From my perspective, this is hilarious.
For those of you who find this less than amusing, please accept my apologies - they are sincere.
My information shows that hits on my previous article regarding the controversy around Sheriff Hartman and some comments he allegedly made are coming from a discussion topic at the Free Republic.
There, they identify the internet journalist who quoted Sheriff Hartman as one Allison Bricker. Later on, the comments regarding Bricker become rather insulting.
Previously, I did not know (and really didn't care) how this polemic got started. But, at that point, things became quite humorous, as I now find myself defending Bricker.
When I posted a link to my previous article at the page at Facebook calling for the removal of Sheriff Hartman, one of the commentators had this to say regarding the link (included in the image is my response to a previous commentator, and then to this one):
It was the author herself who questioned my post on this topic. No wonder she did not agree with my methodology (which I had characterized as a "cursory investigation")!
The original article appeared at The Smoking Argus Daily - to which I now link in my sidebar.
The question came up as to why Bricker had not recorded the conversation; her response was:
Dare I suggest that both Bricker and Sheriff Hartman were caught a little off-guard during that conversation, and so what one heard was not exactly what the other was saying? Perhaps the question was not understood the same way it was asked, and perhaps the answer was not understood the same way it was intended.
It appears Bricker was (justifiably and thankfully!) concerned about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling. Perhaps her "indignant exuberance for liberty" garbled the answer she was hearing, which may not have been communicated as clearly as intended to begin with.
Depending on where you look online, there are discussions of lawsuits against Bricker for "slander".
Her defense against any accusation of libel is easy: Sheriff Hartman is an elected government official, and this polemic goes to the heart of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. To have a case against her, reckless disregard for the truth would have to be proven, and that is not going to happen in Amerika. (If this were the UK, she could be in deep trouble! But, thanks to Rachel Ehrenfeld, we now have some protection against application of foreign libel laws in the US.)
I intend to follow Bricker's work, as she seems to share some of my concerns about how this country is developing. I appreciate that she calls local officials for their comments regarding important matters, and what impact those matters will have on government. Hopefully, she can get those comments in writing, or learn to appreciate hearing her own voice asking such important questions in order to record the answers.
I expect Sheriff Hartman would be among the first to defend Bricker's concern for this country, even if he might suggest a better documentation process to support her future work.
I am convinced this was a misunderstanding.
Now, back to the real issue at hand: the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling is of grave concern, and it seems to be part of a trend in this country lately.
For those of you who find this less than amusing, please accept my apologies - they are sincere.
My information shows that hits on my previous article regarding the controversy around Sheriff Hartman and some comments he allegedly made are coming from a discussion topic at the Free Republic.
There, they identify the internet journalist who quoted Sheriff Hartman as one Allison Bricker. Later on, the comments regarding Bricker become rather insulting.
Previously, I did not know (and really didn't care) how this polemic got started. But, at that point, things became quite humorous, as I now find myself defending Bricker.
When I posted a link to my previous article at the page at Facebook calling for the removal of Sheriff Hartman, one of the commentators had this to say regarding the link (included in the image is my response to a previous commentator, and then to this one):
It was the author herself who questioned my post on this topic. No wonder she did not agree with my methodology (which I had characterized as a "cursory investigation")!
The original article appeared at The Smoking Argus Daily - to which I now link in my sidebar.
The question came up as to why Bricker had not recorded the conversation; her response was:
Truth be told, I am writer by choice as my oratory skills are usually lost in my indignant exuberance for liberty.
Thus, coupled along with the fact that I cannot stand to hear myself recorded I will most likely stick with :Attribution.
Dare I suggest that both Bricker and Sheriff Hartman were caught a little off-guard during that conversation, and so what one heard was not exactly what the other was saying? Perhaps the question was not understood the same way it was asked, and perhaps the answer was not understood the same way it was intended.
It appears Bricker was (justifiably and thankfully!) concerned about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling. Perhaps her "indignant exuberance for liberty" garbled the answer she was hearing, which may not have been communicated as clearly as intended to begin with.
Depending on where you look online, there are discussions of lawsuits against Bricker for "slander".
Her defense against any accusation of libel is easy: Sheriff Hartman is an elected government official, and this polemic goes to the heart of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. To have a case against her, reckless disregard for the truth would have to be proven, and that is not going to happen in Amerika. (If this were the UK, she could be in deep trouble! But, thanks to Rachel Ehrenfeld, we now have some protection against application of foreign libel laws in the US.)
I intend to follow Bricker's work, as she seems to share some of my concerns about how this country is developing. I appreciate that she calls local officials for their comments regarding important matters, and what impact those matters will have on government. Hopefully, she can get those comments in writing, or learn to appreciate hearing her own voice asking such important questions in order to record the answers.
I expect Sheriff Hartman would be among the first to defend Bricker's concern for this country, even if he might suggest a better documentation process to support her future work.
I am convinced this was a misunderstanding.
Now, back to the real issue at hand: the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling is of grave concern, and it seems to be part of a trend in this country lately.
Author, I would point out that if Bricker was to admit it was a misunderstanding this would in fact go away. Unfortunately she has dug in her heals and is continuing to tarnish this man's reputation without the proof to back it up. What's fair is fair. I'm of the opinion that it should go away fast. Before the very internet she relies on demands a retraction. She has disgraced all of us who take this court ruling so seriously.
ReplyDeleteShe was a party to that conversation; I was not. She may be right, and merely not have the proof to convince others. That may be why she is digging in.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, though, she might be wiser to let it go, and document her case more thoroughly and more convincingly next time.
My bet, though, is that this was a misunderstanding, and that Sheriff Hartman is not one of the bad guys.
Now, if she had talked to one of the Washington crowd, I would be far, far more willing to take her word for it over any statement put out by the Clinton/Bush-43/Obama Administration.
Here's a crazy thought (I don't at all think this is case, but I toss it out there): What if disgracing those who take this matter seriously was the plan? The evidence doesn't support this hypothesis at all in my opinion in this case, but I have seen other situations where that seems to be exactly what is going on.
It's very possible that it was a misunderstanding. I don't believe, however, that I can speculate on that as I wasn't privy to the conversation. I honestly can't take a position on that.
ReplyDeleteIndeed the issue is the supreme court's ruling and in regards to the Sheriff Hartman issue, I would never have made a comment anywhere if it weren't for sheriff Hartman's subsequent official release.
He listed two reasons in which either he or his deputies would enter homes. One was with a warrant and the other is probable cause. The probable cause statement, in my opinion, confirmed the original story that Allison Bricker wrote. Admittedly, that's my opinion. My opinion doesn't confirm that Sheriff Hartman said that he would engage in house to house searches, but it does say something about his nature, doesn't it? Could such a nature be considered a dangerous one for a peace officer to have?
I don't want to bore anyone again by recounting the boundaries of the discretion of probable cause, but isn't an offical statement which promises to violate the constitution a troubling matter to anyone besides me?