Tuesday January 27, 2015
Jump to content
No Pat, that does not make you a bad person.
As for judging others...sorry, human nature. God recognizes that we are all sinners and that we have our shortcomings. One of my many is that I absolutely deplore people who circumvent the system when the rest of us are banging our heads against the walls.
As for me judging, not having compassion, or looking down on those who ask for or need help, anybody who knows me and knows what I do, have done, and continue to do, would never question or doubt my dedication, compassion and resolve towards helping others.
But I believe in offering a hand UP, not a hand OUT.
I will point out the recent news story about the couple who was finally arrested after having been found to have fraudulently obtained in excess of $168,000.00 in food stamps, welfare and medical treatment. The determination of fraud came about because they were found to be living in Florida on a million dollar yacht, while owning a lakefront mansion/home in Minnesota or Wisconsin (one of those really cold places, I can't remember which). This fraud had ben perpetrated upon the taxpayers over the course of 7 years or so; during which the woman gave birth, and also administered the estate of her very wealthy Grandmother.
There are people who are the ones going to work, 2 or 3 jobs, struggling to make ends meet, having taxes taken out of their paychecks, budgeting every penny, eating ramen noodles, or macaroni and cheese, for whom going to McDonalds once a week and ordering off of the dollar menu, is a HUGE treat. For them to see that their neighbor who is on food stamps, wearing expensive designer shoes and clothes, carrying the latest I-phone, sporting tattoos and piercings, can go into McDonalds and order whatever they want and in the large size, and then slide their food stamp/ebt card to pay for it, is a huge slap in the face.
I recognize the point you are making Tom, however, it is simply a matter of the food stamp program informing fast food purveyors, convenience stores and any place else that sells what is essentially junk food, that the program will no longer reimburse them for un-approved purchases.
Grocery stores, convenience stores and the like, know EXACTLY what the program will and will not pay for. It is not a matter of a huge retrofit of software, or a remake of equipment. The stores know that the program will not pay for alcohol, or cigarettes, or various and other sundry items of which I am unaware; as do the recipients of that aid. At the grocery store, all you have to do is look at the conveyor belt full of groceries. There will be a pile of "program approved" items, and then there will be a case of beer, a couple bottles of whiskey, cigarettes and some chew. Those last are the items that the program will not pay for, but sure as heck, that recipient will find the cash for that stuff.
My point in referencing the story at the beginning? That couple managed to fleece the system for more than 7 years!! They were not deserving of receiving benefits, nor were they entitled. However, because some agency or bureaucrat failed to do their due diligence, which is all too common, they lived very well while receiving government assistance.
Tom, I too, commented under the article; however, I will reiterate here.
First though, I will answer your questions:
TQI: Is the deputy trained in firearms safety? Based on the fact that he was teaching a class in it, evidently.
TQI: Is the deputy an expert in gun use? By his own assertion.
TQI: Was the deputy on his own property? Yes.
TQI: Was the dog illegally allowed to stray? Yes.
TQI: Was the dog on the deputy's property? Yes
TQI: Was the dog engaged in killing animals? That information is not available, therefore the answer is inconclusive.
TQI: Was the deputy within his rights in killing it? Absolutely not!!
TQI: Are there emotional factors that cloud the issue? No, looking at the facts alone, one can reach a conclusion.
TQI: Are there any other factors to consider? I think that the deputy's history with discharging his weapon would be relevant, as well as the relationship that the deputy has with his community.
TQI: What is your bottom line position on what happened? My personal opinion is that Deputy McClure comes across as awfully cocky and arrogant in his assertion that he is an "excellent marksman with years of experience", therefore, he "knew exactly where those rounds were going". I would assert that as a self professed "expert" in firearm safety, Deputy McClure should have exercised more common sense, and better anger management. He should have held off on doing anything to the dog, until and unless he was POSITIVE that it was that dog which had killed his chickens. He should have NEVER shot the dog while the dog was on the run. He should have never shot the dog when there were other people, including children who would witness, as well as be in the slightest danger. The deputy should have verified that the chickens were dead, and then, in an official capacity (which had been approved by his superiors) met with the owner of the dog and decided on a course of action then.
Deputy McClure has evidently been certified by somebody or some entity to teach firearm safety, and he claims to be an "expert marksman with years of experience". That being the case, why in the devil did it take him 5 shots, and by his own admission, he missed 2 of them completely, to kill the dog?
The deputy was not positive that it was the dog which had killed his chickens. Now, if there had been feathers flying out of the dogs mouth and blood around his muzzle, that is conclusive evidence. The fact that the dog was roaming his yard and the deputy found his chickens and a rabbit dead, does not indicate conclusively, that it was that dog which did the killing.
Oh Pat and Nancy, I am in complete agreement with both of you. Deputy McClure claims to be an "excellent marksman with years of experience", but it took him 5 shots to kill a dog that he wasn't even positive had killed his chickens? Were he truly an "excellent marksman with years of experience" he would have had the common sense to either not shoot the dog until all evidence determined that the dog had indeed been who or what killed the chickens, or he could have killed the dog much more humanely, instead of letting it run around in agony, ending up paralyzed, before he shot the dog to death.
"McClure told Gartner that no one was in danger of being shot accidentally or hit by a stray pellet because he knew exactly where the round was going." and "assured Gartner he endangered no one". Due to so many variants and unknown factors, nobody, not even "an excellent marksman with years of experience" can be positive when aiming a gun in the direction of people that they know "exactly where the round was going". Had Deputy McClure known "exactly where the round was going", somebody's pet would not have suffered needlessly, and several children would not now have the memory of watching a known, liked, local dog mercilessly killed simply because a deputy had a suspicion and a hot head.
Shameful!! And I also agree that a weeks suspension is absurd. Deputy McClure should have been immediately terminated. He endangered the safety of 19 people because he ASSUMED the dog is what killed his chickens. Sounds like Deputy McClure has a bit of an anger control issue.
Call me dumb. Call me naïve. Call me a conspiracy theorist. I absolutely DO NOT believe that ONE SINGLE fiber optic cable is the means by which all of the Payson area receives
ALL of their cable tv transmission, telephone service, cellular telephone service, and internet.
Aaah, Mr. Naughton, more threats???
I put my disclaimer at the bottom of my statement,
"In conclusion, all of the above are simply my opinions, based on observation, and information which has been printed in this newspaper."
Besides the fact, that some positions cannot decide when they are or are not "public figures". When one is the Mayor of the entire town, or even any elected politician, they are a public figure, like it or not, regardless of what other position they hold. As for the "slush fund" comment, I did not accuse Kenny of using MHA's treasury as his slush fund. I simply said that I was certain that their mission statement did not indicate that they were set up to be used for Kenny's personal whims.
However, once again, King Kenny's knight in shining armor rides to his rescue to vanquish those who would dare to speak out against the Emperor not wearing clothes.
Pat, Tom is well aware of how I feel and the deep respect that I have for him. My derision and amusement were not directed at Tom.
Seriously Pat, you are preaching to the choir!
As for research, I do a fair amount myself, so I know exactly from whence he comes.
Good job Tom, good job! The boss is happy with you!!
By the way, it is considered a conflict of interest and poor form for the blog administrator to insert himself into discussions; but then that has never stopped any of you before!
One final point: At the Council meeting last week, several citizens got up to speak and when Kenny saw which way the wind was blowing, he cut off public comments, saying that they would "table public discussion until they could plan a public meeting, oh, let's see, perhaps on December 18 (you know, ONE WEEK BEFORE Christmas, when many people are out of town or busy with family or other plans and unable to attend a council meeting)". Also at that Council meeting, Council Woman Su Connell (you know, the council person that was elected BY THE PEOPLE OF PAYSON, and who is not, or should not be, accountable to the Mayor, but TO THE PEOPLE!!!) started to speak up, very visibly, and obviously, Kenny put his hand on her forearm and shook his head, no, at her. Seriously??? Kenny is now stopping the elected representatives OF THE PEOPLE from speaking out?
Just to make everyone aware, previously, during the election, when I was speaking out and bringing FACTS to the public, I was making some people very unhappy. I had comments deleted, I received emails to my personal email account threatening me with lawsuits, I had people who were not approved "friends" on Facebook commenting in a derogatory manner on my posts, a situation in which I was involved was outright lied about to other people in an effort to make me look bad and cost me other positions in which I have been instrumental in making a tremendous difference, and finally, I was personally physically threatened! Now, I ask, are these the actions of good, decent, morally upright people who are simply trying to do their level best for the towns of Payson and Star Valley? Or are these the actions of morally corrupt thugs who are seeing their grandiose plans disrupted?
"In plain English, the SLE can do what the towns of Payson and Star Valley tell it to do." That is it in a nutshell. It does NOT say that the SLE will do what Kenny Evans tells it to do, but what the TOWNS of Payson and Star Valley tell it to do.
The SLE/Rim Country Educational ALLIANCE, has a mission, a task if you will, that was clearly and plainly defined from the beginning. Kenny was not even supposed to be involved in the SLE. Then he discovered that the people involved on the SLE Board would not roll over and accede to his every demand, so, out of the blue, Kenny decides to do an end run around the Alliance and form the Rim Country Educational FOUNDATION. Now, Tom, I know that you are a very intelligent man, and that you can connect the dots. Think about it very honestly...what was the reason for Kenny to form the RCE FOUNDATION, other than to get around the ALLIANCE? Is there REALLY a need to throw another entity into the mix? The ALLIANCE has been doing a great job up to this point, for the people of Payson and Star Valley, and to see out their mission of bringing a four year college campus to Payson.
Pat is correct, Kenny Evans is trying to control everything and everyone involved in this debacle, and when he learned that he could not control Steve Drury and/or the RCEA Board, he just started stomping around like a bull in a china shop, huffing and puffing, and forming new entities and issuing press releases which were not within his rights to do.
Last login: Sunday, January 25, 2015