I just wanted to say . . . — Updated

I have several stories ready to go including a response to the ridiculousness over on the other blog about the Del Taco incident.  I am going to hold them all until later tonight after things calm down in San Bernardino.

But, I just wanted to say thank God that logical minds prevailed in November 2014 and we elected a seasoned, qualified law enforcement official as our sheriff.  I shudder to think what days like today would be like if we had gone the other route.

Update:  Just heard on Channel 7 AND from a county source that the shooting took place at a banquet having something to do with the county.

6 thoughts on “I just wanted to say . . . — Updated

  1. Since you are going to comment on the Del Taco incident, I would like to ask a question since you get reliable inside information. There is a back and forth on whether the Sheriff was at Del Taco. I agree that him being there seems like a totally ridiculous claim. But, the last Sheriff stuck himself in a situation that many people also thought was ridiculous and a mistake until it was proven he did do just that. So, here is my question. Has the Sheriff, or any of his representatives, said in any legal document that he was not there that night? If not, why do you think that is? It seems a very simple way to end the claim of his direct involvement in the incident, and I have to wonder if it has not been claimed than why not??

    • The only document I’ve seen in all of this is the original lawsuit so I cannot answer based on that criteria. I can tell you I personally asked him this question during a phone conversation with him and he said he was not there and pretty much thought that was a ridiculous accusation.

      • I do not believe he was there, I believe McMahon looks like a lot of other deputies since he still has the flat top and in the heat of the moment, these “victims” saw someone who they may truly think WAS McMahon. Whether or not he was is irrelevant in my opinion. Because of the now NOT UNTYPICAL work product of the fine IA cover up tactics (missing video’s etc.), coupled with the clear un-lawful 4 hour detention of the involved, the lawsuit is going to prevail either by settlement or jury verdict. Had those things NOT happened, I think it is a loser.

        4th amendment violations are always a check writing issue. The degree is the determining factor as to the value. 4hrs, their race, and perception of preferential treatment, I give it a mid to low 6 figure value.

        If a victim can be shot at and almost (inches) hit by a deputy who was also later removed, gets $650,000.00 (the domestic violence female victim shot at by Chadwell) then these ladies should not see one dollar more.

      • Thank you for responding. I see no reason why he would lie to you. I imagine he could easily say to you that he can’t discuss it due to the lawsuit and that would be that. I still don’t know why the fact he was not there would not be an immediate defense, but lawyers do what they do I suppose.

  2. Hmm funny McMahons lawyer tried to claim governmental immunity for the Sheriff. Says Sheriff was acting in official capacity so he isn’t liable. One doesn’t make such a claim if he’s home in bed.

    Judge denied motion and said McMahon will be held liable.

    You might want to read the County’s response to the lawsuit. NO WHERE is it said McMahon was never there.

    NOW should we believe your conversation or official court documents prepared by McMahons lawyer??? Hmmm that’s a easy one.

    Now you feel free to argue away those court docs that are posted on the other sight.

    We can have some real fun with this one.

  3. Should add if this is so ridiculous there wouldn’t be any settlement negotiations in progress.

    Great opportunity for the Sheriff to appear in Federal Court and show us his vast experience and the human side of being accused of something you didn’t do!

    I suspect his memory will be selective like Hoops was. You remember that?

Leave a Reply