Sheriff Election

[Mcordell]

This is one where we need Janet's expertise.  I do know that there are situations where the KBI has to be called in but I think that the local sheriff still has jurisdiction.  It is simply the law that for certain things, the KBI takes over.  Mike, what can you tell us about this?

It's not the law that KBI takes over and they will not typically come for an investigation unless requested.  These requests are not made because the law requires it but because KBI has significantly more resources to adequately investigate some serious crimes considering they have their own forensic crime lab and technicians, among other things.  Also, in officer involved shootings KBI comes to investigate to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  It would be considered improper for the sheriff to investigate an officer involved shooting involving a deputy.

[Mcordell]

It's not just kids driving ATV on the streets and highways.
An employee of Moline drives on one the highway through Moline and that is illegal by state law.
And there are other adults doing the same thing. Speeding or not it is illegal.
What an example to provide to the kids and then condemn them for doing the same thing.

Just saying.

As far as fining the parents I don't believe a LEO has that privilege but he can ticket the person
violating the law. Isn't that correct Mr. Cordell? And will you ticket these adults that drive vehicles
that are not licensed for the roads?

Thank you.

You are correct that it is illegal to operate an ATV on a state highway unless the ATV is in operation for noxious weed control in which case it may be operated along the right of way.  No, LEOs cannot fine the parents of children who operate an ATV on the road, at least not for the traffic violation and any other charge against the parents would be a stretch that I'm not interested in making. 

As for whether I will cite the individuals who are operating ATVs within the city, to be honest, no.  Unless the operation of the ATV is in a dangerous or reckless manner, or in the event they caused a collision or property damage, I have no intention of citing someone for safely operating an ATV any more than I want to arrest someone and take them to jail for not having current proof of insurance in their car.  There are a lot of laws that we can enforce, but we utilize officer discretion and common sense in the application of statute.  I have no intention of taking office and cracking down on people for minor violations.  If highway patrol wants to come through and write tickets for operation of ATVs on the highway, they can choose to do that.  My deputies and I will not do that. 

I think if you understood all the laws and how they applied you would most likely understand why it is we don't strictly enforce every aspect of statute under blanket circumstances.  If you have a suspended driver's license because you were unable to pay a speeding ticket, and you are mowing lawns to try to raise money through hard work in order to pay the fines and get your license back, and you are driving a riding lawn mower from house to house in the roadway, technically you could be arrested and charged with driving while suspended.  This is one example where I have personally seen and disagreed with the actions of another officer.  I would much rather work with the community than against the community.  It is not my job to strictly control the populace, but rather to protect the populace.  When I have trained officers in the past as a field training officer, one of the things I always relayed to my trainee was "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".  It is entirely possible to abuse a position and the authority of the position while technically enforcing laws by the book.  That's not the kind of Sheriff's Office I want and I would think it's not the kind of Sheriff's Office you would want either.

[redcliffsw]

Looks like you've been busy on here. 

You seem to have a little bend except I think you continue to demonstrate that'll you seek outside money to enforce another party's desires to make citizens comply with their desires.
You seem to want be a part of them too, instead of being totally committed to the local county.  If you will accept money for click it or ticket, there's no end to what else you'll accept.  In other words, you're not intent upon guarding the county from their influence by taking "their" money.  It's a safety issue that tyrants like to impose upon citizens by and through government (Fed's in this case) and the sheriff ought to be able to see through that in favor of the people.   The Founders never intended for the government to force obediance from the people.

[Mcordell]

Redcliffsw,

You may be interested to know click-it-or-ticket is a state budget line item. If the majority don't like the law as it is, there's a process to change it. I think you will find the majority of citizens agree with the seatbelt law.

As for the repeated accusation, though I have already addressed it, seatbelt campaigns have nothing to do with accepting outside money from other sources. Again, it's not a fund raiser. That money, $650,000 for the entire state program, is used for officer wages in order to participate in occupant safety enforcement without straining the agency budget through overtime. There is no profit and there is no hidden agenda. 

We aren't going to agree on everything. That's just the way life is. I certainly plan to act on behalf of the citizens of the county and to defend the rights of the citizens but that doesn't mean everyone is always going to agree 100% with me on everything. I'm willing to accept that fact and my goal is to do a job that at the end of the day we can all be proud of.  Current administration supports click-it-or-ticket. I don't have a problem with it. Perhaps it's time to focus on other issues.

[Wilma]

Mike, I can see that you have very good knowledge of the law and how it works.

[Mcordell]

Thank you ma'am. I have always been very interested in reading and researching statutes and current case law.

[redcliffsw]

Mr. Cordell,

Our country is not in good shape for sure including Kansas.  Most of us have been conditioned to accept that anything from government.  You're no different.  It appears that you have no problem whatsoever with this government program so can we assum that you'll be on board with all government programs?

Only $650,000?  That's hard to imagine.  There's media advertising from the KDOT and National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration and maybe some more of 'em.   Media loves government advertising and there's becoming more of it as our overseers shape our minds with their socialist's doctrine.  Or perhaps we could call it part of the stimulus program for the media.  Or better yet, call it tyranny. 

And I like what former Sheriff Richard Mack says:
http://sheriffmack.com/index.php/seat-belts

[Mcordell]

That's like saying you have no problem with this website so I can assume you must also enjoy websites that recruit people to join Isis. The two have nothing to do with one another. I'm not fond of the assumption that I lack the intelligence to evaluate these programs individually and form an opinion of each. As for the dollar amount, that is straight from the documentation detailing budget line items.

[Wilma]

Red, your argument is not with Mr. Cordell.  Rather it is with a different power.  One that makes the rules that Mr. Cordell must enforce.  Why are you arguing with him?  What can he do to change these laws that you don't like?  His provence will be Elk County, not the nation.

[Ross]

Red, your argument is not with Mr. Cordell.  Rather it is with a different power.  One that makes the rules that Mr. Cordell must enforce.  Why are you arguing with him?  What can he do to change these laws that you don't like?  His provence will be Elk County, not the nation.

Wilma are you the Politically Correct police for this thread and forum?

Is it you can't handle a conversation without trying to shut a person up.

I don't see where Red is arguing or attacking Cordell, but simply addressing his concerns and opinions.

We still do have the right to free speech, don't we.

Beyond that. What is wrong with an argument?
Arguments can bring forth better answers and communications?

As I am sure you are aware, I am presently running an argument, I'm going door to door with an Opposition Petition to the West Elk USD-282 attempt to raise our property taxes by as much as 8 mill. They recently raised them 6 mills and my opinion and argument is basically enough is enough.

Arguments come in many fashions and ways. And can be very productive.