If you're going to hobby, be rich!

HCSD and HPD; you just cant trust a pimp.

2dogs, your overaggressive attitude is going overboard. I'll be more than glad to answer your observations, but not at this point.

Fucked up this, fucked up that............just doesn't deserve a reply.

Was he just a squirrel trying to get a nut?

Hey Guys, remeber what I told you when this case was discussed.
The cops are not interested in conviction. Hell, it's a Class B Misdomeaner.
They are interested in making you take the ride, and all that entails.

It wouldn't take much of a fight to beat this rap. If any of us were to walk into that situation we would have to be entrapped by the deputard in order for her to make a case. The chronicle has a hard on for Halliburton so they only mention him because of that. Trust me I was once a member of a hated organization and I fucked up once and the media Houston media spent a news cycle slamming me as if I were Jeffery Dalmer.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...ec-4024865.php

Rich fucker got off. Normally I would celebrate some guy getting off a prostitution bust (not getting off on a prostitute's bust ), however I'm really pissed this Halliburton VP gets off, while others don't. It's not personal against the guy, but fair is fair, whether one is rich or not. Either put 'em all in jail, or let 'em all walk. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

So that's fucked up that I chose to think and make a post.

That's fucked up.

I'll guarn-fucken tee you he is richer than most of the other guys who were also busted.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it APPEARS that he got off because he has money and probably has better lawyers than the others have. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

So you're suggesting that, in spite of the lack of evidence, and in spite of whatever this individual's particular situation in all of this actually was, that he should be thrown in jail?

Are you serious? Why exactly is that, because he's "rich" and "can afford better legal council"?

Let's focus on this really important piece of the puzzle.

The Harris County District Attorney's Office threw out the prostitution charge against Joseph Andolino, 59, after they heard the evidence against him

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps this guy might have also been smarter than the others and maybe he didn't say or do anything which would have landed an easy conviction that the others did?

Are you just now discovering that life isn't always fair? Of course the rich are in a better position to have a more favorable outcome than the poor, but this isn't anything new. Ever heard of The Golden Rule, "he who has the gold, rules"?

But it's incredibly ridiculous for you to say that because "he's rich", "Either put 'em all in jail, or let 'em all walk"....especially since you don't have a clue what this guy's story is or what he did/didn't do so as to avoid prosecution. Whatever it was, there wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction, so it was tossed.

Maybe the other guys went into the room with $100 bills stuck to their foreheads saying they wanted to buy some pussy....and maybe this guy just knocked on the door without saying anything and that's what got him arrested..? You're suggesting the two should be BOTH thrown in jail....

Like I said, we don't know the particulars, so you're statement is pretty ridiculous..

2dogs, your overaggressive attitude is going overboard. I'll be more than glad to answer your observations, but not at this point.

Fucked up this, fucked up that............just doesn't deserve a reply. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

TFF!

.

.

you fucktards haven't realized that dj has a ceiling of 4-5 seconds of actual thought process before his little index fingers start typing away?

SoFuckingFun, if you click on the link in the original post, you can scroll down and see some remarks from other chronicle readers. Of the comments, this is the one I agree with the most.

"Female deputies swore under oath that seven different men had offered them money for sex. The D.A. dismisses the charge against a wealthy and powerful executive, but continues to prosecute the other men.

The theory must be that the female deputies are truthful when they accuse a truckdriver, but are lying skanks when they accuse a rich executive."

If they let one of the hourly worker type of guys off, I would feel different, but when it's an executive with a major company, it smells like bullshit. The scales of lady Justice should be balanced toward everybody, but in reality they aren't.

I was thinking the same thing.

Nobody can actually be this pathetic. I wouldn't be surprised if it's dear john. Originally Posted by Sweet Discretion

Thanks for editting out the "f*** you" part of your post.

You accused me of having multiple handles way before I ever did it to you and now you don't like it when I give you a dose of your own medicine. You have true bitch-like tendencies.

You do something to me then you cry like a little bitch when I do the same thing back to you. Yes, your are very pathetic. And I'm not "calling" you anything, I'm just telling you the truth. Originally Posted by Sweet Discretion

you fucktards haven't realized that dj has a ceiling of 4-5 seconds of actual thought process before his little index fingers start typing away? Originally Posted by Sweet Discretion

Just want to keep this around. Since horsefly left, I haven't had my personal stalker like I do now.

Well, I suppose that we should simply take the words of a Chronicle reader over the actual merits of a case, then, huh?

I'll stand by my statement. Without knowing all of the particulars in each of the suspect's cases, I thinck it's pretty ridiculous to lump them all into the same pot.

If the prosecutor had enough evidence for a conviction, or even a plea, why then do you feel that he wasn't tried? Wouldn't it be a big feather in his hat to nail an big oil company executive during an election year? Thinck about it...

.

.

DJ, I was not being "overaggressive" in my response of your obvious putrid hatred of a person, you do not know, have no clue if he is rich or not, and no clue why he got off other than your rancid supposition.

I find it disturbing that you seem upset that a person that was obviously entrapped by an overzealous law enforcement agency did not have the charges against him stand up to the scrutiny of the DA's office.

So can you tell us from your "sources" what happened with the rest that were arrested in the same sting? Were they not as smart, or not as rich, or not as connected, as the one that made the news?.

I stand by my statement that your opinion of this is "fucked up". I personally applaud him beating the rap and wish he could sue for taking the ride. I do not like my tax dollars going to waste on "stings" such as this.

Wonder if the OP would have the same position if Escapes had the same outcome..

DJ, I was not being "overaggressive" in my response of your obvious putrid hatred of a person, you do not know, have no clue if he is rich or not, and no clue why he got off other than your rancid supposition.

I find it disturbing that you seem upset that a person that was obviously entrapped by an overzealous law enforcement agency did not have the charges against him stand up to the scrutiny of the DA's office.

So can you tell us from your "sources" what happened with the rest that were arrested in the same sting? Were they not as smart, or not as rich, or not as connected, as the one that made the news?.

I stand by my statement that your opinion of this is "fucked up". I personally applaud him beating the rap and wish he could sue for taking the ride. I do not like my tax dollars going to waste on "stings" such as this. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

No doubt we think each other has a 'fucked up' opinion. You, myself, or sofakingfun don't have any thing more than a gut feeling what happened.

Yes, I'm against prostitution arrests, unless there is a pimp or the girls are sex slaves or underaged.

As far if the guy is rich or not, come on, he's a VP for a major company, most likely bringing down more than 90% of the working population. No doubt he can afford better lawyers, versus the other guys. So better lawyers = better representation. So because this guy has more money, chances are better he will get off versus the other guys who may be getting lawyers from the public defenders office.

Rich fucker got off. Normally I would celebrate some guy getting off a prostitution bust (not getting off on a prostitute's bust ), however I'm really pissed this Halliburton VP gets off, while others don't. It's not personal against the guy, but fair is fair, whether one is rich or not. Either put 'em all in jail, or let 'em all walk. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

I stand by my original quote.

I guess same law for rich or not rich persons is a concept some other can't seem to understand. Maybe it's a concept I understand, but the real world doesn't work that way.

I find it disturbing that you seem upset that a person that was obviously entrapped by an overzealous law enforcement agency ... Originally Posted by The2Dogs

With all due respect ...

If the guy responded to a BP ad, appeared at the agreed upon location, and engaged in discussions with a person that included exchanging money for sex (whether on the phone before arriving or after his arrival), then he was not "entrapped" as that term is meant in criminal law.....

... any more than the person doing 85 in a 60 coming over a hill into a radar gun.

BTW, folks take "plea deals" for a lot of reasons besides actually being guilty of the charges against them ... not the least of which is expense of fighting the charges. Often the prosecutors make attractive offers (time served while waiting to get out of jail, pre-trial diversion, deferred adjudication, etc.) that walks the defendant out the door for less money than paying an attorney (even a cheap one) to handle the deal, and probably as good a deal as the lawyer could get.

It's real easy to sit on the bench and be a critic, particularly when the one on the bench has never been in the game.

I never saw a movie critic who actually made a movie.

DJ, without knowing the details of each individual bust, it's impossible to make an educated guess about why one defendant had his case dismissed while others didn't.

And do we actually know that the others didn't? The Chronicle could very well be wanting to embarrass the Halliburton executive even though his charges were dropped.

(That brings up a pet peeve of mine with the media: By publishing his name, they damaged the reputation of a man who has not been convicted of a crime. In a perfect world, the media would be quiet until guilt or innocence was determined by a court of law.)

Having had a bit of experience on the sharp end of the judicial system (not in a hobby-related capacity, thank goodness) I can confirm first hand that competent legal representation can have a tremendous impact on the outcome of a case, regardless of whether or not the defendant is actually guilty of the charges.

But in the case of the Halliburton exec, we don't really know enough to conclude that his bankroll or his connections were the reason his charges were dropped and others weren't. We don't even know if others were or weren't dropped.