While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should something be put in the article that this scenario was used in a resent episode of law in order SVU?-- Blood Panther ( talk) 03:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In the article under Media depiction it states
These incidents were the inspiration behind an episode of Law & Order: SVU featuring Robin Williams as the hoaxer, who identified himself as "detective Milgram", a reference to the famous Milgram experiment that tested obedience to authority.
A Citation needed tag is placed there.
I am watching this episode now and beginning at ~5:13 into the episode the following dialog appears.
Detective Olivia Benson: What about this Detective Milgram? He's the one who pulled Dwight's strings. Detective John Munch: Stanley Milgram? He's dead. Detective Elliot Stabler: You knew him? Detective John Munch: Not personally, but the real Milgram was a psychology professor who instructed volunteers to give electroshocks to screaming victims. Detective Odafin 'Fin' Tutuola: Sounds like a nut case. Detective John Munch: Well, the shocks weren't real. The real nuts were the people frying their friends because somebody told them to.
Hello, I have a problem with the following quote: "If Stewart was indeed the caller, his occupation as a correctional officer would seem to confirm the conclusions of the notorious Stanford prison experiment.". Considering the fact that i dont see a citation and that wikipedia does critisize the Stanford prison experiment, wouldnt it be better to say that it supports (and not confirms) the Milgram experiment. Personaly i dont see how this incident would in any way support the Stanford prison experiment (other than correctional officers being sadistic), if anything it supports the Milgram experiment which shortly states that people will put their consciousness aside when authority figures tell them so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidaslundell ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 January 2007
The picture of the woman being sexually abused should be removed. This is a real person, who is really being raped. I partially disagree. I feel that it should be kept on the article, as it is VERY relevant to the article, and provides a visualization of what went on. However, I wouldn't not object to hiding it behind a "click here for picture" link. 24.205.53.113 ( talk) 10:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is a quote from a cited source: "The first report of such a call came in 1995, in Devil's Lake, N.D.; another came later that year in Fallon, Nev. The caller, usually pretending to be a police officer investigating a crime, targeted stores in small towns and rural communities -- areas where managers were more likely to be trusting."
This is a bullet in the article, not indicated as a quote of any kind: "The first report of such a call came in 1995, in Devil's Lake, N.D.; another came later that year in Fallon, Nev. The caller, usually pretending to be a police officer investigating a crime, targeted stores in small towns and rural communities — areas where managers were more likely to be trusting."
Furthermore, the source cited for the 'quote' appears to have itself taken the quote from the source I am talking about, 2 years later, with minimal attribution. It's not a better source than the original, so if quoting without indicating that it's a quote is valid, the citation should still be changed to the original source of the quote, rather than somebody that is quoting the original source. http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005510090392 , the second is here: http://hitsusa.com/blog/163/mcdonalds-strip-search-video/
It seems likely that there is more in that list, but I'm tired, which is why I didn't check everything and quote as necessary-- but really, who wants a list of quotes instead of 'original' content? Scorchsaber ( talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thought I would add my surprise that this content is still sitting pretty on the page. almost that entire section is word-for-word an exact copy and paste job of The Courier-Journal's story on the events. i felt pretty confident in my belief that wikipedia does NOT in any way condone plagiarism (i mean, come on...someone took the time to write it in their own words...the least we can do is rewrite it in ours.) could anyone please clear this up ASAP. if this is NOT an acceptable way to present information in a wikipedia entry- nor should it be- i'd be more than glad to rewrite the section Ocrasaroon ( talk) 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is not a humorous article and does not belong in this category. Please stop adding it. KiTA ( talk) 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Are the reported incidents real? Or this just an example of an urban legend? Is it correct to imply one person was behind this - particularly when he was acquitted. If he was responsible it is reasonable to expect that he would have been convicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Strangely the article has contained an assertion that Summers, the woman who forced the young girl to strip in the Mt. Washington McDonalds case, was awarded over a million US dollars as part of the victim's lawsuit. I removed it [1]. -- C S ( talk) 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC) You are incorrect. Donna Summers was awarded 1.1 million by a jury. See link: http://www.wlky.com/news/14267691/detail.html It states: "The jury also awarded $1.1 million to a former assistant manager who strip-searched Ogborn" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.225.185 ( talk) 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
David R. Stewart, none of the sources say what the R. stands for? Tyciol ( talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Richard. Source: http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/1088446.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.26.24 ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This page is way too long, and has way too much detail. 203.24.135.66 ( talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly are we seemingly protecting the name of the victim? Does Wikipedia have any policy on that? It's on every reference website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.24.156 ( talk) 10:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It is the policy of Wikipedia to censor any information that may offend readers. 68.0.20.56 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
How DARE any one write "A quick-thinking employee dialed *69" if Summers or any other of the three morons dialed it. Overall the article has a disgraceful apologetic tune in it as if it was written by Summers lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.68.194 ( talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Quick thinking!!! Not at all. I am in two minds about this entire subject. Either these are scams designed to extort money from McDonald's, or McDonald's must recruit employees with IQ's lower than that of chimpanzees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The residents of small towns in American must be very backward. How could 70 calls be made to McDonald's and in each case the employee's on duty are so stupid as to fall for this scam? Nigerian scams are more plausible, and they only dupe a small percentage of recipients - something like 1 in 1000. How can McDonald's employee's be so thick? Doesn't the company employ anyone with an IQ over 50?
I've upgraded the assessment on the article from Start-class to C-class. It would take very little for the article to be upgraded to B-Class, mostly more inline citations. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The description of the 26/01/03 incident could be more appropriately worded. While the other examples in the "prior" section clearly show that the recipients of the calls (wrongly) believed they were doing the right thing, the Applebee's example seems to imply that the assistant manager was simply taking advantage of the situation. The only real evidence for that viewpoint seems to come from the fact that the he had received a memo warning about hoax calls a month earlier. Perhaps the current description is accurate, but the single paragraph about it in the citation is ambiguous. 222.153.51.127 ( talk) 23:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I edited the entry to match the text from the cited article, not that it's that much clearer. Frankly I will never forgive you, whoever you are, for causing me to click the link and read all those descriptions of what was done in this so called "scam." Modern Primate ( talk) 01:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
"I got a phone call telling me to take the clothes off a customer so I did it". Never heard anything so stupid in my life.
Yes, it seems many McDonald's employees are incredibly stupid.
The name is wrong. This is either a scam or a prank. It cannot be both. If the calls were part of a plot to defraud McDonald's (i.e. the "victims" were in on it) it would be a scam. If the calls were made by one or more persons to unwitting (and witless) staff, and relying on the incredible stupidity of McDonald's employees, then it would be a prank. Obviously it is the latter only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
However at the very least I think call should be pluralized since obviously there was more then one call.-- 99.61.24.92 ( talk) 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait, are you implying sexual gratification or a power trip isn't for amusement? I agree, scam should be taken out of title. 124.169.116.195 ( talk) 06:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane
This was neither a "scam" nor a "prank." This was sexual assault. The current title trivializes that fact. Modern Primate ( talk) 01:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The citation Wolfson, Andrew (9 October 2005). "A hoax most cruel" has been overused throughout this article and often the citation has no reference to the text. Specifically in the before incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soul phire ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 September 2012
clearly so— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholegood ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 May 2014
The calls were pranks, or false, but not "fraudulent". The word fraudulent does not belong in this article at all. Royalcourtier ( talk) 18:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Strip search phone call scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Strip search phone call scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
On 26 January 2003, an Applebee's assistant manager subjected a waitress to a 90-minute strip search ...
Specifically: "Speaking with her boss, Summers discovered that she had been sleeping and had not spoken to any police officer."
As she was not actually sleeping, I guess this means sleeping in the sense of "sleeping on"? A bit informal. 2604:3D09:867B:9830:DC4D:9DD8:67A2:B8D1 ( talk) 08:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Is it me or does every single person seem like they don't know their rights or the law, period. Seems a bit sketchy to me. I mean, I guess that's just what I think. No discrimination or hard feelings towards anyone. A little advice to anyone- get educated (with the law, in this case.) 67.55.202.1 ( talk) 06:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should something be put in the article that this scenario was used in a resent episode of law in order SVU?-- Blood Panther ( talk) 03:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In the article under Media depiction it states
These incidents were the inspiration behind an episode of Law & Order: SVU featuring Robin Williams as the hoaxer, who identified himself as "detective Milgram", a reference to the famous Milgram experiment that tested obedience to authority.
A Citation needed tag is placed there.
I am watching this episode now and beginning at ~5:13 into the episode the following dialog appears.
Detective Olivia Benson: What about this Detective Milgram? He's the one who pulled Dwight's strings. Detective John Munch: Stanley Milgram? He's dead. Detective Elliot Stabler: You knew him? Detective John Munch: Not personally, but the real Milgram was a psychology professor who instructed volunteers to give electroshocks to screaming victims. Detective Odafin 'Fin' Tutuola: Sounds like a nut case. Detective John Munch: Well, the shocks weren't real. The real nuts were the people frying their friends because somebody told them to.
Hello, I have a problem with the following quote: "If Stewart was indeed the caller, his occupation as a correctional officer would seem to confirm the conclusions of the notorious Stanford prison experiment.". Considering the fact that i dont see a citation and that wikipedia does critisize the Stanford prison experiment, wouldnt it be better to say that it supports (and not confirms) the Milgram experiment. Personaly i dont see how this incident would in any way support the Stanford prison experiment (other than correctional officers being sadistic), if anything it supports the Milgram experiment which shortly states that people will put their consciousness aside when authority figures tell them so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidaslundell ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 January 2007
The picture of the woman being sexually abused should be removed. This is a real person, who is really being raped. I partially disagree. I feel that it should be kept on the article, as it is VERY relevant to the article, and provides a visualization of what went on. However, I wouldn't not object to hiding it behind a "click here for picture" link. 24.205.53.113 ( talk) 10:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The following is a quote from a cited source: "The first report of such a call came in 1995, in Devil's Lake, N.D.; another came later that year in Fallon, Nev. The caller, usually pretending to be a police officer investigating a crime, targeted stores in small towns and rural communities -- areas where managers were more likely to be trusting."
This is a bullet in the article, not indicated as a quote of any kind: "The first report of such a call came in 1995, in Devil's Lake, N.D.; another came later that year in Fallon, Nev. The caller, usually pretending to be a police officer investigating a crime, targeted stores in small towns and rural communities — areas where managers were more likely to be trusting."
Furthermore, the source cited for the 'quote' appears to have itself taken the quote from the source I am talking about, 2 years later, with minimal attribution. It's not a better source than the original, so if quoting without indicating that it's a quote is valid, the citation should still be changed to the original source of the quote, rather than somebody that is quoting the original source. http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005510090392 , the second is here: http://hitsusa.com/blog/163/mcdonalds-strip-search-video/
It seems likely that there is more in that list, but I'm tired, which is why I didn't check everything and quote as necessary-- but really, who wants a list of quotes instead of 'original' content? Scorchsaber ( talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thought I would add my surprise that this content is still sitting pretty on the page. almost that entire section is word-for-word an exact copy and paste job of The Courier-Journal's story on the events. i felt pretty confident in my belief that wikipedia does NOT in any way condone plagiarism (i mean, come on...someone took the time to write it in their own words...the least we can do is rewrite it in ours.) could anyone please clear this up ASAP. if this is NOT an acceptable way to present information in a wikipedia entry- nor should it be- i'd be more than glad to rewrite the section Ocrasaroon ( talk) 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is not a humorous article and does not belong in this category. Please stop adding it. KiTA ( talk) 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Are the reported incidents real? Or this just an example of an urban legend? Is it correct to imply one person was behind this - particularly when he was acquitted. If he was responsible it is reasonable to expect that he would have been convicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Strangely the article has contained an assertion that Summers, the woman who forced the young girl to strip in the Mt. Washington McDonalds case, was awarded over a million US dollars as part of the victim's lawsuit. I removed it [1]. -- C S ( talk) 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC) You are incorrect. Donna Summers was awarded 1.1 million by a jury. See link: http://www.wlky.com/news/14267691/detail.html It states: "The jury also awarded $1.1 million to a former assistant manager who strip-searched Ogborn" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.225.185 ( talk) 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
David R. Stewart, none of the sources say what the R. stands for? Tyciol ( talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Richard. Source: http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/1088446.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.26.24 ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This page is way too long, and has way too much detail. 203.24.135.66 ( talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly are we seemingly protecting the name of the victim? Does Wikipedia have any policy on that? It's on every reference website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.24.156 ( talk) 10:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It is the policy of Wikipedia to censor any information that may offend readers. 68.0.20.56 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
How DARE any one write "A quick-thinking employee dialed *69" if Summers or any other of the three morons dialed it. Overall the article has a disgraceful apologetic tune in it as if it was written by Summers lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.68.194 ( talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Quick thinking!!! Not at all. I am in two minds about this entire subject. Either these are scams designed to extort money from McDonald's, or McDonald's must recruit employees with IQ's lower than that of chimpanzees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The residents of small towns in American must be very backward. How could 70 calls be made to McDonald's and in each case the employee's on duty are so stupid as to fall for this scam? Nigerian scams are more plausible, and they only dupe a small percentage of recipients - something like 1 in 1000. How can McDonald's employee's be so thick? Doesn't the company employ anyone with an IQ over 50?
I've upgraded the assessment on the article from Start-class to C-class. It would take very little for the article to be upgraded to B-Class, mostly more inline citations. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The description of the 26/01/03 incident could be more appropriately worded. While the other examples in the "prior" section clearly show that the recipients of the calls (wrongly) believed they were doing the right thing, the Applebee's example seems to imply that the assistant manager was simply taking advantage of the situation. The only real evidence for that viewpoint seems to come from the fact that the he had received a memo warning about hoax calls a month earlier. Perhaps the current description is accurate, but the single paragraph about it in the citation is ambiguous. 222.153.51.127 ( talk) 23:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I edited the entry to match the text from the cited article, not that it's that much clearer. Frankly I will never forgive you, whoever you are, for causing me to click the link and read all those descriptions of what was done in this so called "scam." Modern Primate ( talk) 01:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
"I got a phone call telling me to take the clothes off a customer so I did it". Never heard anything so stupid in my life.
Yes, it seems many McDonald's employees are incredibly stupid.
The name is wrong. This is either a scam or a prank. It cannot be both. If the calls were part of a plot to defraud McDonald's (i.e. the "victims" were in on it) it would be a scam. If the calls were made by one or more persons to unwitting (and witless) staff, and relying on the incredible stupidity of McDonald's employees, then it would be a prank. Obviously it is the latter only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
However at the very least I think call should be pluralized since obviously there was more then one call.-- 99.61.24.92 ( talk) 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait, are you implying sexual gratification or a power trip isn't for amusement? I agree, scam should be taken out of title. 124.169.116.195 ( talk) 06:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane
This was neither a "scam" nor a "prank." This was sexual assault. The current title trivializes that fact. Modern Primate ( talk) 01:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The citation Wolfson, Andrew (9 October 2005). "A hoax most cruel" has been overused throughout this article and often the citation has no reference to the text. Specifically in the before incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soul phire ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 September 2012
clearly so— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholegood ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 May 2014
The calls were pranks, or false, but not "fraudulent". The word fraudulent does not belong in this article at all. Royalcourtier ( talk) 18:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Strip search phone call scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Strip search phone call scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
On 26 January 2003, an Applebee's assistant manager subjected a waitress to a 90-minute strip search ...
Specifically: "Speaking with her boss, Summers discovered that she had been sleeping and had not spoken to any police officer."
As she was not actually sleeping, I guess this means sleeping in the sense of "sleeping on"? A bit informal. 2604:3D09:867B:9830:DC4D:9DD8:67A2:B8D1 ( talk) 08:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Is it me or does every single person seem like they don't know their rights or the law, period. Seems a bit sketchy to me. I mean, I guess that's just what I think. No discrimination or hard feelings towards anyone. A little advice to anyone- get educated (with the law, in this case.) 67.55.202.1 ( talk) 06:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)