User profile: LasVegasLawyerGal

You would be surprised how many people attempt to "plead guilty with an explaination". Kudos to Judge Bixler for doing his duty under the plea canvas. True, this will probably settle prior to trial, but that's not exactly surprising, as most criminal cases *do* settle.

The truly difficult question is not so much whether or not the decision to shoot Mr. Chambelain was correct, but the broader issue that no coroner's jury (at least in the eight years I've been in LV) has ever found a police shooting "not justified". What message does this send to police officers? If there are no consequences for using lethal force, there's frankly no incentive to consider the use of non-lethal force if doing so could potentially endanger the officer (e.g. if they wade into a fight with a nightstick). My thoughts and prayers go to the Chamberlain family and the officer, who will both have to live with the consequences of his decision for the rest of their lives.

I concur with Shannon, Vegasguy and ScottNV. It's about time Judge Oesterle made the only rational decision possible in this case. The next question is whether, due to Mr. Silverman's physical--and let's face it, probably mental--infirmities, whether he can assist his counsel sufficiently in his own defense. My guess from what has been reported is that he probably can't, which would enable everyone to have a face-saving exit from this debacle of justice.

Right---so perhaps Ms. Funkhouser thinks the EconoLodge should focus on convention business, given its location in the middle of Naked City and its size? Come on. An argument *could* be made that extended stay hotels are potential breeding grounds for crime, but that's not the issue before the council. So long as extended stay hotels are legal--and they are--the owners of the EconoLodge should be allowed to convert their property as long as they obtain the proper permits, which they're clearly doing.

As much as I hate to agree with Judge Mahan, his hands are somewhat tied thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Iqbal v. Ashcroft, which requires plaintiffs to allege a lot more detail in their complaints than they previously had to. Unfortunately, since a motion to dismiss usually (if not always) gets heard *before* the plaintiff gets to engage in discovery, this makes life a lot more difficult for plaintiffs.