....Black people don't trust the police.
Yup. Let's just let that sit there for a moment so we can ponder this breaking news....
Okay, that's long enough.
Was this headline really worth the cyberspace is took up? I mean, this can't be news, given the elitist and bullying nature of so many cops. Whether we want to admit it or not, the truth is that prejudice is a big part of the law enforcement psyche.... We've all seen the court case where various police agencies are taken to task for racial profiling... Ever been to a jail or a prison and seen the racial makeup there? Majority black. Death sentences are imposed much more in cases where the victim was white and the accused was black than on black on black, or white on black.
and this is not even to mention people like Bull Connors, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, or Nathan Bedford Forest. That blacks don't trust the cops is not news. News would be if a poll showed that blacks do trust the cops. News would be if a serious poll showed that that majority of white people don't trust cops..... though that would be an interesting poll, wouldn't it?
Me, I'm white as Wonder Bread, but I grew up on the streets and I absolutely don't trust cops. That not to suggest that I think all cops are dirty. I don't. But I don't think cops, as demographic group, are any more clean than any other group of randomly-picked citizens of the same age, gender, racial and educational makeup.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Five years ago, Ocean City had a sworn staff of 105 officers. Less than that number were actually on on the street. One officer was tried for sexual assault on a female officer. Another one was administratively disciplined because he consistantly parked his take-home cruiser in a red-zone, in front of his home, knowing full well the city had not designated the area "no parking" and had not painted the curb red. And even if they had, he still had no right to park there. The agency refused to make the results of their investigation public, saying it was a personnel matter. Further, Jay Hancock, now a city councilman, was the designated spokesman for the department and was well known by the press as a liar and wholly unreliable. ....So let's just say there were only 5 administrative officers and the other 100 were on the street, that still means 3 percent were dirty. I'd say that's about the same percentage of society at large.
Geez.... I lost count of how many times he lied to me.... eventually, I just stopped talking to him and got my info form the line officers. The last time I talked to him I asked for a photo of a seasonal officer arested for DWI in OC and he told me none existed.... Of course they existed. Each officer carries a photo ID issued by the department. The photo are kept on a computer in the evidence section.
drunk driving and drugged driving are the same thing.... and the guy was a cop.... the crime he committed was in his own jurisdiction and he drove away after being warned by a shift supervisor not to drive. And Hancock DID have knowledge and access to the photos....turns out the chief just did not want to release it to the press.... So Jay led about it to cover Massey's refusing to release public documents.
You missed the point Dick. The issue wasn't just parking in a no parking zone. It was about the officer creating a no parking zone for himself and then parking in it.
Jay knew because he had been with the department for more than 20 years..... although it did take him 27 years to make PFC... some kind of record in itself..... and it's not his job to protect the chief. It was his job to provide information to the public. That's the law.... fuck what the chief says.... the law is clear on access to public information and documents.... so when a camera that was paid for with tax dollars is used to photograph a public employee for identification purposes and is stored on publically-owned computers, or in publically facilities, then it is a public document by definition.
Here's a dirty cop story for you! A psychologist Jennifer Suttka was testifying on behalf of my abusive ex husband in court. This wacko witch had written a letter two years earlier saying that she could not longer treat the children because she was biased. However she continued to do so. That day in court I did everything I could to avoid this woman. If she used the elevator, I used the steps, If she was in the bathroom, I wouldn't go in there. During a lunch break I went to the bank 1st (I have a receipt) and was outside the Downtown Deli in line while she was leaving. After court I walked with my attorney back to her office and my car. I came home and started cutting my grass. Can you imagine my surprise when I two State Troopers from Berlin (her husband works at that barracks) came to my house in Delmar (3 miles at most for the Salisbury Barracks) and accused me of stalking her? They threatened me and told me how serious they were. If I even rode by her house or her office I would be arrested. I don't even know where she lives! When I told the cops I didn't do ANYTHING wrong and to get out of my yard they threatened to lock me up! For what?? What a waste of taxpayer dollars and a misuse of the police who may have been needed elsewhere for a real crime. I could go on and on about the way my ex abused the system but you don't have enough room in your blog. Cops and judges are bought every day. They are not to be trusted.
Dick:
Newspapers, withe the exception of Stars and Stripes, are not supported by government funding.
Dick; can you quote the words from which you ascertained that I believe newspapers are altruistic? ... I don't racall ever saying that.
because he was a public servant responsible for enforcing the law but, who was charged with committing a crime, and it was the public's right to know.
I already answered this question Dick.... I wanted his picture for publication. .... And you are still wrong about the photo. In fact he was arrested and booked, so there was a booking photo. In adition, where was available his police ID photo and the photo taken when he first applied for the job. All of them are public documents.
Reading your post, I gather that you don't read any newspapers or watch news programmng on the TV....it's beginng to show.
Not Clever:.... and you would have guessed wrong.... I already told you why I stopped talking to him.... he was unreliable because he lied... Oh and the cops said he had a very nasty temper... not even the rank and file trusted him. The story in the ranks was that he was taken off the street after he busted caps at a car containg Bobby Baker's daughters... then there was that whole thing about his cold-blodded murder of a locker in police headquarters.... despite what the street cops said, I don't really think he was that angry at the locker. It was probably just an accidental discharge.... it happens when guys are young and when they get old, I'm told.
hMMMM i WATCH FOX NEWS out of DC every morning. I don't read USA today... I do like The Sun and I read the Post as often as I can. I also watch CNN and read the wires.
Okay Dick, we wanted to publish it for identification purposes. When news organizations publish information about arrests, it serves both the community's interest and the organization's interests to fully identify the person charged with the crime.
That's why newspapers write, for example, "John Smith, 23, is held without bond, charged with carnal knowledge of livestock this morning. Police say Smith, of the 1900 block of West St. in North Moosejaw, was discovered nude and standing way too close to a cow in a neighbor's pasture last night. Police refused to identify the alleged victim, citing privacy concerns."
You'll not that Smith, who as a common name, was identified by age and address in order to avoid confussion with any other similarly named man in the area, and who might otherwise be mistaken as the person who was charged. If that were to happen, it could have a negative impact upon his job, his family and his community standing. That, in turn, could expose the news organization, as well as the reporter, to litigation and significant financial loss.
You're not really this ignorant, are you Dick?
I didn't mention his name for two reasons: The first is that it's not germain in this context... I only mention the case as illustrative of my point about Hancock.... and secondly, I don't remember it.... I'm too lazy to dig out my notes and clips..... And, as long as you insist on sustaining this conversation, let us return to an earlier point I raised but did not full explain.
You attempted to rationalize Hancock's lies by saying it was part of his job to protect the department from unfavorable press. But you are wrong. His first responsibility was t provide accurate information. Being unable to to that is far different from being unwilling to do that for fear of what higher-ups may say. If Hancock had just been honest with me and said the chief wouldn't allow him to provide that information, I could live with that.... I mean, I probably would have made an official demand for the documents under Federal and state FOIA laws, but I would have at least stil had respect for him.
But because I knew he had lied to me on several ocassions, I thought, and still think, he's a coward. If you're a cop, and too afraid to stand up for the truth, then your word is worthless in a court of law and you're worthless in a cadre of men who must be brave and truthful.
Post a Comment