The Criminal Prosecution Of Richard J Thripp
Is Mr. Thripp's Prosecution About Alleged Misuse Of The 911 System,
OR Is It Actually About Thripp Exercising His Constitutional Rights?
October 3, 2016
Engage The Police In An Apparent "Knock & Talk"
Upon the completion of our review of the Thripp matter - we have developed the following beliefs:
1. Absent the VCSO having an arrest or search warrant, or exigent circumstances - the Thripp family had a constitutional right (choice) not to engage the VCSO in their knock and talk encounter.
2. Over the last few years - it has become increasingly dangerous for citizens nationwide to engage the police - especially at night - and at the citizen's own front door. Therefore - we believe that the Thripp family suffered a rational fear for their safety - when the police came banging on their front door in the pre-dawn hours of December 26, 2014.
If you still have doubts of how dangerous it can be to engage the police at your front door - then we invite you to read the below linked articles. These articles detail the police shooting deaths of Andrew Scott and Derek Cruice.
Volusia County, Fl. - 2015 - Derek Cruice
Here is a fact that many citizens are unaware of - it's totally legal for the police to knock on your door and lie to you regarding the reason that they are actually at your door. Police have been known to use this tactic - to gain access to your home - in order to either search it or make an arrest - withOUT needing to secure a search or arrest warrant.
The Entire Charging Affidavit
Don't just simply take our word for it. Read this article from a national publication which details how Daytona Beach PD did exactly that. Notice how the "LIE" dealt with receiving a false 911 hang up call. The police never received a 911 hang up from the residence - it was a lie in order to gain access to the house. With that - we ask - how much confidence Mr. Thripp should have given the deputies at his door, or the 911 operators, that were assuring him that they were there merely for a "safety check" on his adult son?
In their charging affidavit - the police argue that Thripp knew that it was the police knocking on his door in the middle of the night - and not criminals. However, when the police can lie like a criminal - is there really that much of a difference between a criminal and a cop?
We have a suggestion for our local police departments: Don't expect citizens to take your word for why you are banging on their door in the middle of the night - when you are known for your legal lies to citizens. And if you choose to be known for your lies in order to obtain Constitutional go arounds - don't get ass hurt when citizens refuse to believe you ! In short - it's hard to sell youself as a innocent virgin - when you have a well known reputation as a two dollar whore.
At The Thripp Homestead
In the early morning pre-dawn hours of December 26, 2014 members of the Volusia County Sheriff Department arrived outside the Thripp home - located just outside Ormond Beach city limits .
The alleged rationale for their (VCSO) arrival outside the Thripp family's front door was to conduct a well being check on Thripp's twenty-three year old son - Richard X. Thripp.
According the the VCSO charging report - they (VCSO) were allegedly following up on a request from the Daytona Beach Police Department - regarding information the DBPD had received indicating that the senior Thripp was going to shoot his son. (Thripp was never criminally charged under this allegation - therefore it is possible that this was the legal "lie" being used by the police)
While the VCSO was outside his home - they were being vague on why they wanted the residents to exit their home.
According to both the 911 tapes and Mr. Thripp's own video recordings (see right of page) - neither Thripp, nor his son had any desire to answer their door in the middle of the night - regardless if the persons knocking on the door were prowlers or the police. Thripp voiced the opinion that if they were the police - they better have a warrant (search / arrest).
What is important to understand - is the fact that the police were outside the front door of the Thripp house WITHOUT the request or invitation of anyone in the Thripp family. Why is this fact important? Well - because according to Florida Statute 365.172(13) - the law that Thripp has been charged with violating - his calls to 911 must raise a "false alarm or complaint or reporting false information that could result in the emergency response of any public safety agency".
Our point is simply this - the fact that the deputies were outside the Thripp family's front door had nothing to do with anyone in the Thripp family dialing 911. The apparent truth of the matter seems to be that Richard Thripp's calls to 911 were done to relieve any concerns that the VCSO had about there being a problem within the Thripp household. And in the end - the VCSO did depart the Thripp property without the Thripp family having to meet the demands of the VCSO of exiting their home.
December 26, 2014
The first video contain voice messages left on Thripp's son's cellphone by VCSO Sgt. Greg Miles
Interactions With The Police Can Be Deadly
Maybe - Mr. Thripp's reluctance to have him or his family exit the safety of their home was founded in a honest fear of the police? Afterall - just months prior (September 2014) - Volusia County Sheriff Deputy Joel Hernandez - while in civilian clothes and sporting a mohawk style haircut - shot and killed Mr. Edward Miller - a deaf 52 year old father - as he and his son was attempting to depart a tow yard. Was Thripp aware of the Miller shooting - and the sheriff's department's apparent history of shooting first and asking questions later?
Apparently - Mr. Thripp found no reassurance in 911 operator "Shannon's" comments that the Volusia County Sheriff Department does not shoot anyone if they haven't committed a crime (see 911 call #6 - around minute 1:38).
Sadly - about two months after "Shannon's" assurances that the VCSO would not shoot anyone not committing a crime - Derek Cruice, 26 was gun down (killed - shot in the head) by VCSO Deputy Todd Raible within Cruice's own home. While Deputy Raible insisted that Cruice had a gun - - the fact is Cruice did not have a gun. In the end - the Florida Department of Law Enforcement cleared Deputy Raible of any criminal wrong doing. However, Volusia County was quick to resolve any civil liabilities by providing the Cruice family with a $500,000 settlement.
We (VolusiaExposed) found it to be of interest - that in Thripp video # 3 - around minutes 21:40 - the deputy outside the Thripp house attempts to order Thripp to turn off his video camera. Could it be that the deputy wanted the camera to be turned off - because minutes earlier this apparent same deputy was recorded stating that they (VCSO) had probable cause - and that they (VCSO) were going to break into the Thripp house (ref: Thripp video # 3 - around minutes 18:36)?
Thripp asked one of the deputies at his door if they (deputies) were going to shoot him or his family - the deputy responded "NO" - Thripp asked if the deputies were going to tase them - the deputy responded "NO" - and then Thripp asked the deputy of they were going to break into his house - the deputy responsed "YES" - the deputy went on to say that they had probable cause to break in. (Thripp video #3 - at about 18:36 minutes)(Is this an example of one of those legal police lies?)
Given that the deputies could legally lie to Mr. Thripp regarding why they were knocking on his door - the deputies can not legally lie in their sworn statements to the State Attorney and the Court. That is unless the State Attorney and the Court allows them to.
VolusiaExposed.Com has closely reviewed and compared VCSO Deputy Richard Graves' charging affidavit against the 911 audio recordings and Mr. Thripp's home videos. (see attached 911 recordings & Thripp videos)
VolusiaExposed.Com holds the opinion that Deputy Graves' charging affidavit contains a rather revealing falsehood. Deputy Graves wrote:
"......the defendant did not allow direct contact and the son only answered in one word responses which caused further concern with the law enforcement officers present in that they believed the answers presented by the son were made under duress. The described interaction was also noted to have been captured on the described video."
We invite our readership to review the linked Thripp videos - so that they can determine for themselves - whether the son was answering in "one word responses".
We suspect that our readers will conclude as we did - that Deputy Graves' statement can not be backed by the video evidence - as he has alleged in his sworn charging affidavit. In our opinion the son was being very vocal in his desire not to come out of the house to speak to the deputies.
Realizing that it's a crime to misuse the 911 emergency communication system - is it also a crime for a law enforcement officer to lie in a sworn written statement to the Court? We believe that it is. Then again - maybe Deputy Graves made a simple mistake. However, honest mistakes are usually quickly corrected - while nefarious misrepresentations of the facts are not so quickly corrected.
Recently, Mr. Thripp filed a Demand For Discovery with the Court - within this document - Thripp memorializes this particular concern within Deputy Graves' sworn charging affidavit.
Should this case go to trial - Deputy Graves might find himself in a similar situation that LAPD Detective Mark Furman found himself in during the OJ Simpson murder trial. In short - has the charging officer lied - and if so - has this lie compromised the credibility of the filed charge? Further - if his department and the State Attorney are aware of the lie - and does nothing to correct it - does this also attached credibility issues to them (VCSO / SA)? We think it does - what do you think?
How has the VCSO handled similiar past situations of citizens mis-using the 911 system OR refusing to engage the VCSO at their front doors? VolusiaExposed.Com believes that by reviewing how the VCSO has handled past alleged misuse of the 911 system - it will allow us - and our readers - to fairly evaluate whether the charge filed against Thripp was done under an honest OR a retaliatory purpose?
During Sheriff Johnson's bid for re-election in 2012 - VolusiaExposed caught Johnson on video explaining why the sheriff department did not remove Mr. Carper from his home (video attached). Bascially - Johnson stated that Carper was in his home - HIS CASTLE - and he (Carper) had not done anything wrong. So - regarding the Thripp incident - was (is) Thripp's home his castle - and what crime was Thripp committing by not coming out of his castle?
And here is a question for our readers - if a group of armed persons claiming to be the police were outside your house in the middle of the night - you have not called them - and you know you haven't committed a crime - they will not fully answer your questions - and they were threatening to break your door down - what would you do ? Would it possibly include calling 911?
In our (VolusiaExposed) opinion both Colston & Marianetti should have been charged and prosecuted with misuse of the 911 system. However - neither were prosecuted - and Marianetti wasn't even arrested for her calling 911 with the lie that her house was being broken into - simply so she could goat the responding deputies into shooting and killing her.
We (VolusiaExposed) imagine that some of our readers are saying - "why didn't he just open his door and speak to the cops - I would have". While that was an option - Thripp could have waived his Constitutional rights - and voluntarily engaged the police - however - he simply decided as an American - not to. And honestly - from where we are standing - his criminal charge appears to have more to do with him exercising his Constitutional rights - then it has to do with him misusing the 911 system. If you feel differently - and care to help us understand your point of view - please feel free to write us and explain the following to us.
1. Why was Mr. Carper's home "a castle" - but the police threatened (watch Thripp video) to kick in Thripp's front door?
2. How are Marianetti's & Colston's misusage of the 911 system not prosecutable - but Thripp's usage is prosecutable?
If you have a desire to address us in person - we will be attending and exercising our first amendment right to video record Mr. Thripp's docket sounding today (October 3, 2016) @ 1:30pm in Judge Schumann's City Island courtroom.
Stand by to stand by - more is surely to come .........