So let the family of this murder suspect follow the law and thereafter ask for
all the donations they can get.Personally I'd rather donate that
money to the family of the murdered police officer who will never come home
again to his wife and children.
Look, I don't like the guy but at this point the permit is applied for so it
would show good faith that his web-site would be allowed to collect donations
for his defense expenses.
I am wondering why this family is being singled out by the state for soliciting
funds when after most tragic events, the news advises us that donations can be
sent to any _____bank in so and so's name-----If they were telling
people it was tax deductible, then that was wrong--they do need IRS approval for
that and that approval takes a while.I think the state is just
picking on this family. Their attorney needs to immediately get a restraining
order against the state prohibiting the state from interfering with fund raising
efforts. Then fil a lawsuit against the state for that interference.BTW---I do NOT think that wt he did is right---I think he is guilty and should
face what the jury decides. I will not be contributing to his fund.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTI disagree, this is a death
penality case. Everything that happens will be up for appeal. 25 years from
now, this case may be before the united states supereme court, questioning if it
is unconstitutional for the government to restrict a person from collecting
money for their defense. An indigent person is not required to accept a
public defender if they do not want to.
Vidar,You don't have to worry too long and hard about how LEGAL it is for
the government to have some regulations on what was being represented as TAX
DEDUCTIBLE fund raising. Of course the government would have some regulations
regarding that.But I think your main concern was that he needs MONEY
for his defense. Well that's just not true. He has the right to a defense,
and if he can't afford representation, good top quality representation will be
provided at the tax payer's expense. You don't have to worry about his
constitutional rights. They are NOT being violated by not letting him
advertise that funds donated to him are tax deductible (when they aren't). And
you don't need to worry about his defense. If the defense he is given proves to
be incompetent (which is rare) he can get a re-trial.You don't need
to worry about him TOO much. This is nowhere NEAR a constitutional appeal
case. It's no different than any other case before the courts.
I do wonder how legal it is; for the government to require its permission; to
raise funds for your defense; to protect yourself from governmental
prosecution.Just like the Âsledgehammer to kill a flyÂ approach
that the Ogden police used in this case.Now the prosecutor is turning this
into a constitutional appeal case.
These comments are much better than the article. Great points on both sides.
@ParkCityAggie - So your argument is that we should just let criminals continue
to roam free, just because they are selling drugs, no doing violent things? The
man had an arsenal of weapons at his house. He continued to fire at police even
when they identified themselves. He had previously told a friend that if police
ever tried to take his marijuana stash he'd go down shooting. I think that
qualifies as a violent criminal.Police had already tried to serve
multiple other "Knock and Announce" warrants but had never been able to
get him to come to the door. My guess is that he was probably hiding (not
sleeping) on those occasions too. How long are they supposed to just keep
knocking on his door hoping he'll answer?
too many rambo movies have be watched. the guy worked at walmart and the cops
knew that. why the no knock, kick the door in approach. police procedures need
to be revisited.
I would contribute IF AND ONLY IF he committed to contribute 100% of the
proceeds to the upbringing of the children he left without a father.... or to
paying the medical bills and sufferning that will need to be endured by the men
he shot.Unless he commits to use the money for these purposes (which
is not likely)... he won't be seeing one penny from me.
So the guy is growing weed in his home. We all know that was the fact. But put
yourself in this guys shoes for one second. You are asleep in your home when
someone suddenly kicks down your door, you wake from a dead sleep to find six
people in your house with guns, you pick your gun up and start shooting. Well
that's what happened here! Was it terrible and reprehensible? Yes. But the
bigger issue/debate should be is it worth risking the lives of our police
officers to bust someone on a narcotics charge? Why serve a no knock warrant on
a guy growing weed? It's not like he's going to flush a bunch of plants down
the toilet. Even so, is it worth the risk we put our police officers in? Show
if this guy was on the loose and wanted for violent crimes, sure kick the door
down! But for drugs? No, we should not be issuing no-knock warrants. What if a
person was wrongly accused? Had children in the house? Imagine how traumatized
they would be to see 6 dudes kicking down your door!?
So why don't they get the required permit and then solicit to their heart's
content? Where this may be a capital offense the suspect will get all the
defense he is entitled to .... and a whole lot more besides.
What he did was pretty heinous but he still does deserve a defense. However, a guilty plea would save us all a lot of time and grief.