You’re okay with consequences including government officials using their powers and resources to intimidate people who express speech they don’t like, if that’s indeed what happened?
The Sheriff is *not *free to trash talk on the official Sheriff’s facebook page to a citizen.
I have to agree. If there were threats to a police officer on a plane, isn’t that officer duty-bound to make an arrest? Of inform the Feds and have them make an arrest?
You forget who’s in charge now.
Why wouldn’t he be free to do so? Sure it’s an awful idea but what is stopping him? He’s an elected official and at some point if he wants to keep the job he will have to answer to the voters.
No.
At common law, assault requires a reasonable apprehension of imminent injury. If Black said to Clarke while the plane was still in the air, “When we get to the airport, I am going to take the gun I have in checked baggage and shoot you through the head,” that’s not imminent. It’s a threat, but it’s not an assault.
Why not, specifically?
You know, you’re absolutely right about that, not a damn bit of difference.
On the other hand, the voters of that county, and possibly some regulatory body or other, might have an opinion about what’s appropriate, one which would in fact matter.
I think there are codes of conduct for law enforcement officers that don’t quite meet the “legal” test but which those officers find to be binding nonetheless. The penalty for violating them may not be jail, but could be loss of position.
It seems clear to you.
I regard it as possible, but beyond that I’ll wait for additional details.
Of course. An elected sheriff acting like this is courting political fallout, no question about it.
I’m not sure what those are. There are probably department guidelines, but typically such guidelines are imposed by the sheriff, who is typically a constitutional officer. In other words, this is the kind of conduct for which the sheriff might fire a deputy, but it’s not clear to me that the sheriff himself would be bound thereby.
But I could be wrong. Can you point me to the guidelines or codes you mean?
Can you direct me to them?
No. No officer is “duty bound” to make an arrest merely because he witnesses a crime.
No. it’s not.
Obviously not. Nor am I ok with mobs of people ruining others’ livelihoods due to secret tapes. And what do those hordes of illiberal loons and their supporters say? “Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.” Well, consequences can be escalated.
Okay, I must have missed something in the discussion (since I don’t know what you’re talking about). Apologies if I misinterpreted your post.
It’s abuse of authority.
Here’s the thing that many posters don’t seem to understand. YOU, individually or collectively, don’t get to decide for the rest of us what is abusive, illegal, unreasonable, or improper.
Funny, I thought there was free speech. But I guess with the new administration in power, that is no longer the case.
There’s no bigger Cornball in America than Sheriff Clarke.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, it isn’t. You’ve been asked your personal opinion. You refuse to give one, instead giving the legal opinion. If your personal opinion differs from the legal opinion, you have no reason not to say so.
Stop treating us like we’re stupid. You don’t have to explicitly state something. It would help your argument tremendously to appear on the same page morally with everyone else. There just is no reason for you to be cagey about this unless you think we won’t like what you have to say.
This is why I reject your claims at integrity. If had integrity, you wouldn’t need to do all this verbal jujitsu. You wouldn’t need to bring up the law when no one else brought it up. You do that so you can take conversation away from where you would lose.
This guy pulled a Trump. He’s deliberately trolling this guy. That’s not his job, and it is wrong. It doesn’t matter one bit what happened.
You think otherwise, but won’t say so. And, if you can’t have this basic level of integrity, how can we trust you not to be a lying sack of shit the rest of the time?
This seems a strange thing to say. Don’t you want to get both sides of a story before you condemn one side?