Advertisement

nangasaur

Follow

Comment history

Ticket case’s legal aspects unclear

Be careful, some folks here will start accusing you of seeing black helicopters above your house.

This is what happens when you call it as you see it.

February 23, 2012 at 3:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ticket case’s legal aspects unclear

Is that city trash man commissioned to enforce laws? Laws against bribery of a public official, racketeering, etc? No.

It's his job to pick up the trash. If he does it on his own time and his own effort, that's his business.

It's not a police officer's job to decide which laws they need to enforce at a given time, based on what the offender has to offer them. On the contrary. It's a police officer's job to decide at the time what laws have been broken and enforce the law within their duty and power.

Changing their minds on what laws to enforce based on bribes is illegal.

February 23, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ticket case’s legal aspects unclear

LKPD: Take this example as what a police department should be doing when officers are caught breaking the law. You shouldn't be protecting them, you should be exposing them and charging them with the crimes they committed.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?sec...

February 23, 2012 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ticket case’s legal aspects unclear

Of course that's absolutely true. But it doesn't change the fact that this is still a very public issue, whether someone chooses to wear rose-colored glasses or not.

Any pressure We, the People can put on the Government to do what is right by the citizens, only continues to help keep the police state farther away than it could be.

February 23, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ticket case’s legal aspects unclear

LOL how is the police, a public-serving entity - a government agency at that - abusing their color of authority, not a public issue?

We don't live in a police state. We are not run by the Gestapo. Police indiscretion while performing their public duty is very much a public issue.

February 23, 2012 at 12:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ticket case’s legal aspects unclear

From the sounds of it, LKPD and DA is probably putting more effort into discovering who sent the anonymous letter than actually punishing the offenders under the full extent of the law.

February 23, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ticket case’s legal aspects unclear

Termination and felony conviction for abuse of power under color of authority.

February 23, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Douglas County prosecutors to review cases involving Lawrence police involved in dismissing speeding tickets

One things for sure: he's extremely busy reviewing prior cases involving the officers in question to determine which ones he'll have to retry.

February 21, 2012 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Douglas County prosecutors to review cases involving Lawrence police involved in dismissing speeding tickets

Which is exactly what I implied by saying MANY people could have prior charges dismissed and fines reimbursed.

Any ticket ever written by the officers involved, where the only witness against the defendant was/were these particular officers, becomes null and void, as per case law and legal precedent. When officers use color of authority to break the law, they violate their code of conduct and are no longer a credible witness to the courts, past and present.

February 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Douglas County prosecutors to review cases involving Lawrence police involved in dismissing speeding tickets

It involves The Yellow House, from November last year, claiming witness tampering under color of authority, deprivation of a citizen's rights, and conspiracy. Charges against the Neighbors' were dropped after the civil suit.

As I said, if any of the names listed there had anything to do with the recent LKPD problems (and judging by the types of charges being cited, it's quite possible), the DA has been put into a very tough corner.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9643796/FOR...

February 21, 2012 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous