I understand our sheriff's department is now the proud owner of several shiny new tasers. At a cost of about $4000. I also believe this purchase was made without prior approval by the Board of Commissioners in possibly violation of the single purchase amount limits that are a matter of policy in Elk County. I wonder, is this purchase this a matter of need or want? Is the need for such an expensive non-lethal force product the result of a crime problem? I hear beanbag guns and sonic crowd control systems are going on sale soon.
Tasers at a taxpayer cost: About $800 per deputy
2012 road dept. budget cuts: $60,000
Unauthorized/unapproved expenditure by an elected law enforcement official: Priceless
But, I could be wrong.
Quote from: Patriot on March 28, 2012, 08:49:52 AM
I understand our sheriff's department is now the proud owner of several shiny new tasers. At a cost of about $4000. I also believe this purchase was made without prior approval by the Board of Commissioners in possibly violation of the single purchase amount limits that are a matter of policy in Elk County. I wonder, is this purchase this a matter of need or want? Is the need for such an expensive non-lethal force product the result of a crime problem? I hear beanbag guns and sonic crowd control systems are going on sale soon.
Tasers at a taxpayer cost: About $800 per deputy
2012 road dept. budget cuts: $60,000
Unauthorized/unapproved expenditure by an elected law enforcement official: Priceless
But, I could be wrong.
I sure hope they aren't going to get taser happy. This is not a good option. just because its not as lethal as a gun doesn't replace good judgement and using it as a means of last resort when dealing with people. You can still kill someone like me with a taser. IT would send my heart into defib.
Quote from: srkruzich on March 28, 2012, 09:48:16 AM
I sure hope they aren't going to get taser happy. This is not a good option. just because its not as lethal as a gun doesn't replace good judgement and using it as a means of last resort when dealing with people. You can still kill someone like me with a taser. IT would send my heart into defib.
I agree, Steve. And they might play hell with a pacemaker. I guess the solution is for you and others to avoid making VILE posts on the forum and just become a nice, compliant citizen who is willing to accept every follish notion that the government tosses out........ comrade. LOL
Quote from: Patriot on March 28, 2012, 09:53:48 AM
I agree, Steve. And they might play hell with a pacemaker. I guess the solution is for you and others to avoid making VILE posts on the forum and just become a nice, compliant citizen who is willing to accept every follish notion that the government tosses out........ comrade. LOL
What you want me to live in fear of Government? I think not! As far as i am concerned Government has to fear me!
Quote from: srkruzich on March 28, 2012, 10:16:04 AM
What you want me to live in fear of Government? I think not! As far as i am concerned Government has to fear me!
(Sarcasm on)
Ah c'mon Steve. Don't you want to sacrifice your liberty for a little security? Be a good sport and submit. Individualism isn't that important... just ask the Obama regime. LOL
(Sarcasm off)
I would much rather see you shot by a tried and true bullet from a tax payer purchased firearm, out of a tax payer purchased holster, on a tax payer purchased belt next to a multi-band radio clipped to the two pairs of handcuffs, than by an untested new $800 taser. It might not work. I mean we have already invested at least twice that much in lethal equipment , certification, and training. Should we utilize FIFO. We spent thousands on the previous equipment so first in first out.
Micromanagement precludes which:
Liberty or death.
Quote from: Toirtap on March 28, 2012, 11:58:37 AM
I would much rather see you shot by a tried and true bullet from a tax payer purchased firearm, out of a tax payer purchased holster, on a tax payer purchased belt next to a multi-band radio clipped to the two pairs of handcuffs, than by an untested new $800 taser. It might not work. I mean we have already invested at least twice that much in lethal equipment , certification, and training. Should we utilize FIFO. We spent thousands on the previous equipment so first in first out.
Micromanagement precludes which:
Liberty or death.
Quote from: Toirtap on March 28, 2012, 11:58:37 AM
I would much rather see you shot...
That reads much like a direct threat.
Quote from: Toirtap on March 28, 2012, 11:58:37 AM
I mean we have already invested at least twice that much in lethal equipment , certification, and training. Should we utilize FIFO. We spent thousands on the previous equipment so first in first out.
Did we violate the county by-laws in order to spend the money? I doubt it. Try following the real issues at hand.
Quote from: Toirtap on March 28, 2012, 11:58:37 AM
Micromanagement precludes which:
Liberty or death.
Micromanagement by government, by definition, precludes liberty.
You constant read things into conversations that are simply not there so with your limited grasp I could see how you would read a threat I'n to anything. Paranoid much.....
If you are stupid enough to be confronted by law enforcement and fail to comply repeatedly they should shoot. It is their judgment as to who, where, or what they choose to use to defuse your stupidity.
So non-lethal means are non libertarian and lethal force is liberty?
Never mind the cost. What does it cost to recharge a tazer? Bullets are cheaper?
Quote from: Toirtap on March 28, 2012, 12:43:13 PM
You constant read things into conversations that are simply not there so with your limited grasp I could see how you would read a threat I'n to anything. Paranoid much.....
If you are stupid enough to be confronted by law enforcement and fail to comply repeatedly they should shoot. It is their judgment as to who, where, or what they choose to use to defuse your stupidity.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 27, 2012, 03:12:29 PM
It looks like there is some envy and some "dog in the manger" pettiness that you have just got to get past or you may have lots of freedom, an intact constitution, transparent but strangled leadership, people afraid to speak out and watching over their shoulder in fear of being verbally attacked, and a dead county. Is somebody going to be a Henry Ford? Sadly, I doubt it.
Again with the labels...Mr. Follower? Is that meant to scare him away? Discourage him? Gonna send him to a "shaming room?" I thought you wanted open comment? I'm surprised.
Perhaps Diane was correct. She was surely accurate in times past regarding grammar, spelling, and punctuation. And no, pep/not-fred/toirtap/arcfault (or what ever personality is dominant this week), I'm not going to the shaming room. Words matter, and yours were quite clear.... regardless of which face uttered them.
Now.... do we or do we not have a requirement that certain expenditures of public funds be approved by the county commission? And, if so, is it appropriate for one person in an elected position in the county to violate the policy.... especially one in the law enforcement business.
Hey! Who said you could quote me in shoring up your opinion of someone else's post!? I demand a royalty! 8) ;)
Hey Steve, ya might fibrillate, but it takes a shock to defib ya.
By the way, did your leos perhaps get a grant for those tazers? Ours come up with good stuff often from Homeland Security $.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 28, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
Hey! Who said you could quote me in shoring up your opinion of someone else's post!? I demand a royalty! 8) ;)
By the way, did your leos perhaps get a grant for those tazers? Ours come up with good stuff often from Homeland Security $.
No there was no grant. They got some of that recently for new vests (laundry detergent was to complicated)... and they got permission for that purchase. This money came from an equipment fund. That doesn't change the county by-law regarding approval for the the expenditure.
I'll send you a cyber-quarter for the royalty.
Patriot is right about the County Policy on how much can be spent with out prior approval, Toirtap keep in mind the hand guns, cuffs, belt, holsters, and any other tactical gear is not purchaced by the County or our tax dollars, is bought by the LEO who will be using it. This includes uniforms with the exception of one dress uniform payed for by the county, all of these things are dictated by the incumbant, and needs to be changed. I want to know why we would need tasers in the first place, I never felt the need for one, and damnsure never hid and watched a suspect for 30 minutes while I waited for another County to come and taze him for me.
Quote from: chaoticowboy on March 28, 2012, 03:09:26 PM
Patriot is right about the County Policy on how much can be spent with out prior approval, Toirtap keep in mind the hand guns, cuffs, belt, holsters, and any other tactical gear is not purchaced by the County or our tax dollars, is bought by the LEO who will be using it. This includes uniforms with the exception of one dress uniform payed for by the county, all of these things are dictated by the incumbant, and needs to be changed. I want to know why we would need tasers in the first place, I never felt the need for one, and damnsure never hid and watched a suspect for 30 minutes while I waited for another County to come and taze him for me.
Thanks for the affirmation. The visual created in your last sentence is a real 'Barney Fife' moment! I'll be chuckling for days... all things considered.
Quote from: Toirtap on March 28, 2012, 12:43:13 PM
You constant read things into conversations that are simply not there so with your limited grasp I could see how you would read a threat I'n to anything. Paranoid much.....
If you are stupid enough to be confronted by law enforcement and fail to comply repeatedly they should shoot. It is their judgment as to who, where, or what they choose to use to defuse your stupidity.
Only if I or anyone else is being confronted for committing a crime or a valid lawfully exercised warrant (Not counting these illegal no knock warrants),
You can defend yourself with lethal force against any and all law enforcement who try to preform a unlawful arrest. The maximum penalty would be manslaughter. Most people are dumb enough to allow police to violate their rights these days.
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 28, 2012, 01:21:27 PM
Hey! Who said you could quote me in shoring up your opinion of someone else's post!? I demand a royalty! 8) ;)
Hey Steve, ya might fibrillate, but it takes a shock to defib ya.
By the way, did your leos perhaps get a grant for those tazers? Ours come up with good stuff often from Homeland Security $.
You going to GUARANTEE me that the taser won't kill me? I would love to have that in writing Diane.
I didn't say anything about the tazer not killing you ...it won't cause you to "defib" as you wrote. You just used the wrong word and my poke went right past you, and yes, I can get that in writing if you want. Any CPR book will explain it. Defib. is what the AED shock does to try to re-regulate the heart when it's in fibrillation. Whew....never mind. ;)
I was told by an Independence city cop, several years back, that to carry /use a taser, you yourself have to experience being tased so you know what it does to a person. Maybe one of you smart people can find out if that is true and if so, has Elk county sheriff and deputies been tased ?
Quote from: jarhead on March 28, 2012, 07:32:17 PM
I was told by an Independence city cop, several years back, that to carry /use a taser, you yourself have to experience being tased so you know what it does to a person. Maybe one of you smart people can find out if that is true and if so, has Elk county sheriff and deputies been tased ?
I was wondering the same things.... and can we sell tickets to the training class for spectators?
But really, why no advanced approval for the taser expense? Why have these policies if some folks are allowed to bypass them? Or, why keep employees that do? Election's are coming.
Being an elected official, once the Sheriff's budget is approved he/she can spend it however he/she sees fit. The only time the Sheriff would need approval is if money was needed from the general fund. It's been awhile since I was involved, but that's the way it used to be and that was a ruling by the state.
I guess this last post by Sarge proves what we all knew already Patriot doesn't even know crap from his own arse.
Quote from: jhongreen on March 29, 2012, 10:00:51 AM
I guess this last post by Sarge proves what we all knew already Patriot doesn't even know crap from his own arse.
Well said, I know alot of the people in elk county agree with that. Ross and patriot have really ruined the forum for many.
Elk,
For every person you find that agrees with that, I think I know two people that disagree with you
Quote from: ELK@KC on March 29, 2012, 02:01:12 PM
Well said, I know alot of the people in elk county agree with that. Ross and patriot have really ruined the forum for many.
They haven't ruined it for me. You folks really need to get a life you know. One thread on a forum of hundreds of threads doesn't make the whole forum. IF ya don't like it, guess what, don't read it. Your the idiots that are letting it upset you! Sheesh. Yall sound like those fools that want everyone to ban everything on tv because yall don't have the skill or the disclipine to change the channel or hit the off button
Quote from: jhongreen on March 29, 2012, 10:00:51 AM
I guess this last post by Sarge proves what we all knew already Patriot doesn't even know crap from his own arse.
Nice talk. Of course, you probably didn't know my info regarding this thread was validated by a current county commissioner. Perhaps you would like to relay your perceptions of the commissioner's recto-cranial inversion directly... message me and I'll gladly get the two of you in touch.
Quote from: ELK@KC on March 29, 2012, 02:01:12 PM
Well said, I know alot of the people in elk county agree with that. Ross and patriot have really ruined the forum for many.
I'm sure you do. Just remember, conservatives/repubs outnumber libs/dems in Elk county by something like 2 to 1. It's unfortunate that you folks in the minority feel so victimized by Ross and I. I hope you can someday grow up to be a bit less thin skinned. In the mean time... feel free not to waste your important time reading (let alone responding) to anything I post.
Now, about that need for tasers and the $60,000 budget cut for the road dept in 2012....
Patriot,
It appears you have taken on a very commendable role of being the watchdog for wrong-doing and illegal transgressions of members of Elk County's government. Besides using this forum as a means of calling "foul", have you taken or do you intend to take any additional action(s) to rectify all this? Have higher authorities been notified so that these evil-doers can be properly investigated and sanctioned? Or are you content to simply report and hope that someone else takes the next step?
Quote from: ddurbin on March 29, 2012, 04:51:41 PM
Patriot,
It appears you have taken on a very commendable role of being the watchdog for wrong-doing and illegal transgressions of members of Elk County's governmental officials. Besides using this forum as a means of calling "foul", have you taken or do you intend to take any additional action(s) to rectify all this? Have higher authorities been notified so that these evil-doers can be properly investigated and sanctioned? Or are you content to simply report and hope that someone else takes the next step?
Thanks & yes.
And what, exactly are your views of & intentions regarding county management, processes, plans & budgeting priorities? Or are you content to make a rumor driven vote every 4 years, pay your taxes (at the highest rates in KS) and let the chips fall where they may?
"Yes" to which of the two questions asked?
Quote from: flintauqua on March 29, 2012, 05:20:55 PM
"Yes" to which of the two questions asked?
Grammatically, there were actually four questions presented, and I'm beginning to feel like Father William in the last stanza of the Lewis Carroll poem of the same name.
Okay, whatever.
To which of the questions asked of you by ddurbin is your answer 'Yes'?
Asked & answered.
And down the rabbit hole we go once again.
Quote from: flintauqua on March 29, 2012, 06:32:23 PM
And down the rabbit hole we go once again.
You get your answer and then make references to running down a rabbit hole. Strange behavior. Very strange, since you seem more like a prairie dog. You pop your head up in an open field, jerk around seeking answers to irrelevant, superficial, and inane questions about some dark forest, get direct answers, shake your head and run away as if startled by a big bird.
Is it an adult attention deficit disorder that contributes to your incessant inability to focus on original topics and leads you off into tangential trips? Or are you seriously more concerned about my private actions & intentions than you are about the more public matters I raise? Really? Or do you yourself know something about government ops that someone might prefer remain unexposed to public scrutiny?
Well heck ,I'm more concerned about getting the right number of questions. I counted only three. Which one did I miss? :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I also count three questions:
1 Besides using this forum as a means of calling "foul", have you taken or do you intend to take any additional action(s) to rectify all this?
2 Have higher authorities been notified so that these evil-doers can be properly investigated and sanctioned?
3 Or are you content to simply report and hope that someone else takes the next step?
Question #1 could be divided into two questions (Have you taken . . . and Do you intend to take . . .), giving us a total of four questions.
Patriot, I don't need you, to get in touch with Doug. I can drop by and talk to him myself or even pick up the phone and call him. What I don't understand, why is Doug discussing county business with you? Are you his adviser? Is Sarge wrong in his statement or is Doug confused? But in all of this you do bring up another concern that needs faced, that is an elected official at the commissioner level just might be running his mouth a little too much to Joe Public (I'm not accusing anyone I'm not for sure to what depth he spoke to Patriot, but Patriot seems real sure of himself here and other information that the rest of us are not privy to)
Steve, maybe you need to clean the goat milk off your monitor but Elk said Patriot and Ross have ruined the forum for many --- Meaning a lot of people have chosen to keep off the forum due to them. So maybe you need to get a life if what we post isn't to your liking. Maybe when the forum started it was in mind for a community to be able to communicate together not draw suspicion of evil against every neighbor, elected official, and I'll throw this last one in lightly GOVERNMENT. I could be wrong I have been before.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 29, 2012, 09:18:16 PM
Well heck ,I'm more concerned about getting the right number of questions. I counted only three. Which one did I miss? :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
LOL...
As I said, "grammatically". Don't count the question marks (?), count the actual inquiries. See Mom's breakdown. Her # 1 is actually two questions. Mom wins the gold star for analytical thinking. ;D
Quote from: jhongreen on March 29, 2012, 10:07:49 PM
Patriot, I don't need you, to get in touch with Doug. I can drop by and talk to him myself or even pick up the phone and call him. What I don't understand, why is Doug discussing county business with you? Are you his adviser? Is Sarge wrong in his statement or is Doug confused? But in all of this you do bring up another concern that needs faced, that is an elected official at the commissioner level just might be running his mouth a little too much to Joe Public (I'm not accusing anyone I'm not for sure to what depth he spoke to Patriot, but Patriot seems real sure of himself here and other information that the rest of us are not privy to)
I think attending commission meetings on a regular basis and reviewing public records are more valid than being consumed with street rumors as some are. In addition, I would rather avail myself of the opportunity to ask my elected representative about actions taken by the board on which he sits and his positions on issues rather than assume that what I heard at the cafe was factual & accurate. I wouldn't presume to individually advise, but rather I would be bold enough to inquire.
With respect to your misguided sense of "the rest of us not being privy to" information... I can assure you that if you were actually present for the meetings, and if you actually studied statutes & available public records, you would not consider me as possessing some 'special' knowledge. You would be similarly informed. All government actions/events I present are derived from openly available public discussions/records/actions of our county government.
You might consider that my apparent 'sense of assurance' might come from taking the time to read, listen, question, research, and analyze. These are things I would encourage as common sense activities for anyone who presumes to vote in an election and who pays taxes or follows regulations at the direction of those elected.
For the record, I find your pejorative use of the 'Joe Public' reference as about as offensive to the core principles of a representative republic as one can be... short of openly embracing Statism or Communism in America. I'll choose to believe that your statement came from a simple misunderstanding of open government and not from an intent to offend our form of government.
By way of trying to be helpful... In addition to reading K.S.A 75-4317a and 45-216a, I would encourage you, at a minimum, to avail yourself of the basic information contained in the following links:
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/publications/a-citizen%27s-guide-to-koma-kora.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (http://ag.ks.gov/docs/publications/a-citizen%27s-guide-to-koma-kora.pdf?sfvrsn=2)
http://ag.ks.gov/legal-services/open-govt/koma-faq (http://ag.ks.gov/legal-services/open-govt/koma-faq)
http://ag.ks.gov/legal-services/open-govt/kora-faq (http://ag.ks.gov/legal-services/open-govt/kora-faq)
Did we really need tasers and a budget cut for the road department?
Patriot, it's good to see that there's folks like you around. Hang in there and stay on 'em.
Quote from: jhongreen on March 29, 2012, 10:07:49 PM
Steve, maybe you need to clean the goat milk off your monitor but Elk said Patriot and Ross have ruined the forum for many --- Meaning a lot of people have chosen to keep off the forum due to them.
Well that would be their choice. AT least they know how to change the channel or turn the off knob :).
QuoteSo maybe you need to get a life if what we post isn't to your liking.
Who gave you the idea I even care. :)
QuoteMaybe when the forum started it was in mind for a community to be able to communicate together not draw suspicion of evil against every neighbor, elected official, and I'll throw this last one in lightly GOVERNMENT. I could be wrong I have been before.
It seems that it is working rather well. As for neighbor, no one is drawing suspicion about neighbors. Everyone should be suspicious of Government as well as elected officials. Especially when they hide in secret. The government as well as elected officials do not have a right to conduct any private business on the taxpayer dime, nor do they have a right to conduct public business in secret. They also do not have a right to abdicate their authority given to them by the taxpayer to a private entity that is not accountable to the taxpayer. To do so indicates crooked people who want to do something illegal/unethical for a government official and by abdicating the job to a NGO they slither under a coat of protection.
IF the government officials were HONEST. they would be open and forthcoming with what they are doing, not hiding behind a LLC that answers to no one.
It doesn't surprise me i have never met a honest government official.
Quote from: Patriot on March 29, 2012, 11:41:03 PM
For the record, I find your pejorative use of the 'Joe Public' reference as about as offensive to the core principles of a representative republic as one can be... short of openly embracing Statism or Communism in America. I'll choose to believe that your statement came from a simple misunderstanding of open government and not from an intent to offend our form of government.
Its absolute disdain and contempt for Joe Public and the Republic. Folks like this think Joe public are inbred ignorant hicks incapable of managing their own lives. If your not a part of the "social collective" your treated as such. It is quite interesting how those who side with the collective are the ones who will end up as cannon fodder for the statist or communist regime.
Quote from: Patriot on March 29, 2012, 11:41:03 PM
Did we really need tasers and a budget cut for the road department?
ROAD BUDGET? why even have one. They don't maintain the roads.
My goodness Steve, if you really think all Gov't officials are dishonest, why would any decent person run for office knowing they will be stamped as crooks before they ever get to do anything? That's rather discouraging isn't it?
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 30, 2012, 08:28:59 AM
My goodness Steve, if you really think all Gov't officials are dishonest, why would any decent person run for office knowing they will be stamped as crooks before they ever get to do anything? That's rather discouraging isn't it?
Taking McGregor Theory X vs Theory Y as a basis for human motivation and considering the thought that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is unwise to avoid skepticism with regard to officials to whom power over the population is given. Especially since government power often includes lawful use of tools not generally available to the average citizen (confiscation through taxation, use of force, suspension of liberty, etc.).
Like em if you wish, but never underestimate the corrupting influence of power over fallible humans. Never expect that which you don't inspect.
With Obama as a glaring example... You trust em all if you wish... I'm gonna watch em closely.
I trust very few, especially those who have been in office for a very long time and have been exposed to all the subtle influences and have been effectively surrounded by their handlers, who edit what the person sees, hears and sometimes thinks.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 30, 2012, 08:28:59 AM
My goodness Steve, if you really think all Gov't officials are dishonest, why would any decent person run for office knowing they will be stamped as crooks before they ever get to do anything? That's rather discouraging isn't it?
They may be honest when they start, but eventually they succumb to the power. Ever heard power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolute.
Without limiting their term of office, there is nothing to keep them honest. Power is a drug. its addictive. It affects everyone to some degree, more in others that have no moral compass. Even those who initially have a moral compass are tainted after time. Those that are not corruptible are usually killed or they are tossed out in some form by election or by scandal. This is the very reason the constitution was written, to control the power of government.
I hold no hope anymore for our country, i suspect it will fall in the next 5 -10 years. I just hope we can survive it.