Incident Reports
1. Officer Stone allegedly demands unlicensed minor to drive car with another minor in the car!
Name: T.W son
Location of Incident: K-Mart Riverside Drive Danville, Va
Subject:
A car was parked carrying two minors was in the fire lane at k-mart
when they was approached and stopped by a Danville, Va police Officer Stone
at 9:00pm on 3/8/2014. The son of T.W (15 year old
passenger) and a 13 year old female passenger was in the car. The
Aunt parked the car with the minors in the fire lane and got out to go
into k-mart. The Danville, Va police officer approached the vehicle
telling the passenger to move the car. The son of T.W
stated to the officer that he did not have a driver’s license and
could get the aunt out of k-mart to move the vehicle. The police
officer stated that he did not care and that he needed to move the
car. Tonya Waddell son is not a license driver and was demanded by
the officer to move the car out of the fire lane with the 13 year old
passenger in the car. As a result, T. A on was unlawfully
seized and commanded to moved the car, with no driving experience,
into a parking lot lane by the danville, va police officer. The
police officer would leave the scene and go about his business.
However, the family at this time is claiming illegal seizure, gross
negligence, and other civil rights violations for demanding a
unlicensed minor to be behind the vehicle and drive a car without the
parent’s permission. The family is angry at the police officers
response and feel the City of Danville, Va is responsible for being
grossly negligent because of the actions of this police officer
putting minors in a very dangerous situation and demanding them to
break the law in order to move a vehicle that was not owned by the
minors that are passengers. She wants the officer disciplined and
plans to file a claim against the City of Danville, Va for any and all
harm caused by this police officers wreckless actions and against the
City of Danville, Va. . The spokesperson for the family at this time
is Merle T. Rutledge Jr.
.
2. Breaking News: Danville, Va Police allegedly OK’s stranger taking
minor without parent knowledge or consent!
The Danville, Va police allegedly tells a (African American )Danville,
Va woman that a stranger (White adult) can take their child somewhere
without the parents consent. Do you believe a child under the age of
13 has the right to consent to anywhere with a stranger (alone in
their vehicle) without the parents permission and how would you feel?
The story is as follow!
Breaking News: The police allegedly tells a Danville, Va woman T.
.A that a stranger can take their child somewhere without the
parents consent. Do you believe a child under the age of 13 has the
right to consent to anywhere with a stranger (alone in their vehicle)
without the parents permission and how would you feel? The parent
that was a victim name is T.A, initials for minor parent, can be
reached at T.A Danville, Va 24541.
T.A asserted she tried to get a restraining order and warrant
for abduction and the police said no law was broken, even though the
parent was unaware of the child being taken by a stranger without her
permission. V.H, accused adult that took child without parent’s
knowledge or consent, is being accused of taking the African American
child out for ice cream in order to get info in regards to the child’s
family life. There has been tension in the neighborhood with the
woman V.H (white) and Ms. T. A’s family in which she accuses her kids
of being drug dealers and her daughter being pregnant. V.H alleged
conversation about pregnancy or anything sexual crosses the line when
dealing with a minor without the parents knowledge.
She lives in a predominately all white neighborhood. The T.A woman
has even tried to take out a warrant on the 10 year old son for
obtaining money under false pretenses. T.A family considers this
another method of harrassing an African American family in the
neighborhood. V.H is not a employee of the Department of Social
Services, nor should she be acting in such a capacity or manner
without cause.
After trying to make a complaint, the police department
stated to the parent allegedly that nothing could be done. This would
be a concern to any reasonable parent that a minor can consent with an
adult to take them anywhere without the parents permission. Also the
Danville, Va
Commonwealth Attorney told the parents of the boy allegedly that its
his discretion and refuses to prosecute the case.
The Danville magistrate allegedly also told the parents that it
was not enough evidence to bring charges. The FBI warns parents and
children to not take candy or financial offers from adult strangers as
this could be a sign of luring a child into criminal control, such as
pedophiles.
Merle Rutledge has contacted the local legislatures, Virginia
Senators, Virginia Governor’s office and other state public safety
department to try to put legislation through the general assembly to
punish and criminalize adults that take children without their parent
permission and to criminalize those that do not make an attempt to let
the parent know as soon as possible, the reason for taking the child
and the purpose in which the child was brought back to to them in
their custody. The adult stranger should immediately contact, once a
child is in their custody without the parent’s knowledge or consent,
the
police department and make a mandatory report under such
circumstances, in order to decrease any exploitation or criminal
intention in regards to the adult, if the situation is based off an
emergency decree. Children are offered candy, toys, CDs, drugs,
money, etc. to persuade them to go willingly with a potential abductor
or as a reward for tolerating abuse or keeping it secret.
Most children are abused by someone they know and trust. Pedophiles
exploit these relationships and are experts at taking advantage of
normal tensions between teenagers and parents as well as youngsters
who face issues at home like divorce, substance abuse or neglect.
Read Full Post »
merletrutledge 
Merle Rutledge responds to “Duck Dynasty” Pat Robertson comments!
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged african, amendment, american, black, breach, chatham, comments, company, contract, corporations, decision, discrimination, duck, dynasty, first, gay, jr, maryland, merle, news, norfolk, people, racism, response, robertson, rule, rutledge, slurs, states, united, video, violation, virginia on December 25, 2013| Leave a Comment »
Firstly, Mr. Robertson can not go to jail because of what he said. However this is the ultimate showcase of our right to be free to speak the way that we feel. Also, many of us have attitudes that other people may not like and we have a right to be associated or to create distance from those that we do not share the same philosophy.
The First Amendment is so progressive and we must be liberal to start being tolerant of the right to say what you want to say, but also must be aware that it is consequences. You can not call in a bomb threat or say its a fire in a movie theater, so the right is not absolute. You can not threaten to kill someone, because what you are saying directly effects someone else. He accepted the terms of a contract and if his religious self could not meet those obligations than he should have made the right decision in the first place and turned down the offer.
You are welcome to commit your own type of suicide of your public or private reputation even if it affects you financially. You can not work for someone and call your boss derogatory names that he does not like because you will be fired All employers should be on the side of the company and not the Duck Dynasty, because one of the major reasons that companies cite to deny someone unemployment is violating a company rule designed to protect the business interest of that particular company. He violated a company rule and respect the company decision. A lot of companies and municipalities have social media policy and if you break their rule than termination is a option always on the table. Did the network have a right to distance themselves from his free speech. Yes, because they also have the right not be apart of or agree to his rhetoric.
So in all actuality, people saying that he has a right to free speech should respect the right of assembly. This does not mean you have to force someone or a network to have you their show and vice versa. I laugh when people say corporations are people to and than those that claim this wants to pick and choose what a company decides to do. We live in a very kettle calling the other kettle black world. I am just getting through the b.s of this argument and those that try to be on one side of the coin. This issue is not that complicated. The Duck Dynasty can go to a network that agrees with their philosophy and this network has a right to cancel their contract.
Share this:
Read Full Post »