Save this old man and your rights at the same time.

Just so everyone is clear... Im not Cop hating.
Cops did the job they were given.
I am Policy/Law/"pottytician" hating


Just so's we're clear.

I added my responses below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

Jim02:

I don't believe I, or anyone else is ever going to ever satisfy you when it comes to this issue, or any related issues. I'm not picking a fight; I'm just acknowledging a conclusion. I am glad you came back.

I don't see a bullet for the arrests of the two illegal alien suspects, just as you didn't. Does that matter? We know the warrants were signed by a judge last Friday and they were arrested shortly thereafter. Many to include Peter Boyles, suggest they are being given plea bargains in exchange for their testimony against Mr. Wallace. That is hard to say at this point in time, given that the warrants are for the probable cause charges, not a plea bargain. Additionally, the date of the press release was July 9th at 3:16 PM, which could have been before the warrants were signed. Seems an important part of the timeline to me to be missing, no deception implied, seems the timeline and the statement revolve more around Mr.Wallace and not the thieves.

Why didn't they arrest one or both parties on February 26th? I don't know. Obtaining fingerprints and photographs is pretty typical of a lot of agencies when the investigation isn't complete with an arrest. One of the counties I've worked in discouraged the arrest/release pending charges way of going around the 72-hour charging requirement on a legal case law argument. That suspect may have been asked to submit the fingprints/photographs on a voluntary basis instead of being forced to while under arrest. In doing so, it gives the investigators more time to develop their case and not be forced to turn over their investigation to the DA's office in 48 hours, which gives the DA 24 hours to file to meet the 72-hour window. If LE has a suspect that confesss to a felony, they should be arrested and held until arraignment and bond is posted. I thought a felony was a felony because it was a big deal, otherwise it would be a misdemeanor.

The second suspect was in the hospital and if he had been arrested while there, the arresting agency then is responsible for the hospital bills. It has been the practice of all the agencies I've worked for to not arrest anyone in the hospital unless absolutely necessary and in this case, for a simple felony theft, it would not be a rational or sound use of police funds. I agree in the use of police funds, unfortunatly its public funds and I will end up paying for the illegal's hospital bill either way.

If this was my case, I would also take my time in filing the case given one of the suspect's is in the hospital and not a flight risk and I've identified the other. Remember, it is a felony theft case. That's it. I may have far more serious cases that would take priority for me at the time. I thought a felony was a felony because it was a big deal, otherwise it would be a misdemeanor.

Neither of the suspects are being charged with "grand theft" as the item stolen was not a vehicle. It is simple felony theft. I thought grand theft was grand due to the value of the item and not because it was an auto or not, maybe I am wrong on that.

The valid CO ID could be either a driver's license or a valid identification card. I don't know. I'm not willing to access the CCIC and jeopardize my career to satisfy curiosity to find out what both have. As I've previously mentioned, people can obtain a valid driver's license in other states with far less documentation than what is required in Colorado and transfer that to Colorado. There have also been people within the DMV who have been caught/arrested/convicted of selling their access to driver's licenses and state identification cards. These people may have a valid Colorado ID and still be here illegally. Its sad that its so easy for someone to get a valid id with false info and we cant get a law passed to require a valid id for voters because they say its to much a burdon on the poor.

Lastly, this was a press release, not a report. Sometimes, the truth doesn't live up to the hype of the conspiracy theories. Roger that, I thought they released this to try and fill my curiosity and hopefully stop some of the pressure they are getting.

I would be very interested in reviewing all the case file to satisfy my professional curiosity to answer the major question of whether or not Mr. Wallace ever left his porch when he capped his rounds off or if he was standing in front of the vehicle as he later alleged. That is the pivotal question into the appropriateness of the charging decision. As it stands right now, the charges are appropriate based upon the arrest affidavit and no where in there is it mentioned that Mr. Wallace was in front of the vehicle or that he approached the vehicle at all. I agree, I made a poor assumption that he was defending himself and not just shooting from the porch, but quickly corrected that the same day when the affidavet was posted. As the law stands he may be guilty of a crime no matter how much I believe we need to change our law to be like the one in Texas, its not legal at this time, unless you are in danger as defined by the statues.

My $.02...

---

We codify our laws and the legislatures make original determinations and then accept recommendations for changes to the statutes in regards to severity, penalty schedules, fines and the like. You may remember the recommendations for change a few months ago for the drug statutues.

We have to have a schedule to ascertain how to handle things, set forth by the legislature. As for the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor theft...$1. If the item stolen is under $1,000, it is a misdemeanor, over $1,000 a felony. This also has been changed in the not so recent past from a $500 threshold. The penalties are different between them as well. Felonies include larger fines and fees and longer possibilities of incarceration. Additionally, the statute of limitations, which is the time I am allowed to bring charges against a person is longer for felonies than misdemeanors.

While I agree that the suspect who spent time in the hospital will not pay his medical bills and ultimately, some entity other than him will have to pay them, be it medicaid, an indigient fund or the hospital eats it and increases their fees to others, it is a big deal to the police or sheriff administrator as just one of these guys can destroy a yearly budget. They can always go back to the city council or county administrators and ask for more funds, but if the well is dry...there are no funds. And frankly, the well is dry. So, the practical practice would be to not arrest them. You group it all together to say it is public funds, and in the most simplistic terms it is, but should the citizens of Wheat Ridge, where the city gets its funding from, have to pay this guys medical bills? How do you go to the Wheat Ridge citizens and say you need a quarter of a million dollars to pay an illegal aliens medical bills in order to arrest him at the time the event occurred for the theft of a $2,000 trailer instead of later when he is released from the hospital? How do you justify that and would you agree if you were a Wheat Ridge citizen?

When I was a patrol officer and had a DUI related accident and the DUI suspect was transported to the hospital, we would show up, get a blood test completed if the suspect agreed and write them a citation on the spot without arresting them. That way, we are not stuck with their E.R. visit bill. If we REALLY wanted them, we would have the security officers call us when they were released and we would arrest them outside the hospital.

We have many sub-sections of theft, but no 'grand theft'. There are variations depending upon value of the item taken, what the item is, damage to the item, etc. C.R.S. 18-4-401 if you are interested in taking a look for yourself online.

I'm not familiar with the Texas law, but I am assuming it deals with the use of deadly force to protect property. I'll be honest and say that scares me, as a person and as a cop. In this situation, if the law allowed Mr. Wallace to shoot at the fleeing vehicle whose occupants stole a $2,000.00 trailer from him, a thing...an object, something that is most likely insured and can be replaced and those rounds missed their target and hit the homes across the street...I am not for that by any stretch of the imagination. To even say it is legal as long as he hit his intended target, I'm not for. I just don't see the need to shoot unless life is endangered. I don't. I can't justify killing someone over my car. Sure, it did piss me off when my car was stolen and I wanted retribution for all the hassle involved in retrieving it, the damage done to it and the suspect getting off with a slap on the wrist for being a juvenile. But to shoot and kill him as he is fleeing in my vehicle? I can't justify that.

Resposes below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneGuy67

We codify our laws and the legislatures make original determinations and then accept recommendations for changes to the statutes in regards to severity, penalty schedules, fines and the like. You may remember the recommendations for change a few months ago for the drug statutues. I agree the legislatures are responisible for what the laws are, but I think both LEO's and Citizens need to speak up if they think a law is unjust and needs changed. They will only listen when We the People make enough noise and this is a time for us to band together as Citizens and LEO's to make the noise to correct the bad policies that are being set by those that wish to support illegals and criminals alike.

We have to have a schedule to ascertain how to handle things, set forth by the legislature. As for the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor theft...$1. If the item stolen is under $1,000, it is a misdemeanor, over $1,000 a felony. This also has been changed in the not so recent past from a $500 threshold. The penalties are different between them as well. Felonies include larger fines and fees and longer possibilities of incarceration. Additionally, the statute of limitations, which is the time I am allowed to bring charges against a person is longer for felonies than misdemeanors. Since a felony can take away your Constitutional right of a firearm and your God given right to self defense as well as a 3 stikes law (where they exist) can send you to prision for life, a felony is a big deal. they commited a felony and should have been arrested on the spot. (not the hospitalized person as we agree why, see below)

While I agree that the suspect who spent time in the hospital will not pay his medical bills and ultimately, some entity other than him will have to pay them, be it medicaid, an indigient fund or the hospital eats it and increases their fees to others, it is a big deal to the police or sheriff administrator as just one of these guys can destroy a yearly budget. They can always go back to the city council or county administrators and ask for more funds, but if the well is dry...there are no funds. And frankly, the well is dry. So, the practical practice would be to not arrest them. You group it all together to say it is public funds, and in the most simplistic terms it is, but should the citizens of Wheat Ridge, where the city gets its funding from, have to pay this guys medical bills? How do you go to the Wheat Ridge citizens and say you need a quarter of a million dollars to pay an illegal aliens medical bills in order to arrest him at the time the event occurred for the theft of a $2,000 trailer instead of later when he is released from the hospital? How do you justify that and would you agree if you were a Wheat Ridge citizen? I agree with that policy, the departments need to spend that money on gear and supplies, etc. I am just saying it is the tax payers who foot the bill either way.

When I was a patrol officer and had a DUI related accident and the DUI suspect was transported to the hospital, we would show up, get a blood test completed if the suspect agreed and write them a citation on the spot without arresting them. That way, we are not stuck with their E.R. visit bill. If we REALLY wanted them, we would have the security officers call us when they were released and we would arrest them outside the hospital.

We have many sub-sections of theft, but no 'grand theft'. There are variations depending upon value of the item taken, what the item is, damage to the item, etc. C.R.S. 18-4-401 if you are interested in taking a look for yourself online. Thanks for posting the statues.

I'm not familiar with the Texas law, but I am assuming it deals with the use of deadly force to protect property. I'll be honest and say that scares me, as a person and as a cop. In this situation, if the law allowed Mr. Wallace to shoot at the fleeing vehicle whose occupants stole a $2,000.00 trailer from him, a thing...an object, something that is most likely insured and can be replaced and those rounds missed their target and hit the homes across the street...I am not for that by any stretch of the imagination. To even say it is legal as long as he hit his intended target, I'm not for. I just don't see the need to shoot unless life is endangered. I don't. I can't justify killing someone over my car. Sure, it did piss me off when my car was stolen and I wanted retribution for all the hassle involved in retrieving it, the damage done to it and the suspect getting off with a slap on the wrist for being a juvenile. But to shoot and kill him as he is fleeing in my vehicle? I can't justify that. Texas law does allow deadly force to protect property. I agree and would like to see the facts around this such as during this period, have more bystanders been hurt by defenders shooting at criminals, I would also like to see how crime was effected in this state compared to others after Texas passe dthis law. I think we would find that it made them safer and not the oppisite. Like the CCW opponents said that it would make our streets a "ok corral" gun fight, we found the oppisite to be true and crime has went down according to FBI crime records. I would like our law makers to review the facts and if it was showen to be as safe and decrease crime, then we pass the same law.

---

Peter Boyles was lisitng off the multipule priors for these 2 men and the numerous times they were in touch with the law over the past few years here in CO.
Its sad that after all that they were never picked up and deported, we are in a sad state here in CO and the USA and we need to use this as a rallying cry to let our CO politicans know we have had enough.

Let this be the straw that broke the camels back on CO policy to ignore and support illegal imigration and criminals.

I don't know what happened exactly, whether the guy was in front of the vehicle or only said that to claim self defense, but to me it doesn't matter. Some a**hole tries to steal anything from me and I'm shooting first and asking questions later. Seriously though, an 82 year old guy getting charged? Storey is a waste of energy, he needs to be voted out and that's that. I've sent my email, made my call and hope that the illegals (presumably) get charged and sentenced and the old man gets a slap on the wrist.

I understand that the laws are here to protect and I have to assume it's not a crusade against gun rights as much as it is trying to interpret the letter of the law - it could very well be that he can't prove his life was in danger, but that shouldn't make any difference in charging the guys who tried to rip him off.

dead horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim02

Peter Boyles was lisitng off the multipule priors for these 2 men and the numerous times they were in touch with the law over the past few years here in CO.
Its sad that after all that they were never picked up and deported, we are in a sad state here in CO and the USA and we need to use this as a rallying cry to let our CO politicans know we have had enough.

Let this be the straw that broke the camels back on CO policy to ignore and support illegal imigration and criminals.

---

Jim,

LEO used to report felons to the ICE all the time. However, the fed failed to enforce the law so bad that lately, local LE departments just shy away from dealing with the ICE. At least that seems to be the explanations I am getting for few LE friends I know. Blame it on the Fed.

Any LE care to chime in when it comes to illegal immigrant felons?

Jim:

We have legislatures for a reason in our Republic form of government with the hopes that they can be properly educated on issues and make the correct decisions on statutory decisions. Not always true, I've give you. There are groups which research and provide information to the legislatures at their request when discussing a specific topic as well as stakeholder committees who provide insight.

However, We've seen what the uninformed mass we call the general population can do to screw up government in the form of the Amendment 23 and the Gallagher Amendment that were passed using glossy ads and diluted facts. Shortly, we'll vote on Amendments 60, 61 and Prop 101 and people will vote for these atrocities because of what a glossy ad will tell them and not because they actually read the amendments and see how badly it will screw up government. With the anti-government sentiment that is flowing, people will vote for these out of spite.

Felonies are what they are, the result of a codified schedule that is put in place by the legislature. It isn't the cops who decide at what level something is classified as a felony, it's the legislature. You look at it from a gun owner's perspective with your concern of losing your right to own firearms, but being simplistic and saying all people accused of committing a felony need to be arrested on the spot isn't realistic. There may be deciding factors that need to be investigated further, need to be forensically examined further, need to interview more people, etc. We have judicial rules in place that require specific actions for every action law enforcement takes and sometimes you just aren't ready to present your case to the DA if you were to make the physical arrest at that time. That's one reason why there are so many arrest warrants in the system as investigators have gotten them signed after they completed their investigation. It isn't so black and white.

I can't speak to Texas and their laws and whether or not their crime rate has gone down after such laws were put in place. It is simplistic to say that there is a direct correlation between the CCW laws and reduced crime as there are other factors in place that also influence it. That correlation is always the big argument of pro CCW groups to tout, but it is simplistic. Just like increased police patrols cannot specifically state they are the reason crime is down in a specific area, but is a favorite of law enforcement administrators to tout. There are a number of other influencing factors that also must be taken into consideration at all times.

Interesting dialogue. I think most others have lost interest with the string.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MB888

Jim,

LEO used to report felons to the ICE all the time. However, the fed failed to enforce the law so bad that lately, local LE departments just shy away from dealing with the ICE. At least that seems to be the explanations I am getting for few LE friends I know. Blame it on the Fed.

Any LE care to chime in when it comes to illegal immigrant felons?

---

We still report as required by state law to ICE when we have in custody anyone we believe may be an illegal alien. We do tend to 'pass the buck' on this particular issue most of the time though as we jail the person and it becomes the responsibility of the sheriff's office to make the notification. Whether or not ICE does anything with that notification, I do not know.