket or a beer in your belly.
It's not that I have a "need to profit", I just like easy money. There is none easier than those that willfully abandon all objectivity for their admitted prejudices. Doesn't matter the subject, sports, whatever. You've admitted your feelings about the merits of the case and Rolfe (with which I agree), but you've jumped the shark by extending that to something as clearly provable as a bond violation. Can't fault me for just trying to help you realize your mistake. There is only one 'truth'. It will be what the explicit language of his bond conditions are. I'm willing to bet he violated them. That's all.
Having said that, I hope you are right actually. I genuinely do. But someone would have to give ME 100:1 odds to take that side of the bet. (And no, I'm not giving you those odds. :lol: )
 
It's not that I have a "need to profit", I just like easy money. There is none easier than those that willfully abandon all objectivity l for their admitted prejudices. Doesn't matter the subject, sports, whatever. You've admitted your feelings about the merits of the case and Rolfe (with which I agree), but you've jumped the shark by extending that to something as clearly provable as a bond violation. Can't fault me for just trying to help you realize your mistake. There is only one 'truth'. It will be what the explicit language of his bond conditions are. I'm willing to bet he violated them. That's all.
Having said that, I hope you are right actually. I genuinely do. But someone would have to give ME 100:1 odds to take that side of the bet. (And no, I'm not giving you those odds. :lol: )

A couple of days ago, my neighbor posted something on Facebook, with a video of a doctor talking about positive outcomes for COVID-19 from use of HCQ, z-pak, and zinc. Facebook took down the post, and sent her a private message stating it was removed for false information, and directing her to the W.H.O. web site for "more accurate information."

Truth is hard to come by these days.

This may not be about what is in the bond. This may be about a conversation or emails or other correspondance that took place between the defendent / his representatives and the DA's office.

I gave you a plausible scenario: He's visiting a sick relative or attending a funeral. He sought permission to leave the state, received it, and then the DA sandbagged him with a motion to the judge.

Would you put it past this DA to make false statements?

Sure, I acknowledge it's entirely possible Rolfe made a dumb choice. I think it's more likely, given the jeopardy he faces, and the political motivations of his opponents, that he stepped on a land mine laid specifically for PR purposes.
 
So Rolfe's bond came with the following conditions (per WSB-TV2):
  • Must wear an ankle monitor
  • Will have a curfew from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. with exceptions for work, legal or medical reasons
  • Must surrender his passport
  • Is not allowed to possess or carry any firearms
  • Will not have any contact with family members of Brooks or any witnesses, including the three other victims in the case
  • Will not have any contact with other police officers
Who are the "three other victims in the case"?
 
So Rolfe's bond came with the following conditions (per WSB-TV2):
  • Must wear an ankle monitor
  • Will have a curfew from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. with exceptions for work, legal or medical reasons
  • Must surrender his passport
  • Is not allowed to possess or carry any firearms
  • Will not have any contact with family members of Brooks or any witnesses, including the three other victims in the case
  • Will not have any contact with other police officers
Who are the "three other victims in the case"?

They charged him with criminal destruction of property (I think that was the charge), because one of the rounds he fired hit and damaged a car. Guessing that car's owner is one of the other "victims." Maybe there were multiple counts of that. And violation of oath of office. That may mean the state is a victim.

A reminder about this case: The DA filed charges before the GBI finished their investigation.

iu
 
From cNn:
Howard's office received an email from the defendant's attorney notifying the state that Rolfe traveled to Florida on Monday.

Records from an ankle-monitoring company indicate Rolfe left his home Sunday at 6:58 a.m. en route to Daytona Beach.

"When this was sent to Paul Howard's office, he was already (lying) on the beach," Stewart said.
Things will keep coming out eventually...
 
That's the only thing that gives me any pause. If going out of state was against your conditions, why would you notify the DA's office you went out of state?
That is the question. Would be interested in the answer or lawyer's rebuttal. Maybe the lawyer meant to phrase it as something else?
 
Back
Top Bottom