Posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 14:22:55
In reply to Re: I gotta admit, posted by gardenergirl on February 18, 2006, at 14:00:19
> I'm not sure I agree, but I think your argument is sound.
>
> But what about not talking to the sheriff's office until the following day? I do not think his position voids his obligation to be interviewed by law enforcement.>>that is the essence, he is NOT a private citizen as i understand the word, i cannot tell the sherriff to come back later while i determine the extent of the injuries i have inflicted.
the sherriff and his men were turned away at the gate without explanation.
he is a public servant, he is NOT the law.
hence the need for prompt compliance with local authorities, as well as disclosure to the public. Because he can, if he wished, abuse his power.
his vacations are paid for by our taxes. hence the responsibility to abide by the laws we pay taxes to enforce. but it seems like our taxes are paying for him to put himself above the law, to tell the sherriff to come knocking later.
that is not right.
-z
>
> gg
poster:zeugma
thread:610592
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/610899.html