Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQ Members List Donate Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 05-21-2022, 09:28 AM   #11
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 3,234
Thanks: 779
Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,004 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
Sorry, but as a part of his office... he must forward the complaint.
So yes, he would have had the power to act and chose not to... if it is determined that he knew of the situation.

''A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.''

The town would have an employee that committed a crime, just like the marina.
The town could be held liable for the actions of the employee, just like the marina.

The nature of his employment, in this situation, does not allow for ''personal'' time.
Your post is full of speculation. You are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence. There has been no evidence thus far that the Chief broke any laws.

Forward the complaint? There has been nothing revealed so far to determine that the Chief got any complaints.

This was in the news: "One of the suits alleges that Murray told the plaintiff that it would be useless for him to go to police because he was having sex with the Gilford police chief and another officer and so was “untouchable.”

That sentence doesn't say that the Chief did anything wrong or illegal. He is not responsible for Murray's claims, and may not even be aware of them. It is legal for the Chief to have a relationship with Murray.

The town would have an employee that committed a crime? What crime? There has been no evidence thus far that the chief knew of the illegal activities of Murray and his partner, only a claim by Murray that had had a relationship with the chief.

The nature of his employment does not allow for personal time? So in a jurisdiction where he has no police powers, when he is not at work, and where you have no facts to show he knew of any crimes, you still think he "refrained from a duty imposed upon him by law?" And, you think the town of Gilford is somehow liable?

If, as you claim, he has no personal time, and the town is somehow liable for his actions all the time, and must report crimes, would you say the town of Gilford was somehow responsible if the Chief failed to report a violation of law, say, while vacationing in California? You know, like saw a speeder in a car but didn't report it?

Last edited by TiltonBB; 05-21-2022 at 01:50 PM.
TiltonBB is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
Descant (05-21-2022), joey2665 (05-21-2022)
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.21073 seconds