“vauge” should be vague
Some animals...
There is the root of the problem. Why should a person allowed to enforce laws when he is ignorant of the law? It is absolutely insane to provide "qualified immunity" to law enforcement officers for being unqualified to performed their duties.
And, in this specific case, I sincerely doubt the officer was ignorant of the law. I suspect he just wanted to exert his "power" over a person who dared to behave in a non-sheep-like manner while in his presence.
Young kid on a power trip who knows nothing.
Sgt. Singer needs to find a new line of work.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.....at least that’s what the cops say.
We don’t need a permit for something that is a right.
We don’t need a permit for the first right. Why do we need one for the second?
My permit was issued December 15, 1791.
and then they wonder why a lot of people just don’t care if someone becomes violent towards them.
“Goodwill”. Gone. Afraid of “real” criminals and only picking on the law abiding. Pathetic. Karma and Shadenfreud in the future I suspect
Many of the younger LEOs in this area give the unpleasant impression that they are frustrated military wannabes compensating for - well, for something - and that has somewhat soured my attitude towards the profession compared to what it used to be. The "old timers" were (and generally still are) fun to be around by comparison.
Mr. niteowl77
So sticking a Gun in your face and ROBBING YOU is just fine if you return the property 3 days later??
One hell of a magic blue costume
I carry a notebook containing a printed copy of all the California laws pertaining to motor homes and handicap parking permits. The ignorance is strong with code enforcement. It pays to be prepared.
Not entirely so. See following:
2014 Iowa Code
TITLE XVI - CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SUBTITLE 1 - CRIME CONTROL AND CRIMINAL ACTS
CHAPTER 721 - OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
SECTION 721.2 - Nonfelonious misconduct in office.
Universal Citation: IA Code § 721.2 (2014)
721.2 Nonfelonious misconduct in office.
Any public officer or employee, or any person acting under color of such office or employment, who knowingly does any of the following, commits a serious misdemeanor:
1. Makes any contract which contemplates an expenditure known by the person to be in excess of that authorized by law.
2. Fails to report to the proper officer the receipt or expenditure of public moneys, together with the proper vouchers therefor, when such is required of the person by law.
3. Requests, demands, or receives from another for performing any service or duty which is required of the person by law, or which is performed as an incident of the person’s office or employment, any compensation other than the fee, if any, which the person is authorized by law to receive for such performance.
4. By color of the person’s office and in excess of the authority conferred on the person by that office, requires any person to do anything or to refrain from doing any lawful thing. 5. Uses or permits any other person to use the property owned by the state or any subdivision or agency of the state for any private purpose and for personal gain, to the detriment of the state or any subdivision thereof.
6. Fails to perform any duty required of the person by law.
7. Demands that any public employee contribute or pay anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person, organization or fund, or in any way coerces or attempts to coerce any public employee to make any such contributions or payments, except where such contributions or payments are expressly required by law.
8. Permits persons to use the property owned by the state or a subdivision or agency of the state to operate a political phone bank for any of the following purposes:
a. To poll voters on their preferences for candidates or ballot measures at an election; however, this paragraph does not apply to authorized research at an educational institution.
b. To solicit funds for a political candidate or organization.
c. To urge support for a candidate or ballot measure to voters.
1. [R60, §216, 2184; C73, §3976; C97, §4913; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13313; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.11; C79, 81, §721.2] 2. [R60, §216, 2184, 4308 – 4310; C73, §3970 – 3972, 3976; C97, §4909 – 4911, 4913; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13309 – 13311, 13313; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.7 – 740.9, 740.11; C79, 81, §721.2] 3. [C51, §2560, 2658; R60, §4167, 4285; C73, §3840, 3950; C97, §1297, 4888; S13, §5028-n; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13304, 13312, 13317, 13318; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.1, 740.10, 741.1, 741.2; C79, 81, §721.2] 4. [C51, §2672; R60, §4299, 4305, 4306; C73, §3963, 3969; C97, §4902, 4908; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13305, 13306; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.3, 740.4; C79, 81, §721.2] 5. [C35, §13316-e1; C39, §13316.1; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.20; C79, 81, §721.2] 6. [C51, §2657, 2674, 2703, 2800; R60, §4284, 4301, 4345, 4496; C73, §3949, 3965, 4005, 4152; C97, §4887, 4904, 4929, 5150; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13280, 13316, 13338, 13345; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §738.18, 740.19, 742.8, 743.7; C79, 81, §721.2] 7. [C79, 81, §721.2]
87 Acts, ch 221, §35
Referred to in §15.106, 15A.2, 16.3A
By the way: a continued pattern of more than one *serious misdemeanor* [two or more instances involving the same or separate victims] is a racketeering offense under the Iowa Code. And that IS a felony.
In the meantime, however, Sgt. Rick Singer is indeed a criminal, and did violate Iowa state law, though he is not- yet- a felon.
Under the state law. Federal law could be an entirely different matter. And I bet that absolutely none of his superiors/supervisors will admit to advising him to commit such actions:
Title 18 United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code §ection 241
- Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Three days later, the permit was returned to the permit holder. No apology was given, and no charges were filed.
Punishment by process. Cops screw with you like this because they know that can get away with it.
I think the deputy showed good judgment in this situation. He could have arrested him, but he did not. The deputy determined the citizen was not going to harm anyone, and let him go, minus the card that really is not a permit.
White Obama with a badge.