DT0702: I don't disagree with any of your comments. As a number of folks have pointed out, none of us were there and so we don't have anything close to all of the facts. The resolution I mentioned is what the case would probably end with if it didn't involve a celebrity--and while I'd hate to see Mr. Amador get a better deal as a result of his local status, I don't think he should get a worse deal because of it either. (I realize there's a counterargument that lawyers, judges, police officers and other public servants should be held to a higher standard, but as that's more honored in the breach locally than the observance, it's not a strong argument in this case which involves strictly property damage).

Were I a betting woman, here's what I think this case will resolve as:

Submittal to Misdo Destruction of Pvt Property; Amador makes full restitution to guy whose windshield was shattered; Amador surrenders gun (this is a fetish of the DA gun crimes unit whether it makes sense or not); if Amador stays out of trouble for six months and meets reqts, case dismissed :) We'll see if I'm right.

Yet another example of what happens when social services are cut to the bone. The criminal justice system is then expected to handle all of society's problems, a task it is neither designed for nor equipped to accomplish.

Actually, in this case it probably makes sense for Metro *not* to be the investigating agency, insofar as it (like UMC) is a partial creature of the County. It's far better to have an independent agency like the FBI looking into this, particularly since any referral or request for prosecution would be made to the Office of the U.S. Attorney, rather than county employee David Roger. Still, based on the published reports, it seems like there's a potential 1983 class action for someboday versus UMC and the County on behalf of all the patients whose privacy was violated.

By Metro and the FBI's logic, therefore, it would be "safer" if we simply arrested everyone who might have *some* propensity to commit a crime before they actually did so. Thankfully, we don't live in a Philip K. Dick "Minority Report" universe and concepts like due process and evidence still have meaning. Unless there's more to the government's case than is set forth in the article, it looks like Mr. Schoolcraft will have a very good 1983 civil rights case against both the FBI and the LVMPD after the criminal charges are dismissed.

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.