Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Your honor. Brought before you today in the form of impeachment papers is nothing more than a last ditch effort to hold someone accountable for the petitioners misfortune.
On October 16th, Mr. Santos posted a complaint. He was upset that while “protesting” at the Department of Corrections, a violent criminal put a weapon in his face. These actions were tragic and should not have occurred. Mr. Santos claims that because the District Attorney did not press charges on Corporal Kincaid, that he is disregarding his duties as the District Attorney.
Mr. Santos claims that the SERT officer aided the violent attacker. Mr. Santos will try and say that the SERT officer “let it happen”
What Mr. Santos will leave out of his narrative is that Corporal Kincaid saved his life. The only
…show more content…
Santos’ apparent attempt to get answers for his victimization. Looking at the case from an unbiased perspective, something the petitioner is unable to do, Campbell Montana knew that Corporal Kincaid’s actions were heroic. Where Mr. Santos sees a “criminal” the rest of the world should see a hero.
The petitioners claims are full of speculation, biased interpretations, and untruthful remarks.
Campbell Montana did not fail to file charges. He responded to a situation objectively and professionally. Corporal Zanciy Kincaid wasn’t aiding and abetting the attacker. He was remaining calm in the face of danger, and saved the life of the Petitioner. Campbell Montana choose not to file charges, because despite Mr. Santos’ claims of “apparent and unquestionable”, no crimes were committed removing the actions of the attacker.
No charges were filed as a result of this complaint. Not because of some ludicrous claim of dereliction of duty, but because the only criminal this day, was killed while Law Enforcement attempted to subdue
Kenneth Dascoli filed a complaint against Arthur Kelly, Esq., on August 10, 2015. Dascoli alleges that Kelly deprived him of a fair trial in a criminal matter, essentially due to lack of preparation. The lack of preparation consisted of failing to visit the complainant while he was being held in jail, failing to interview witnesses, and failing to prepare for trial. Kelly has allegedly violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 1., 1.3, and 8.4(d).
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
On October 20, 2014 a young male teen was fatally shot in Chicago, Illinois. The shooting occurred in the middle of the road and the suspect that was fatally shot was named Laquan McDonald. McDonald was just 17 years old and was the suspect after initial reports placed him in the scene of a possible car jacking. It was reported that Laquan McDonald had a knife and was also seen slashing tires of a police cruiser. When police had finally had him surrounded in the middle of the road, one officer opened fire and released 16 shots into his body. Another deputy on hand said the use of force was not needed because Laquan was not in any way trying to attack the officers present. The officer who fired the 16 shots into Laquan is named Jason D. Van
The realization that they had been lied to was like the second coming of Pat’s death to his family. The fabrication of the way in which he died was almost as shocking as his death. The real pity is not that the government failed, but the glorious person whose life they stained. The man who didn’t opt out of the Army when offered and decided to finish the three years he had signed up for. The man who loved everyone he met before he got to talk to them. The man who challenged himself to be the best he could be. A man who was glorious. Gloriously betrayed.
The case involved a line of duty shooting that took place between Illinois Officer Mary Redmond and suspect Ricky Allen, whom Redmond fatally wounded, and revolved around the family’s excessive force complaint, which they filed on the grounds that the witness testimony differed from Redmond’s account. [1]
Defense attorney, Katie Krejci argued that the state attorney, Maureen Feeney, and the police department didn’t provide the disciplinary file of officer Taylor Siljander, the plaintiff, in a timely manner.
On Wednesday, August 29, 2015, at approximately 2:31 p.m., I, second shift Assault Detective Matthew Grasham, Badge #1661, along with second shift Assault Detective Russ Henslee, Badge #2131, conducted an interview with CARLISA CARTER. Ms. Carter was identified as a witness in this incident by Defense Attorney William Ireland. The following is a summarization of the interview:
According to Ray, Sgt. Powell is indeed at least an official hero. He is a police officer, a respected public official devoted to protect the people of Los Angeles. He wears his uniform and is armed with his gun, which demands respect. Yet, according to Cohen’s description of traditionally manly virtues (that seem to insect with R...
When we think of the police, we normally think of the brave men and women out on the street, enforcing the law, catching criminals, helping out the public in cases of emergency and making us feel safe in general. Most of the Police in most of the world is like that which is a good thing, However in the United States of America the police here are a bit more ruthless. Most of the police officers are very nice people and they really do want to help out in their community, but unfortunately there are some bad and corrupt cops in the system that will break the law and do some bad things. In the Modern world most bad cops are seen as racist and trigger happy. They don’t kill for fun of course but whenever they feel threatened they are trained to
Just it isn’t a fake scene this is real life. There are six levels of force an officer can use and may have to use doing there time as an officer. The lowest level of force is presence of an officer at the scene and the officer’s body stance. This level of force is used typically whenever an officer first appears to a scene or a call. The second level of force is verbal control or commands. The verbal use of force is when an officer demands you to do something. The third level is physical control. This level involves escort holds, pain or pressure compliance. This force is brought in when a suspect tries to resist arrest or verbal commands. The fourth level is really close to the third, this is serious physical control. This really is when you use carotid control and electronic devices. The carotid control is a kind of choke hold which makes the person want to comply. The fifth level is impact and weapons. This is when you first so your willingness to use your baton by touching it or holding it out. Then possibly cause the suspect to feint so he or she can’t resist again. The last resort is deadly force. Most officer try their hardest to not have to get to this level or even be in a position to which this force is used. But deadly force is drawing your gun, pointing your gun, and, or finally firing your gun. (Police
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
Omar Abdul Ballard had admitted to the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko; his was the only semen found. Furthermore, Ballard tried to tell police that he alone had committed the crimes. Yet despite the physical evidence and Ballard’s statements, the courts decided to continue their cases against the other four men. Even the lawyers that should have been trying to defend the Norfolk Four did little to actually defend them against the charges and instead opted to try to get them a lighter sentence. Their own lawyers seemed unable to get over the fact that the men had confessed to the crime. Even with explanations of long interrogations, threats, and lies by the police these lawyers were unwilling to believe that innocent men would confess to such a heinous crime. Instead, they were urged to “cooperate” with the police and tell the “truth”. With this type of advice the men went up to the witness stand and committed perjury lying under oath and relaying their false confessions to the jury. The problem it seems is that the police and the courts were not interested in the truth or justice, they are looking for an easy way to close a case. They were looking for someone to blame and they were unwilling to admit that they were wrong when evidence seemed to show they had a made a
An officer began a routine stop for someone exceeding the speed limit but the driver of the sports car they were trying to pull over speed up instead of slowing down. During the course of this chase the speeds of both the police car and the sports car rose to above 100 miles per hour. At the end of the high speed chase the officer lost control of their cruiser and ran up on a sidewalk hitting a pedestrian, ultimately killing the pedestrian. In the same moment hearing the commotion caused by this accident the sports car driver looked back and proceeded to crash the sports car. Following the impact the sports car driver was killed and now people are looking for a place to distribute the blame for these two deaths. It must be decided if the officer is at fault for these deaths and the best way for the police department to act following these deaths. The legal, ethical and moral aspects of each situation must be evaluated. After this evaluation is made decisions must be made that incorporate and satisfy all of these variables in a manner most favorable to the police department.
In deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings, a prosecutor must balance two competing responsibilities. He must vigorously prosecute individuals reasonably suspected of significant criminal activity, but must avoid harassing or disturbing innocent citizens. In weighing these fac-tors, he is obligated to look beyond the immediate problem of winning a case and consider in-stead the fair and efficient administration of criminal justice.