Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
A claim against Sheriff's Department is a claim against taxpayers
Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:16 AM PDT
This letter is in reference to the News-Sentinel column reporting that the "honorable" Judge Cinda Fox has filed a lawsuit or claim against the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department.
Let us be clear here: This is a claim against the taxpayers of the county, the same taxpayers who provided a job for her and assumed that she was mature enough to handle the job. The article indicated that since returning to work, she has not taken on any new trials, while still being paid by the taxpayers.
What happened in that courtroom was a travesty. A man was killed by a young police officer who probably did not start the day thinking about taking a person's life, and I am confident the correct level of force was used to prevent serious injury to the judge. The man who was killed made very bad choices, and paid the ultimate price for his behavior.
The standard of "reasonable expectation" applies here to the judge and the other people in the courtroom. A defendant on trial for murder, who attacks the judge with a deadly weapon, can reasonably expect that someone will use whatever level of force necessary to stop him. The judge should reasonably expect that anything is possible in a courtroom and take appropriate preventive measures.
Taxpayers have reasonable expectation also. When people are considered for a judgeship, we should "reasonably" expect that they are qualified for the position in every aspect of the job. Those qualifications should include a level of maturity and awareness that this judge obviously did not possess.
In fairness to Judge Cox, perhaps after this incident she became aware that she could not work in a courtroom environment, due to her sensitivities. If this is the case, then she should move on, but she should not blame the already overburdened taxpayers for her over sensitive nature.
Jim Wilson
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
danielh wrote on Sep 15, 2009 8:42 PM:
judges retirement comes out of a little-known CAFR fund, and ...
county taxpayer money goes both to the sheriff, and to the courthouse, and ...
people are criticizing the judge for suing the county taxpayers instead of the county taxpayers. "
max stanfield wrote on Sep 15, 2009 11:34 AM:
Lodian wrote on Sep 15, 2009 10:46 AM:
Lodian wrote on Sep 15, 2009 10:44 AM:
Lodian wrote on Sep 15, 2009 10:42 AM:
election year wrote on Sep 15, 2009 10:36 AM:
Mr. Wilson also appears to place blame on the detective who defended Judge Fox by reacting quickly in a life-or-death situation.
The current obsession about "taxpayer" dollars being wasted is going way too far. The Judge Fox, regardless of her status or level of education, was almost murdered by a person with little regard for life (his own mother was in the car when he senselessly murdered his girlfriend). Anyone with any common sense would be afraid. "
wtf wrote on Sep 15, 2009 10:30 AM:
DeputyChief wrote on Sep 15, 2009 9:40 AM:
You are 100% correct.
The Sheriff's incompetence in refernce to his policies warrant some disciplinary action. This is going to result in the county losing a considerable amount of money in this lawsuit due to incompetence.
According to the law the Sheriff's Office had the legal authority in this case to initiate a strip search and failed to do so. I have even heard them erroneously state that the law prohibits them. Either they are lying to cover up their mistake or they are just ignorant.
Case law states, the 11th Court circuit's precedent justifies strip searches only when a "reasonable suspicion" indicates that a detainee could possess weapons or contraband, according to the court's 2001 ruling in Wilson v. Jones, 251 F.3d 1340. "
Cogito wrote on Sep 15, 2009 9:08 AM:
DeputyChief wrote on Sep 15, 2009 9:06 AM:
Incompetent Sheriff Moore made this statement to the media
http://cbs13.com/local/San.Joaquin.Courthouse.2.952661.html "
tosh conn wrote on Sep 15, 2009 8:11 AM:
t jefferson wrote on Sep 15, 2009 6:36 AM:
This judge could have ordered anything she wanted done to this person, prior to letting him into here courtroom. Should could have had a firearm on here person to defend herself (many judges do). There are many things this judge could have done to prevent this from happening. But hey, those don't pay in the end. Hope the sheriffs department pulls out Government code 845 and this judge get the same outcome the plaintiffs did in Warren v. DC. The police have no duty to defend an individual...get over it and stop trying to suck money out of the taxpayers Judge Fox. You have more rights then the average citizen when it comes to defending yourself, use them. "
jeff wrote on Sep 15, 2009 6:10 AM:
2centsworth wrote on Sep 15, 2009 4:11 AM:
KenH wrote on Sep 15, 2009 3:39 AM:
Sacramento County Courts, whenever displayed on the news shows the defendants (more commonly the violent offenders) in a cage, so that everybody will remain safe in the court room. I don't know about you Mr. Wilson, but I believe that when the new San Joaquin County Court House gets built, the known violent offenders should be standing/sitting in a cage while on trial, as this would keep the courts safe...perhaps this is what Miss Fox wants too, but I cannot speak for her. "
Comments on this story are now closed.