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

Contact: fivebeforemidnight@yahoo.com

My Photo
Name:
Location: RiverCity, Inland Empire

Monday, May 08, 2006

Will What Goes Up, Come Down?

In the April 22 edition of the Press Enterprise, ran an article asking why the number of citizen complaints received by the Community Police Review Commission had increased 42% in 2005. During 2004, the CPRC had received only 90 complaints, compared to 128 in 2005.


Commission members including former chair, Michael Gardner appeared mystified as to why the CPRC received the highest number of complaints in a single year, since 2002.


One possible reason mentioned by some individuals is that the CPRC had increased its public outreach in 2005, in terms of educating city residents on its roles, responsibilities and most of all, its existence. That makes some sense, because that might indicate that a bigger pool of potential complainants might have been tapped into by the extended outreach.


Gardner appeared to reject that contention in the news article.


"The outreach effort is not intended to fish for complaints," he said.


Okay, that might not have been its intent but that might be its result.


Another possible factor could have been the increased publicity the CPRC received in 2004 which resulted from the passage of Measure II. This measure was created by members of the Charter Review Committee to place the beleaguered commission in the city's charter safely out of the reach of city council members financially backed by the Riverside Police Officers Association's Political Action Committee. In November 2004, 60% of the city's voters spoke loudly and passed Measure II in every precinct in every ward in the city. After that, the city council members backed off and pledged to support it as long as it existed in order to respect the wishes of their voting constituents.


These two explanations are possibilities. There is also another that no one seems eager to suggest, at least not out loud.


That possible explanation to offer up is that allegations of misconduct increased for 2005, because there are continued problems in a police department that has struggled to recreate itself since the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998. The fact that sustain rates at least on the CPRC side have increased as well suggests that the department continues to struggle with issues. It will become more apparent if this is indeed the cause if the trend continues in 2006 and beyond. If it does not, then this past year may have been an aberration


The new RPD is a much younger work force with an average age of 24 and three years of experience. Even the sergeants who supervise these officers skew on the young side, due largely to retirements at this level and higher in the past year or so, according to department representatives. Less experienced officers may be more likely to make mistakes involving policies. It is critical that they are properly supervised by experienced sergeants out in the field. It is also important that the department's field training officers are experienced and teach them the new way to do business rather than relying on old patterns.


The racial trends involving those who file complaints continues as it has in past years.


Over 20% of complaints were filed by African-Americans, which is over twice their representation in the city's population. Latino complainants filed 23% of all complaints, Whites, 30 % and Asian-Americans, less than 1%. About 23% of all complaints were filed by people of unknown ethnicity.


An area that continues to concern community members involves the use of excessive force. After all, that is one of the main issues that brought the commission into existence.


The CPRC received 20 allegations of excessive force, a number also nearly double that received in previous years. None of these allegations were sustained, but seven of them received a "not sustained" finding which is assigned when there is not enough evidence presented to make a decision one way or another. It is not clear how many of these allegations were sustained or given a "not sustained" finding from the police department, because it does not circulate its own statistics to members of the public, despite provisions in PC 832.7 that allow it to do so.


The CPRC last sustained an excessive force allegation in October 2004, involving the case of a young Black man who was approached by an officer while he was in his car at Bordwell Park. Both the police department and the city manager's office decided that the allegation was unfounded.


A report submitted to the State Attorney General's office stated that there was one excessive force incident in 2005 and one in 2004, but that there were still investigations pending for incidents in 2005.


In 2005, complaints spiked up higher earlier in the year, leveled off and slightly decreased in the summer, then spiked up again in the autumn to the levels it had hit earlier in the year. This trend caught the attention of many community members off guard especially because it occurred at the tail end of the police department's five year stipulated judgment with the state attorney general's office. Still, only the CPRC commissioners publicly questioned it.


Rising up with the number of complaints was the number of those sustained by the CPRC. Without statistics from the department's Internal Affairs Division, it is unclear whether its trend in this area matched that of the CPRC.


The sustain rate for complaints hit an all-time high of 19%. That was nearly double the rate calculated for 2004, which was 10%. It had hovered between 10% and 13% the last three years.


Interestingly enough, for the first time, there were allegations of criminal conduct sustained by the CPRC. In 2005, the CPRC sustained six allegations of criminal conduct and also sustained two allegations of false reporting(if it involves falsifying a police report, that's a felony under the penal code in most jurisdictions).


The article stated that criminal allegations involving two officers who allegedly planted evidence in the same case were sustained. It is not clear whether or not the department sustained the allegations as well, but the involved officers are no longer with the police department. The Riverside County District Attorney's office declined to file criminal charges against them, which reveals very little about the veracity of the charges because they rarely file criminal charges of any kind against RPD officers.


It is also not clear whether the officers were fired, pressured to resign in lieu of termination or they simply lateraled to other agencies. It appears clear that they are longer at this department.


What is disturbing about this incident besides the obvious is whether these allegations of evidence planting would have ever come to light if a citizen possibly the victim had not filed a complaint with the CPRC. One would think that if there were officers possibly engaged in such egregious misconduct that a supervising sergeant would have caught it, or a lieutenant, or either the field operations or investigations captain. However, if that had been the case, then one of these individuals would have initiated an internal investigation of the alleged misconduct. Did this happen? Or did it take a citizen filing a complaint before something was done about a very serious situation?


More importantly, if any evidence did emerge to sustain the complaint, did the Internal Affairs Division initiate its own inquiry into prior cases these officers were involved with to ensure that there was no evidence planting or tampering in those cases? Fruit from a tainted tree would be bad enough, but perhaps they should check all of it, perhaps even check the whole orchard. Due to this state's stringent confidentiality laws pertaining to peace officers' records, these questions can never be answered, publicly, which does little to alleviate concern. Any incident of evidence planting or tampering has the potential to taint the entire department.


The answer to the above questions must only be one thing. Of course they did, immediately! Any ethical, responsible law enforcement agency would take this mandatory and precautionary step without hesitation. After all, it's one thing for one officer to plant evidence on his own which is abhorrent enough, but for two of them to apparently collude and conspire together on the same case? How did they ever find each other?


"Traffic" violations constituted two other criminal inquiries launched by the department. One of them involved an unidentified officer who was charged by another LE agency, for drinking and driving, which is a much more serious charge than true traffic violations such as running a stop sign.


There was an officer, Melissa Wagner Brazil, who was arrested and charged with drunk driving and hit and run, both misdemeanors, after she was involved in an accident in Corona in 2004. She plead guilty in February 2005 and was sentenced to several years probation and ordered to enroll in a "first time offenders" drunk driving program. Ironically, Brazil had been given an award from M.A.D.D. for her record of arresting people driving drunk.


It is not clear if she is the DUI case that was included in the 2005 caseload.


A former officer, Chris Gaspard, was arrested by the Riverside Police Department for reckless driving in 2004 and charged by the D.A.'s office for that offense as well as evading a police officer. No doubt, Gaspard has arrested and perhaps even used force against individuals who have evaded arrest in his presence on the job. He eventually plead guilty a year after he was charged to the reckless driving charge, and received one year probation and agreed not to drive with a license, a fairly light sentence.


Two other unidentified officers apparently had used a police database which tracks criminal and driving records, for their own personal use. According to many newspaper accounts, this is a nationwide problem faced by numerous LE agencies.


Top 10 Abuses of Police Databases


Police Abuse of Databases A Problem


One officer was allegedly running a search on his own name, the reason why was not disclosed by the police department, which meant the other officer was probably doing a search on someone else's name. It was not clear whether these officers also "left" the department, stayed or were terminated. Certainly, in the case of the officer looking up another person's name, termination is the only responsible action. Ethical, honest and professional officers do not commit violations involving professional databases and officers who lack these qualities display these deficiencies in other areas of the job. This could be a sign of trouble elsewhere on the job.


The department declined to pursue criminal charges in either case, deciding the incidents were not serious enough to merit them. Most likely, it was not other employees in the agency whose names were entered into a search in the police database.


Complaints against police rise

39 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will what goes up, cum down? Would Mary/goddess/radfem know the answer to this question when she prefers the same sex?

Monday, May 08, 2006 3:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mary;

Let me get this straight.

Five years of consent decree and twenty million dollars equals no quantifiable change in the attitudes/practices of the patrol bureau of the Riverside Police Department?

If this is so, then my question to you, Mary, would be, which has failed? The cause (consent decree/barrel of money) or the effect (mentality of RPD patrol officers)?

I have been led to believe that the average age of the typical RPD patrol officer is 24, and his experience is three years. Further investigation reveals that nearly a third of the 115 police officers in patrol are "lateral officers", that is, they have come to the RPD from other police departments. These numbers, combined with a great number of police retirements, promotions and officers "lateraling" to other departments (7 officers within the last 6 months have left the RPD patrol bureau to go to other police departments) reveal that the RPD patrol bureau has been completey purged of the "element" that existed in the RPD patrol bureau five years ago, at the onset of the consent decree.

If all of this is true, then it would seem that the attitudes/practices which permeate the RPD patrol bureau may be the same attitudes/practices which permeate society at large (newly officers are recruited from the general population) and which permeate other police departments (lateral officers come from other police departments).

The answer, Mary, is exactly this. Your expectations are far too high.

Police officers are people. Regular people. With mortgages, car payments, toddlers who wake up in the middle of the night with a fever and teenagers who get in trouble at school.

Police officers, generally, are not degreed, certificated professionals, although some may be.

Police officers are hourly employees, no different than the UAW worker who screws bumpers on Pontiacs in Flint, Michigan. They care about pay, retirement and medical/dental benefits, just like the union guy back east. No more, no less.

Police work is a meaningless, physically and psychologically draining, 40 hour a week, stress inducing job in which the only redeeming payoff is the CALPERS retirement, should the officer survive the rigor until he reaches the age of 50.

I said all of that to say this.

Mary, there is no rascist, evil, boogieman, police officer on the RPD who doesn't also exist in the boat next to you at the Colorado River, in the isle next to you at the motorcycle parts store, or in the seat behind you at the Angels game. The typical RPD patrol officer is representative of law enforcement at large, and of society at large. The typical RPD officer is a victim of his experiences, just like the rest of us are. To expect anything else is idiocy.

Organizations, such as the RPD, implement policies/procedures to best guide/control employees so that the greatest amount of productivity can be extracted from that employee with the least amount of inefficiency and with the least amount of liability, within reason. There is always a risk/benefit paradigm to adjust for.

As such, the RPD's policies/procedures do not deviate, with significance, from that of any other police department within the 9th circuit court of appeals. The City of Riverside office of the city attorney and/or risk management would not allow it.

Lets face it Mary. Fifty more years of consent decree, nor one hundred million dollars of "reform", will change the RPD, because you will never be able to change the core ingredient. Humans contaminated by the human experience.


Innocent Bystander.

Monday, May 08, 2006 9:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BACK THE BADGE!

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:31:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Innocent Bystander:

Thank you for your comments, and thank you for being civil. I remember your prior comments about the middle-class being so apathetic that they were more concerned about whether or not their soccer match was rained out, rather than what their police department was doing.

Let me get this straight. Five years of consent decree and twenty million dollars equals no quantifiable change in the attitudes/practices of the patrol bureau of the Riverside Police Department? If this is so, then my question to you, Mary, would be, which has failed? The cause (consent decree/barrel of money) or the effect (mentality of RPD patrol officers)?

Did I say the stipulated judgment and all the money spent implementing it was a failure? Simply because unlike you, I do not believe that the work of reforming the police department is done, does not cause me to believe that it was a failure. Attorney General Bill Lockyer said himself that it was a beginning of a long process, rather than the culmination of one. Is it true that my expectations are too high? I don't think so. Maybe the problem is that the expectations of others are too low. I have high expectations because I believe that the department is more than capable of meeting them. I question why it is others, who believe that the department that is in place now is at its highest level of operation. There are employees of the department who seem to agree, according to statements they have made in public. You really must not think much of the employees that you are defending.

I have been led to believe that the average age of the typical RPD patrol officer is 24, and his experience is three years. Further investigation reveals that nearly a third of the 115 police officers in patrol are "lateral officers", that is, they have come to the RPD from other police departments. These numbers, combined with a great number of police retirements, promotions and officers "lateraling" to other departments (7 officers within the last 6 months have left the RPD patrol bureau to go to other police departments) reveal that the RPD patrol bureau has been completey purged of the "element" that existed in the RPD patrol bureau five years ago, at the onset of the consent decree.

As to the information that was provided about the average age of RPD officers, it was that dispensed by employees in the department including Chief Russ Leach on several occasions. In Joe Brann's final report to Lockyer(which I'm sure you read), he also commented on the young age and experience levels of the department's officers as well as those of the immediate supervisors. That was why he also stated that it was important to have experienced supervisors in the field. It is true that there is an influx of lateral officers in the department but the vast majority of new hires in the past several years have come from the academies. The turnover in the department has been at least 80%, so it is true that many of the pre-Tyisha Miller officers are no longer employed by the department including those in upper management. But has the department been purged of its "element"? The answer would most likely no. It takes much more time to do that than five years. There are still corners in the department where this "element" is welcomed, even supported. That much is clear. Then there are places where they do not appear to be as welcome.

If all of this is true, then it would seem that the attitudes/practices which permeate the RPD patrol bureau may be the same attitudes/practices which permeate society at large (newly officers are recruited from the general population) and which permeate other police departments (lateral officers come from other police departments).

There is truth to this statement. That is why great care is taken when screening candidates both at the entry level and those lateraling from other agencies. A process which has just recently been abbreviated by the way. That is why physical exams, background checks and psychological evaluations are given to prospective hires.

Are officers recruited from the "general population"? It seems that more energy is spent recruiting from certain pools than others. Pools that tend to include more White men. Only recently, have agencies expanded their recruitment to pools which are more likely to include men of color and women of all races.

After all, only 3% of the officers hired last year were female. Do you believe that is the best it can be?

Police officers are people. Regular people. With mortgages, car payments, toddlers who wake up in the middle of the night with a fever and teenagers who get in trouble at school.

Police officers, generally, are not degreed, certificated professionals, although some may be.

Police officers are hourly employees, no different than the UAW worker who screws bumpers on Pontiacs in Flint, Michigan. They care about pay, retirement and medical/dental benefits, just like the union guy back east. No more, no less.

Police work is a meaningless, physically and psychologically draining, 40 hour a week, stress inducing job in which the only redeeming payoff is the CALPERS retirement, should the officer survive the rigor until he reaches the age of 50.


Police are human beings? Of course they are. Unlike some of us who are "freaks", "village idiots" "nits" and other creatures.

UAW workers do not carry guns. They do not have the right to take a human life or to take someone into their custody, using force. The two sets of employees may share some similarities but also some very important fundamental differences. Btw, it was a UAW employee who explained the differences to me.

Mary, there is no rascist, evil, boogieman, police officer on the RPD who doesn't also exist in the boat next to you at the Colorado River, in the isle next to you at the motorcycle parts store, or in the seat behind you at the Angels game. The typical RPD patrol officer is representative of law enforcement at large, and of society at large. The typical RPD officer is a victim of his experiences, just like the rest of us are. To expect anything else is idiocy.

I don't believe in the bogeyman, do you? I do believe there are officers who are racist and sexist and in your comments you appear to agree.

So simply because there is racism and sexism in greater society, we should expect to see it in law enforcement and that should be condoned? Racist jokes, sexist jokes, homophobic jokes and comments are okay? There is a difference between a racist police officer in the RPD and a person in a boat, or in a motorcycle store. The officer has a much greater impact in the lives of those he or she encounters and this is most particularly true for men and women of color. They can have a more positive impact than the man in the boat(assuming he is not an officer)or a negative impact.

Lets face it Mary. Fifty more years of consent decree, nor one hundred million dollars of "reform", will change the RPD, because you will never be able to change the core ingredient. Humans contaminated by the human experience.


Sounds here like you are the one who is stating that it was a failure.


Thanks, btw for those jousting poles that you gave me. They have been put to use.

Have a nice day,

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:31:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thanks for the brevity of your comments and thank you for refraining from making any more sexual remarks. They were disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself for behaving in that manner.

Good day,

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mary;

In a word, Yes. Yes to everything.

Yes the consent decree was a failure.
Yes a horrible amount of money was wasted and continues to be wasted.
Yes police officers have rascist, discriminatory, homophobic, sexist thoughts.
Yes your expectations are too high.
Yes the RPD mirrors every other police department.
Yes the typical RPD officer mirrors the typical officer at every other police department.
Yes police officers generally possess every negative personality trait found in the general population.
Yes, yes, yes.

I check in on this site every few months. I give you an A for tenacity and an F for effectiveness.
Do you not realize that these people are laughing at you?

Mary, you continue your diatribe against the entire RPD, when in reality your gripe is specifically against members of the patrol bureau. I have never once seen you complain about the detectives, the helicopter crew, SWAT/Metro, Traffic, or any other specific section/detail.

Assuming that the RPD is 375 sworn officers, and only 115 are actually in patrol, that narrows it down quite a bit, doesn't it?
Using your own number, that the department has experienced an 80% turnover in the last five years, we would agree that only 23 officers out of the 115 in patrol are "left over" from the pre-consent decree days.

You would have me believe that these 23 officers are the source of your discontent???

You have it all wrong, Mary.

The reality is this. 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. These officers, new hires fresh out of the police academy, and lateral officers from other police departments, have all passed the oral interviews, the psychological tests, the polygraph test, and the background investigation. They have clean criminal histories, perfect consumer credit, and survived what can only be described as a very rigorous hiring process. These "new hires" were the best of the best.

It is impossible for you to admit that these officers were very qualified at the time that they were hired, and although they are now "evil" because of what they think and how they feel, are still very qualified. As qualified as despicable humans can be.

How is it that you cannot understand that police officers, like all of us, are victims of their experience. I am not going to state the gender or ethnicity, but did you know that over one half of all drunk driving arrests in California belong to a specific ethnicity and specific gender? OVER HALF! You would be SHOCKED to hear words uttered by California Highway Patrol officers when they comment about this specific segment of society which is responsible for such a disproportionate number of drunk driving arrests, accidents and deaths. Guess what, Mary, those CHP officers formed thier opinions/thoughts based on thier own personal experiences. Are they now "evil"?

Your agenda is clear, Mary. You would advocate law enforcement hiring based on sex and race. You are convinced that sex and race based hiring would cure the ills of law enforcement. You have the right to that opinion.

I just think that it is laughable that when others disagee with you and other liberals like you, and they curse the day that you were expelled from your mother's filthy uterus, you would seek to abridge their First Amendment Right and would even complain to their employer, in an effort to censor them.

So much for the free exchange of thought and ideas and the furtherance of public discourse for the common good.

Mary, you are a disgrace to true liberals.

I will waste no more of my time reading this blog.

Innocent Bystander

Tuesday, May 09, 2006 2:39:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Innocent Bystander:

Your comments are very interesting. Since I doubt you have left this site, I'm sure you will be around to read my response.

In a word, Yes. Yes to everything.

Yes the consent decree was a failure.
Yes a horrible amount of money was wasted and continues to be wasted.
Yes police officers have rascist, discriminatory, homophobic, sexist thoughts.
Yes your expectations are too high.
Yes the RPD mirrors every other police department.
Yes the typical RPD officer mirrors the typical officer at every other police department.
Yes police officers generally possess every negative personality trait found in the general population.
Yes, yes, yes.


Are you answering for yourself or speaking for me?

I check in on this site every few months. I give you an A for tenacity and an F for effectiveness.
Do you not realize that these people are laughing at you?


Who are they? I'm sure they are laughing at what they are writing whomever they are because they think it's funny to disparage people. It speaks volumes about yourself to see you here speaking on their behalf.

Who used the word "evil" here? You did, so you should probably remove the quotation remarks and hang a sign around your words that reads, straw man.

Your agenda is clear, Mary. You would advocate law enforcement hiring based on sex and race. You are convinced that sex and race based hiring would cure the ills of law enforcement. You have the right to that opinion.

Another straw man.


just think that it is laughable that when others disagee with you and other liberals like you, and they curse the day that you were expelled from your mother's filthy uterus, you would seek to abridge their First Amendment Right and would even complain to their employer, in an effort to censor them.

So much for the free exchange of thought and ideas and the furtherance of public discourse for the common good.

Mary, you are a disgrace to true liberals.

I will waste no more of my time reading this blog.


Okay. I liked it better when you were pretending to be civil rather than making a disparaging comment about my mother. You can go now. Please do not slam the door on the way out.

Have a nice day, "Innocent Bystander"

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mary, when do you think it is appropriate for officers to use deadly force? How many weeks has it been since this question was first asked, yet you refuse to answer it. All the talk about officer involved shootings and alleged excessive force by RPD officers, yet, nothing in terms of a response. However, someone makes fun of your granny panties and you take it to the front steps of City Hall. You know what I think? I think you want to answer the question but your afraid to, because you might say something that could support an officer's decision to use deadly force, and you might end up distancing yourself from the likes of "Mother Africa," I mean "Sister Cornbread," or whatever her name is. And then there's always Sandalou. Mary, you can't be a credible anti-police protestor if your going to close ranks with someone who does their grocery shopping at Western Liquor. Mary, as has been suggested before, if you really want to get to the heart of the problems at this Dept, look no further than the very top. But for some reason, you will not challenge the hierarchy of the Dept. You mention officers who use deadly force and allege excessive force, you talk about officers who were arrested and convicted for off-duty crimes (all white officers by the way), yet, no mention of the Chief being the subject of a Domestic Violence investigation while at a police function in another county. I wonder why? No mention of a black officer that was the subject of what appears to be a Dept. cover-up related to an incident at a bank (Charles-211)- ring a bell? And what about the credibility of a Dept. that has a Chief, Deputy Chief, Commander, and an inordinant amount of Captains and Lieutenants, yet, the city still feels the need to hire an outside monitor to make sure the Dept. is complying with its' own policies. Is this to suggest that the City does not have any confidence in the Dept's leadership? What about the millions of dollars that have been wasted building a police station that was supposed to be completed over two years ago? Where's the accountability? Is this the problem of the RPD patrol bureau and the officers who make $70,000 a year or is the problem maybe a little higher with guys making $160 to $200,000 a year (with take home cars, city credit cards, and all-you-can-play golf passes). Now, I know your going to side-step these questions because you always do, but I prefer it, because it shows the lack of credibility you have, not only as a "reporter" and "activist" but as a proponent of interracial, rock cocaine smoking lesbians.

"He who smoketh the fattest rock will get the biggest high."---Rick James...

And I'm out!

Asti

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The truth is that Mary cannot and will not answer the question to " When is it appropriate for an officer to use deadly force ".
The answer is that Mary is a radical feminest anti-death penalty proponent. Therefore her answer would be, Never is it appropriate for an officer to use deadly force. Mary would not send the worst serial child-molesting murderer to the death penalty because she is against people killing people. Mary could never become an officer because she would let her partner get shot to death by a crazed mental patient rather than using deadly force on the suspect. Mary has 0 credibility as an activist and a reporter. To believe Mary, we should hire more minorities in every job classification, and yet it is these same people who are laughing at Mary. Wake up Mary and get a real job like most of us. You surely do not live in reality.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary it is clear to all that you dislike men. You should be ashamed of yourself for this. Men and Women risk their lives to protect the likes of you from predators. men and women Firefighters risk their lives daily, men and women risk their lives daily fighting in Iraq so that you can have free speech. You always talk about men beating, raping, and hating, women; but you never mention the men who daily save womens lives and would go out of their way to sacrifice love and cherish their women. It exists. Probably not for you, but can you blame those men when you hate them so much. You have a demented mind. Millons of women do not agree with your negative attitude toward men. There are men who love their wives and wives who love their husbands. You and your feminist movement told women that they did'nt need a man in their lives, no, they wanted them in their lives. Fathers are important to their kids. You should feel shamed about the lies you tell. Men this and men that, get some therapy already girl will ya. And by the way, it was a female who works in City Hall that refered to you as the village idiot. Guess who!

Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:46:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you(as always) for your illuminating insights into the female mind. Of course men love women. I've known men like that myself and have felt cherished and loved by them. I do not include you or your buddy, Asti in that group. You both just don't cut it and your behavior here provides lengthy evidence to that fact. Yet you defend your actions by hiding behind men who do cut it including those who have died which is pretty despicable in my opinion.

Well, here's a homework assignment for you. Why don't you go out on a public street, walk up to strange women and use the same language with them there that you and others have used with me here. Note their responses to your words. Rationalize their revulsion at your actions by claiming they are either asexual or a lesbian or both(if that is even possible) which is what men like you(not men in general)do. My guess, is that based on the logic that you have used here, you would then state that the number of heterosexual women would have decreased greatly in the previous 24 hours. We both know how impossible that would be.

Millions of women do not like strange men talking to them in such a crude and sexual matter. Try this and you will see. Oh wait, maybe you already have! Maybe that's why you are hanging out on sites harassing women in the first place whoever you may be.

What you have done is the equivalent to a man who grabs his crotch on the street and says, can you help me with this. The woman shrieks in revulsion or maybe just looks disgusted and the man of course, assumes that she's either asexual or a lesbian. The reason he does this is because the only alternative is that she simply finds him and his actions disgusting. He also really knows but can not accept the fact that this woman does not fault men who know how to conduct themselves properly around women. Next comes the sweeping statements about "all men" and "REAL women" to prop up his ego like we've seen here. Real men do not say disparaging comments to women EVER. It's just not part of their mindset to do so.

What is there to guess? Actually no, I do not believe that comment was written by a female employee at City Hall. I believe it was probably you who wrote that comment. I could be wrong, but you and this ahem, female City Hall employee share a few quirks.

If you are a police officer(and as always, I hope you are not), you should be ashamed of yourself for hiding behind the bravery of others(including women) to justify your crude, disgusting, sexist language here. Members of my own family died fighting in our nation's wars so you could enjoy this right to free speech even if you choose to squander it in such a disgusting, disgraceful manner. You are not really doing it much justice, are you?

Firefighters risk their lives daily, men and women risk their lives daily fighting in Iraq so that you can have free speech.

Hmm. Where have I heard this line before? Well sort of anyway.

Have a nice day,


P.S. Do you always come running when Asti calls? Tou two really are peas in a pod.

Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:50:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Asti:

Thank you for your comments. As always, they are very enlightening and you have such a flair for the dramatic. I see you are playing the how-many-ways-can-I-denigrate-African-Americans game again. You must have spent hours coming up with your new names for them. Sister Cornbread? My, my, did you learn that one at your week long stint in cultural diversity training?

Thank you for your insights into the continuing conflict between RPD management and labor. I find it very interesting how quickly you picked up on the line of conversation began by "Innocent Bystander". Do you agree with his assertions that it is the younger officers who are causing so many problems in this department? Do you agree that it is the public's fault when officers engage in racist and sexist actions, including here if that is what is happening? You appear to be taking great measures to present yourself as an expert in this area so your analysis of "Innocent Bystander"s thesis would be most appreciated.

Your question has been asked and answered. I still have not received a response on my question regarding the taser dart. Maybe I should ask Anonymous, purportedly from City Hall instead? Of course, he would have to drop the sexist and sexual language that he has chosen as his personal security blanket as of late.

Your homework assignment is to help "Anonymous" with his own assignment. Unless I am wrong, I do think this is one that you would excel at as well.

Have a nice day,

Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dearest mary wallflower, you simply do not uderstand the dynamics between the sexes. I understand why. Millions of women are turned on by crude and sexual comments in the right platform, but of course, you would not know that you frustrated old maid you. I never denegrate women, and I do not consider you one. You are a wallfly who gets turned on by talking about police misconduct at city hall meetings. You are a wallflower that when most people are making love on a saturday night, You receive your orgasms by conducting late night background checks on cops. Go right ahead and spend your life hoping to break the next police scandal. With your prestigious reporting resume that shall never happen. P.S., What makes you think that innocent bystander is a male?

Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again Mary, you have done a terrible job at deflecting the questions that are asked of you. I'm not interested in helping anyone with homework assignments and as for the "taser dart," what would you like me to answer about that? I'm not an expert on taser darts but I will do my best.
Regarding my denigration of blacks, why do you feel that way? Since when did the term "mother Africa" or "sister cornbread" become the "N" word of the 21st century. Why is it okay for you to pool all male white RPd officers together as racists? Why is it okay for you to try to embarrass officers who have made a mistake while off-duy. You call out Melissa Brazil because whe was arrested for DUI. What's the purpose of naming her? Are you trying to humiliate her? And then you mock the irony of her having been given an award from MADD for all of her efforts in fighting drunk drivers. You have a lot of nerve. She made a mistake, she was punished for it, and she's moving on. But you know what? It does not change that fact that maybe she saved a few lives with her efforts against drunk driving and maybe that life could have been yours. Should she stop arresting drunk drivers because she made a mistake? What about Ryan Wilson and Terry Ellofson? Real quick to throw them down but real slow to come up with an answer for what they should have done instead. You amaze me. Your like a little kid. Can you please answer the question one more time? WHEN DO YOU THINK OFFICERS SHOULD USE DEADLY FORCE???? Answer the question since you seem to have all of the answers (except for some taser dart question). Don't go talking about other officers and what you think are bad or "racist" decisions in using deadly force and not come up with an answer of your own. 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."

With reference to comments about lesbians and woman, These comments are not directied towards all woman, or all African Americans or all lesbians. They're directed at you!

And if other people don't like it or take offense to it, than I really don't give a "f--k."

I've also decided to discontinue my dialogue on this site. Not because some administrator wants to dictate what I do from my living room at home on my own time but because I'm giving you and this site too much credibility by participating in these back and forths. Sandalou, put down your St. Ides and stop biting into your waffles for a minute and give me a big hug because this it it.

Mary, everytime you go to city hall and cry in front of the council about your stain infested granny panties, my smile will get that much bigger so keep it up. Well Five Before Midnight, it looks like the clock stikes twelve....Ding Dong, ding dong, ding dong!

Asti Spamanti

Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:26:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

You have provided more graphic sexual comments, what else is to be expected?

Millions of women are turned on by crude and sexual comments in the right platform.

This is true for many women, in the right platform. Your comments and those of others here were not in the right platform nor were they appropriate. Do you understand? I doubt it. It's probably too late at this juncture in time.

Of course it's difficult to tell whether you do understand or you do not, because your response is always the same. You simply write more sexual comments, the kind that are made by men who never move past their adolescent years to become emotionally mature adults. Then you hide behind the bravery of law enforcement officers, fire fighters and members of the military to justify your crude, disgusting comments.

Oh, and then there's the "real" women argument to fall back on when you need it.

I never denegrate women, and I do not consider you one.

That's awfully convenient. An excuse that allows you to feel justified in your mind in terms of engaging in sexist and misogynist behavior towards a woman. Men like yourself often repeat this line as justification for their actions. Men who don't, usually don't engage in this behavior in the first place. They do not share this same need to categorize women into two groups, ones that are to be denigrated and others that are exceptions to that rule. That's for men like you to do.

It's very unfortunate that I am the one who has to explain to you how wrong your behavior was and is. It is really not my responsibility to do so but it appears that whoever should have made this clear to you has failed to do so.

That said, I really have no interest in hearing more about your sex life. Especially not while I'm eating.

And no, I'm not surprised that you all seem to know each other here. Birds of a feather tend to flock together.

Friday, May 12, 2006 8:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary said,

"Members of my own family died fighting in our nation's wars so you could enjoy this right to free speech even if you choose to squander it in such a disgusting, disgraceful manner."

I agree with what the other guy said about Mary not being a true liberal because she really doesn't believe in free speech for others (real or make believe police officers who post on this site).

Its pretty weak that she tried to use the newspaper as a means to "shut up" these officers (if they were really officers)instead of "shutting them up" through a word debate.

She is like the Republican Congress who complain about illegal immigration in public but keep the borders open so that businesses can have almost unlimited pseudo-slave labor. This is sickening.

The Mary lady only believes in free speech for everyone who agrees with her! I read the newspaper article where the police department bosses said that they were "going to get" the officers who wrote bad things on this site.(that's why I came to this site)

The funny thing is that can't the police department be sued if they fire officers who use free speech? Its the First Amendment, right? And I have read that all of the officers that were fired in the other shooting inside the car, won in court, right? So maybe the police department might lose again if they fire officers who are United States Citizens and use the First Amendment? And wouldnt that cost the taxpayers alot of money?

And the Mary lady should tell us when a police officer should shoot somebody. I think the police officers should kill anyone who is trying to kill them, or who is trying to kill me or who is trying to kill some other regular person.

(And I really think that the police officers should shoot anyone who spray paints on walls but I can't really say that, only think it, because if I say it, then the Mary lady might write a newspaper article about me to shut me up... :)

Call me,
Free Thinker
Keep Hope Alive!

Friday, May 12, 2006 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear "Free Thinker":

Why don't I just call you, "Anonymous?" Or better yet, "Innocent Bystander"? Your posting has elements of both, stylistically with "Anonymous", but there's a shared quirk between yours and "Innocent Bystander". I bet you know what that is. :)

However, your posting has given me some hope. I am beginning to doubt you are a law enforcement officer at all, let alone from the RPD. If this is true, then it's reason to be happy. I'm beginning to think what you are is a seriously misguided individual who thinks he or she is doing the right thing by defending the profession, because you know or think you know at least one individual, well maybe two, from the RPD who may have posted there in the past or present. It probably makes you giddy inside thinking you are fighting the good fight each time you push that "post" button, usually after a summons from "Asti". You two have been showing up in tandem, doing some kind of bizarre 2-step for the past week or so. Who knows maybe posting the sexual comments is a turn on for you as well, because something is missing from your own life? There is such a thing as protesting too much, after all, i.e. feeling the incessant need to tell a perfect stranger how you spend your Saturday evenings.

Pretty juvenile and sick stuff if you ask me. But I guess everyone has to have a hobby. Next time, I think you should pick more wisely, both your hobby and the buddies you hang with. Hey, "Asti" and even "B. Fife" are no longer around, why are you still here? Oh, yeah, you have to fight the good fight.

What can I say? Most people support law enforcement by donating their free time as volunteers, working charity events or working in neighborhood watch. I guess you show up on the Internet and write disgusting, profane posts of course without ever leaving your real name because that would at least show some guts and you are just a coward at heart. Well, maybe they give out plaques for that kind of thing, though probably not at City Hall.

Maybe you really are a city employee although most employees at City Hall work during the day and you have posted your comments during the day, nearly every day. I know many female city employees and they are the epitome of professionalism and decorum. You clearly lack both qualities. None of the ones I have personally met are even capable of spewing out the garbage that you have during the past week. So if you are a city employee, it's highly unlikely we've ever met, which I am grateful for by the way. I'm sure others around you wish they could share that feeling. Well, maybe not your buddies, but they are probably just using you anyway.

If you are female, you certainly have not shown yourself to be the finest example of our gender have you? Women usually denigrate other women who they envy or to please men who like to denigrate women. Pick your category.

Oh, and before you hide behind the First Amendment, most people who exercise their free speech are not so ashamed of what they say or understand that it is so inappropriate that they need to hide behind an alias to do so. If you want to be a free speech advocate or do some sort of quasi-defense of others who you perceive are being persecuted(which indicates you know who they are), then put your real name on your choice of free expression. Stop using silly nicknames to saber rattle with. Nah, I don't see you doing that. Then you would have to be much more polite in picking what words to write and that would not be nearly as much fun for you.

Debate? Oh, you are really too funny! I mean, actually believing that these individuals that you are defending were ever interested in having a debate over police issues. Those who came here do not know the meaning of that word, debate. Their belief is that they are right, everyone else is wrong, end of story. Not exactly a conducive climate for ahem, civil debate. No, they came here simply to make racist, sexist, homophobic comments to upset me, rebel against their "father figure"(management) and to look like idiots, not necessarily in this order. I guess they succeeded in all three areas. The police officers who are willing to discuss issues with people do so face to face and do not hide their identities behind phony names. These individuals if they are police officers probably were never capable of doing that.

Free Thinker? Hardly, you are acting more like a sheep following a nameless herd. Do they at least allow you to write your own copy?

Well, I guess it's time for you to crack the books to come up with some more sexual comments, isn't it?

Ciao,

Friday, May 12, 2006 6:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Queen Mary, you are a loser. You will never be black so they call you a wigger. You pretend to defend for blacks because you have a guilty complex from your white ancestors being slave owners themselves. You disagree with anyone who does not believe like you do, thus proven. Your hobby is attacking the police because you cannot become one of them. Black people laugh at you because you smell do not comb your hair or take baths. You walk around town because you lost your liscense for repeated DUI's. You refuse to look at yourself and your issues with men in authority issues because you cannot handle the truth. Instead you criticize the best and the brightest, the men and women in law enforcement. I'd say you are the one who's character is at best questionable. There is one thing that you are good for. You are the entertainment at the city council meetings. Hooray for free speech!

Friday, May 12, 2006 7:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms. Shelton, why is it that you call some of those who use anonymous names cowards when, if my recollection serves me correctly,was it not you that began this site not identifying yourself.
Is it not true that the only reason we know who you are is because the "racist cops" that found out about your site (as dumb as you think they are) found out that it was you? I think you know that if it had not been for these cops finding out about you, we would not know that this site was the brainchild of Ms. Mary Shelton of Riverside. If I may ask, what is it that you do for a living? What education and background do you have that would give someone like you the idea that their constant ridicule and criticisms of a law enforcement agency have any credibility whatsoever?
I must say that I look forward to your next article with the same excitement as when I get my monthly DVD series of interracial migit porn.

Friday, May 12, 2006 11:33:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

I guess my last comment about you hit its mark, better than I thought. Say "hi" to "Asti" for me and tell him I don't miss him.

If you are really a city employee of any kind, you should be ashamed of yourself. Really.

have a nice day,

Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear You-know-who:

Hi. I have no idea how these alleged cops found my site. Perhaps you do. Perhaps you were there. I do not believe I ever called them "dumb" either.

Oh, and please keep your porn habit to yourself. I'm really not interested in hearing about it. Especially not while I'm eating.

Thank you,

Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear five before midnight;

(kind of off topic, but with regard to posting on this site during daylight or "work" hours, you are not going to believe this but many people have "jobs" (also look up, "career" and "occupation" if you arent sure what these things are). People with jobs earn money with which they "buy" or "purchase" consumer goods. A consumer good includes but is not limited to laptop computers and computer hardware which allows for wireless internet connections. Maybe this person who is posting during "work hours" has a "job", yet also has labor law protections which mandate a lunch break and/or fifteen minute breaks during the "work" day. Some laptop computers, believe it or not, are able to "grab internet access right out of thin air", internet access that does not belong to any government entity. Not every computer used during "work hours" belongs to the employer, not every internet connection belongs to the employer, and not every minute during the day belongs to the employer. So go choke yourself, bottom dweller.)

Everytime somebody posts something about pornography, you reply that you don't want to hear about it, especially not while your eating.

And you say that police officers are sick people??? At least police officers keep their pornography and thier prime rib seperate... Although some might argue that pornography and prime rib have alot in common... But I digress.

signed,
somebody who does not use their real name because they are tired of listening to their bosses, and their boss's bosses, piss and moan and beg everyone at their job site to "not waste your time posting on that crazy lady's site because, even though, yes, alot of it is funny, and yes, everybody gets a laugh out of it,it still makes all of us all look bad"

P.S.
You eat alot. Who pays for your food?

Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Five before midnight actually wrote above,

"Oh, and before you hide behind the First Amendment,..."

This is a preface commonly used by social conservatives wishing to limit free speech, thought or expression.

A true liberal would champion an individual's right to "hide behind the First Amendment."

Mary either does not know her own ideology, OR she is a hypocrite. She cannot have it both ways.

Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:23:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear "Anonymous"

Thank you for your comments. They have been most helpful especially what you stated about your "bosses".

I do have one question. If everyone at your work site thinks this site is so good for a "laugh" and what employees have written on it is so "funny", then why the concern about being made to "look bad"? I mean, if it's so hilarious to you that you can not stop from posting on it and if it is so funny to both your co-workers and your bosses, then why wouldn't it be funny to everyone else? Why the concern about "looking bad"?

The problem is that there are many people in this city who do not share your belief that what was written on this site was funny and they pay the taxes that generate the salaries earned by you, your co-workers and your bosses(and their bosses too).

Many of these people do "work" to earn money to "buy" or "purchase" consumer goods. The goods they purchase within the city limits generate the sales tax revenue that is placed in the city's general fund. Out of that fund, comes the money that pays the salaries of all city employees so they can "buy" consumer goods, be they food or computer products.

have a nice day,

p.s. I haven't eaten all that much lately and I have individuals like yourself to thank for that.

Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dearest Mary "granny panties" Shelton, you seem to be attracted to food, porn, and cops. Is it true that your income is suplemented by your "Sugar Daddy". And is it not true (hypothetical) that you secretly desire to be cuffed, arrested, taken to bed, and forced to comply into submission by a man in blue. Is this not your deepest sexual fantasy. Is not in fact this desire played out by you through your continued stalking, harassment, and slandering of the white male officer. Some people think you have a "fetish" for cops and I believe you do.

Saturday, May 13, 2006 7:46:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

Anonymous, you take pathetic to a whole new level. You can't make a real arguement to back your phobic behavior so you stoop to grade school level personal attacks. Learn to spell. Learn to use proper punctuation and grammar. Maybe then you'll graduate to 'grownup' in other ways as well.

I so pity your Mother.

Saturday, May 13, 2006 8:40:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Sandalou:

Thank you for your comments. Some people flatter themselves too much.

As you can see here, "Anonymous" is also good at pulling reversals. He or she just pulled another one here. It's useful to remember this because it gives you quite a bit of insight into "Anonymous's" mind and unfortunately, his or her sexual proclivities which he or she keeps forcing on me even though I have made it clear I'm not interested in hearing them.

It's pretty clever if pathetic to engage in behavior yourself and then accuse others of doing it. There is a name for what "Anonymous" is doing, though it is a relatively new term. Calling it "free speech" when its intent is to stifle another person's free expression in several different venues is another pathetic approach on his or her part.

What I have made clear to this individual is that I am not interested in hearing any more sexual comments from them, which was all I had to do. Yet they intensified their sexual comments further which fits the definition of the above term.

This is the same individual who said that another post he or she did on May 2 was posted by a female employee at City Hall. If she is telling the truth, shame on her and shame on the city for employing her. If he or she is not, shame on him or her for trying to cast suspicion on an entire population of City Hall employees. But why would someone lie and say they were a female City Hall employee? Because it's better than admitting they are really something else?

"Anonymous" probably also did that tasteless Black-face performance yesterday. Hardly surprising. I had hoped that particular form of expression had gone out of style. I guess I'm wrong.

I suspect that "Anonymous" is simply a sadly misguided person, in serious need of psychological help. Why else would anyone post such sick, vile comments under some delusional belief that he or she is defending the law enforcement profession through these actions? A rational thinking person would understand one thing. If you have to stoop to such a low level to defend a profession, then it does not say much about that profession, does it?

No, "Anonymous" sounds too much like a wannabe. Someone who wanted to be connected with LE in some way but at some point failed to make the grade probably because they realized there is a lot of hard work to go with the perks. So they hang on the fringe of law enforcement and are always trying to find ways to help individuals out so they can feel as if they are part of what they want themselves. Of course, perhaps the only people in LE who want to have anything to do with individuals like "Anonymous" are those who are on the fringe themselves meaning that they see the department moving forward while they are standing still, like "Asti" here. If anyone asks "Anonymous" to jump, naturally he or she will say, how far, even if it's off a cliff. That makes "Anonymous" really useful to those who have little use for this person except when their services are needed.

Of course, if "Anonymous" is a police officer, then there is a lot more to be worried about, but the only thing he or she seems to know about the RPD or police officers is his or her perception of their sexual proclivities.

That said, I'll stop trying to analyze "Anonymous" because I imagine it's like spending time inside a fetid sewer.


have a nice day,

Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

52midnite you have nothing to report.

Sunday, May 14, 2006 4:40:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

I doubt it has sex, just fantasies.

Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe there is more than one "anonymous."

Monday, May 15, 2006 12:51:00 AM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

Who cares? None of you are really anonymous. We know that those Nony's that agree with the content of this blog use anonymous because they fear retaliation from a bunch of thugs hiding behind badges. You thugs that use it are just too chickensh!t to ID yourselves and think that no one knows who you are.

Ain't none of you too bright.

Monday, May 15, 2006 3:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sandalou ef yo dont fenesh tha wutermalun can i hav sumovit

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Carl said...

Mary,
This has nothing to do with Riverside or the PD, but I wanted to tell you this:
You have no idea how much I admire you. You give me strength to stand up for what I believe in, because every time I get afraid, I remind myself that you have so much more to be afraid of, and yet you do not give up. I am inspired by your work to make the police department a better place. I know that your efforts will have an effect, but I am sorry that you recieve so much backlash.

You are a truly exceptional person.

Saturday, May 20, 2006 6:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dear carl,
mary has no effect on the RPD whatsoever, she never will, and that's a fact.

Saturday, May 20, 2006 6:50:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

...mary has no effect on the RPD whatsoever, she never will, and that's a fact.

Which is why she has all you pathetic little weasels over here ranting like a bunch of threatened Neanderthals. Keep kidding yourselves because it's so funny watching you all foam at the mouth.

Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Carl, your a moron and I can't ell you how much I admire the fact that you probably wear sexier underwear than Mary does. And Carl, quit jerking off so much.

Sincerely

Karl

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:40:00 AM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

Dear Karl with a K,

What's next, your mother wears army boots?

Grow up.

You freaks sure spend a lot of time thinking about other people's underwear.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Sandalou, you need to worry more about your high colesterol from all that fried chicken you eat and less time worrying about underwear comments. And we all know that you like to eat the box so woman's underwear probably does not appeal to you anyways.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:46:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

You spelled "cholesterol" wrong again.

Good Day,

Friday, June 16, 2006 7:50:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older