Posted on 06/20/2002 6:41:49 AM PDT by Pern
A King County sheriff's deputy has lost his job because a restraining order filed against him prohibited him from carrying a gun.
"It was determined that he was not able to do the essential functions of his job," said Sgt. Greg Dymerski, spokesman for the King County Sheriff's Office. "There was no other option at this point."
Deputy David Hick, 33, a 10-year veteran who lives in Woodinville, had worked at the Kenmore precinct as a patrol officer.
A 34-year-old attorney was granted a permanent restraining order against Hick on June 5 after she said Hick had made death threats against her, her family and her co-workers at an Issaquah law firm during and after a relationship that ended last spring. The order also bars Hick from coming within 1,000 feet of the woman or her children.
Hick’s attorney filed an appeal last week asking Issaquah District Court to reconsider the provision against carrying a gun. That request was denied yesterday. If the court order is ever reversed, Hick can apply for reinstatement to the sheriff’s office, Dymerski said.
"We support the sheriff's decision," said Mike Kenyon, the woman's attorney. "We all want to make sure that someone who has threatened to use a firearm to commit murders is someone we don't want on the street."
But, you lying attorney, he is still on the street, he has merely lost his firearms rights.
What's "this side of the fence"? Do you have a retraining order against you that does not allow you to carry a firearm and because of that you are no longer able to be a LEO? Because you made death threats against someone and a judge issued the order?
If yes, please stay over on that side of the fence:)
Remember, he was not convicted of a crime.....If he did threaten to kill this woman and here family, he should have been charged accordingly and once convicted, the "rights" of normal citizens would have been removed.
Methinks his counsel was asleep at the wheel.....
NeverGore
Looks like they don't dispute the death threats. The guy should not be a cop.
Nope, this is fairly standard legal tactics at this point in such a case.
The woman received a permanent restraining order. That means that there was a hearing. I'd guess that Hick was at the hearing and denied making the threats. It probably was a he said/she said thing and the judge decided to believe her. Given the institutional incentives and the fact that the judge would really catch hell if he denied the order and then Hick harmed the woman, it's not surprising that Hick lost.
Because Hick is asking the judge to change his mind, the less he asks for the better. That's why you don't ask the judge to stop believing the woman. Instead you ask for relief from the gun carrying provision, at least as it relates to Hick on the job. You explain that the decision has cost Hick his job, and hope that the judge agrees that this is an unreasonable result. In short, Hick now needs a miracle, so he's better off asking for small one.
Wake up Mike Kenyon!!!
The criminals out on the streets that want to carry a gun, will carry a gun, irregardless of the laws that are passed.
She is a member of the bar. So "everything she says is true". /sarcasm off
I don't believe we could draw that conclusion from such a brief article, the attorney's first responsibility to be to block the TRO from becoming a PRO....The death threat determination would be a proacted legal issue.
However, as I previously stated, if found guilty of a crime, he should receive the full brunt of the law. That type of behavior is not acceptable by a LEO (or really anyone else).
NeverGore
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.