Friday, January 24, 2014

Mark Kessler 1 year anniversary - a year of epic failure for a loud, foul-mouthed gun-nut

Cross post from Penigma

This date, this month, marks the one year anniversary of the epic fail, crash and burn that is Mark Kessler.

Here is the latest of his failures.  Presumably he is only dragging this out because it might provide some form of benefits to himself and his family while the termination process continues.  It's not like anyone is beating a path to his door to employ him in any other capacity, or likely to again, ever.  Kessler has literally shot himself in the hand, and figuratively shot himself in the foot, while his foot was in his own mouth.

Kessler has conducted himself in a consistently unprofessional, unethical, inappropriate and uncivil manner that has resulted not only in his job loss, but in leaving his municipality open to law suits. How prophetic when he speaks here of taking off his uniform that he has been defrocked, as it were, as a member of law enforcement.

In the interim of this past year, Kessler has been at the center of a series of increasingly vocal, and subsequently embarrassing epic failures, each one larger than the preceding disaster he has orchestrated. He is left with nothing but his well-deserved notoriety for failure and foulness.

The conduct of Kessler is so excessively unprofessional, that it is being used as an example in law enforcement training on HOW NOT TO DO THE JOB OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Kessler is not alone among law enforcement in the incorrect interpretation of the rights and duties of law enforcement. ONLY our judicial system is permitted to rule on the legitimacy of a law or executive action. ONLY the legislative system is permitted to draft and pass legislation, which then requires the executive branch signatures to be valid, conditional on the decision of the judicial branches of government at all levels.

Anyone attempting to make their own individual determinations in law enforcement are over-reaching their authority and violating the foundational terms and conditions on which that authority is predicated. However at least the law enforcement figures below are conducting themselves in a more professional manner, although they should all still be removed from office in their respective jurisdictions for their failure to enforce the law, or executive orders, unless so directed by the judiciary.

Of course, whether it is Kessler or Arpaio, or any of the rest of these guys, the radical right need to be removed from office for their failure to conduct their respective offices in a professional and responsible manner. Here is another example of how foolish and ridiculous what these people believe:


  1. If you can't see a difference between those many sheriffs and Mark Kessler, that only confirms how bizarre your view is of America. But then you believe that people who don't agree with your narrow views should be removed from office, so at least you're consistent.

    1. Campy, don't you read well for comprehension?

      I noted that the many sheriff's were SLIGHTLY more professional than Kessler - which is true.

      They are equally and similarly unprofessional however in supporting nullification, however, same as Kessler.

      The larger, more significant substance of the similarity is the same.

    2. Dog Gone, I read well, and I teach writing and literature. What is it you do, again? Anyway, I also know that just because Laci says it doesn't make it so. You might consider that some time.

    3. Yes, he teaches the worst, dumbest kids in the country. Congratulations on your failure.

  2. The site lying coward is a Kessler twin. He thinks his laws should be law. Like beating people up. And he has stated he will break the law, because he disagrees with it, then calls himself a patriot. He is nothing but a criminal.

  3. Hey Steve,

    How's the winter in Russia?

    Ought to be pretty fucking nice!


    1. Hey, lying criminal coward.
      Next lie.
      Gee, I missed your proof on your last lie.

  4. "Anyone attempting to make their own individual determinations in law enforcement are over-reaching their authority and violating the foundational terms and conditions on which that authority is predicated."

    "The United States government took a historic step back from its long-running drug war on Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would allow the states to create a regime that would regulate and implement the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana for adults."

    Wow, the nation's top law enforcement official saying he isn't going to enforce federal drug laws in two states?

    Or how about the smaller scale government entities that have declared themselves to be "sanctuary cities", in which policy is that federal immigration laws get enforced there. There seem to be quite a lot of them too. There are even some in Minnesota.

    How exactly are these examples I've mentioned any different than what these Sheriffs are doing?

    1. Cute, but it's a little different when the people vote for legalized pot. You know, the vote results we base our laws on.

    2. And lots of states have enacted shall-issue carry licensing. But rights cannot be removed by a vote. They only can be violated.

    3. "Cute, but it's a little different when the people vote for legalized pot. You know, the vote results we base our laws on."

      Using that logic, then what about the laws that have been proposed on a state level to ban enforcement of federal gun laws? Would that be ok then?

    4. The States rights argument was decided by the Civil War. Federal rights trump States rights, because all Americans are equal under the law.

    5. But you justified the non-enforcement of federal drug laws on the grounds that a law legalizing the behavior was passed at the state level. So wouldn't this suggest that Eric Holder be included with the Sheriffs who are stating that they wouldn't enforce laws?

    6. The AG is the one who decides which laws will get enforcement priority and which will not. A decision made everyday by those in authority like the AG, or even a State prosecutor. Jaywalking is a crime, but most prosecutors will not prosecute. A judgement call on priorities. Since the laws and the American people's opinion on pot has changed, so has the priority of prosecuting pot crimes. That's the way it should work, if government is responsive to the people.

    7. A Sheriff is the chief law enforcement official for a county. Why is it wrong for them to set their own priorities? This would be part of the coordination needed between the Sheriff and the County Attorney.
      Has anyone seen anything about any disagreement between Sheriffs and their respective County Attorneys?
      I did find this information which might give an idea of the end results of these decisions,

      "The sheriffs’ refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police."

      And of course, with these Sheriffs going on record regarding enforcement of gun laws, the voters can always throw him out if they disapprove of these policies.

    8. You were talking about Holder, not some sheriff. If you are going to change the subject, then don't try and apply the same judgment. The sheriff does not have powers to prosecute in court. A sheriff can arrest on his priorities as long as an actual law has been broken, but he has no say, if the prosecutor won't take it to court.

    9. Actually at that level, the sheriff and county attorney are at about the same level. Both are normally elected officials, as opposed to an attorney general. At the federal level the AG is an appointed position, and needless to say would support policies by whomever appointed him.
      If the Sheriff arrests, but the County Attorney declines to prosecute because he has set a policy not to, then the sheriff has wasted time and money.
      If the County Attorney's policy is to prosecute certain crimes, and the Sheriff's priorities lie elsewhere, then the County Attorney wont have anyone to prosecute.
      For the US Attorney General, all federal law enforcement is under his command, and therefor he decides what the policy is. So, in essence, the US Attorney General has elected to not enforce federal drug laws because the state has voted to legalize marijuana.
      The federal drug laws were passed by the legislative branch of the government, ie, our elected representatives. So, how exactly is it ok for the Executive branch to decide to ignore the laws passed by the legislative branch? And if they are permitted to decide these priorities, why cant those at the state or county levels?
      The same question could be asked in regards to the issue of "sanctuary cities". Various cities have elected to not enforce federal laws and have even refused to cooperate with the federal government and the Attorney General's office has elected not to sue. We now have cities and even two states (so far) passing laws against enforcement of federal law, and nothing from the executive branch.

      " A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”

      Want to bet the tune will likely be a bit different if and when similar laws are passed regarding federal gun laws?

    10. Want to bet that depending on what political party holds that office, different party priorities will determine what laws get enforcement priorities? Holder is doing nothing different than any other AG. Your comparison of an AG to a sheriff is ridiculous.

    11. I agree that state laws regarding marijuana can be compared to state laws regarding some gun rights, but there should be a way to protect against this. The laws which restrict automatic guns and other heavy military weapons should also cover the magazine restrictions and the other newer and more controversial regulations.

    12. Heavy military weapons fall under the gun control act of 1934. These include those that fire explosive rounds and anything over fifty caliber, not counting shotguns.
      And there hasn't been the political will so far to add items to that category. Perhaps the President is already looking into that tactic since he has been promising executive action in regards to gun control.

    13. We are talking about a problem causing over 30,000 deaths a year. Congress won't act. The president took an oath to defend and safeguard the American people. That does not just mean from foreign attack. He is using the legal authority the Constitution gives him, that has been used by every president. Nothing wrong there at all.

    14. Anonymous, the president does not have the arbitrary authority to invalidate parts of the Constitution just because you want him to. Nor does he have the authority to go beyond the powers granted him in the law.

    15. "Anonymous, the president does not have the arbitrary authority to invalidate parts of the Constitution just because you want him to."

      Hey, lying criminal coward, where did I say the president can invalidate the Constitution? Please back up your lies.

      "Nor does he have the authority to go beyond the powers granted him in the law."

      Where did I say the president has the authority to go beyond the powers granted ti him? Please back up your lies.

      Two more lies from the lying criminal coward.
      No surprise.
      He has to lie to make a point.
      It's all he has, the poor uneducated hillbilly.

    16. And as usual, no response from the lying coward

  5. "Want to bet that depending on what political party holds that office, different party priorities will determine what laws get enforcement priorities?"

    I completely agree with you on that Anon, the person voted into power gets to set the priorities of enforcement. My comparison of an AG to a Sheriff is valid because both get to set priorities in regards to enforcement.
    The Sheriff though is much more answerable to the voters in my opinion because the Sheriff is much closer to the voters he directly affects than an AG who rarely has any direct face to face contact with the voters. He also lives in close proximity to the voters that he works for.
    The main difference is that those who decide that federal gun laws aren't a priority are portrayed by the media as insurrectionists, as opposed to the passage of laws that directly conflict with federal laws who are portrayed by the same media as protectors of the little man and defender of individual choice.

  6. " My comparison of an AG to a Sheriff is valid because both get to set priorities in regards to enforcement."
    There is a big difference between a sheriff setting priorities on arrests (a crime has to have been committed) and which of those arrested will actually be prosecuted.
    I can break the law all day and get arrested, which means nothing if I never get prosecuted and punished. The AG (or prosecutor) has the authority to do that, a sheriff does not.

  7. Then both get to set priorities for enforcement.
    I would like to also say that I appreciate the good debate we've had so far. Its very refreshing to talk and not have the conversation devolve into name calling.

    1. But only one has the power to punish on behalf of the State. That's a big difference!
      Imagine how different (bad) the law would be if police had the power to judge, pass sentence on, and decide to prosecute, or not on the same accused people they arrested and gathered evidence on. We would be like China.
      Separation, checks and balances are the only way it works well, not to mention the supervision of police is essential to check abuses and corruption. And yes, Holder needs to be checked and accountable also, that's the Congresses job, a purely political process. .

  8. And in this case, it actually does work well. If an attorney general fails to do his job, then the voters can throw him out in the next election, or if he isn't elected, change administrations. If it rises to the level of criminal or unconstitutional conduct, the courts are the place to remedy the issue.
    If a Sheriff makes a bad choice in enforcement policies that doesn't reflect the wishes of the voters, then he can be removed at the next election. If he violates the law, again, the courts are there to intervene. In fact, if I recall recently, the US Attorney General intervened concerning the conduct of a certain Sheriff in Arizona.
    A police chief's enforcement priorities are determined by the mayor and the city council. And they in turn are answerable to the voters.
    As you put so well, checks and balances come into play to keep things working correctly for the most part.

    1. My sheriff is not elected and I know many are not.

    2. Anonymous, where do you live? Sheriffs are, by definition, elected officials just about everywhere.

    3. There are actually two states with no Sheriffs,

      "Of the 50 U.S. states, 48 have sheriffs. The two that do not are Alaska (which has no counties), and Connecticut (which has no county governments and has state marshals instead of sheriffs)"