Archive for Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall
Wall to appeal license revocation
Advertisement
Read all stories related to Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall
Steamboat Springs — Routt County Sheriff Gary Wall will fight the Colorado Department of Revenue's yearlong revocation of his driver's license and is asking that his license be reinstated while the appeal process plays out.
Wall and his lawyer, Steamboat Springs attorney Ron Smith, have asked for a judicial review of the Department of Revenue's decision. In his petition for review, Smith accuses the Colorado State Patrol and hearing officer Art Julian of inappropriate behavior. The petition claims Trooper Melissa Fowler had no reason to pull Wall over near the well-lit intersection of Walton Creek Road and U.S. Highway 40 on Oct. 27, 2007, for a failure to dim his headlights.
"It would have been impossible for the trooper to distinguish high beams from low beams or those of the powerful overhead street lights," the petition states.
The State Patrol revoked Wall's license that night because Wall refused to submit to tests of his blood alcohol level. Wall was charged with failure to dim his headlights, driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of a weapon while under the influence of alcohol.
Wall appealed the loss of his driver's license to the Department of Revenue and was issued a temporary license, but Julian upheld the revocation in December 2007. Julian rejected Wall's claims that troopers did not have probable cause to request a test.
Julian based part of his decision on State Patrol reports that Wall was unsteady on his feet when he exited his county-owned vehicle. But Smith claims any observations made after Wall exited his vehicle should not be considered because the decision to arrest Wall already had been made.
A written statement from Fowler supports Smith's claim. She wrote that Trooper Brett Hilling - who was called to the scene and took over the investigation - told her before asking Wall to step out of his vehicle that "we would arrest Wall based on indicators of intoxication we observed."
Smith's petition claims that Wall had, at most, only one glass of wine at the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association celebration he attended that night before driving home. Written testimony submitted by 16 individuals on behalf of Wall supports that position. In his petition, Smith calls Julian's preference of the troopers' testimony "pervasive and disturbing."
Smith also claims Julian acted inappropriately in rejecting a request for the subpoena of Sheriff's Office Dep. Lance Eldridge, who was called to the traffic stop scene and later drove Wall and his girlfriend and passenger, Jenny Wilson, home. Smith's petition states that Eldridge's testimony was crucial to the defense's claim that the strong odor of alcohol troopers observed was emanating from Wilson, not Wall. Eldridge reportedly spoke to Wilson while Wall was in Trooper Hilling's vehicle and smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the car in Wall's absence.
Wall's appeal of the Department of Revenue's revocation of his driver's license is a civil matter and has no bearing on Wall's criminal trial, which resumes at 10:30 a.m. today. Judge Cecil Wayne Williams is expected to decide whether the trial will remain in Routt County. Special prosecutor Karen Romeo has requested a venue change, citing media coverage that has been "massive, pervasive and prejudicial to both sides, but more so to the defendant." Wall is opposing the venue change. In his response to Romeo's motion, Smith claims venue changes can only be requested by the defense because they are for the benefit of the defendant alone. Romeo has since submitted a supplement to her motion: 120 pages of stories and reader-submitted comments on Steamboatpilot.com related to the charges against Wall.
A phone message left at Romeo's office Tuesday was not returned. Wall and Smith have refused to discuss the case.
Comments
spukomy ( anonymous ) says...
Classic.
February 13, 2008 at 2:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blackthroatedwind ( anonymous ) says...
I fought the law but the law won... Oh wait, I am the law... Now what??? Yet another excellent example to our kids of how to evade the law. The OJ school of justice. Gary, you are an embarassment!
February 13, 2008 at 5:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ms_E_Bronte ( anonymous ) says...
Yep -- blame the girlfriend! Second had alcohol? Interesting defense.
February 13, 2008 at 5:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
weallnutz ( anonymous ) says...
every little loophole, is anybody surprised, look at the pre election interviews, all his run ins with the law and misgivings and mistakes were'nt his fault, guess we all thought we could save him by electing him. Continues to be an ridiculous.
February 13, 2008 at 6:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
boatski ( anonymous ) says...
"Wall had, at most, only one glass of wine"
"refused to submit to tests of his blood alcohol level"
I don't understand why a law officer who only had one glass of wine would refuse to submit to a test?
February 13, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
The rancher interviewed on 9 news stated he did not see Wall drink anything. Sounds like the story changed. What about the fact that Wall was carrying a gun while consuming alcohol? I guess the street lights blinded the fact that Wall could not tell he was carrying a gun, or in a county vehicle consuming alcohol.
February 13, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
steamboatlover ( anonymous ) says...
This is getting ridiculous. If Wall is willing to pass the buck to his girlfriend, and she is dumb enough to let her own name be smeared for his defense, then what does that say about our Sheriff and one of our local business owners? What a joke. If this were anyone else there would be no grounds for appeal, nor would this be considered. You made your bed Wall - lie in it. And then do the right thing and step down as Sheriff so the other communities don't get to yuck it up at our expense.
February 13, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kusellout ( anonymous ) says...
I agree, great comment at the Carnival. But, where's the recall?
February 13, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Queenie ( anonymous ) says...
One HUGE question remains (or maybe I just haven't seen the answer) WHO is paying for Wall's attorney?????
February 13, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Queenie ( anonymous ) says...
I hope the BCC are looking for their own "loopholes" to deal with Wall.
February 13, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JazzSlave ( anonymous ) says...
"It would have been impossible for the trooper to distinguish high beams from low beams or those of the powerful overhead street lights"
Wall's defense: Liar liar, pants on fire!
Don't look at me - I didn't vote for him.
February 13, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ms_E_Bronte ( anonymous ) says...
Wall is paying for his defense on this one -- checked it out -- on County matters, we, the taxpayers, foot the bill.
Correction on my previous post: Second hand alcohol -- not "had" Sorry
February 13, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zirkel ( anonymous ) says...
Can he still bike to work?
February 13, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
"Written testimony submitted by 16 individuals on behalf of Wall supports that position." (1 glass of wine), DID all 16 of these people stick by his side exclusively the entire time he was in attendance? IF not, is it possible each person only seen him consume 1 glass which equals 16 glasses. "Eldridge reportedly spoke to Wilson while Wall was in Trooper Hilling's vehicle and smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the car in Wall's absence.", NO one said she wasn't drinking too and that doesn't make him any less drunk. Did anyone check her purse, maybe they had a little nip after they left the party. ALL kinds of scenarios but, the FACT is the Routt County Sheriff refused any kind of alcohol test which would have proven his innocence (if in fact he was) and someone is now paying big bucks to an attorney to loophole him out of the consequences of his actions. He sure is showing a lot of respect for the office the majority of you "voters for change" elected him to. It's time for him to slither back under the rock from whence he came.
February 13, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shadow ( anonymous ) says...
Clinton never inhaled, maybe Wall didn't swallow.
February 13, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
letomayo ( anonymous ) says...
stmbtluv, "let her own name be smeared for his defense, then what does that say about our Sheriff and one of our local business owners?" Good business owners don't get drunk is thaqt what you mean are you kidding? If his girlfriend was the one drinking how would that smear her name if she was drinking and was not driving. I smelled lots of booze on alot of folks who are at different events and lots them are business owners and realators and school people and cops off duty and construction business owners. Her name is smeared when you and others attack her because she likes the sherriff. You think she's stupid but they say love is blind does your spouse love you all the time and when they do are they stupid?
I don't care for the saying bad things on soomeone who is really not involved. You don't like the sherriff and have said so but leave the girlfiend out. would you like it if someone close to you was attacked by someone just cause they like or love you. They don't deserve it and niether does she.
February 13, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Low beam, high beam, Jim Beam::. . . .the whole think stinks like B-O-L-O-G-N-A.
February 13, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Seriously, if Wall did not want to cooperate and work together with CSP on a breath test, he should have insisted on labs that check for traces of blood in your alcohol stream.
February 13, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shadow ( anonymous ) says...
COJustice, Agreed. In the eyes of the law he is innocent until proven guilty. However, right or wrong, in the eyes of the community a high profile public figure can be expected to be held to the highest standards. If he had nothing to worry about, a breath test would have exonorated him and eliminated doubt and restored the respect of the community. Instead he opted to refuse to submit and now is desperately seeking an end run around the consequences.
February 13, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ms_E_Bronte ( anonymous ) says...
CoJustice -- maybe he did have something to worry about and just didn't have his wits about him. After this article, he's just grasping at straws and perhaps has broken the camel's back.
February 13, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
We are all forgetting to thank Mr Wall for setting such a good example to our youth.
Also, is Dep. Eldridge availible to give me a ride this Friday, I have an urge to go have ONE glass of wine with 16 people and I sure would hate to cause such a fuss when I refuse the breath test...... I just know that Trooper Fowler is laying in wait for someone else under those powerful lights.......
February 13, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
paddlefisher ( anonymous ) says...
food for thought..i'm not on anyones side here but i have been driving with my high beams for several months(low beam burnt out)and never been stopped by Steamboat P D or Highway Patrol or Sheriffs office..and yes I replaced my headlight
February 13, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Nice point, but the issue is more about Walls behavior after the stop. He was elected to an office for the sole purpose of upholding the laws set forth by our county, state, ect. Can anyone actually believe that if Joe Blow were stopped under similar circumstance, Joe would be allowed to leave the scene with one of his employees? No.
(BTW, now I know who that terrible person is who has been blinding everyone for months...shame on you! lol)
February 13, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
Sheriff Wall, Get some help.
Honor dictates you look to yourself for your actions.
How long are you going to attempt to avoid the consequences of your actions.
February 13, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
weallnutz ( anonymous ) says...
seriously...why is there not a recall and what are the steps to start one, I'll do it, where do I go?
February 13, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
nutz
Get a couple of like minded folks together. Make a night of it. head down to City hall and say it out loud when they give you the opportunity to speak.
That is you start one.
February 13, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
diva ( anonymous ) says...
get over Gary already and get onto something else. West Routt Fire Chief Bryan Rickman, summoned for inapproriate sexual conduct and harrassement, been relieved of his administrative duties, EEOC has taken case, civil lawsuit pending, possibly more charges coming.
February 13, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
Sorry diva, we move on when we choose, not because you want us to leave your boy alone. Personally, I'll "get onto something else" when Routt County has a decent sober sheriff.
February 14, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Queenie ( anonymous ) says...
Was Rickman relieved of his duties? I see that he is at work everyday. Haven't heard much about this one.
February 14, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Queenie ( anonymous ) says...
I wonder if Wall reads these comments? I'll serve on the jury. :)
February 14, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Despite the fact that everybody shouted it down when I proposed the scenario before, there is a logical explanation for all of it.
Chloral hydrate is a sedative, and is relatively easy to get. Anna Nichole Smith apparently died from an overdose of it. The hospital probably carries it for a pediatric sedative. The usual sedative dose for an adult is .025 grams, and .05 grams for a "hypnotic" dose. 1/2 (.5 grams) gram is roughly 1/2 cubic centimeter of water, so it doesn't take much; just a drop or two. If given in orange juice, coffee, or some other liquid with a slight acid or bitter "tang" to it, it goes unnoticed. The effects take about 20 minutes to kick in. It can cause drowsiness, stumbling, speech and coordination problems, and affects judgment. It's effects are often confused with alcohol intoxication. If someone at the dinner slipped Mr. Wall a dose of chloral hydrate in a cup of black coffee with dessert, or on the way out the door, his actions and physical symptoms ten to twenty minutes later are a perfect match for chloral hydrate doping.
Unlike alcohol, chloral hydrate is not the direct cause of the sedative effect. It must be metabolized in the body into a derivative substance before the effects are felt, which is why it takes a few minutes to show its effects.
So, say what you want about it. Maybe he was just drunk. On the other hand, ain't it convenient that the CSP was lying in wait for him? How do we know he was not followed, and someone with a cellphone didn't tip off the CSP officers invovled in the stop.
This drunk driving scenario is a dream come true for Wall's detractors. Way too good to be true, I think. Astonishingly lucky, don't you think?
Who was serving that night? What was served to Wall in the last few minutes he was at the dinner? Did he take a cup of coffee "to go" with him, and sip on it while the car warmed up?
And before anybody says, "He should have recognized that he had been doped and asked for a blood test," well, that's the whole point about chloral hydrate. It affects judgment and causes confusion. It's a date rape drug.
I wasn't there, and I didn't see anything that went on, but I've worked as a server and I guarantee you that I could do it to anybody who ordered a cup of coffee without anyone else knowing anything about it. I'm not saying it happened. I'm only saying it would have been easy to do, and it would explain a lot, and it's a perfect fit with what EVERYONE has said about the events that occurred that night.
February 14, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dundalk ( anonymous ) says...
Good grief Id. This is Earth, welcome to reality.
February 14, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
Well, wouldn't one of the 16 friends that surrounded him all evening attesting to his 1 glass of wine have noticed something if he went from straight to doped on coffee? Is it possible his 16 friends were so busy counting his drinks they failed to notice any symptoms or does this drug only start it's affect after you get behind the wheel? Will his next defense be to accuse his girlfriend of date rape so he can weasel out of the charges? His state of confusion and lack of good judgment started long before this, nice try though.
February 14, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fmrstudentlxa ( anonymous ) says...
Regardless of conspiracy theories the fact stands that his license was revoked. It would be a gross corruption of Justice if his license is reinstated.
February 14, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
ID, do you know who killed Kennedy also?
February 14, 2008 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
Poor Mr. Wall. He should have had his blood drawn, then he could have had it tested for Chloral Hydrate and then all this "conspiracy talk" could be cleared up! When is he ever gonna be able to end the corruption?? Oh me, oh my.....
February 14, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
is04sp,
How does a highly educated person like you dispense with Occam's Razor so easily, ("when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities")? Cognitive dissonace maybe, "(the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs)"? Have your past dealings with real corruption given you insights or a paranoid bent? I don't agree with your hypothesis, but I leave open the possibility that it may be correct on the order of 2% probability.
February 14, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Hadley...wow I respect your superior intelligence!
Perhaps you could explain to me and ID, exactly what makes Wall so important that we are to believe that he was drugged and the conspiracy goes as far as to include the Colorado State Patrol, laying in wait to bust him? Are we also to believe that the Deputy who did give Walls a ride on the evening in question completely missed the signs of a possible drugging? I kind of thought they were trained to notice unusual behavior, certainly he would have noticed or reported any strange behavior from his superior, UNLESS, he also believed that Walls was drunk and was afraid to report him.... oh my the plot thickens!
Why cant everyone just agree that there was a lack of good judgement and now it is time to pay the piper and take responsibility for those actions? Oh wait, that would mean that Good Old Gary would have to admit he was a bit on the tipsy side....darn back to square one.....cant wait ot read the next article........
February 14, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Also, ID....just where is it that you work? You seem to have put a lot of thought into slipping a druggie-poo into someones cup of Java.
February 14, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BoatMaster ( anonymous ) says...
16 people said they saw him have 1 glass of wine. That could mean he had 16 glasses of wine if he saw each person at different times. Ha Ha.
But really folks, since they are using this discussion board in the courtroom the pilot will get a subpeana and have to supply them with a list of all of us posters and how to contact us.
This is gonna get messy.
February 14, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
There is Education and there is common sence.
ID, I disagree.
HBP, 2% is a generous estimation.
Bandmama, well said.
How does what Hall gets away with look to all the twenty somethings out there new to alcohol?
Its the law. You drink, you drive, you go to jail. You loose your licence. You pay fines. and whatever else it takes to keep people from operating a vehicle while under the influence of anything.
Period.
February 14, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kielbasa ( Matthew Stoddard ) says...
Okay, if they use this forum, I'll help: I want part of the salary, though (is the bartender 1 of those 16ppl?).
Questions for the Prosecution to Use:
1) How many people go to a function and count how many drinks another person they aren't driving with has?
2) Did you actually count the number of drinks, or did you only see him with a single drink in hand at any time you saw him?
3) Did you see him have a drink almost empty at one point and then later see him with a drink only half empty?
4) Has Gary Wall ever stopped someone for using their brights in a lit area, at any time while acting as an Officer of the Law?
February 14, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
You are correct Boatmaster, but in all honesty, since the majority of information that MAY be admissable in court was reported by the paper, the rest is our opinions. I would be more than happy to take the stand and express the many opinions I have on this issue, as I am sure many other citizens who are disgusted by the behavior of our sherriff.
February 14, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
424, thanks for keeping it real, as a parent, this is what bothers me the most, the fine example shown to the youth of the community.
Although, the drinking allegations have yet to be proven, just by refusing a breath test, he has helped to promote bad realations between officers of the law and a driver who may have imbided to much. He has thus succeded in making it even harder for us to explain to our youth that even though they do have a right to refuse, it is usually best to cooperate with the officers if they are stopped. Thanks Gary!
February 14, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
below_me ( anonymous ) says...
Gin Blossoms. They are called Gin Blossoms. I'm beginning to think Ms. Trooper Fowler is the only cop around here with a pair of balls.
February 14, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Hadley,
What is the basis for your assignment of a 2% probability to Wall having been doped? What's the difference between this scenario and a date rape drugging? Chloral hydrate is a known date rape drug.
Benny,
As I already explained, the effects of chloral hydrate interfere with a person's ability to function intellectually. It is a plausible reason WHY he may not have thought to go get a blood test. Would you ask a date rape victim why she didn't insist on a condom?
Justathought,
As I explained, chloral hydrate takes 10 to 20 minutes to begin to have an effect. Something consumed just before leaving the dinner would not have had an effect that his friends would have noticed. His companion was admittely drunk, so how could she be expected to notice anything a few minutes later? Wall himself might have noticed starting to become drowsy, but it was late, right? Since he would have been unaware of the doping, why would he be alert for any such thing before it was already too late and the drug had taken full effect?
Bandmama,
Wall made his living for a number of years as a private investigator, and his specialty was discrediting the testimony of law enforcment officers. The CSP was involved on numerous occasions from what's been said on this forum in the past. To say the CSP might have been "gunning" for Wall that night is not much of a strech of the imagination. And as for where I work, I've been out of the food service business for more than 12 years, so have no fear. And I'll ask you also: If this case was about someone who was a victim of date rape, would it be so hard to believe?
I'm not saying Wall was drugged. I'm only saying that a chloral hydrate doping in the last few minutes before leaving the dinner could explain everything that has been described regarding the events of that night.
Everybody seems to really want this man to be guilty. Frankly, other than the displaced RCSO employees, I don't see why anyone would have a reason to complain. His policies have resulted in improved service to the community (winches on patrol vehicles; patrol vehicles spending the night in North Routt; cutting funding to questionable programs). I haven't seen anyone complaining about calls not being answered, an increase in crime out in the county, etc.
The cause of Anna Nicole Smith's death, from a chloral hydrate overdose, was made public in March of 2007. It can't be that hard to get, and there's plenty of information on its effects. How hard would it be to make someone look intoxicated by slipping them a dose of chloral hydrate, and then calling the cops to be on the lookout for a drunk driver?
A former GRAMNET officer set up a judge's girlfriend for a cocaine trafficking bust after the judge threatened to hold the officer in contempt. It happened here in Routt and Moffat counties in conjunction with a murder trial. Conspiracy nutso or not, it does happen, and it has happened right here before.
February 14, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
Bandmama,
Read through again and see that I was attempting to REFUTe id04sp's drugging theory.
Id04sp,
I came up with 2% probabilty based upon the incidences of drugging related stories verses DUIs that I have read about. Granted these are not hard figures. The rate is probably lower if you were to do the statistical math even including known date rape figures versus DUIs.
Again, I will grant you that your theory is possible, but does it really make the most sense? I will try to keep an open mind to see what evidence is presented in court that might be exculpatory.
February 14, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Ido4: If Wall was given chloral hydrate, he still made the decision to get behind the wheel of a car, and drive under the influence, with a gun.
It would be interesting in reviewing his campaign finance report listed with the Secretary of State, employees and girlfriends and compare the list to of 16 witnesses. Maybe the DA has already printed the report. Should be entertaining.
February 14, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
id..... I believe you just helped to support my comments by stating that Wall has had experience discrediting Law Enforcement Officers, who better to beat this rap? As for your cold comparison between this particular issue and a date rape, I dont feel it needs a response, it speaks for itself.
Please review Hadleys comments, the 2% was explained very clearly.
As far as getting a blood test, I may have misunderstood but I was asumming the blood test was for the booze, again I state that Dep Eldridge (whom I hope was sober unlike the girlfriend) may have noticed any unusual behavior and reported it.
I do need to clarify one more tiny detail, it is NOT that I want him to be guilty, his behavior and actions since the incident are not those of an innocent person, but someone who may realize he messed up and is trying to get out a a bit of a sticky embarrassing situation.
Once again let me point out that my main beef is the very poor example this man has given to the public. As sherriff, he should be the FIRST to set up and have a breath test if he knew at the time he was not intoxicated. Instead he made the choice to refuse, he made the poor decision to have an employee (whom is paid with our tax dollars) to taxi his alledged drunken self and his girlfried whom he has publically stated was intoxicated home on tax payers time. It was inappropriate and I believe this is the issue to be addressed, not conspiracy theories, not date rape and most certainly, not Anna Nicoles tragic demise.
BTW, thanks for the info on the food service. I wont be so frightened the next time I order coffee.
February 14, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Hadley-
I got it, sorry that I didn't make that clear!
February 14, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
CoJustice an excellent suggetion!
February 14, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
424now,
I do presume that id04sp is highly educated and intelligent. One does not get to be a Naval Aviator by being ignorant. I also know people like id04sp presumably who are Mensa / geniuses. They would come across as lunatic fringe to the majority of us because their reality or concept of reality differs from most of ours. Conspiracies require an imagination. Many conspiracies are/were real. There are things that occured during the cold war that the masses could not even contemplate let alone believe. I'ld be willing to bet that id04sp was privy to some of these. Things that will never be made public (declassified) and that will historically evaporate. And no, I am not talking about Roswell. So this is id04sp's paradigm and I am trully greatful for it. For without the type of intellectual imagination that id04sp puts forth we would all assume that our vantage point is the only true reality.
So, now that I have established that I have an open mind, I have a few questions for this conspiracy theorist:
a) Would the drug have shown up in a breath test or blood test?
b) If so, then wouldn't the drugging attempt have come to light bringing down the conspirators?
c) If not, then what could the CSP have charged Wall with if nothing showed up on the test?
So, "riddle me this grasshopper", doesn't this complex approach to frame somebody then seem to have a very low likelyhood of success and a high probabilty of being exposed?
With your cold war experience couldn't you think of a much better approach in terms of reversing the above probabilities?
So in all fairness to Wall, I will wait and see if there is any real evidence that might exonerate him in court. If you were his attorney, would you be comfortable running with the drugging postulate? Not me.
I would think that they stand a better chance of showing that Wall should never have been pulled over and therefore anything that occured after that is mute.
February 14, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
ID: I don't agee that it is a good thing to put winches on patrol cars. I actually think that that is absurd. Also, there were deputies living in North Routt prior to Wall being Sheriff. Warner also allowed take home cars, just didn't allow employees to use them for personal use and especially didn't allow them to drive them out of state for personal use. It's not like Wall was elected as sheriff, then stationed deputies' residences in different parts of the county. Deputies live where they live, then they get the job....usually. You keep bringing up this doping thing and I'm just wondering if you have evidence of that. It's just weird to me that someone would be so persistent about something, unless they had inside information. I believe that the man was drinking and driving and the reason that I believe that is because of his character, previous behavior, current behavior, and because of the facts that have been presented to the community about the case. NOTHING that I have learned about Gary or about this case makes me even consider that he was doped. One fact that remains is that he refused any tests. Any reasonable person would have taken those tests if they were not under the influence. Also, from what I have learned from people who have been under the influence of the date rape drug, you aren't just a little tipsy; you're pretty much unconscious and oblivious. That's the point, so you can't fight off your attacker.
February 14, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beerassmomma ( anonymous ) says...
Dudes, i hear it was abuse of citric acid like drink mix unflavored like kool aid crap when inhaled it's totally undetectable (duh our kids drink it) the powder causes intoxification from enlarged sinus cavities due to the burn. It's short but can hit u later in extreme cold. He didn't think it was gonna end up this way. i used to blow the crap but started getting relapses about hr after
February 14, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Hadley, while I do appreciate your point of view, this isn't the cold war, and again I would like an explanation as to the point of setting Wall up, if one (or as a conspiracy usually takes more than one) were wanting to discredit and get Wall out of office, why start AFTER the election? Just curious.
As far as the date rape drug being detected, yes, it can be through blood if done in a timely manner. Which again raises the question of propriety that he left the scene.
February 14, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Benny, you should be commended for pointing out that there were actually were deputies living within the county before Wall.
In our haste to conspire against him we all forgot that there would be none without him...........
February 14, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Okay, you people all must be dumb as stumps.
If Wall had been DRUGGED with something like chloral hydrate, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A RATIONAL DECISION at the roadside. That's what it does to people -- disorientation, confusion, etc.
COJO, if wall was drugged with chloral hydrate, he would NOT FEEL ANYTHING FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES. He'd have already been driving down the road, carrying his gun, when the drug kicked in. AND, once it began to act, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO THINK RATIONALLY ABOUT WHAT TO DO AT THAT POINT. That's how the drug WORKS!
That's what I'm trying to tell you all if you'd READ IT and understand.
He may have just been drunk. Okay, case over.
However, chloral hydrate doping shortly before his departure from the dinner would not have caused any observable difference in his behavior for AT LEAST 20 MINUTES. Then, he would have acted EXACTLY as he was described to act by the witnesses at the roadside. HE WOULD HAVE APPEARED TO BE DRUNK.
Hadley,
Yes, you are indeed right about your speculations.
ANd, the drug would have shown up in a blood test if one had been administered. However, if Wall was drugged with chloral hydrate and did not give consent, no blood was taken.
I'm purely speculating here, but the reason is that Wall would have to be the dumbest ########er in the world to drive drunk away from that dinner. With so much to lose, if he really only had one glass of wine because of the risk to his position, a drugging is the only LOGICAL alternative to him simply being the stupidest man in the county.
February 14, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
Okay, so the drugging would have made him refuse the test because he was disoriented. That's a tough sell Capt. Regardless, I can not think of anything worse than being falsely accused and convicted of a crime that one is innocent of. Therefore I will keep an open mind even though my better instincts keep pulling me back to the obvious. Lastly, do you think this theory is going to be the approach the defense takes? If so, wouldn't Wall recognize the effects ex post facto of being drugged and be pleading his case publically as such from the outset?
February 14, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
Maybe he is the "dumbest ########er" in the world. Him being stupid is a lot more logical than him being drugged, but I'm just speculating here.
February 14, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Check out this link: It has all the Campaign Finance Reports, click on "Report". It will be interesting to see if any witness or jury member is on these lists.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/cpf/Combin...
February 14, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
ummmmmmmmmm like gee man..up till know I thought i done had some intillegance............have you been subpoenaed yet for the denfence?
Quite honestly, you seem to be determined to show that he was drugged. DO YOU HAVE information to back that up?
If you do I would suggest to you to contact the the defence in this issue, as he obviously needs additional public support.
check the posts man.....
And by the way dude.. if the meds impaired his judement,the fact he carried a lethal weapon does NOT help help his cause. I would suggest that you stop defending this man on this.
As to him considering his job and social standing, as sherriff, he should have made a point of having a sober driver availible to drive him and the girly-friend home...
it didn't seem to be an issue when Lance was summed to drive him home.
or geee, maybe I am just really dumb.....but yet again your last comment supports my point. He was irresponsible. Done.
,
February 14, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
You know what Id, forget about my questions. I honestly don't give a sh*t about this case. Let it run its course through the courts. I'd rather play a game of chess or read a book than waste another minute on this bs. Too damn old not to be fatalistic if you know what I mean. If he's innocent I hope he gets his freedom and his good name back. If guilty, then I hope he is punished in a way that prevents him from harming any of us in the future.
February 14, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
WOW Cojustice, his contributors consist of lawyers and criminals. Interesting.
February 14, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
Most of them, I should say.
February 14, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
Isn't that redundant?
February 14, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Hadley, again my point, you and the public SHOULD care!
Gary showed poor judgement which implicates clouded clarity of thought, for one reason or another....yet to be determined.................................. BUT! this is a man whose, EVERY public bit of knowledge of his life style should reflect nothing but the best of choices, he has managed to make a complete farse of the CHP, local law enforcement, and what we are supposed to be teaching our kids! I have an upcoming young driver, who by the way, is a very intella-lek-tu-ALL young person. I have had to step in when he and friends make jokes about driving drunk and "just calling a fellow co-worker"...............ok...So have I. But please see my point.
As a parent, this situation makes it very hard to "drive home" the serious implications as to any question to sobriety, which aside from the light issue, the girlfriend issue, the conspiriacy issue, the oh gee he made a bad decision issue...leaves us with the question, This not a person that I would like to see holding such an office.
Forget Anna Nicole, this IS Routt County, our home, our kids,
is this what we would approve of, had it been our wife, husband, son, daughter, girlfried, boyfried, you get the idea.....
February 14, 2008 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
bandmama,
I get it, but it is now time for an imparshall jury to decide. Don't you agree?
February 14, 2008 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
Is the Jenny Wilson in this article (the one emanating strong alcohol odors), Wall's girlfriend and passenger in a county owned vehicle, the same Jennifer Wilson that received over $5,800.00 in reimbursements from Walls political campaign funds? Cozy
February 14, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Hadley- as a possible member of that jury, yes we should wait for the impartial jury, unlike the public forum in which I thought I thought I was engaging in, I should wait for "real" evidence" unlike that which was public record. Ah gee, he didn't dim his lights, a simple error, that may or may not indicate the level of inlightenment or lack of judgement for any reason of any driver to manuever on our roadways..........................................I kind of thought that that was the responsibility if CHP or the Sherriffs dept or the local police to determine if one were to be possibly threatening the safety of Joe Blow and his family, who maybe, to the apparent surprise of some, sharing the same roadways.
Trooper Fowler should be commended for undertaking the responsibilty of daring to pulling over the sherriff for not showing said safety concerns......like duh man.....
is there really no one else who sees the simple thought in this? if not I give up.
justathought, thank you.
February 14, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
ummm, if I get pulled over by the sherriff's dept after expressing my opinion here....can I claim Bright Lights????
Just wondering,
February 14, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
justathought:
Are you talking about this Jennifer Wilson? As reported by the Secretary of State.
Found 7 matching record(s). Viewing page 1 of 1. # Payee Name City, State Amount Date Purpose Report Date Corrected?
1. JENNIFER WILSON STEAMBOAT
SPRINGS,
CO $4,149.36 11/03/2006 REIMBURSE FOR POST CARDS & MAILING 12/09/2006
February 14, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
Who's corrupt? What conspiracy? Hmmmm.
February 14, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beerassmomma ( anonymous ) says...
Hey I was kidding. I don't know anybody nor have I ever snorted kool-aid. For those of you who read this and ran home to give it a try, other than letting us know the color of your snot. Get out of here!!! Drinking and driving is about as stupid, careless, immature and selfish as a kid snorting Kool -aid and then when he gets caught and/or sick saying "Gee, I didn't know it was gonna turn out like that" with purple infection hanging off his face. You can all make excuses and try to sound as if you have a brain in your head but there is NO EXCUSE for ANYBODY law enforcement or otherwise to do this. Let alone get away with because of some lame excuse or somebody making up something and pulling strings. Everybody out there whether they are a aware of it or not has had their lives impacted by a drunk driver. Plain and simple no mercy; take his licence and his job. Or at least unpaid leave until he has done his time (and not paid administrative you dumb as liberals I'm not paying for his stupidity) before he takes someone else's life and ruins it. If you don't agree fine go blow some kool aid because that is about where you are in the evolution line.
February 15, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beerassmomma ( anonymous ) says...
One more comment: If he was drunk, drugged and in anyway in a manner that impeded his judgment. Was he actually in this shape with nobody to step up and order test and/or hold him in custody until he could (or someone in his defense) make a clear and safe judgment to clear his name? I think if he had been "taken advantage of " some evidence to that would have surfaced already. Besides anybody who is in law enforcement knows or should you never eat out in public without knowing who is preparing, serving or handling your food. I've dined with law enforcement officials and this is fairly standard especially if you've been working on anything high profile. If Wall (or the co-worker who "saved " his ass) felt that a drugging or anything else was possible and didn't protect himself, do we want him looking after us????
February 15, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtroach ( anonymous ) says...
I think that if he had not been drinking, he would have done the field sobriety test, or gone in for a blood test to get rid of these charges at the time of the stop. If he had done this he would have justifible cause to assert the CSP pulled him over for no reason. Case Dissmissed. None of this happened, and it makes you wonder why anyone without something to hide, and everything to loose would act the way he did.
February 15, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
brownskull ( anonymous ) says...
"Wall had, at most, only one glass of wine" The glass held one 1/2 gallon of wine. They left that part out.
February 15, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
CoJustice, yes, she was the registered agent for his candidate committee. Besides the 4,149 you stated, on different dates she was reimbursed (rounded off) 144 for food at the swearing in party, 961 for badges, and 558 that just says reimbursement. Legitimate and factual expenses, who knows, but if these Jenny's are one in the same, it still LOOKS like a sweet deal. Sounds like she would make a real unbiased witness too.
February 15, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bloggyblog ( anonymous ) says...
what a mess! can we send this 'tool' back to vail. this soap opera is an embarrassment to Steamboat(probably an expensive embarrassment). Wiggins is the man for the job. Wall seems better qualified ski area security
February 15, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beerassmomma ( anonymous ) says...
Do you want him patrolling anywhere??? Obviously he has something to hide or at best is uncooperative and dishonest.
February 15, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
I've been reading all this with great concern. We are not to judge less we be judged ourselves. However, we do have our families' safety to think about. I just want justice served. I feel so torn between our justice systems mishap and where to go from here.Can we trust our local government to issue a trial to Wall that is both fair to him and just in finding out the truth if he is in the wrong???? I don't have any children yet but what a poor example we are as wretched humans. I can understand the plight of those whose children look up to and observe our elected officials. Can't we all just get along???
February 15, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Hmmmmmmmmm...perhaps we should widen the investigation to include an audit of expences since taking office, oh my! Again the plot thickens.....(yeah it is a freaking soap opera!)
Brownskull, thanks for letting us know about that one "glass" of wine, it does clarify some points.
mtroach, Bravo!!!!!!
Here is something to think of, IF he were drinking, and IF CHP had not delayed him and he had driven on his merry way and maybe killed or maimed someone. What would that have looked like? hmmmmmmmmmm.....when you factor in the intoxicated girlfriend......
Bloggy, yes it is an embarrassment.
February 15, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Who cares what it would have looked like; what would it have felt like to the family who suffered the loss. And just to take sides slightly (on a humorous note) what would have been a likely excuse then??? Wall, "oh...um..gee I think I hit my head to hard in the collision" Well sir that doesn't explain the accident. Wall " well um they were out to get me. "Sir the accident and your slurred speach. Wall,"my syrupy beach, well it caused me to slide...." Sir, "you are under arrest". Wall, "are you out to get me toooooo?" God knows what he did.
February 15, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Okay, geez,
Hadley you are right. I, however, have what one might call a "pending matter" that could involve the RCSO at some point. It's a minor civil matter.
I dealt with John Warner's folks for several years in various capacities from crime victim to poster of bail to informer, and they were the most incompetent and do-nothing bunch of dead-@$$ed polyps on the taxpayer's dollar I've ever known.
Since Mr. Wall was elected, things have changed in Routt County for the better when it comes to the RCSO dealing with matters that the RCSO formerly blew off as "not our problem." Things as minor as snowmobiles and kids on dirt bikes on subdivision roads owned by the county are now being dealt with by the RCSO according to the law, and that's a whole big positive change in the way of life for people who have been adversely affected by the noise, dust, etc. Very small stuff. Insignificant. Unless you're the one dealing with the annoyance.
Bandmama,
Teaching your kids that the cops always do right is, uh, really stupid. I've dealt with CSP officers who I would trust with my life, and I've dealt with some who could care less about endangering the public by doing things as stupid as speeding through town with no lights and no sirens to get to a wreck on the way to Rabbit Ears Pass.
I have no proof or evidence that Sheriff Wall was drugged at the dinner. I only know that his actions that night were nothing short of bizarre, and there must be a reason for it.
His statement that he did not consume anything that would have affected his ability to drive (do your own search for the quotes in the Pilot) leaves me with the impression that he consumed SOMETHING . . . right . . . something. That's what makes me suspicious.
Obvously, Mr. Wall has had a lot of experience with the criminal justice system and DUI prosecutions in this state, and if he did, or does, suspect that something he consumed was tampered with that night, we won't hear about it until his attorney presents evidence in court.
The people who dislike him are anxious to see him busted for DUI on a criminal charge. That's okay. I dislike several people around town who are involved in the justice system, and I'd hire an airplane to tow a banner over town in celebration if one of THEM got busted for drugs or alcohol.
As for the other people at the scene, stop for a moment and put yourself in their place. The medical literature plainly states that people affected by chloral hydrate and alcohol are almost impossible to tell apart without a blood test. That's why it would have been such a great way to frame Mr. Wall into this exact situation.
(continued)
February 15, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
I agree but why would anybody go to so much trouble??? if he was really the victim here. Would there still be trace amounts of something in his blood even after he "sobered up" and realized what happened. Why didn't he ask for lab work then if he had nothing to hide???
February 15, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
ID, you are correct in that you should not teach children that cops are always right, from personal experience that resulted in the firing of an officer (another state) when my child was four, I support your comment here.
My point being is that if he had one drink, which he certainly was lucid enought ot state, he should have just taken the breath test and gone on his merry way. He did not do this, poor judgement from a man who should be held accountable for his actions.
I personally dont dislike or like the man, I have never spoken to him. I have no opinion of him other thatn this incident and the backflack it is causing.
My main concern is that when one takes a public office, they knowingly open themselves up to public opinion. That is what this fourm is and I actually am pleased to see the various opinions posted, the general public opinion is that he messed up. The idea that the headlight issue was a set up is just wrong, one, his lights could have been anyones driving towards the trooper.
This was an event that people were known to be drinking, I honestly feel better that there were patrols out and watching for possible drunk drivers. It could have been anyone who attended the event, or anyone who went to a bar that night.
Have I ever been stopped for failure to dim my lihgts? Nope. But think of this, this is behavior that may indicate impairment, just like weaving, driving to fast/to slow, not turning on your lights at all, ect.
Now, if Gary can prove without a doubt in court that he was slipped something, my sincere apologies. But until evidence is given to that, one has to look at the information that is available. This is what we are doing here.
as far as the people at the scene, they seemingly felt something was not right, one of my orginial questions, why was he allowed to leave the scene? Gee, special treatment maybe???????
February 15, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
We should pray for all involved and for our community as it falters. Bandmama: I think you have made some valid points. I don't know why he was allowed to leave the scene if he was incoherent in any way. I do not think this is protocol or even safe for Wall if his judgment was impaired. I just can't see allowing anybody who could not make just and safe decisions to leave the scene of an arrest. It is not good policy for the detainee or anybody else involved.
February 15, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
I drove after having a few to drink when I was 17 years old. I drove about 3 or 4 blocks then turned around and went back to my friends house and stayed the night. It scared the crap out of me. Not that I would get pulled over and get into trouble, but actually driving and possibly wrecking my truck. Since then, I have NEVER drove after consuming alcohol. I have never been able to understand people who put their lives at risk and endanger other people's lives. When you look at the big picture, it is just not worth it. This is something that our Sheriff should be teaching us. I was 17 and immature, but even then, I knew that I wasn't bulletproof.
February 15, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Kudos to Benny. Good ethics and judgment are not something you just lose now and then. You are either honest and forthright or you are not. First of all those who practice Godly morals rarely find themselves in a position to defend themselves to this extent.
Children do not have the capacity even into their teen years to make these good calls ( ie; The Parent Institute March 2008 : the part of our brain that develops last is the frontal lobe this is the portion that governs our decision making processes. It is also the part that helps us to think through the consequences of our actions) but most children as they get older do the right thing with proper guidance and examples. To have an elected official that allowed himself to be in the position he was in; is disgraceful. He should have protected his own interests long before the officer pulled him over. He not only lacked poor morals and judgment but exhibited extreme immaturity. How shameful and sad.
February 15, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
(continued)
Doctors, nurses, EMTs, etc., are all required to complete Continuing Education Units as part of their job. For those who work in emergency rooms or as first responders, the ability to identify drug and alcohol intoxication is regularly covered in CME (continuing medical education) modules. Almost any of these folks would be in a position to know how to exploit chloral hydrate to frame somebody.
For those who say, "Why would anyone go to this much trouble," you'd be surprised what a great motive revenge can be.
Hey, remember folks, we recently had a physician arrested for aiding an internet pharmacy operation. It's not like our community isn't full of users and traffickers of all kinds. It's practically the national sport, right after skiing, and before mountain biking.
My purpose in all of this has only been to answer some of the pitchfork and torch mentality regarding this incident. Alcohol has obviously been an issue for Mr. Wall in the past (as for many of the rest of us), and there are lots of people around with enough intelligence and perceived motives of revenge for wrongdoings (like a bunch of fired duputies and their families and friends) that someone could have pulled it off fairly easily IF something Mr. Wal consumed in the last few minutes before leaving the dinner was hidden from sight for as little as ten seconds. A capsule with a hole punched in the end, palmed like the quarter Grandpaw pulls out of your ear, could have been squeezed into a cup and then had coffee poured in on top of it, and nobody would ever know.
Either that, or a controversial sheriff with lots of people already gunning for him went to a public event and got drunk, and then drove home. That's what makes no sense, and that's why a reasonable person would be suspicious.
February 15, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beerassmomma ( anonymous ) says...
Why can't the sheriff be controversial and be guilty???? Hey Emmalee are you single? you appear to be the only sane person on here.
February 15, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beerassmomma ( anonymous ) says...
Yes single, politely no I don't date other woman. AND I do think that the Sheriff can be guilty and not set up. If this were your average citizen this would not even be an issue we cared about.
February 15, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtroach ( anonymous ) says...
Commander, are you working for the defense posting this jibberish.
If that had happened, the drugged victim could request a private blood screen to prove the drugging.
If I felt that I had been drugged, I would get tested ASAP even if I had to pay for it out of pocket, especally if I had been pulled over and cited for DUI and hadn't been drinking. My evidence of innocence would have resulted in the dismissal of the charges, and ended all this BS anonymous online spectulation before it got started.
I know the system is innocent till proven, but, I would cover my own back if I felt someone was gunning for it.
February 15, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
mtroach: your sediments are mine (see previous comment). This could have all been avoided. B.A. momma, I don't know who you are and I only date Christian men. You don't appear to be either of the last two. However, I do enjoy your postings, but sorry.
February 15, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
beerassmomma asks emmalee a question then answers it 20 minutes later. Meaning to answer as emmalee instead of beerassmomma maybe, sure sounds like it.
February 15, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kielbasa ( Matthew Stoddard ) says...
Where did it say that Wall is now claiming he was slipped a Mickey? I haven't heard that from Wall or his lawyer since this began.
February 15, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
mtroach well spoken and I believe that any rational person would have done the same.
bereassmama and emmalee, please keep in mind that this forum is not for personal hook-ups but to openly and objectively discuss this issue.
Id- as you have pointed out Gary has had issues in the past, (public knowledge) dont you see why this may be cause for concern? Are we now saying that in addition to the CHP, the sherriffs own employees or ex emplyees are now involved in the plot against Gary? As you have pointed out this contrversial sherrif DID go to a public event (with a personal history of alcohol "issues") it is documented that he had at least one drink (by 16 people) whom we all know were not all by his side the entire evening. The fact that with past issues he drank anything but coffee is questionable behavior in itself (at home let him drink whatever, but in public at least put on a good show) AND since when do people who have been drinking always show good judgement? AND I still say that you show a very unhealthy knowledge of drugging people. I dont think I would ever accept a drinkee-poo from you!
Emmalee very well spoken as to the development of the young persons brain.
Benny thank you for the sincere honesty about your experience! Do want to run for sherrif????????
February 15, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
kielbasa- Id I think implied the conpiracy theory
Maybe beerassmama and emmalee are one and the same and a multiple personality?????......
February 15, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Why was Wall drinking at all in public one drink or otherwise with a firearm in tow???? If he was carrying his duty firearm was he or was he not on duty? If he was why was he having even one drink and if he wasn't. A. see first sentence. OR B. was the gun planted on him as part of "the set-up". I think not.
February 15, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
I think we have forgetten that little issue, just why did he have his firearm with him?
And someone please refresh my memory, was he drinving a county vehicle at the time of the stop?
Please allow me to say that the real issue here is not the plot against Gary, it is the simple FACT he was pulled over for a minor offence, the trooper felt he may have been impaired then the gun came into play, again with judgement calls like this, is this the man we want in this office?
ID- you are right there is a large amount of use of many things in this community, even more of a reason for the law enforcement personnel to investigate and take measures to GET THEM OFF THE ROADS!!!!! No matter who they are.
February 15, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
oh my gosh!!! I just happened to think, why did Gary have his brights on in such a well lit area.....huh? .....huh?
February 15, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kielbasa ( Matthew Stoddard ) says...
Because 100yds back, it's dark enough to have your brights on for a reason. Plenty of people forget to dim their brights, but it is one of the signs (weaving, forgetting to dim brights, no lights on at all, excessively slow/fast driving) that police look for in drunk drivers. Sometimes, it's nothing; sometimes not. I was told this when I was pulled over in 1991 for not dimming my brights at 13th, heading west.
February 15, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
O.k. one more (I'll try to not say any more) comment to the peanut gallery before I move on. As someone who has a hard time dealing with light changes. I even drive a "tall" vehicle to prevent being blinded by on coming headlights. It does not matter whether the road is well lit or not I can tell (painfully so if in my smaller car, don't drive it at night) if someone has their brights on. Maybe the arresting officer knew that this could impede someone else's driving and pulled Wall over on this pretext but found more than that.
February 15, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
armchairqb ( anonymous ) says...
Maybe he's a diabetic. Lack of insulin causes the breath to have the odor of alcohol. If you want the truth go to England where the courts seek the truth Here it's guilt or innocence.
February 15, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Don't you think that if this was a plausible answer, information would have been released by now????
February 15, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
armchairqb-FYI, if you are diabetic, you should not even have that one glass of wine, but and excellent point.
emmalee-I have the same problem, and it does make it hard to see with mega bright lights coming right at you!
BTW, anyone have Lance's phone #?
I feel like a cocktail tonight....HA!
Ok, that was a low blow.....
February 15, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tmac62 ( anonymous ) says...
ido4sp informer ?????
February 15, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Roach and Mama,
Okay, again for the 14,000th time, on the night this occurred, if Wall was drugged, he would not have had the mental capacity to make such a rational decision and ask for a blood test. Your own experiences with drugs have not, apparently, included the use of "hypnotics."
I don't know how long the substance would remain in the blood stream and be detectable, but it's not like THC or other persistent substances that require days or weeks of abstention.
Chloral hydrate is more like a general anaesthetic than heroin or THC or other such substances. It is a pure synthetic substance, not a plant derivative.
The insidious nature of this kind of drug, again, makes it perfect for a doping. By the time you figure out that something was done to you, it's most likely not detectable anymore. Now, if Wall had DIED that night, it would have probably shown on a tox screen.
Again, I'm not saying he was drugged. I'm only saying that a drugging could account for all of the events observed that night, and there are plenty of people around who detest Wall and could obtain chloral hydrate. Whether there was opportunity to dope him at the dinner, I don't know. I do notice, however, that certain folks are not coming back with any kind of other evidence -- such as an account of Wall's actions in the last 10 to 20 minutes of the dinner, who the servers were, if he was served, etc. -- that would refute this theory.
tmac62,
An informer is a person who furnishes evidence of a crime to the police. In my case, it was money laundering and trafficking. The evidence involved a difference between sales records and the amount of sales taxes paid, i.e., the suspect paid much more in sales tax than the cash register receipts could support. Employees of the business were involved in the use, at least, of cocaine. It's a matter of record. The logical conclusion is that money from some other source was being deposited into the commerical account along with daily sales receipts, and taxes were being paid on funds from some undeclared source other than the cash register amounts. The old RCSO, of course, did nothing about it. I won't tell you more, but let's say that the people who did this had friends who have exhibited "poor judgment." I said, "judgment."
This would have been a great case for GRAMNET to get after, but nobody seemed to care. I figured out why later on when other events occurred. It may be different now, but a while back, "friends" didn't "let friends lose lawsuits in Routt County."
February 16, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dundalk ( anonymous ) says...
Id:
You crack me up.
Further scenarios to your imaginative suppositions of chloral hydrate:
Maybe one of the 16 friends, oops I mean "witnesses" of Gary Wall owns horses, and has access to Equithesin.
Maybe Ted Kennedy and the MOB have it out for Gary Wall, and had some chloral hydrate left over from their dealings with Marilyn Monroe.
Maybe "Midnight in Montgomery" was playing on the radio and the ghost of Hank Williams seeped through the heating vents and overtook Wall.
Chloral hydrate is usually metabolized within 4 minutes, so your scenario of someone slipping him a drug are highly unlikely.
You are entertaining nonetheless and I have never laughed so hard in my life after reading your posts.
February 16, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
Conspiracy theory #2, Maybe he and his girlfriend conspired to get high together and took drugs on their own, then instead of being too disorientated to make a rational decision, he did the only thing he could do to hide it, he refused the tests. Better to fight a dui than prove he was on drugs. Like I said, just another theory but I'm sure he appreciates your belief in him at the expense of other officers.
February 16, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fish ( anonymous ) says...
Okay so we know that Wall refused the breathilizer test, but in doing so, why did CHP then not arrest him and take him to the hospital and have his blood drawn which is what would have happened to any other person that the highway patrol pulled over. Why did they let him leave the scene with someone else when this is not their usual operating procedure. I am sorry but this whole thing on all sides doesn't look good. I feel that the officers that were in on this stop should be sanctioned at the very least. The way that CHP handled this case turned it into a his word against their word and that makes the whole thing stink. Conspiracy, I don't know, sloppy unprofessional behavior by everyone at the scene, yes that is the only thing that I am sure of.
February 16, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kielbasa ( Matthew Stoddard ) says...
Conspiracy Theory #3:
If Wall had an extra wheel attached to his body, he'd be a wheelbarrow and wouldn't have been pulled over.
February 16, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madmoores ( anonymous ) says...
OK, this is not my argument but I wanted to make a couple points regarding id's theory. It is a remotely plausible theory and if he did not think of something like this before to help himself out, you just gave them a boost in the reasonable doubt department. I have to go with the resident forum nurse here and agree that chloral hydrate only stays in the system for a short amount of time, it is utilized to INDUCE SLEEP, not drug you out and make you stumble around like a drunk. IF he took it, he would have soon fallen asleep and wrecked a short time after taking it, that's even if he made it to his vehicle before face-planting in the driveway. I used to administer it(controlled of course)to hyperactive/nervous/can't fall asleep type patients who required an EEG testing. For this test you had to lay still and could not move. The chloral hydrate was enough to get them to go to sleep and that was it, they woke up a half our later feeling fine and ready to go. Normal time from drink to sleep, 2-6 minutes(not a documented time frame but based on 10 years of doing these tests). Here is a link for more info on chloral hydrate:
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/...
Another point, within a hospital, drugs are tightly controlled by the pharmacy and the government. The system utilized outside of the main pharmacy(accessed only by pharmacy personnel)is called a Pyxis System and it requires fingerprint identification and a personal password to access it. Only those with registered prints and passwords can access it and it will only open for those people, anyone else tries and it does nothing. They are built like armored cars so there is no breaking into them. At most modern, progressive hospitals(such as YVMC), you will be excused for any drugs missing from the system on your watch that cannot be accounted for(I do not know YVMC's policy). Their assumption is that they were stolen. One machine can be used by several people but every single item is accounted for, when it was removed and by whom. You want to prove your theory Id, find out who has been fired recently from YVMC for missing drugs. Since I doubt they would tell you squat I guess your SOL on that tangent but I wanted everyone to know that drugs are not just sitting around for anyone to walk in and pick up, there is a process and it is tightly controlled. I also wanted to let people know that IF he was dosed he didn't stand a chance getting 1/2 a mile before falling fast asleep and plowing into something. IF he had it with alcohol, the effects are magnified significantly, as with any sedative. If I am wrong on any of this, I ask our forum nurse to chime in and set it straight. I do like that theory though, amusing at the least but remotely, and I mean r-e-m-o-t-e-l-y plausible. I'm glad I live in MC where we have a real sheriff, I feel sorry for you people to have Bozo the clown running the show. Hope it all works out in your favor.
February 16, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
stoned•Wall•ing
Pronunciation: (stÅn'dWÃ'"ling), [key]
-n.
the act of stalling, evading, or filibustering, esp. to avoid revealing politically embarrassing information
February 16, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fish ( anonymous ) says...
Wow I am glad that you live in Moffat County that has a real sheriff now, but it seems to be that I remember some stories about 10years back or so about the Moffat County sheriff's office that were just as flattering as Routt Countys current mess.
February 16, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madmoores ( anonymous ) says...
True, true, embarrassing would be putting it kindly. It took awhile for the stink to wear off but it seems pretty stable now. I guess everyone has to go through it and it cycles around to every community, I guess it's just your turn.
February 16, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slinger01 ( anonymous ) says...
id is obviously a Wall supporter or good friend as he or she is always defending him or at least trying to make excusses for his poor decisions. Come on id, do you really think anyone is taking your scenerios of drugging serious? Wall is known by many people to have issues with alcohol, it's is no secret.
February 16, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Slinger,
I don't know Gary Wall, have never met him, and he wouldn't know me if I walked up and asked for his autograph.
Dundalk, and others . . .
Anna Nicole Smith died of a chloral hydrate overdose. That was the autopsy result. She was seen in public on numerous occasions stumbling, slurring, etc., under its influence. Sorry, but the numbers you give on chloral hydrate don't match the other literature regarding the effects of a "hypnotic" dose (2x the sedative dose). And, while getting it out of the hospital locker is like robbing a bank, if your doctor gives you a prescription for it so you can sedate your child, you take it home like any other prescription.
Again, let's hear about the last 20 minutes at the dinner from someone who was there and observed Wall during that time.
Whether anyone takes the scenarios seriously is up to them. One thing I know for sure; I didn't make it up out of thin air. It's been done to women for date rape, and it's been done to men to make them seem intoxicated (the classic Mickey Finn) so that they could be abducted by "friends" who helped them into a waiting car. The old water board that's being used on terrorists isn't the only trick to come out of the Cold War . . . .
February 16, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madmoores ( anonymous ) says...
I suppose it would depend on weight, drug sensitivity and metabolic rate, I gave it mostly to children and very rarely to adults. It did take longer to take affect in the adult but seemingly only minutes on children. I credit your theory as possible and reasonable but rather far fetched in a gossip laden town, one would think that somebody would have squealed by now(can't fight the urge to tell someone). Here is another more detailed link from a site favored by one of your local posters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloral_...
My info is off and I apologize for that, I was winging it when I typed all that out and did not dig back before putting my thought out. I did however want to exonerate the doctors, nurses, EMT's and hospital personnel from your theoretical imposition that they were involved and that they took it from the hospital somehow(id04sp, Feb. 15, 2008; 1:13pm "Doctors, nurses, EMTs, etc., are all required to complete Continuing Education Units as part of their job. For those who work in emergency rooms or as first responders, the ability to identify drug and alcohol intoxication is regularly covered in CME (continuing medical education) modules. Almost any of these folks would be in a position to know how to exploit chloral hydrate to frame somebody"). Up until that last sentence you were right. I only wanted to point out that these days, even though they may be in the position to exploit CH from the secure system, that is nearly impossible without discovery and consequences. Back as little as 10 years ago the only security to the drugs in a lot of small town hospitals was a key, and everybody and their brother had one. Now days, stealing CH is an offense(class IV scheduled drug, same as many illicit street drugs) punishable by termination and possible criminal charges, thus exposing the thief to the public. You can get a prescription yes and thus a loophole I missed but the idea that someone from the hospital stole it, has gotten away with it for this long and not been caught and exposed is remote. Wow, I gotta go, the aliens are waiting outside for me.....
February 16, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madmoores ( anonymous ) says...
One other thing:
ids04p, Feb. 15, 2008, 1:13pm "Hey, remember folks, we recently had a physician arrested for aiding an internet pharmacy operation".
If I'm wrong, my apologies but I didn't think this guy was a "real" doctor, M.D., D.O you know. Can't call him a physician if he isn't one.
February 16, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mtroach ( anonymous ) says...
What if jet contrails had settled onto his car at the fuction, When he went to unlock his car some of the dust got into his system and intoxicated him just enough to make him space out his high beams, and appear drunk? I sometimes have dust from heaven on my truck, and often wonder if it's impairing my judgement. Sometimes it even covers my headlights and they appear dimmer. Hmmm...
February 17, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
I was thinking the unexplained bright lights that Wall was seeing was some kind of paranormal phenomena that blinded him. "I was blinded by the light", and if he was slipped a special drug from a UFO, it only works against CSP officers, not his own deputies, attorneys, guests.
February 17, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Ido4: I think people would have had more respect for Wall if he had done the right thing from the start. But no, he concocted a manipulative deceitful scenario that involves the reputation of his own deputies, department, girlfriend, guests, and CSP officers, disrespect the courts all at the cost of the tax payers, everyone's problem but his. Its kind of sickening that Wall is willing to let everyone circle the drain for him.
February 17, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dundalk ( anonymous ) says...
Co Justice:
Remember this little diddy, "Blinded by Light"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6AFCJ...
February 17, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
madmores,
Thanks for coming back with a reasonable discussion. I agree that your counterarguments have merit. However, you did say that you used to give chloral hydrate to your kids. It was dispensed to you as a prescription for the child, right? Once the pharmacist hands over the substance to the parent or the patient and they sign for it, they can send it on to anyone. Got some left over, give it to somebody who wants to get high, or the household teenagers take it out of the medicine cabinet and swap it at school, etc.
The person who pled guilty to the internet pharmacy charge was, in fact, a licensed physician. Nobody else could have written valid prescriptions (DEA number, etc.). The case was made on the number of prescriptions written, and the fact that the physician wrote prescriptions without EVER seeing the patient in person.
February 17, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
CoJo,
It is your right to assume that Wall is in the wrong. Just like it's within my rights to assume people hate him enough to frame him. The fact is, a smart opponent takes the time to learn the other guy's tactics and what they reveal, and then plans accordingly. I did this for many years regarding former Soviet Union military capabilities. Finding an exploitable weakness is the key to victory in modern warfare. In this case, Wall's former alcohol problems provide a perfect weakness to be exploited, and whether he was drunk or drugged, everybody has chimed right in on the alcohol issue.
When you talk about "doing the right thing from the start," that ship sailed many years ago. What we really need around here is a retired FBI agent to run for sheriff and put things on a professional basis all the way around. People who started as patrol cops in redneck mountain towns or served elsewhere as patrol cops may have some street skills, but they don't have experience with economic crimes, more complex cases, etc. An analogy is that a guy who can fly a Piper Cub flawlessly cannot be popped into an F/A-18 and expected to carry out a bombing mission successfully.
Here's one for you, CoJo. How many cops carry an "off duty" concealed weapon when they go out for dinner and drinks? Remember the guy who got into a hassle with some ruffians outside a club in Denver, pulled his weapon and fired? Being "intoxicated" and in possession of a weapon is not the same as drinking a non-intoxicating quantity of alcohol while carryin a weapon, is it? I don't know. Can't find a definitive reference for that one. Anyway, the guy in the Denver incident was not charged with anything, and it was just fortunate that he was armed when he and his date were confronted by the thugs.
As for "sickening," I think all those years when the RCSO simply chose to do NOTHING in the face of real crimes and controversies in the community is the sickening part. Even something as small as snowmobiles on a subdivision road (where the old RCSO said, "it's a civil matter" and the new RCSO is patrolling and citing offenders) makes my case. As far as I'm concerned, the former sheriff might as well have been drunk all the time for as much good as he did.
And CoJo, have YOU got any ideas why ACET seems to be more effective after RCSO pulled out of GRAMNET? I'd like to hear your ideas.
February 17, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Id04:
Your kidding right? You want to know "why ACET seems to be more effective after RCSO pulled out of GRAMNET"? RSCO is not involved, you actually want people to say it out loud. You answered your own question.
dunkalk: Good one, Appropriate theme song.
February 17, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madmoores ( anonymous ) says...
Thanks id for the info on the "doctor", I thought he was one of those herbal guys or something posing as a doctor.
I have never given CH to my own child. I used to do EEG(Electroencephalogram-aka a brain wave scan)testing a few years back at our local hospital. We would give CH to the kids that would not hold still(holding still is the difference between an accurate, readable test to something that looks like a two year old with crayons)so that the test can be completed in the allotted time slot. For me to obtain the CH from the pharmacy I had to have an RN witness my signature along with the pharmacist(who had precalculated the dose by patient weight, so many mg/kg), I just could not walk up and get it. I don't believe CH is commonly prescribed anymore to make children sleep, there are different meds that are less habit forming, but it is still available. CH is highly addictive and you must calculate the dosage very carefully or overdose can occur, then you have a whole host of problems.
Finally, I don't think ANY health-care worker would risk their job and livelihood to attempt to drug the sheriff, seems about as likely as UFOs sitting in garages at area 51, however we aren't real sure on that one now are we.
Another interesting, informative link(feeling a little sbvor'y today;)
http://www.rxmed.com/b.main/b2.pharma...
February 17, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
madmores,
I know people who have, at least according to them, been drugged and date raped. The literature is full of information on the effects of CH + alcohol (it's soluble in alcohol) and 1/2 glass of wine plus CH is definitely different from either one alone.
Back in my Cold War days when we were training for POW camp scenarios, the instructors went into all kinds of interrogation techniques. The waterboard was regularly used in such training, to show us what it would be like. Other forms of physical abuse, including being struck, thrown around, gagged with smoke, etc., were demonstrated to us. One such demonstration in my class resulted in the separation of some ribs from some meat of an Army E-6, who completed his training WITH the injury rather than have to come back and go through the previous week again.
Regarding the subjects of interrogation under the influence of drugs, we were informed that Soviet and Eastern European interrogators might use these things on us, and if that happened, "resistance was futile." In other words, there WAS no means to resist.
The methods used on John McCain were not "demonstrated" to us because we would not be much use to the Navy as pilots if we were permanently disabled. The physical torture scenarios were more likely to be employed by more primitive societies, like the Vietnamese and North Koreans.
Later, when being briefed on international travel, avoidance of bars when traveling alone was strongly suggested due to the danger of being abducted by KGB or even allied intelligence services. I once had my hotel room "tossed" in FRANCE!
Hmmmmm . . . okay, this is a purely random thought which just occurred to me. I wonder if any of the servers at the dinner were immigrants from Russia . . . .
February 17, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ms_E_Bronte ( anonymous ) says...
So, id04 -- your latest defense strategy for Wall is that the Russians might be after him? That's about as plausible as the "second hand alcohol" theory he's shooting for now! LOL
Very interesting post overall though. Thanks
February 17, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
id04: You are very Intelligent, you now know my code name and whom I work for. I will be in contact with you soon.
Signed
Đ'Đ¾Đ¼Đ,Ñ ĐµÑ Đ³Đ¾ÑÑ Đ'Đ°ÑÑÑ Đ²ĐµĐ½Đ½Đ¾Đ¹ Đ±ĐµĐ•Đ¾Đ¿Đ°ÑĐ½Đ¾ÑÑ Đ,
February 17, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Đ¤Đ¡Đ, ФеĐ'еÑĐ°ÌĐ»ÑĐ½Đ°Ñ ÑĐ»Ñ Ìжба Đ±ĐµĐ•Đ¾Đ¿Đ°ÌÑĐ½Đ¾ÑÑ Đ,
ФеĐ'еÑĐ°Đ»ÑĐ½Đ¾Đµ Đ¡Đ¾Đ±ÑĐ°Đ½Đ,е
February 17, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dundalk ( anonymous ) says...
Co: You are killing me!
February 17, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madmoores ( anonymous ) says...
I just don't think anyone in steamboat has enough intelligence to think of something like that. Even IF someone were that smart, the orchestration that would need to take place would be quite complex, therefore my "no one is smart enough" theory. That is, except for you id...................
February 17, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
madmoores:
Đ£ÑĐ¿Đ¾Đ°Đ¾Đ¹Ñ Đµ Đ¼Đ¾ĐµĐ³Đ¾ Đ¼Đ¾Đ»Đ¾Đ'Đ¾Đ³Đ¾ ÑĐµĐ»Đ¾Đ²ĐµĐ°Đ°, ÑÑ Đ¾ - Đ³Đ»Đ°Đ²Đ½Đ°Ñ Ñ Đ°Đ¹Đ½Đ°
February 17, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Đ¥Đ¾ÑĐ¾Ñ Đ,е Đ»ÑĐ'Đ, Routt County Đ±Ñ Đ'ĐµÑ Đ²Đ,Đ'ĐµÑ Ñ ÑĐ²ĐµÑ Đ¾Ñ Đ¿Đ¾ÑÑ ÑĐ'Đ½Đ¾Đ³Đ¾.
February 17, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
madmores,
This is kinda getting to be fun.
Oh, by the way everybody; check on how the Russian mafia is doing these days. They used to be pretty active in Denver. I spent some time down there listening in on their telephone conversations -- they thought nobody would understand Russian . . .
The "orchestration" you are looking for is really not necessary. One person with access to the drug (maybe they even use it for recreational purposes, like Anna Nichole Smith did) and a friend in law enforcement who could be called on the cell phone would do it.
I know that the cops spotted a particular vehicle parked outside the VFW back around 1996, and in short order, set up a stakeout to catch the driver leaving the bar. They let him get in, drive a block, and stopped him. It was his second DUI, and he went to "real" jail for it. He had fought with the cops during the arrest for his first DUI, and they held a grudge. In the age of cell phones, blackberrys, etc., "orchestration" can happen on the fly.
While everybody is poo-pooing all of this, remember that we had a judge covering up his girlfriend's cocaine habit a few years ago. Because of that lack of good judgment (pun intended) a GRAMNET officer who had been threatened with contempt by the judge was able to bust her and it all became public, and now the "judge" is just "Mr." If you don't think public officials can be set up for revenge by law enforcement agencies, think again. It already happened right here in Routt County.
February 17, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ms_E_Bronte ( anonymous ) says...
Ok, now I'm REALLY confused -- is the KGB still involved?
February 18, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Dundalk,
Whenever logic fails you, you resort to insults. Thanks for the affirmation.
Bronte,
I think we're safe from the KGB. There is obviously not much information of "intelligence" value in Routt County. Besides, a community full of socialist values and a corrupt justice system is exactly what the Soviets were after. As far as Routt County goes, mission accomplished!
February 18, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dundalk ( anonymous ) says...
Oh good gosh Id, you really need to laugh and live a little. So sorry I hurt your feelings.
February 18, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
All of you seemed to miss the point, which appears to me to be that regardless of how Wall ended up where he was and in the condition he was in. Whether it was his fault or not. WHY was the protocol that would be standard for all others seemingly not used for him. I don't know Wall nor does he know me. I have no reason to believe him or not to believe him: EXCEPT he did not play by the rules which seems to usually point to error or wrong doing. I also do not think he is the only party who made a poor judgment that night. Also involved was anybody who did not follow what would be standard procedure for any other citizen that might have been pulled over for a similar incident. Hey, next time you get pulled over just tell the officer you are okay if it's alright with them, you'll just call a friend and be on your merry way. Like that would float!!! Maybe in a sewer.
February 18, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hadleyburg_Press ( anonymous ) says...
The former KGB, Đ'Đ¾Đ¼Đ,Ñ ĐµÑ Đ³Đ¾ÑÑ Đ'Đ°ÑÑÑ Đ²ĐµĐ½Đ½Đ¾Đ¹ Đ±ĐµĐ•Đ¾Đ¿Đ°ÑĐ½Đ¾ÑÑ Đ,, is now the FSB, Đ¤Đ¡Đ, as Cojustice so nicely posted.
FSB = Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation.
Tavarish Hadley
February 18, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Dundalk,
Okay, as long as we're playing high school head games, in order to hurt my feelings, I'd have to care what you say. Fair enough?
How about this one. Suppose some unfortunate woman had been doped at the dinner and date raped. You'd probably be all over how easy it is to drug somebody, and how easy it is to obtain drugs in Steamboat Springs. Oh, and you'd make it Gary Wall's fault for pulling out of GRAMNET, too.
emmalee,
I've had a drunk person released to my custody by a local law enforcement agency.
The CSP had the power to revoke Wall's license on the roadside, and that's what they did. He refused a BAC test, so why take him in? They issued a summons for him to appear in court, just like any speeding ticket, and he was no danger to anyone else, so why take him to jail?
A feller threatened to kill me one time (imagine that!) for investigating his background. A complaint was sworn out and a summons was served for him to come to court. Nobody took him to jail for booking. Seems to me that if you can threaten to shoot somebody in the back (leaving the threat on an answering machine tape recording) and not be hauled into jail, that letting a drunk leave the scene with a sober person is not improper.
What do you think?
February 18, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
id04sp,
I agree with allowing someone to leave. However, I feel that that person should not be a threat to themselves or anybody else. Also if you leave without complying with just and/or recommended procedures and fail to follow-up ie: @ a hospital, lab etc for appropriate tests and (local precinct) or questioning etc you may well take a chance on people doubting you and possibly might slur your own good name. Trust is a funny thing to bank with. You can make 100's of deposits for large sums but it only takes one tiny withdrawal to empty the account. Regrettably the road to refill is much longer and harder than it was the first time. Unfortunately in a high profile job the stakes are high and the deposits and withdraws are compiled at an even greater curve ratio. I understand Wall may not have been "himself" at the time of the incident but even so regardless of why he was like this why didn't he make faster and more appropriate retribution in lieu of his position in the community??
February 18, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madmoores ( anonymous ) says...
Cojustice: "Đ£ÑĐ¿Đ¾Đ°Đ¾Đ¹Ñ Đµ Đ¼Đ¾ĐµĐ³Đ¾ Đ¼Đ¾Đ»Đ¾Đ'Đ¾Đ³Đ¾ ÑĐµĐ»Đ¾Đ²ĐµĐ°Đ°, ÑÑ Đ¾ - Đ³Đ»Đ°Đ²Đ½Đ°Ñ Ñ Đ°Đ¹Đ½Đ°"
Ya'llr gunna hafta put dat n rednekese r iyll never git it.
February 18, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Let's be fair Hunterdog, unless I'm mistaken he was accused of a DWI. He lost his license I'm fine w/ that and agree unless he can clear his name. I'm not sure jailing is necessary. However he should not receive driving privileges again until he is exonerated from what happened. I know this will most likely affect his job performance but again "high profile" and "elected official" do come to mind. Really should be careful about the people he cohorts with :D. His case really leaves little room for cogency.
February 18, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Immature but very funny, which really sums up the whole scenario. I like your sense of humor , suppose we are all taking this to hard " Boohoo".... Not. I do think that whatever happens to Wall will set a precedence for the whole community we really should be careful what is decided.
February 18, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Madmoores: Đ£ÑĐ¿Đ¾Đ°Đ¾Đ¹Ñ Đµ Đ¼Đ¾ĐµĐ³Đ¾ Đ¼Đ¾Đ»Đ¾Đ'Đ¾Đ³Đ¾ ÑĐµĐ»Đ¾Đ²ĐµĐ°Đ°, ÑÑ Đ¾ - Đ³Đ»Đ°Đ²Đ½Đ°Ñ Ñ Đ°Đ¹Đ½Đ°"
Translation:Calm my young man, it is the main secret "
February 18, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Well what are we going to do if the "Alpines" get pulled over, so theoretically we need to just make the "Alpines" official emergency vehicles. Then we buy a few more of them the cops are happy, give the last of the mobsters anything with an over-sized trunk(mainly because no one wants to piss them off, and they can afford the gas).The local petty thieves can be their drivers. I'm sure the mob likes their booze we all want a safe community. al Sell the rich and famous the cop cars since they think that they are above the law anyway. They will be driving themselves since their wealthy and bored wives are amused with the lights and sirens. And we all buy bus passes with the immigrants and stop paying taxes to let our drunk police force pay for their own taxis. Then to top it off let the pedophiles and sex offenders have the city delivery trucks but they are going to drive themselves since their new roomy office needs privacy. So here comes the new all black "Alpines" carrying the S.W.A.T. team to save the day.
February 18, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
OOOOOOOOOOO it sounds so deliciously American making money and profit at another man's (most likely self inflicted) pain. WOW!!! I'd ask what has this world come to, but I think most of us know that we're already there.
February 18, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
AHHHHHHHH I see a religious discussion brewing, are we in the correct "chat group" for this lol? This one is stale anyway. Self preservation hmmm, I'll think on this a while, but leave you with "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you".
February 18, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
I agree with your view point . I was under the assumption that most people (as I would do) ask their dinner guest if they have any dietary restraints or dislikes before preparing the meal (or a like courtesy: if some other hospitality is offered). However, most people are as you put it "very egotistical". As a frequent host to many house guests I would not even wash someones clothes with out first asking in general and second seeing if they were ok. with my detergent and third how they wished them dried etc. Since we are on a "chit chat" about Wall even though we've all talked this into the ground, lets apply this "self centered concept" to his actions. Just to jump start this conversation in the correct direction.
February 19, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldskoolstmbt ( anonymous ) says...
hunterdog...friggin' halarious!!!
February 20, 2008 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
OMG......I have missed so much.....
Hunterdog- are you and emmalee hooking up anytime soon, I can feel the chemistry there man.........
Cojustice- you are just to funny!
madmoores- ya'll wanna talk redneck? I will translate. love it.
id- it has been over a week and I see you are still on that date rape thing. Are you registered with RCSO? Just curious. btw, I have also had a drunken person released into my custody...the pictures turned out great.
Ok, has anyone heard, did the sherriff get buggered?
February 20, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Bandmama,
No, darlin'. If I was going to commit a felony, it wouldn't be date rape. My problem is getting women to leave me alone.
February 21, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
bandmama, emmalee and hunterdog can't hook up, she belongs to beerassmomma, multiple personalities I assume (see above posts). Ohh, multiple personalities, I guess it could be a threesome.
February 21, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
id- so relieved to know that the felonies you are considering do not include date rape. And with some of your wild ideas, I can see how women would find you oh so appealing.
justathought-we should wait and hear from one of the personalities, maybe beerass dumped her?
Also, just have to ask, does Gary want "winches" or "wenches"
attached to all vehicles?
February 21, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
You're cracking me up, bandmama.
February 21, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Just a thought-, I don't belong to anyone. However, not sure why I keep getting all the "hits" if ido4sp is so "hot" and you are apparently a little hurt that they weren't directed at you. lol. Hunterdog- Now you are one hell of a catch if you weren't taken. Bandmomma - hold onto your seat the rides a thrill
Beerassmama- I think that Just a thought would love to meet you for drinks and a "Wall to Wall" discussion, maybe you should check her out.With all this going on in town I'm shocked any of you have time to be bothered with Wall. Multi-taskers don't they just amaze you???
February 21, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
emmalee-you get the hits cause we can feel the cuteness oozing out of the words.......
what makes you think any sane person would hook up with the Dog? He sounds like a real.......well, he has some intelligence anyway.
February 21, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
willie ( anonymous ) says...
I think that is time for Steamboat to accept the blame for this man. If I remember correctly, it was Steamboat residents that voted him into office. All other areas of the county did not. Wake up Steamboat!! It is time for you to take responsibility for your actions and fix the problem!!
February 23, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboatrealitycheck ( anonymous ) says...
The PROBLEM in this town is the idle gossip that is passed through these chat rooms by people who don't have to account for their comments. I feel like I am reading the Steamboat Enquirer. Who the hell are you people?
No one has ANY right to insinuate that he would "let his girlfriend take the fall," that was an assumptions (supposition, postulation, hypothesis, GUESS, conjecture, theory NOT BASED ON FACT) which was jumped to. JW is a great lady and would tell him to go to hell if he ever suggested such a thing to her.
He is NOT a patrol officer, the office held by the Sheriff is mostly administrative, so he doesn't need Alpine taxi to take him on patrol.
If ANY of you were actually at the fundraiser, then by all means, please speak up, and tell us exactly what you saw and every move he made from the time he walked through the door until the time he left, who he talked to, who he stood by, what he chose to eat from the appetizer plate. . . otherwise everything that comes out of your mouth (er typing hands) is mere speculation and gossip.
There are THOUSANDS of police officers all over the state, country, who wear their weapons while they are off duty and at any given time. It is their right to do so, just as it it anyone's right who has a carry permit.
The fact that the entire chloral hydrate discussion carried on is astonishing and embarrassing.
The troopers did not have enough evidence to bring him in, that's why he was allowed to leave and he is one of the few people who would have known that information and had the balls to hold the CSP to task. If ANY of you know or have ever dealt with Trooper Brett Hilling, he does not bow to ANYONE. He would pull over his own grandmother after a sip of wine after church on Sunday. Perhaps the Trooper didn't bring him in because he knew damn well that he did not have the probable cause to do so and if so the whole thing would have been thrown out from the onset. You see they must hav PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest you. Just because Gary didn't crumble at the feet of the Troopers and KNEW what his rights were from the word go and knew enough to stand up for them, does not make him guilty. One loses their license from the DMV for refusing the test, wam bam. The DMV is NOT, I repeat NOT, a court of law. You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Failure to dim your headlights is in NO WAY any indication as to someone's sobriety. If any of you have ever seen more than one police report on a DUI, you would notice that there is one set of standard sentences that occurs verbatum in those things, hell I think it's even pre-written into the report, "I detected an odor of alcohol eminating from the vehicle." I've seen it on a report that came back with a BLOOD test that reported "alcohol content undetectable"
February 25, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboatrealitycheck ( anonymous ) says...
And if any one of you had been pulled over and accused of being drunk when you knew in your heart that you were not, NO ONE has the right to tell you to lie down, roll over and to not to fight for your day in court! Shame on You!!!
By the by - one of the deputies that he fired when he got into office who was at the same function called in a REDI report, which is WHY he was pulled over. It all started with a bitter ex employee. Pure spite and bitterness, period the end.
The rest is up to the judicial system. oh and as far as the court case, would you not want your lawyer to exhaust every resource? Their job is to zealously fight for the rights of their clients, no matter who they are, sheriff or trash collector. Why would you pay him or her if they didn't?
February 25, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Realitycheck,
Other than your little dig at me, I agree with everything you wrote.
A disgruntled former employee and a report resulting in a stop pretty much nails things down. Now, let's have that employee give testimony to support the report, and see if it stands up.
I'm betting the person who made the report never expected to be up on a witness stand talking about it. This is going to be interesting.
February 26, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
. . . which makes them extremely vulnerable to being framed.
February 26, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
Reality Check: Yeah, if I had ever been pulled over and was accused of being drunk and I knew in my heart that I was not, I'd take the effin test. Period, the end. Especially if someone who was bitter with me was trying to get me busted, I'd take the test and prove the bitter vindictive person wrong.
Oh and just to make it clear: when a REDDI report is called in and an officer is able to locate the vehicle in question, they can't pull the vehicle over until they have probable cause, unless the person making the REDDI report is willing to sign the complaint. There MUST be a witness to the infraction, if the officer doesn't witness the infraction, then the citizen who did must sign the complaint and go to court otherwise there is no case. I don't know if I believe there was a REDDI report at all, because that is not what has been reported by the CSP as initiating this. It's just another rumor to me, until it is clearly reported differently. If there was a REDDI report, don't you think Wall would have heard it in his cruiser? He was in his patrol car, right? Don't you think he would have said something like that in his DOR hearing? I read that entire DOR report and didn't see anything mentioned about it.
I would never wish ill will on anyone, but all I have to say is, you reap what you sow!
February 26, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
Benny, you are right (especially about the test) but you'll never convince these conspiracy theory loyalists that Wall just may be guilty. The blind leading the blind.
February 26, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboatrealitycheck ( anonymous ) says...
Justa - not a conspiracy theorist, I have absolutely no belief in the whole drugged theory and think that is absolutely ludacris to have even been mentioned.
Benny - I don't know that I believe everything written in those reports are always as accurate as they should be and only due to the fact that I have read many reports that leave out and include information that is not entirely accurate.
I also wouldn't put it past the particular caller to have simply placed the call directly to the officer's cell phone and not have to go through the same official channels any civilian would in order to accomplish the same result.
I understand that these also sound like conspiracy theories but the reality remains just as much as the stop itself is a reality, and YES the refusal is suspicious, and the whole weapon thing while he was having that drink is a whole other issue to be dealt with, but there are also the facts that there were many people that Gary pissed off when he came into office and those who didn't want him there in the first place (see above) who would have taken this opportunity and ran with it even IF he had only one drink at the function.
I apologize for offending anyone, I just get fired up when I see a public cruxifiction based on absolute rumor and gossip. I know Gary has a history and I know it isn't squeaky clean but my god, it was getting a little out of hand in here.
February 26, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboatrealitycheck ( anonymous ) says...
id04sp - didn't mean to jab at ya again in there, thanks for the support ;)
February 26, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
You know, my orginal complaint was that as an officer of the law, he should have set an example to the citizens (ie: youth) and done what he would expect us to do, take the test, cooperate with the officer at the scene and put the matter to rest, he refused, reguardless of the reason, and has left himself open to all of this "idle gossip".
BTW, has there ever been a public election where everyone was happy with the turnout, there is always going to be unhappy losers... part of the game.
Benny-good points
realitycheck-are you dating him also?
justathought-you are right
id-I respect your high IQ, but still wouldn't accpet a drink from you..............he he he...
realitycheck, also, wouldn't there be a record of calls, by cell or to the dept? YES. And, as you pointed out his record is not squeaky clean, perhaps that is why there is the amount of attention to this little incident. As far as having his service weapon on him at the time, it WAS a question of his sobriety at the time that caused this teeny weeny bit of concern, have we all forgotten the last time an officer in Steamboat carried a gun while drinking, Why I do believe he was arrested and held accountable for his actions.
id-I am sure that you would remember all the details of that little incident? ( I honestly dont remember if the officer in question lost his job or not, do you?)
February 26, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
Bandmama: If I'm thinking of the same incident you are thinking of, yes the officer lost his job with the police department, but he was hired on at the Sheriff's Office by Sheriff Wall. He ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and I believe the Domestic Violence indicator was dropped from the charge.
February 26, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboatrealitycheck ( anonymous ) says...
Bandmama - No actually, no one deserves idle gossip such as what you spout. It has just become so normal for certain individuals to spew it that I am sure you may feel its your right to do so, cuz everyone else does it.
Am I dating him? are you serious? Out of line, you are absolutely incorrigible. It has yet to be determined by a court of law that he was NOT sober at the time, so again you are jumping on the bandwagon of speculation and assumption (as I did not notice anywhere in your response where you stated you were actually there to witness the events yourself).
Record of the calls? first you have to have a warrant to get those records don't you? Again you run into the probable cause factor and I doubt that the DA has any desire to initiate that avenue if it might help the defense's case.
The fact that you are comparing that officer's assault on his wife to this is quite astonishing and he was indeed visibly intoxicated by all those around him, so apples and oranges, I am afraid. The fact that the SO hired him is in fact atrocious in itself, (of course, that's only my opinion) whether the DV part of the charge went away or not. I may be wrong, but I think he was in fact convicted of his crime. What kind of a message does that send to our community?
Let me get one thing straight, I am neither for nor against Gary, personally, just opposed to the. . . well nevermind, I don't think you'd understand anyway.
February 26, 2008 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Bandmama,
Let's just say that, if it ever happens to you, and you have to go home and inform your husband that he needs to be treated for an STD, the issue of chloral hydrate doping, its effects, your ability to make decisions under its influence, etc., will be a lot more important to you.
Okay, on the other side of the argument, go look at the employment policies on the RCSO website. Domestic abuse is a disqualifying infraction. So is DUI. I think Steamboatrealitycheck and Benny filled in the details on the officer who was fired . . . or not?
February 27, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboatrealitycheck ( anonymous ) says...
id - what exactly is a disqualifying infraction? I read that as they won't take people who have been charged with it, am I right? They couldn't make the DV charge stick because the wife refused to testify. I just have concerns on if the particular officer will handle a domestic violence situation in the same way another would if he is himself called to a domestic violence situation.
February 27, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
This officer was given a "deffered sentence" which means that it would be off his record if he successfully completed the terms of the deffered sentence. Now, to the public, that means that it's gone, erased, and the file and charge can not be accessed by the public. To law enforcement, it's different. They can see the charge and the disposition (which is guilty) and they can see the fact that the judgment was deffered and that the defendant completed all the conditions aggreed to. A deffered judgment is a good thing for a defendant if he is working outside of law enforcement because he can act like it never happened. It doesn't mean sqwat, really, in the law enforcement community.
This was all over the newspaper and his wife actually wrote a letter to the editor that was published. When Gary was a PI, he investigated the credibility of the charging officers in the cases he took on. Anybody else could do the same thing with this officer when he arrests in a domestic violence case. I don't know if it would be submissible in court because it's a deffered, but I'm sure a good attorney could sneak it in somehow, and at least let the jury hear about it before it's objected to.
I would have the same concerns as you, realitycheck, and also wonder what his conditions of his deffered were. Did he complete anger management? Because, not only is there somewhat of a conflict when it comes to DV's he might be called to, but there is also a conflict when it comes to his ability to maintain control with any suspect that might anger him.
February 27, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
I meant "admissable" instead of "submissible.
February 27, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboatrealitycheck ( anonymous ) says...
His deferred is finished so the difference would be in the question, was he charged with DV? yes, was he convicted of it? no.
February 27, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Benny ( anonymous ) says...
Okay, just one more clarification. DV is an indicator, not a charge. The charge itself is something along the lines of assault, harrassment, criminal mischief, etc. If you break a window in a building, you get charged with criminal mischief of some degree. If you break a window in your own house in order to intimidate, anger, etc. your spouse, then they charge you with the criminal mischief and add the DV indicator because you are involved in an intimate relationship with the person you caused the fear, anger, etc. This is totally off topic, but anyway, I believe that officer was charged with the crime which included the DV indicator and as a result of the plea, the indicator was dropped from the charge. And to answer your question, yes, even though it was a deffered, it is considered a "conviction".
February 27, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
realitycheck-first, please let me explain. I beleive that there is this little thing called freedom of speech, and yes, I have every right to "spout" my opinions, which I think this forum is for. Second, the sobriety issue is what this is all about. No, I wasn't there, and I am just guessing, you were not there either, so please explain to me how you can be so certain of your "facts" We are both speculating, as everyone posting comments here are doing. Incorrigible? That is amusing.
As far as the calls, I was just pointing out that it would not be out of the question to assume that facts could be verified. Thank you for explaining the process. I am NOT comparing the inncidents, I was making a point that the officer was held accountable for his behavior, the inccidents are quite differnet, although kudos again to our elected officials for allowing such a fine fellow protect and serve. (I am also asumming that you can detect the dripping sarcasm here) I do understand your point, I am just not sure why you are commenting here if you are only interested in your own point of view.
id- I am in no way belittling the terrible effects of said drugs, or supporting anyone who would do such a thing. As far as going home to my husband, well, we tend to go out together I feel quite safe with him, although after twenty years if he......oh nevermind some folks have no ability to detect humour......And I do hope you realize that I am sure you are an upstanding member of the community and would never do such a thing, even though by re-reading your own comments, you do seem to have put a lot of thought into such actions.....read them again and try to understand how one might respond as I have.
benny- thanks for the details appreciate it.
BACK to my original complaint, can none of you at least admit the actions of ALL involved in this nasty little incident were questionable? Am I the only adult who feels that when you place yourself in the public eye, in an elected office as an OFFICER OF THE LAW, you should at least try to maintain some level of professionalism, and realize that you would be scutinized more than the average person. And please, have the balls to admit that if any one of us were stopped under similar circumstances our butts would NOT have been driven home by a deputy, we would have been escorted elsewhere....
February 27, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
Cahones intact.
Not only would we have been arrested. we would have had to surrender our licence on the spot, pay the fine, court fees, lawyer fees, class fees, etc....
Unfortunately in this case, Rank has its privelages.
February 27, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
424now-thank you and very glad that the cahones are intact and that you have the mental capacity to understand said "spouted" opinions.
February 27, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
unobstructedviews ( Christina McLean ) says...
realitycheck - thanks for reeling in the thread of lynch-mob commentary. What bothers me is how so many of you simultaneously slam the sheriff for his not-so-squeaky-clean past, presumed guilt, mishandling of his actions the night of his incident, yet put him on a pedestal wherein he is supposed to be THE role model for alcohol consumption and drinking and driving for your children and Routt County et al. While I agree, I don't want what one of you called a "drunken sheriff" at the helm here, I don't see Sheriff Wall as this overwhelming influence in my children's lives, determining their future relationships with alcohol and driving. That's a responsibility that falls to myself as a parent, to our family, to set a good example and to educate them on. Maybe I'm jaded and innately don't trust all cops. And, as their parent, I suppose I have to teach them that people, whether they are in positions of public office or not, are not infallible. Now before a few of you get your pants wadded up over that comment, that's not to say I condone Sheriff Wall's behavior IF found guilty. And, if found guilty, accept the consequences. I personally wouldn't be surprised if his "detractors" had used the evening as an opportunity to snare him.
February 27, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Bandmama,
Why do you assume that I spend time "thinking things up" and have not actually known people who experienced them in real life?
I knew a woman who was followed on a business trip by a man who was infatuated with her, and arranged to "bump into" her while she was having dinner in the restaurant in her hotel at the destination. The man had obtained her travel schedule by going into her business and getting her "emergency contact" number from an employee when he was told she was away on business. He called the number, a hotel answered, and that was all it took. She knew this man as a business contact (he was a salesman who dealt with the woman in her business), and allowed him to join her for dinner, as most civil people would, when he "just happened" to be there "on business" also, according to him. He drugged her and date raped her. She and her husband ended up divorcing over the incident, and no, she did not end up in a relationship the guy who date raped her. Last I heard, he was still working as a salesman in Steamboat, and was still married to the same woman he was cheating on when the date rape occurred. There is a very good chance that you have seen this man around town, particularly if you have been in some of the local restaurants, bars, etc., during the daytime when vendors are making sales calls on businesses.
So, Bandmama, you really need to stop denying that bad things like this can happen to people, and realize that when someone targets you for their own selfish purpose, there's a lot that can be done with very little effort, and in very innocent surroundings.
My own wife once became the object of a coworker's affection, and she ended up getting a restraining order. The man who had the attachment to her was divorced as a result of his own ex-wife having been forcibly raped by an intruder (with their two children present in the apartment) while he was away on a business trip.
Stuff like this happens all the time, and to think that someone could not have slipped a drop of chloral hydrate into a cup of coffee at the end of a community dinner is very naive indeed. Anybody who can do the trick where Grampaw pulls a quarter out of a kid's ear could also dope a drink without anyone knowing it.
I've lived in eleven cities, ten states, and held 17 different positions in my career. That only means that I've known a lot of people and heard a lot of stories about things that happen to people. Maybe I've just had more opportunities to hear things that some people can't even imagine, but I believe that most of them are real. So watch out. You never know when it's going to happen to you, and there's usually not much warning when it does.
February 28, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
"I've known a lot of people and HEARD a lot of stories", "Maybe I've just had more opportunities to HEAR things", "but I BELIEVE that most of them are real", Hey I watch law and order too but that doesn't put a bogey man on every corner nor make every cop or citizen that dislikes Wall a conspirator. If it looks like a drunk, walks like a drunk, and talks like a drunk.....
February 28, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Justa,
Well, it just so happens that the sheriff in one of my old home counties has been indicted today on 28 federal counts of extortion, trafficking, etc., involving weapons and 5 kilos of cocaine. The whole thing started when he attempted to extort promised (but not delivered) election campaign contributions from convenience store owners. The feds came in undercover, offered him the chance to participate in a "sting" drug trafficking operation, and they were off to the races. The guy faces 10 years to LIFE in federal prison. He was unaware that a convicted felon he was "working with" in the criminal enterprise was also working as an informer for the FBI.
So, once again, we have a data point showing that police officers are incapable of breaking the law because they are such fine, outstanding, HEROES who risk their lives for us every day (right . . . ). That was SARCASM for anyone who might have missed it. Abuse of police power for personal profit (or political motives) happens every single day somewhere in this country. It probably happens every day right here in Colorado.
Now, if I had told you about hearing about such a thing without being able to point to a specific instance with a name, photograph, etc., you'd have said I saw it on Law and Order.
I could give you the names of the people involved in my annecdotes, but I'm sure they prefer to remain anonymous also. There are innocent wives and children involved who don't need the extra attention from us gossipers.
I'll let you do your own Google search on "Hamilton County Sheriff Indicted" if you're interested in the other story. Turns out there are like 17,400 hits on this search.
February 28, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
unobstructed- I strongly agree with your view points, please try to see mine, as parents, who do we tell our children to go to if they are in danger or in an bad situation, us, a teacher or a POLICEMAN. No, I do not feel it is needed to trust them all, from personal experience I know this to be true (the officer was relieved of his job because of a series of incidents) my OPINION, that I have tried to express, is that this is a person who is in the public eye, the situation was poorly handled, and this is the point I object to. I have never taught my child to blindly trust any authority figure. But, unfortunately this is what is offered.
id-I have also been an "object" of a stalker as a teenager, I am fully aware of the things that can and do happen, I just fail to see where date rape comes into play with this situation. It has absolutly NOTHING to do with the fact that the original officer felt there was a possible impairment, and called another officer, IF Wall was fine, not impaired, why was a ride needed to take him home, IF there was some sign to indicate that he needed a ride, why was he not taken immediatly to the hosp to verify and or discover the cause of the inability?
Also, just to stop the crudeness, I have had two friends who have been raped, one violently, I have also seen heard and know that bad things happen, I worked in the medical field right next door to the ER, I HAVE seen what damage can be inflicted. I refuse to let those experiences influence my daily life. I believe that being "polite" (as you said your friend was) is not always needed. One must be aware of thier own surroundings and use those intuitions that we routinely ignore to be polite. Let me tell you a story of a man who took a butter knife to a 12 year old little girl sometime, she will never have children of her own, or how about the three year old that was raped by her father, or the 11 year old who was ritually raped repeatedly by the male members of her "family"?
Dont insult my intelligence by thinking I dont/cant see the the terrible things that happen daily, the fact that you are trying to excuse Walls poor judgement by repeatly stating this piss poor excuse is an insult to all the real people who have had real things happen to them. It was a simple case of a traffic stop. I personally would have 10 times more respect if Walls would stand up, admit to the lack of judgement and turn this into a positive learning experience, again to set an example for all the citizens in Routt County, instead of using his position to get away with something.
justathought-......quack, quack quack......
February 28, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Mama,
So, bad things happen to everybody except a new sheriff who comes in and fires all the old hands. Yeah, that makes sense.
February 28, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
makes more sense than than a drugging.......
February 28, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
I think bandmama has friends who were serving that night.
February 29, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
I think id04 had him drugged in order to frame the CSP. Now there's a conspiracy theory!
February 29, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
id-no, we were all at home plotting another scheme. Thought there were enough folks out to frame Gary, our input wasn't needed. (again, I do hope you can detect sarcasm........)
justathought- I think you may be right! id04-can you verify your whereabouts on the night in question?
Ok, for real, forget the drugging. It is a case of poor judgement. that is all. Again, if it is verified that someone framed him, my sincere apologies. Otherwise, I just hope that the courts will give the same impartial justice that we all know we would receive had we been behind the wheel.
February 29, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA................
February 29, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Đ-Đ° Id, Đ¼Đ¾Đ¹ comrads bandmama would like to know your whereabouts?
February 29, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
On the night in question, I was at least 1469 nautical miles away, by the Great Circle Route, and there's DNA to prove it.
February 29, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
So.......your in the boat driving around in circles? and doing ***only knows what?
February 29, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
I really dont want to know about the DNA evidence........Monica come to mind?
February 29, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
Notice, my post said "HAD him drugged in order to frame the CSP", id was out leaving dna to create an alibi.
February 29, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
justathought- forgive my lack of attention to details, I understand. explains the reference to liquid...........
February 29, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
id- wrong forum, but do you recall a hearing, (since you seem to be a military man) I believe in 86 or 87 when a particular senator named a certain Tariban leader as a threat to US security? By name?
February 29, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kielbasa ( Matthew Stoddard ) says...
Questions:
How many people have seen Wall at a bar in the past?
How many people have seen Wall fairly loud at a bar in the past?
How many people have seen Wall fairly loud at a bar, with a drink in his hand in the past?
How many people have seen Wall fairly loud at a bar, with a drink in his hand at multiple times during the same night in the past?
***raises hand***
March 1, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Hunter,
Ask if Wall was seen at the dinner acting the way that kielbasa describes him. I haven't heard that from anybody. He wasn't described as being loud and drunk, or unruly in any manner whatsoever.
My evidence is in the medical literature describing the effects of chloral hydrate. It has a delayed action, which gives the appearance of a person becoming increasingly intoxicated. If Wall was "okay" at the dinner, but seemed intoxicated 10 to 20 minutes later during the traffic stop, chloral hydrate doping is a perfect explanation for how that could occur without being intoxicated on alcohol.
As I have explained several times before, chloral hydrate must be metablolized by the body before it takes effect. Within four minutes, it begins to break down into another substance which causes the intoxicating effects. It takes another 10 to 15 minutes for a normal dose to be completely metabolized and obtain the maximum effect.
People who have studied chemical pharmacology and pharmakinetics (the movement of drugs through the body into the bloodstream and then throughout the body) understand that the rate of conversion of a substance by the body can govern the effects of the drug. Alcohol or morphene delivered by IV directly into a vein can have almost immediate effects on the brain because those substances are already in a form that causes intoxication. Chloral hydrate, on the other hand, has to be metabolized into a derivative chemical before it takes effect.
So, the evidence you ask for is in the (1) time delay between Wall's departure and the stop and (2) in the fact that he appeared to be impaired during the traffic stop, but nobody reports him being impaired at the dinner. The critical event would have to be consumption of a beverage (such as black coffee) containing chloral hydrate close to, or during, Wall's actual departure.
Bandmama,
I don't recall that event. I was busy trying to defeat the Soviet Union at that time. The threat was that the Soviets would roll into Iraq and Iran, take over the oil fields, and become a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Since our national philosophy at the time was to avoid a direct confrontation with the Soviets due to the threat of a global nuclear war, dealing with local thugs was a necessity. Oh, also, if we had gone into Iran or Iraq with massive force during those years, it would have been a direct threat to the Soviets since both nations share borders with former Soviet states.
The mistake we made in Iraq is the same mistake we made in Vietnam. You cannot allow the indigenous civilization to continue to exist AND expect them to accept domination by a conqueror. That's why we were successful after WW-II; because Germany and Japan were reduced to rubble and had no capacity to create or obtain weapons that could be used by the remaining population against us.
March 3, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
techno_babble ( anonymous ) says...
bandmama and id,
I think what you are referring to is the testimony given by Oliver North to Congress that he was afraid for his life from terrorist Abu Nidal (not Osamma Bin Laden as is popularly reported).
This was the testimony in the Iran-Contra scandle that the teflon president didn't "have any knowledge of".
Intgerestingly, Abu Nidal was gunned down in August 2002 and Saddam Hussein is thought to be the primary cause of his death.
Guess he didn't like competition.
March 3, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
id, you said your "evidence is in the medical literature describing the effects of chloral hydrate" which is fine, I (and others like me) do not refute your knowlege of the drug. What I would like is your EVIDENCE that this is in fact what happened, otherwise it's just your cocksure theory of events. Alcohol affects people differently also, especially an alcoholic, if you don't believe an alcoholic can act perfectly normal one minute and be drunk on his a** the next, you haven't been around too many drinkers, try working in a bar for awhile. You have a great conspiracy theory but it sounds like most of us don't buy into it. Thank you for your info on chloral hydrate (over and over and over and over) again, we all understand the drug now, but I for one reject your theory. As I stated before, if it looks like a drunk, walks like a drunk.....
March 3, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
unobstructedviews ( Christina McLean ) says...
You guys outta get together over black coffee and write a book along the lines of Follett or Ludlum or le Carre. Just a thought? :)
March 3, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Justa,
You may be 100% correct. Everything you say is true. That's why chloral hydrate has been such a successful substance for taking advantage of people who the casual observer would assume to be under the influence of alcohol. People are disgusted by drunks, and see alcohol dependence as a character flaw. Drunkenness in public (outside of a University setting) is a scandal and a subject of gossip. Wives coming down to the pub to drag home their sodden husbands to some squalid dwelling occupied by freezing, undernourished children have always been objects of pity, disdain, and even humor.
I had a business partner who was a "dry drunk" all day long, suffering from a perpetual hangover resulting from having consumed eight or more Miller Genuine Drafts (in the can) the night before. He was surly, had small "accidents" all day long, constantly made expensive mistakes (like framing a rough door opening 1" too short instead of 1" too tall), etc. Finally, we got into a time crunch and started working past 5 PM to finish by our contracted deadline. Then, at 5 PM on the DOT, he would crack an MGD. He'd crack the second one around 5:10. By 5:30 he was onto #3 and feeling NO PAIN, and the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet except for the damage which he then caused while under the influence -- like dropping his claw hammer on a 12" square ceramic tile.
It took a while to figure the whole situation out, because he never smelled like booze when he arrived in the morning. He was just surly and dull-witted. I had the misfortune of getting mixed up with him while he was "dry" as a result of a DUI back east, and he was pretty much a solid citizen at that point -- he was even a dedicated CAR POOLER! LOL. If only I had known why . . . .
I really wish I'd had the sense to get some chloral hydrate, slip the guy a Mickey in the ONE beer (MGD, in the BOTTLE) he allowed himself to consume when we'd go out to dinner before driving, and then called the SSPD to report him. That would have taken care of my problem in very short order. I was too naive at that time to do such a thing (and I'm too aversive to going to jail to do it now).
When people have a grudge against a person with an exploitable weakness, it sets up a situation like the one Sheriff Wall found himself in on the roadside. If he indeed had 2 or 3 pops just before, or while, driving home from the dinner, he certainly needs to be off the road for his safety as well as ours. On the other hand, people have been Shanghaiing sailors for a long time, and slipping them a Mickey to make them look drunk before taking them on the ship to be pressed into service, or even just dragged into the alley to be rolled, is nothing new.
Maybe the rest of you just need to "get out" more. High school to bartender via three semesters of college and a couple of construction jobs is not really a comprehensive education in the ways of the world, no matter what you might think.
March 3, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
OK, as always my comments are my opinion.
id04sp,
"High school to bartender via three semesters of college and a couple of construction jobs is not really a comprehensive education in the ways of the world, no matter what you might think."
You left out the lot clearing and fast food carreers,
Saddly, that is precisely the level of education a majority of Americans hold. With no suppliment, No passion for liturate. Unfortunately most citizens have never read a Grisham book. Seriously, they manage to go their entire lives without taking the opportunity to familiarize themselves with any of the works of Ian Flemming, Sheldon or Shoals and Moore.
They managed to survive in what, if I gather your meaning, is a social cesspool of lecherous, larcinous and lascivious , although highly trained in the arts of alchemy, evil doers.
A majority of the people reading this thread do not subscribe to your conjecture. It reads as if someone were deliberately inserting a pro-wall slant into the thread in case it gets called into court.
March 3, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
I wrote a longer response that got lost somehow, so I'll just leave it at this:
Alcoholics are KNOWN for their caution. They make sure their cars are in good shape, don't have lights out, etc. They know how to work at not getting caught. Some of them can function perfectly well at BAC levels over the limit because they have built up a tolerance.
So tell me; why would Mr. Wall have allowed himself to be seen drunk by a former employee with an axe to grind? That's the part that makes no sense.
March 3, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
Simply because he had one of those days. Alcoholics have absolutely no control over alcohol. Its the other way around. One day you have a handle the next the handle has you.
The actions of an alcoholic rarely make sense to a sober person.
Ask an alcoholic.
March 3, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kielbasa ( Matthew Stoddard ) says...
424 is correct. I'm an alcoholic and not taking that last drink doesn't usually occur unless it's closing time. Alcoholics are NOT known for caution...EVER. Tolerance means they need more to get to the degree they want to be. I have never seen in my entire life, an alcoholic as ID describes. I come from a family of them, and have seen them during my stay in the military. Not one is as ID described. I've been to AA meetings and haven't heard stories like that...ever.
An alcoholic, when drinking, can't make those judgement calls properly, because 1 or 2 drinks will just piss them off; they'll want more. I used to go thru almost a 12pk a night when I was drinking. At a 6pk, I could still function, so that meant I wanted a couple more beers. A lot of times, I only stopped drinking for the night because I ran out of beer and was out of money or the liquor store was closed. Some times, it was just plain passing out. It had nothing to do with judgement.
My questions pertained to habit; not what happened at the party. When I saw him, I couldn't say how many drinks he had. I can say he had a drink in hand, and I saw it in various stages of being full while passing into the restaurant side, going to the bathroom, and leaving the establishment. That's all.
Whether he's an alcoholic or not...not my call, but I'm more willing to believe he was driving after drinking than he was slipped a mickey at a party where I'd bet a majority of the party-goers voted for him.
March 3, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
My former father in law was an alcoholic. He kept a bottle of bourbon in the file drawer of his desk and would actually sip on it through a straw all day long while running his business, meeting customers, making sales, etc. He never got stopped by the police, never had a wreck, and only "let himself go" and got roaring drunk when he was away from work and out of his car.
My former business partner could have ONE, and stop. I saw him do it many times.
Maybe the key to this argument is that the people who manage to get away with alcohol abuse without getting caught just don't end up in jail, at AA, etc. My former partner would go through cycles -- interrupted by his third wife's threats to leave him if he didn't tone it down. Aside from the one incident back east where he refused the test and got his license suspended (I think it was 6 months or 3 months in that state back then), I don't know of any other contact he had with law enforcement. In fact, he was a military policeman at one point.
I worked with a guy who basically got $#!+ faced every night, came to work in the morning, went out to lunch and had more than a pint of beer, came back to work for the rest of the day, and then stopped on the way home to pick up what he was going to drink that night. He spent at least $10 a day on cheap booze, every day, and he drove with more than .05 in him on a regular basis. He was over 50 years old and had NEVER gotten stopped or into any trouble with the law when I last heard from him. I always figured it was just a matter of time until somebody else ran into him, and then the cops would smell it on him when they arrived, but so far that has not happened. Oh, one thing about him was that he spent hours every day writing down EVERYTHING he did at work, because he couldn't remember from one day to the next without going back to his notes. I guess you could say he was coping, right?
Maybe one size fits all when you talk about athletic socks, but alcohol varies by individual. I've been around the ones who couldn't stop until they threw up or passed out, and around others who could have one and stop, or who would drink all night and just go to bed like anybody else and be ready to go in the morning when the alarm went off.
I think my friend who was coping might be a good example of someone who could easily be doped, and then picked up by the cops if someone phoned in a tip. If I had wanted to do him harm, I could easily have called the police a hundred times and had him stopped.
The things I do know from personal experience are that the former RCSO was negligent, derelict in its duty, and that officers who could allow the things that happened to me and my family are probably capable of setting up Gary Wall for a DUI arrest in revenge for getting rid of them when he took office. Abuse of police power is a CRIME. So is refusal to prosecute criminals. Why should we expect anything less than more crime from criminals?
March 4, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
In case nobody else is aware, Judge Cecil Williams was scheduled to conduct a disposition hearing in Mr. Wall's case this morning at 9 AM. It's on the weekly docket posted for the 14th Judicial District on the Colorado State Judicial Branch website.
March 4, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
id04 says "the former RCSO was negligent, derelict in its duty, and that officers who could allow the things that happened to me and my family are probably capable of setting up Gary Wall" "Abuse of police power is a CRIME. So is refusal to prosecute criminals.".
id04sp, It sounds like your personal experience and treatment (real or imagined) from the old RCSO has you blinded to anything except getting even for past injustices. You believe you were treated badly so they MUST be guilty of framing Wall, at least I now understand the reasoning behind you wanting the cops to be guilty of something.
Kielbasa, I have alcoholics in my family also, no matter what you try to do, if they don't want to stop you can't help them. You are right on with your post and congrats on your sobriety.
March 4, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Justa,
I don't want them to be guilty. They just are. Whether they are guilty of framing Wall is anybody's guess.
My point is that people are saying, "Wall did it because he's an alcoholic. End of story."
I'm saying, "They've misused their power in the past, so I've got no reason to doubt that they misused it here, too."
It cuts both ways, ya know?
People are not automatically guilty just because they have a run-in with the system. Turns out they are also not guilty if they have a "huntin' buddy" who's a deputy with the old RCSO and arranged to lose paperwork that should have been taken down to the DA's office.
The old RCSO needed to GO because it was beyond recovery as a law enforcement agency dedicated to actually protecting the citizens of the county. It was a place where cops hid out and avoided as much work as possible pending their retirement date, or any possible interference with their off duty activities, such as being in the AMWAY business or a member of a bowling league.
Why Warner let it be that way I'll never know. Neither will anybody else, probably.
If you want to know how things really are in small LE agencies, just do a Google search on the words "sheriff indicted" and see what you get. Then come back and tell me you don't think it could happen here.
I happen to think that Sheriff Wall, warts and all, has our welfare at heart and was on the right track to making things better for the citizens of Routt County. I think he made enemies in the process, and they found a way to get him.
March 4, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
This seems contradictory to me,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm saying, "They've misused their power in the past, so I've got no reason to doubt that they misused it here, too."
It cuts both ways, ya know?
People are not automatically guilty just because they have a run-in with the system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you would have to add ,
"People are not automatically guilty if the were the system."
March 4, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
424,
Try it again, but without the chloral hydrate . . . .
People are not automatically guilty just because they have contact with the police. Misuse of police power can make them look guilty, however, and often does. The LA Ramparts Division scandal is a notable example.
Do you think the CSP would have stopped Sheriff Wall if they had not KNOWN they were going to find a "guilty" party in the cruiser? The government tags and lights, even on an "unmarked" vehicle, should have been very easy to spot for a well-trained and POST-certified officer, no?
It's all way too convenient.
Okay, and again for the record, if Mr. Wall was really intoxicated due to his own actions, and nobody else had a hand in it, then he got what he deserved. No arguments with what happened IF he was voluntarily intoxicated.
March 4, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
id,
It is a stretch for me to think of someone slipping a micky to the sherriff at a party.
That he has created enimies in his rise to power I have no doubt. That they would put into motion efforts to discredit him is a fair statement. That they would go to lengths of using chlorol hydrate? It is a brassy move to do that to the sherriff. Why not just wait untill the drinker does what most drinkers will at one time or another, get behind the wheel of an automobile.
I can believe more that if someone had it in for wall all they would have to do is wait for him to have a few and head for his car. If he is a heavy drinker it would be a short wait.
March 4, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
424,
So, why hasn't it happened to him a lot over the course of his life? I don't know the details of his previous troubles, but assume he's had some. How long since a previous DUI, if any?
Why NOW? Why wait until he's been elected Sheriff to go around drinking too much in public? Why flaunt it at the worst possible time?
I've been watching the news for the results of today's hearing, but nothing so far.
March 4, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kielbasa ( Matthew Stoddard ) says...
Thanks for the kind words, justathought; much appreciated.
ID- it's not all are categorized the way I said- I'm talking my personal experience on this, which I have a lot of, when it comes to drinking. Most alcoholics don't get that detail oriented (read: anal-retentive) until after they stop drinking. Recovering alcoholics tend to make routines to the point of OCD, so it gives them something to keep their minds and bodies occupied with something other than drinking. It's the same with smokers who quit- a lot will chew toothpicks or buy a lot of chewing gum: it occupies the hands or mouth. I speak from experience on the smoking front, too. (Been over a year since my last cig!)
As for why now...why not? Hell, as much as I drank, I have only driven drunk once...and got caught, rightly so.
March 4, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Like the Seinfeld episode:
"One in a million shot, Doc. One in a million!"
March 5, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dundalk ( anonymous ) says...
Id says:
..."Maybe one size fits all when you talk about athletic socks, but alcohol varies by individual. I've been around the ones who couldn't stop until they threw up or passed out, and around others who could have one and stop, or who would drink all night and just go to bed like anybody else and be ready to go in the morning when the alarm went off. ..."
Id, while you and I do not agree or see eye to eye on most things, I have given you credit in that you come up with wild scenarios, no matter how implausible and continue to harp on the wrongs allegedly committed against you by the former sheriff. I have even laughed at the last few posts where you insult me.
But the post I have found completely ridiculous, even for a person of your intelligence is your interpretation of alcoholics.
Let me tell you this - THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. Some might be better at being "functional" or some might even handle their liquor better than others from their outward appearances. But the bottom line is that they are all weak to the grand master better known as booze.
The live to serve only one master and that is alcohol. Its a disease, and just like any other disease, you either have it or you don't. There is no cure. You either accept the problem and decide to step up to the plate, or you let the master beat you.
You continue to push the little scene of mystery with regards to Wall being drugged.
The bottom line really is this:
He was drinking at a function, where people saw him. He was wearing a firearm, and drove. No one has reported thus far, nor have I heard that Wall was being force fed his "one glass of booze", and no one has reported, nor have I heard that he was forced behind the wheel of a county owned vehicle and persuaded to drive. In fact, no one has reported, nor have I heard that he was forced or coerced, or enticed into wearing a firearm to a social function where he was seen drinking.
Can you wrap your mind around that?
March 5, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Dundalk,
Do I think he was drugged? No. It just provides an explanation for everything that happened that night. It's not my fault that everything fits.
You just want your way. That's all it is. You want him out. Your husband is a cop, so people would listen to you and do something if you had a problem. Must be nice. I wish the rest of us could count on that sort of consideration.
So, how did yesterday's hearing come out? You must be in a position to know, right?
I hope you will take me at my word when I say, sincerely, that I would never want any harm to come to you or your husband, or anyone else. I have never been a cop, and I have never been a criminal, because I don't have the stomach for either job. I just hope you are prepared for the day when events catch up with the LE agencies in Routt County and people who have worn badges go to jail for trafficking in drugs.
Why do I say that? Because I have never heard of even one case since I moved here in the early nineties of any cop, deputy, attorney, DA, court employee, elected public official or judge being arrested and prosecuted for possession or trafficking in drugs, and the same goes for their spouses and kids. Even Billie Jo Vreeman was not prosecuted after she got caught in the GRAMNET sting and ended up getting Judge Thompson voted out of office. I don't even remember any of those kinds of people being arrested for DUI.
Why the free pass? Quid pro quo? Everybody's got something to lose?
Oh, yeah, Gary Wall got popped for DUI. Maybe he's a threat or something . . . . thank God he's the first one to break the law in 16 or 17 years. Whew.
Who would you suppose has the power to head-off investigations of all of these public servants? Oh, yeah, that would be the law enforcement agencies. How many investigators are there? What kinds of cases do they actually investigate? Is trafficking a priority? Anybody ever take a close look at their lifestyles, bank accounts, etc?
Dundalk, there should have been at least one or two law enforcment officers arrested for being involved in possession or trafficking in all these years. In a county like this one, it's just got to happen. Low pay, high cost of living, etc. So why not even ONE we can remember? It can't be because nobody ever did it.
March 5, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emmalee ( anonymous ) says...
Since when do drunks and alcoholics have good judgement????
Somebody needs to pull their head out of the sand !!!!
March 5, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Ok, forget the drugging, forget the past (witnessed) drinking episodes, forget all that crap, why cant folks see this for what it was, lack of a good call? (no, not last call...)
He should have been treated, and behaved as any other Joe Blow off the street, he wasn't end of sroty, let him pay the price. Although I agree with Hunterdog, winches on the Alpine Taxis would be cool.......
Techno- I was just testing id, you passed.
kielbasa- agree with you one hundred percent about anal retentive recovered alcholics
March 5, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Bandmama,
I finally got around to reading that link.
The reason we sold Hawk surface-to-air missiles to Iran was because of the threat of a Soviet invasion of Iran. Despite the fact we were on the "outs" with Iran at that time, we still had a vested interest in an Iranian state that was not a Soviet client state. If you remember, the Soviets were attempting to invade Afghanistan at that time, and still sought to have a "client state" along the borders of Russia to proivde a buffer from invasion by Western forces. Iran and Iraq remain as two of the countries which, if occupied by the Russians, would provide a killing ground that Western forces would have to cross in order to invade the Rodina, "The Motherland."
The money obtained from that sale was funnelled into the Contra forces.
Congress has the absolute power to control what appropriated money is spent for. They do not, however, control the U. S. Treasury. That is a cabinet office, and is part of the Executive Branch. When the money from the Hawk sales was paid to t he United States, it was paid to the Executive Branch, and the President didn't need authority from Congress to spend it. It was not even obtained from the taxpayers, and I don't know of any law passed by Congress that controls such funds -- at least back at that time.
So, anyway, all the BS Congress carried on about the matter was pretty much the same as us here discussing Gary Wall's case on this forum. There's no lawful consequence of the words and the findings; just politics.
March 6, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
id-thanks for the info. appreciated.
And just a little tidbit I think we all would appreciate, I was going through old magazines yesterday. If any of you happen to have still, the Steamboat Home Mag, fall edition, check out page (I believe) 25, there is a very nice photo of Gary with a nice BIG glass of wine posing for the Decadent Dessert affair.....maybe some of you wont see the humour in this photo but considering the wonderful enlightening debate here.....I laughed my butt off. hahahahahahahaaaaaaa.
March 6, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
id
Sorry about the delay.
you asked,
"So, why hasn't it happened to him a lot over the course of his life?"
More than likely the blue gang syndrome. He gets pulled over and has a few in him. The cop looks into the car to see a coworker or even his boss. Do you give your boss a ticket?
I don't think so.
By the way the cop that did give him the ticket has cahones that have to ride shotgun!
I don't have any info on his previous issues.
"Why NOW? Why wait until he's been elected Sheriff to go around drinking too much in public? Why flaunt it at the worst possible time?"
It may be the now thing fits in with your idea in a way. Perhaps he stepped on one too many toes on his way up.
Someone who has it in for him happens to see him drinking at that party. An idea pops up that all it would take is an annonimus phone call and walla! Instant carreer jeopardy! Just add alcohol and a grudge.
March 6, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
424,
Thanks. Now somebody else begins to understand.
I think your "blue gang" statement applies also.
I've done more Googling and found so, so many cases where cops have been popped for trafficking in other towns where I've lived. Mostly it was when the Feds became involved.
I expect to see more feds in town after our recent bank debacle. It's about time.
March 7, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
I think the feds operate with big picture criminals in mind. i.e. bank robbery, kidnapping, public official corruption,...
We will no doubt see more federal investigations with the recent events bringing us onto their radar. As to the it's about time thing, I think its a big broom they use and when they sweep up a lot of things could change. I have always felt that federal involvement needs to take place when the recources at the local level have been completely depleated. I wont deny we need them occasionally. In my opinion the less federal involvement the better. Once again though, that is just my opinion.
March 8, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
id04 and 424now, don't hold your breath on the feds investigating something as minor as bank embezzlement, congress is keeping the investigators too darn busy investigating which ballplayers used steroids in the past. At least they might be able to protect us from over developed, over the hill, bat wielding home run kings.
March 8, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dogd ( anonymous ) says...
Id:
I would like to up my average a little bit concerning how my predictions turn out.
So I'm gonna throw out a couple here that I think have got a 100% chance of turning out to be good.
1. You will continue your vague accusations about high level local people involved with heavy-duty drug crime, but NEVER put up.
2. You will (concerning above) NEVER shut up.
March 8, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Hydrogen sulfide (or hydrogen sulphide) is the chemical compound with the formula H2S. This colorless, toxic and flammable gas is responsible for the foul odour of rotten eggs and flatulence.
March 8, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
id- please explain why having the feds come to steamboat would be a good thing.....for any of us. I sure do hate to be the one to point this out, but re-read your comments, have you noticed that really bad, underhanded things seem to happen in all the places you have lived/worked? Have you considered living elsewhere, maybe you could take alllll the bad people and things with you. As a community member, I would be forever grateful if you took such a hit for the Steamboat team.
March 11, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
lol
March 11, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
I think id is after one of the judges, along with previous officers that did not act according to his HOA complaint. Id will be most distressed when he is again disappointed in his hero, Wall for failure to take steps regarding his complaint. For this, I am sad for id.
I believe officers failed to understand the extent of the complaint, possible as a result of training and education, only to state it to be a civil case. So accusing law enforcement of drug involvement, as accused by id will document dishonor in id's case, but clear any accusations against officers.
I don't know who promised id what, but I do recall id stating previously that we can anticipate a case that will bring national attention to Wall.
March 11, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
There are some 258 comments here alone, most of which convey animosity towards Wall. I can't help but to wonder if the animosity is not toward the uniform he wears itself and toward the idea of how a man in such a sheriff uniform is supposed to behave when confronted with whether to go along with the very laws he is sworn to uphold yet finds disparity in how they are being brought down on any person.
I would be suprised if one of the people who have written in have not been faced with the very same descision and have come to see that in order to uphold the law one goes against the very tennants of what it is to be a solid clear thinking human being. Just because this discision involves drinking and driving which carrys negative social taboos and a heavy weight doesn't mean that a person in Walls situation goes against their gut feeling of participating in the very process he is a part of leading.
In Colorado if a person is found to be drinking at all, and displays any probable cause of being pulled over, he or she can be cited with DUI or DWAI. Both carry a penalty and stigma that affect anyone from a Doctor to a Lawyer to a Sheet Wall Worker to a Sheriff.
The intent of the DUI Law is to keep unsafe, intoxicated drivers off the road. By doing so, all people are safer and more secure on the roads. If and when probable cause is used to put a finger down on any person in a position like Walls or just us common man, for any reason, common sense does not prevail. It becomes not about whether a man is drunk or intoxicated or impaired, moreso it often is about whether a person can be charged for a crime and be brought to the whipping post for all the citizens resentments about having been unjustly treated or heavily moralizing ourselves beyond common sense.
March 12, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
We ask Wall to act as a trapped man in his position which is not why he was elected and not why anyone liked him initially. He was elected to think for himself. He was elected to trust his gut. He was elected to not keep his finger on each and every person in Route County but to keep Steamboat safe and to stick up for people whom don't necessarily know how to defend themselves. He was elected to bring light and justice to the very police forces in which he has contact with. He was an investigator in the county, look and see if he did not try and stand up for intimidation, look and see if he did not try and make sure people had rights that they didn't even know they had. Really check for yourselves, I mean you may be putting down the very person who has given a good bit of his life to make sure that all police forces are not themselves held accountable for their techniquest.
Look through his records, read the articles. Talk with people, talk with his officers, his staff. See if he doesn't stand up for truth, then continue writing and condemning.
In his case, 16 people wrote and presumably are prepared to testify as to exactly how much to drink he has had. And it is one drink? Come on, you and I both know that if he had created any adversaries in any of the other police forces which any person in a position of power who sticks up for things will do, people will want it out for him. And if he takes a breathalizor and it shows any amount of alcohol, he can still be cited with a DWAI despite blowing less than a .05, which still carrys a heavy penalty and would probably cost him his job. It is then up to the police mans or woman's discretion at this point regardless of BAC. Which if anybody on the force want to cook him for any personal reasons, well they could then do so. If he doesn't participate for he can see the politics of it and in it. Well he is then also cooked by readers the public and the law.
So what does a man do? He trusted his gut.
March 12, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
final portion of the above three parts-
If you judge the fellow, you could possibly be tightening the noose around your own capacity to have even sip of a beer and then get behind the wheel. The question is, are you impaired, are you intoxicated, are you jepordizing the public, or are you just a person living everyday life like Wall. Which is why he has defended folks who just live every day lives.
If you want to hold the Sheriff up to be some perfect being, upholding each and every law all the time. I am sorry folks, it is impossible. There are grey areas in which anybody who sticks up for things is going to make themselves susceptible of being prey too by others who have a bit of beef with them. It is the same in the police force politics as it is in any other job when a person has even a slight axe to grind and it comes down to a little something. A person is open to ten times more scrutiny.
Maybe this is Wall's short coming. To see this, that if he is going to stir it up a bit politically, he is going to have to watch his p.s and q.s but did he jepordize public safety, was he impaired, was he intoxicated? I doubt it. If you have a personal beef with him. Go talk with him personally like any man or woman as a sound citizen would do before condemning the fellow. This is common sense.
The man is exactly what Steamboat Springs needs in the Sheriff position. Without him or by trying to bring him down, or find him guilty of a DUI is to misunderstand the deeper issues involved in the town and misunderstand the intent of the DUI law.
March 12, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Mama,
The Governor of New York is an example of public corruption. One of the "ladies" interviewed on the Today show said that she had dealt with many men who were high up in government and law enforcement. They considered themselves to be above the law. That's who's running your government ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and there's no reason Routt County should be any different.
Local governments are too corrupt to clean themselves up. That's why it takes feds coming in who don't have dirt on them that's known by the locals. Gov. Spitzer is a perfect example of how it happens.
CoJo,
See above. It's just a matter of time.
And how about you? Why have no officers been arrested on drug charges EVER around here? There was a stink sometime before I moved to town, but it was very hushed up. The SSPD cops knew about it, because one of them is my source.
As we've discussed before, ACET started making drug busts when the RCSO involvement was removed. That tells me the former RCSO officers were part of the reason why there was no effective drug enforcement in this county.
Your "recollection" about a "case that will bring national attention to Wall" is accurate. That was before he was set up for a drunk driving charge, wasn't it? Pretty much the same as when Judge Thompson's girlfriend was set up on a cocaine trafficking sting by a GRAMNET officer to prevent Thompson from holding the officer in contempt over another, unrelated matter. Threaten to cause trouble for a cop, and guess what happens? You become a target. Even if Wall was really intoxicated voluntarily, the point is, HE WAS TARGETED by cops with a grudge. Q.E.D. ("quod erat demonstrandum," literally, "that which was to be demonstrated").
I understand that you all don't want it to be true, and you find ways to deny it based on "logic" of one sort or another. The reality of the situation is that if you look for government and police corruption, you find it without much trouble. It's just like looking for pedophiles among people who work with kids.
Local police agencies have the ability to prevent local investigations from being conducted, and that's why it's usually an outside agency that makes the arrests.
The sheriff of Hamilton County, TN, was arrested by the FBI a couple of weeks ago after he attempted to extort payment of promised campaign contributions from convenience store owners. One of them called the FBI. The FBI then set up a drug trafficking sting involving something like five pounds of cocaine, and the sheriff participated ENTHUSIASTICALLY in the whole affair. He's going to jail for a long, long time. One phone call was all it took.
By the way, my "judge" beef was resolved. Some things were allowed to become void due to the passage of time, and that's that. I think somebody put a bug in a lawyer's ear that the "heat" was on. Quiet, but effective, so done is done.
March 12, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justice4all ( anonymous ) says...
For your info:
If Wall is convicted on the possession of a firearm charge (a felony ) he will loose his POST certification. Will he still be able to servie as Sheriff????, OR WILL kAMERZELL, DIRECTOR OF POST, ALLOW HIM A WAIVER????
If a waiver is granted, we should loudly contest!!!
March 12, 2008 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CoJustice ( anonymous ) says...
Its not a matter of "If", Its public knowledge that he was drinking wine, while carrying a firearm.
Wall will use that for a plea deal.
March 12, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
So, if I am drinking while carrying a firearm, I'm automatically guilty? Won't hold up on appeal without a BAC level to prove intoxication. The CSP screwed up by failing to get a search warrant for a BAC test on the weapons charge. The fact they did not think of it on the roadside won't fly very far in a real court, and without it, there's insufficient evidence.
If you can be convicted of a felony merely for being seen drinking while in possession of a firearm, then the same criteria would apply if you have a firearm and a bottle of Jack Black in your house.
This is all wishful thinking. It won't hold up.
March 13, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama ( anonymous ) says...
Still wonder about the size of that ONE glass...............
Although to be fair, (cough ah-hmmmmm) he did allow one of his Deputies to drive him home, I am sure for appearances sake, did Lance carry the gun for him as well?
March 13, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
Even if the glass was the size of a plastic ball park tumbler consumed over a half an hour or an hour during a social event, for a man Wall's size, the BAC would be less than the .05 impaired limit declared by the state of Colorado. Then the subject of impairment arises which is then subject to the officer's judgement on the stand. Now if Wall has 16 witnesses willing to testify under oath that he was not impaired nor intoxicated, and one officer who is simply doing her job, but is now forced to stand behind the issue of probable cause. what is the point? The officer did what she thought was right and charged someone in his position which isn't easy regardless of anything. Now let him defend his position as well fairly and justly. The truth will prevail, if people are willing to accept the whole truth.
The man is caught, embarrased, trapped and cornered. What you think, he is going to do it again. Would he be so rightous now in his defense as to drag everyone through this if he thought was going be putting down a few at a saloon and then try his luck again on the roads in town.
He is defending his right to serve honorably the city in which voted him in and which he represents, and this means defending his credibility as worthy of the trust of the people in the city. He is defending the same rights he has defended for others. Look up what descisions he has voted on. Look and see if he has stood up for justice in town. Look up and see if he seems like a liar or power monger. Would you expect anything else from him but to stand up for the very rights for himself he has stood up for others for.
See if the fellow was or is a hazard or jepordizes the safety of others. Find out if he is really trying to harm the reputation of others or if he is trying to simply stand for the very rights he believes in.
Until the law states that you cannot have even one drop of alcohol and drive, which is up for question, there is an agreed upon BAC and that BAC does not seem to be crossed.
If not dimming lights is a blatant hazard to the people of steamboat springs, drag him in and tar the fellow. But if there is a situation where laws are used to indite rather than to protect people, then Wall's wine and refusal is simply a barameter to some other issues.
Lets be common men and women with common sense.
March 14, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
ted,
You're not from around here, are you?
March 14, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
I've done my time in Steamboat.
March 14, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
Ted, you say "there is an agreed upon BAC and that BAC does not seem to be crossed" and you know this how? He refused all tests. People said they only saw him have one drink, was the party so boring that they all stood around staring at Wall and counting his drinks? They can testify they only WITNESSED him have one, that doesn't make it true. Can anyone testify to what he drank before walking into the party, or what he drank after leaving the party, (other than a drunken girlfriend) or what he could have consumed in the bathroom for that matter? You said "He is defending his right to serve honorably the city in which voted him in and which he represents", the CITY may have voted him in but he is supposed to "represent" the COUNTY. You ask "Would he be so righteous", I'd rank him and his ego right up there with New Yorks now ex-governor.
March 14, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
id,
Are inferring that common sense does not prevail in Steamboat?
March 14, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
No common sense, no enforcement of the law unless it serves a political purpose (meaning even enforcement of basic laws is only done to gain voter support, not to serve the public), and no sense of doing something for the common good. The idea of self-sacrifice for the common good is an alien concept.
Nobody is willing to go out on a limb for his neighbor in this town. If somebody else has a problem that would require a meaningful sacrifice from a second person to solve, it just "sucks to be you, I guess" in the minds of most people around here.
"Support" means writing "I support you!" and nothing more.
I've actually tried it. I tried to get some things changed for the good of ALL my neighbors in addition to myself, and none of them care enough to take action. They'd rather pay up to extortionists than take responsibility for making things right. Okay, so I guess I will be the one to collect the reward for turning in tax evaders instead of letting the money be divided equally among all the people who were victimized. I offered to act on behalf of ALL of the people affected, and none of them care, so I guess they can't blame me when I collect for doing it on my own.
March 14, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
424now ( anonymous ) says...
id,
Not all of us fit the mold of your foolish, egocentric, recluse in that comment. However I would like to add
" I support you!"
March 14, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
Id,
I think your right on. I suggest you go and set up a meeting with Sheriff Wall and talk with the fellow, look at him strait face to face and hear his side. What you and he stand for is exactly the same. What he is using his own DUI case against himself for is exactly what you push for in the town. People were not wrong to vote the fellow in. He is unbenknownst to most people, continuing to fight for citizen's rights by standing up for his own. Unfortunately a DUI case has such a negative stigma that it is a tough sell but it can bring what is under the surface to light, if folks like yourself get behind him and understand the deeper issues.
Ted
March 15, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
Justathought,
I feel your caution toward alcoholics is well warrented. I find the same to be true. So deprivating to a family and a community, it is. Such a waste.
On your other issue. I've worked in many state institutions and for-profit, non for profit situations or just life situations where children's, women's and men's intrinsic rights are abused through the use of regulations. ie. no-child left behind, right for life, or abortion, recent privacy laws, policies that discriminate against women or minorites.
Refusing to participate in some situations of policy is the only morally correct thing to do, despite the hardship it brings on a person.
I don't share your condemnation of a person merely in refusing. Most laws are there for good reason and justified for more situations than not, and necessary to keep order, but I don't think anyone would claim they are best for all situations.
As in a blood test refusal law, which is there so that people who opt to drive drunk are rightfully held accountable for driving on all of our roads and thus are guided toward participating in the rightful laws of the state and there so that a person cannot evade through a loophole of refusing a test. Without this law, the onus of guilt would be always on the prosecuting attorneys, which would obviously be very taxing to the officers and courts. It is a correct law when used appropriately. And I for one am glad that it is there.
And in some situations refusing participation is a viable option and doesn't mean guilt but may mean innocence despite appearance, if there are complicating circumstances. Yet it puts the onus on the person opting to take that route which is where Wall put himself. He knew it and is following the route it took him.
March 15, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
continued
I encourage you to not be so hasty but to really see if you have discerned the situation with depth and not a quick judgement based on what it appears to be, based on the majority of situations. The very rights you may be killing off for all citizens could be your own.
Another issue. If you can personally find 16 people who would lie in a court of law for you, perjure themselves in front of their peers for you, I would call you Jim Jones. It is not in general human nature and I doubt if it is in Wall's character to ask of the people he represents despite being in need of witnesses. Even if they like Wall, I doubt they are willing to take the fall for him. He is a charasmatic guy but not that charasmatic of a guy.
And as far as his ego. Well, show me any person in a position like his without a strong ego and I'll show you a two headed cat. They are few and far between. But can be incredibly useful for getting things done in a political environment. It is why we have folks like him in a position like his. I could never myself stomach it, but I am glad they flag the needed role. Just like a police officer. It takes a certain strong stock that serves a vital purpose for all of us.
Again I would encourage you as well to set up a time and meet with the fellow and alleviate the distance between yourself and the person in question if you have doubts. I think if one is set on speaking negatively about any person in question, it is the least one could do.
March 15, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
And this is not to say that the arresting officer and the prosecution is in the wrong for their inquisition and actions. It just allows room for the fact that Wall may not be wrong for his own and ought be given a fair shot at bringing to light his position and his actions. What may be brought to light may be beyond the black and white but be right.
March 15, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tedwhetherby ( anonymous ) says...
Ok. I am done now. Best of luck to Wall, the prosecutor and the great town of Steamboat.
March 15, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justathought ( anonymous ) says...
Hunter, a public official having an affair is IMMORAL and should be between him and his wife. A public official paying a prostitute in a state where prostitution is illegal is just that, ILLEGAL and a public official breaking the law is open for public scrutiny. Look at this guys background, talk about hypocrisy.
March 17, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
id04sp ( anonymous ) says...
Hunter,
Yeah, what "justathought" said! He performed criminal acts while holding the office of the chief executive officer of the State of New York. Also, they suspected that he paid for the hooker with campaign funds, which is CERTAINLY misuse of public funds.
I never said anything about a "roofie." The term is "Mickey." Two entirely different things.
And, by the way, a "forum" is a place where people are allowed to freely exchange views, opinions and ideas. If you are incapable of speculative thought, maybe you should work on the old imagination a bit. I am neither defending Wall nor prosecuting him, so what's the harm in speculating about a series of events that provide a feasible explanation for what happened.
I know how to look for gold, and where to look for gold. Whether I find any gold is another question. One thing for sure is that if I don't go out and look, I'll never find any gold.
We will never get to the whole truth in any mystery if we arbitrarily shut off possibilities. If you are referring to the bank theft thread, what's the problem? I'm not prosecuting or defending that case, either.
A simple series of Google searches will show you how common public corruption is across this country. Colorado has a very low rate of prosecution for public corruption, which either means people are more honest here, OR, we're so corrupt that nobody ever gets prosecuted for corruption. QED
The study of statistical science teaches one several useful techniques in problem solving. Sometimes you cannot compute the probability that a thing WILL happen, but you can compute the probability that it will NOT happen. Since the total area under the probability curve equals 1.0 (100%), if you can show a 25% chance that something will not happen, that means there's a 75% chance that it WILL. This same philosophy can be used to look at any other problem with two or more outcomes, and that's what I do.
So take a valium. It's just brainstorming. If you're offended because I have suggested that public officials may be involved in corruption, there are plenty of cases to show that it CAN and DOES happen. We know that cops, judges, DAs, and elected officials break the law (like Gov Spitzer). So, there must be some chance they do it around here, too.
Oh, and I know some of them break the law with impunity. If you are a sworn officer willing to arrest public officials and state employees for proof of illegal acts, e-mail me through the forum with your real name and contact info, and I'll provide the proof.
Or, are you talking about my suggestion that the system that turned a child molester loose on an "indecent exposure" charge might be due as much to "empathy" as to "sympathy?" Hey, Dude, if the f####r was IN JAIL, nobody would be speculating about the reasons for letting him OUT, would they?
March 17, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Post a comment (Requires free registration)
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.