This morning I removed a post from a purported “outraged parent” providing a link to a site that in fact did have nude pictures of Melrose teens. I have banned this person’s IP address from posting. If you are truly an “outraged parent” , report these links to the Melrose Police department or the AG’s office.
I think I know the website..It's not minors but selfies of girls in pretty much every city in America. Pretty gross. The sad part is that melrose is one of the most active sections.
Sorry Kev, but there were Melrose underage teens there. Thanks for taking the link down, Patricia. Clicking on that site puts any individual at risk.
Melrose parents: Wake up! This may be "everywhere," but not every parent is as uninterested and blind as so many are here in Melrose about the activities of their own children (yes, folks, operative word: children!).
If I may be so bold Ms. Wright, I would suggest that you yourself report the link to the Police Department. If the site does indeed contain pictures of underage Melrose teens, both the Police and the School Department should be so informed - not that they'd actually do anything except cover it up. But at least you'll have done the right thing.
Maybe you're right, I've heard an NPR story about this "revenge porn". Unfortunately there is little legal recourse for posters, and any change would need to happen through the community. I'm definitely sitting my kids down tonight.
There are also multiple forums like this and each includes most cities in the country. I don't think anything can change with just mpd. It's a culture problem, or lack there of.
All should be very concerned. But the link itself needed to be taken down because anyone clicking it, even inadvertently, could be prosecuted for child porn due to the witchhunt environment around such things. There's no reason Ms. Wright should trust that she would be treated fairly by the MPD based on their past willingness to go along with RD's vendetta and his vicious commands to harass her in any way possible, including in the past showing up at her place of work for bogus "reasons." MPD means well generally and now seems to understand that RD is not a person of integrity but instead acts in the best interest of only himself. But that doesn't mean that PW should subject herself to any further harassment. She has paid a huge price for all she's given for our community. She has prevailed and her bravery has allowed much light to be cast on the dark underbelly of RD's unscrupulous and unethical administration. It's way past time for others to step up and take some civic responsibility, and in this case it should be for the parents of these out-of-control teens to do the reporting (IF they care, which is a big "if").
Some in the MPD have understood that RD is not a person of integrity since the night of his first election as Mayor.
When something like this comes up, duty requires that you step up and do the right thing. She says she has done that, and I believe her. So far as I know, she has never shied away from that, consequences notwithstanding. The ball is now in the PD's court.
If you should ever stumble across a site like that, and do the right thing by immediately reporting it, there is no way you will be charged - especially if you keep documentation that you reported it. Before any "parents of these out-of-control teens" can do anything, they have to be made aware of it, and in most cases, that's going to happen through the actions of the PD, unless they happen to be trolling these sites themselves.
If you become aware of such a site, give Det Sgt McNamara a call. I believe you'll find he doesn't let politics or other agendas get in his way when it comes to doing the right thing. Truthfully, the only MPD officer that RD has any sway over is the Chief because of his "tenuous" job security. Despite what he thinks, RD has absolutely no authority to order any MPD officer to do or not do anything. Not even the Chief can legally order an officer to arrest or not arrest someone. Only a judge or the head of a polling place can do that legally.
Your reply is a perfect example of why you should not open your mouth if you have no idea what you are talking about. How do I know? How do you think I know?
MGL Ch54 S74: If a person at an election refuses to obey the lawful commands of the presiding officer or, by disorderly conduct interrupts or disturbs the proceedings of an election officer, the presiding officer may require any police officer, constable or other person to take him into custody and detain him until after the election; but the presiding officer may at any time order his release. Such order of detention shall not be so enforced as to prevent such person, if a voter at that polling place, from voting.
Additionally, some Chiefs are still in Civil Service, and some, including Melrose, are not. Melrose had a law passed when Chief Lloyd retired removing the position from Civil Service. A civil service chief cannot be fired on the whim of a Mayor or Town Council/Board of Aldermen/Board of Selectmen. Not having Civil Service protection is called being a "weak" Chief, like Chief Lyle, but Chief Lyle is still a sworn police officer. Lexington police for years were not civil service at all, yet they were all still sworn police officers.
Honest answer - another government agency.
Read the statute. The key word is require. If you come into a polling place and cause a commotion,or otherwise interfere with the operation of the polling place, the "presiding officer may require" a police officer to take that person into custody, which constitutes an arrest. There is no police discretion allowed. It's a lawful order.
The order to arrest would come from the precinct Warden. There is a warden in charge of each poling place.