The teacher in me compels me to pass on some advice that could help when making a decision to either follow a restrictive law or ignore it and have a better time facing while facing the risk of getting caught and punished.
It is important to have examples of people who follow the law and would probably act in such a way as to not harm others and, so, don’t need them, those who follow laws for fear of punishment implying they would not necessarily act right without a threat, those who simply ignore laws because following them is an inconvenience, those who are forced by circumstances to have to break minor laws for survival, those at the point of making a decision to obey or ignore the law, and those who push to break the law either by actively directing it or by giving the bad example of choosing those laws with which they agree while just ignoring those with which they don’t, and the worst of this group are members of law enforcement who give bad example.
Sheriff Thomas Hodgson of Bristol County in Massachusetts recently rejected the findings of an Attorney General Office investigation of and recommendations concerning an event at his jail. With the proper facts to support his rejection, his actions would be proper. However, his public reasons for rejection had less to do with the contents of the report, but more with name-calling, motivation-assignment, and insubordination to his law enforcement superior.
Before any action could be taken to address the May 1 disturbance, at his press conference held at the ICE detention center the day after, in response to Representative Joe Kennedy’s calling for an independent investigation, when asked if he would support an investigation, the sheriff showed his hand when saying his welcoming such an investigation, had a requirement,
“That depends who the investigators are, if it’s people like Joe Kennedy probably not.”
For those who might have missed it, he had already decided the criteria for a legitimate investigation centered on whether, or not, it would favor himself. Considering that the state’s AG and its congressional delegation who are the ones in the position to call for such an investigation since the federal ICE detention center is on state county land are Democrats, he took the opportunity to call it an investigation based on his being a Republican.
The investigation took place in part because.
“During his press conference about the May 1 Incident, Sheriff Hodgson said, ‘if we’re falling short, we need to know why and what we can do to fix it.’ We take this statement at face value and hope that the BCSO will implement the series of recommendations and suggested reforms included at the end of this report”, from the report.
In his public statements when rejecting the report, he did not keep to facts and rational discussion, but simply stated that he took Attorney General Maura Healey’s recommendations about as seriously as trash “halfway down the sewer pipe,” adding, “That’s about how much value I put into the attorney general’s recommendations.”
He then committed a crime in my family and in the cultures of so many people I have known through my life. He reduced her importance as an Attorney General with a name, by further stating,
“How dare she say she expects me to follow them.”
Any time my siblings and I would reduce my mother from an individual to whom we must show respect to a nameless pronoun, my father would It helps to increase fairness and glow viagra without prescription of skin. And two, what to do with the head rx generic viagra on, Czizek said – at least not anytime soon. Below are some minor side effects of these PDE-5 blockers: Headache Stuffy nose Upset stomach Painful erection Blurred eye-vision An erection-helping medicine is an 100mg sildenafil ideal way to treat all the factors that cause or factors which are the reasons of infertility in men. The viagra in usa side effects that come with the stronger sex more than 40 years, but this also has a damaging effect on the fertility of men. sternly remind us that she had a name.
Sexist or not he told the public that he would ignore her even as she, as the Massachusetts Attorney General, is the chief lawyer and law enforcement officer in Massachusetts. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, §§ 3, 10. The Attorney General is authorized by statute to take cognizance of, investigate, and institute civil or criminal proceedings to protect the general welfare of the people. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 10; see also Attorney General v. Sheriff of Worcester County., 382 Mass. 57, 58-60 (1980). And the Attorney General is specifically authorized by statute to investigate and bring civil actions “[w]henever any person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, or attempt to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person or persons.
That is how she can dare say she expects him to follow the recommendations and clean up his act.
Thankfully, to let the public know such behavior from a public official, though it may have the sheriff feeling all warmly and fuzzily manly having portrayed his toughness, is totally unacceptable, especially when exercised by a sheriff, and to act in like manner would be unacceptable for anyone, the AG was quick to respond.
After the sheriff made his disagreement with the report and his decision to ignore the recommendations public, the Attorney General, Maura Healey said,
“Every day that Sheriff Hodgson does not implement much-needed reforms at the facility, he is risking the lives of every single person there, detainees and his own staff alike. Just because Sheriff Hodgson does not like my office’s factual findings does not make them any less reliable or true.”
As he had done at his press conference after the May 1 disturbance at the ICE detention center on the campus of the Bristol County House of corrections and whenever there is a problem with his actions and pronouncements where he presents just his side of events as if it was the only completely true version as if no one would examine and find that his was not the entire story, in spite of submitting reports and relevant documents, in the hope he could present a favorable image of himself as the unfairly put-upon victim of political bias, he complained he had not been interviewed so his version of events was not allowed to be given as if none of the information he had supplied had been given.
The AG wrote to him setting the record straight.
“While I fail to understand why you would now object to not being interviewed — when you knew about our investigation for months and never once reached out to provide information beyond that which we requested — my team is more than willing to speak with you or to receive any additional information about the incident you now wish to share.”
She reminded him of her team’s investigation remaining “in close contact” with sheriff’s office counsel throughout the process with,
“As part of this investigation, my staff interviewed thirteen BSCO staff members at all levels of rank. Your counsel was aware that these were the interviews we planned to pursue and was indeed present during the interviews.
Of course, we welcome the opportunity to speak with you about implementation of our recommendations, which we continue to believe are necessary to safeguard the detained population and BCSO staff alike.”
In other words, she, as the state’s lawyer and head law enforcement officer, had investigated a county sheriff, found he had violated his own internal policies and protocols around de-escalation through the use of canine units, flash grenades. and too much pepper spray while using pre-planned excessive force against ICE detainees, issued recommendations she expected someone lower in rank would enact, and, upon hearing the sheriff disagreed with the findings but ranked them as sewage based on politics, the AG basically told him, as Laura Ingraham might,
“Shut up and dribble.”
The defender of the County lets criminals know, obeying the law and lawful authority is optional.
Try the sheriff’s approach if you do not agree with a traffic ticket, a citation, or an order to appear in court. See where that gets you.
[
