OPD: Man shoots gun five times at vehicle full of people

first_imgLocal NewsLaw Enforcement WhatsApp Previous articleMATTER OF RECORD: Dec. 20 through Jan. 3Next article012919_OHS_Permian_Girls_25 Digital AIM Web Support Twitter By Digital AIM Web Support – February 24, 2021 TAGS  Facebook Facebookcenter_img Robert Barr A man fired a handgun five times and one shot put a hole through a passenger front door occupied by five people in central Odessa, an Odessa Police Department affidavit detailed. Robert Barr, 71, was charged Thursday with five counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, each a second-degree felony. The shots fired call happened at 9:53 a.m. at 2737 Keystone Drive, the affidavit stated. Barr left the scene in a blue Ford Mustang and was located and arrested at the 2500 block of Grandview Avenue. Barr’s neighbor, Cynthia Thornhill, told officers she heard two gunshots. Thornhill looked outside, saw Barr pointing a handgun toward the roadway and he fired three more times, the affidavit stated. Alma Olivas called and reported she was driving down the 2700 block of Keystone Drive when Barr started shooting toward the roadway and her white 2006 GMC Yukon was struck on the passenger front door. There were five people in the Yukon, the affidavit detailed. Barr was charged, arrested and transported to the Ector County Law Enforcement Center. He has five bonds totaling $375,000 and was still in custody as of Friday afternoon, jail records show. Pinterest Twitter OPD: Man shoots gun five times at vehicle full of people WhatsApp Pinterestlast_img read more

Wrongly incarcerated bills go nowhere

first_imgWrongly incarcerated bills go nowhere Wrongly incarcerated bills go nowhere Next step for Wilton Dedge is court Jan Pudlow Senior Editor Clashing philosophies in the Senate and House on how best to compensate the wrongfully incarcerated ended in zip for Wilton Dedge, the 43-year-old Florida man who spent more than half his life in prison for a rape he did not commit.So Sandy D’Alemberte is taking his case to court instead, suing the state and the Department of Corrections with the unique argument that there has been a wrongful taking of Dedge’s liberty.“It’s a precedent-setting argument. I can’t find any authority directly on point. It’s new in that sense,” said D’Alemberte, who is handling the case pro bono. “On the other hand, I can’t read the Florida Constitution without thinking about Wilton Dedge. When I read the provisions that say there is an inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness and to getting the benefit of your own industry and the right to acquire property, all those rights, I almost think someone in 1838 wrote those words for Wilton Dedge. He was denied all those things.”Several legislators in the House had argued D’Alemberte should have gone to court in the first place, rather than unsuccessfully seeking a claims hearing at the legislature—or hoping the legislature would create new law on an expedited process to compensate those who are actually innocent and wrongfully locked in prison.But the problem with a traditional lawsuit, counters D’Alemberte—the former dean of the Florida State University College of Law, former president of ABA and FSU—is this: Who do you sue?“Do you sue the victim who made an erroneous eye-witness identification? I don’t think anybody wants to do that. She has already been victimized twice: once by the assailant and then by the knowledge that she was involved in the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent person.”Suing the Brevard County sheriff or the prosecutor or the judge has its share of legal roadblocks, too, because of strong immunities that protect them.“We understand the reason for that because they have to have broad discretion to do their jobs,” D’Alemberte said. “You can overcome immunity if people were directly dishonest, if the state, in effect, practiced fraud on the court by procuring false testimony.”Winning a suit on traditional grounds is not likely successful and a defendant still must go to the legislature to get a judgment beyond the $200,000 sovereign immunity cap.That leaves the nontraditional argument, but it’s one that Sen. Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, embraced in his unsuccessful proposal—the Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act—that would have paid a single applicant up to $5 million. Webster’s plan likened compensating Dedge and others wrongfully incarcerated to condemnation of land in an eminent domain case. It was praised by Senate leadership and unanimously passed the Senate May 4.That amount fit the $4.8-million figure D’Alemberte came up with to compensate Dedge and his parents, who took out a second mortgage on their house and emptied a pension fund to pay for their son’s defense. And expert economists from FSU tallied a report on Dedge’s lost wages. While in prison, Dedge received commendations for skilled labor as a welder and working at a water treatment facility at Cross City Correctional Institution, D’Alemberte said.The original House plan from the Claims Committee chaired by Rep. John Quinones, R-Kissimmee, had set a cap at the sovereign immunity of $200,000, and offered an array of holistic remedies, such as health insurance (including mental health care), educational assistance, and job preference with the state. The $200,000 cap was later removed.The big difference with the House version was that it also removed the option of going to court to get a judgment and go through the Attorney General’s Office in negotiations, leaving compensation decisions totally with the legislature.In a 116-2 vote, on May 5, the House passed Concurrent Resolution, Joint Rule 9. But on May 6, the Senate refused to concur with the House plan and it died in messages.“I am just startled. I really don’t understand the House at all,” D’Alemberte said of his lobbying efforts to try to get a hearing on a claims bill for Dedge — only for the House version of compensation to basically be a claims hearing.“When I feel frustration, I think, gosh, Wilton Dedge has waited around forever for something to happen.”During his lobbying efforts, D’Alemberte had already started crafting his unique lawsuit, and offered a preview of his argument at the House Claims Committee in March.Setting an orange atop the podium, D’Alemberte tied his argument to the parallel of the state compensating the taking of property by wrongly destroying citrus groves.“At the time the Department of Agriculture was very frightened about the spread of citrus canker. The state was acting in good faith. They thought they were doing the right thing. But you know, they got it wrong. They went out and destroyed a lot of citrus crops that actually did not have citrus canker, but had something called spot bacteria,” D’Alemberte said.The cases went through the courts and then the Florida Legislature created an administrative process for nursery growers to get automatic full compensation, with attorneys’ fees, for the loss of their property.The same expedited process should be available when the state makes mistakes and convicts and incarcerates the wrong person, D’Alemberte argued.“My point is if we care about the taking of property, we who believe so strongly in democratic values should believe in full compensation for the taking of liberty.” June 1, 2005 Senior Editor Regular Newslast_img read more