|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
GA: Savannah Looks To Avoid Paying Convicted Police Chief's Pension
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Savannah city officials are asking Georgia’s Attorney General to weigh in on whether the city can revoke some or all of former Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Chief Willie Lovett’s pension. Lovett has been sentenced to more than seven years in prison after being convicted of gambling and other federal corruption charges stemming from his time as chief. But he’ll still collect his $130,000 annual city pension."
"At a city council work session on Thursday, City Attorney Brooks Stillwell said the city can’t change that under state law." ... |
Comment by:
xqqme
(3/3/2015)
|
The time to act is in the penalty phase of the criminal prosecution... if a criminal uses an official position, such as a police chief job, to further a criminal enterprise, then ask for forfeiture of some of the assets "earned" through the criminal activity.
However, once the criminal prosecution is over and the punishment meted out, you can't go back and get another bite at that apple. |
Comment by:
jac
(3/3/2015)
|
At the very least, they should garnish his pension to pay the cost of his incarceration. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|