Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AdHistorical7107 OP t1_iu05opx wrote

Reply to comment by IBroughtMySoapbox in how was this POS allowed to walk? by AdHistorical7107

After violating the protective orders three times, you're not seeing an issue here?

Ok.....

2

IBroughtMySoapbox t1_iu0ihtu wrote

I can only go by the information I have and from this poorly written article I see that in the past he’s been arrested for violating a protective order but I don’t see where he was convicted of violating a protective order, so I don’t know if he actually ever did violate a protective order, I only know that someone accused him of doing so. And again, going by the information that I have, I believe that he should be arrested, which he was, and I believe that he should be brought in front of a judge, which he will be. I guess where you and me have a difference of opinion is that I don’t believe that we should skip past his right to due process and imprison him for an indefinite period of time before he’s had a chance to mount a defense. I don’t care if the man is accused of molesting children while kicking kittens and stealing from the poor, if you deny that person’s right to due process then you no longer live in a free country. That’s a hard no from me

0

AdHistorical7107 OP t1_iu0jpyx wrote

Look up Neil S Bhatia on Google. You will see the string of arrests he had, starting in 2018. You can search the court records if you choose (I did), but its quite confusing between his conviction of violating a protective order, and the slew of pending cases he has against him.

https://www.google.com/search?q=neil+s+bhatia&rlz=1C1EJFC_enUS986US986&oq=neil+s+bh&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j0i22i30l3j69i60l3.7048j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I have the day off, so I searched this. But dont just take it from me. Here is a link to the court website (you may need to input his name):

https://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/parm1.aspx

I am all for due process. its our right. But I am also a firm believer that if you violate the laws (depending on the severity), we need to be careful to allow you a third try.

1

IBroughtMySoapbox t1_iu0liwf wrote

I checked his court records and I see zero convictions for violating a protective order so it is factually incorrect to say that this person violated a protective order three times. I cannot tell you how catastrophic it would be for our society if we started treating arrests as convictions

1

AdHistorical7107 OP t1_iu0m7xl wrote

Hmm.... violating a condition of release.... arrest date July 18, 2018, and judging by the articles, that was incident where they arrested him for sending harassing messages to the victim. All kinda makes sense to me.....

But you do you. I can put two and two together....

1

IBroughtMySoapbox t1_iu0nsqc wrote

I love how you’re trying to gaslight me into believing that I’m defending the guy just because I refuse to convict him off of a newspaper article. You and people who share your thought process are the reason why innocent men are in prison

1

AdHistorical7107 OP t1_iu0oeyc wrote

Gaslight how?

I am sharing the information with you of this gentleman's history. I respect you may be busy. I respect you want to give him due dilligence. If, after providing you with all there is, you still don't see what's wrong here, that's fine.

I am not the reason why innocent men are in person. I am just trying to avoid another tragedy based on ones repeat offenses against protective orders, and their history of domestic abuse. Both of which this gentleman has clearly demonstrated based solely on actions.

1

IBroughtMySoapbox t1_iu11ra8 wrote

You’re not judging the man’s actions, you’re jumping to conclusions about what his actions were. He was arrested for violating a protective order and the case was adjudicated and a conviction was never secured. That means that this man never violated a protective order. But you keep repeating that he’s violated a protective order three times. You choose to believe that someone is guilty of a crime because they were arrested for it even after the charges were dropped in a court of law, it’s preposterous. This is exactly how innocent men go to jail, people like you sit on a jury and disregard all of the evidence thinking that the police would never arrest the wrong man

1

AdHistorical7107 OP t1_iu13wc4 wrote

Wow you really can't read that stuff huh. It says clearly under his convictions. But you want to defend him. Police arresting the wrong man? Wow. Lol. Omg im laughing really hard right now reading this lol. Seriously stop roflmao. Too damn funny

Keep defending a bad guy lol. Go ahead....

Roflmao, arrest the wrong man who was clearly with his victim when police showed up lol. Omfg....

I'm rolling....

1

AdHistorical7107 OP t1_iu0nran wrote

Also, here is what happened in CA.

1 year of anger management. Domestic abuse charge. Recidivism is real here:

https://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1099392

1

IBroughtMySoapbox t1_iu12f7w wrote

He was convicted of misdemeanor battery for hitting his wife in the face with a loaf of bread. Take this guy out back and shoot him already 🙄

1