Kentucky Judge Steven D. Combs in Pike County has been temporarily suspended after an array of charges of bizarre comments and actions, including calling officials such names as “Fishface,” “cokehead,” and “Dumbo.” Worst yet, he threatened to put a “bullet in the head” of the next police officer who pulled him over. A temporary suspension until resolution of the 10 charges seems quite modest punishment but his counsel, Stephen Ryan, still conveyed Combs’ “disappointment” with the action taken by the Judicial Conduct Commission.
The complaint detailed Combs use of various, less-than-flattering ways of referring to other people like “Fishface,” “cokehead,” “dumbo,” “retarded,” “coward” and “prick. ” — use of those words has led to the temporary suspension of a Pike County circuit judge.
Combs is accused of conflicts of interest in cases, inappropriate communications, inappropriate political activity, soliciting contributions from attorneys in cases before him, and other violations. One of the most interesting is that he allegedly made inappropriate statements on the gossip website Topix under usernames including “LOL,” “Better Call Wusty,” “Imma Tellinyou,” and “City Hall Patrol.”
That last allegation is problematic and goes again to the right of public employees to engage in social media, particularly when using an alias.
One of the worst charges concerns the alleged statement of Combs that the next officer who pulled him over would get a “bullet in the head.” When confronted by police over the statement, he allegedly replied “I’m elected by the people and not pieces of trash like you-all.”
Combs, who has been a judge since 2003, is paid $124,620 annually.
I left a blog with the definition…..
The definition isn’t the issue it’s about democratic choice……. or lack of it in this case
To Bigfatmike
You have made an anecdotal statement and provided no evidence for the existence your “code word”. This does not make you wrong, but it destroys any argument you are trying to make. I appreciate your frustration but this is not how to win.
In fact very little verifiable evidence has been posted on this blog, and that which has been posted appears to be related to the incidence of gunshot wounds and the Amercian Pyche related to fear in society.
But if you provide verifiable evidence to prove your position, this has to be acknowledged in a debate.
The real question though, is would you change your position if it was the other way around – and you discovered to your surprise that I was right and you were not.
And if not why not?
The argument can go on and on and on and on……..
We all fight our corner in Life and the winners in the end, are those with the best argument, which has to be supported by valid data otherwise there is no case at all.
It is really a waste of time debating these issues if your facts cannot be supported because a case based on anecdotal argument is the side that loses.
So if you accept a society for example in which kids are shot at school on a fairly regular basis, you need to come up with some pretty good reasons for your countrymen and women to follow and support your campaign.
“Some Americans want this to change and this is being undemocratically prevented.”
Apparently ‘undemocratically prevented’ is a new code word for ‘don’t have the votes to enact legislation’.
If you ever change enough minds to get the votes you won’t have to complain.
ninianpeckitt – how many times do I have to explain to you that you DO NOT understand the American political system.
Hear hear Dr. Peckitt! The NRA lobbyists have indeed thwarted democracy and until they are defanged this country will continue to see one phobic nutcase after another with some sick fascination with guns engage in these mass murders. The most outrage you’ll see from the ignorant extremist right is fear over their guns being “grabbed”. Could anything possibly be more insane? Well maybe they one day will demand backyard rocket launchers as their God given Second Amendment right.
Source Wikipedia:
The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it.
Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended twenty-seven times.[2] In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.[3][4] The majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights. Others address issues related to federal authority or modify government processes and procedures. Amendments to the United States Constitution, unlike ones made to many constitutions world-wide, are appended to the end of the document. At seven articles and twenty-seven amendments, it is the shortest written constitution in force.[5]
There is nothing to prevent further amendments to the Constitution through the democratic process and this has not yet been tested.
Billeting of soldiers occurred before U.S. independence, so I’m not sure why this is raised. But it is a good swipe…. and as a repost “a manner to be prescribed by law” obviously means that the US Government could do what it wanted with respect to billeting – despite the home owners objections, so it is somewhat meaningless. You are just going to be screwed by your own government next time.
So in summary it is not in your constitution that there is a right to bear arms – but it features in an amendment.
Some Americans want this to change and this is being undemocratically prevented.
I rest my case
ninianpeckitt – the Constitution was only ratified because some states were guaranteed those amendments would came immediately. There were 12 of which 10 passed. One has since been added again. The 12th should be but never has.
I saw the movie. It illustrates some interesting points.
If the felon had been killed:
Shooting the felon in the back whilst they are running away could/would be viewed as murder in some countries as it is argued that you life is not at risk as the robber is running away. In other words shooting someone who is running away is no longer self defence. Shooting him in the chest as he runs to attack you is self defence. So it is easy to see how in a split second a frightened victim can be turned into a felon, through no real fault of his/her own. This illustrates how using a gun could get you into deep trouble through no real fault of your own.
I’m not sure of the Law in the United States but in the UK and other countries a case of grievous bodily harm could/would be brought against the store keeper.
This illustrates how our law abiding hero could be entrapped by legal circumstance and prosecuted.
Bearing arms is a civil right just as is the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, the right of the free press, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The Third Amendment reads:
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
This was enacted as the result of the British forcing homeowners to take in soldiers without the consent of the homeowner. The founding fathers prohibited this with good cause–in essence to prevent the British from sticking their noses where it does not belong.
To Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter
There aren’t any problems with you having fun firing weapons as a hobby as long as you fire under controlled conditions to prevent you and others getting killed and maimed. Because it is my specialty’s job to put you guys back together again when things go wrong.
I’m not sure how a doctor would sterilise a gun in an autoclave before carrying out a procedure. But this is something I would like to see – from a distance. I have heard of staple guns for bowel anastomosis, but it looks like you mean a real gun. I would suggest you need to empty it first before autoclaving !
I have to say doctors have the skills to bump people off without recourse to the use of a Woodsman. But it would be interesting to know if your great Uncle ever had to use it, or whether his medical “plugging” was limited to the prevention of an early meeting of the patient with his maker !
I am on your side. I don’t want you to get shot.
But if every American goes around armed to the teeth the chances increase that you will get shot.
If the majority of guns in ownership have never been fired in anger this must call into question the reality of some of the arguments for an unrestricted gun law. If the American people need to defend themselves against a totalitarian government in a future conflict you will not win your current armoury. You need a different level of sophisticated weaponry; I have explained how this worked in Vietnam for example and the Vietcong won. It worked in the American Revolutionary War when French backing secured victory against the British. In fact the War made France bankrupt. You would be armed by allied governments with suitable weapons for such a conflict. To think that the arms you have would do the job isn’t backed up by evidence of parallel conflicts anywhere in the world. But it is an argument that is put forward by those who want you to buy their guns. And this doesn’t make it true. But it is the best marketing campaign since Coca Cola’s Santa Clause Campaign of the 1940’s.
The issue is of Gun Abuse rather than Gun Use, and this is illustrated by the unfortunate comments of your judge who might lose his job.
Of course armed criminals need to be disarmed for the safety of all. But the statistics show that you are more likely to kill yourself than be killed by a felon. I understand that this is difficult to believe. I was very surprised when I saw the data. But it is there – and this needs to be made clear.
Society will eventually act to restrict gun abuse. It may take a long time but it will happen.
And if gun enthusiasts want to keep your hobby and enjoy your target practice that’s fine, but a way needs to be found to keep these weapons off the streets and out of the hands of the irresponsible and the criminal.
Other countries have achieved this and America will also achieve this in the end.
ninianpeckitt – an armed society is a polite society.
@Ninian
Silly rabbit! Machine guns, which I assume is what you call semi-automatic assault rifles, are only useful when you are facing multiple threats, or the aforementioned possible future totalitarian government. Or the zombie apocalypse, which is really just code talk for a massive societal meltdown. They’re fun to shoot all the time, but only truly useful in the above circumstances. Which is why they are great for your home defense needs.
As far as doctors, and medical personnel, the ones I know tend to pack either .25 or .22 pistols. One of my great uncles, had one called a “Woodsmen Colt” which he carried everywhere. Those are small, but deadly if they hit the right place. They are also relatively easy to keep clean, for hygienic purposes.
Often the mere sound of a gun shot is enough to send criminals scurrying fast away, as you can see in this hilarious video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwrgvqlc8DA
I notice that you haven’t addressed the huge number of armed criminals in our country, or expressed an opinion on the value of first disarming the criminals, or giving them greatly enhanced sentences for possessing a firearm. I am perplexed why the gun grabbers aren’t advocating going after the low hanging fruit???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Now we are getting some verifiable data from some bloggers and some home truths are coming out. If you quote figures we need references otherwise the figures are invalid.
Some gun owners are now admitting that gun control should happen.
It is quite clear that the endemic fear in American Society is abnormal when compared to other countries across the globe and I am not just singling out Europe. You are safer in most other places with sone exceptions.
In America you have suffered from this for so long you think this is Normal.
Well – it isn’t.
As to buying a machine gun, are you going to carry this with you where ever you go? To the Mall? To the hospital? To your kids 5th birthday party? Are surgeobs going to have one slung around their neck whilst doing surgery? Is this to be the latest accessory to your i-phone? And if you carry this machine gun what are other people who may harm you going to do? Give up? We have heard that “this ain’t America”. Take a step back and listen to what you are saying and reflect on the consequences. I cannot believe that you are serious. This has to be a wind-up and it’s a very good one at that !
What sort of message would this send to the World?
This sort of talk really is approaching Lunacy.
The issue of gang data is worrying but New York has demonstrated some success in zero tolerance policy. So the problem can be tackled and it was tackled by getting machine guns off the street.
The need for change in American society is overwhelming and it is sad to see a Nation with such high ideals of freedom destroy itself.
But what is sadder is that some of you think that this is normal….
It isn’t…….
ninianpeckitt – I know you are reading my comments because you got the one about the machine gun.
Define gun abuse
@Tom Nash
What I wonder about is why the gun control advocates don’t take baby steps and agitate to get guns removed from the criminal class, which is already in violation of the law by the mere possession of a gun. I guess they think if they get the guns out of the hands of 200+ million innocent gun owners, the effect will “trickle down” a few hundred years from now to the 4 million(?) criminals and however many maniacs have them???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I would recommend that interested readers look at the results of an Oct. ,2014 Gallup Poll. That is the most recent poll I could find offhand.
It shows 47 percent in favor of more restrictive gun control laws, and 52 percent who oppose more restrictive gun control legislation.
This ties in with the comment I previously made re the lack of consensus in the gun control debate. That debate has been intense and protracted for generations….I guess it doesn’t do any harm to recommend that “” Americans should have this debate”. It is merely unnecessary and superfluous.
It is very curious to see the assertions made that this debate is being stifled, or that there is an overwhelming conviction by the American public that we need additional gun control legislation, and their voice is not being heard.
Public opinion can and does on issues, it I don’t see anything on the horizon, after generations of “deadlock” on this issue, that will decisivily move public opinion one way or the other.
I’m not going to try to review the extreme difficulties involved in passing a Constitutional Amendment….I think most readers of this column understand that…or of establishing a National Referendum process.
Even IF there were a “fast-track”, more direct route for an Amendment or nationwide referendum, I don’t see the public support for it.
That’s why I’m convinced that the debate will center on proposed legislation. I think it’s reasonable to ask WHAT is being proposed, and why proponents feel it will be effective in reducing gun- related violence.
There is an understandable skepticism about additional gun control legislation…as I noted earlier, the multitude of laws past in response to the Kennedy and MLK assassinations did little or nothing to curb gun-related violence.
There was a comment made earlier about what gun control advocates ” are up against”. What I have pointed out here is what you are “up against”.
I feel that fatuous ramblings about Daniel Boone, or clear evasion when direct questions are put to gun control advocates, do not really help advance the gun control advocates’ case.
@Isaac
I don’t remember giving whats-his-name Jeffries my Power of Attorney to speak on my behalf. Heck, I don’t even know the guy. Did anybody else here sign one for him??? Isaac, can you get him to give you copies of the documents which permit him to speak for us???
Because if he don’t have them, then It sounds like all he has is his OPINION, that presumes to know what is in my mind. I wouldn’t put a lot of credence in that if I were you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Jim Jeffries is correct. The only reason gun owners have guns is because they like guns. It may be for a delusional reason like protection, or to hunt and feel somewhat in charge of things, but in the end it is because they like guns. The rest is BS. The Constitution was made to evolve. Remember prohibition, slavery, and coming soon, gun regulation.
Please watch the video.
issac – I have owned weapons since I was 12. None of the reasons I have owned them included because I loved them. You can only love something that can love you back. A gun is a tool. Each tool has a purpose. And no tool is all-purpose.
Sure Paul, blah blah..blah…blah blah….
Inga –
Elaine says it better.
@Ninian
It would be very wonderful if we lived in a safe society, and the only reason we needed to have weapons was for hunting, sport, or to keep an ace up our sleeves against a totalitarian government. But that ain’t America.
We have large numbers of violent criminals, and government and people are way too pussiified to correct it. Heck, I don’t even think they want to correct it. Some people make a lot of money off prisons and law enforcement. Sooo, here are a few numbers, from wiki, just on gangs:
Now that’s just the gangs. That number does not include the random solo or two or three person crime groups. I work for an attorney part time, and many of her criminal clients are not gang-affiliated.
Sooo, yeah, I look over my shoulder. Guilty as charged. And to make it worse, just ask yourself what all these fine citizens are going to do as drugs become decriminalized or legalized??? I don’t think they are going to go join the Chess Club, or go fishing, or take up knitting as a hobby. I look for them to try to replace their lost revenue. That means robbery, theft, kidnapping, etc.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Also, Dr Peckitt, these extremist conservatives don’t believe in the concept of “society”. They scoff at European”socialism”. They pride themselves on being individuals unencumbered by the responsibilities of belonging to a civilized society. They reject the concept of society. They lean towards anarchy, libertarians mostly and some confused conservatives too.They often speak of revolt and revolution, they long for another civil war, these conservatives are playing with fire.
Inga – you have no idea what a conservative is or what they stand for.
Dr. Peckitt, the fear is irrational and one does not hear this level of fear coming from liberals. This gun worship is part and parcel of the right wing conservative ideology, driven by the NRA and eaten up by weak minded followers. It makes no sense and many Americans are simply tired of trying to make changes as these folks are very deeply entrenched and the NRA is very powerful. Something unbelievably horrendous will probably have to happen to make the gun nuttery stop, sadly.
My next gun is going to be a machine gun.
To Squeaky Fromm Girl Reporter
I’ve sent links to the data. All you have to do is look at it.
I have to say the last few blogs are beginning to reveal the reasons as to why people are desperate to own guns.
It looks to me that there is a real fear of being in the street or even at home and that this is engrained into the American Psyche at least in some sections of society. This may explain a regional differences in attitudes to guns.
I had no idea that this fear was so great and entrenched in the minds of citizens. Under such circumstances you would think that the public would logically want the threat of guns to be reduced; giving up your gun is unthinkable for someone in this situation.
But responsible gun ownership does not necessarily mean giving up your weapons so that the bad guys shoot you. But it might mean better accountability for gun ownership and a strategy to keep bad guns away from bad people.
Not to do anything will not address the fears expressed about personal safety and data confirms that this will only increase the chances of getting shot.
It is clear that any effective gun control programme will have to go side by side with the creation of a safer society.
If you consider the historical violence of New York and its management with a “zero tolerance strategy”, my understanding is that this was very effective in the reduction of violent crime which presumably went out of the city into softer targets.
Maybe zero tolerance is a way forward. Because no “normal” (for want of a better description) person should be frightened to walk down a street, or frightened to be in their home. But it is clear from comments posted that this is not the case at least for a significant number of citizens.
But does tighter gun control improve public safety? As the U.S. tops the league of gun deaths and has little gun control in comparison with other countries, it appears that better control could be associated with fewer deaths.
However the data I uploaded shows that more citizens are killed by their own guns rather than being shot to death by felons, so the perceived risk may be lower than the real risk and it is possible that this is not understood or not accepted by reason of fear.
But all this does not help a frightened lady, scared about getting shot going to the shopping mall, even though it hasn’t happened and even though she has not had to return fire.
This is no way to live and it is becoming clear that gun control and the social engineering of society is going to be required if the quality of life is to improve for citizens.
Remember people in other parts of the world don’t have to live like this – and don’t live like this.
But for a pradigm shift to occur there has to be a collective will and there doesn’t seem to be much of that at the moment.
Maybe a better question should be how to make America a safer place to live?
One option is for the public to decide whether it wants armed guards on school gates, malls and other public places. I don’t think this approach will make the frightened lady on the street feel safer and it is sending the wrong message about safety and is not representative of the American Dream.
It is taking the country down the road towards the creation of a Pseudo Police State and this will be unacceptable to all political factions.
I think the solution lies in unity of purpose in Society and the fostering of mutual respect and trust. In other words a return to traditional values which will act as a catalyst to transform society. For example: Do you know the people on your street? There was a time when neighbours relied on each other and now some people are found at home having died weeks or even months ago.
Maybe a unity of purpose could be a way forward?
Please define ‘gun abuse’
Thank you, Ninian Peckett. You have confirmed once and for all that it is impossible to get a straight answer out of you.