Darlington County Sheriff Responds

So basically short of apologizing but admitting they went a little crazy and could learn from this.. not bad..
 
So, we've heard the pilot's side of it. We've heard the sheriff's side of things.

And AOPA hasn't uttered a peep other than to regurgitate the sheriff's story.

Pitiful.
 
kyleb said:
So, we've heard the pilot's side of it. We've heard the sheriff's side of things.

And AOPA hasn't uttered a peep other than to regurgitate the sheriff's story.

Pitiful.
Click to expand...

Who do you think told the pilot's story? This **** storm started on the AOPA website and grew from there.
 
Oh kay. So because we wanted to hold the guy for the night but that law there they call the constitution says we can't do that without a charge, we just had to charge him with sumthin.

The sheriffs excuse is that they are clueless about legal and jurisdictional issues surrounding the nuclear plant in his community. God help us if those keystone cops are supposed to back up plant security if anyone ever tried to breach the place.
 
Kelvin said:
Who do you think told the pilot's story? This **** storm started on the AOPA website and grew from there.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I missed (forgot?) the AOPA story that started the thread over there. Thanks for the correction.
 
Sheriffs are politicians. Politicians manage their PR with spin.

This was spin.
 
kyleb said:
You are correct. I missed (forgot?) the AOPA story that started the thread over there. Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...

Not about being right or wrong...we are all on the same team here...this incident has pizzed me off...I am the one who sent the Sheriff the AOPA Media Relations contact information...apperently he used it.

The AOPA article appears to have reference reactions drawn from the AOPA forums...this shows me that the AOPA is indeed alive and well and monitoring this incident...
 
Kelvin said:
Abso-damn-lutely.
Click to expand...
Well, now that I have figured out where that is, I will never every fly there, nor spend a dime there. Boss Hawg lives on.

Kinda reminds me of a colege trip to Ft. Lauderdale in 1973, and a big o'l boy deputy with a big cadmium plated 38.....

Not a dime for Boss Hawg. Nope. Nada.
 
The street I live on is named after that county (no really it is)... should I move?
 
Nope. But his homily of "we were told this - we were told that- but we couldn't without a charge" leads me to think the guy really can't think for himself. And he's the CHIEF, and has a gun. Boss Hawg was just such a sheriff- never had a thought in his life.
 
bbchien said:
Nope. But his homily of "we were told this - we were told that- but we couldn't without a charge" leads me to think the guy really can't think for himself. And he's the CHIEF, and has a gun. Boss Hawg was just such a sheriff- never had a thought in his life.
Click to expand...

Agree. I've been following this for a few days, and I think a good 'ol lawsuit is in order. It needs to be done, if for no other reason, to educate local law enforcement.

I mean, come on--they took a glider pilot in for "breach of peace?" What was he going to do? Pee on the plant?
 
spiderweb said:
I mean, come on--they took a glider pilot in for "breach of peace?" What was he going to do? Pee on the plant?
Click to expand...

Yup, those famous 'gatorade bottles of mass destruction'.
 
spiderweb said:
Agree. I've been following this for a few days, and I think a good 'ol lawsuit is in order. It needs to be done, if for no other reason, to educate local law enforcement.

I mean, come on--they took a glider pilot in for "breach of peace?" What was he going to do? Pee on the plant?
Click to expand...


One Ben agrees with the 'other' Ben.....:D

This is taken fron the AOPA article..


:Also, Fleming had said that his lawyer had told him outside the closed courtroom that the charges would be dropped if he agreed not to sue the department. Byrd denied that the prosecuting attorney made this suggestion.:

Someone is lying.. Either there is a settlement agreement that releases the sheriff from future legal action............. or there is NOT....




Time will tell....
 
bbchien said:
.... Boss Hawg was just such a sheriff- never had a thought in his life.
Click to expand...

Just to set the trivia record straight, Boss Hawg (Hogg) was the Commissioner of Hazzard County, Rosco P. Coltrane was the sheriff.
 
Last edited:
Yeah - this guy is more of a Buford T. Justice. "Nobody, and I mean NOBODY makes Sheriff Buford T. Justice look like a possum's pecker!"
 
I'd like further explanation from the sheriff about why he felt it was OK to censure all of the FB posters.
 
rrmkru said:
I'd like further explanation from the sheriff about why he felt it was OK to censure all of the FB posters.
Click to expand...

The only reason they would need to censure thier Facebook page is to draw attetion AWAY form the obvious fialure on their part.....

Being stupid and causing an innocent person to spend the night in jail is unprofessional and possibly illegal...

Deleted posts on a public web site that is administered by the DCSO shouts of a coverup....... That is a real crime....
 
rrmkru said:
I'd like further explanation from the sheriff about why he felt it was OK to censure all of the FB posters.
Click to expand...

Well, you see, they decided to mock the original AOPA story by ridiculing it on their FB wall...so when folks started to instead ridicule them, they had to take action.

The straw that broke the camel's back was when someone pointed out that Honolulu PD had lost a federal lawsuit over deleting critical posts on their FB wall...the DCSO FB disappeared shortly after that was pointed out to them...
 
JeffDG said:
Well, you see, they decided to mock the original AOPA story by ridiculing it on their FB wall...so when folks started to instead ridicule them, they had to take action.

The straw that broke the camel's back was when someone pointed out that Honolulu PD had lost a federal lawsuit over deleting critical posts on their FB wall...the DCSO FB disappeared shortly after that was pointed out to them...
Click to expand...

Which is all the more reason not to delete posts......

These guys put a new meaning to the word arrogent....:yes::yes:
 
N801BH said:
Which is all the more reason not to delete posts......

These guys put a new meaning to the word arrogent....:yes::yes:
Click to expand...

Well...

They can restrict posts, but only if they do so in a "content neutral" way. They can't pick and choose what gets posted, as it's a "public forum".

So, by deleting everything, they're cool.
 
JeffDG said:
Well...

They can restrict posts, but only if they do so in a "content neutral" way. They can't pick and choose what gets posted, as it's a "public forum".

So, by deleting everything, they're cool.
Click to expand...


Perhaps....................


Time will tell on that theory too.....:dunno:
 
I think deleting the Facebook page was weak. Really, people and organizations make mistakes, have misunderstandings all of the time. It is not the mistake, it how you deal with the fall out.

In this case, I think what has got us as a community up in arms is the attitude, the mockery from a demonstrably ignorant position, the trumped up charges, the coverup.

IMHO, the story is NOT the "interception" (and I use that term tongue in cheek) but the actions after their own team and the FAA deemed this to be a non event.
 
It is a sign of the times that the fact that a fellow pilot was deprived of his liberty without having violated a law generates less posts than the fact that the sheriffs office deleted their facebook page.

Maybe the sheriff needs to go on Oprah to explain himself.
 
JeffDG said:
Well...

They can restrict posts, but only if they do so in a "content neutral" way. They can't pick and choose what gets posted, as it's a "public forum".

So, by deleting everything, they're cool.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that you can delete anything you want on your own Facebook page. It's not a public forum although some people or agencies might try to use it as such.
 
Everskyward said:
It is my understanding that you can delete anything you want on your own Facebook page. It's not a public forum although some people or agencies might try to use it as such.
Click to expand...


Yeah... But...........

There are cases where a person, on their personal facebook page, posted something that was incriminating, then removed it and was charged for crimes based on those postings...

I still say...... Leave it there and let the chips fall where they may.

Especially a public entity.....

Removing posts is like a person sees a LEO and darts into an alley the hide...... You can bet your butt they will track you down and start asking questions like.................

What are you running for.......:yes:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...;)
 
Removing posts is like a person sees a LEO and darts into an alley the hide...... You can bet your butt they will track you don't and start asking questions like.................Ben
Click to expand...

This is the reverse of "why won't you consent to search since you don't have anything to hide" mentality
 
JeffDG said:
There's a pending lawsuit in Hawaii that disagrees. They argue that FB is a public forum, and that content restrictions by the government must pass strict scrutiny
http://www.legaltxts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HDf.pdf
Click to expand...

There are things a private individual can do on the interwebs that a govermental entity cannot do.

For example, POA can restrict your speech all they want, if they wish they can do so in a capricious and prejudicial way. If this website was operated by the FAA or a state aviation department, things would be different.
 
weilke said:
There are things a private individual can do on the interwebs that a govermental entity cannot do.

For example, POA can restrict your speech all they want, if they wish they can do so in a capricious and prejudicial way. If this website was operated by the FAA or a state aviation department, things would be different.
Click to expand...
I could see it being true if the website was operated by the Sheriff's Dept. or some other governmental agency but Facebook is not. However, maybe they are seen as just a means of communication, like a piece of paper to write on. I assume that Facebook could also delete your posts or your site if they don't like what you are posting.
 
Everskyward said:
I could see it being true if the website was operated by the Sheriff's Dept. or some other governmental agency but Facebook is not. However, maybe they are seen as just a means of communication, like a piece of paper to write on. I assume that Facebook could also delete your posts or your site if they don't like what you are posting.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Facebook that was censoring posts; it was the Sherriff's Department. That's the key issue, IMO.
 
Everskyward said:
I could see it being true if the website was operated by the Sheriff's Dept. or some other governmental agency but Facebook is not. However, maybe they are seen as just a means of communication, like a piece of paper to write on. I assume that Facebook could also delete your posts or your site if they don't like what you are posting.
Click to expand...

As a police department, selectively deleting posts off your facebook page is the same as hindering publication of critical content otherwise.

In 1998, a sheriffs department in southern maryland got into hot water for this. On election day, a local newspaper run by the local rabbble rouser published a truthful but rather unflattering story about the police endorsed candidate for district attorney. Turns out he had plead guilty to being a participant in a gang-rape as a young man. Later he bettered his life, became a lawyer and ran for the DA job. The night before the election, the departments deputies went out and purchased all copies of the newspaper from newstands and grocery stores around the county to keep this story right under the rug it was swept under 30 years earlier. In the end, the 'newspaper caper' cost the countys insurer $415,000 in a settlement of the first amendment lawsuit.
 
I always wondered why everyone makes a big deal of politicians who pay off girl friends/staffers and such.....thinking it wasn't really anyones' business in the first place but if they used wrongful funds that is another matter.
 
"The de-escalation comes afterwards".

:rolleyes2:


After what? after Deputy Dawg tries to "shoot down" the glider? And what would that entail- taking potshots at it from half a mile away with a 9mm?

....then there's his admission that he, his deputies, and the plant management(!?) just kinda assumed there was some sort of restriction of the airspace over the plant. We know what usually happens when you act on an assumption:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEP1acj29-Y

I guess Darlington County is just such a quiet, peaceful, law-abiding place that these boys have too much time to fantasize. That's one of the ugly flip-sides to living in a place like that.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
As a police department, selectively deleting posts off your facebook page is the same as hindering publication of critical content otherwise.

In 1998, a sheriffs department in southern maryland got into hot water for this. On election day, a local newspaper run by the local rabbble rouser published a truthful but rather unflattering story about the police endorsed candidate for district attorney. Turns out he had plead guilty to being a participant in a gang-rape as a young man. Later he bettered his life, became a lawyer and ran for the DA job. The night before the election, the departments deputies went out and purchased all copies of the newspaper from newstands and grocery stores around the county to keep this story right under the rug it was swept under 30 years earlier. In the end, the 'newspaper caper' cost the countys insurer $415,000 in a settlement of the first amendment lawsuit.
Click to expand...

They have good company, though: the TSA regularly deletes stuff off their blog (or refuses to approve it in the first place).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top