Hank C. Jr. (Misty's Brother)

[Busylady]

- sigh

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

exactly kant! Im gonna go with the fact that RC was arrested and not hc2 pretty much says it all, not to mention I never saw a trespassing arrest on the croslins...

A charge is just a charge. But the PRO matter has already gone before the COURT and was determined in Misty's favor. I'll go with the Court's findings over the Croslin's allegations any day.

 

[debs]

A charge is just a charge. But the PRO matter has already gone before the COURT and was determined in Misty's favor. I'll go with the Court's findings over the Croslin's allegations any day.

I know details stick in the craw of many, but that PRO had nothing to do with a charge of trespassing.

 

[atherella]

After Tommy had to turn in his guns due to the restraining order, he got arrested (allegedly - since so far we only have TJ Hart's word) for stealing a gun.

My question is - why does Tommy want/need a gun?

 

[Nonni Brenda]

No hesitation in reporting the rat incident. Yep, for me the pieces are starting to come together. Restaining order, not contested, he and parents planning to leave and go to MA, he's got some explaining to do in my eyes. With this bail being so high, could be because he was known to plan on leaving. Could be set higher for others reasons we aren't aware of. I would like to know when the offense occurred, that would tell me if my working theory is on track.

Could this charge be about the van that was said to have been sold, but the title hasn't changed ownership? Maybe he went and got it back? Was that Tommy's van or Timmy's?:waitasec:

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I know details stick in the craw of many, but that PRO had nothing to do with a charge of trespassing.

It sure did. It came about as a result of the incident that night. You might want to re-read the reports about it.

 

[debs]

After Tommy had to turn in his guns due to the restraining order, he got arrested (allegedly - since so far we only have TJ Hart's word) for stealing a gun.

My question is - why does Tommy want/need a gun?

I imagine for the reason every other person who is told they can't exercise their 2nd Amendment Right wants/needs a gun.......because they do.

Scares the beezus outta me thinking any ONE of the hotheads we've heard of in this case having a gun, legally or no.

 

[ladonna]

I'm sure someone in the Croslin family is related to someone in Joe's family. Is that an unusual occurrence which should spark our attention? Obviously there are close family ties between the families, given all the pictures they have with one another.

I have gazillions of cousins and I don't have half as many pictures as I've seen of Misty et al with their cousins and relatives.

Given that they're moving, seems like a good mid-point to stop on their way.

Lisa is Joe's mother's sister, and Flora is the grandmother.

 

[debs]

It sure did. It came about as a result of the incident that night. You might want to re-read the reports about it.

Only if you want to stretch the fact that Misty says she was hit actually is a crime of trespassing. That's a stretch I'm not willing to make. She entered into .........you know what. It's not worth it. Carry on.

 

[ladonna]

After Tommy had to turn in his guns due to the restraining order, he got arrested (allegedly - since so far we only have TJ Hart's word) for stealing a gun.

My question is - why does Tommy want/need a gun?

There was no deadline for Tommy to turn the guns in. As of last Friday he had not.

 

[kamky]

Wonder if Tommy, Lisa, or Hank phone records indicate any calls to JO in the week or so after Haleigh disappeared.

I sure hope that LE has done an intensive analysis of phone records for these folks during that time period, and determined who has talked with who, how often, and when.

 

[CrankyPants]

anybody know the first names of tommy's in-laws (lindsay's parents)?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Only if you want to stretch the fact that Misty says she was hit actually is a crime of trespassing. That's a stretch I'm not willing to make. She entered into .........you know what. It's not worth it. Carry on.

I'm not at all sure why you post the "carry on" comments when someone points out you are wrong on something.

If you think the PRO relates to some other incident, please let us know what you think it is.

The Court granted the PRO....no stretching needed.

ETA. re the "carry on"...this is not the army and I don't think it appropriate for posters to order other posters to do things.

 

[impatientredhead]

After Tommy had to turn in his guns due to the restraining order, he got arrested (allegedly - since so far we only have TJ Hart's word) for stealing a gun.

My question is - why does Tommy want/need a gun?

It is interesting that he is not charged under the statute that covers having a gun while a protective order is in place:

Title XLVI CRIMES

Chapter 790 WEAPONS AND FIREARMS

790.233 Possession of firearm or ammunition prohibited when person is subject to an injunction against committing acts of domestic violence; penalties.--
(1) A person may not have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm or ammunition if the person has been issued a final injunction that is currently in force and effect, restraining that person from committing acts of domestic violence, and that has been issued under s. 741.30.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the disabilities regarding possession of firearms and ammunition are consistent with federal law. Accordingly, this section shall not apply to a state or local officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), holding an active certification, who receives or possesses a firearm or ammunition for use in performing official duties on behalf of the officer's employing agency, unless otherwise prohibited by the employing agency.

 

[Muffet]

The PRO nor anything else said the Croslins had trespassed, period.

 

[impatientredhead]

There was no deadline for Tommy to turn the guns in. As of last Friday he had not.

Florida statutes require surrender of guns and ammo within 48 hours of a protective order, a sworn statement that you don't have any, or transfer of your guns and ammo to a court approved third party. They are returned when the order expires, unless you are now prohibited from having a gun, or they were stolen to begin with.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

It is interesting that he is not charged under the statute that covers having a gun while a protective order is in place:

Title XLVI CRIMES

Chapter 790 WEAPONS AND FIREARMS

790.233 Possession of firearm or ammunition prohibited when person is subject to an injunction against committing acts of domestic violence; penalties.--
(1) A person may not have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm or ammunition if the person has been issued a final injunction that is currently in force and effect, restraining that person from committing acts of domestic violence, and that has been issued under s. 741.30.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the disabilities regarding possession of firearms and ammunition are consistent with federal law. Accordingly, this section shall not apply to a state or local officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), holding an active certification, who receives or possesses a firearm or ammunition for use in performing official duties on behalf of the officer's employing agency, unless otherwise prohibited by the employing agency.

That charge might still be coming...or perhaps TJH got it wrong re the gun being the item that was supposed to have been stolen. I sure wish they'd give us a copy of the police report so we had a better idea of what it's all about and whether TJH has it right or not.

 

[impatientredhead]

A charge is just a charge. But the PRO matter has already gone before the COURT and was determined in Misty's favor. I'll go with the Court's findings over the Croslin's allegations any day.

I agree that the order exists and should be enforced, but a temp protective order in no way shows that there is a need for it or that the "victim" is being truthful. Courts are very liberal in putting them in place, better safe than sorry. Protective orders have been placed against people who have never met the nut that filed them. Their existence in and of itself proves nothing.

 

[Busylady]

IMO the bond is too high - they don't want him skipping town like Lisa and Hank did.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

The PRO nor anything else said the Croslins had trespassed, period.

The basis for the complaint for the PRO was the incident that night. If you think it was re some other incident, as I've said before, I'd be happy to hear what other incident you think it relates to.