King87
I'll always love you, bro

I <3 u?!

Yeah, pretty much.

If you need to talk let me know.

Why does her minor bad action alleviate him? If the argument is she should be in trouble, sure. But that's not germane to the point.

He's being treated differently because he was controlling her movements. The tampering is tied to their domestic relationship. It's not because he's a man. His illegal actions is tied to a DV enhancement, hers wasn't.

She called the officers because she wanted the situation monitored; what does that tell you? She can't drive legally without her license. She couldn't leave without her wallet and medical information. He was controlling where should could go, and the law takes that very seriously, as she should. The law treated the taking/tampering of the baby food, child's medical information, which was her in wallet differently because it was tied to their relationship/child. If that was someone else who did it, there'd be no different treatment. The specifics dictated the outcome in this situation.

Why didn’t she just give his phone back?

Again, I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been arrested but he’sbeing treated differently by the law than she is and it’s 100% because he’s a man. They both took the other’s property and held it hostage. It makes no difference whatsoever what the property is, there’s no law anywhere that says baby formula theft is different than cell phone theft.

I understand you have a soft spot given the need for formula but unless the law specifies degree of wrongness by items then there is no factual difference between their actions, only emotional.

She could absolutely leave, you don’t think she has more formula? Can’t buy any? Come on man…

They’re exactly the same, they’re items. He was trying to keep her from leaving with his belongings, not keep her from leaving in general. Had she not taken his property none of this happens. I understand this can escalate, I’m not saying the cops shouldn’t have ensured they were separated but if they’re making an arrest in this instance it should’ve both, period.

The facts we know DO indicate that to a slightly higher extent his actions did. She took his phone and refused to give it back, he took things he shouldn't have and refused to give them back until he received his phone back. When I read your words there I'm even more inclined to believe Juedy should sue the Arapahoe County police for violating his civil rights. Her actions showed more intent to permanently deprive him of a possession as there was no timetable or if this then that scenario, she took it and he wasn't getting it back, period.

What they both did was illegal, and either both should have been arrested or neither should have been. He was arrested for being male during this encounter, yes what he did was illegal but she wasn't arrested for the same (slightly worse!) actions.

Yea, I should have put an /sarcasm after the laughing. These guys acting like anything is a nothing burger. We have a grown man withholding a child's food out of pettiness. It should be called on the floor but he's a football player. Do I think it is DV in and of itself, no. But situations like that balloon in a heartbeat into real DV situations.

So sorry to hear of your passing. Man you sucked.