I find the blogosphere criticism of the arrest more interesting than the arrest itself.
Perhaps I don't understand.
A person running for political office has both a criminal record and an outstanding warrant. A political opponent of that person discovers that there is an outstanding warrant and notifies police. Duh.
Is that bullsh**t?!?! It seems to me that it is part of the vetting process you should expect to encounter if you run for public office. If you're wanted for a crime and you run for office, there's a good chance your opponent might discover it and report it.
Does that make the person who reports information to the police less trustworthy the person who commits the crime?
His opponents didn't spread lies or threaten physical harm (unlike Oliveria himself according to the paper).
It seems to me that people in the blogosphere are being far kinder to Bobby O. than they were to Ralph Mollis when his kids (who weren't running for public office) had their legal troubles or even when Carcieri was accused of having a mistress even though there was no substantiating evidence.
Maybe people who know Bobby O. are giving him a pass because they think he's a "good guy" or because he's a member of RI's blogosphere, but the whole thing reminds me of the guy who won the lottery and was arrested for an outstanding warrant when he went to pick up his winnings. The guy said he was "targeted" because he won the lottery.
No, he was targeted because he finally popped up on the radar screen of law enforcement.
Yes, Bobby O. was probably targeted because he was running for public office.
But would we have preferred not to know about a political candidate's criminal background? Should the story of his arrest be dismissed because his political opponents were the ones who tipped off his police?
It's not like law enforcement went out of their way to embarrass Bobby O. They didn't arrest him at a public forum or in front of family or colleagues.
I don't know about the veracity of Bobby O. claims regarding other issues that he has talked about. If they are true, I hope that the other parties are brought to justice.
But it seems to me that at some point Bobby O. should apologize to the woman who he harrassed and get counseling for his anger/stalking issues.
Turning this into a story about the timing of the arrest is unfair to the victim---remember her? She would be the person who filed the complaint to begin with.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
With this post I'd like to think that we've piled on Bobby enough.
Posted by: Greg at July 17, 2008 11:36 AMBobby used to call talk-radio all the time and debate his points of view. He suddenly stopped and now just tries to come at us from behind the scenes...I have no love for his politics or tactics but this year-old warrant crap is complete bulls**t. Rhode Island poliics at its best. People using law enforcement to execute a vendetta. What a complete disgrace.
Posted by: Matt Allen at July 17, 2008 12:25 PMMy intention wasn't to pile on; only to link to his side of the story, so to speak. Still, his post is so quintessentially Bobby O that I couldn't resist a little context.
Posted by: Justin Katz at July 17, 2008 12:29 PMI get that but this is what, the third post about the guy? I got my jab in with the first one and I think that was enough. At some point we have to let the guy's personal life be personal.
Posted by: Greg at July 17, 2008 12:38 PMI find the blogosphere criticism of the arrest more interesting than the arrest itself.
Perhaps I don't understand.
A person running for political office has both a criminal record and an outstanding warrant. A political opponent of that person discovers that there is an outstanding warrant and notifies police. Duh.
Is that bullsh**t?!?! It seems to me that it is part of the vetting process you should expect to encounter if you run for public office. If you're wanted for a crime and you run for office, there's a good chance your opponent might discover it and report it.
Does that make the person who reports information to the police less trustworthy the person who commits the crime?
His opponents didn't spread lies or threaten physical harm (unlike Oliveria himself according to the paper).
It seems to me that people in the blogosphere are being far kinder to Bobby O. than they were to Ralph Mollis when his kids (who weren't running for public office) had their legal troubles or even when Carcieri was accused of having a mistress even though there was no substantiating evidence.
Maybe people who know Bobby O. are giving him a pass because they think he's a "good guy" or because he's a member of RI's blogosphere, but the whole thing reminds me of the guy who won the lottery and was arrested for an outstanding warrant when he went to pick up his winnings. The guy said he was "targeted" because he won the lottery.
No, he was targeted because he finally popped up on the radar screen of law enforcement.
Yes, Bobby O. was probably targeted because he was running for public office.
But would we have preferred not to know about a political candidate's criminal background? Should the story of his arrest be dismissed because his political opponents were the ones who tipped off his police?
It's not like law enforcement went out of their way to embarrass Bobby O. They didn't arrest him at a public forum or in front of family or colleagues.
I don't know about the veracity of Bobby O. claims regarding other issues that he has talked about. If they are true, I hope that the other parties are brought to justice.
But it seems to me that at some point Bobby O. should apologize to the woman who he harrassed and get counseling for his anger/stalking issues.
Turning this into a story about the timing of the arrest is unfair to the victim---remember her? She would be the person who filed the complaint to begin with.
Posted by: Anthony at July 17, 2008 4:19 PMAgreed, Anthony.
Posted by: rhody at July 18, 2008 3:02 PMNot all of us find cockiness, braggadocio and womanizing endearing traits.