The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
For some 24 hours now, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County has been mouthing off about the "vitriol" that created the atmosphere in which a Jared Loughner could open fire at a Tucson shopping mall.
In this clip, Megyn Kelly of Fox News takes him on--very, very gently, but still decisively. Does the sheriff, she asks, possess any evidence that Loughner was influenced by political ads? Does that sheriff possess any evidence that Loughner so much as listened to talk radio?
Sheriff Dupnik: "I don't have that information yet."
Yet? Yet? The sheriff, a Democrat, has been using his sudden national prominence to associate the Tea Party, talk radio, and the Republican Party with an act of murder--without a shred of evidence. And, when confronted, he employs weasel language--yet!--to give himself an out.
This man is a disgrace.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
County sheriffs are all political hacks. They are the only law enforcement officers in this country that get their jobs through partisan elections.
Jun '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
The Cholla Jumps, a website out of Pima County, Arizona is reporting that Loughner was well-known to the Pima County Sheriff's Department. Numerous complaints were filed with the cops relating to Loughner including threats and reports of erratic behaviour. Dupnik is trying to cover up his own incompetence.
Jun '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
Sheriff Dupnik: "When people…allegedly credible people get up in front of cameras and microphones and say things that are not true and try to inflame the public..."
Gosh, would this be like Like Nancy Pelosi claiming that the majority of Americans wanted the healthcare legislation when every major poll showed that just the opposite was true; or when President Obama told us that the healthcare law would be deficit neutral; and that all legislation would be openly debated on C-SPAN; or that abortions would in no way be funded in the healthcare legislation; or when he denied that he was a socialist when his personal history clearly shows that he embraced socialism, attended socialist conferences, made it a point to seek out Marxist professors, appointed several Marxists to policy positions, and still advocates for the redistribution of wealth?
Would these be the “things that are not true”, Sheriff? Do you think perhaps Americans were tired of being lied to by their own elected representatives? Do you think perhaps that many Americans felt this was intolerable? But isn’t it remarkable, Sheriff, that rather than act out violently, Americans chose instead to voice their displeasure at the ballot box?
Jun '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
Not to self-promote but I do offer commentary on the bulk of Megyn Kelly's interview with Sheriff Dupnik on my own blog site, which is too lengthy to post here on Ricochet. Having just re-read the CoC, I believe that it's permitted for me to do this. Enjoy.
Jun '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
Peter,
He's been my sheriff for 18 years (30 for the other poor souls here), and a disgrace everyone of those years. He is simply a political hack.
May '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
Amid everything in this mess, I've been wondering how Loughner was legally able obtain a handgun. Wouldn't these above encounters with law enforcement shown up on the background check, and wouldn't these encounters prevented a purchase?
One report I saw stated that the gun was purchased this last November. If the Sheriff's Dept. had investigated Loughner for threatening behavior before then, I don't see how a legal sale would have been approved.
Does anyone know how this works? I purchased a handgun a couple of years ago in California, and my understanding of the background check was that a sale would be prevented if the buyer had been detained as a danger to himself or others within 5 years of the application or had a felony or certain misdemeanors. It's a national system, isn't it?
Dec '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
tms
I have to believe that there will be a backlash. At a certain point, people will realize that he is not only engaging in blatant political opportunism, but that he is not doing his job.
I'm hoping for a broader backlash against the MSM and Dems.
These people still think they control the media and can control the message and the narrative -- as they did before talk radio, FOXnews, and the internet. They still haven't realized that even the mushy-middle, independents, and some conservative Dems tune in and check to hear/read for themselves what others think about the one-sided storylines the MSM, Dems, and libs try to force feed everyone.
Many voters now realize they were duped about Obama in 2008. The full court press attempt at indoctrinating the public about Obamacare in 2009 and 2010 didn't work. I doubt this effort will work. People are not as stupid as they think. Some may even begin to resent being treated like morons.
Edited on January 10, 2011 at 10:35pmJun '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
Kervinlee
Amid everything in this mess, I've been wondering how Loughner was legally able obtain a handgun. Wouldn't these above encounters with law enforcement shown up on the background check, and wouldn't these encounters prevented a purchase?
One report I saw stated that the gun was purchased this last November. If the Sheriff's Dept. had investigated Loughner for threatening behavior before then, I don't see how a legal sale would have been approved.
I read similar comments at The Cholla Jumps. It's precisely because the cops failed to follow up on complaints about Loughner that he was able to purchase a firearm. Dupnik's incompetence makes him culpable.
Oct '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
Clearly the sheriff is using his office as a bully pulpit to preach his sermon on the evils of uncivil discourse instigated by those gun loving tea partying Republicans. While I disagree with his perspective, and despite the horrendous suffering and loss resulting from the actions of a mentally impaired individual, I have to see the providential perspective in this tragedy. With apologies to George and all of those who have been touched personally in this tragedy, there is something healthy about the public discourse that has been occuring as a result. George and Kenneth's posts and the resulting dialogue about mental illness is healthy and necessary. The conversation around the vitriol in public discourse is also healthy. While I often enjoy the biting wit and humor in the posts of many ricochet members, I often whince at some of the ad hominem attacks and snarky comments that elude the super-egos of the members or the rebuke of the editors. On the whole, our society is in need of a greater measure of grace toward one another. Rightousness must be tempered by humility as justice is by mercy.
Edited on January 10, 2011 at 10:45pmMay '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
~Paules
Kervinlee
Amid everything in this mess, I've been wondering how Loughner was legally able obtain a handgun. Wouldn't these above encounters with law enforcement shown up on the background check, and wouldn't these encounters prevented a purchase?
One report I saw stated that the gun was purchased this last November. If the Sheriff's Dept. had investigated Loughner for threatening behavior before then, I don't see how a legal sale would have been approved.
I read similar comments at The Cholla Jumps. It's precisely because the cops failed to follow up on complaints about Loughner that he was able to purchase a firearm. Dupnik's incompetence makes him culpable. · Jan 10 at 1:38pm
If true, that is spectacular dereliction of duty on the part of Dupnik's department.
Jul '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
If everyone were as nice as you there would be no need to carry a gun to every knife fight.
Edited on January 10, 2011 at 10:50pmMay '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
The wonderful thing for the sheriff: It's not his case! This is a Federal investigation so he's so far out of the loop by this point he probably couldn't find the on-ramp with a GPS.
Aug '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
Don't all the sheriffs in Arizona want to be Joe Arpaio ? But they don't want to do the hard work. Hopefully there will some liability to pass around as the planning, the weapons purchase, and the attack all happened on Dupnik's watch. Oh, I forgot, it would be illegal for him to know the guy was a whackjob or to file a report ! So where does the liability rest ? Can anyone out there protect us from known threats ?
Oct '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
Your Grace
If everyone were as nice as you there would be no need to carry a gun to every knife fight. · Jan 10 at 1:49pm
Edited on Jan 10 at 01:50 pm
I'm actually a jerk, as my wife will bear witness. I simply believe in self-regulation as the means to the greatest freedom. The last thing I need is an arguement with a friend when I should be preparing to meet the enemy in the gate.
Jun '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
From ABC News:
Dupnik said he had been advised not to discuss Loughner's mental condition or his home life, but said, "I can tell you this is a somewhat dysfunctional family."
This guy just won't keep his trap shut. I think the FBI better ask him to butt out before he blows the prosecution's case altogether.
Dec '10
Re: The Utter Irresponsibility of Sheriff Dupnik
This whole thing makes me sick in my stomach. Has the left done this with other tragedies like this in the past? It makes me want to avoid engaging these people in any meaningful debate. They seem to be do driven by their ideology that they will do anything to advance it.