Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier
Sorry, but as a part of his office... he must forward the complaint.
So yes, he would have had the power to act and chose not to... if it is determined that he knew of the situation.
''A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.''
The town would have an employee that committed a crime, just like the marina.
The town could be held liable for the actions of the employee, just like the marina.
The nature of his employment, in this situation, does not allow for ''personal'' time.
|
Your post is full of speculation. You are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence. There has been no evidence thus far that the Chief broke any laws.
Forward the complaint? There has been nothing revealed so far to determine that the Chief got any complaints.
This was in the news: "One of the suits alleges that Murray told the plaintiff that it would be useless for him to go to police because he was having sex with the Gilford police chief and another officer and so was “untouchable.”
That sentence doesn't say that the Chief did anything wrong or illegal. He is not responsible for Murray's claims, and may not even be aware of them. It is legal for the Chief to have a relationship with Murray.
The town would have an employee that committed a crime? What crime? There has been no evidence thus far that the chief knew of the illegal activities of Murray and his partner, only a claim by Murray that had had a relationship with the chief.
The nature of his employment does not allow for personal time? So in a jurisdiction where he has no police powers, when he is not at work, and where you have no facts to show he knew of any crimes, you still think he "refrained from a duty imposed upon him by law?" And, you think the town of Gilford is somehow liable?
If, as you claim, he has no personal time, and the town is somehow liable for his actions all the time, and must report crimes, would you say the town of Gilford was somehow responsible if the Chief failed to report a violation of law, say, while vacationing in California? You know, like saw a speeder in a car but didn't report it?