Florida Carry Sues Citrus Sheriff and Deputy Andy Cox

randian said:

They already do that, all the time. An appeal of a criminal conviction is made on the basis of irregularities in the trial, the appeals court upholds the conviction because the irregularities were supposedly "harmless". I think in a lot of cases that's just the appeals court covering the DA's ass, but there it is.

The judge-created doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity is another way the courts have decided that some violations of due process are A-OK.

Click to expand...

Very true. I was addressing the attitude of considering some violations of due process as minor technicalities. It is unfortunately the case, as with every other right, that the courts have eroded it unacceptably.

carolina guy said:

My only question is why has it taken this long to file in Federal Court, and what is the SOL for this type of case?

Click to expand...

I believe it took some time for the plaintiff to get the dashcam from the sheriff's office. Once the dashcam footage was recovered there has been a public outcry and support for the plaintiff. This event took place several years past.

StogieC said:

...[H]owever due to a technicality, the complaint was dismissed and no disciplinary action against the deputy was taken...

Click to expand...

OK, I will try this one more time.

What technicality?

eye95 said:

OK, I will try this one more time.

What technicality?

Click to expand...

THIS: http://www.chronicleonline.com/content/deputy-avoids-sanction-over-arrest-caught-video

eye95 said:

OK, I will try this one more time.

What technicality?

Click to expand...

I don't know why people cannot answer a simple question with a simple answer.

The simple answer: A formal investigation was not begun within 180 days of the complaint as required by an officer's bill of rights. (Bill of union-negotiated privileges is more like it, but that is beside the point.)

Geez, it was like pulling teeth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

The simple answer: A formal investigation was not begun within 180 days of the complaint as required by an officer's bill of rights.

Click to expand...

I believe this confirms my allegation that the department protected the officer by making an intentionally defective investigation.

I see no evidence of the delay being intentional. It could be incompetence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

I see no evidence of the delay being intentional. It could be incompetence.

Click to expand...

I doubt you could prove intention to the satisfaction of a court, it's not as if the higher-ups are going to conveniently record making that order so it could be used as evidence later, but I have no doubt that's what happened. If it takes you more than six months to even start, that's not mere incompetence. You buried the investigation.

We all know that if the offender were a non-governmental actor the cops and DA would see inaction as proof of intent.

It's more likely that the supervisor failed to take the steps necessary for a formal investigation, thinking that his internal discipline was sufficient. That happens in union shops all the time. Front-line supervisors don't follow the book on discipline, and the union will not allow one iota of deviation from the agreed-upon procedures--even though, ironically, it was the cop's deviation from the law that created the problem.

The fewer the assumptions made in arriving at a conclusion, the more accurately that the conclusion is likely going to represent reality. Or, to oversimplify Occam even more: The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. Folks should stop cluttering their reasoning with excessive and grand assumptions. Rather than assuming some nefarious and grand conspiracy, just accept that most of the things that go wrong are due to simple bungling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

I see no evidence of the delay being intentional. It could be incompetence.

Click to expand...

I'm reminded of Hanlon's razor here:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Click to expand...

I don't know what their internal procedures are, so I won't speculate as to what the possibility of "intentional incompetence" might be. I doubt we'll ever find out the whole story.