I added my responses below.

Quote Originally Posted by OneGuy67 View Post
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...