Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Rehak and Naylon...
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9925		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  joelr [ Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Rehak and Naylon...
...guilty, guilty, guilty.

The "it was a practical joke" defense didn't fool the jury.
Author:  jenga [ Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
It did not take the jury long at all. What is the sentence guidelines for two felony convictions?

I wonder how long they will still be on paid leave?
Author:  bensdad [ Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
jenga wrote:
What is the sentence guidelines for two felony convictions?


"Bailiff, Slap his..."

Thanks for posting that Joel. I wonder if there will be any backlash/residual effect on our friend the Sheriff. He was/is friends with these guys, right?
Author:  Traveler [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:25 am ]
Post subject: 
My understanding is, and my understanding is admittedly very faulty, that the FBI had an investigation on-going with the Sheriff and also a couple more of his minions.

I have also heard that Federal judges to not take kindly to "public servants" who break the public's trust. I would hope that such a bias would rear it's ugly head during sentencing. (I can only hope.)
Author:  JD Christian [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've met Mr. Rehak. In person. I had the chance to talk with him at length about more than just this issue.

After researching what the media had to say and the "evidence" presented to the public. I believe Mr. Rehak.
Author:  Moby Clarke [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD Christian wrote:
I've met Mr. Rehak. In person. I had the chance to talk with him at length about more than just this issue.

After researching what the media had to say and the "evidence" presented to the public. I believe Mr. Rehak.


I am guessing your statement indicates that you believe that Rehay and Naylon were playing a practical joke. Let us, for the moment, assume they were.

They still should have been convicted, fired, and put in prison. They are (actually, were) Police Officers. They must be above reproach in their words and actions at all times. They must be held to a higher and more strict standard than the rest of us. That they would even consider playing a practical joke, in the middle of a bust, that involves taking money, completely ruins their credibility on all other matters. Not only that, it brings questions into all previous arrests they have made.

As I said, they should have been convicted and I am glad they were and am glad they will do hard time.

Anyone that stupid should not be involved with Law Enforcement in any way, shape or form, ever.
Author:  joelr [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, to be fair, one of them never was a police officer.
Author:  Traveler [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
joelr wrote:
Well, to be fair, one of them never was a police officer.


No, but he played one on the street - which is dangerous in itself.
Author:  Traveler [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD Christian wrote:
I've met Mr. Rehak. In person. I had the chance to talk with him at length about more than just this issue.

After researching what the media had to say and the "evidence" presented to the public. I believe Mr. Rehak.


I am sure Mr. Rehak laments the fact that you were not one of the jurors.

My belief is that they should do long and hard time, and hopefully rat out the Sheriff in a vain attempt to reduce their sentences. With all due respect to all involved, of course.
Author:  Dick Unger [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD Christian wrote:
I've met Mr. Rehak. In person. I had the chance to talk with him at length about more than just this issue.

After researching what the media had to say and the "evidence" presented to the public. I believe Mr. Rehak.


So, what did he say?
Author:  JD Christian [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
First off, let me state that I am by no means an expert on this situation. That being said...

When I watched the video clips of the F.B.I's surveillance. I didn't see anything specific, nothing incriminating. They did turn the money into evidence at the station. "Temporary theft?"

Why in the video of the car search was there audio and no audio on the hotel room video? At least not that I have seen or heard at this point. That to me is a bit curious as this is their main part of the case.

Believe me when I say I am NOT a supporter of crooked cops. That's a whole other story.

I am inclined to believe that Rehak is innocent. Besides, since when to we take everything the media presents us as the absolute truth?
Author:  Traveler [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD Christian wrote:
First off, let me state that I am by no means an expert on this situation. That being said...

When I watched the video clips of the F.B.I's surveillance. I didn't see anything specific, nothing incriminating. They did turn the money into evidence at the station. "Temporary theft?"


I'll try that one sometime. Maybe I'll take the neighbor's lawnmower or snowblower and return it later with the story that anything that is taken but returned at a later date is not a crime. Possibly that would work for those who steal cars. If the car is eventually returned to the owner then, in what I suspect is the theory being tested here, there is no crime. It is all nullified. :?

When these guys pocketed the money the crime clock started ticking. The jury, in their infinite wisdom, agreed to that.

What I am very curious about is how many times this operation was conducted in the past with success. How many others might there be on the Sheriff's payroll that might also have believed that proceeds siezed from criminals is fair game to be passed around for use as "pocket" money? I have absolutely no doubt that the Feds have the same curiousity.
Author:  JD Christian [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, it's not like it was days later.

I didn't post this to start an argument. I was just stating my viewpoint, my opinion and what I got out of it all.

Personally, I have bigger worries than this Rehak/Naylon thing. Like Obama getting elected, that REALLY scares me. There's an example of corruption at it's finest.
Author:  Dick Unger [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD Christian wrote:
First off, let me state that I am by no means an expert on this situation. That being said...

When I watched the video clips of the F.B.I's surveillance. I didn't see anything specific, nothing incriminating. They did turn the money into evidence at the station. "Temporary theft?"

Why in the video of the car search was there audio and no audio on the hotel room video? At least not that I have seen or heard at this point. That to me is a bit curious as this is their main part of the case.

Believe me when I say I am NOT a supporter of crooked cops. That's a whole other story.

I am inclined to believe that Rehak is innocent. Besides, since when to we take everything the media presents us as the absolute truth?



Well, the definition of theft actually does include the word "temporary", since that's often offered as a reason or excuse by defendents.

And, the reason there is no audio is that audio would have been flatly illegal. Video survelliance is OK, but an eletronic intercetion of a communication or converstaion is illegal unless a party to the conversation consents, or there is a search warrant.

Rehak, as a cop, (or working as a cop) would know that, it's basic. So if he is suggesting they turned it off......that's not very persuasive. He knows they don't do audio.

But prosecutors do present only one side of the case. It would be interesting to hear more about Rybak's side of the case. I wonder why he was targeted?
Author:  Jeff [ Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have a feeling that it was because of who his friend is.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/