LOL!! Ah, the old "rest of the story" ploy.
So what's stopping the police from telling the "rest of the story"?
A lawsuit?
54 year old David W. Eckert’s arrest history below. I looked at a few of these, mostly drug possession:
M-24-FR-201200039 ECKERT DAVID 1959 Defendant 1 State of New Mexico v. David Eckert Thomas, Mark D. LORDSBURG MAGISTRATE 05/29/2012
D-101-CV-200701920 ECKERT DAVID W Defendant 1 SUNTERRA VS ECKERT Sanchez, Daniel A. SANTA FE DISTRICT 08/06/2007
M-24-CV-200300044 ECKERT DAVID W Plaintiff 1 DAVID ECKERT V. J.SAENZ C.ODOM Thomas, Mark D. LORDSBURG MAGISTRATE 07/09/2003
M-24-CV-200200031 ECKERT DAVID W Plaintiff 1 DAVID ECKERT V. PATRICIA ORTEG Thomas, Mark D. LORDSBURG MAGISTRATE 06/17/2002
M-24-CV-9900083 ECKERT DAVID W Plaintiff 1 DAVID W. ECKERT V. BARBARA GOM Thomas, Mark D. LORDSBURG MAGISTRATE 11/05/1999
D-307-CV-200301255 ECKERT DAVID W Defendant 1 GREEN SERVICING V ECKERT D Robles, Robert E. LAS CRUCES DISTRICT 09/30/2003
D-619-DM-200200052 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Petitioner 1 DAVID W ECKERT VS SUSIE ECKERT Jeffreys, Gary M. DEMING DISTRICT 02/28/2002
D-623-CR-200200011 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Defendant 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO VS. D. ECKERT Jeffreys, Gary M. LORDSBURG DISTRICT 02/22/2002
D-623-CR-200500041 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Defendant 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO VS. DAVID ECKERT Robinson, J. C. LORDSBURG DISTRICT 04/21/2005
D-623-CR-200800034 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Defendant 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO VS. DAVID ECKERT Viramontes, Daniel LORDSBURG DISTRICT 04/10/2008
D-623-CR-201200055 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Defendant 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO VS. DAVID ECKERT Robinson, J. C. LORDSBURG DISTRICT 08/29/2012
D-623-CV-200300046 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Defendant 1 GREEN TREE V. S. ECKERT Robinson, J. C. LORDSBURG DISTRICT 11/03/2003
D-623-CV-200400015 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Defendant 1 GREEN TREE V. SUSIE ECKER Jeffreys, Gary M. LORDSBURG DISTRICT 05/07/2004
D-623-CV-200800018 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Defendant 1 SYSTEMS VS DAVID W ECKERT Robinson, J. C. LORDSBURG DISTRICT 04/15/2008
D-623-DM-200600004 ECKERT DAVID W 1958 Respondent 1 J. ECKERT V. D. ECKERT Quintero, Henry R. LORDSBURG DISTRICT 03/20/2006
A union lawyer.
LOL indeed. But a ploy? Always the snark, which makes it so difficult to have a grownup conversation on these threads. It’s already been mentioned, but the city and county are not going to try their case in the media, because that is a bad legal strategy, and their lawyers won’t let them forget it. Plaintiff doesn’t have the same problem, since he’s not trying to win a lawsuit, he’s out to get a settlement.
You’ve dismissed that, but, well, that’s why.
Having said that, my puzzlement is always the rabid disdain for applying even the tiniest bit of skepticism to the plaintiff’s claims. FR did yoeman’s work when the media carried the water for Ben Crump’s outlandish lies about George Zimmerman. Posters here weren’t having it, and dug in and pretty much figured out that GZ was being railroaded. So, in that case, we took the plaintiff’s lawyer’s word, and the media’s slavish repetition of same with a grain of salt.
But the Libertarian screw turns when a plaintiff accuses a local police or sheriff’s department of “violatin’ mah rights” (oh, and pay me lots of money). Now we get to listen to a chorus uncritical opprobrium directed at some sadsack local copper trying to take the local dope dealer to jail.
So, to reiterate, I have no idea from the article linked here whether this has any merit or is a bunch of nonsense, or if the truth lies somewhere in between. If you have some additional intel that would shed some light, I for one would like to see it. If not, that’s cool too. But at some point it would be refreshing to see something other than the usual Libertarian snark on one of these threads, even if only once in a while.