Five before Midnight

This site is dedicated to the continuous oversight of the Riverside(CA)Police Department, which was formerly overseen by the state attorney general. This blog will hopefully play that role being free of City Hall's micromanagement.
"The horror of that moment," the King went on, "I shall never, never forget." "You will though," the Queen said, "if you don't make a memorandum of it." --Lewis Carroll


My Photo
Location: RiverCity, Inland Empire

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Is the CPRC facing fallout from Summer Lane?

The Community Police Review Commission played to an audience of city residents several weeks ago, but a ghost of two Decembers past dominated the conversation without ever saying a word.

That ghost was Summer Lane, a woman shot and killed by Riverside Police Department officer Ryan Wilson in December 2004.

In December 2004, the police department had briefed the CPRC on the shooting and provided a preliminary narrative of the incident. That night, there was no way to anticipate the fire storm which would erupt the following year. In part that was due to inaccurate information provided at the preliminary briefing, which clashed with that provided in interdepartmental memos written by members of the Officer-Involved Shooting Team before the briefing took place.

In November 2005, the CPRC released a finding that it had found the shooting to be out of departmental policy, the first decision of this kind since the panel began investigating officer-involved deaths in 2001. After reaching that decision in closed session, the CPRC then forwarded it to City Manager Brad Hudson. Many community members believed that the decision would lie in his hands, because the police department had submitted a finding of its own, which was that the shooting was within policy.

Their belief in a process which put the two entities and their findings on equal footing, was misplaced. Hudson opted out of the decision making process altogether and handed it off to Police Chief Russ Leach for a final disposition. Leach backed his department's own finding. Through his decision not to make a decision, Hudson showed clearly just how much, or more accurately, how little importance the commission had inside City Hall.

It appeared that the commissioners who released that finding received that message clearly too.

CPRC Chair Les Davidson told members of the public that the commission's hands were tied

"We are bound by that Charter, " Davidson said, "Our feelings may be different but we have to stay within it."

The Charter, Davidson was referring to, was the city's own Constitution that was first established and ratified in 1907. In it, are the rules and regulations which govern the city's operation including its boards and commissions. Several of these bodies comprised of city residents are included in the city's Charter. In 2005, the CPRC joined this select group.

Ironically, the inclusion of the CPRC in the city's Charter was intended to liberate it. The Charter Review Committee drafted a proposed amendment which would place the CPRC safely away from any political interference by the city council. Many community members believed this step became necessary after the existence of the CPRC was challenged by city council members who opposed it and had received considerable campaign contributions from the Riverside Police Officers Association during their election campaigns. The voters echoed their concerns and passed ballot measure Measure II in every precinct in the city, during the November 2004 election. Even the city council members who had opposed the CPRC were impressed and several said that they would honor the wishes of the voters.

Once it became included in the Charter, only another ballot initiative passed by a majority of the city's voters could abolish or make substantial changes in the operation of the CPRC. Or so members of the public believed.

Now, one year later, the inclusion of the CPRC in the city's Charter was being looked at with new eyes, as just another obstacle in its path toward realizing its full potential. Although it had been once been viewed as a mechanism to preserve the once vulnerable CPRC, now it was seen as a means of restricting its powers even further.

Borrowing a line from the RPOA's infamous anti-Measure II campaign in 2004, Davidson told the other commissioners that their hands were tied. He implored members of the public to petition their elected officials including Mayor Ron Loveridge and the city council to take steps to strengthen the commission.

"It's not that we don't want to do the job," Davidson said, "We can't do the job."

As usual, Commissioner James Ward did not mince words.

"The more I sit on this Commission," Ward said, "The more I'm convinced the city has been sold a bag of goods."

Ward said that the city government was micro managing the CPRC and that through the Lane decision it had shown that the CPRC's role was intended to be solely advisory. He added that not much had changed inside City Hall since the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998.

At the beginning of the meeting, Davidson said that he had placed the item on the meeting agenda after he and Vice-Chair Ward met with Leach, Hudson and City Attorney Gregory Priamos. They had discussed key issues but there was not total agreement among all involved parties.

About 20 people attended the CPRC meeting on April 27 and listened to commissioners expressing their frustrations at the apparent limitations of their powers, before walking up to the podium and adding a few of their own.

Rudy Morales, a former member of the Human Relations Commission, took the body to task.

"Get off the chair and do it yourself," he said.

Morales added that when he had served on the HRC's Law Enforcement Policy Advisory Committee years ago, there had been similar problems. But commissioners were in a much better position to push for changes than members of the public.

"Listening to what I heard today, it doesn't sound like we've made much strides, " Morales said.

Morales' words were echoed by other concerned city residents who attended the meeting including other people who had sat on LEPAC before the committee was disbanded in 2000 to make way for the CPRC. Even its prior members had publicly defined LEPAC as a toothless tiger. Was the CPRC ultimately going to follow down its predecessor's path?

The crux of this latest concern centers around the issue of the CPRC's right to investigate officer-involved deaths. According to its own bylaws, the CPRC has the power and right to do the following:

Review and investigate the death of any individual arising out of or in connection with actions of a sworn police officer, regardless of whether a complaint regarding such death has been filed.

This power grew out of a ground swelling of concern that arose from the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998. It is no accident that the bylaws, the ordinance which created the CPRC and the charter that gave it a future all state that the CPRC is to investigate in custody deaths. One of the legacies of the Miller incident was how little faith and trust many community members particularly African-Americans had in the ability of a law enforcement agency to investigate its own officers' alleged misconduct. Both the creation of the CPRC and the inclusion of this power were a response to this concern.

"Asti Spamanti", who claimed to be a RPD officer, said the following before storming off.

"Oh, I've got an answer for you. How about this---"Mr. Asti, I do not know when officers should use deadly force because I have not the training or experience to answer that question or make those types of decisions and therefore, I probably should not be condemning these officers for making a decision that people like me, Sandalou, and others who so freuqently speak out against the police, are either afraid to do or incapabale of doing."

His or her words serve as a reminder to why people do not have faith in a police agency's ability to self-investigate. What is really being said here is that no member of the public even has the right to question the actions of any officer, let alone one who has shot and killed a person. These words have been used to refute the need for everything from state-sanctioned oversight of the police department to the creation of the CPRC. These words are still being said today, seven years after the shooting of Miller.

One problem is, that these words also extend to other employees in the police department including its management. To be reminded of this, one needs only to look at what happened during the only known RPD shooting to be determined to be out of policy in its recent history. After the police department decided that the four officers who shot and killed Miller had violated departmental policies, the decision was made by then Chief Jerry Carroll to fire them and their supervisor.

So what happened to Carroll soon after that fateful decision? His fate and his future was essentially decided on the date he made the decision to fire them. Most likely, he even knew it at the time.

The vote to oust him was not one cast by paper ballots, but by razor. Hundreds of razors taken to hundreds of heads, removing every vestige of human hair, as if by doing so, they could exorcise the chief who had betrayed the rank and file with his decision to fire five of its members. Carroll had fired five of their group's members so they were going to fire him in response. That was his first strike against him.

Carroll's "retirement" did not become official until early 2000 amidst a firestorm that erupted after his decision to promote two men of color and a White woman to the position of lieutenant. This action elicited howls of reverse discrimination against White male police officers. He had just committed his second strike.

The city soothed the howls of reverse discrimination by trying to reverse Carroll's promotions with as much vigor as they would later fight against a claim of racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation filed by a Black male officer. Carroll soon accepted a retirement and left the department.

If the tenure of a police chief in the RPD could not survive a decision to fire four officers involved in a shooting determined to be in violation of departmental policy, then it should surprise no one that if a panel of civilians come out with a similar decision on another shooting, its decision would also elicit an angry and passionate response by the same parties.

Given the predicable outcomes of the situation involving the split findings on the Lane shooting, was such a response by those parties even necessary?

The fallout from the Lane shooting is apparent, as the recent pleas by the CPRC's commissioners for the public to appeal to its elected government to strengthen the body's powers have shown. Unfortunately, given the current political climate at City Hall, this is not likely to happen any time soon.

With the already controversial shooting of Lee Deante Brown on the horizon, these questions will again be asked and answered and these concerns will once again be raised by commissioners and members of the public alike.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you agree the CPRC is useless and has no power, thus is a waist of tax payer money and should have their budget reduced to $1. In regard to Lee Brown being a "Controversial Shooting", theres no controversy....he was shot.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too have seen the evidence, and let there be no controversy. He was indeed shot.

call me,

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary would have prefered that Ofcr. Ryan Wilson had died that day instead of Summer (in the process of a felony) Lane. It is estimated that every 53 hours that a law enforcement officer is murdered in the line of duty. Mary would have prefered that Ofcr. Ryan Wilson had been added to that statistic, would'nt you Mary Shelton. Shame on you.

Thursday, May 25, 2006 2:51:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous #1 and #2:

Thank you for your comments.

Since I am not certain whether or not you are the same person or are in fact different people, I have assigned you each a number. I hope you do not find this practice offensive. Of course it would assist greatly in this process if you would use your real name(s) or at least return to using aliases if you did so previously.

I am well aware that Lee Deante Brown was shot. I have not seen the evidence that you claimed to have seen because the police department usually keeps a tight lid on its Officer Involved Shooting investigations. Any transparency will have to come through the CPRC's own public report months down the road.

I did not state the CPRC was useless and a waste of money. I think it would be useful if you would not create straw men arguments. If the CPRC were truly a useless exercise, it would never have faced the negative campaigns that the RPOA has subjected it to even before its inception in 2000. Those impressive if futile efforts speak to its potential if not its current state. Perhaps you participated in those campaigns. Perhaps not.

Have a nice day,

Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:05:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous #3,

I think you should win the straw man argument of the day award even though the day is still quite young. I think your words reflect the argument presented by "Asti Spamanti" earlier and are just as flawed.

Your argument is that if any civilian questions the actions of an officer out loud, then that civilian is condemning that officer and all others to death with his or her concerns and questions. That is a silly tactic meant to chill public discussion on issues pertaining to both officer safety and the safety of members of the public when it comes to critical incidents. I hope the same tactics are not used against those within the department who are assigned to these tasks. But maybe that's why so many chiefs have been "fired" by this agency and others like it when they have had to make tough decisions surrounding critical incidents.

Btw, if you were the individual who wrote the nasty comments, I really believe the shame should be on you. Both for your earlier comments and also for pimping the deaths of police officers in the line of duty in this country to support your past behavior here.


Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, you are condemning Ofcr. Ryan Wilson to death when you question his split-second decision to defend himself against violent felons as was Summer Lane and her male partner in crime. Do you not think it insane to obstruct an officer's orders or actions ? Anyone that does so knowingly or in ignorance, has committed a crime. Ofcr. Ryan Wilson's life was in jeapordy and we should thank him for his heroic actions for stopping two felons, and not be accusing Ofcr. Ryan Wilson of committing a crime, failure to follow policy and procedure or committing a murder. It is etimated that every 53 hours a law enforcement officer is murdered in the line of duty. Ofcr. Ryan Wilson has an obligation to himself, his family, and to the public he serves to defend himself in life or death situations regardless of your opinion which is based on speculation. Thank You Ofcr. Ryan Wilson for surviving and staying alive.

Friday, May 26, 2006 2:43:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for making my point for me in your comments.

You are building another straw man argument. At least you are not engaging in making nasty comments here. If this is your rationale for having engaged in that type of behavior, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Your argument that split-second decisions can not be questioned, scrutinized or even criticized would effectively render even the department's own investigations of critical incidents obsolete. Is that what you want and if so why? As I have stated here several times, we have seen what happens to police management when they have to make difficult decisions regarding critical incidents. In the past, the police union has fired them.

The CPRC was also given the power to conduct its own independent investigations, first by ordinance and then by City Charter after the majority of the voters in this city supported Measure II. If these voters support the CPRC, they also support its role in investigating in custody deaths. If you examine history more closely, you will have no difficulty figuring out why this is so.

The CPRC has backed the RPD's investigation of every in custody death except Summer Lane's. Were they wrong all those times as well? Was there any outcry by yourself or others that the CPRC was not fit to do these investigations or that it lacked the proper authority or qualifications to do them? I didn't think so. It had its opinion on the shooting, as did other people. In the end, any dissenting view mattered little in the scheme of things so why are you still so unhappy?

Btw, if you are the individual that has been writing some of the nasty comments in the past few weeks, I really don't think the word "insane" is one that you should throw around lightly. I meant it when I said I believed you needed professional help. Please do not tell me that you wrote these comments, if you did, for Officer Wilson's benefit.

I am not at all certain Officer Wilson has been to this site. Perhaps you should consider thanking him in person if you have not done so already?

Friday, May 26, 2006 8:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary Catherine Shelton, you are the one that needs professional help. You will not seek it because to believe that you are wrong would shatter your make believe world. Officer Ryan Wilson is a hero. You and the CPRC are nothing but monday morning qaurterback blowholes.

Friday, May 26, 2006 11:58:00 AM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

You people are pathetic. Is there any known case of an officer murdering a citizen that you don't think is justified? Apparently the rest of us failed to get the memo stating that your tin badges confer infallible godhood.

Nice detective work in figuring out who Mary was, but it would have been a lot less tiring for you to just ask since most everyone else already knew.

Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poorest Sandalou, we already know who Mary is. Mary is the defender of the criminal element. Although she would never socialize with them, Mary uses the defense of criminals to further her leftist agenda, feminist lesbianist socialism. She has'nt the talents or social skills to become a criminal defense attorney, and so she pretends to be a reporter by day; and moonlights her stand-up comic routine at public city meetings. That Sandalou is Mary Catherine Shelton in a nutshell (literaly).

Sunday, May 28, 2006 12:22:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

As I said, you're pathetic. Every poorly educated, insecure, criminal one of you. And don't kid yourselves, you are criminals.

Is that what gets your goats so bad, that you feel like you're the only ones Mary isn't going to bat for? The vast majority of people who have been defended here aren't criminals. They are victims of dirty cops. Dirty cops just like you.

Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dirty cop.

Quite graphic. But is it accurate?

-Middle class Midwestern upbringing.
-Military Service. Honorably Discharged.
-Midwestern, Public University Educated.
-Loving Husband
-Doting Father
-Loyal Son
-Cherished Brother
-Extremely Conservative Fiscal political ideology
-Strict Constructionist judiciary views

-Veteran Officer from Large Agency
-Victim of numerous assaults with deadly weapons.
-Survivor of multiple gunfights.
-Terminator of a vile, filthy, urban parasite. (Letter of disposition from Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti declaring the killing "justifiable homicide."

"They" made us that way.

Solution? Simple but costly. Ten year "career" law enforcement officers. Change the retirement formula from "3% at 50" to "8% at 35". Raise the minimum hiring age from 21 years to 25 years. Impose mandatory retirement at ten years service.

Hire an older, more mature recruit officer (25 years of age) and retire him while he is still young enough to forge a new livelihood.

At least we have one thing in common. You (liberal ilk) make us as sick as we make you.


Sunday, May 28, 2006 10:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sandalou, more like clean cop, dirt mary.
Suggestion: why don't you give Mary a bath, comb her hair and buy her a dress. I'm sure you'd enjoy doing that to Mary, now would'nt you sandalou?

Monday, May 29, 2006 11:32:00 AM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

"They" made us that way.

What a cheap cop out. No doubt Chief David Brame was thinking of similar self-excusing justifications as he shot his wife and then killed himself in front of their two small children.

As far as the 'qualities' you self described, most of them rely on your opinion which is hardly unbiased. Of those that don't, big deal. Timothy McVeigh was a decorated veteran. Like you, his later choices are what he'll be remembered for.

And now you want to be paid to stop your own style of terrorism. Disgusting

Monday, May 29, 2006 8:12:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

Nony #2...

Get your mind out of the gutter and your hand out of your pants. How much longer are you going to be able to mask your deviancy? Do you think that your superiors aren't aware of who you are and what you post here?

Monday, May 29, 2006 8:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


new to the blog, but i love it so far!

anybody confirmed that sandalou is really a "dangerous urban savage" or maybe he is just a suburban classroom liberal with a guilty conscious?

sandalou's writing sounds suburban, not much of a "from the streets" edge, but then again, i'm no expert!

maybe sandalou could tell us about his childhood, education and profession, and how he "keeps it real!"

truly anonymous!

Monday, May 29, 2006 10:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sandalou is not a man; Sandalou is a she. She is an overweight African American who has high colesterol due to an excessive consumption of fried chicken. She probably has five kids from five different "babies Daddys" and four of those kids are probably serving state prison or county jail time. Sandalou does not like the police because it's the police that have arrested her everytime she tried passing stolen checks at Mexican grocery stores and it was the police that arrested her everytime she got caught slanging rock over on Cranford and it was the police that laughed at her when she did not realize that she had watermellon seeds stuck in her teeth...


"Destiny's Child"

P.S. Mary, I was wondering if you have some suggestions for how officer involved shootings and incidents involving deadly force should be investigated? You seem to complain a lot but I notice that you never provide any solutions to issues that you write about. By the way, are you currently employed? And if you are, what is it that you do for a living (and don't say freelance writer)! You seem to have a lot of time to go to all of these meetings and study all of these issues. I wish I had that kind of time but unfortunately, I am too busy trying to keep people like Sandalou and her four or five little felons from breaking into your home and stealing your belongings and raising havoc in your apartment over by UCR.


Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary has no job. Mary has a "sugar daddy" ^ = $. Mary has a lover named Sandalou. Mary has no solution to officer involved shootings because Mary does not believe in cops using deadly force EVER! Mary complains at any and every meeting that she can attend cause (fact is) Mary is a attention whore.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:15:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous #1-4 and "Destiny's Child":

My, this place has been busy.

I wonder if any of you are new here, except for the gentleman who stopped by with his resume. I do find his suggestions for amending the job requirements in law enforcement to be both innovative and interesting. Do others here agree? I have doubts about making any such procedure mandatory for everyone because there might be different strategies to implement for different people. Here are some general questions.

Do you believe that officers should only be allowed to serve in this profession for ten years and that this decision should be made for all of them, regardless of their interest or performance level, by others? And who should make these decisions?

Do you see any potential for age discrimination claims if such a system was put into practice? If you are in law enforcement yourself, how would this procedure impact you, professionally and personally?

In the interest of providing possible solutions, do you think that the plan offered by "Anonymous" #4 is a viable one?

"Destiny's Child", you take considerable pride in showing knowledge in this area. Do you think that serving 10 years in this profession is long enough? Do you believe that anyone else has the right to tell you when to retire and pursue another career? Personally, if you are a police officer, I do not think paying you a retirement of 8% at 35 is adequate. How about 25% at 35 instead? You seem ready for a career change. If you are older than 35, feel free to bump up the age bracket one level higher than where it currently stands.

Anonymous #1: Since you are filled with a strong sense of fiscal awareness and time, do you think that retiring officers at 35 years or when they have served for 10 years on the job, really costs more money than it saves as claimed, by Anonymous #4? How can it be made more cost-efficient for the municipality involved?

Anonymous #2, truly, you seem to have a strong interest in personnel issues and quite a bit of knowledge in that area as well. Do you agree that an officer should be forced to retire after 10 years on the job, even if they wish to remain? How would that impact the turnover in the department if implemented and its experience level? How would that impact the type of and experience level of the supervisors utilized by the agency?

Anonymous #3, asking you any questions that have to do with this issue is probably not very productive. So you can sit this one out.

Anonymous #4, since you offered up this interesting topic, you can sit this discussion out as well or contribute. You did intrigue me with your contention that others "made" you into who you are today. How does that line of thinking fit with your conservative ideology? Do you find that it contradicts with the conservatives' belief in people being self-made and responsible for all their belief systems and actions? Frankly, your explanation that police officers are a product of their environment and their beliefs and actions are shaped by outside influences rather than themselves appears to be more in line with the belief systems of liberals, not conservatives.

Have a nice evening,

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geezus, Mary.

With you it is always, garbage in (your information gathering mechanisms) and garbage out (the diarrhea which expels from your mouth/keyboard).

Ever consider higher education as a means to increase your knowledge? Upper level courses such as, Public Policy Analysis? Consitutional law? Public Administration? Business Management?

8% at 35 means, 8% retirement credit for every year worked. Thus, 8% at 35, with a starting age of 25= ten years of service at 8% per year. = 80% retirement at 35.

If you are blogging for blogging's sake, then by all means, shoot off at the mouth without knowing or caring what the &^%$ you are talking about.

But please don't intermix the two. It is annoying.

Thursday, June 01, 2006 2:12:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments. I do apologize for annoying you to the point where you had to take the Lord's name in vain. I'm sure He will forgive you too. I get annoyed when people insult my mother before leaving in a huff and then coming back pretending they have never been here before, but that's just me. Was that you?

You answered the wrong questions but you made a good effort in doing so. Thank you for that information on PERS retirement credits and the math lesson. I did not really need either, but it helped me understand where you are coming from a little bit better so it wasn't a total waste of your time.

That said, I would still apply 8% at 35 to all officers if "Anonymous #4's" plan were to be implemented, with the exception being "Destiny's Child" who would receive 25% at 35(or whatever age bracket he is currently in) when he retires. If he is an officer, I do not think that there are many people who would hesitate at paying him 250% of his current salary in the form of a retirement to encourage him to pursue an alternate career, especially considering the alternative. Hopefully, he is not in this profession at all so this is a moot issue.

I am sorry if you misunderstood my point.

Thanks for the advice. However, I'm not sure I would consider you an endorsement for higher education, no offense intended.

Btw, what does &^%$ mean exactly? You censor your profanity, yet you take the Lord's name in vain. Sometimes it's difficult figuring you people out.

Have a nice day,

Friday, June 02, 2006 7:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Friday, June 02, 2006 10:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Geezus Geezus Bo Beezus Banana Fana Fo Feezus, 22 years old, Female, San Antonio, TEXAS

The Lord's name in vain... lighten up, ye daughter of Lucifer.

God Wills It!

Friday, June 02, 2006 1:34:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous #3 and #5,

Thank you for your comments. I do apologize for having to assign you numbers in my response, but you still are unwilling to provide your real names. However, if you did, you would then have to clean up your language and that would not work quite as well for you, would it? Someone might actually mistake you two for adults.

"Anonymous #3", there is really no need to shout here. I see that you are still hiding behind your straw man, and once again, using the deaths of officers in this country to excuse your prior atrocious behavior here. Of course, your behavior is also used to mask your ignorance of the issue introduced by "Anonymous #4" here. I doubt you know anything about the law enforcement profession at all, which is why you hide behind sexist and misogynist comments here.

Anonymous #5, thank you for your comments. I had no idea you were 22 years old. Somehow, I thought you were a bit younger than that. You appear to be a suburban classroom conservative, who obviously has a lot to learn about life off of the internet before you can "keep it real". Your largest stumbling block is learning to respect yourself. If you did, you would not be here conducting yourself in this way. You would be out living a life and finding happiness and fulfillment through other pursuits than behaving like an immature individual here.

Having been called the "spawn of Satan" and even "evil" by some people in certain circles, I've grown used to these sorts of labels as does any women who criticizes men working in a men's profession who do not like to be criticized by women. I'm sure if you are female and ever leave the internet, you will grow used to them too.

"Daughter of Lucifer" does have a rather nice ring to it, however.

Have a nice day,

Friday, June 02, 2006 8:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, talk about "learning to respect yourself" have you taken a good look at "yourself" in the mirror lately ? As for your comment "Daughter of Lucifer has a nice ring to it", this reveals your true passion of anger towards your father and men in general. You see your father as Lucifer and yourself as Lucifer's Daughter. Wow what insight your comments reveal about your personality. Tell us more.

Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous #3:

Once again, I do apologize for having to issue you a number but you have opted not to use your real name. Why? Because then you would either have to clean up your language which would make your forays here much less fun for you or you would have to retreat back beneath the rock from which you came.

I did not see myself as the "daughter of Lucifer", "Anonymous #5" did. Like I said, I've been called far worse including by yourself and this one at least shows some imagination on his or her part. On the other hand, "attention whore" is a very weak insult but perfect from a misogynist like you who probably views women that way anyway.

As for the CPRC's commissioners being a bunch of "blowholes", what have any of them ever done to you? What skin is it off your back if they come back with a finding that was different than that determined by the police department? And if any of "us" out there is willing to answer this question, they should feel free to do so.

You believe you have anything to tell me about self-respect and social skills. Given your behavior here, that's highly doubtful.

Good Day,

Monday, June 05, 2006 7:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FIVE BEFORE MIDNIGHT SAID, "Do you see any potential for age discrimination claims if such a system was put into practice?"

Ignorance truly is bliss, isn't it Ms. Shelton?

If you are such an elitist that you refuse to go to university, then at least read some supreme court case law on age discrimination. Maybe then you can construct an intelligent, succinct question.

Monday, June 05, 2006 1:00:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous #5:

Thank you for your comments. I do apologize for having to assign you a number in my response, but you are still unwilling to provide your real name. However, if you did, you would then have to clean up your language and that would not work quite as well for you, would it?

I am surprised that you found a question that you could answer from the laundry list pertaining to this subject. I was not surprised that you tossed in a few insults in your response but they fell flat because after all, "Daughter of Lucifer" is a tough act for you to follow.

My question actually addressed whether age discriminations claims would be made, not whether or not they would succeed. I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. However, if you are an expert on this issue as you appear to be, then by all means, expound on the topic. You seemed to be fairly well versed in public policy.

If you are such an elitist that you refuse to go to university, then at least read some supreme court case law on age discrimination. Maybe then you can construct an intelligent, succinct question.

Aren't elitists for the most part, defined by most people as being university educated? It is one quality that both conservatives and liberals share, which is the ability to toss this word around to define others in a negative fashion by using the same qualities they themselves possess. I found this paragraph you wrote to be humorous though I am fairly sure that was not your intention.

Have a nice day,

Monday, June 05, 2006 6:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, Shelton, he's trying to say that you should go back to college so that you can get an edumacation!

Monday, June 05, 2006 10:26:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

Well I can see why you're all still on the beat. I am a 'she' (like that was ever in doubt), but you're dead wrong on every single other thing.

You people are pathetic, just effing pathetic. The only good thing about the insanity you spew here is that other people are seeing it. More and more people every day. You're all hanging your asses out like a full moon over Miami and boy are you making yoursleves look bad.

The saddest mistake you made is saying that I don't like the police. I like the police just fine and have never had any problem with real cops. But you pusbags aren't cops. You're criminals hiding in a uniform.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:53:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

You sound so intelligent and present yourself here as such an excellent endorsement for higher education in your comments. However, how can I "go back to college" if I apparently was too much of an elitist to go in the first place?

Feel free to answer my question to "Anonymous #3" about the CPRC if you are so inclined.

Good day,

Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:11:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Sandalou:

Thank you for your comments.

Unfortunately, if you don't approve of the bad apples in the bunch, then you are open to accusations that you hate all of them, usually by the bad apples themselves. This agency has well over 350 sworn officers and the vast majority of them would never hide behind the veil of anonymity and post the comments that have been written here. In fact, according to the police chief in a news article, it was several police officers who reported this site to the management after reading what was written here last autumn. Others might have read it and didn't do that, but at least some did and maybe that is a positive sign of some real change in the department's culture.

Several of the individuals posting here appear too antisocial, immature and mentally disturbed to be working in a demanding profession like policing which takes a lot of physical and mental energy. Also, several people here have exhibited poor grammar and spelling, abilities which are detrimental in police officers because they produce a lot of written product including crime incident reports so they have to be able to master these skills.

Officer candidates who exhibit qualities like these are supposed to be screened out in the hiring process through background checks, interviews and psychological testing. They would surely be screened out during their probationary periods in the department when they are under the watchful eyes of supervisors and training officers. These could be individuals who slipped through the cracks, but hopefully that is not the case. There is a theory that I've heard that these could be officers who feel increasingly isolated and marginalized in a department that is evolving around them and leaving them behind in its wake. Consequently, they might be looking for outlets to vent their anger and bitterness, because there may be few people left in the department willing to put up with them. Hopefully that is not the case either.

Have a good day,

Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Antisocial, Immature and Mentally disturbed; 3 character traits of Mary Catherine Shelton. Many townfolk describe Mary as such.

Friday, June 09, 2006 1:37:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous #6:

Thank you for your comment, if you could call it that. I do apologize for having to assign you a number in my response but you are unwilling to provide your real name. I hope you do not mind being referred to as "Anonymous #6".

Are the descriptive sound effects you have provided here your way of telling me not to pay attention to the man standing behind the curtain? Regardless of your answer to that question, your unhappiness with my comments is duly noted, as is your obvious displeasure with my assessment of the behavior here.

I am intrigued by all this animosity towards the CPRC coming from several individuals here. What is behind it, given the strong support it has from the city's residents? What skin is it off your back if its members come back with a finding that was different than that determined by the police department?

Those who serve on it were assigned this responsibility to investigate officer-involved deaths by the popular vote of the city's residents and have carried it out seven times. Out of those cases, only once has the CPRC determined that a shooting was out of policy. The commissioners made their decision after reviewing more material than that provided by and to the police department and after much time spent in deliberations. In the end, the CPRC had very little say in the final disposition of the Lane shooting, yet there is still much animosity against it. Why is this so especially if it does not affect you personally?

Again, if any of "us" out there is willing to answer this question, they should feel free to do so.

You can provide an answer to these questions, or you can feel free to act like a child and continue to make funny noises.

Have a good day,

Friday, June 09, 2006 5:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

five before midnight has a point.

Why all the angst about the CPRC? Other than the occasional "another police cold blooded murder" article in the press enterprise, has the CPRC really affected anyone or anything?

I doubt it.

There comes a time when you (me, us, anyone) are better off just ignoring something or moving on.

I would liken it to the people on your street who don't cut their grass and leave the christmas lights up all year. Get over it, or sell your house and move to a better neighborhood.

Spies at city hall tell me that this is exactly what is happening anyway. My source tells me that eight officers with less than three years experience have left the department in the last six months? With more to follow? Apparently there is a non-stop flow of police hiring detectives in and out of the human resources department, conducting background checks on officers who have applied for police jobs at other cities. When officers apply for jobs at other departments, the "new" department looks at their personnel/medical records and such.

city hall doesnt understand why so many officers want to leave and department heads are hoping that a hefty pay increase in July will stop the bleeding and stop young officers from leaving.

As it is, the department pays as well as anybody in the country, yet retention problems exist.

What in the heck is going on over there anyway???

Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmm CPRC-"strong support from city residents", I don't think so. Yes it passed by a majority of those who voted. Only those in the RPD know why the lack of retention of officers is such. I would guess that it has something to do with the change of guard, and the CPRC does not help any. Change can be difficult for some, for others it's a breath of fresh air. A pay raise will definately help secure retention in the RPD I think.

Monday, June 12, 2006 7:38:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments.

There was something that was stated a while back by "Innocent Bystander" that might address the question that you ask at the conclusion of your comment. You do remember "Innocent Bystander", don't you?

The officers whom hate you the most and are the most vocal against you and the complaint commission, are officers whom have been hired during the last five years.

Why would these younger officers be the most unhappy with the CPRC, if indeed they are? Do you believe this is a reason for them to be leaving the city?

Unless they are laterals, they would have never worked as police officers in an environment where a police review commission did not exist. Consequently, they would not know what it was like not to have one in place. So why do you think they are they leaving if what you said is true?

Do you believe the turnover is worse than it has been in the past? Is it as bad among officers who have been here for longer periods of time?

Have a nice day,

Monday, June 12, 2006 8:31:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments.

hmmm CPRC-"strong support from city residents", I don't think so. Yes it passed by a majority of those who voted.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. The fact that Measure II passed in every single precinct in every single ward in this city is ample proof that the CPRC has strong support citywide. You may disagree and you may not want to accept that truth but the proof is in in the vote. The majority of the city's voters even withstood a negative campaign sponsored by the RPOA which stated that police services could suffer if Measure II was passed by the voters.

Only those in the RPD know why the lack of retention of officers is such. I would guess that it has something to do with the change of guard, and the CPRC does not help any.

What "change of the guard" do you mean, when did it happen and what is this "guard"? Why would this "change" impact newer officers more than older ones if they are indeed the ones who are leaving? Wouldn't its impact be felt across the board?

The CPRC has been around since 2000. It is difficult to see it as a major factor in the department's ability to retain new officers if that is indeed a problem that it has been experiencing. Perhaps it would factor into the department's ability to attract new officers but probably not its retention rate.

Change can be difficult for some, for others it's a breath of fresh air. A pay raise will definately help secure retention in the RPD I think.

Not all the changes faced by employees in the department were voluntary and again, wouldn't any changes impact the officers who had been with the department for much longer than those who are newer?

A pay increase can be a good incentive to stay in an agency among other reasons but it would not be enough to remedy any serious underlying issues impacting retention if they do exist.

Have a nice day,

Monday, June 12, 2006 9:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, again, wrong on all counts, except the election. (voter apathy ruled the day, as it does in most places in the US)

-senior officers have homes in nice neighborhoods, kids in good schools, long term friendships on the police department, easy special assignments or in-active beats, enough seniority to have weekends off and 10-35's that are already established and convenient... senior officers arent going anywhere.

-junior officers went through the police academy with recruits from many different police departments. The typical academy class might have 50 officers, only maybe 3 to 5 of which might be from any one agency. These young officers stay in touch with the people that they went through the police academy with. They share experiences and information. There are hundreds of "police only" web sites, chat rooms and forums. "Insider information" gets around.

These young officers became policemen to chase crooks. Why in the world would they stay at an agency where

1. where the staffing level is blatantly unsafe.If you need help, it will be 4 to 9 minutes before help arrives. Think about that.

2. Where you are supplied with a 15 year old handheld radio that has a 5 year old service life. (the radios do not work alot of the time, in alot of places)

3. Where your lifeline (dispatch)is so overworked and understaffed that they have been on mandatory overtime (50 hour+ work weeks) for over 5 years.

4. where you are required to turn on a tape recorder every time that you stop somebody (and worry about whether or not the tape is actually recording, and worry about recording the incident number in case "the system" won't allow you to dowload the recording immediately after the stop, and worry about the number of recordings showing on the tape recorder vs. the number of incidents that you have written down on your notepad, and worry about turning the recorder off after the termination of the stop so that your private cell phone conversations dont become public record and on and on and on...)

5. Where "in car cameras" watch everywhere you go and how long you stay there.

6. Where every police car is outfitted with GPS and every supervisor and dispatcher can monitor everywhere you go, how fast or slow that you go, and how long you stay there.

7. Where there is no civil service protection. Officers are fired without justification (The Courts showed us that with the Miller Shooting) and disciplined with no "fair and equal" standard between officers.

8. Where there is no city jail, and citizens dont understand that the reason that the police "dont do anything" about the whores, prostititues, drug addicts on University Avenue, or the Transients downtown, in the Wood Streets and around the plaza, or the illegal immigrant day laborers at Madison/Indiana or any other of the "misdemeanor quality of life" issues that a city with no City Jail will EVER address.

9. Where every crime problem or neighborhood problem that arises is a "political issue" and not a "police issue."

10. A civilian review commission spending months second guessing life/death decisions made by police officers during a split second during the heat of the battle.

There are many more reasons, but I dont have the time or the energy to continue.

It makes sense that they would try to keep these young guys here by offering more money than any other city. Its really the only thing that they have to entice a young officer to stay.

Monday, June 12, 2006 1:21:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments.

Actually, I had asked questions regarding this issue. Others here had apparently made statements about what they perceived was the underlying causes of any retention issues that may be faced by the RPD. You appear to hold a different opinion than they do, which is interesting.

Actually, voter turnout wasn't that bad for the November 2004 election because presidential elections were held the same year. Measure II led from the first percentile of votes counted to the last ones, and in fact the margin of victory increased with each series of precincts that were counted that evening.

You raise some interesting points. However, it could be argued that many of the issues that you believe affect retention in the RPD might not be unique to this agency. These same issues might impact other agencies as much or more than they do the RPD. For example, if senior officers do hold professional advantages over those of less experienced officers in the RPD as you stated, would that not be the case at most other agencies as well? Wouldn't these officers in other agencies also have an edge against their younger counterparts when it comes to establishing social relationships with other officers and being chosen for better assignments based on seniority?

So why would officers leave this agency and work at another that could be facing similar difficulties? The grass might simply just appear greener on the other side of the fence. After all, has anybody done a survey to determine how many officers who lateraled out of the RPD ultimately decide to return to the agency?

I do agree that issues #1 and #2 involve officer safety, and thus should be addressed. I believe that the RPOA has reinstated its Safety Committee, according to an article the Press Enterprise ran on it several months ago. Perhaps, the current chair of this committee should take the lead in addressing these important issues if he has the time to do so.

Staffing issues should be a major priority. After all, staffing shortages also led to many of the problems including violations of state law alleged in the writ of mandamus filed in Riverside County Superior Court by the State Attorney General's office. Twenty-five new positions have been included in the city's annual budget although that is far short of what is needed to match the city's growth in the next 10 years, both in terms of acreage and population increases.

I take it from your comments you don't like either the audio or video recorders. Is it the inconvenience or the forced accountability involved with their use? After all, some police officers have stated in news articles that they used them in previous years, albeit at their own discretion.

The use of both the digital audio recorders and the video recorders was originally mandated by the stipulated judgement imposed on the police department by the State Attorney General's office in 2001. Even though that judgement was dissolved in March, officers are required to deploy each device in situations dictated by departmental policy. Both audio and video recorders are tools which greatly benefit the police officer, mainly because they can provide evidence which can be used in criminal cases as well as defend themselves in administrative investigations. The use of both devices might be more common practice in many agencies in years to come. Yet, some officers apparently still continue to view both as forms of punishment against them.

Have a nice day,

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thanks for trivializing every point that I made.

Some of us have had close personal friends killed doing the job. For me, the count is 5.

videocameras and tape recorders do nothing to help keep officers alive. At best, they document our death. Yipee! Yet another thing for my kid's friends to view on the internet for the next 10 years.

"Technology" does nothing but add to the stress level of policing.

You, someone who has no idea what you are talking about, have no idea what you are talking about. (read that paragraph ten times and see if you can interpret it)

As for retention, my point is that junior officers leave because the working conditions suck, compared to other departments. And the reality is that no officer has left, and come back, within the last five years.

Attracting new hires, and keeping the ones that you get, are two different things. All agencies in California are having trouble attracting applicants, whether they be new hires, or laterals.

My point is, that this agency is losing the ones that they get. Good agencies dont lose officers for no reason.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, when do you think police officers should use deadly force?

"Alabama Black Snake"

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:43:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thanks for insulting my mother. Actually, that might not have been you, just someone who shares your moniker because none of you can use your real names. After a while, you do all begin to sound alike so I apologize if I have confused you with one of your friends.

Your count is five. Mine is one. Also, when it comes to kids hoping that their fathers come back home alive from work, those whose parents are in law enforcement do not have exclusivity to that experience. I included this information in case you didn't know this already. Now that we have that established, you can put your defense mechanism aside and we can address some points.

As for retention, my point is that junior officers leave because the working conditions suck, compared to other departments.

How would you know this? I mean, besides from hearing second-hand as you claimed in your previous post? How do you know audio or video recorders are detrimental to your safety? Have you ever even had to use either? Not many agencies mandate the use of both at the moment.

You would probably rather be left alone to do your job(if you still have one) without any feedback from those who pay your salaries, but the RPD was allowed to do that for the past 20 or so years and look what happened to it. Granted, it didn't get to what Chief Leach called "rock bottom" on its own, because the city government certainly aided and abetted its decline and the communities didn't do their part. Ultimately, the agency was investigated by federal and state law enforcement agencies and found by the state, to have violated state laws as well as the state's Constitution. It was forced by the state to institute reforms and it's likely the federal agencies would have followed suit(as I remember how very unhappy they were) if the State hadn't beaten them to it. How many law enforcement agencies in this country have been forced to undergo wide sweeping reforms just to comply with state and/or federal law? Not that many, probably not as many as should have, but the RPD was a member of that select group.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that the relationship between the RPD and the communities it served was severely dysfunctional. Staffing was abysmal, both in terms of front-line officers and those entrusted to supervise them. The department's training either wasn't done properly or it was outdated, as was the equipment and facilities used by the police department. Personnel evaluations were not done on a regular basis. I'm sure these problems did not contribute to officer safety either, probably the opposite.

Background checks and psychological evaluations were not properly conducted during the hiring process. Lockyer was quoted at a speech he presented in San Diego as saying that psychological evaluations were not conducted by the RPD at all until after his office spent 18 months negotiating with the department to get it to do them.

Men of color had to go to the EEO for legal remedies if they wanted to have the same access to upward advancement as their White counterparts did. A female officer filed numerous grievances and a law suit alleging among other things that porn movies were being shown in roll call and female civilian employees were performing sexual favors on newer male officers. I don't know, but that sounds more like what you would find in a college fraternity house than inside a professional law enforcement agency. I think that officer finally got promoted but I do not know if that was before or after she was acquitted of criminal charges stemming from an investigation conducted by the same officers who she had filed grievances against, according to court documents filed under her law suit.

Officers told racial, sexual and sexist jokes and made similar comments during roll call sessions. By doing so, they showed how trivial they viewed the communities they were hired to serve and their concerns. Well, actually they dehumanized their residents too, and then scratched their heads when the communities became upset about it.

As far as calls for service, is it worse now than it used to be?

Officers took even longer to get to calls in the past, than they do now, if they even showed up at all. I know this is true unfortunately, and learned that it did not make much difference whether you called them at all. Waiting 30 minutes or longer for police to arrive after shots were fired was pretty much routine in those days, though once I did have to look for a police officer because no one showed up at all. If you have some time, think about that.

Then there was the poor woman who was raped in her own garage because she set off her security alarm to call for help and no one was sent to help her because she had not paid a $25 alarm permit to the city. Although, I do believe that practice was dropped soon after that but not soon enough to help her.

When it came to police chiefs, I think only the city of Rialto has gone through more of them than the RPD. It was interesting to note that just before the stipulated judgement was dissolved, the city council had to approve a five-year contract with Chief Leach, the first of its kind in at least a while. Why was that, do you think?

Numerous officers committed assaults under the color of authority including four officers in two separate incidents during a three-month period in the summer of 1997. At least one of them apparently involved officers who were supervised by the same sergeant involved in the killed Tyisha Miller shooting in 1998. One officer, Philip Graham, was mentioned in an earlier article in the Press Enterprise as being hired by the RPD in large part so he could play on its intramural football team. Not surprisingly, his employment situation did not work out although maybe it would have if instead, it had been a NFL team looking for a gridiron specialist and not a police department.

There are more things to say on this, but I do not have the time or energy to go into them at the moment.

Are those years the "good old days" that you seem to allude to, you know the time period before five years ago, which seems to the benchmark in your timeline when things went from good to where they, as you state it, suck. But if that's what you are thinking, you are probably sitting in a fairly small group that is diminishing in size all the time. Maybe that's why this site has had visits lately.

The funny thing, is that although the RPD still has a ways to go in order to be a better agency, most people will agree that it has improved since those days. I do know that it seems that police officers seem to be more enthusiastic about their jobs than they were in the 1990s, with some exceptions of course. Some of the newer ones seem to be enthusiastic too. Imagine that.

Have a nice day,

Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:23:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear "Alabama Black Snake":

As you know, that question has been asked and answered. Here is one for you.

When are you going to drop these ridiculous monikers and use your real name?

I really hope that the only job you have ever had with the RPD is one that exists only in your fantasy world.

Good Day,

Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary does not believe that an officer should ever use deadly force against a civilian. Mary's lack of police training and experience dictates this belief; therefore Mary should not dictate use of deadly force policy and precedure. Just a fact Mary.

Friday, June 16, 2006 12:30:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments.

Where did I state that I did not believe police officers should ever use lethal force against a civilian? You assume that because I have taken issue with the official finding of one of the department's 20+ shootings in the past five years that I disagree with the findings of all of them. Actually, that is not true. However, given that your adage is that you are totally for us or against us, it is logical to conclude that you do not make allowances for anything in between. Taking that reality into consideration, your reliance on a straw man argument is easier to understand.

As for dictating departmental policy and procedure, I think you are being a bit melodramatic with your statement. The department dictates its own policies in this area and on every occasion but one, it has sided with its officers who have used lethal force. Of course, the one time it did not, the chief was then "fired" by his employees not too long after disciplining the officers involved. That provided some evidence that officers seem no more interested in being second-guessed on their decisions to use lethal force by members of management in their own agency than they are by members of the public. Given that, how much training and experience a person has ultimately does not matter much in the scheme of things.

As for your belief that civilians should have nothing to say about the implementation of any of the department's policies and procedures, the days when that was a fact, as you call it, are long over. The reasons why those days are long over were stated in my responses above. One of those reasons is that when the department had been left to its own devices, the end result was that it was forced to undergo wide-sweeping reforms in order just to comply with state laws. It was one of only two police agencies in the entire country to be forced into that situation by a State Attorney General's office. Even if Bill Lockyer had declined to investigate, both the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division were conducting a similar investigation and it's very likely that they would have jointly imposed an even more stringent consent decree on the department.

Lockyer said several times and stated in his column published in the Press Enterprise after the dissolution of the stipulated judgement that there are three equal partners in the process of improving the police department. This same statement is repeated in the department's Strategic Plan which it designed and implemented to fulfill one of the mandated reforms of the Judgement. Maybe you've read it?

In case you haven't read it and don't know, those three partners are the police department, the city government and the city residents. All three must be engaged to ensure that the department becomes the best that it can be. Unfortunately, there are individuals of your ilk that believe that the other other two partners should just butt out and leave them alone to do whatever they want but that way has just proven to be too expensive in the long run. Most of us would rather not repeat this laborious, expensive exercise we just completed a major chapter of, several years down the road.

Good Day,

Saturday, June 17, 2006 8:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, you take issue if an officer takes a shit. When have you ever publicly acknowledged that an officer involved shooting was justifiable? Since when do reporters have insight to policing. Where is the accountability with the articles that you write, with your editor? Why don't you join the policing efforts that partake in daily crimefighting, and gain a perspective from a law enforcement agency. Challenge yourself to step inside of our shoes.

Saturday, June 17, 2006 8:58:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments. You remind me a bit of Anonymous #3.

No, I am not interested at all in the bodily functions of police officers. After all, I'm not the one who brought up the term, "skid marks" on this site. I believe that was one of you. Of course, the preoccupation with bodily functions is outmatched by your fascination with women's lingerie. Police issues seem to be somewhat further down your list of priorities. Could that because you know so little about them?

No offense, but I do not think I would want to step into the shoes of the individuals here, based on their behavior, whether they are law enforcement officers or not. That probably includes you. Why would I want to step inside the shoes of people who make racist, misogynist comments? The toxicity of these people probably smothers everyone else around them. Maybe it has, which is why they come here.

When I think of honest, hard-working, dedicated professional law enforcement officers, I do not think of most of the characters who have been posting here. It's too bad that you have to grab onto the coattails of the good officers including those who are deceased to justify your behavior here. This behavior is pretty much just a slap on the face to them and it is disgraceful. But what's more important, honoring them or acting out through disgusting behavior to get attention and please yourself?

"Our" shoes? What do you know about law enforcement beyond your apparent ability to quote one statistic about officer fatalities? Oh, and make lots of nasty, misogynist comments to make yourself feel less small than you probably feel most of the time.

I thought one of the reasons why you wrote such nasty posts was to cover up the fact that you know little more about this profession than the average citizen, but wanted to fit in with others posting here who appear to know far more than you do.

Btw, when you and others make racist and misogynist comments about men of color and women on this site, do you ever spend one minute considering what life is like in the shoes of the people you degrade and denigrate with your comments? Do you spend one minute putting yourself in the shoes of community members who wished that the police officers would work with them in their neighborhoods, and not consider them less than human through using such comments?

No I didn't think so.

Good Day,

Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As Jesse Jackson might say...

Mary realizes that she is past her expiration date.

So on this website,
men she does hate!

Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:50:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thanks for your comments. They sound very intelligent and that rhyme scheme you have chosen simply amplifies their brilliance even further. However, on your final draft, I would remove the exclamation point as it doesn't really add to the vitality of your piece. It's just a little bit too much.

How interesting it is to read this latest comment. Originally, individuals were posting real quotes attributed to fictional African-Americans here. Now you are attributing an imaginary quote to a real African-American. I haven't decided whether that is a step up or down in terms of the behavior shown here.

As for hating men, some day I suppose I will have to sit down and explain to some people here the difference between a real man(who has better things to do than anonymously denigrate women) and a misogynist(who has nothing else to do, but denigrate women).

Hating all men and objecting to the immature, nasty behavior of individual men on this site are the same thing only in the minds of members of the latter group who need to tell themselves that what they believe is true in order to spare their own feelings when women reject their crude overtures and bids for attention.

I'd ask you what is your opinion on the issue of retention in the RPD, but I would probably just receive another one of your ahem, literary works in return because you probably really do not know much about this or any other issue.

Good Day,

Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those good and decent hard working law enforcement officers that you speak of want nothing to do with you Mary. You make them sick. You do not speak for them, nor do they want you to.

Monday, June 19, 2006 4:16:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments. If these "good and decent hard-working" officers are truly associating with someone like you, then I seriously doubt that they are either good or decent.

No "good" officer makes racist, homophobic and misogynist comments, nor do they want to spend time with people who do, just like good people in general do not like to associate with that ilk either. Why on earth would any "good and decent" officer support or want people to use racist, homophobic and misogynist comments to defend him or her anywhere? What does that exactly say about the type of person you have appointed yourself to defend if you resort to such behavior?

Perhaps in your world, officers who make racist, misogynist and homophobic comments *are* the good guys.

One problem, among several, with your thesis statement is that some "good" officers who visited this site last autumn apparently reported the comments here to their supervisors, not because they wanted promotions or special assignments(as was claimed here) but more likely because they were offended by what they read and did not wish to be associated with anyone who would make such offensive comments. By doing so, they essentially broke the "code of silence" which is probably one reason why "Asti Spamanti" derided them as "tattlers" in one of his comments. You no doubt would have a few choice words for them also.

I do not speak for "them" and never said that I did. I would not presume to do so. However, that is exactly what you are trying to do or so you claim. I seriously doubt that you speak for anyone, but yourself. I also have serious doubts about your ability to pass a psychological evaluation that is required to become an officer yourself, based on your behavior here. If I am correct in that assumption, then your earlier claim, via your "challenge", to be one of them is either a delusion on your part or a fabrication. This corner of the world can breathe a bit easier if that's true.

The irony is, if the "good and decent" officers are or were truly aware that you were attempting to speak for them, I really believe they would be the ones who would feel sick.

Good Day,

Monday, June 19, 2006 6:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“In our culture, when women say ‘No,’ they mean ‘Yes’ unless it’s a prostitute.”

Sunday, June 25, 2006 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments. I see that you are not willing to answer the following questions except to resort to this defense mechanism that you keep using of late instead. Most people will see it for what it is, but that probably doesn't include people from your crowd.

Here are the questions:

Why on earth would any "good and decent" officer support or want people to use racist, homophobic and misogynist comments to defend him or her anywhere? What does that exactly say about the type of person you have appointed yourself to defend if you resort to such behavior?

As to your comments,

“In our culture, when women say ‘No,’ they mean ‘Yes’ unless it’s a prostitute.”

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon belief among many men living in an assortment of patriarchy-based cultures around the world. Of course, prostitutes are not provided with even an exemption from rape within many cultures including ours and even within some male-dominated professions. I believe that is why we read as many accounts of correctional and law enforcement officers who sexually abuse prostitutes in the newspapers as we do. Some men in these professions obviously do not even give a prostitute the option of saying "no" at all.

I've heard different versions of these comments before. I think every woman has at some point and it's fairly old rhetoric that has been around for a long time, as long as sexism itself.

That said, my, you are feeling defensive today because that's when the jokes come into play, after all. Perhaps you believe that because a leader of an African nation thousands of miles away makes a misogynist comment, it provides you with a moral defense for backing individuals who have made racist, homophobic and misogynist comments here. This assertion is dubious, ignorant and weak, at best. After all, you probably thought it was just great and so much fun when your buddies here made statements about sick rape fantasies and other misogynist comments on this site. It probably gave you something to bond over.

Consequently, it appears that your concern about misogyny doesn't extend to White men from this culture. It's just a means to an end.

And like I have said, I really hope you are just a civilian, not a police officer.

Good Day,

Sunday, June 25, 2006 2:09:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older