[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 92°F  
Heat Advisory
Friday, Aug. 22, 2014

Five arrested for trespassing on downtown Cape roofs

Thursday, July 30, 2009

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story has been corrected to reflect that Shana K. Gemoules has not been issued a summons for trespassing as of Thursday, July 30.

Cape Girardeau police arrested five people for suspected trespassing on the roofs of downtown buildings, including two women who had to be helped down by firefighters with a ladder truck.

Shortly after 3:30 a.m. Tuesday, police received a call reporting a burglary at the building that formerly housed Jeremiah's bar at 127 N. Water St., said Sgt. Jason Selzer, spokesman for the department. The call came from employees who had finished working at Buckner Brewing Co. and heard noises from inside the shuttered Jeremiah's.

One officer saw a man come out onto a second-floor patio area of Jeremiah's and scale a wall to the roof of Buckner. The officer arrested the man, Heath P. Sanders, 25, 439 N. Sprigg St., Apt. 10, as he reached the roof, Selzer said.

Two women were caught on a roof just north of 114 N. Main St. The women appeared to have been drinking and, as a precaution, were removed from the roof by firefighters, Selzer said. Erika L. Hutchcraft, 24, 401 Albert St., and Katie M. Starkey, 654 S. Spring Ave., were arrested, Selzer said.

Officer Joey Hann then saw two more people, a man and a woman, on the second-floor patio of Jeremiah's. With the help of an employee of Buckner, Hann and another officer went to the roof and warned the man, Jeffrey D. Lage, 25, 114 N. Main St., several times to stay put, Selzer said.

Lage was "actively looking for a route of escape" and ignored several other commands, Selzer said. When Lage directed his movements toward the officers, they tackled him and placed him in handcuffs. The woman who was with him on the patio, Shana K. Gemoules, 21, 16 N. Park Ave., was arrested after officers forced the locks at Jeremiah's, Selzer said.

The five people were taken to police headquarters at 40 S. Sprigg St., where they were fingerprinted, photographed and four were issued summonses to appear in municipal court on charges of trespassing. Gemoules was released pending review by the municipal prosecutor, Selzer said. Lage was also issued a summons for resisting arrest.

On the patio of Jeremiah's, officers saw a makeshift ladder and bent window awnings that were evidence of repeated access, Selzer said.

rkeller@semissourian.com

388-3642

Pertinent addresses:

132 N. Main St., Cape Girardeau, MO

127 N. Water St., Cape Girardeau, MO

40 S. Sprigg St., Cape Girardeau, MO


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

How stupid is that they should know better but I guess they don't have common sense!

-- Posted by capeguy30 on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 6:09 PM

Common Sense a lot of people don't have that any more.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 6:24 PM

Trespassing???

Is that all they could charge them with??

-- Posted by mo_ky_fellow on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 7:43 PM

Wow.

These were all SEMO alumni... and to make matters worse (better? funnier?) they were frat/sorority guys/girls.

-- Posted by jargononsense on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 9:22 PM

We used to have fun way back in my day too.

By the way, (he worked there when I was young)...yes, I know Marcellus too.

-- Posted by grandma73 on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 9:43 PM

Idiots. thewy coud have fallen and spilled their drink!!

-- Posted by agape on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 9:46 PM

I miss Jeremiah's too, but that's just crazy!

Especially trying to run from the cops on 1 square block of rooftops.

-- Posted by 2500 on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 9:48 PM

Good job catching those crazy criminals trying to run the downtown rooftops. Meanwhile harmless drug dealers run rampant in the open all over South Cape.

Keep making examples of the frat rooftoppers, that will will really put the fear into the Hanover mob.

-- Posted by libra7 on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 11:44 PM

True, acid burn. They were breaking the law and they should be convicted!!

-- Posted by agape on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 6:12 AM

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Jeff lives down there (note his address) were they on his roof? How can you trepass on your own roof?

In response to other comments:

I know three of these people, and none of them were ever greek. Don't know what that matters for anyway.

and two, it never said they were ever inside of Jeremiah's.

I know three of these people, they are all really good kids. It doesn't fully add up for me.

-- Posted by truecolour on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 7:48 AM

reminds me of a scene from crouching tiger hidden dragon...

-- Posted by TommyStix on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 8:32 AM

"Gee, Wally. I wonder what they were doin' up there."

"I don't know, Beav. Maybe they were sharing some bubble gum & lookin' at the bridge & stars from the rooftops."

"Sure. I buy that, Big Bro. You've been hangin' with Ward & June too much."

-- Posted by Just__Me on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 8:46 AM

What we used to do off the "old" Marquette pales in comparison. Things have changed.

-- Posted by verKlimt on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 9:20 AM

I guess the second floor patio area of Jeremiah's is technically inside the building, so I guess that would be where the trespassing charge comes into play.

I don't think the resisting arrest part of the story is really accurate... I've known Jeff and a couple of the others for a long time, and he's not stupid. He wouldn't try and run or challenge the police.

As for what they were doing, if the rest of the story is accurate, they were just curious, exploring and reminiscing about the old days at Jeremiah's. They weren't burglarizing and certainly weren't hurting anyone.

Although they may have technically been breaking the trespassing law if they were in Jeremiah's patio, it really isn't as big of a deal as the semissourian makes it out to be.

-- Posted by Gock on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 9:24 AM

If they "technically" broke the law, then THEY BROKE THE LAW!

The next time I hear about a shooting, stabbing, etc. I'll just think to myself... hmmm..."technically" they broke the law, but I bet they were just really mad at the person, so it's okay.

-- Posted by lil_akr on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM

This story is inaccurate. Either the police report is false or the reporter did some bad reporting. There are two witnesses who saw Heath being arrested inside a building, not on top of Buckner's like this article states. Two witnesses who were sleeping in an apartment that a police officer walked into without permission and without knocking as far as I know. There are several other inaccurate points to this "story" that we do not know are because of the police report or the reporter.

Perhaps you should all mind your own business and your own lives and not believe everything you read. These are great kids, Heath and Jeff are wonderful guys who care about those around them. Something smells fishy and it is not the Mississippi River.

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 9:55 AM

Heath was arrested in a building he had permission to be in..wanted to clarify that and than the officer verbally attacked him in a way that was unnecessary. The officers than reportedly told both Heath and Jeff that the witness could not identify them when the witness clearly said, " That's Heath. Heath Sanders. He is a friend. He is allowed to be in here." What were the police doing in a building they did not have permission to be in and in an apartment they did not ask to enter?

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 9:58 AM

And, I may not be a reporter, but since when does "Trespassing" warrant a front page article in the newspaper? Shouldn't we be writing about the drugs, first degree assault, child abuse, robberies, drunk drivers on the roads, current state of our health care system, or something that matters. Did anything these people do affect you in any way? NO. Is this a "breaking story"? No.

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 10:08 AM

Ok sooo here is the real story of what happened. Southeast Missourian is blowing this way out of proportion and the guys that arrested them were complete **** if you know what I mean. Really what cops call your parents because you grew up in the same town and had to tell them you got into trouble! Really? Last time I checked all these people are 21 years of age and older. Clearly they can call their parents themselves or better yet do not have to because they are adults! Yes, they were trespassing lets not forget that is breaking the law! Good observation people! So yes they should be punished for being on another rooftop that is not their own. I do know though for a fact that Jeff has a business and an apartment next to Broussards and that two of the girls were arrested on that roof top. They were not on Bueckners or Jerrys. In fact, the only people that were on Jerrs patio were Jeff and the other girl Shana. That is trespassing so yes they should be in violation which obviously they were. Jeff is not stupid enough to run from a cop. Really? I mean he is old enough to know that what he did was already trouble why would he make it worse even if he had been drinking. Second, one of the two girls that were arrested on Jeff's roof was not drunk. In fact, she had one beer all night because she closed her bar down at 2 a.m. that morning after work. She has witnesses that can say she was not only working that night but that she did not drink on the job. Third, if she was arrested on Broussard's roof she has a right to be there since she closed down the bar that night and is an employee and keyholder! That is a mangement position if any of you do not understand that, so technically she has the right to be there. The other girl however, was drinking but not enough that she could not go back through the same door she came out of which was Jeff's apartment. The cops decided it was safer to take them down a ladder. Does that make since? A ladder which is high up that the girl was wearing a dress, had been drinking, in heels, make since to take them down that? I would think it would have been better to take them through a door which led straight into an apartment. Normal right? So.....the other part to this story that there were make shift latters and such, well that could be the truth, however, I know that the two girls had never been up there before, it was their first time and never stepped foot into another building besides the one they had permission to be in, Jeffs. Heath was inside the apartment when officers entered without persmission and seized him. All in all, sounds like crap to me. Sounds like they deserved the trespassing tickets, however, they are not huge criminals, they are young adults who made a bad decision. However, that does not mean people need to scrutinize them or run their names into the ground. They are great people with careers, families, and a bright future. Lets not make this bigger then it has to be. I know there are plenty of people out there that have been in empty buildings before that they should not have been in. The only difference is these people got caught and you didn't. Oh and the whole greek thing....who cares! Find something else better to use against them. And it is a fact that you can look up their names in the alumni section and see none of them were ever greeks, especially at SEMO! Thanks.

-- Posted by Facts101 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 10:26 AM

And to clarify verbally attack, it seems as though the officer was unnecessarily rude to the boy. All this clarification...jeesh.

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 10:26 AM

Thanks hpgirl23, that's the point I was trying to make, that this is just trespassing.

lil_akr, maybe my choice of words was poor, but what I was trying to say was that this isn't a serious broken law like murder that's deserving of front page news, nor is all the information accurate anyways. Nothing serious, just the paper trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

-- Posted by Gock on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 10:28 AM

All in all... It'd be more forgivable if it were a group of 16,17,18 year olds. The fact that they were all adults sickens me... Can ADULTS not find fun in anything else these days? They have to climb on the rooftops?

-- Posted by jargononsense on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 10:43 AM

By the way. This is a ticket, that carries a $200 fine. Really newsworthy, huh?

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 11:53 AM

I'm 58 years old, and I would like to pass on something that I learned yeeaarrrsss ago........ "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see"!

-- Posted by Hookie98 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 11:59 AM

I was there. The SEMissourian's story is accurate. Three of the five were inside Jeremiah's with flashlights breaking glass. Once again, way to go Cape PD and FD!!!

-- Posted by acid burn on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:04 PM

if it is so accurate, then why would witnesses say it isn't?

-- Posted by truecolour on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:17 PM

Did you miss the part where I said I was there?

-- Posted by acid burn on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:18 PM

sounds like there is some differences in opinions then. oh well, not my business. But i highly doubt what you are saying is true if so many people seem to be disagreeing and seem to know the witnesses. your word vs theirs, someone is right. guess we will see. seems awfully silly that this makes front page news though...come on...they are just kids climbing around on rooftops.

-- Posted by truecolour on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:24 PM

Opinions and facts are different. Six police officers, two firefighters, and sober civilians are pretty solid witnesses. It's a fact that the suspects were inside Jeremiah's breaking things; not an opinion. The two ladies made the mistake of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other three should own up to their actions and be thankful that more charges have not been brought. This ordeal took over two hours at the scene alone. Is "waste of officers' time" a charge?

-- Posted by acid burn on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:31 PM

The story is not accurate and if you knew one of these people as well as I do, you would know that he wouldn't be able to find a flashlight if it was sitting in front of his face; if he owned one. If you knew these people, you would know that they would never intentionally have broken the law. Did you know it was illegal to be on city rooftops? I know I didn't know it was illegal til this happened..I know it is dangerous and dumb, but didn't know it was illegal. Heck, the Direct TV guys go up on roofs. I was there when one of these people was arrested and it happened inside a building he had permission to be in, in front of another reputable witness and another cop. The police officers opened up a door to a private residence and proceeded to yell into it, they did not knock.

Why were the police in the building to begin with if they were searching for people on the roof? Who gave them permission? Did they need permission?

How well do we, as the general public, understand the law? I know I do not understand it well enough to make assumptions based on a newspaper article.

These people have lives, families, people they care about. Did they do something dumb, like go up on the rooftop of a building? Yes. But do other people go on their roofs? Yes. There is a swimming pool on top of one roofs down there. The story says he was arrested or it is implied that he was arrested on Jeremiah's patio. Well, there is documentation that says Mr. Lage was arrested for trespassing at 114 N. Main St. How can you be arrested for trespassing at your own residence?

Instead of stirring up trouble by posting falsehoods, just leave them alone. Besides, tomorrow there will be a new story in the paper for all of us to focus on and talk about.

I guess I am as guilty as anyone for getting all worked up. But the bigger picture is this: No one really knows what happened. Only those truly there know.

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:35 PM

acid burn- I am a sober witness and so is the other person I mention.

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:36 PM

This article contains libel against Shana Gemoules as she was not actually charged with trespassing. I would suggest that the editor correct this mistake in tomorrows paper.

-- Posted by accountant08 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 3:00 PM

"Did you know it was illegal to be on city rooftops? I know I didn't know it was illegal til this happened" Are you kidding me? Any smart person would know that getting on top of buildings downtown would be trespassing. As far as Direct Tv getting on your roof, they have a reason to be there, to check your dish. Yes people go on their OWN roof, but not somebody elses. What people do on their OWN roof is their business, but when people gets on other roofs (city or neighbors) it's breaking the law. Have commen sense.

-- Posted by Baby Girl on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 4:11 PM

it sounds like these people may have been on the roof of one of their own places. How close are these places? you never know it could be a misunderstanding. Either way it's getting a lot of feedback from some obviously upset people.

-- Posted by truecolour on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 4:28 PM

sour grapes

-- Posted by grandma73 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 7:18 PM

Up on the roof...by Carole king

When this old world starts a getting me down

And people are just too much for me to face

Ill climb way up to the top of the stairs

And all my cares just drift right into space

On the roof, its peaceful as can be

And there the world below dont bother me, no, no

So when I come home feeling tired and beat

Ill go up where the air is fresh and sweet

Ill get far away from the hustling crowd

And all the rat-race noise down in the street

On the roof, thats the only place I know

Look at the city, baby

Where you just have to wish to make it so

Lets go up on the roof

And at night the stars they put on a show for free

And, darling, you can share it all with me

Thats what I said

Keep on telling you

That right smack dab in the middle of town

I found a paradise thats troubleproof

And if this old world starts a getting you down

Theres room enough for two

Up on the roof...

-- Posted by TheCamp on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 7:33 PM

Okay...First of all, those of you who are saying that these kids lack common sense for being on a roof that wasn't theirs need to just calm it down. Oh and baby girl it is COMMON sense.....A little hard for someone to take your words seriously when you can't even spell. Obviously they are paying the price for what they did. I am sure they know it was wrong of them now. "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." I am sorry, but we have all made decisions in life that have been unwise so it would be unfair to pass judgement on these individuals. The situation was handled so MOVE ON!

-- Posted by Hagendaas on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 2:44 AM

Ok hagendaas, so I assume if you saw 5 people on the roof of your neighbors house at 3:30 in the morning you would just think "oh well maybe they don't know thats illegal" really?! Seems like the individuals involved in this have some growing up to do, hopefully this will be a needed wake up call! Oh and hpgirl..DirectTV?? Yea that made me laugh, kinda like "roofers" right lol, they go up there too! My favorite part though is that you say the cops didn't knock! Maybe they thought everyone breaking glass in Jeremiahs may not hear them, just a thought. Obviously common sense isn't all that common anymore!

-- Posted by Conservative1 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 7:25 AM

hpgirl23 would be speaking a whole different story if one of the frat drunks fell off the roof. STUPID

-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 7:42 AM

man, you guys are pretty thick.

when hpgirl was saying knock, she meant at her front door of the building where she lived and the police just came into....not about jeremiah's.

also, didn't we establish that no one here was in a fraternity?

and to conservative1: the only people that live down there where these people were is one of the people who were charged.

seems like a lot of people are making wild assumptions from a newspaper article that for some reason made front page news. let he without sin cast the first stone. Many of you must not be sinners.

Fact is, you can not pass judgment, make assumptions about a situation or act like this story gives you enough information to do so. you read a seven paragraph article from one person's perspective and assume that it must be fact. this is the same problem our country has when assessing and judging those in the media, presidents, and other leaders. You make assumptions based on simple information given to you and you believe it to be true. If anyone has some growing up to do, it sounds like those that make brash assumptions from seven paragraphs of a newspaper article.

-- Posted by truecolour on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 7:58 AM

Conservative: As far as knocking, I was referring to MY apartment door, which by the way, is far from Jeremiahs and the entrance to my building is off of Main Street, not Water street. Far from Jerry's.

Also, I am fairly certain I have said nothing to elude to the fact that I think being on the roof is smart. I believe I just said what I witnessed (and another person witnessed) in my own building, emphasis on IN my building. Not on top of a building several doors down.

The fact is, we do not know what really happened up there. I personally stand by those that I trust and love, and who am I to expect others to read that article and do the same? Somewhere along the line the truth got twisted and reworked into something completely different, especially in the case of Mr. Sander's arrest. The article also paints one of the people in a terrible light and I think this is unfair and uncalled for; there are far worse things going on in the world today than some trespassing.

If you knew this person, you would know that he respects his elders, his elected officials and his public servants. The article portrays him as a sort of hardened criminal. No offense, Mr. Lage, but you do not look like a criminal. Resisting arrest is one of the toughest things to fight, especially when it is just you and an officer, no witnesses. Do we not live in a country where we are to believe "innocent until proven guilty"? But the fact is, most of those who have read this article come away thinking the opposite. And that, is the glory of the media. Its why it exists. To entice. To provoke thought. To entertain. To inform. In reference to the latter, "inform", the writer may have just reported on what the police report said, in that case, Mr. Sander's arrest may/ may not be recorded inaccurately.

I think what we should come away with, in all of this, is that:

1) Going on the rooftops of other people's buildings is illegal

2) Going on the rooftops of ANY building is not a smart idea, no matter how "cool" it may seem

3) Newspaper articles tend to influence many peoples' opinions and are written to inform, provoke thought, entertain and entice readers.

4) Sometimes....well...facts get lost amidst all the chaos of life

5) You never really know what happened unless you were actually there

6) It got us talking, didn't it?

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 8:49 AM

Hagendaas, Can people get past the spelling issue? Have you ever made a mistake typing? It happens get over it, stop correcting peoples spelling. I could careless these people were on the roof or not on the roof, I was just pointing out to hpgirl23 unless you are on your own roof, getting on other peoples roof is illegal.

I agree with conservative1. The comment about the roof made me laugh too.

-- Posted by Baby Girl on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 9:18 AM

This what you choose to comment about, the Direct Tv guy? Not anything else in my posts?

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 10:18 AM

Thanks Babygirl..

You made my point hpgirl, why would they knock on that door when the trespassers where not there! However thats petty, whats not is the fact that these mid 20's suppose to be adults are up at 3:30am on a Tues morning, on top of roofs, trespassing, drinking, and getting arrested. Do none of these people have jobs to go to in the morning? No other responsibilities? They say one of the men owns a business? I dont find breaking the law very professional. I weep for my generation.

-- Posted by Conservative1 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 11:36 AM

where did it say they were drinking? just said that two of the women appeared to have been. that doesn't mean all of them. Again, this goes to continue to prove the point. You do not know the whole story, you are making assumptions based on what you believe to be true. obviously a woman on here is a witness to something that is blattenly false in the article, what makes you think more may not be true? And business owners have weird schedules, anyone that has ever owned a business knows that.

Fact is, if you make assumptions about someone from an article like this, then you yourself, are the person people should worry about. do not pass judgment on what you do not know. as Hookie98 said "I'm 58 years old, and I would like to pass on something that I learned yeeaarrrsss ago........ "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see"!

pretty good lesson learned....

-- Posted by truecolour on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 11:48 AM

lets recap what hpgirl23 has said in total.

acid burn- I am a sober witness and so is the other person I mention.

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:36 PM

I believe I just said what I witnessed (and another person witnessed) in my own building, emphasis on IN my building.

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 8:49 AM

By the way. This is a ticket, that carries a $200 fine. Really newsworthy, huh?

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 11:53 AM

And that, is the glory of the media. Its why it exists. To entice. To provoke thought. To entertain. To inform.

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 8:49 AM

Did you know it was illegal to be on city rooftops?

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Thu, Jul 30, 2009, at 1:35 PM

I think what we should come away with, in all of this, is that:

1) Going on the rooftops of other people's buildings is illegal

-- Posted by hpgirl23 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 8:49 AM

-- Posted by Anon1 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 12:35 PM

lol

-- Posted by ct48 on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 12:39 PM

she also said that she witnessed that this

"One officer saw a man come out onto a second-floor patio area of Jeremiah's and scale a wall to the roof of Buckner. The officer arrested the man, Heath P. Sanders, 25, 439 N. Sprigg St., Apt. 10, as he reached the roof, Selzer said."

was incorrect information. That Heath was arrested in her personal residence, a place he was allowed to be.....

if that isn't true, what else isn't true?

-- Posted by truecolour on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 2:18 PM

I wish they'd spend less time harassing a resident of downtown cape for having some harmless fun and more time trying to catch Pat Moyer's the thief who keeps getting caught and released and whose girlfriend Ramsey keeps him hidden at her house.

-- Posted by Mosely on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 10:30 PM

Hell, don't blame the police about Moyer's, blame the judges. They set the bonds to allow someone out of jail, not the police. They can only arrest them, not keep them in jail. Remember that when election time comes around for the judges. The only judge with high bonds in this area is Judge Lewis. No criminal wants to go in front of him!!

-- Posted by cartman on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 11:36 AM

Oh and by the way, as far as trusting stories of people arrested, when was the last time you heard someone say that they were actually drunk when they were arrested for say, drinking and driving, or tell their family members that they were actually guilty of what they were charged with. The truth does not come out until they plead guilty and have to admit what they have done.

The story sounds ok to me. Lets see, Officer Hahn saw Sanders on the patio of Jereimahs, ok....guilty.

The other two girls were found on another building roof, which is illegal....ok....guilty

The Lage goof was on the patio and was arrested after trying to rush the officers....ok...guilty

The last girl was found on the patio of Jereimahs....ok...guilty!!

The story does not say that they were all arrested for tresspassing at Jerimahs, just that they were arrested for tresspassing.

So to sum it up for the "family and friends", Sanders was seen on the patio of a closed business, where he did not belong. The girls were found, after drinking, on a rooftop, which is illegal. Lang came out of the business and then tried to rush the police (imagine the posts if he had pushed one of the officers off the edge of the building). And the last girl was on the patio of the LOCKED business!! Pretty simple to me, but hey, that last "friend" was not drinking and driving even though he hit a tree and checked .25 BAC, because he told you he was not drunk, right??

-- Posted by cartman on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 11:52 AM

well cartman, if there are sober witnesses that saw something different happened, do you just turn the cheek and ignore what they say?

remember all of this is purely speculation until proven guilty. people seem to keep on forgetting what hpgirl said....

that mr. sanders was not arrested where they say he was arrested. if that much is incorrect, then why are so many people ignoring the fact that the rest could be incorrect? officers are people too, and they too can lie.

-- Posted by truecolour on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 2:28 PM

and one story says mr. lage evaded the police, another says he attacked the police, well which one is it? or is neither true?

either way it sounds like something is incorrect here. if a sober witness sees something, that is blatently false in the paper, then is it also incorrect in the police report? you can not just ignore a sober witnesses testimony. you can not just assume everything is so black and white as you are assuming cartman. every person deserves their day in court, i imagine these people will as well.

-- Posted by truecolour on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 2:32 PM

I am sure they will get thier day in court and they will pled guilty and then tell the truth. Are you saying that friends are not above lying for other friend, including when the friends are in the wrong?

And I guess you think that we are still playing a kids game. Sanders ran and made it to home base, so the police can't touch him because he is safe. Give me a break.

If he didn't want to be arrested, then do not go in to or on another's property without permission. He is lucky that he was not charged with burglary.

-- Posted by cartman on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 5:46 PM

hahaha, this is your "criminal"

the same guy that apparently attacked the police...

ya he really sounds like the kind of guy that would do that.

http://www.semissourian.com/story/153654...

-- Posted by truecolour on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 6:47 PM

Hpgirl states that this guy is no criminal and does not look like a criminal. To stereotype someone by their looks that they are or are not a criminal is ignorant. If you case net Mr. Lage you will see that he is guilty of multiple crimes which involve drinking. The kid has a drinking problem. He was placed on probation in two different counties for driving while intoxicated. Let me guess. You did nothing wrong there either? It is clear that hpgirl is a friend of yours and is probably your girlfriend which based on your post you are expecting a child. If i was your significant other i wouldn't want you getting into any trouble right before i have a child either

-- Posted by LouThezPress on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 7:19 PM

wow...

-- Posted by ct48 on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 7:31 PM

it is also ignorant to assume from two incidents that someone has a drinking problem.

these are perceptions, assumptions and speculation. We will see how it all ends, but the whole story still sounds fishy. And I tend to believe that we do not have enough information to make informative decisions about this. Don't quite understand why such a petty crime would make such major news though.

-- Posted by truecolour on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 8:00 PM

Regardless of what happened there is no reason for it to be posted on the front page of the paper. Court will work out the details and a decision will be made.

-- Posted by ct48 on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 8:26 PM

Thanks Lou....my thoughts exactly!!!

-- Posted by Conservative1 on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 10:35 AM

You sir are very welcome.

-- Posted by LouThezPress on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Map of pertinent addresses
Related subjects