Pima County Arizona Sheriff, Clarance Dupnik, has been seriously incompetent in his conduct of the investigation into the Loughner shootings and has probably committed civil rights violations as well as serious defamation of people and groups wholly unconnected with the crime.
When a law enforcement officer is investigating a crime he is not free to simply discuss the facts of the case or render off hand opinions. The public has a right to know as much as possible about such matters, but as we see regularly, law enforcement officers are very loath to give any information they are not absolutely sure is correct and even then they are tight fisted with information about the case. There is a very good reason for this. When they are publicly discussing a pending investigation, law enforcement personnel on the case are representing the State. By saying too much or saying something not true they could compromise the state’s case against the suspect and thereby possibly allow the guilty to go free, or even worse, they can easily implicate an innocent person without adequate just cause. The Pima County Sheriff has done both.
First, in official press conferences and interviews about the case, he claimed that Loughner was motivated to mass murder by heated right wing political rhetoric. This was helping the defense of the case. Although this is not a traditional legal defense to homicide, when the head law enforcement officer investigating the case repeatedly states publicly that the perpetrator was improperly agitated by political leaders’ hate speech he is essentially saying the perpetrator is not totally responsible for his actions and he may be creating a defense to first degree murder. It will be difficult if not impossible for the district attorney to argue such a defense is not valid without discrediting his own investigation on which he relies to prove quilt. Our legal system is an adversarial system. When the opposition says something damaging to its case, it’s taken as an admitted fact by the Judge and the jury. The Sheriff was literally sabotaging the states’ case for the purpose of scoring points against his political opponents. This is totally improper conduct for a law enforcement officer.
Second, the Sheriff repeatedly stated that right wing commentators and politicians had contributed to the murders by unreasonably inciting violence with hate speech. He has identified Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin by name. He clarified in at least one interview that he believed Rush Limbaugh contributed to the murders. Again, he had no specific proof of any of this. He could not prove that the perpetrator was a right wing radio or Rush Limbaugh fan. In fact he was neither. The accusation by a law enforcement officer investigating a mass murder that a specific person contributed to that mass murder is a serious breach of duty and a violation of the civil rights of the person so accused. A public officer clothed with the authority of the state who wrongfully accuses a person of a crime without probable cause violates that person’s right to the presumption of innocence and right to be free from charge of a crime without probable cause. Even more egregious in this case is the fact that the crime Dupnik is accusing Limbaugh and Palin of is their political speech. Thus Dupnik has accused these individuals of violation the law by exercising their right to free speech. This is an attempt by a government officer to chill free speech. The constitution prohibits this and Federal law provides for damages for this type of violation by Dupnik.
Further, suggesting a person was a contributor to murder is defamation per se under the law. Damage from such defamation is presumed, but no presumption his necessary here. The comments have touched off a firestorm of baseless criticism of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. A left wing web Face Book page has been recently established replete with threats on the life of Plain directly motivated by the Dupnik’s accusations and the following chorus of extremist leftists chiming in to agree. The sheriff is not clothed with any protection in my opinion in this regard. He is not a member of the news media. Although he was speaking to the press on a matter of public importance, He went well beyond the well recognized boundaries of what is allowed by such an official spokesman under the law and no protection is provided for such abuse of his position.
Accusation of a crime is not a political opinion that is protected speech. This is why all legitimate news outlets refer to an accused as “alleged” perpetrators no matter how clear their guilt. Accusation of committing a crime or contributing to a crime is an accusation of a fact, not an opinion. In this case Dupnik admitted he had no facts to support his statement. In the law this is the sine qua non of reckless indifference evidencing malice. In addition, the malicious intent is inferred from the presence of an inappropriate motive. Dupnik is a Democrat. He was accusing political commentators from the opposing political party of a crime for political gain and without proof. Dupnik is a sheriff who is charged with knowing what is fact and what is not regarding criminal activity Lastly, his department in fact had numerous contacts with Lougner over the years before the incident and had ample opportunity and the duty to initiate involuntary commitment proceedings but did nothing. In addition he failed to have any deputy at the event leaving the congresswoman without protection. He knew his department and therefore he was negligent in this case and shifting the blame was important.
The most brutal dictators in history suppressed opposition speech based on the argument that criticism of the government was too extreme and dangerous and likely to foment violence. This was Hitler’s, Stalin’s, and Chairman Mao’s excuse and the excuse of countless lesser dictators who repress free speech to maintain their hegemony. Sheriff Dupnik and the many radical liberals who have rushed to his support have taken a huge step toward fascism in this country. This incident will be offered as proof of the need for more governmental control of free speech over the Internet and cable television. Is this coordinated vilification of conservative speech by the left part of a large planned movement to crush opposition on the way to a progressive dictatorship in this country?
