America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

CITIZENS’ 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

7 hours ago | Interviews | Posted by Michael Lotfi

Liberty County, FL-

In a developing story, Sheriff Nick Finch was arrested, charged with a felony and suspended without pay for supporting a citizen’s 2nd Amendment rights. It’s not a story you hear every day. It’s certainly not a story you’d expect out of a county named Liberty.

The events began when Floyd Eugene Parrish, a Florida resident, was arrested and detained by one of Finch’s deputies for carrying a firearm without a permit on March 8th, 2013. In the state of Florida, this lands you a 3rd degree felony charge. Finch released Parrish because, in his assessment, Parrish was not a violent criminal and was acting innocuously. Finch called the clerk and told her not to draw up arrest documents until he was there to assess the situation. Note, Parrish had not been officially booked into jail- only detained.

The arresting deputy had multiple complaints for overstepping his authority from citizens over the past several months before Parrish’s arrest. A month after Parrish was released from jail Sheriff Finch decided he needed to launch an internal investigation against the deputy due to multiple complaints and phone calls he had received. Once the deputy found out that an investigation was going to be launched against him, he resigned to keep the investigation from occurring. On May 1st, the deputy, who was no longer employed in the state of Florida, filed a complaint against Finch for the Parrish arrest that took place more 2 months beforehand.

Rick Scott, Florida governor, stepped in and had Finch arrested. Governor Scott then appointed a new sheriff. Finch says he did not vote for the Governor. “I’m not a republican, or a democrat. Just a man who believes in the Constitution,” says Finch. A rally was recently organized by Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Adrian Wyllie. Governor Scott was invited to speak, but was a no show.

Florida? Again???

Facebook page indicates it's still going on...(mobile version, sorry)

https://m.facebook.com/SupportForLibertyCountySheriffNickFinch?id=366600746774070&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch&_rdr

As much as I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I find myself agreeing with Victor once again. Dang, maybe I caught one of those viruses you get over the interwebs?

Ok, I was incorrect. He did not release a felon. He elected not to charge an individual who had been detained on a felony. I dug up a little more info:


So he tampered with official documents when he released the guy. I think "Official Misconduct" was the charge, which apparently is a felony.
As for the Governor removing the sheriff, I don't know policy, but are Sheriffs allowed to remain in office when they're charged with felonies?

And don't try to pretend this isn't about 2nd amendment. Your article has "2nd amendment rights OUTRAGE!" liberally (pun intended) scattered throughout.

Victor so now you admit that you were wrong before but now you're taking for fact of these charges.


So once again you're convicting someone and willing to buy past due process?

I missed the Felon thing in Victor's post. That part I don't agree with. If the guy was carrying illegally, then he should have been charged, in my opinion. I do feel that we have way too many laws targeting the good guys, but the law is the law. It's easy enough for the law abiding to get a CC in Florida, so I don't have pity on this guy. Stinking interweb virus thingy.

That's not the sheriff's job (at least I don't think it is). If someone is breaking the law, they get arrested and the judge decides if it's worth actually doing anything about it.

I would be less skeptical, if the sheriff just chose not to arrest someone. But he actually went and released someone another officer arrested. the whole thing kind of smells to me.

I don't know if the sheriff should have been removed, that depends on what the laws there say. but he DID do something wrong.

I might disagree, no removal should occur until/unless the sheriff is actually found guilty of misconduct. The first article says "detained", Victor's snippet says "arrested", but seemingly at a later date, following the deputys complaint.

It looks like the deputy is just retaliating against the sheriff, and the Gov. didn't like the sheriff either.

It will be interesting to find out who the deputy is, and what (if any) ties to the Gov. he may have.

Something seems off somewhere here...

Quibbling over the minor variances in the definitions of "detained" and "arrested" is a waste of time. If the person was not free to leave, he was seized. Simple as that. It is a red herring.

Removal upon arrest/charges is the norm for a public officer here and I agree with it 100%. The mere appearance that he committed a crime is adequate to remove the individual until the charges are resolved. The standard need not be "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal conviction) to make sure the sheriff’s office is seen as "clean" by citizens.

Now, of course, the deputy is retaliating. But, he’s not wrong in doing so. However, the allusion that the deputy he has some special relationship or influence with the Governor is unrealistic and totally unsupported speculation.

"True facts" is my favorite!

It was a C&P I always credit author and that was the title (think I missed part maybe...)


Read and think as you will.

so the title wasn't the main point?

The point is what you get out of it.

Z abides man.

...Like the dust storms and shortage of burito wrappers.

They won't wear one, don't let em eat the flour ones.