Email from Lt. Wilson

[Bear 45/70]

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?

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.

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.

JL choose to be a cop, no one forced him. If the "danger" is so bad he should get out. But cops aren't anywhere near the top of dangerous jobs list. In fact some cops go their whole career and never even draw their weapon, much less use it. I agree that they probably aren't much of a cop, but still it is done.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

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.

JL, Why do you feel you have to defend the police in general? I mean are they so bad they need defending? In my opinion, yes but why do you feel compelled to defend all cops? Veterans do a lot of crazy thing, but as a veteran I don't feel compelled to defend veterans as a group. Could it be that you know there are bad cops out there and do nothing about, so feel compelled to defend all cops to justify yourlack ofactionregarding the bad cops. Cops rarely if ever turn in other cops in, the loyalty bullshit, even when they know it's wrong. And if a cop does roll on a bad cop, the rest punish him for a perceived betrayal. It has happened and continues to happen and as long as cops continue to do it they will be perceived as all bad instead of a few bad ones.

 

[Mainsail]

imported post

gregma wrote:

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".

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

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

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

You have conveniently avoided the rest of the paragraph, and thus avoided answering the question.

What do you expect him to say? “Yes Steve, you’re right. Officer O’Neil 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.”

Look, I’m not sticking up for the Lt. I’m just not on a hair trigger to believe the worst about anyone without sufficient evidence. He responded promptly to SV’s email in a relatively thorough manner, despite his avoidance of some key issues. He could have sent a few trite lines about looking into the matter and let it die. Instead he went on record as working the issues (as he sees them). The best we can do at this time is to let him do it while not forgetting the key issues he’s so far avoided. If some of you want to believe the whole thing is a vast conspiracy then continue to cross your arms and stomp your feet. It sounds as childish.

 

[what2watch4]

imported post

What is the resolution or solution that SV seeks?

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

JL, Why do you feel you have to defend the police in general? I mean are they so bad they need defending? In my opinion, yes but why do you feel compelled to defend all cops? Veterans do a lot of crazy thing, but as a veteran I don't feel compelled to defend veterans as a group. Could it be that you know there are bad cops out there and do nothing about, so feel compelled to defend all cops to justify yourlack ofactionregarding the bad cops. Cops rarely if ever turn in other cops in, the loyalty bullshit, even when they know it's wrong. And if a cop does roll on a bad cop, the rest punish him for a perceived betrayal. It has happened and continues to happen and as long as cops continue to do it they will be perceived as all bad instead of a few bad ones.

Bear,

I am certainly not trying to defend all cops. It just seems that some here view all cops as "bad", and refuse to admit that they have any redeeming qualities.

I have never had the misfortune to work with a bad cop. There are some that are abrasive, and certainly aren't the best of company, but I have never seen one blatantly disregard the law. That would not be acceptable to me.

You have to remember that I trust my life to my coworkers, and theirs to me. The last thing I want is someone whois corrupt and Icannot trust watching my 6. There has been a lot of changes for the better within Dept's, and a lot of the "old school rules" do not apply anymore. I know that your experiences have been different than mine, but every Dept. is different as well.

There is a lot more public scrutiny of P.D's, and I feel that this has forced some to "tow the line". No, all is not perfect, but I am fortunate in that I don't have to deal with those types of issues where I work.

There is a great sense of pride among the troops, and moral is good. These things are important in keeping a good work environment. We are treated well and paid well, and I for one have no complaints of any consequence with my Dept.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

but I have never seen one blatantly disregard the law. That would not be acceptable to me.

Wow, I have. On three separate occasions, once in Washington and twice in California I have had cops take the witness stand and lie about what happened at a traffic stop. I haven't been to court that often in my life either.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

JL, Why do you feel you have to defend the police in general? I mean are they so bad they need defending? In my opinion, yes but why do you feel compelled to defend all cops? Veterans do a lot of crazy thing, but as a veteran I don't feel compelled to defend veterans as a group. Could it be that you know there are bad cops out there and do nothing about, so feel compelled to defend all cops to justify yourlack ofactionregarding the bad cops. Cops rarely if ever turn in other cops in, the loyalty bullshit, even when they know it's wrong. And if a cop does roll on a bad cop, the rest punish him for a perceived betrayal. It has happened and continues to happen and as long as cops continue to do it they will be perceived as all bad instead of a few bad ones.

I have the same questions and perception as Bear...this was where my initial opinion of you came from and what brought about the "high horse" comment from me.

Bear,

I am certainly not trying to defend all cops. It just seems that some here view all cops as "bad", and refuse to admit that they have any redeeming qualities.
This was the perception from your words/actions....and, the reason some of us don't see redeeming qualities is that fact that A LOT (not all) of cops don't have any...guilty untill proven innocent, just like they treat us.
Cops shouldn't need REDEEMING qualities...they should have HONOR for the oath they took.

I have never had the misfortune to work with a bad cop. There are some that are abrasive, and certainly aren't the best of company, but I have never seen one blatantly disregard the law. That would not be acceptable to me.
Are you saying that you would "write up" a coworker (off duty) for speeding, with the EXACT same leniency as ANY other citizen?......if not, there went your credibility.

You have to remember that I trust my life to my coworkers, and theirs to me. The last thing I want is someone whois corrupt and Icannot trust watching my 6. There has been a lot of changes for the better within Dept's, and a lot of the "old school rules" do not apply anymore. I know that your experiences have been different than mine, but every Dept. is different as well.
So, you say that there would be no "ill will" towards you if you "wrote up" a coworker and held them to the EXACT same standard as ANY other citizen?....that LEOs in your dept. don't expect "professional courtesy"?

There is a lot more public scrutiny of P.D's, and I feel that this has forced some to "tow the line". No, all is not perfect, but I am fortunate in that I don't have to deal with those types of issues where I work.
As it should be, they are public servants, after all....and they shouldn't have to be forced to abide by the OATH that each of them took....just my opinion.

There is a great sense of pride among the troops, and moral is good. These things are important in keeping a good work environment. We are treated well and paid well, and I for one have no complaints of any consequence with my Dept.
Tha fact that you call yourselves "troops" bothers me greatly.

Comp-tech,

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

Apology accepted but unnecessary. I'm not angry at you personally...as you said, I don't know you just like you don't know me.
But you do seem to "stand up for the brotherhood" in an overall sense...IMHO, you, and every other LEO should stand up for the Constitution that you each swore an oath to....simple as that....NO EXCEPTION

<Edit> for removal of possibly offensive cartoon....my apologies if anyone was offended.

 

[BB62]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

...There is a lot more public scrutiny of P.D's, and I feel that this has forced some to "tow the line"...

Or even "toe the line"!

(sorry, I'm a recovering English teacher)

 

[Citizen]

imported post

BB62 wrote:

SNIP (sorry, I'm a recovering English teacher)

(Sorry, I'm a recovering English teacher.)

Sorry, I'm a recovering student of a junior high school English teacher who was pretty handy with her red pen.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

what2watch4 wrote:

What is the resolution or solution that SV seeks?

An apology. The whole stop was screwed up from the get go. Lt. Wilson described to me that Monday what he thought an ideal stop would be. This had none of the elements.
Hammering out some procedures would be good to.
A reprimand for O'Neill. Not only should have have not issued me an ultimatium to cover up or have my weapon taken, he should have not engaged me in debate on OC.
A reprimand for whomever had a weapon out. I was exhibiting no suspicious or unusual behavior. This was plain overkill.
A further and better understanding of OC, and how to deal with it.
A 35' Piver Lodestar Trimaran

 

[Citizen]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

what2watch4 wrote:

What is the resolution or solution that SV seeks?

An apology. The whole stop was screwed up from the get go. Lt. Wilson described to me that Monday what he thought an ideal stop would be. This had none of the elements.
Hammering out some procedures would be good to.
A reprimand for O'Neill. Not only should have have not issued me an ultimatium to cover up or have my weapon taken, he should have not engaged me in debate on OC.
A reprimand for whomever had a weapon out. I was exhibiting no suspicious or unusual behavior. This was plain overkill.
A further and better understanding of OC, and how to deal with it.
A 35' Piver Lodestar Trimaran

Can I gently suggest a stronger stance.

They completely ignored one of the most important barriers against tyranny:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Governmentmust understand thatviolations will not be toleratedin even the minutest degree. Especially given opinions and statutesthat have allowed infringements.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

I'm working on it. I expect to hear from a highly recomended local lawyer soon. Trust me I am "gearing up" to keep the pressure on. I do have to work, and there is only so much time to do everything.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

American Rattlesnake wrote:

gregma wrote:

Wow! This Wilson acknowledges that these thugs pulled a gun on Steve, detained him unlawfully, and disarmed him. This Wilson says that these thugs WERE TRAINED on the proper procedures for OC'ers.

And it "ain't broke yet"???

Wow, I hate to see it when you think it IS broken...

Yes, they were trained. Is it Lt. Wilson's fault that an individual officer did not follow procedure? The man's job is to define boundaries and deal with officers who step out of line. He defined the boundaries by training the officers. All I'm saying is let's give him a chance to do the second half.

"Is it Lt. Wilson's fault that an THREE officers did not follow procedure?"

At what point can we assume that it is a institutional ethics issue?

One officer acting unethicaly, illegally, and against 'training?' Two officers acting unethicaly, illegally, and against 'training?' Three officers acting unethicaly, illegally, and against 'training?' Four officers acting unethicaly, illegally, and against 'training?' Et cetera.

Bottom line, where does the buck stop in regards to re-training and a institution wide pattern?Does that person actually try to correct the obvious and blatantlyillegal activity via effective traning, or do they just offer a 'pep talk' in a disingenuous manner, with a wink and a sly smile.

I guess the results speak for themselves. This incident was not 1 failure, it was THREE. And it was not the first failure,because it is a re-occuring incident and Wilson has flat out said it will keep occuring 'for officers safety' -- andhe said it might actually escalate to the point where a citizen who lawfully open carries will get shot by the police during a defacto felony stop.

You know just as well as I do that it's NOT correct to 'argue' on scene, you 'argue' about it AFTER. I can only imagine three officers standing there yelling at each other, telling each other they're 'doing it wrong'...

While I disagree with the methodology in this case, it's there for a reason... IF the officer indeed drew his firearm, then it wasn't at the direction of another officer (most likely) he drew it on his own accord, and needs to be handled accordingly.

If this officer 'knew' about the training bulletins, the law, etc, and STILL chose to ignore it, THAT is harassment, by the very definition...

Not all cops are bad, quite the opposite, I think most of them are good, but if you have a 'bad' officer, the good officers will rarely step up and call him out on it, they'd be ostracized... Which of course, brings into question wether they're truly 'good officers' if they let crap like that go on...

 

[thebastidge]

imported post

Johnny Law says: "I am truly sorry about your attitude toward Police. I will however tell you that it had obviously formed long before we ever spoke. "

While you are correct that my attitudes toward police formed long before we interacted on this board, there is nothing wrong with my attitude.

The fact is that police are people. Yes, there is a vetting process to become a cop. Nope, it is not perfect. Yes, you seem like a decent guy, and probably are honest and worked hard to get where you are.

I have plenty of respect for police officers, just like anyone who has a dangerous job, or anyone who has ideals they strive to achieve.

It is still important to remember that courage doesn't always come withaltruistic behaviour: many criminals are also fearless. Nor do ideals always come with wisdom attached.

I have never on this board cast aspersions upon *your* integrity. I have said that you appear, from a "blue line" perspective, to assume that cops are better than other people.

Some of them are, some of them are not. I have pride in my military service background, and I believe that some people in military uniform are above average in integrity and self-sacrifice and bravery, and some are not.

I could go off about how people can't get into the military with criminal records, credit problems, drug use or whatnot, and then be offended when you don't accord active duty and veterans some kind of extra respect and leeway for our professional standards and integrity, but the fact is that I know some of my fellow veterans are bad apples too. There's just too many of us for there not to be some bad ones and our vetting process is NOT PERFECT either.


Yes, the averages of both of our subsets of the population are better than the average of the population as a while. I think you believe that, and I definitely do. Where we seem to differ is that I don't believe I have any immediate way of distinguishing between them, where you seem to think you do: the wearing of a badge.

Now, for the record, I actually am friends with several cops and ex-cops back home. I hang out with guys here in Iraq working the CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance & Training Teams- mostly retired or ex-cops, or cops taking leaves of absence from their departments to help out here) as well as Feebies and ATF agents who rotate through here. Mostly a bunch of good guys, with the inevitable couple of dicks thrown in. Do I always see eye to eye with them on every issue of law enforcement? Hells no!

I have been working towards becoming more involved in my community before I came to Iraq, working with the local CERT and planning a Neighborhood Watch. I hope to do some ride-alongs when I get back for good and have time. I have even considered becoming a reserve police officer.In other words, I don't have the antipathy or prejudice against cops you seem to ascribe to me. I just don't automatically trust them any more than any other individual I may meet. The only reason I canimagine forwhy you would misinterpret me this way, is that you have a problem with me saying that cops are not special.

I just wish you could openly, without a lot of "BUTs," admit that once.

expvideo says: "The problem with a uniform is that our feelings toward a single person are often skewed to be feelings toward anyone who wears the same uniform. "

And rightfully so. Voluntarily joining a visible organization is endorsement of their policies and acceptance of responsibility for their group actions, good or bad.

 

[thebastidge]

imported post

jonnyjeeps wrote:

http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=215

let JL know if you meet these qualifications, I do

I certainly do. all of those minimums plus having an across the board 98th percentile score on all sections of the ASVAB, having been vetted for current access to the US Embassy, having passed drug tests to get here, having had a TS clearance and worked at the National Security Agency while on active duty, passed a polygraph etc, small arms qualified, first aid and CPR qualified,decorated veteran (a minor medal, to be sure), Associate's degree in both Electronics and another in Communications, Bachelor's degree in IT Network Management, and partway towards a Master's degree in International Biz Management, fluent in a non-Western language... I'm a pretty good cook too.

I'm pretty sure I could pass your department'squalifications. This is not to downplay your achievements, but yours is not the only demanding career field, my friend.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

jonnyjeeps wrote:

Hey JL, here are thequalifications from my local police departments website for becoming a commissioned officer:

http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=215

let JL know if you meet these qualifications, I do

He still thinks its "US and Them"

Jonnyjeeps,

Those are the minimum requirements that one mustmeet to even bother applying. Those are there to initially weed out people, and keep from getting flooded with worthless apps. Just because you qualify for that list does not mean you will get a job.

First you will haveto pass awritten test, pre-oral board, polygraph, oral board, doctors exam (physical), a physical test (usually cooper test), written psych (1500+ questions), oral psych (for as long as Dr. Feelgood wants to talk), and a VERY thorough background investigation (that willquestion your friends, associates, employers, ex-wives/girlfriends, family, aquaintances, and your financialhistory including lawsuits (either way), debts, payment history, any foreclosure, bankruptcies, collections etc.).

Then thereare women and minority preference points, that I wasn't eligible for.

If you are able to make it through all of these very comprehensive tests, you have done damn good, but you are not out of the woods.

If along the way any one member of the investigation/oral boardunit decides that they didn't like the way you answered a certain question, your demeanor, your attitude, your posture, your uncertainty, they can dismiss you at any time.

When I was hiredthere wereover 2,500 applicants trying for 15 jobs. So tell me jonnyjeeps, are you so sure you would be hired now?

Thebastidge,

Thanks for your response. I think it cleared up a lot of issues. Mypost above was made to make people aware that there is a little more to it than just those initial entry qualifications. It seems that some would believe that it is easy to get a job, and all you have to do is apply. I can tell youthat it isnot easy, and if you do manage to passALL the tests, you do have a great sense of accomplishment. Ido not believe that cops are special, or better than anyone else. Only that It does give one a sense of pride to have gotten chosen, and to know that the public's trust has been placedon you.

My stats are correct, as I am in contact with the Officers who do the hiring/background investigations. They are the ones who review the apps. and It is becoming increasingly hard to find qualified people.

You are right about the Military as well. I do arresta numberof Military personnel, and the majority of them are active duty. They are far too large of an entity to ever be able to enforce the entry standards that they would probably like. This does not mean that you should not be proud of whoYOU are and what you are doing. You know who you are, as I do myself.

I fully understand the criticism toward Police, but I also realize thata lotof it is based on "bad contacts" with oc'ers. I have tried to point out that an oc'er contact is typically a very rare occurence for most Officers. I mentioned somewhere before that it has been years for me. With this in mind, it is only a fraction of 1 percent of my time in a year.

I take exception to cops in general being labeled as "bad" based on that small percentage, and the small number of total Officers who truly arethe bad apples. If people could seesome of the other things that an Officer does over the course of a day, I think a lot here would see the many good things that are done to help individuals and the community.

I hold the pubic's trust in me in the highest regard, and those who breach that trust arenot worthy of this position.

 

[thebastidge]

imported post

"1.4 million current active duty personnel:"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States*

"There are approximately 18,760 separate police agencies in the U.S. with approximately 940,275 employees {...} with part-time employees counted as half an employee."

Source: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/polstruct.htm*

Now tell me again how such a large agency cannot

"ever be able to enforce the entry standards that they would probably like."

I'm particularly interested in how somany different agencies can possibly enforce the same entry standards.



*Quick and dirty numbers, of course. I think it makes my point.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

thebastidge wrote:

"1.4 million current active duty personnel:"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States*

"There are approximately 18,760 separate police agencies in the U.S. with approximately 940,275 employees {...} with part-time employees counted as half an employee."

Source: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/polstruct.htm*

Now tell me again how such a large agency cannot

"ever be able to enforce the entry standards that they would probably like."

I'm particularly interested in how somany different agencies can possibly enforce the same entry standards.



*Quick and dirty numbers, of course. I think it makes my point.

As I have said in previous posts, all agencies are different and all have different standards.

 

[jonnyjeeps]

imported post

JL all you do is engage in condesending banter. Your tone in every post is absolutly condesending, even when you are trying to clear the air and "be friends" after you attack someone or they attack you. Furthermore I absolutly believe you are an officer of the law because this is who cops are.

 

[thebastidge]

imported post

"My stats are correct, as I am in contact with the Officers who do the hiring/background investigations."

I wasn't questioning your statistic per se. Perhaps I wasn't clear, what with the snark I put in there. Sorry.

But accuracy alonedoes not make a useful statistic.

I also am often involved in the hiring process of people applying to my team. We also get 50-200 resumes per advertised position, and rarely bother to interview more than 3, if we even get that many before we advertise in another place. And these are not people who just impulsively decided to "become a cop", these are people already in a highly specialized career field.

I'm sure a significant number of police applicants already have degrees and experience that they have gained with the definite goal of becoming an officer. But you also get random people walking in off the street because they think it would be cool to be 'the man'. That was my point about your pool of applicants. It is not exclusionary, and that's part of the reason for the large number of people rejected.

If there was an easy way to seperate the stats on the people who are already at least average successful who become cops, and losers who just apply and are rejected, I'm sure the statistic would be much less impressive.

Thus leading to my point once again that cops are not that special. As an average pool, cops are perhaps somewhat above the average populace, but there are also other sub-groups within the population as a whole that are just as "special" that don't get any special immunity or privileges with that. And in comparing any twogroups, the difference between the best and worst individuals within each group tends to be greater than the difference between the groups' average. It's that bell curve thing. When you concentrate certain characteristics, the distribution is just a sharper bell curve, but it usually centers around pretty close to the same spot, a few points one way or the other notwithstanding.


http://maypeacebewithyou.blogspot.com/2007/12/trick-question.html