TexasCHLforum.com

Be careful what you text to your getaway driver if you are burglarizing a place. This is my old department where I was a reserve officer many moons ago.

http://www.kfvs12.com/story/18573596/4- ... as-station" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brain surgeons. Sheesh.

SIA

Forget the break-in, I'm much more concerned with the fact that he went through the kids phone. That sort of invasion by Law Enforcement, sans a warranty, makes me exceptionally fearful and angry.

KingofChaos wrote:Forget the break-in, I'm much more concerned with the fact that he went through the kids phone. That sort of invasion by Law Enforcement, sans a warranty, makes me exceptionally fearful and angry.

I was wondering the same thing. Of course, the article did say that the message was visible on the cell phone. If they had the kid on PC for driving around the gas station after the burglary, anything that they could see would have been OK. But seeing the text on a cell phone is not something that is easy to do and most of the displays go dark after a few seconds, meaning that the phone has to be manipulated to re-display any information that it has.

It is possible that the officer asked "do you mind of I search your car" and the kid, thinking that he was going to be released when the officer did not find any incriminating evidence, told him to go ahead. The fact that the reporter didn't pick up on something like that won't surprise me.

KingofChaos wrote:Forget the break-in, I'm much more concerned with the fact that he went through the kids phone. That sort of invasion by Law Enforcement, sans a warranty, makes me exceptionally fearful and angry.

He didn't go through the kid's phone, the message was already displayed, which means that it had just been viewed. That is evidence of a crime in progress and IMHO entirely actionable. And the end result was that a passle of criminals (not misguided yoots) were caught red-handed and arrested. I call that a good result.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:Forget the break-in, I'm much more concerned with the fact that he went through the kids phone. That sort of invasion by Law Enforcement, sans a warranty, makes me exceptionally fearful and angry.

He didn't go through the kid's phone, the message was already displayed, which means that it had just been viewed. That is evidence of a crime in progress and IMHO entirely actionable. And the end result was that a passle of criminals (not misguided yoots) were caught red-handed and arrested. I call that a good result.

You don't actually know if the message was displayed. In fact, I'd roll with chasfm11's thought, and say that its highly improbably that the message was still showing. The kid likely wasn't messing with his phone after the officer made initial contact. And if he was, it almost certainly wouldn't be to text his friends about the robbery he committed. It'd probably be to call his parents or something of that nature. So he puts the phone down, and while the officer does the "Hi, give me your ID" etc. the phone would likely timeout and the screen would go black. I don't know what kind of phone you have, but even older non-smartphones have screen timeouts. This story stinks. Maybe the kid really is an idiot, and continued talking to his friend about the robbery/reading those text while the officer was there. Maybe he really doesn't care about his battery and extended his screen timeout to a ridiculously long time. Or maybe the officer went through his phone. All we'll ever know is what we're told, but I for one think what we're being told makes no sense when subjected to even a small amount of thought.

It also doesn't matter if the kid was a criminal, or what the result was. There are tons of violations of privacy that would likely have positive results, but I'd bet you wouldn't support them. Heck, requiring NICS checks for private sales would likely have positive results, since not everyone requires the buyer to have a CHL, but from your previous post on this forum I'm going to go out on a limb and say you'd be against that. The ends don't always justify the means.

KingofChaos wrote:I don't know what kind of phone you have, but even older non-smartphones have screen timeouts. [...] Maybe he really doesn't care about his battery and extended his screen timeout to a ridiculously long time.

I set mine to never timeout because I stare at the screen for a "ridiculously long time" trying to figure out puzzle games far more often than I forget to hit the off button.

Dave2 wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:I don't know what kind of phone you have, but even older non-smartphones have screen timeouts. [...] Maybe he really doesn't care about his battery and extended his screen timeout to a ridiculously long time.

I set mine to never timeout because I stare at the screen for a "ridiculously long time" trying to figure out puzzle games far more often than I forget to hit the off button.

I'm well aware that you all exist. If there wasn't a need, there likely wouldn't be an option, but you're most likely a statistical outlier, which was my point.

Unrelated, but what platform? Are the puzzle games native apps? If it's iOS or Android, and it's a native app, you should really shoot the dev an email. There are functions to disable the lock screen in the API for just those sort of games.

KingofChaos wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:I don't know what kind of phone you have, but even older non-smartphones have screen timeouts. [...] Maybe he really doesn't care about his battery and extended his screen timeout to a ridiculously long time.

I set mine to never timeout because I stare at the screen for a "ridiculously long time" trying to figure out puzzle games far more often than I forget to hit the off button.

I'm well aware that you all exist. If there wasn't a need, there likely wouldn't be an option, but you're most likely a statistical outlier, which was my point.

Unrelated, but what platform? Are the puzzle games native apps? If it's iOS or Android, and it's a native app, you should really shoot the dev an email. There are functions to disable the lock screen in the API for just those sort of games.

It's a native iOS app. I kinda like not having it auto-lock though. I can leave a txt message conversation on the screen and read the new messages just by glancing at the phone for a second or two.

KingofChaos wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:Forget the break-in, I'm much more concerned with the fact that he went through the kids phone. That sort of invasion by Law Enforcement, sans a warranty, makes me exceptionally fearful and angry.

He didn't go through the kid's phone, the message was already displayed, which means that it had just been viewed. That is evidence of a crime in progress and IMHO entirely actionable. And the end result was that a passle of criminals (not misguided yoots) were caught red-handed and arrested. I call that a good result.

You don't actually know if the message was displayed. In fact, I'd roll with chasfm11's thought, and say that its highly improbably that the message was still showing. The kid likely wasn't messing with his phone after the officer made initial contact. And if he was, it almost certainly wouldn't be to text his friends about the robbery he committed. It'd probably be to call his parents or something of that nature. So he puts the phone down, and while the officer does the "Hi, give me your ID" etc. the phone would likely timeout and the screen would go black. I don't know what kind of phone you have, but even older non-smartphones have screen timeouts. This story stinks. Maybe the kid really is an idiot, and continued talking to his friend about the robbery/reading those text while the officer was there. Maybe he really doesn't care about his battery and extended his screen timeout to a ridiculously long time. Or maybe the officer went through his phone. All we'll ever know is what we're told, but I for one think what we're being told makes no sense when subjected to even a small amount of thought.

It also doesn't matter if the kid was a criminal, or what the result was. There are tons of violations of privacy that would likely have positive results, but I'd bet you wouldn't support them. Heck, requiring NICS checks for private sales would likely have positive results, since not everyone requires the buyer to have a CHL, but from your previous post on this forum I'm going to go out on a limb and say you'd be against that. The ends don't always justify the means.

If it was an iPhone and the text came in, it lights up and displays on the face of the phone, even if locked. The friends were texting him to come get them, so it may have been actively going on. Also, the article says the phone rang and one of the officers answered it and the friends says come get us. The boy told them where to go get them.

Bottom line, news articles are notoriously wrong. And young kids are VERY good at spilling the beans when they are caught and think they will get an easier ride if they tell what was happening. It's the old 'Don't arrest me, I was just taking my friends for a ride and THEY got out and broke in. I wasn't in the store....' etc. type of confession.

...that's the way it REALLY is out on the street...all the tough talk just dries up when they're on the hook...

@Keith

I actually skipped over the part where his phone rang during the contact the first time I read the article. I actually have a tendency to skip over paragraphs in news articles online, because I hardly ever read it straight through at one time. I'll go back and forth between tabs and something gets missed. That's a fault of my own. The phone ringing and the conversation being active when the contact occurred does make things more interesting and believable.

If you ever decide to be a lawbreaker, give yourself and your accomplices an intelligence test.

If you don't score higher than a turnip, go back to whatever honest labor you can find. The consequences of stupidity are far less.

I think these guys are good candidates for the Collander Lie Detector.