Then maybe you should work on your delivery Vern, as it certainly did not come across as an attempt at humor. And showing a reasonable amount of respect for other professions is simply courtesy, not political correctness.
Once again, political correctness has run amok if you cannot make lawyer jokes.Then maybe you should work on your delivery Vern, as it certainly did not come across as an attempt at humor. And showing a reasonable amount of respect for other professions is simply courtesy, not political correctness.
Once again, political correctness has run amok if you cannot make lawyer jokes.
Well, Frank, maybe you weren't bothering to pay attention. None of your post #16, nor the links there, said anything with regards to any officer, only a Prosecutor. That was what I was commenting on. The Immigration policy you linked in post #23 does mention individual Officers.If you had actually bothered to pay attention, I addressed the issue in post 16. And just to help clarify matters:
Except it wasn't a lawyer joke. It was an attempt to insult me. And I think most readers will understand it as such.
And that isn't an attempt to insult?And in cotext that is merely an expression of intellectual bankruptcy.
And you have some legal authority to back up that conjecture?
Yes, I'm aware that the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a State may not:
But "equal protection" is not the same as "equal application."
So let's see some citations to federal court decisions supporting your claim. Or are you just making stuff up?
Once again, political correctness has run amok if you cannot make lawyer jokes.
How does the legal authority applicable to that employment case relate to this situation, i. e., police choosing not to cite all persons apparently committing the same infraction? How would the principles relating to the situation you were dealing with relate to the principles which drive considerations of prosecutorial and/or enforcement discretion? How does what you found to apply in Florida apply in Wyoming?Years ago, I was working on a brief in an employment case, and I found that in Florida, it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to treat people differently under the same laws (in some cases, at least).....
And now you're assuming facts not in evidence, i. e., that all exercise of discretion is about favoritism or bias. You've chosen an example well calculated to offend our sensibilities as proponents of the RKBA, but I'm sure other examples could offend other sensibilities.....Taking discretion out of the law would cause terrible problems for cops, prosecutors, and judges, who show favoritism and bias every day, as a matter of policy....
...In deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws with the Department's finite resources, prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions. ...These principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.
An excellent point. And in addition consider that the Chief of Police probably could not politically simply ignore the situation.Has it occurred to anyone that in this case the Chief of Police was, perhaps, personally supportive of a legal strike down of the University policy, cited the one person who had the will and means to make a legal challenge to accomplish this? Without inconveniencing any of the others.
I suspect that you've never seen me actually hostile. And I'd be sort of curious to know what wild assumptions you think I'm making.Frank, I am really sorry I stirred you up. You are very hostile, and you are making some wild assumptions. If you thought I was trying to provoke you, I assure you, I was not.
I don't practice law for free, so I will not address your questions.