Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This guy is truly the most unprofessional law enforcement official I have ever seen. It is NOT his job to give us his opinion on the state of political discourse in this country. His ONLY responsibility is to investigate this crime and report on the facts, which he is not doing.
He has not one shred of evidence to back up his partisan rhetoric. He should be replaced, as in my view, he is jeopardizing the prosecution of the murderer.
sanrene, the shooting in Tucson is a federal crime; why would a local sheriff be investigating it? I fail to see how you think he is jeopardizing the investigation or that he even could do that.
I thought Eric Holder was the most unprofessional law enforcement official you have ever seen
Dupnik said there had been earlier contact between Loughner and law enforcement after he had made death threats, although they had not been against Giffords.
That right there is enough to keep a person from legally purchasing a firearm; and, to have their ability to own firearms lawfully removed. Did AZ law enforcement drop the ball on this guy and enable his purchase/ continued possession of firearms?
sanrene, the shooting in Tucson is a federal crime; why would a local sheriff be investigating it? I fail to see how you think he is jeopardizing the investigation or that he even could do that.
I thought Eric Holder was the most unprofessional law enforcement official you have ever seen
Actually, it was a federal and state crime. He was already charged on the federal level and state charges are to follow. In these cases, however, the federal law enforcement generally takes precedence. That does not preclude local law enforcement from performing and participating in the investigation.
As to the sheriff's comments. Understand if he said this off the cuff, without thought, in one interview. However, he has persisted and continued to give interviews with the same types of statements. Even, when challenged, if he had seen any evidence to point to a correlation, he said he had none but it was just his opinion.
In this position, we should hold him to a higher standard because that is part and parcel with the position he holds. He should act professionally and remain emotionally detached. This is the same standard I would hold for all law enforcement officials.
sanrene, the shooting in Tucson is a federal crime; why would a local sheriff be investigating it? I fail to see how you think he is jeopardizing the investigation or that he even could do that.
I thought Eric Holder was the most unprofessional law enforcement official you have ever seen
The murder of the judge and the shooting of Rep. Gibbons are federal crimes. The remainder of the murders and those injured fall under the jurisdiction of state and local law enforcement. The federal investigation/charges supercede state/local.
Are you talking about his part in the press conference right after the shooting? If that's what you're saying, then can you explain what was partisan, political and divisive about his statement? (FYI, speculation is just that; it is not evidence). Especially that part about his statement being "divisive".
It was not partisan, but it is telling the right wingers get so defensive about his comments. Obviously he hit a raw nerve there, although he was talking in general terms, not in left vs right terms.
sanrene, the shooting in Tucson is a federal crime; why would a local sheriff be investigating it? I fail to see how you think he is jeopardizing the investigation or that he even could do that.
I thought Eric Holder was the most unprofessional law enforcement official you have ever seen
This man is leading the investigation into the shootings. The feds are involved because of the two federal employees, the rest are civilians.
This guy wins out easy over holder.
He should resign. He is too partisan, too political and his speculation as we now know, has no basis in fact.
It was not partisan, but it is telling the right wingers get so defensive about his comments. Obviously he hit a raw nerve there, although he was talking in general terms, not in left vs right terms.
Do you really believe an official such as this sheriff, tasked with the responsibility of investigating this mass murder, should be spouting HIS opinion, should be spouting dem talking points, should be railing against inflammatory rhetoric as he himself engages in inflammatory rhetoric?
He has NO EVIDENCE at all that his speculation is true.
Shouldn't you want the official investigating these murders to be impartial, to be interested in ONLY the facts of the case, to refrain from giving us his opinion on the state of political discourse in this country?
Are you talking about his part in the press conference right after the shooting? If that's what you're saying, then can you explain what was partisan, political and divisive about his statement? (FYI, speculation is just that; it is not evidence). Especially that part about his statement being "divisive".
BTW, do you remember that it was he who refused to apologize for saying that state(s) should not be obligated to educate illegal immigrant children?
Should he retract or apologize for that comment, or is it only the comments you disagree with that require clarification?
Don't forget we were warned by the mainstream media and leftist pols not to jump to conclusions about the Fort Hood shooter who was Muslim, posted about hating America on extremist websites, and study with an Immam who is on a terrorist watch list. However we they are jumping to conclusions when the evidence clearly points to the fact that this guy was a loon who had no particular political ideology. In fact the only hard evidence we have is he burned a flag, hardly a favorite right wing activity.
It was not partisan, but it is telling the right wingers get so defensive about his comments. Obviously he hit a raw nerve there, although he was talking in general terms, not in left vs right terms.
LOL if you tell people they are complicit in murder you might get thier backs up. He mentioned Limbaugh and Palin name the guy is just as bad as the people he is accusing of stiring up hatred.
It was not partisan, but it is telling the right wingers get so defensive about his comments. Obviously he hit a raw nerve there, although he was talking in general terms, not in left vs right terms.
Actually, he was quite clear that he was speaking about those on the right and in subsequent interviews has named Palin, Beck, and repeatedly Limbaugh.
I would imagine, if a group you aligned with was falsely blamed for a tragedy, would you not also feel the need to correct that falsehood? I think by saying it "hit a raw nerve", you are assigning guilt where it does not belong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
