And she's not after being put in jail? Oh, I guarantee she's going to get speaking appearances galore out of this if she wants them.
who said anything about that? I think that, since she didn't offer to resign, she has to be removed from the position. The requirement is to uphold the Constitution and, since she can't, she should be summarily escorted out of the office and removed from the position. Next question.
I agree, but apparently they have to impeach her to do it that. In the meantime jail seems appropriate
or...delegate her authority to another, more senior elected official who's willing to carry out the law. That official will push for change. Don't misunderstand me. I have no qualms with this woman's legal problems. I have issues with the armed robber walking around the streets almost immediately after booking.
We're dealing with a lot of unknowns, but I'm not sure I agree that anyone should be held for a length of period without sufficient evidence to support them being held, and I don't feel that an eyewitness statement is sufficient evidence. That's what the trial is for. We'd have to debate the merits of law enforcement making arrests without sufficient evidence, but law enforcement isn't prosecution, so their view on what is and isn't sufficient evidence is naturally limited. Law enforcement takes the statement, brings the guy in for questioning. Unless the dude admits to the robbery, or there is sufficient evidence to hold him, they cut him loose. If they charge, well, its still just a charge. We should only hold charged individuals when there is sufficient reason to hold them. Otherwise, a charge is just another form of sentencing.
I get the law and our approach to criminals, but I was just taking his comments at face value. The other side of the argument has the same weakness. We have no idea what facts were available at the time of the robber's release.
I agree, which is why making broad generalizations doesn't work, for me. Let's presume he is guilty, will absolutely be found guilty, and will be sentenced accordingly. I doubt it will be five days in the county lock up. And I'm still not sold on the need to keep him locked up until judgement. After judgement, sure. Before, doesn't matter that he will be found guilty. Only matters whether or not his situation warrants being locked up until trial. Unless he is a flight risk, states he plans to kill kmf for getting him arrested, or plans on killing anyone for that matter, or a number of other circumstances, I'm not sure what is gained from holding him. One less ******* on the streets? Sure, but one more ******* we have to feed, shelter and clothe. If he has other pending charges, sure, why not. But unless those circumstances exist, I don't see why cutting him loose pending trial is a problem.
I'm alright with us not being the Minority Report, attempting to prevent potential future crimes. We can do a lot of bad things in the name of prevention. We can do good, too, for sure, but the actions should be measured. I'm not going to generalize and say any and all armed robberies should result in incarceration until trial just because it makes us believe our streets are safer. Just means more targets and less competition for the guys that aren't going to be as polite during the robbery, that are good at not getting caught. Give me a dumb, non-violent criminal any day.
I don't think they can. She is an elected representative of the People, and thus it will take the People to get rid of her (ie. impeachment or vote her out next cycle). The governor would only have power over an appointed position, which this is not.
And that goes back to what I posted that it is difficult to enforce a law the majority of people oppose. This person could, and probably will be re-elected. What do you do then?
My understanding is, he did post bond. I went to 4 defense interviews, apparently he changed public defenders, went to one interview with the state's attorney office. She said for something minor like this, he more than likely wouldn't spend any time in jail. So, he pleaded down to something less than what he did, and got probation. I got updated on his whereabouts and the length of probation on post cards from miami-dade county. Now, he isn't allowed to make any contact with me and if he does, I should call the number on the postcard that I wiped my ass with.
Only like 3 out of 120 clerks have stated refusal to issue licenses. Only 1 out of those 3 have actually done it. What majority? Voters? Doesn't matter, they can vote to re-elect, she can refuse, and stay forever behind bars. They want to keep electing her, and paying her full salary though she isn't doing a job, so be it. That's their choice.
A majority of people do not oppose it. Perhaps in her area they do, but that is immaterial. She is violating the law of the land and will continue to be found in contempt of court/congress as long as she refuses to uphold her duties as County Clerk. This is why we do not live in a true democracy, as you would then have the tyranny of the majority, especially in local politics. We have rules and due process, checks and balances, and a court system when all else fails. The court did their duty in this case. And as float said, if she continues to not give out marriage licenses, she can continue to spend her time in jail for contempt of court.
I'm more concerned about someone in a position of power disregarding the law than I am you being robbed. That clear enough for you?
100 percent guaranteed he pulled out a knife and threaten to stick me unless I gave him money to buy beer. In the line at Checkers at the walk up window because I couldn't make it through the drive thru in a bucket truck. I called on my radio to my dispatch and the police showed up in time to catch him stealing beer from the Citgo in the same shopping center. He had the knife in his pocket. Witnesses pointed him out to the police.
