Thursday, February 4, 2010

A couple of Waterloo's finest?

Our first officer:
[Michael Charles] Dobson entered an Alford plea - not admitting guilt but agreeing he would likely be convicted if the matter went to trial - to a charge of first-degree harassment for allegedly threatening to kill his wife and simple assault for allegedly shoving one of his children during the incident, said Assistant Tama County Attorney Michael Marquess.

He was given a deferred judgment, meaning the harassment charge will be removed from his criminal history if he completes a year of probation. He was fined $65 plus court costs and surcharges for the assault charge.
If any consolation, this guy will never be able to legally possess firearms in Iowa.

Another officer, Randall Hammitt, remains on unpaid leave after his operating while intoxicated charge was reduced to reckless driving.

Black Hawk County Sheriff's deputies were called to a report of a car in a ditch on Moline Road July 27 and found Hammitt with the "odor consistent with those persons known to have been drinking," court records state. He declined sobriety and breath tests.
Officers plead to reduced charges

You all can decide if the punishments fit the crimes.


straightarrow said...

In the absence of harm to others I think so. There is an argument to be made that the first officer should not be denied firearms for life unless his firearm played a part in his crime. If it did, then jail should be in his present and future. However, even if he were to retain his 2A rights, he should never again be a LEO.

The drunk driver should be fined and treated the same as everybody else.

I admit I haven't read the links so I could be all wet.

strandediniowa said...

Under current Lautenberg (sp?) amendment it makes a domestic violence conviction one of the markers against gun ownership.

Also under Iowa law, if you are convicted of a crime that you could have been sentenced for a year or more (even if suspended) that will prevent gun ownership.

I've lived in a county where the sheriff and chief deputy (now current sheriff) were/are lushes. I thought LEOs should at least have a higher standard than the local town drunk.

Isn't there a line on form 4473 where it asks if one is dependent on drugs or alcohol?

*You know I'm not a fan of preconditions for gun ownership. This is just me saying we all have to live by the same rules as they currently stand.

straightarrow said...

I apologize, my reply was couched in what I thought made sense and was defensible. I do agree with your point that there should be no special dispensations for some. That would be the province of the Pope and not the law.

strandediniowa said...

My attempt at being a smart-aleck, SA

Like I wrote, I'm not advocating preconditions or penalties regarding gun ownership. Just that we should all have the same rules applied, while working to change these rules.

I think we agree (again)