We See You
A probation officer in Santa Barbara, Calif., notified city police on April 19 that he was declaring one of his clients to be in violation of his parole.
As a condition of his probation, Ismael Ramirez was not to go onto his neighbor's property, since he had been convicted of crime against that neighbor. A GPS ankle bracelet that Ramirez is required to wear alerted his PO that he had violated that order.
Ramirez, "a known gang member" easily identified by his distinctive tattoos -- especially the legend "LADIES LOVE IT" on his upper lip -- was arrested for the violation.
He makes promises, but we think it's just lip service.
(Update: Colorado man one-ups Ramirez with a tattoo mustache and goatee!)
Source: Santa Barbara Edhat
Free Weird Newsletter |
Most Recent Comments
Posted by Jonathan, N.C. on May 8, 2010:
@Tor: "I am reluctant to consider the specific reason for the arrest valid without more information."
Then it's a good thing the Santa Barbara Police have the authority to work without your approval!
Posted by Tor in Hawaii on May 11, 2010:
@Armand: You might want to note that I actually mentioned in my last post that there could exist a situation in which he would show up actually on the property in question from outside of the 150' you mentioned. Indeed, if he were driving (I don't know if such was allowed), an ankle receiver in the pedal area might not even be able to get a signal at all, in which case they would have no reliable information where he was.
@Armand and Jonathan: Looking back at my post, I see that by the way I worded myself, I was applying significantly higher standards of evidence than appropriate for the source of the information I based my post on. Indeed, if he were poking around the forbidden area with small changes in position for several minutes, that would be hard to argue, but if on the other hand (as I was picturing, although they should know to discount such, and I perhaps should have assumed that they would) there were a few data points in the forbidden area among somewhat scattered and jumping points, then the incident should have been ignored. As I should have made clearer, my post was intended to help people to be more aware of the limitations of technology, using the story as an example, rather than a direct comment on the story, hence my (mis-)applying the standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt to obviously incomplete information.
Posted by Mike from Dallas on June 1, 2010:
Love it? I think most ladies would more likely consider it fraud since it's such a poor imitation of a mustache ride.
Tor, he's already on probation, so it's a conditional privilege to be free. It takes little to lose that privilege, so it would behoove him to step delicately to avoid any reason for revocation.