The manhunt is over in Massachusetts for the man who shot up the cruiser of a rookie Millis police officer. It appears, according to police, that it was the officer himself. The police have refused to identified the 27-year-old officer but confirmed that the officer was found to be the one who shot up the car and will likely be fired (I would hope so) and face criminal charges.
The hoax led to the closing of the public schools and a massive manhunt. However, investigators eventually took a closer look at the bullets and the bullet holes and focused their attention on the full-time dispatcher and a part-time officer.
The officer claimed that a gunman in a pickup truck shot at the cruiser, caused it to crash and catch fire. The police announced that due to interviews and “as a result of all other evidence, we have determined that the officer’s story was fabricated . . . specifically, that he fired shots into his own cruiser as part of a plan to concoct a story that he was fired upon. The evidence indicates that the shots were not fired by a suspect. And there was no gunman at large in or around the town.’’
The officer has only been with the department for a year and half. The question now is how much of a sentence he will face. He could be charged with a false police report, wanton destruction of public property, criminal hoax, and other charges. That could stack up into some serious time.
What is bizarre is that the ballistics only found bullets from the officer’s own gun. What did he think was going to happen? Clearly the bullets would be tested and run through the Integrated Ballistics Identification System, or IBIS, to see if the weapon was used in other crimes. I simply cannot imagine the rationale. It is not clear if the officer had an accident and was trying to cover it up or whether this was a sad effort at notoriety. Either way, it will now likely cost him both his job and his liberty.
OPEN YOUR MIND AND LISTEN TO THIS!!
“The right side of history.” LOL! Said by someone w/ a myopic view, at best, of history. The more I read what liberals “think”[they prefer to tell you what they “FEEEEL”] the clearer it becomes they are ignorant of how government works, economics, and history. And, they love to constantly say that conservatives are “stupid and lazy.” Classic projection.
David, it was argued that desegregation was immoral by the bigoted of that era.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Judge Leon M. Bazile January 5, 1959
Annie, segregation in public education is a different issue from reproduction between the races. There were some that argued against miscegenation based upon theology, but others also argued for it based upon Moses doing it and the judgment of God against his relatives who criticized him for it. There has traditionally been very little dispute about the immorality of same sex relationships. The only rational argument for homosexuality is the right to pursue hedonism as equal to family and opposite sex marriage. A plethora of laws now have to be rewritten in light of this terrible Obergefell decision. No longer do the terms husband and wife have meaning in regards to marriage. They are considered hateful terms now.
Sorry, that should read “when it comes to needing to feel shame, liberals finish a distant second.
Bob: Point taken. You’re absolutely right, state officials cannot and should not be allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. Mayor Newsom, along with Ms. Teng and Ms. Alfaro, were wrong not to comply with Prop 8 and they should have been subject to punishment.
Do you know what a plate of tough beans is?
It’s tough beans that Newsom, Teng, and Alfaro were in a different state with its own cultural makeup, both legal and social, but that’s the whole “laboratory of democracy” for you. It’s tough beans that Davis drew a judge that’s serious about the rule of law.
If it helps you wash down those beans, Newsom et al happened to be on the right side of history, whereas Davis is trying to stop the world from changing. Newsom et al based their refusal on the view that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, Davis is claiming that her favorite storybook character condemns homosexuality. On those respective viewpoints Newsom was right and Davis is wrong.
Life’s not fair and nobody understands that better than conservatives, who have enshrine economic and societal unfairness based upon a doctrine of mendacity and hypocrisy. When it comes to feeling shame, liberals finish a distant second to conservatives.
Palsey Schultze,
Do you know what a writ of mandamus is?
“Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court,[1] to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority— to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing)—and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
State officials do not have the capacity to pick and choose which ministerial laws they will follow. They are not the state.
Those California officials were subject to the same exact obligation as Kim Davis.
Instead of accommodating Ms. Davis by having her name removed from the order, liberals chose to make an example of her while fraudulently holding themselves out as adhering to the categorical imperative per the importance of carrying out legal ministerial duties.
Liberals should be ashamed of themselves; if such were possible.
Those officials in California refused to enforce Prop 8 because they believed the measure violated state and federal constitutional law, not because it ran counter to any personal religious doctrine. Their reading of the law may have been informed by personal worldview but it was based on legal reasoning – sound legal reasoning as it turns out. Kim Davis may as well be claiming that she’s commanded by Martians in her actions.
Rather than keep score by how many CA officials were cited or not cited for contempt, a better measure is a tally of how many tax dollars they cost their constituents while acting on their beliefs, legal or superstitious. I’m betting not nearly as much as Kim Davis is costing her third world holler dwelling constituency.
Good points, Bob. Gavin Newsom was beatified for breaking the law in SF. Moral relativism is strictly the purview of liberalism.
Liberals And Their (Convenient) Respect For Rule of Law
*”a city council in Denver that advocates shutting down a business such as Chick-fil-A because the CEO once took a public position against gay marriage.
…
*we have cities across this country that ignore immigration laws they don’t like and create sanctuaries from law.
…
*When Californians approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, a number of officials refused to enforce the law. They were celebrated. I may even agree with the impulse. But not one elected official has been hauled off to jail for any of these stands.”
From: Liberals and the Rule of Law: What Law?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423548/liberals-hypocrisy-rule-of-law