Where does it say he is serving time?

I assumed so based on the opening line.

From CNN:

He interrogated her for fourteen hours. Nobody else present. Nobody on the other side of the 2-way mirror. No video tape. No audio tape. Nothing written or signed by her. He destroyed his notes.

And the jury sent her to death row on basically just his testimony of her "confession".

Yea, that's wrong.

FWIW, I doubt you could get such a conviction under those circumstances today.

I mean it's still possibly to get convictions on stupid **** using those kinds of tactics, but a Death Penalty case? Not here anyway.

Also:

Yea, that's not really something you can reasonably assume.

Tactically, by her wandering around with a gun without being able to see or hear her surroundings puts her in very severe danger from whoever she's trying to defend herself against.

I mean it's a sad situation no doubt, and I'm positive there were issues that need to be corrected, but you truly can't help taking any opportunity to point out Omaha's fails, given his posting history ITT.

This actually makes it more likely the shooting was justified. If she didn't know cops had been dispatched, and she wasn't aware it was the police who had entered her yard, it's much more likely that she pointed her gun at what she perceived as an unknown intruder.

Bwahahahaha!

What a pile of crap.

How about this. She can pay her rent but she's not paying it.

Venice imo

Get back the house that bitch Desdemona took in the divorce.

I had the same thought, but since they didn't report it IDK.

We got a little old lady firing warning shots out the window without being able to see or hear properly and then wandering through the neighborhood armed with the belief that there's a threat around. I think i'll give the cops a pass on this one.

You know, I once punched a 67 year old woman in the face in her kitchen.

Your grandma sounds even worse than mine. I just got whacked on the knuckles with a wooden spoon when i reached for a cookie before they cooled.

Wasn't my grandma.

It was the grandma of a fugitive.

At least there were no lasting effects.

Other than the obvious brain damage?

I don't think baking sheet blows to the arm cause brain damage.

Unless it's a civil rights issue, no.

Like say for example a local religious group was offended the newly elected Sheriff said he wasn't going to enforce the law on using obscene language in public, no that's not really grounds to win a lawsuit.

Article I was reading earlier was discussing Colorado sheriffs saying they weren't going to uphold the new laws and how a citizen could bring a lawsuit to force them to. I guess it could be different from state to state but I wouldn't think so.

Well a citizen could bring a lawsuit sure, I don't know how they could justify a court finding for the plaintiff in such a suit, and if so I have no idea how you think you'd enforce it.

What are you going to do, follow every deputy around to ensure they're not intentionally overlooking standard mags?

It's a pointless exercise. Now instead of just being forthright and saying "I refuse to uphold this law" they will say "I didn't see it".

Even in that situation courts don't really touch the argument that you'd have the discretion to use your resources (paid time) as you see fit, right?

Either way, isn't there something like this in your police manual?

No, we discuss discretion in our Inservice manual, but that specific wording isn't used.

That being said, it's not personal bias, in the case rjoe is referring to its departmental bias.

As for me, my refusal would be an ethical issue, not a legal one.

I see this in no reasonable way different from being allowed to use marijuana due to my position while arresting others for it.

Before the "What about speeding?" Thing comes out, the difference in my view is that carrying a gun is a tool for MY safety and protection. The fact that I'm allowed to exceed the speed limit at certain times is far more analogous to say a demolitions expert being "allowed" to blow up buildings.

My job as a police officer is to investigate crimes and take reports (and as a Sheriffs deputy to execute writs of the court). I do not NEED a gun to accomplish that task, I can simply behave in the manner of Emergency Medical personnel and not go in to attempt to conduct my investigation until the scene is safe.

But yes, the courts aren't really going to be able to do much. If the citizens of that area of jurisdiction desire a Sheriff who will allocate more resources to magazine bans, US government structure has a remedy for that.

And that wouldn't undercut some sort of ethical understanding that you're expected not to interject your personal political views into enforcement discretion?

Like, if some sort of national gun registry was instituted and background checks and reporting was required for private transfers, and you disagreed with that policy, would you not arrest people illegally carrying weapons? Where do you personally draw the line on using that kind of discretion in the name of having an ethical issue?

If a national gun registry were instituted, I could no longer in good conscious work in Law Enforcement and would demand my retirement and utilize my skills where they'd be more needed.


As an aside, what are your feelings on the fact I refuse to enforce drug laws?

lol

Obviously depends on a ton of information not available to me. What goes into your decision not to enforce drug laws?