The Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission was seeking psych evaluations and other records from Colling’s time with the Albany County Sheriff’s Office. POST’s subpoena was rejected.
I was dismayed at the tone of this headline. It appears to impugn the Judge in the matter, when the problem rests squarely with the Legislature who had a chance to better serve WY citizens through Rep. Provenza’s Bill, but did nothing. As the article clearly points out, the Judge really didn’t have any other way to rule, as confirmed by all the parties. Might I suggest “WY Statute Prevents Disclosure of Records to POST.” So, let’s please not “throw the Judge under the bus” when it’s not warranted. Thank you very much.
Hi Casey, thanks for sharing this. I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree and stand by the phrasing in the headline. As you noted, the story itself dips into the nuance and readers are welcome to charitably interpret that story as excusing the judge since, in a sense, her hands were tied. But people in positions of power are responsible for the decisions they make no matter the reason they make those decisions. The sheriff or other law enforcement frequently do things they are empowered or required to do by the law, but they are still the one doing those things.
I think the assumption, reading cops and courts stories, is that judges rule based on their interpretation of the law. That interpretation may be correct or incorrect but if I was to say that "the statutes" did this, I would be endorsing the interpretation of this judge, rather than reporting on her interpretation. The statutes are what they are and can be interpreted differently by different human beings. But it's true to say the "judge denies" this when that is in fact what happened.
Its funny when you consider the fact that Appelhans said he'd change things in the department. I know you can't trust cops, but you'd think he'd have at least given up on this case already. Instead he's just digging the hole deeper.
I was dismayed at the tone of this headline. It appears to impugn the Judge in the matter, when the problem rests squarely with the Legislature who had a chance to better serve WY citizens through Rep. Provenza’s Bill, but did nothing. As the article clearly points out, the Judge really didn’t have any other way to rule, as confirmed by all the parties. Might I suggest “WY Statute Prevents Disclosure of Records to POST.” So, let’s please not “throw the Judge under the bus” when it’s not warranted. Thank you very much.
Hi Casey, thanks for sharing this. I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree and stand by the phrasing in the headline. As you noted, the story itself dips into the nuance and readers are welcome to charitably interpret that story as excusing the judge since, in a sense, her hands were tied. But people in positions of power are responsible for the decisions they make no matter the reason they make those decisions. The sheriff or other law enforcement frequently do things they are empowered or required to do by the law, but they are still the one doing those things.
I think the assumption, reading cops and courts stories, is that judges rule based on their interpretation of the law. That interpretation may be correct or incorrect but if I was to say that "the statutes" did this, I would be endorsing the interpretation of this judge, rather than reporting on her interpretation. The statutes are what they are and can be interpreted differently by different human beings. But it's true to say the "judge denies" this when that is in fact what happened.
Its funny when you consider the fact that Appelhans said he'd change things in the department. I know you can't trust cops, but you'd think he'd have at least given up on this case already. Instead he's just digging the hole deeper.