Saturday, May 25, 2013

Rap541's Questions For The Roloffs Regarding The Recent Roloff Story About Being Victims Of Threats

Frequent contributor to the Spiritswander Blog, Rap541, wanted a chance to share some of their thoughts on the recent story that they've been victims of death threats that Matt and Amy Roloff have went to the media about.


===============================================================

Privacy Versus the Privileges of Fame – Or Why The Roloffs Have No Reason to Complain That I Am About To Pick Them Apart Here

So yet again, the Roloffs claim they are being victimized by mean bullies online, and by real life stalkers to the point that they are so aggrieved by the lack of police response, they have contacted the media to complain about it. While doing this, we have Amy yet again making her very special plea for *privacy* - "Just because I choose to give up some of my privacy does not mean you have 100 percent of my privacy," – which is all fine and good… except that she and Matt have intentionally gone to the media with this particular problem. 

Now first off, no one has asked Amy Roloff for one hundred percent of her privacy. This is what Amy says whenever she feels defensive and doesn’t want to discuss a particular topic. Amy’s notion of privacy is whatever Amy decides is private at that time. Likewise Matt, although he’s less vocal about it. So let me explain why, as I pick apart the claims of a facebook threatener, a stalker in a car, etc, why Matt and Amy don’t really have a “privacy” argument to make here. 

Matt and Amy intentionally publicized this story, and they got a tv interview because “they’re Oregon’s famous family” and not because the details of this situation are so shocking that the media was searching them out. The Roloffs sought out the media to publicize their situation and used their fame to get attention to their problem. They’ve asked for the attention and now they are going to get some questions. My questions are based in part on the vague description we always get and please understand, the Roloffs didn’t hide this problem, they went to the media and used their fame in the community so that they could get up on the pulpit and point fingers at all the meanies being mean and how no one on the police force is taking them seriously. They’re making a very serious claim so yes, we do have the right to ask questions about their version of events. The Roloffs tend to bank on the idea that they can throw a grandiose claim out there and people won’t question it. After discovering what their “home invasion” was in reality (as they described in public court documents)… yes, I think its fair to ask for some details.

How many times in the past six years have the Roloffs contacted the police regarding stalking? Or burglary? Or trespass? 

Does the FBI have open active cases regarding the Roloffs? What are the natures of these cases? Remember, the Roloffs have gone to the media to complain because their concerns aren’t being handled in a manner to which they feel is appropriate. The Roloffs have made public claims that they aren’t being treated fairly or well. It’s fair to ask “what are these claims, how many times have you gone to the FBI, what crime do you think is being committed?” 

Has each person who got a threatening email filed a report with Facebook? 
What was Facebook’s response? 
Have these user ids sending threatening email been reported to the police? It’s really interesting how clear Matt is in this interview that he called the cops about the *car* and not the emails/phone calls. 

What have Matt and Amy done to have the phone calls tracked? Anything? Again, remember, they’re complaining the police haven’t done enough, and they’re using their clout as tv stars to get on the news and let everyone know how wronged they are. It’s fair to ask what steps they have taken. Have they changed their phone number? Removed it from their website? 

Here’s an interesting question. What *crime* was Matt reporting the morning he got up at 4am and saw a car parked outside the gate and chased it. Yes, I agree it’s odd…. But someone parked on a public road is what crime? Whoever it was in Matt's story apparently wasn’t on Roloff property and the gate and the house are a fair distance apart so it isn’t like someone was peeping. I mean, yes, I get why it would be disconcerting, I don’t like it when someone parks too long in front of my place…. But what were the police supposed to arrest this person for? I’m really not trying to make light – but whoever it was, they weren’t trespassing and I can see why “I saw some guy parked on the road by my driveway, and I chased him down a dead end road, come out and arrest this guy for being parked on the public road!” didn’t cause the county to send the SWAT team. 

 Now I am sure that the answers to these questions will be “too private” but really, if the Roloffs are going to publicly chastise the world for how they’re not being protected, and use their fame to get their way, then we do have the right to ask questions about *what the actual facts are, versus their emotions on tv* and *what they’ve done to protect themselves*.

I’ll be honest, I have no doubt they got some creepy messages. It’s not fun, I’ve gotten my own share in my lifetime. We certainly know Spirit has. And poster Mike makes a very good point in the comments, which is why I ask the question – have they contacted Facebook? They’re celebs getting death threats through Facebook. Have they contacted Facebook? What was Facebook’s response? They’re on tv saying the cops haven’t done enough – have they reported the *death threats* to the police? Have they reported the phone calls to the police? Have the Roloffs contacted the FBI over the death threats? 

The only thing Matt’s officially on record reporting is the car waiting by his driveway – which at the end of the day isn’t exactly a crime. If I seem to be demanding a lot of info, well, do understand, I don’t really expect answers. The concern I have is the Roloff family’s tendency to lie by omission and to exaggerate a situation (again, please consider the home invasion they’ve gone on about – the home invasion that upset them so but that neither adult Roloff can remember calling the cops over).

They’re intentionally using their celebrity to draw attention to their personal lives here. They’re doing it for a purpose, and they are very clear as to what they want and that they feel the authorities have not done enough to protect them. Since they are accusing others of wrongdoing, it is completely fair to ask exactly what they have reported, how many times, when it was done, and what they have done to solve the situation. They’re the ones who have put this situation under the glare of media attention, a situation that would never have made the news if they weren’t using their fame. I’m sure they won’t answer these questions, but we do have every right to ask them.

28 comments:

Peter said...

"How many times in the past six years have the Roloffs contacted the police regarding stalking? Or burglary? Or trespass?"

Do we really want to know? The Roloffs are attention hogs. Always about themselves. Always think the world revolves around them.

To think about how they abuse the system and monopolize publicly funded agencies and resources is kind of frustrating.

Brandon said...

Rap, the Roloffs don't answer any questions they don't want to answer.

That's why they hide from tough questions and only do interviews with people who won't question a word they say.

Megan said...

Good questions, Rap.

That investigative journalist with the TV station leaves a lot to be desired. Instead of just jumping on the police for the Roloffs claims, a journalist is supposed to question all sides of the story. She obviously did none of that or if she did, failed by not putting any of that in her story.

Anne said...

"Amy’s notion of privacy is whatever Amy decides is private at that time. "

Amy is right. Just because she is on TV, doesn't mean she needs to share everything.

My opinion on what she said is that Jeremy doesn't need to apologize to the public for things that he intended only for his friends to see. Amy, nor any Roloff, needs to explain to the public what they feel about gay marriage or the homosexual life style.

Rap541 said...

Anne - assuming you're right and please be aware, you're the one bringing Jeremy's racist comments up here - what questions have I asked here that you feel are too private *considering* that Amy is using her fame to draw attention to the fact that she feels her family has not recieved proper concern and attention to their fears of being stalked?

This isn't about Jeremy public racist comments at all and I didn't bring it up, *Anne so how about you have an opinion about the topic at hand? Because the issue of Jeremy making racist comments on his public Myspace was decided long ago and has no bearing to the stalking claims. Do you have any current opinions about the Roloffs?

Rap541 said...

Brandon - I know they refuse to answer any question that is "too private" but in this case they are intentionally using their fame to get more attention than what a regular family would.

I'm asking a fair question - what HAVE they reported and to who, and what crime was being committed when Matt called 911? They aren't *saying* someone was on their property - so why is someone parking on the road a crime? Frankly I'd like to know some more details of what happened when Matt chased this guy down a dead end road and called the cops. What happened then, Matt?

If the Roloffs want to publically insist that not enough was done, it is absolutely fair to ask the Roloffs to describe a) what they did and b) what they believe was done in response. They're using their fame to make a public accusation. Its absolutely fair that the public will have questions for them.

Anne said...

In the video, Amy is talking about a previous incident. What do you think she's describing when she makes the privacy comment?

Rap541 said...

A) Amy could easily be discussing the Jake is tossed out of Faith Bible incident since its fresher and the same claims have been made.

B) If Amy wants to allude to a prior incident as she intentionally uses her fame and the media to draw attention to a personal matter of the family, it now becomes a fair question for the Roloffs to answer - what incident is Amy alluding to?

C) This *isn't* about Jeremy's public comments on Myspace that made the national enquierer about niggers, faggots, beaners and his views on homosexuality that prompted him to photograph himself on his knees, shirtless, being rubbed on his chest by recently married buddy Mueller as a mocking statement about how he hates homosexuality and I am genuinely shocked that you want to raise that topic in a thread that might get media attention, but I again point out - its not really relevant.

D) Do you have an opinion about the topic at hand? Do you? Because the Roloffs are intentionally publicizing something private and making claims of wrongdoing by others so do you think the questions I am asking are unreasonable or too private considering the Roloffs themselves are raising the topic and intentonally using their fame to garner attention to their side?

Remember, I hadn't even mentioned Jeremy, so please don't blame me for that.

Rap541 said...

Amy is right. Just because she is on TV, doesn't mean she needs to share everything.

Btw Anne - could you point me to someone saying "Amy is on tv so she needs to share everything"?

Amy, and Matt, can't intentionally go to the media to get attention - and thats precisely what they are doing here, they are getting themselves a tv interview about their problem by using their fame - and then declare the matter *they raised public attention to* as too private.

They *asked* for the public to look at their problem here. The questions I am asking are not unreasonable. What have they already done? How many instances of this have occured? Is the FBI involved? Have they contacted Facebook about the threats coming from Facebook? What was Facebook's response? What crime did Matt think was happening when he called 911? Have they actually contacted the police about the phone calls? The phone company?

These are all reasonable questions to ask to a family that is intentionally publicizing their woes and using their fame in order to get what they feel is a more appropriate response. Since they have in the past exaggerated incidents - the "home invasion" that under oath neither Matt or Amy could admit to actually contacting the police on - and since they're *choosing* to publicize this.... it stops being their private business when they're asking for tv interviews to complain about it.

Considering they're on tv demanding more attention to their problem, what questions are too private? Asking for actual verifiable details? Because thats what my questions amount to.

J said...

My question for you Rap is why are you so obsessed with a family you clearly have a great dislike for?

(I would say you h*te them but then your buddy spiritswander wouldn't publish my comment)

Podge/Rodge groupie said...

I see I was not far off the mark with my comments in the previous item (thread). I have a new set of queries regarding the open discussion of information.
Why can't WE go to the Police and ask them? Why can't WE go to the FBI and ask them? The most information was on the "car" that Matt could not describe in great detail, being as close as he was and all, and the police investigation. What about all the other incidents Matt has freely and openly brought to the public's attention? What's wrong with asking the police? Why can't we ask them if the Roloffs indeed contacted them? They will possibly sat they can't discuss details, but hey, Matt has been pretty free with his ambiguity to draw the attention. Surely the police can tell us whether or not the Roloffs have actually phoned them? Matt made very public statements saying he did. What's the big deal?

Rap541 said...

Podge, the police in the US can get into trouble for releasing any info and Matt and Amy know that.

J - I'm asking you in all seriousness - what question have I asked here makes you think I must dislike or hate the Roloffs? Am I asking unfair questions? Or questions that you feel are too personal to a family that has gone on tv to complain about their treatment?

J - also, I would ask, why are you so obsessed with my opinions that you're questioning me about them? Perhaps I consider posting opinions of the Roloffs to NOT be saying "I am sharing one thing so that means I am sharing 100 percent of my privacy" - J why do I have to give up 100 percent of my privacy because I post something online while Amy who also posts online does NOT have to give up 100 percent of HER privacy?

Explain that to me :)

Also please feel free to explain why what I am asking is too much, considering the Roloffs are clearly and publically demanding they recieve more attention as they feel their concerns haven't been addressed to their satisfaction?

Would my questions be out of line if the Roloffs weren't celebs?

Rap541 said...

And psst J, I get edited and told my post won't be going up all the time.

J said...

What the hell are you talking about Rap? You're putting all kinds of words in my mouth. No one wants "100% of your privacy". Not in the least. I asked why you're so concerned with every move this family makes when your opinion is never anything but negative and derogatory towards them. Not just this post, but every time I've skimmed your input. You're everywhere and you're never nice. At all. Why?

Rap541 said...

J - by posting here, I am not giving up 100 percent of my privacy. If Amy and Matt Roloff can play the "We're being stalked but any and all details are our private business, oh dear god you're asking us for 100 percent of our privacy!" game - then so can I. :)

Kinda irritating, isn't it? ;)

I'm curious - do you have an example of someone actually demanding 100 percent of Amy's privacy? If not, then you do understand she's putting words in someone's mouth, right?

What question have I asked here that makes you think the question comes from a place of hate? I shouldn't go into detail for you but I will.

I think the Roloffs exaggerate their woes quite a bit, and leave out details that make them look less like the victims they're claiming to be. Matt for example, gives his talk about how he was fired because he was a little person... and never mentions how he sued and lost to the point that the judge spanked him in the summary judgement. Matt and Amy have previously cried about the stalking, and the creepy people who they have invading their home but funny, when they are under oath, the home invasion amounts to two kids wandering around a house with the windows and doors off and no one can recall if the cops were called.

This incident smacks of the same. The poor Roloffs are yet again victims, gamely giving up their privacy (and funny how stepping away from the camera isn't an option) and being punished not only by evil facebook stalkers but also callous police who aren't doing enough! This is a very public claim coming from people who have in the past, cried wolf when the wolf was actually a puppy dog or not even there. Its completely fair, when the Roloffs make their business public - and they have - and make public accusations that they are wronged - and they have - for the public to do more than accept the story at face value. If asking for details is hate - so be it. But thats a pretty messed up definition of hate.

What question am I asking makes you think it's a hate question? It might shock you, but these aren't deeply personal questions at all. Did you contact facebook? What is Facebook doing? When Matt called the cops, what crime was he reporting? Have the police been contacted about the phone calls? Have you done anything to have the phone calls tracked? What action should the police be taking?

Why are these hate questions?

Btw just to let people know - the KATU article on the death threats has a really interesting bunch of comments (none from me btw) where a) someone with a very familar style of writing suggests its the Roloffs evil neighbors and b) where various locals note how arrogant the Roloffs are.

Justin2 said...

Ok...I get what Amy and Matt are saying about not wanting to give up 100% of their privacy. That is totally understandable. Here is my thing..and its a standard thing the Roloffs do if you really pay attention to anything they say:

THEY TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTHS AND CONSTANTLY CONTRADICT THEMSELVES IN THEIR OWN DISCUSSIONS WHILE THEY ARE HAVING THEM!!!

Case and point..this article and the video of the interview. The video/interview is all about their privacy and how afraid for their lives they are based on all the threats they receive. Yet, in the very next breath Matt is saying that he's chasing down this strange unknown car at 4 in the morning..and get this..BY HIMSELF!!! Ok so if Matt is terrified for his life soo bad, why is he chasing down unknown cars by himself when its still dark outside in the middle of nowhere in the country side!!??

Its unfathomable how Matt doesn't even realize that he is contradicting himself, his story, and his own credibility.

Rap541 said...

Justin - to be fair, I don't think the Roloffs have ever been *forced* to give up their privacy.

My issue on their privacy in this matter is that they are very much using their fame to draw attention to their problem. Since they have done so, since they have made a point of publicizing the problem, the reality is that people are going to ask follow up questions... questions that if they hadn't made a point of going public wouldn't asked.

And you've raised a good point - how scared can Matt be if he's roaring off in his car, chasing someone down a dead end road and manfully calling the cops? He's making a point of talking about sleeping with his gun loaded, because he's so scared... I'd like to know why if Matt had this person cornered on a dead end road, why didn't he wait for the cops? Trust me, you keep calling the cops, they eventually send someone out.

But then, if the car was parked on the road... then I would still like to know what crime was being committed.

Podge/Rodge groupie said...

Uh, everybody? What do you realistically think the police would have told Matt when he phoned at 4 o'clock in the AM and told them he's chasing an unknown car, and says he's got it cornered down a dead end road HIMSELF? After they tied into him for trying to be some sort of self-absorbed hero, I would suppose they would ask about a license plate number? Maybe Matt forgot to tell them that, or mention it. Mind you, Mat is quoted as saying "I TRIED to chase it" and "I'm TRYING to follow him". He's still the Master of Spin.
J, like Rap I also get edited all the time but unlike Rap I am not afforded the privilege of being informed when my post is not going up. I copy my posts to word, watch what comes up or does not, email Spirit to ask, and get ignored. Oh well. At least I don't give up.

Rap541 said...

I duly note that its been close to two days since I put questions to Anne, and over 24 hours since I put questions to J.

Wassa matter Anne and J? Your opinions are toooooo private to share now that you've been called out?

Do either of you actually have an opinion about the topic at hand or do you just want to bitch about me, or plant yourself on the cross defending Jeremy calling people faggots and niggers and defending his christian right to do so?

Anonymous said...

Spirit,
What is your criteria for posting or not posting a comment?
K

BeckyM said...

Hang in there Podge, I like your stuff :)

Rap541 said...

Speaking from my own failures to post... Spirit isn't as fond of the f-word as I am :)

Also I get told no more posts on certain topics. And Podge - I usually don't get an email from Spirit, its usually me emailing SPirit with "did the computer eat my post or did you decide to cut me?"

Podge/Rodge groupie said...

Oh, OK Rap, Your comment read like you were informed. My emails seldom get answered, maybe they get eaten.
My question to you, if I could post some questions about the wedding last weekend on this thread and divert from the topic at hand didn't get published. There's a new thread now, so I'll post them there.
More contradictions, changes in perceptions, Stay tuned!

Rap541 said...

Yeah, it's not like I get an email over every post. A lot of times its language or topics that in retrospect lead to endless fighting.

BeckyM said...

Rap, not that I believe in the Roloffs story at all but in all fairness I am writing the following:

Women who have been stalked by ex's and kids who have been bullied have tried to get their phone number private. However, the number always leaks out.

As long as you have kids in the household someone will be leaking the number. So I can see if they still get calls.

Facebook is also very very slow in responding to user complaints and have been notorious on keeping pages up that should have been pulled or allowing racist rants etc...

OTOH, I simply think this is a bunch of Hogwash. Like you wrote on the other thread - timed to synch with an ep to air!

BTW for the record, Roloffs, check my posts. I have never threatened your family. Won't be visiting your farm for any reason. And could give a rat's ass about you.

The only reason I'm here is because I don't believe underage kids should work on reality shows without legislation.

Rap541 said...

Becky, I don't completely dismiss the possibility that something is going on. I know the number can get out, for example. However - and this goes back to my origanal point - its not unreasonable, since they are making a huge public stink about it, to ask what they have done to prevent it. If they have reported the pages to Facebook and Facebook is dragging its feet - and I agree that is ALSO a possibility - then why aren't they saying so? Their status as minor celebs does mean they get more and better attention when they whine in public. I'm pretty certain that "we reported it to Facebook and Facebook is doing nothing and even lets this person continue to post" would *help* them if the point here was to solve the problem.

Also - based on past experience with the Roloffs, it can't be denied that the Roloffs do exaggerate. The "home invasion" for example. The posting of a picture on Matt's facebook of someone who was theoretically sending vile obsessive emails and making creepy phone calls who Matt noted was scaring the family and who needed "treatment" in his opinion, with requests that any info be sent to Matt's secretary rather than the police (in this incident, there's utterly no evidence that the police were involved but boy howdy did Matt enjoy the attention)

I'll said it again - if the Roloffs are on their high horse going to the tv news channel to publically note that not enough is being done, it's fair to ask what the actual details and what steps they've taken.

Podge/Rodge groupie said...

Anonymous, Spirit has put that information out in past items, but I'll try from my point of view.

First - incrimination. A reminder that it's Spirit's butt on the line here, not ours. WE will never get subpoena'ed, but Spirit has been served in the past. We can't say anyting we want becuase it's really not our blog. Spirit is good enough to volunteer the time to read, post, edit (editing is a drawn out process) all the comments sent. Thank you, Spirit.

Second - topic. I assumed in error that no one goes back over previous posts and leaves comments. WRONG! I have since referred back to the items that I wanted to comment on - like Mueller and Destiney's wedding, in the applicable item. Rap took a lot of time to write concerns and questions about the Roloff's complaints, thus off-topic comments will be placed where they apply. I think that's fair engough.

Third - facts v. supposition. I got two (at least!) comments rejected because I accused either the Roloffs or people close to them about actions or statements that I could NOT prove. This kind of 'calling-out' will serve only to get a libel charge against the blog and thus Spirit. Remember all, this blog is monitored (Jacob even gave Spirit a mention in his Twitter account Hey there JG! How's it hangin'?) by more than one interested party. Sargeant Dan Friday said it best, "Just the facts, ma'am"

Fourth - arguing and name-calling. I'll leave that to the experts, Anon.

I hope this helps!

Anonymous said...

podge, yes it does help. thank you!
k