Email from Lt. Wilson

imported post

BB62 wrote:

As Gregma noted, and I agree -it should be noted that "The *only* issue Wilson had with the entire encounter was the main thug's verbal interactions with Steve. NOT the stop, NOT the disarming, NOT the firearm out of the holster. In fact he accepted all of these action from 3 cops that "were fully trained in OC encounters".

Click to expand...

Really? You know this? I’m betting you have absolutely no idea what he has issues with. What do you expect him to say? “Yes Steve, you’re right. Officer O’Niel is a boob. Our department acted recklessly and irresponsibly and I’ve tendered my resignation as a result. I am willing to testify in your behalf at a civil rights trial and I hope you take the city for millions.”

I don’t know if it’s a failure to grasp reality or the smoking of some potent crack, but in a litigious society people aren’t going to just flap their gums without regard for the implications. For any of us to even pretend to have any idea of what Lt. Wilson has issues with is ludicrous.

Like I said before; even though the word supposedly was passed around in the TPD that open carry is legal, I was still handcuffed for mere open carry. Was it some deep dark conspiracy? No. It’s a government organization, and nothing happens in a government organization quickly. It’s his job, let him do it and if he refuses to correct the problem, then beat your drums.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

They "know" the law and you are wrong, regardless of the facts.

Click to expand...

"They'know' the 'law' and you are wrong, regardless of the law."

FTFY

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.

Click to expand...

Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.

Click to expand...

Johnny Law, Google the term "testilying" .....after you do a little research, get the hell off your "high horse" and explain to us why we need Title 18, Sec 242 if cops are what you seem to claim.

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.

Click to expand...

Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.

Click to expand...

Johnny Law, Google the term "testilying" .....after you do a little research, get the hell off your "high horse" and explain to us why we need Title 18, Sec 242 if cops are what you seem to claim.

Click to expand...

If you were paying attention you would knowthe conversation about a ruse wasn't aboutabout testifying, nor does it apply to such. If you insist on twisting and taking statements out of context, maybe a job at a local news agency would suit you.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.

Click to expand...

Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.

Click to expand...

Johnny Law, Google the term "testilying" .....after you do a little research, get the hell off your "high horse" and explain to us why we need Title 18, Sec 242 if cops are what you seem to claim.

Click to expand...

If you were paying attention you would knowthe conversation about a ruse wasn't aboutabout testifying, nor does it apply to such. If you insist on twisting and taking statements out of context, maybe a job at a local news agency would suit you.

Click to expand...

THAT'S what my post was regarding, not a "ruse"....but then, if YOU were paying attention instead of being a self righteous, insulting smartass, you'd have known THAT........typical cop attitude.
YOU asked for proof, I pointed you to it....the truth seems to have pissed you off...or did you even bother?
Oh, no, that's right, you cops already know everything.......and you wonder where "the attitude" towards LEOs comes from.

From http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/testilying/24068/
...Police sometimes lie during investigations. That much was evident in the recent, highly questionable robbery prosecution of 17-year-old Arthur Carmona. In fact, as several newspapers have pointed out, cops are taught to say or do just about anything to gain confessions—even going so far as to manufacture incriminating evidence...

...While other jurisdictions work to combat testilying, Orange County’s criminal-justice officials appear to have tacitly okayed the practice by refusing to prosecute...

From http://www.nacdl.org/PUBLIC/ABUSE/CR000007.htm
...The Commission noted was that once officers lie about the basis for an illegal arrest or illegal search -- such as falsifying an arrest report, complaint report, search warrant application, or evidence voucher -- they tend to stick to their story. They commit perjury in front of grand juries and at trials as casually as they'd tell a fairy tale to their toddler....

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.

Click to expand...

Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.

Click to expand...

Johnny Law, Google the term "testilying" .....after you do a little research, get the hell off your "high horse" and explain to us why we need Title 18, Sec 242 if cops are what you seem to claim.

Click to expand...

I was not referring to police lying under oath in court, although I have personally witnessed that on more than one occasion.

I was referring to how police are allowed to lie, in performing their duty. i.e. they can split up 2 suspects, and tell each that the other 'confessed' it all, in hopes of getting a real confession out of either one.

They can lie. They are enouraged to lie, if it can lead to convictions. Are their 'limitations' on their lying, yes in theory.

But in my book, a liar is a liar. And I would no work in a profession that required, encouraged or endorsed lying. Call it a ruse, or whatever, it's still a lie... and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.

Click to expand...

Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.

Click to expand...

Johnny Law, Google the term "testilying" .....after you do a little research, get the hell off your "high horse" and explain to us why we need Title 18, Sec 242 if cops are what you seem to claim.

Click to expand...

I was not referring to police lying under oath in court, although I have personally witnessed that on more than one occasion.

I was referring to how police are allowed to lie, in performing their duty. i.e. they can split up 2 suspects, and tell each that the other 'confessed' it all, in hopes of getting a real confession out of either one.

They can lie. They are enouraged to lie, if it can lead to convictions. Are their 'limitations' on their lying, yes in theory.

But in my book, a liar is a liar. And I would no work in a profession that required, encouraged or endorsed lying. Call it a ruse, or whatever, it's still a lie... and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Click to expand...

The limitations of thier being able to "lie" is as far as anything that would "shock / awe" the general public or something along those lines.

imported post

Comp-tech,

Thank you for looking up a couple of "news" articles and applying them to ALL Police.

Fortunately for most people on this board, I don't base my judgement of oc'ers on the few narrow minded know-it-alls who think that all any cop does is drive around and look for an oc'er to harass.

Tell me Comp, what makes you uniquely qualified to categorize a profession you obviously know little about? Maybe you wouldlike to share the great contribution that your job makes to our society on a daily basis. Or maybe the time that you saved a life?

You are the only one on a "high horse" and your attitude leaves a lot to be desired. If you wish to discuss topics like a civilized person I will be happy to. Otherwise take your "wide brush" and go paint somewhere else.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote

ItHAS become increasingly hard to find qualified applicants as of late. There are fewer people applying, and Dept's are now competing with each other over pay scales/sign on bonusesthat attract the applicants.

I can't vouch for all other Dept's Joe, but mine has not lowered any hiring standards, nor will they. I would be more than upset if they ever did. Tacoma P.D. for instance raised theirs recently due to the Brame incident, and damn well they should.

Some of the older Officers may have came on board in a time when the standards were not as stringent, and that may account for some of the personnel issues. I find that the newer Officers (at least where I work) are very squared away, and I have often been impressed with their skills. As I said, every Dept. is different and I can only speak for mine.

Click to expand...

I am glad your dept has not lowered the standards. I know for a fact that Everett, SCSO, and Seattle have all lowered then. Everett has done it drastically further than the other two. Edmonds, Mulkiteo, and, I think, Lakewood have maintained thier current standards for quite sometime but then again they are smaller dept's.

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Ahh, a ruse. Hey, use whatever term you need to, in order to feel right with God.

A lie is a lie in my book, and detectives are 'empowerd' to use much more insidious lies than your street beat cop Dominos example.

Click to expand...

Dave,

Please provide some legal proof or a Dept. policy that will substantiate your statement.

Click to expand...

Johnny Law, Google the term "testilying" .....after you do a little research, get the hell off your "high horse" and explain to us why we need Title 18, Sec 242 if cops are what you seem to claim.

Click to expand...

I was not referring to police lying under oath in court, although I have personally witnessed that on more than one occasion.

I was referring to how police are allowed to lie, in performing their duty. i.e. they can split up 2 suspects, and tell each that the other 'confessed' it all, in hopes of getting a real confession out of either one.

They can lie. They are enouraged to lie, if it can lead to convictions. Are their 'limitations' on their lying, yes in theory.

But in my book, a liar is a liar. And I would no work in a profession that required, encouraged or endorsed lying. Call it a ruse, or whatever, it's still a lie... and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Click to expand...

I believe this is one reason it is important to exercise your Miranda rights. Not that all LEO do it but it is done and sensationalized on TV. LEO don't always know who is lying and citizens don't always know if LEO are lying.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Comp-tech,

Thank you for looking up a couple of "news" articles and applying them to ALL Police.
What I posted is just a small sampling of the problem of police abuse....funny how, when you have no counter cite, you attack...is this just another of your jackboot....er....police tactics?
Please cite where I stated that it applied to ALL police....

Fortunately for most people on this board, I don't base my judgement of oc'ers on the few narrow minded know-it-alls who think that all any cop does is drive around and look for an oc'er to harass.
WTF?...I never made ANY such comments....fabricating evidence are we?

Tell me Comp, what makes you uniquely qualified to categorize a profession you obviously know little about? Maybe you wouldlike to share the great contribution that your job makes to our society on a daily basis. Or maybe the time that you saved a life?
In the first place, you don't "obviously" know a damned thing about my qualifications or what I know or don't know about anything....including the LE "profession". In the second place, my current job has nothing to do with this conversation...other than serve as a point of distraction and attack for you. I will let my military service and life record serve as my point of honor....as for "saved a life", if it weren't a privacy issue, I'd put you in contact with my former CO....he could answer that better than I can.
Tell me Johnny, how many full auto weapons have YOU faced?

You are the only one on a "high horse" and your attitude leaves a lot to be desired. If you wish to discuss topics like a civilized person I will be happy to. Otherwise take your "wide brush" and go paint somewhere else.
That's the great part about our country....I don't have to give a rats ass about your desires and I have earned the RIGHT to "paint" with whatever brush I choose....you, however, also have the choice not to respond if I say something that puts your panties in a wad.
You asked for proof....I supplied a gateway for research and the truth offended you....too friggin' bad.
If you don't like the fact that police are getting a bad reputation NATIONWIDE, why do you come here and perpetuate by attacking everyone that disagrees with you?

Click to expand...

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Maybe you wouldlike to share the great contribution that your job makes to our society on a daily basis. Or maybe the time that you saved a life?

Click to expand...

Wow, I missed that comment.

So Johnny, you obviously REALLY think you're special -- not some peon who works a 'worthless' job that doesn't involve saving lives.

A peon, who by definition doesn't even really deserve to have a voice in this great debate, since they work a worthless job that doesn't involve saving lives, and stuff.

imported post

At ease Gentlemen. Take it to PMs please.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

dngreer wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

No worries Gregma. Peace, love, donuts, etc...

Click to expand...

Don't take this aspersonal attack, this is just some friendly advice/ (my 2 cents). This is whatwill give OCers a bad reputation if we are not careful. I know you're joking, and it's funny to some people, but why antagonize the department? You know that someone from the city or department will probably read that. Why not take the high road? I might be alone on this, but I was taught to treat others the way I wanted to be treated. It just seems that comments like that will do NOTHING to help the situation or lead anyone to be more receptive to OC. We all stand for a cause that is bigger and more important than ourselves. Every time an officer with that department who has followed this situation sees an OCer, his perception will be based on how you conduct yourself. Just some food for thought.

Click to expand...

Huh? I was telling Gregma I wasn't offended at him. "Peace, love, donuts, etc..." I needed something goofy at the tail end, and I was thinking of breakfast. Dang. This wasn't directed at cops at all.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I misunderstood what you were saying.

imported post

I think johnny law gives us a realistic perspective on the law enforcement mind, and for that we should thank him for playing the devils advocate.

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Maybe you wouldlike to share the great contribution that your job makes to our society on a daily basis. Or maybe the time that you saved a life?

Click to expand...

Wow, I missed that comment.

So Johnny, you obviously REALLY think you're special -- not some peon who works a 'worthless' job that doesn't involve saving lives.

A peon, who by definition doesn't even really deserve to have a voice in this great debate, since they work a worthless job that doesn't involve saving lives, and stuff.

Click to expand...

That was uncalled for. JL has a very dangerous profession, and I doubt he's doing it for the pay, since just meeting the qualifications to become a police officer pretty much guarantees that he could have had a higher paying job. I don't think that the police force is as much of a helpful entity as they were, say, 20 years ago, but to say that his job is "worthless" is just plain ignorant. I have lost almost all faith in law enforcement officers and at this time have lower expectations of them than I do of the lady at Taco Bell that always screws up my order, but I wouldn't think to go as far as calling them useless.



EDIT: I may have misinterpreted what you were saying. re-reading it, I believe that you weren't saying that his job was useless, but that he thought all of our jobs were useless. I don't know, it kind of reads both ways, but I think I misinterpreted it.

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

BB62 wrote:

As Gregma noted, and I agree -it should be noted that "The *only* issue Wilson had with the entire encounter was the main thug's verbal interactions with Steve. NOT the stop, NOT the disarming, NOT the firearm out of the holster. In fact he accepted all of these action from 3 cops that "were fully trained in OC encounters".

Click to expand...

Really? You know this? I’m betting you have absolutely no idea what he has issues with...

Click to expand...

I'm merely taking the man's (the Lt.'s) letter at its word - that's good enough for me.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Maybe you wouldlike to share the great contribution that your job makes to our society on a daily basis. Or maybe the time that you saved a life?

Click to expand...

So Johnny, you obviously REALLY think you're special -- not some peon who works a 'worthless' job that doesn't involve saving lives.

Click to expand...

EDIT: I may have misinterpreted what you were saying. re-reading it, I believe that you weren't saying that his job was useless, but that he thought all of our jobs were useless. I don't know, it kind of reads both ways, but I think I misinterpreted it.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it could be read any other way. He was saying that the "cop" Johnny must think that a peon that doesn't save lives is 'worthless'. It's the "supposed cop" that called him worthless unless he saves lives.

imported post

BB62 wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

BB62 wrote:

As Gregma noted, and I agree -it should be noted that "The *only* issue Wilson had with the entire encounter was the main thug's verbal interactions with Steve. NOT the stop, NOT the disarming, NOT the firearm out of the holster. In fact he accepted all of these action from 3 cops that "were fully trained in OC encounters".

Click to expand...

Really? You know this? I’m betting you have absolutely no idea what he has issues with...

Click to expand...

I'm merely taking the man's (the Lt.'s) letter at its word - that's good enough for me.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And we have *two* emails from him. Quite enough to make a determination of intent.

imported post

Comp-tech,

Thanks again for your opinion, and I aploigize for angering you.

I only have limited time to post here, and find that a lot of it is taken up fending off attacks against myself and Police in general. There is a lot of misinformation, stereotypes, and preconceivednotions that some base their opinions on. Attacks on my integrity and credibility by those whodo not know me personally, are unwarranted.

For some here, their only contact with Police may have been anot so goodcontact while oc'ing. I have dealt with many oc situations, and can say that only 1 time has there ever been a problem.

I can't even remember the last time I dealt with someone oc'ing, but it has been several years. That said, I have many other big problems that need dealt with over the course of an average day. Yes I deal with many scumbags, but I also meet and help a lot of great people as well.

I do this job because Iit gives mesatisfaction, and the chance to actually make a difference. When the shtf, I get to jump in and do something about it. I'm not the kind of guy who sits back and watches, or talks about what "I would have done" IfI was there. I am theguy who takes care of business.

It is a thankless job, and you get criticism from any # of directions at once, but every once in a while someone will walk up and say "thank you for just being here anddoing this job". Those words counteract hundreds of negative comments that I receive. I have thick skin, and certainly don't need atta-boys, but it's nice to hear a compliment once in a while.

Don't take this as complaining, because if I didn't enjoy what I do, I would work elsewhere. I own a successful business, and do this job because I want to.

I always treat people with respect, up until the point that they show me that they don't deserve it. From then on little attention is paid totheir opinionsand criticisms.

It's okay to have differing viewpoints, but I don't feel the need to engage in condescending banter.
J.L.