Bizarre, a top pentagon official harasses a nanny on his Capitol Hill block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside whether he would have gotten harsher punishment if different race, it does seem that he got off very easily. I don't know what he could potentially have faced, I just mean that his crimes were so profoundly creepy and disruptive it surprises me he essentially is simply compensating them for their out of pocket expenses.

Eh, I think this is probably a pretty par for the course punishment. Folks are always shocked at the light (sometimes nonexistent) sentences for well publicized crimes, not realizing the sentence received is usually very normal. That's how you end up with people tortured for years by their neighbors, people with dozens of DUIs, repeat sex offenders, etc. Sentencing for a lot of crimes really isn't all that harsh.

I agree with this. The point of making a deal and letting non-violent, otherwise productive citizens off with light sentences is to not clog up with courts and jails with these guys.

I think that's certainly the hope. Unfortunately, some people (and I'd be worried this guy is one) take the light punishment as a sign they're untouchable and can get away with whatever they want. Then they escalate the behavior until it finally gets bad enough for someone to take seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside whether he would have gotten harsher punishment if different race, it does seem that he got off very easily. I don't know what he could potentially have faced, I just mean that his crimes were so profoundly creepy and disruptive it surprises me he essentially is simply compensating them for their out of pocket expenses.

Eh, I think this is probably a pretty par for the course punishment. Folks are always shocked at the light (sometimes nonexistent) sentences for well publicized crimes, not realizing the sentence received is usually very normal. That's how you end up with people tortured for years by their neighbors, people with dozens of DUIs, repeat sex offenders, etc. Sentencing for a lot of crimes really isn't all that harsh.

I agree with this. The point of making a deal and letting non-violent, otherwise productive citizens off with light sentences is to not clog up with courts and jails with these guys.

I think that's certainly the hope. Unfortunately, some people (and I'd be worried this guy is one) take the light punishment as a sign they're untouchable and can get away with whatever they want. Then they escalate the behavior until it finally gets bad enough for someone to take seriously.

This guy is going to get crucified by the media and social media. For him that's going to matter a lot more than the size of the fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside whether he would have gotten harsher punishment if different race, it does seem that he got off very easily. I don't know what he could potentially have faced, I just mean that his crimes were so profoundly creepy and disruptive it surprises me he essentially is simply compensating them for their out of pocket expenses.

Eh, I think this is probably a pretty par for the course punishment. Folks are always shocked at the light (sometimes nonexistent) sentences for well publicized crimes, not realizing the sentence received is usually very normal. That's how you end up with people tortured for years by their neighbors, people with dozens of DUIs, repeat sex offenders, etc. Sentencing for a lot of crimes really isn't all that harsh.

I agree with this. The point of making a deal and letting non-violent, otherwise productive citizens off with light sentences is to not clog up with courts and jails with these guys.

I think that's certainly the hope. Unfortunately, some people (and I'd be worried this guy is one) take the light punishment as a sign they're untouchable and can get away with whatever they want. Then they escalate the behavior until it finally gets bad enough for someone to take seriously.

This guy is going to get crucified by the media and social media. For him that's going to matter a lot more than the size of the fine.

Probably true and likely deserved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside whether he would have gotten harsher punishment if different race, it does seem that he got off very easily. I don't know what he could potentially have faced, I just mean that his crimes were so profoundly creepy and disruptive it surprises me he essentially is simply compensating them for their out of pocket expenses.

Eh, I think this is probably a pretty par for the course punishment. Folks are always shocked at the light (sometimes nonexistent) sentences for well publicized crimes, not realizing the sentence received is usually very normal. That's how you end up with people tortured for years by their neighbors, people with dozens of DUIs, repeat sex offenders, etc. Sentencing for a lot of crimes really isn't all that harsh.

I agree with this. The point of making a deal and letting non-violent, otherwise productive citizens off with light sentences is to not clog up with courts and jails with these guys.

I'm sure drug dealers would appreciate this sort of light sentencing.

Do you have some trouble understanding what PP above said? Happly to break it down for you, slowly.

[Anonymous]

Am I wrong that visitor parking passes are only for a short period and not for use every single day? Of course I think his behavior is ridiculous but I didn't think someone like a nanny could use a visitor parking pass every day, presumably month after month. That's essentially what a residential parking permit is, and she is not a resident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I wrong that visitor parking passes are only for a short period and not for use every single day? Of course I think his behavior is ridiculous but I didn't think someone like a nanny could use a visitor parking pass every day, presumably month after month. That's essentially what a residential parking permit is, and she is not a resident.

From the article:
"The strange series of events could be viewed as the latest example of the District’s perpetual parking wars, except residents say parking isn’t a problem on their streets and that many babysitters use the visitor passes.

That’s perfectly legal for nannies to do, said Terry Owens, a spokesman for the District’s Department of Transportation."

The nanny and her employers did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside whether he would have gotten harsher punishment if different race, it does seem that he got off very easily. I don't know what he could potentially have faced, I just mean that his crimes were so profoundly creepy and disruptive it surprises me he essentially is simply compensating them for their out of pocket expenses.

Eh, I think this is probably a pretty par for the course punishment. Folks are always shocked at the light (sometimes nonexistent) sentences for well publicized crimes, not realizing the sentence received is usually very normal. That's how you end up with people tortured for years by their neighbors, people with dozens of DUIs, repeat sex offenders, etc. Sentencing for a lot of crimes really isn't all that harsh.

I agree with this. The point of making a deal and letting non-violent, otherwise productive citizens off with light sentences is to not clog up with courts and jails with these guys.

I think that's certainly the hope. Unfortunately, some people (and I'd be worried this guy is one) take the light punishment as a sign they're untouchable and can get away with whatever they want. Then they escalate the behavior until it finally gets bad enough for someone to take seriously.

True, but if you send folks to jail for things like this, "just in case", the incarcerated population would double. Which, for the race-obsessed folks in these threads, would impact blacks disproportionately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very strange story, I wonder what his beef was with the nanny?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-warning-left-on-a-nannys-car-license-plates-stolen-and-a-top-pentagon-official-in-big-trouble/2016/06/01/50699a3a-2816-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html

He sounds like a typical unhinged D.C. area neighbor to me. I especially enjoyed the comment section of the article. Can you imagine living next to an obsessed vigilante like this? Can you imagine what else he might do (or has done, that no one has found out about.......yet).

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This man steals someone else's property and he won't see a day in jail , and we wonder why people scream WHITE PRIVILEGE

Jeff is right now deleting anything critical of this irrelevant comment, while letting it stand. And we wonder why people (should) scream BLACK PRIVILEGE

Actually, I deleted posts that hijacked this thread to cover the same topic that is being covered in another thread. Maybe we should scream TROLL PRIVILEGE.

Not true. The specific posts here were very different in nature, responding to this supposed skin-specific privilege.

Dude, what do you need from me to get a clue? This thread is not for you to discuss your latest obsession. If you want to discuss an unrelated topic, do it in an unrelated thread. You may have thought you were discussing what you describe here, but as the subsequent posts that I also deleted explained, you were comparing apples and oranges.

Simple. We just need some consistency. Random Pentagon guy does something bizarre and we're discussing that. Then a couple of posters try to make it a white vs. black affair. You allow them. Then someone else (me) attacks that hijacking of the thread. You delete my (perfectly rational, not insulting) comments.

Why not same standards for all?

Again, why are you hijacking this thread? We have an entire forum for this sort of discussion. But, the "white vs black" posts pertained to his light sentence and were therefore relevant. You attempted to compare this case in which was settled and punishment decided upon to a case in which there have been no criminal charges filed, let alone any findings of guilt or any punishment. Moreover, if there is an investigation and criminal wrong-doing is uncovered -- you have no idea of the race of anyone that might be charged. Your entire post was based on your own assumptions that aren't supported by fact. Further posts from you that are off-topic in this thread will be deleted. So, please don't waste your time or mine.

+1 , wish I could but you a cold one . Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i wonder if there is any chance he has fronto-temporal dementia. I mean his s colleagues were generally shocked and if this is what he's genuinely like at baseline-it just doesn't seem like a person could keep this level of jackassery under his hat.

Well, I know Price Floyd, he used to work at State, and while a nice guy himself, I wouldn't take his statements on this guy to be gospel or super meaningful. He's not going to speak ill to the press on this guy - not his nature no matter what he thinks (and I am not implying he was being deceptive btw).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I wrong that visitor parking passes are only for a short period and not for use every single day? Of course I think his behavior is ridiculous but I didn't think someone like a nanny could use a visitor parking pass every day, presumably month after month. That's essentially what a residential parking permit is, and she is not a resident.

From the article:
"The strange series of events could be viewed as the latest example of the District’s perpetual parking wars, except residents say parking isn’t a problem on their streets and that many babysitters use the visitor passes.

That’s perfectly legal for nannies to do, said Terry Owens, a spokesman for the District’s Department of Transportation."

The nanny and her employers did nothing wrong.

I think the guy is a nut job but it is not legal to do what the nanny is doing unless she has a ROSA exemption.

http://dmv.dc.gov/service/registration-out-state-automobile-rosa-0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His punishment was a slap on the wrist. This is theft. Asshole.

Misdemeanor crime. Sounds like he was given diversion with conditions. Perfectly proper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I wrong that visitor parking passes are only for a short period and not for use every single day? Of course I think his behavior is ridiculous but I didn't think someone like a nanny could use a visitor parking pass every day, presumably month after month. That's essentially what a residential parking permit is, and she is not a resident.

From the article:
"The strange series of events could be viewed as the latest example of the District’s perpetual parking wars, except residents say parking isn’t a problem on their streets and that many babysitters use the visitor passes.

That’s perfectly legal for nannies to do, said Terry Owens, a spokesman for the District’s Department of Transportation."

The nanny and her employers did nothing wrong.

I think the guy is a nut job but it is not legal to do what the nanny is doing unless she has a ROSA exemption.

http://dmv.dc.gov/service/registration-out-state-automobile-rosa-0

Then he reports her to parking enforcement. But again, the parking enforcement person quoted in the article said what the nanny did was fine and they probably know and understand what can and cannot be done better than you or me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I wrong that visitor parking passes are only for a short period and not for use every single day? Of course I think his behavior is ridiculous but I didn't think someone like a nanny could use a visitor parking pass every day, presumably month after month. That's essentially what a residential parking permit is, and she is not a resident.

From the article:
"The strange series of events could be viewed as the latest example of the District’s perpetual parking wars, except residents say parking isn’t a problem on their streets and that many babysitters use the visitor passes.

That’s perfectly legal for nannies to do, said Terry Owens, a spokesman for the District’s Department of Transportation."

The nanny and her employers did nothing wrong.

I think the guy is a nut job but it is not legal to do what the nanny is doing unless she has a ROSA exemption.

http://dmv.dc.gov/service/registration-out-state-automobile-rosa-0

How do you know the nanny had out-of-state plates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside whether he would have gotten harsher punishment if different race, it does seem that he got off very easily. I don't know what he could potentially have faced, I just mean that his crimes were so profoundly creepy and disruptive it surprises me he essentially is simply compensating them for their out of pocket expenses.

Eh, I think this is probably a pretty par for the course punishment. Folks are always shocked at the light (sometimes nonexistent) sentences for well publicized crimes, not realizing the sentence received is usually very normal. That's how you end up with people tortured for years by their neighbors, people with dozens of DUIs, repeat sex offenders, etc. Sentencing for a lot of crimes really isn't all that harsh.

I agree with this. The point of making a deal and letting non-violent, otherwise productive citizens off with light sentences is to not clog up with courts and jails with these guys.

I'm sure drug dealers would appreciate this sort of light sentencing.

Do you have some trouble understanding what PP above said? Happly to break it down for you, slowly.

Before you do, work on your proofreading skills.