|
Post by professorx on Oct 25, 2009 18:16:06 GMT -5
He falsified time sheets that's theft anyway you look at it. All employers will fire you for that. We had a 20 yr. veteran Sgt. with Bradley County do it to the tune of $10,000 guess what he got the Donald Trump line you're fired. Lucky he wasn't charged with theft over 10,000 which is a felony. Discipline in these cases are understandable. But I think he was totally justified in his actions at the department store. Not because he was a cop, but because no one should be ran down, or grabbed for no reason. I don't know the specifics of the time sheets accusation. But it might be possible that they were so upset about the unwanted attention, that they searched all his time sheets for one error, then busted him for it. I don't know. When shit piles up on any one person, I tend to be sympathetic. There might be a lot of behind the scenes stuff we don't know about. There seems to be a lot of inconsistency with the way this man was treated. From the legal scholars on this message board, to his own former department. This is all my opinion though. There is something that make me have a gut reaction that he got screwed. It was only a while back when another CPD officer essentially pulled a gun on a mall cop in Marietta. And that officer is still employed as far as I am know. Maybe that officer was under the influence while carrying that weapon. Maybe it was not an authorized weapon. Who knows? I wouldn't have fired that officer either if all the reports were true. I think a "stress related" retirement might have been better. Whatever is done to one, should be done for all. Consistency.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 25, 2009 18:02:00 GMT -5
I think that you have disregarded your policy and agenda in this one case because the victim was an off-duty cop. If this person had been a private citizen and gotten wrapped up in this mess, then lost his job because of it you would have normally been outraged. If a private citizen would have been falsely accosted, accused, and detained by walmart, then demonized in the media as a "thug" you would have been beside yourself. If these actions would have been performed by a real cop instead of a store security guard you would have a total different opinion. As far as the CPD goes, I don't know or have any contact with them. I only have an objective view of what I feel is right and wrong. I think this guy got fucked. The anti-cop crowd are using him as a scape-goat and a symbol of all they dislike about the police in general. I think he could have avoided all this by arresting the store security guard at the time of the assault as a sort of CYA. I guess no good deed goes unpunished, and you wonder why cops can be dicks. Since you failed to identify which case “this case” is you are referring to, I shall have to presume by the totality of the post you are referring to Kenneth Freeman of the CPD. Kenneth Freeman was a victim? Of Assault? Let’s examine your ‘objective view of the Freeman v. Wal-Mart Greeter incident. TCA 39-13-101. Assault. — (a) A person commits assault who: (1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; Did the greeter cause bodily injury to Freeman either knowingly or recklessly? Is see no proof or allegation of this definition in anything I have seen or read. IF you have, post it. (2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or Did the greeter cause Freeman to ‘reasonably’ fear bodily injury? Freeman claims the grab was ‘close’ to his gun so he ‘feared’ the touch/grab would compromise the security of the gun. Was not the gun strapped? Was not the gun covered by a coat to further the off duty and or plain-clothes detective image? For the sake of argument the forgoing status of the gun is assumed to be true. There would have been two (2) stated obstacles for any aggressor to gain access to pull the gun from its holster. Additionally, the greeter would have had to reverse body movement away from the arm before beginning to tackle the two (2) obstacles mentioned and would also have needed personal knowledge that there was indeed a gun in the concealed position, obstacle three (3). Freeman had just past the greeter. What reasonable cop would be so absorbed in other matters that he/she would ignore s person in close proximity to the intended path of movement? It is therefore reasonable to believe that Freeman knew or should have known exactly the likely source of the touch/grab. If Freeman knew the greeter was an old and much smaller man than himself, there was no basis for a ‘reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury It can also be assumed that Freeman knew that Wal-Mart greeters often asked to see receipts and indeed may have happened to an individual in view of Freeman and that Freeman determined not to acknowledge the greeter and should the greeter press the issue Freeman planned to teach the greeter a lesson in how to treat the privileged class of cops. On the other hand, the greeter thrown to the floor and having to look up at Freeman certainly would have a valid reason to fear further ‘imminent bodily injury’ yet in your view Freeman committed no crime. (3) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative. Indeed many reasonable persons have not found the actions of the greeter ‘extremely offensive or provocative.” Most shoppers complied with verbal requests thereby never escalating the situation to a physical attempt at detention. The fact that the detention was against store policy is not a matter for Freeman to enforce. Freeman was not commissioned to enforce store policy by any means much less violent force. Freeman could indeed have shook off the greeter and continued on his way or reversed course and filed a complaint with store management. As shown in my post of another similar incident the shopper was arrested as well as the Florida incident where the ‘shopper by theft’ was arrested. Could Freeman have arrested the greeter. Yep. To make the charges stick, Freeman would need Sgt. McPherson to back any story Freeman concocted to justify the arrest. If these actions would have been performed by a real cop instead of a store security guard you would have a total different opinion. The actions of the Wal-Mart greeter? Yes of course. Perhaps you failed to read or comprehend my last post that the 4th amendment applies to government actors who have been granted additional responsibilities, privileges and immunities but does apply to any other citizens. Your claim that Kenneth Freeman lost his job over the Wal-Mart incident is a total fabricated falsehood. Freeman suffered a 28 day suspension in the hope that Freeman would wake up and realize that being a cop does not shield one from ALL laws and /or regulations. Freeman lost hi job over multiple incidents of his disregard of restrictions for which he had no employment discipline immunity. Referring to Kenneth Freeman as a victim of circumstances outside of himself fails miserably. Duke, I will learn to use multiquote one day. I still feel like you have a double standard. You have to take several instances of this man's life to build a case against him. You can mix and match bits and pieces to try to vilify him. I am not sure that anyone would have reacted differently if ran up from behind and grabbed. As far falsifying time sheets, I know nothing about that. It wasn't on the news like the rest of the story. I am not sure what your point is regarding the 4th amendment and government employees... If a Walmart employee demanded to search my bag, I would tell him no. If a Walmart employee ran up and me then lost his balance and went flying, I would have to say he brought it on himself. If a real cop ran up on someone and surprised them I would have to say the cop brought it on himself. Fourth amendment, or common sense. You don't just run up and grab people and not expect the person to not react. Second he got in the argument with his friend at the apartment. She said "Hey I knew I could cause him problems". There is never a situation where people are vindictive and get other people in trouble? Again, you are supposed to be the legal laureate of the forum. At least be consistent. Let's start off slow. 1. Can a security guard legally phyically confront a customer and forcefully grab them? How would a reasonable person react if ran up on from behind and grabbed?
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 25, 2009 0:03:18 GMT -5
Well, there an "enemies list" and then there's the "Axis of Evil". The former is the worse because it comes from the Obadman. Yeah, North Korea and Iran are exactly like the US Chamber of Commerce. So far we had the president ask for people to submit names of people who have opposed his policies. The WH is collecting names of folks using search engines. The WH has taken on private organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. Then last week a politican called republicans "enemies of the America". Then of course the whole argument with the administration and Fox News. I know of no other time where any administration has taken on so many private individuals or organizations. This sort of stuff (Enemies of America) is normally only heard on fringe radio shows, like Beck or Air America. You don't normally hear such rhetoric from actual elected politicians.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 24, 2009 23:51:15 GMT -5
[/quote]
What happened to my policy? My policy has not changed. This October 21, 2009 Florida Wal-Mart incident has not been discussed here before. My policy is strict. . . never ever discuss incidents before they happen.
Professor, are you an affirmative action scholar of music or art. For sure it is not the constitution. The US Constitution constrains government NOT the citizenry. For years the US Supreme Court restricted the application of any part of the US Constitution to the Federal Government thereby denying citizens the protections enumerated therein unless the violations were by actions of the Federal government. “The [US SUpreme] Court first held that the right to be free from unreasonable official searches was "implicit in `the concept of ordered liberty,'" and therefore protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27 -28 (1949)” [Emphasis added]
Violation of personal space by other citizens is a statutory tort or criminal act. Wal-Mart Josh Rutner’s actions will expose him to civil penalties by way a civil torts and possible criminal assault charges, and by extension through respondeat superior, Wal-Mart. Therein lies Wal-Mart’s concerns in addition to Josh Rutner’s safety in confronting someone without training or the backing of a police department.
Josh Rutner’s actions go far beyond what the Collegedale Wal-Mart greeter’s actions as well. “After radioing for assistance, Rutner and two other employees tackled the man outside the food center doors.” What is different? Really, you see no difference between a touch, or possible grab depending on who you choose to believe, on the arm inside the store and a tackle outside?
Violations of store policy is not a crime. Violations of ANY store policy is not a crime. Nor is any store policy violations a tort. All torts and crimes are created by government actors.
If you would get your nose far enough away some cop’s ass, you just might be able to see beyond the s__t you are now consuming and expecting others to accept.
“Chattanooga Police Department Internal Affairs Capt. Mike Mathis said Monday that former officer Ralph Kenneth Freeman "should have gone to jail" for an incident in which he shoved a 71-year-old greeter at the Collegedale Wal-Mart.” [chattanoogan.com] I, duke, did not say this, IA did. [/quote]
I think that you have disregarded your policy and agenda in this one case because the victim was an off-duty cop. If this person had been a private citizen and gotten wrapped up in this mess, then lost his job because of it you would have normally been outraged.
If a private citizen would have been falsely accosted, accused, and detained by walmart, then demonized in the media as a "thug" you would have been beside yourself.
If these actions would have been performed by a real cop instead of a store security guard you would have a total different opinion.
As far as the CPD goes, I don't know or have any contact with them. I only have an objective view of what I feel is right and wrong. I think this guy got fucked. The anti-cop crowd are using him as a scape-goat and a symbol of all they dislike about the police in general.
I think he could have avoided all this by arresting the store security guard at the time of the assault as a sort of CYA. I guess no good deed goes unpunished, and you wonder why cops can be dicks.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 23, 2009 22:11:53 GMT -5
Their loss prevention dept at both stores in Cleveland break this policy everyday. Seen it happen many of times. Wal-Mart incident is a moot point. He was justifibly fired for the last incidents. CPD should say good riddance. He won't win the civil rights suit either. Mark it down. What he did or didn't do in his life is moot. He could have stomped a baby kitten and violated my civil rights the day before he went to Walmart. The point is he was chased down and grabbed by a Walmart sercurity guard, a violation of their policy. Such a violation is a offense warranting termination according to their policy. Never mind the ex-cop. How would you like to be grabbed for no reason while you were walking out of a store? That's one issue. Second. What about his past record before the incident? It was published in the paper. It was a lot of accusations like "He wasn't very polite" if I remember correctly. That's not that bad considering he was a veteran officer. Third. He and a woman get into a confrontation. She knows he is in trouble and tries to cause more trouble for him.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 23, 2009 19:36:07 GMT -5
Oh Brother..... Make a child learn to believe and trust a cop, then when he's older, he will have to learn all over again, you can't ever trust a cop! I have been promised a lot of things by cops, but none of them ever kept thier promise to me! I don't trust cashiers. I tried to check out with 500 bags of candy corn, a sports bra, and have a key made at Walmart and the clerk told me she was only a "Automotive Specialist". I said "Listen, specialize on making my house key. My corn dogs are melting." Then of course my sports bra (I have moobs, if you must know) was missing it's price sticker. Then I find out it is $7.99. I tell Ms. Sunshine "Auto Specialist" that was too much (Low prices my butt). Then they have to call someone to void the transaction out. Now my corn dogs are really melting. I really felt bad having to split the receipt and pay for the total with two separate debit cards, but I believe in strict cost accounting. Then as I am rolling out I see the crusty old receipt checker. He says "I need to see your receipt." I say "Come get some old man!" His alligator mouth was writing checks his chicken ass couldn't cash. I don't need some dirty old man asking me about my sports bra.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 23, 2009 19:23:44 GMT -5
Bob Corker had to come out to defend his pro-gang rape vote. He said that he did it to help the Obama Administration. It is nice to see him working with the Administration like that. I'm sure that he will be just as helpful when a healthcare bill reaches his desk. I'll bet his daughters give him the frosty shoulder at Thanksgiving this year. www.newschannel9.com/news/senator-985810-bob-corker.htmlGreat. This message fails at any level. Clearly it was not meant to be intelligent. Maybe political humor? "Gang rape" Bwaahaha. Hilarious. I am no fan of Corker, but please...
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 23, 2009 19:20:08 GMT -5
Ciudad Juarez passes 2,000 homicides in 2009, so far By LISE OLSEN Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle Oct. 21, 2009, 7:20PM Ciudad Juarez passed the 2,000 mark in homicides Tuesday — setting a record for violence in the border city that has become ground zero in Mexico's war on drugs and cementing its place as one of the most murderous cities in the world. Before 2008, Juarez, a city of 1.5 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, formerly had about 200 homicides annually, a rate comparable to or lower than such U.S. cities as Houston. But last year, Juarenses — as residents of Juarez are known — saw 1,600 lives lost in an alarming and mostly unsolved crime wave. This year, that number was passed by summer's end. “With this, our city has reached a new historic mark in violent acts that verifies that this is the most violent zone in the world outside of declared war zones,” Norte newspaper reported Tuesday. It's hard to determine how many people have fled since the violence escalated. But using the 2005 population estimate of 1.5 million, Juarez's murder rate for 2009 so far has surpassed 133 per 100,000 inhabitants, based on the homicides reported. Nearly all the slayings remain unsolved. None of these would have happened if drugs (And murder) were legal. Uhm, wait. Marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin for personal use are legal in Mexico. If murder would be made legal (Since they have obviously lost the "War on Murder" in this part of Mexico, they should legalize it) this would not be a headline. People will disregard this story because they assume it is far away just because it is in another country. From another source "El Paso and Ciudad Juárez comprise one of the largest binational metropolitan areas in the world with a combined population of 4.5 million people. In fact, Ciudad Juárez is one of the fastest growing cities in the world, in spite of the fact that it is "the most violent zone in the world outside of declared war zones." So it is essentially the same metropolitan area as El Paso, Texas... It is not just the number, but the manner of deaths. It is essentially a "civil war". [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 23, 2009 17:06:51 GMT -5
Customer Convicted For Shoving 75-Year-Old Walmart Receipt Checker By Ben Popken, 12:54 PM on Fri Mar 14 2008 Donald Lynch, certified public accountant, was convicted of misdemeanor assault after pushing a 75-year-old Walmart greeter who wanted to check his receipt, reports The Chronicle. Lynch said the greeter tried to block him by pushing against him with his shoulder. Security tape showed the greeter flying to the floor. While an employee has no right to touch you, you also don't have a right to shove them on the floor, especially if they're septuagenarian! consumerist.com/368007/customer-convicted-for-shoving-75+year+old-walmart-receipt-checker Check this out Duke. Wal-Mart security guard fired for chasing and confronting a shoplifter. www.gainesville.com/article/20091021/articles/910219954&tc=yahooThe greeter violated store policy when he assaulted the now-former police officer. "But Michelle Bradford, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman, said the store's no-chase policy is clear." AND this is when it is KNOWN the person stole something. What happened to your gung-hu policy toward the 4th Ammendment, search and seizure, and false detention? Hmmmmm.... What could be different about this case?
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 14, 2009 22:51:14 GMT -5
High crime rate horrible schools terrible police dept. Yeah it has it all if like corruption. As crime goes Chattanooga is comparable to Knoxville, and less than Macon. I am not sure public schools anywhere in this area are acceptable. As far as corruption goes, I am not sure where that is coming from. If it is a swipe at the message board coppers, fine, but I don't see anything that makes the CPD stand out on the corruption scene.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 14, 2009 18:44:11 GMT -5
"PS: where is a good mom & pop motel in Chatt.?" Don't know how the rooms are, but if you want a good breakfast (or lunch, or dinner) stay at one of the two area hotels that have a "City Cafe" restaurant attached. Holy cow, you cops know all the good spots! I'm too skeered to ever stay at a "Best Western" but I did stay at the Read House and ate there. It had really good food, and a lot of it for cheap. The cakes and pies were insanely large.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 14, 2009 18:38:20 GMT -5
Just to show your ignorance Bob. I don't live in Chatt. Did it one time got the hell out of their. Before you open your pie hole get the facts. Now go drink another... Didn't you hear? Chattanooga annexed Bradley County at the last council meeting. You are back in Chattanooga again.[/quote Someone is Cleveland is complaining about Chattanooga??? Like I said "Border Wall" between bradley and hamilton. I obviously think that Chattanooga is super-peachy. If it is not here, it's within an easy driving distance. It has a little bit of everything. The tax rate here is a little high for the services we get in return, but such is life.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 14, 2009 18:27:56 GMT -5
I guess if a cheerleader in uniform isn't a representative of the school, then a cop in uniform isn't a representative of the city. One is a child who is volunteering to entertain, another is a paid person authorized to enforce regulations and laws, with force if necessary. When cheerleaders have the authority to enforce their beliefs with the backing of government or law, and have the authority to force me to do something I might not otherwise otherwise do, then you might have a point. The cheerleader has no role of authority or influence over anyone. But, it would make for some interesting cheers if they did.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 13, 2009 20:52:54 GMT -5
Separation of church and state is more than just adoption of a state religion. It is to keep government, in all of its forms, and at all of its levels, out of religion, and vice versa. I don't think a cheerleader is an agent of the government, either officially or unofficially. I am not sure of what the precedent is for thinking they have waived their free speech rights. I think the "ban" is more about school districts not wanting to use their budgets to defend against a potential lawsuit. Its just like the kid with the "boy scout" knife that is big news. The teachers over-react and become draconian. No one really wants to "test" the laws. The anti-religious think the matter is settled. Fundamentalists do not want religion at school because that opens the door to other religions. Most middle of the road people don't care. I tend to not really care, I don't have any sort of personal interest in the matter. Its a good message board topic though. I am not offended when I see posters about other people's viewpoints. I tend to be tolerant and open minded about such things... or apathetic. I'm shocked that people can be so upset about such things.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 13, 2009 17:23:16 GMT -5
There is no sense of morality or ethics, only "Who is paying me?" The same can be said for prosecutors, [Michael Nifong] judges, [Thomas R. Maloney] and police. Cops say, “I joined the force to make a positive difference in the community.” . . . Until the mayor threatens to eliminate the perk of take home cars. Nobody wants violent criminals on the street, not even defense attorneys. But defense attorneys recognize more of the government corruption than the general public will ever know. Defending even the most violent criminal can sometimes be the only means available to fight back. As far as the getting paid, everybody has to be paid for the service they perform. “About once a year you will read a story in the paper about how a local person was killed, yet no witnesses. This whole "never talk to LE" thing really upsets me.” The subject line is never talk to LE. In the subject line how much space is available for qualifying statements? There is nothing in the text nor in the video that remotely suggests refusing to be a witness either for the police or at a trial. Unenumerated credit was included that readers and viewers could accept the information presented without a knee-jerk inclusion of the kitchen sink. Apparently that was another assumption serving to make an ass of those who would presume that someone else could actually think. Even PM’s usual bias was set aside long enough to recognize the pitfalls articulated in video. Must every writer or speaker include all possible exemptions to every general statement? The no witness problem usually has much more to do with fear of retribution from the ‘friends’ of the perpetrator of a crime than from LE. I need to figure out "multi-quote". As far as prosecutors, I assume they believe their job is "gate-keepers". There is no financial gain for them, they just want to pick "winners" only. If something is weak or shady, they might pass over the case. This again is all my assumption. As far as "never talk to police"... I've got big problems with the idea no matter who is the source. Gang-members have the whole "no snitching" thing, many other folks spead the idea that the police are always setting people up, so even talking to them as a witness is a bad idea. Either way the point is "never talk to police". Luckily I have never been the victim of violent crime, but if I were, I would hopefully have witnesses that would testify... I know this is just a message board, and there is a great deal of hyperbole and crazyness here, but there are people that breed fear into the public about police with "bad cop" stories. How often do you read about a violent crime committed in the midst of 100s of people, yet no witnesses? Why do you think this is?
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 13, 2009 17:12:06 GMT -5
I don't like being searched before entering a stadium to watch a ballgame either. In fact I resent it. I resent being stopped for a license check, a DUI check, a weapons check, any of it. It just bothers me to no end. I don't know why it bothers me so much but it does and I don't intend to pay a shrink to find out why. Don't forget Walmart greeters!!!
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 13, 2009 16:43:56 GMT -5
It's obvious that you didn't have the luxury of completing high school. It sounds as if you maybe made it through the third grade. Having a gay/straight alliance at a high school does not promote homosexuality. It promotes tolerance to people that happen to be gay or lesbian. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. I don't see any gay men or women at football games with signs that say, "Be gay!" The issue here is public displays of religion from cheerleaders at a public school, which is illegal. Gay/ Straight Alliance clubs are not illegal. And to specifically answer your stupid question, I believe there should be gay organizations at schools to help kids that are struggling with their sexuality, and to provide a safe haven for them to meet other gay students who have similar issues. The meetings are private, and nobody is forced to go that doesn't want to. The only people complaining about these meetings are the bible-thumpers with their close-mindedness and lack of education. Very catty! When you calm down and untwist your panties, you might want to re-read my message. I have no problem with any students or student groups (gay or religious) expressing their points of view. I put it more simply. Allowing children to express their religious views at school is not promoting religion. Allowing gay students to express their gay views at school is not promoting or establishing gay-ness. Just because something is allowed at school does not mean the school promotes, allows, condones or establishes it. To suggest that the cheerleaders banners are illegal is silly, at best. Who would enforce this imaginary law, the "Federal Bible Police"? I know you are selective with your rights and free speech, but you have to recognize when others have the same rights .
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 13, 2009 16:38:32 GMT -5
s Once again, because it doesn't seem to sink into anyone's head... This isn't about the students free speech. Those students can express themselves freely all they want, when they are representing no one but themselves. But when they are representing a public school, at a school function, that is when they are restricted as to what they can and cannot say. The only "speech" that is being restricted is that of the school, and rightfully so, because the school is a part of the state, and the state and religion are rightfully separate. The cheerleaders, in their role as cheerleaders, are not individuals, but representatives of the state, via the school. They have volunteered to accept that role. They should accept the limitations that go with it. I don't believe this limitation exists, and if they did exist they could not be legally enforced. Allowing a cheerleader the free exercise of holding a banner is a far leap from the United States adopting a state religion.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 12, 2009 19:17:20 GMT -5
The very best attorneys do not train themselves out of these traits. We read about prosecutors and defense counsels who have done so in the "Embarrassing Acts by Attorneys" page and on the disbarment posts of the ABA. We read about the LEOs who have no character, integrity or credibility (Or lost them) whenever we read about wrong cops. The 1%'rs (just like the outlaw MC gangs) of both groups sometimes can make the other 99% look bad. Those that think the 99% are just like the 1% have little credibility in the first place. I have ill feelings for criminal defense attornies, not all of them. He is the issue to me. Defense lawyers say "I do what I do for the rule of law, the greater good, etc." What happens to this "greater good" and the rule of law, when the client is out of cash? There is no sense of morality or ethics, only "Who is paying me?"
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 12, 2009 19:13:33 GMT -5
The very best attorneys do not train themselves out of these traits. We read about prosecutors and defense counsels who have done so in the "Embarrassing Acts by Attorneys" page and on the disbarment posts of the ABA. We read about the LEOs who have no character, integrity or credibility (Or lost them) whenever we read about wrong cops. The 1%'rs (just like the outlaw MC gangs) of both groups sometimes can make the other 99% look bad. Those that think the 99% are just like the 1% have little credibility in the first place. I think a lot of lawyers are OK, it is just the defense lawyers I don't care for. Put it in comparison. A cop does what he does out of a sense obligation. He might ask "What is the right thing to do." Defense attornies claim "We are doing what we do for the greater good, the rule of law, protecting rights." Fine.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 12, 2009 19:06:33 GMT -5
Fox team incorporates from McCallie Ave to the Georgia line (Rossville Blvd, E23rd, Dodds Ave, 4th Ave and parts of I-24) Needless to say they are very busy on any given day on any shift. It's a lot of ground to cover in eight hours and much of it is spent running call to call. On a good day you might have five officers in the Fox Team area. There are other parts of the city that are just as bad such as Brainerd and East Brainerd. As a police officer I feel the need for more officers, because our numbers are always in decline (retirements, washouts, termination, quitting) I firmly believe that not having a police academy for a period of time will hurt some services, but I also believe that we can handle it. Nothing to be scared of, no fear to be instilled. It's just one of those things that one day the big man in charge will realize that need instead of operating off bare personnel [/quote Thanks for the information. This sounds like the area where the shooting was a while back. It seems like all the officers might have been on scene... There are no close-by back ups if need be? It seems like as a matter of safety, there should be more police.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 12, 2009 19:02:13 GMT -5
If we will agree to his annexation plan, he'll start another academy. In places that have a "Metropolitian Police Department", how is the differentation made beteen Sheriff's Offices and Police Officers? I ask because it seems like a lot of counties have metro police departments. Would/is it that both departments share the same territory? Whould it be Hamilton County Metropolitan Police, or Hamilton County Metropolitan Sheriff's department?
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 12, 2009 18:43:03 GMT -5
Is it a school function? Is "gay" a religion? Since the answer to both questions is "no" you're bringing apples to the orange cart. I never suggest that gay was a religion. I think the only constitutional restrictions to free speech are slander, and "fighting words". For a couple of Tammy's to hold a sign quotion scripture condones and promotes religion like allowing a gay club would condone or promote homosexuality. Can the state establish a religion? No. Is allowing students free speech the same as establishing a religion? No, again. Actions by a few students cannot speak for the government at large. Allowing something is not the same as establishing, or condoning it. There's really nothing that could be done to prevent gay, religious or any other students free speech, unless it violated one of the _few_ limitations to free speech.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 12, 2009 12:01:23 GMT -5
Yes, and this school, as well as ALL public schools should not promote any religion. How do you feel about gay oriented youth clubs meeting at public facilities?
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 11, 2009 21:26:10 GMT -5
"We've ALWAYS done it this way, we'll ALWAYS do it this way--AAAAHHHHUUUUMMMMMMMMM". Funny how local issues parallel world issues. All the generals say we'll lose in Afghanistan unless we infuse troops; we've already lost one good soul to Chattanooga's archaic and reactionary personnel policies. Putting five people in Fox Team on any shift is exactly like what we tried in Somalia and Iraq before the "surge"; war cannot be waged correctly on the cheap or without sufficient troops. Gene Roberts-TOLD Jon Kinsey--TOLD Bob Corker--TOLD Ron Littlefield--TOLD You know that educating the public about the recent proposed vehicle policies worked. The idea of understaffed areas, officer and public safety seems a lot more important... There's got to be a non-controversial way to explain to the public the situation as it is factually. A don't know what a Fox Team is, how large their AOR is, how many calls that area gets a day, etc. I do know if I have to call the cops, they are showing up. .. and showing up ASAP. I'd rather not have an unduly stressed, over-worked, or super-fatigued officer to deal with my personal crisis. I'd rather him not have to fight from one end of town, to my side of town.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 11, 2009 20:46:12 GMT -5
Duke has not learned the lesson most cops learn early in their careers... The most difficult virtues to attain (In LE, but also in any other venue) are your character, your integrity and your credibility. Are they attained or something a person either has or not? For example if you were going into the clergy, could a person without these traits learn them? If you were going to become a defense attorney, could you train yourself out of them to do your job?
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 11, 2009 20:42:50 GMT -5
Professorx, are you saying that the fifth amendment is the reason some 14 year olds are killed? The two videos shown on that site presented the concepts of the fourth and fifth amendments in very reasonable and responsible manners. I especially thought the second video showed how one can be assertive of one's rights while still being polite and respectful to authority. The videos did not depend on using falsehoods into scaring people about the police but it did present the duty of the police in an unbiased manner. I guess I'm just not sure what your complaint is. I thought more about your message after I replied. The intent of your message seemed to be "Exert your rights," rather than the blog's message of "Never talk to Law Enforcement". If a person believes that it is in their best interest and their right never to talk to cops, then there will be more situations just like what happened in Chicago a few weeks ago. A child was beaten to death in the street with 100+ people there and everyone exercised their 5th ammendment right to never talk to cops. About once a year you will read a story in the paper about how a local person was killed, yet no witnesses. This whole "never talk to LE" thing really upsets me.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 11, 2009 18:47:11 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_weapons_failures"Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?" "Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times." "The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute." If this weapon is not as reliable as it should be, what would be the characteristics of it's replacement? What improvements could be made?
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 11, 2009 0:07:07 GMT -5
I have seen the first video on that site but not the second. Regardless of what the commenters on that site had to say I have to say that both of those videos on that site should be required viewing for every person over the age of twelve. Great. So when another 14 year old is killed in the presence of more than 100 witnesses, they will all remember "Don't talk to cops". I hate fear mongering. I was in a place last week and some guatemalan kids (10 and 11 year olds) were walking past. They said "You scared us, we thought you were the police". I asked "Why are you scared of the cops?" They explained that their parents said the cops had been kidnapping many kids in that area. Bad guys propagate fear to keep people from exposing their illegal activities. So if someone is pushing bullshit I have to wonder if they are a bad guy or a person that is easily misguided.
|
|
|
Post by professorx on Oct 9, 2009 21:59:01 GMT -5
I don't think it's delusional to assume that the rest of the world breathed a sigh of relief at the end of "Cowboy Diplomacy". I think it is wrong that we should base our actions on what other countries think we should do. Let's vote. "Tell us we are right Sweden. Please, we are desperate for your acceptance." While we are swinging left, a lot of other countries in the world are pendulum-ing right. Its not really that other countries believe this anyway. Just their political parties that are liberal. You all are just told "The world disagrees with us" because some people are more prone to peer pressure. Besides, you are probably old enough to realize that in 4 or 8 years we will be back to a conservative type president, then 4 to 8 years after that a more liberal type? Its not like soft on crime, high taxes, weak foreign policy, will last forever. Its not like McCain would have been any more of an effective leader. Keep in mind Bush won twice, Obama can talk shit when he pulls that off.
|
|