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

Friday, July 07, 2006

State of the Unions

As the new fiscal year has begun for the city of Riverside, so continues one of its most contentious showdowns between the various bargaining units of city employees and city management.

The SEIU, which represents a large proportion of city employees in many different departments has been shut out of its own negotiation talks at least once since it started. The reason given by the office of City Manager Brad Hudson was that that unit's negotiators had brought two individuals with them to sit in on the talks. Hundreds of members of the SEIU led by their leader, Gregory Hagans appeared at city council meetings to protest this unfair treatment.

The city of Riverside is not the county, they told former Riverside County employee Brad Hudson, who as usual was chatting with City Attorney Gregory Priamos, with the microphones off. It is doubtful that he heard them.

Both the RPOA and the administrators' association have also been negotiating for salary hikes, but it is not clear what if any raises lie at the end of the arduous process that takes place usually once every two years.

If you want good, ethical professionals to become and remain police officers in this department, then they must be paid well. You do get what you pay for, in this area. A better adage might be, pay now or pay out a much greater sum later. Hopefully, the city management will remember this, each time it sits at the table. After all, as Hudson and others have said, the city is flush with money at this time. The city leadership had created 25 new police officer positions last year, and promised to repeat that performance this year.

One anonymous correspondent here predicted that the city would offer the police officers a huge pay raise to stem off the alleged flow of younger officers leaving the police department.

"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."

This was based on the statistic they offered up that eight officers had left the department to head off to greener pastures during a fairly short period. However, seven officers including six from the beleaguered Rialto Police Department have lateraled out of that agency and took positions in this department.

At the RPD's job fair held at Bordwell Park, Capt. Pete Esquival who heads the Personnel and Training Division appeared to send a different message. He said that Chief Russ Leach had ordered him to reduce the department's vacancy rate to zero, by the end of June. By mid-June, that was close to being done, he said. While he spoke, over 150 applicants including 30 women were inside the Stratton Center taking their first steps down the road of becoming RPD officers. Most will not make it and of those that do, Esquival said they will be placed on an eligibility list until positions open up.

Of course, there is a difference between recruiting officers and retaining them, and paying them well is one way to improve retention. However, if serious problems exist, it can never be a solution. You can not throw money at a problem and make it go away. Any problems that exist must be identified and addressed, before they take root and become crises. Too often, in Riverside's case, that had not been done.

In the meantime, various factions of the police department were busy at work trying to plump up the carrot needed to attract qualified applicants, which is the hopes of receiving a healthy pay check and good benefits including pensions.

Heading the negotiation efforts for the majority of the RPD's officers was its bargaining unit from the RPOA, which came fresh off its biennial elections with brand new leadership. The elections appeared to have been a contentious process, according to an earlier conversation that took place on this blog last October.

One unidentified individual started it off by expressing his displeasure with the then-current administration. He apparently believed that it was time for a change at the helm. Pat McCarthy was the current president at that time and had been for nearly four years. He had taken over the presidency from former Sgt. Jay Theuer as an officer and as is customary, was eventually promoted to sergeant. David Martin was apparently one of his challengers for the top spot.
Perhaps, this individual believed that this blog was as good place as any to put out a campaign pitch for his favorite candidate.

"Pat McCarthy is a company man with the company plan..Worthless...Dave Martin For RPOA President."

Another unidentified individual took serious objection to this criticism and responded back with the following harsh words.

Dave Martin is a disgruntled Long Beach PD washout who thinks all things are wrong....Pat McCarthy for Re-election!

Well, one member of the David Martin camp was not going to take this slam against their candidate sitting down so they responded in kind.

Why would we re-elect Pat? He has let the Admin walk all over us so he could get his Sgt Stripes. He continues to let them walk over us because he is on Sgt probation. Pat...you got what you wanted. Now let someone who really cares about troop wellfare, not his golf handycap step in and fix all this BS. Pat...what have you done as RPOA Pres? You'll say "I got you two raises"...BFD...You suck Pat.DAVE MARTIN for RPOA Pres...He's the only choice..Tut wants to be a Sgt too.

This would not be the last comment we would read from this particular unidentified individual. He did not elaborate what he meant by "BS". That would have to wait for another day.

"Tut" by the way, was Det. Kent Tutwiler, who wound up winning the election when the votes were tallied. He promised in a Press Enterprise article published after the election that he would not try to be promoted to sergeant while he was in office. So far he has kept his promise, serving on a board which has seen a lot of officers promoted while on it especially in the first couple of years after the city entered into its consent decree with the State Attorney General's office. If McCarthy had gotten promoted while he served on the RPOA board, he was hardly the first one to have been so, yet his promotion apparently brought on some criticism by at least one individual. Tutwiler's promise to his charges seemed to reflect that the issue may have been a bone of contention during the process.

Tutwiler also promised to concentrate on issues pertaining to increasing officer position, salary negotiations and officer safety. He reactivated the Safety subcommittee, currently helmed by Officer Richard Aceves and even met with the CPRC director, Pedro Payne. But still there were hearts, minds and an election to win.

Clearly, the groundwork had been laid out for the upcoming election, in that the lines had been drawn between individuals who were dissatisfied with the current leadership and others who believed that the status quo was the way to go. Somehow, both perspectives managed to find their way here, though those who were dissatisfied would soon dominate. Perhaps that was because in the real world, they could not get their message out. Perhaps they felt shut off from both the RPOA leadership and department management.

One unidentified individual who called himself "A Lighter Shade of Brown" lamented over this in a comment made last autumn, while expressing his concern over an officer who he alleged was a bank robber called "Charles 211".

"As for officers going to the union or complaining to the admin, it usually does not work and that's probably why it did not happen (can't say for sure but just a guess). "

Issues arose including whether or not it was a conflict of interest to be promoted by departmental management while at the helm of the RPOA. McCarthy's promotion had clearly created a reaction of some form and galvanized a response. Did it cost him the election, or was it simply that there was a growing faction in the RPOA that was becoming more resistant to pressures put upon it by a management that had itself felt pressure from an outside agency for the past five years?

Perhaps, the newer officers, in a department that had turned over approximately 80% of its rank and file were making their presence known. Even wrestling two pay raises out of the city's management during more economically difficult times did not ensure a longer tenure at the helm for the current president. The newer officers hold the bulk of the votes unless apathy towards the process muted their participation, a state which would mirror that of the nation's voting population.

From the outside, some individuals look at the RPOA as a mixture of the most militant politically-motivated officers in the department and with some boards, that has clearly been apparent. But if this true, then it is not much different from the politics that have shaped other employment unions. Ultimately, it is the members that shape their union's leadership through the votes they cast in its elections and through the meetings they attend or the committees they participate on. They alone can extend the period of their leadership's tenure or hand it a pink slip and send it packing.

After the dust from the election had settled, police officers both representing the RPOA's leadership and the department's management congregated at City Hall to support Leach who was there, awaiting a vote which would determine whether or not he would be given a five-year contract to continue as head of the department. An interesting development considering it had been placed on the consent calendar and unless pulled, would not be discussed or voted upon separately. The consent calendar was approved en masse without fanfare by the city council, and the chief's contract remained on that list. A huge sigh of relief appeared to fill the chambers after the vote took place, as if there had been any doubt.

Whether that action was taken in anticipation of the upcoming dissolution of the marriage of convenience between the city of Riverside and the State Attorney General's office was a topic of speculation. After all, the RPD had gone through its fair share of police chiefs during the past decade or so. At least three were sent packing by the RPOA, after relatively short stints. Leach has served as chief almost six years, with five of them spent in a police department that was under the thumb of the State Attorney General's office. But, that tether was set to be untied on March 6, 2006 and the department would be heading off into the great unknown.

Still on that road, there are those who remain critical of the department, including several unidentified individuals who posted here like "Kevin, RPD".

"People in our department who voice there opinions, or speak out against incompetent administration suffer professionally...You want to talk about oppression?"

And "Asti Spamanti", who appeared to be pondering his future options in a department where although White male officers remain its majority, they have become victims of racism and sexism within the ranks in his opinion.

"They have created an atmosphere where it's every man for himself. No entity practices racism and discrimination more than the highest members of management in the department-fortunately for the public, you don't have to worry because it's not against you-it's against their own officers. But, hey, we make a lot of money. It's no longer about saving lives and protecting the public, it's about promoting to the next level at all costs. "

Yet, it is not clear how many officers in the department share these same sentiments. It is not clear on which road this department will travel as it implements its court-mandated Strategic Plan. The history can either be learned from, or it will be repeated until its lessons take root.

55 Comments:

Blogger Sandalou said...

It's awwwwful quiet in here. Did you big ole playful boys finally figure out that you're hanging yourselves out to dry?

Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:14:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Sandalou:

I'm not sure they ever had anything to say, which is why they need to retreat behind racist, homophobic and misogynist comments. The issues raised in this posting are complex, too difficult for them to grasp and most likely, completely outside their limited realm of understanding. They can't respond because they don't know how to do so without resorting to throwing out more racist and misogynist comments. Did the individual who began the comments on the last thread share pearls of wisdom? No, they acted like a five-year-old making bodily function noises, probably to distract anyone from the truth, which is that they have very little if anything to say on these issues.

It's amazing how individuals can repeat the statement that I don't speak for officers(as if I had ever claimed to)like a mantra, yet who do these individuals speak for? Besides themselves, no one.

No mature professional people inside or outside of law enforcement would ever pick any of these sorry individuals as their spokesman or their defenders because they would understand that doing so would only reflect badly on them and their organization.

Whatever role these deluded individuals believe they have in this area, it exists only inside their own heads. If you want to know why they are claiming to speak for law enforcement officers, you would probably need to ask their psychiatrists.

Good Day,

Monday, July 10, 2006 8:33:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Sandalou:

I'm not sure they ever had anything to say, which is why they need to retreat behind racist, homophobic and misogynist comments. The issues raised in this posting are complex, too difficult for them to grasp and most likely, completely outside their limited realm of understanding. They can't respond because they don't know how to do so without resorting to throwing out more racist and misogynist comments. Did the individual who began the comments on the last thread share pearls of wisdom? No, they acted like a five-year-old making bodily function noises, probably to distract anyone from the truth, which is that they have very little if anything to say on these issues.

It's amazing how individuals can repeat the statement that I don't speak for officers(as if I had ever claimed to)like a mantra, yet who do these individuals speak for? Besides themselves, no one.

No mature professional people inside or outside of law enforcement would ever pick any of these sorry individuals as their spokesman or their defenders because they would understand that doing so would only reflect badly on them and their organization.

Whatever role these deluded individuals believe they have in this area, it exists only inside their own heads. If you want to know why they are claiming to speak for law enforcement officers, you would probably need to ask their psychiatrists.

Good Day,

Monday, July 10, 2006 8:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Mary, since your so smart and all of your subject matter is too intellectual for us, may I ask what experiences you have in the area of labor management and law enforcement union activities? By the way, what do you do for a living "oh smart one?"

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear "Anonymous":

Why do you ask questions in which you already know the answers?

You've surely been reading this blog and I suspect you already know who I am, what I do and have known this information for a while. I do not know why you insist on downplaying your considerable intelligence right now. What a shame that is for the world, I'm sure.

Hey Mary, since your so smart and all of your subject matter is too intellectual for us, may I ask what experiences you have in the area of labor management and law enforcement union activities?

Thank you for the compliment and I do believe you are being too harsh on yourself through your own words. My comments were addressed to those individuals whose boundaries of knowledge are defined by behavior which consists of posting bodily function noises and racist, sexist and homophobic comments. If you do not fall in this group yourself, why should you take such great offense at my comments? Why would you even want to be associated with this ilk by calling yourself and it, "us"?

I have no experiences in the area of law enforcement management or union activities. What I offered up was my observations of some current events that are occurring in the city.

You do, after all, recognize the importance of labor unions. At least in the law enforcement field you are fortunate enough to have them. But unions can only be as effective at advocating for their members as those members want them to be. It is up to the members to elect leadership that represents them. Wouldn't you agree?

Your voice and your vote make or break them. If you don't participate, then how can you complain? I'm sure you would agree with that too.

Still, it's not clear to me that anyone here has any more experience and knowledge on these issues than I do. It's hard to tell beneath all the racist, homophobic and misogynist rhetoric that's been thrown around here.

You can understand that line of reasoning. Surely, you have read the watermelon and fried chicken jokes, the transgender jokes and the jokes about midgets and lesbians that have been left here. When you look at those comments, what are you thinking? Are you thinking that this person is a very intelligent, knowledgeable person, or do you think that this person is a racist misogynist who knows very little about anything except how to insult other people? That perhaps, these comments are made to cover up ignorance?

To a smart person like yourself, the answer should be fairly obvious.

You sound like you have some expertise and knowledge in both of these areas since you came here to challenge mine. Good! Then by all means enlighten on your expertise. That is, if you are in the position yourself to do so. Unless you're of course, a wannabe.

Good Day,

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:57:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

What is she doing? She's showing the quality of the likes of you to the world. I can understand why that upsets you. I mean, it pretty damn hard to look more pathetically stupid and incapable of doing your jobs than y'all have here. But Mary's a civic improvement type of person. Hopefully, once all you cartoon commandos are booted out of uniform the city can hire some real cops to help the other good ones 'serve and protect'. A concept that is totally lost on you.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:37:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear "Anonymous":

I see you have not responded to my questions nor have you or anyone else here shown any expertise or knowledge in this area. That's too bad. I would have thought that either "Starsky", "Kevin, RPD" or the one who had a proclivity for those shorthand symbols would be here to enlighten. Even "Innocent Bystander" can fumble his or her way through a topic like this one.

Apparently not. I guess this topic really is too difficult for those of you here to grasp especially for those whose knowledge does not seem to extend past making offensive comments to both show how immature you are and to get around your ignorance on these issues.

Like I said, if you are going to claim to speak for RPD officers as some of you have, it might help if you actually knew something about law enforcement. Oh, and those racist and sexist comments just make you bad ambassadors.

Good Day,

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary receives a disability check for her mental disability. Mary is unable to cope within society as do normal folk. Ever wonder why she does not drive a car. She cannot function in traffic. Besides her disability check, Mary receives income from her family. As for work, she may write an article a week for a local paper. She also received school loans in the past.

Mary cannot cope or function on a regular job. This is her disability. She is unable to keep a full time job due to her manic-depressive and personalty disorders. She is on medication for this. I do not make light of Mary's plight, I am just letting those know how she is financially supported.
Nothing personel Mary.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:08:00 PM  
Anonymous lance said...

Anonymous should receive a check for his various disabilities. He is unable to cope within society as do normal folk and other police officers. Ever wonder why he's not allowed to drive a PV? He cannot function in Traffic section, so is assigned to front counter. In his leisure time,he may also write an article or two for a local blog, and for the benevolent society's newsletter.

He cannot cope or function on anything other than day shifts, and is unable to meet his annual fitness appraisal, due to indolence and lack of exercise. I do not make light of Anonymous' plight, of course...and there is nothing personal in these statements.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:42:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

It definitely appears as if someone is on medication here or needs to be.

Either that, or maybe something in this topic hit a chord within you. It's been fairly quiet here I've noticed in comparison with ealier topics. Maybe I should just have picked an easier one for you. Then again, maybe I picked just the right one.

These are some very interesting comments you have made here. Most of your "facts" are news to me. You've certainly been very busy inside your head. I hoped it hasn't interfered with the rest of your life.

However, I do have several questions to ask you just to clarify some points of confusion, if that is okay with you.

Several months ago, one of you stated that I didn't drive a car because I had too many D.U.I.s. Last week, the story had changed somewhat and stated that I did not drive because I could not afford to put gasoline in my automobile. Now, it's apparently because I can't cope in traffic because of some alleged disability. Next week, it will probably be something else. It always has been, is and will be, with your ilk.

Seriously, if you are an officer, is this how you write out your police reports? Is this how you conduct yourself on the witness stand? If you aren't an officer, you should do the world a favor and never consider this profession as a career option for you. You are obviously ill-suited for it. I would be surprised if you even made it to the psychological evaluation which would surely screen you out.

Now, I'll address the next section of your comments, but I may need you to clarify some points there as well if that is okay.

Nothing personel Mary

Au Contraire Anonymous one, this is clearly very personal for you. Your entire presence here screams personal and has at least for a couple of months now, possibly longer. Why that is, is a question only you can answer. If you were here last autumn, you certainly weren't as filled with venom then. So what's happened since then if that's the case? If you have an ax to grind, it certainly seems like it developed recently.

Why is there this need to state what the "town folk", "regular citizens" and "public officials" were saying about me, including that nice laundry list of nasty terms? Four elected officials have informed me that they know nothing about anyone saying such things and expressed their disgust at the matter. Most likely, you are either a crowd of one or you are hanging with a different group than what you had listed above.

You engaged in these actions either because you needed to have your negative opinion of me reinforced by others to feel better here or you were trying to find out if others of your own ilk knew who I was, for some undisclosed reason.

If it's the latter, then that "reason" originated some time before May. It would also mean that at some point not too long ago, we were complete strangers and that you probably did not know who I am.

Oh, and if you are going to market yourself as an expert in behavioral psychology, you should know that the appropriate terminology according to the DSM-IV to use is bipolar disorder.

Have a nice day,

Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice try Lance but Mary knows her truth.
Mary receives disability checks. Mary cannot legally drive in California. Mary has been diagnosed as having bipolar and personality disorders, thus her disability.
In fact mental illness runs in her family. Think, how does Mary support herself? Does Mary truly have an agenda or is it that she has nothing better to do with her life? Why does'nt Mary drive? Why does'nt Mary have to work? How does Mary pay her bills? Who pays for Mary's medical bills?

Let the truth be known.

Friday, July 14, 2006 9:18:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

I guess that last posting hit a bit too close to home for somebody. Good, I'll keep heading in that direction because you are better than a compass when it comes to pointing the way.

By all means, continue with the stories if you feel so inclined. I find them very helpful and informative. Soon, you'll tell the wrong one and I may learn who you are.

Good Day,

P.S. Remember what I told you about your contractions? You should really fix them.

Friday, July 14, 2006 4:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MARY IS BITCH!

Friday, July 14, 2006 8:01:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

You do not have to use capitalized letters. I get your point. You didn't like my previous post. You got upset and threw another tantrum. Also, your sentence is missing something called an indefinite article. Without it, it makes no sense. You might want to fix it.

I see you have added the word "bitch" to your laundry list of nasty terms. If you want to call me one, go ahead. I'm a grown woman. I've heard it before, from misogynists like yourself. Men who are intelligent and mature do not resort to using such words to make a point. It's obvious that group of men does not include you. A pity for you, and any woman in your vicinity.

You ran out of stories? Run back to the rumor mill and get some new ones. Just make sure they are not the wrong ones. One or more of you here have taken great pains to let people know you have discussions with "public officials" and have "spies" at City Hall, but I doubt that's true. As I said, the elected officials I have spoken to, are disgusted by the behavior here.

You don't appear emotionally stable enough to be police officers. The psychological evaluation would probably make short work of your application process. Much to the relief of the citizenry who would not have to deal with you.

I get that you didn't like my last post, judging by your response. Your pique is duly noted. As is your ignorance on the issues brought up in this article or at least your reluctance to discuss them. I wonder if anyone here even knows what a law enforcement union does let alone serves in one.

Good Day,

Friday, July 14, 2006 11:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary,
your manic side has set in. Contrary to what you believe, what you say to me has no effect. Have you taken your medication today ? You do not know who is posting what so you designate replies to anyone. It seems that you are paranoid, bipolar responses from a godless feminist obviously. How sad you must feel and what a waste of taxpayer money. It must be stressfull living off of others.

Good Day.

Saturday, July 15, 2006 3:11:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments. They are proving to be most informative and helpful. I see you've taken my advice and stuck to the same silly story as a precaution against potentially taking any action that might reveal your identity. I wish you would take my advice about grammar and punctuation too, but that will obviously have to wait.

After reading your words, I wonder if I'm getting warm. If I'm "manic", you are certainly, desperate. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is any medication available to help you with that problem. After all, there is no cure for the personality disorder known as antisocial disorder.

Contrary to what you believe, what you say to me has no effect.

Am I suppose to believe that is more true each time you state it, or less?

Oh I can see that you are not affected. Most definitely. Mind you, I'm trying to write this with a straight face. I've seen what you and your buddies have written here for the past few months and I can see how unaffected you are.

You've been especially unaffected since spring. That's not including several mini-tantrums that took place in February, after the Press Enterprise ran its second article on the blog investigation. Back then, one unidentified individual calling him or herself "Citizen for Free Speech" stated that I was in "bed with management" while rattling off some information that was not included in any news articles.

You do not know who is posting what so you designate replies to anyone.

How can I know? Each one of you, if there is indeed more than one of you, is either too ashamed or too scared to use your real names and you appear to be all of the same ilk. What sound does a chicken make in the barn yard? That's you and your friends here.

It seems that you are paranoid, bipolar responses from a godless feminist obviously.

What does this sentence mean? It makes no sense at all. Not even grammatically. Perhaps you would like to try again and phrase it differently?

How sad you must feel and what a waste of taxpayer money.

You're right about me feeling sadness if it were true that you were indeed working at the RPD. I feel that would be a waste of taxpayer money. Fortunately, it appears clear that you are simply too emotionally unstable to work as a police officer. By the way, what do you do for a living, if you do anything at all? For all is known, you could be sitting at home posting comments while living on public assistance of some kind.

After all, many of the "Anonymous" posts were done in the daytime. However, using that information to claim that you were unemployed and living on assistance yourself would not be a fair or necessarily accurate assumption to make without further information.

Another possible explanation, is that you(singular or plural) simply work nights.

Good Day,

Saturday, July 15, 2006 8:06:00 PM  
Anonymous William Hartman said...

Wow. I tell Mary how impressed I am with her, and a firestorm of racist, sexist, and homophobic comments is unleashed!

Isn't it fascinating that these moronic harassers reacted to the praise of Lance and I by questioning our sexual orientations? Would it matter one iota if I was a homosexual? (Well, maybe to my
wife...)Would that make my comments any less valid? Why would being gay make my praise invalid?

Mary, I am now truly in awe of you. You show tremendous courage standing up to these bullies. That's what these commenters are of course, ridiculous bullies. You are a real hero in my book.

But please, protect your self. These cowards writing here could be very dangerous. I hope that you find a way to expose them for the cowards and bullies that they are, and I hope you stay safe.

You inspire me.

-William Hartman

Saturday, July 15, 2006 8:51:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

They've exposed themselves Mr. Hartman, all over the place. Now it's just time for management to step up and remove the deadwood as they keep saying they're going to do.

HEY MANAGEMENT!!!
You've tried ignoring it and it hasn't gone away. Now it's like a virulent infection. Spreading, getting uglier, and potentially fatal. To citizens already and possibly to your careers.

Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously Lance and Willy have an ongoing relationship. Willy and Lance are in awe of Mary for simpy posting on her blog. You two pansy's would be impressed by a female who has more balls than you two have together, and being the wuss's that you two are. Posting on a blog is simply free speech you hypocritical liberal slugs. Mary I do not know why you keep referencing my posts with any police department. I have no interest in that. I am simply ammused by your immature prose. You ashamed of our readers knowing of your mental disorders and social finance dependency. I hope that you have informed Social Security of your school loans.

You and your blog are boring me. I may decide to stop posting and you and your three fans will find nothing to amuse them accept your boring ramblings.

Good Day.

Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Your spelling is fairly atrocious this time. Maybe you're just typing too quickly. There is really no need to rush.

Thank you for informing me that you have become bored with and are planning to leave my blog. That is such great news and thank you for sharing it. Hopefully, your buddies, real or imagined, will follow you out. However, both "Asti Spamanti" and "Innocent Bystander" also got into a snit and stated that they were leaving. Unfortunately, it's not clear that either of them kept their promises. Still, there is always hope and with that I'll just say, don't let the door hit your fanny on your way out.

Mary I do not know why you keep referencing my posts with any police department. I have no interest in that. I am simply ammused by your immature prose.

You know, the more you tell me how amused you are, the less I believe you. I am relieved to read that you are not interested in any law enforcement agencies. I wish you had provided this information earlier, say over two months ago. If you had, there would have been no misunderstandings on this issue, wouldn't you agree? Oh well, better late than never I guess.

Several prior comments posted on this blog do give me pause. Let's examine them.

Wasn't it you who wrote this post,

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.

and this one,

What a laugh.
Paranoid as usual. Thinking that you are the center of the universe and needing to be the center of attention.

No one is "stalking" you. No one has threatened, harrassed or intimidated you. You are the one who stalks officers.

In your mind you believe that criticism of yourself to be more than that. I simply post for amusement.

Opinions and Perceptions of Reality. You can dish them out, but you can't take them.

HYPOCRITE!


(emphasis, mine)

I could be mistaken about the author of these two comments, because you and possibly other individuals have been hiding like barnyard chickens behind a veil of anonymity. Consequently, it is difficult to tell one "Anonymous" posting from the next. However, if you wrote either or both of the posts above, then those past words belie your present words.

Still, I do not think you are emotionally or mentally stable enough to work in the field of law enforcement. As far as I know, delusional sociopaths are disqualified by and during the psychological evaluation process. Even if you had slipped through the cracks and were hired, you would probably flunk out quickly enough. However, you do seem to be operating under the delusion that you get to decide who gets to speak for officers in the RPD for whatever reason. I doubt that is true because why would any police officer from any agency want to associate with a racist, homophobic misogynist, let alone have this individual speak for them?

Posting on a blog is simply free speech you hypocritical liberal slugs.


Well, I guess that's better than being called a "liberal puke", "attention whore", "wigger" and an assortment of other endearments that have been posted here.

Hypocritical? I don't think so. If there is indeed a hypocrite here, it's not me. It's not even you.

You ashamed of our readers knowing of your mental disorders and social finance dependency. I hope that you have informed Social Security of your school loans.


I see you are still sticking to using the same silly stories. That's probably smart on your part.

Speaking of background information, what exactly was it that you do for a living, again? Do you rely on public assistance? Do you operate a motor vehicle? You didn't answer my questions when I asked them.

Good Day,

Sunday, July 16, 2006 2:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Mary,

I am in awe of you. You inspire me to be the man I am not. You are the wings beneath my feet.

You Goddess You.

William Hartman

Monday, July 17, 2006 4:01:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

You took the dodge. I see you have decided not to answer my questions. I think in time they will answer themselves.

You do appear to stick to a regimented schedule. You post mostly in the daytime, except on Thursdays and occasionally Fridays when you post in the early morning hours. Perhaps you do not have a job, are on public assistance and go out drinking except on those particular nights. However, this interpretation of the available data would be premature to make without additional information. You could also be a stay at home house wife, or you could be working nights.

I had hoped that you would either elaborate on or at least rephrase the following sentence because it still doesn't make any sense and I can tell you probably spent all day thinking it up.

It seems that you are paranoid, bipolar responses from a godless feminist obviously.

I thought you had decided to leave. In fact, I had hoped you had decided to do so. But I can see that it was just something that you wrote impulsively for whatever reason. Only you know why.

In the future, if you are going to quote from Bette Midler's songs, you should be sure to do so correctly. The proper lyrics are "the wind beneath my wings". Somehow, I never took you for being a fan of hers. Perhaps, it's an interest that you keep in the closet around your friends.

Good Evening,

Monday, July 17, 2006 6:47:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

I may decide to stop posting...

Could we be that lucky? Do the world a favor, in your newly freed up time? Learn something, maybe how to construct a sentence or even (is it possible?) how to spell.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:02:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

I noticed that you rarely post on Tuesdays, which in contrast, seems to be one of "Asti Spamanti/Starksy"'s favorite days to post. Perhaps that's the day you spend at the clinic in intensive behavioral therapy, which apparently has not been very beneficial for you as you have shown here. However, it is not fair nor is it necessarily accurate to make this assessment without further information.

Actually, your spelling isn't too bad most of the time. Perhaps you just are lazy with it on certain occasions. Sometimes you put apostrophes in the wrong places or where none are needed and misspell the same words. But, you don't seem to use much if any short cuts.

Last autumn, one(or was it two?) visitors used ampersands in their comments. Quite untidy, indeed.

Will any of it involve some dirty dancing Mary? A little bump & grind maybe?

and

"Don’t they teach you officers these things". You mean like the hundred of training hours the cprc has??? Or the massive experience the "school security guard" I mean RCC cop (yeah right!!) in the cprc has?? And who is side stepping the issues?? I did not hear a reply on the Ms. I'm jus an angel minding my own business & got shot for no reason Lane comment. I can tell you why! Because you know damn well she was running over Officer Wilson & not just parked waiting for her friend who was just shopping & not committing a felony.

and

Time will prove to you that the cprc is powerless. RPOA spent money trying to get rid of cprc so that the city would stop waisting money on them & put it to better use. P.S.: its not just one person writing in these post as you stated above.

If this individual were an officer, I hope he doesn't take stylistic shortcuts in his police reports. It would serve only to make them difficult to read.

Good Day,

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahem
only posts from zbos Sambolou, Mary Contradictary and Phags Lance and Willyboy.

losrs:(

Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:30:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Well, we can't all be racist, homophobic misogynists like yourself. I'm sure anyone outside that ilk is a loser to you and I'm sure most people could care less what you think. I consider it a blessing not to be included in the same ilk as you are and to be what you hate. From your posts, it's pretty clear that you are a miserable person who probably doesn't have much to look forward to in your life except coming here and spouting nasty comments.

I had hoped that you had decided to leave. It's tiresome when people claim they are going to do so and don't keep their word but that's a power play for them to engage in and nothing else. At least you stick to a fairly regimented posting schedule, which is quite predictable. See you later this afternoon.

I guess life is much more boring for you than this blog is and you act out in such a racist, misogynist fashion because for you, negative attention is better than nothing. After all, didn't you state recently that you had to lie to women just to get them to give you the time of day? You certainly enjoy harassing them. You enjoy calling them nasty names and attributing your own words to other people to feel more important. You enjoy making up lurid stories about them to punish them for something that exists only inside your head.

That's a pretty sad commentary on you along with everything else here. But then I think you already know that. It'd be sadder if you were an RPD officer and the public was subjected to being in the same vicinity as you and having to pay for it through their tax dollars. Thank goodness for psychological evaluations, which you would surely never pass.

However, someone here did think it was necessary to warn others here not to reveal too much information about themselves. I wonder why that was and what they thought they were doing. Simply because I asked a question about the military.

You did mention that you were interested in the "immature prose" here. On that note, I'll leave you with one of the highlights of your visits here. I believe that comments like these showcase behavioral and social maturity at its best.

blah blah blah blah blah blah burp@#%&!

Pearls of wisdom indeed.

Good Day,

Friday, July 21, 2006 8:25:00 AM  
Anonymous lance said...

A song, for you, Mr.Anon:

Little man you're cryin', I know why you're blue,
Someone took your kiddy-car away,
Better go to sleep now,
Little man you've had a busy day . . .

Johnny won your marbles, tell you what we'll do,
Dad will get you new ones right away,
Better go to sleep now,
Little man you've had a busy day . . .

You've been playin' soldier, the battle has been won,
The enemy is out of sight,
Come along there soldier, put away your gun,
The war is over for tonight . . .

Time to stop your schemin', time your day was through,
Can't you hear the bugle softly say?
Time you should be dreamin',
Little man you've had a busy day . . .

Friday, July 21, 2006 1:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary Bitch,

It is aparent to all five people who read your blog that you are the racist, homophobe, misogynist.
You have a need to correct people, to feel cognitively superior (since you know physically you look absolutely dreadfull), most of the people you claim to speak for think of you as a nut, and most of them cannot spell or write like you; are you going to correct them too. You must control people, what they say, post, spell, write, how they do their jobs, how we behave. You control freak.

Telling is that it is you that has nothing better to do than to correct others, for your lack of self-esteem. When you look in the mirror you see a dirty old maid expired sperm depository.
If I looked, smelled and had a reputation like you, I would hate myself as you do.
You have an inate need to always be right, correct, superior. Most time you have no idea what you are talking about.

But hey,
you are the queen of nothing.

[Ok, get to it, correct the spelling, tell me what I should've wrote, label me, dissect every sentence I posted, spin my words to play to your buttons, tell me again who I should be and how to behave. Tell me how to think and how to respond; blah blah blah blah blah blah burp @#%&! the most intelligent sentence you've ever posted, You control freak.]

Lance,
I'm not interested in your poetry and besides, I'm over 14, too old for your interests.

Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:28:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments. Why is it so abundantly clear that you are the miserable party here? You poor thing, having such a deep well of bitterness, anger and resentment to draw from when you post here. You must be very unpleasant to be around, off of the internet. But hey, at least you stick to a rather regimented posting schedule. See you later this afternoon.

At least we can put that "I only post for my amusement" excuse to rest.

Mary Bitch,

Ah yes, in other words, I'm female. Keep going.

It is aparent to all five people who read your blog that you are the racist, homophobe, misogynist.

So you and four friends of yours are posting in this blog then? Yes, I believe that five sounds about right, now as it was last autumn.

You have a need to correct people, to feel cognitively superior (since you know physically you look absolutely dreadfull), most of the people you claim to speak for think of you as a nut, and most of them cannot spell or write like you; are you going to correct them too. You must control people, what they say, post, spell, write, how they do their jobs, how we behave. You control freak.


Wait, earlier you claimed that I was trying to speak for all of the RPD officers, but then you quickly made it clear that was apparently your job. A racist, homophobic misogynist for a spokesman in a post-consent decree police department, not very likely. You have not shown yourself to be an expert in filling this position yourself. There are two possible reasons for that and granted, only one of them is ignorance.

I look physically dreadful to you? Whoo Hoo. I pity those women out there who you do find attractive. Oh, I really do.

Oh, and be careful of those double consonants. No, I do not correct other people's grammar and spelling, like I have done with you. But then as your buddy stated earlier, there is more than one reason to do this than to try to make someone feel intellectually inferior. It helps me know who I am responding to, because hiding behind a veil of anonymity is one way you try to exercise control and power over me. You are obviously an individual who finds it very important to try to control and dominate any given situation. That certainly is duly noted here. When you don't get your own way, a tantrum erupts. Pity for anyone in your real life who is in range of them.

As for being a control freak, how is that? What control do I have over the likes of you and your friends? What control could I possibly exercise how you and your friends do your jobs? I certainly have had little control over your rather immature and certainly abysmal behavior here but then there's no need to do so anyway. You will do as you will.

Telling is that it is you that has nothing better to do than to correct others, for your lack of self-esteem. When you look in the mirror you see a dirty old maid expired sperm depository.
If I looked, smelled and had a reputation like you, I would hate myself as you do.
You have an inate need to always be right, correct, superior.


Oooh, let's throw out the misogynist artillery because we're so bitter and angry. "Dirty old made expired sperm depository", ouch! In other words, I'm a woman. I'm not surprised you have to lie to women to get ahem, action. Maybe you have to pay them too.

When you look at me that is what you see, because you hate me. You hate me enough to share those thoughts with me, because you believe that I care how you see me. I guess I'm supposed to be so devastated by your dim view of me that I'm going to stop posting on my blog. However, comments like yours are more a reflection on the ugliness that exists inside you than on me. Anyone who reads them can figure that out and they have. Another reason why you throw these tantrums here, but alas, not the main reason.

You have an innate need to get attention from women, even if it means harassing them, probably because they won't give you the time of day in real life. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why that's true. However, that is not why you are here.

Most time you have no idea what you are talking about.

And you do? You have clearly shown that your only area of expertise is to make racist, homophobic and misogynist comments. I'll concede that you are very skilled at this pursuit, but when it comes to law enforcement and the RPD, anything you stated that was knowledgeable would have had to been stated last autumn.

But hey,
you are the queen of nothing.


Hmm. I thought I was Queen Mary, the wigger to you. Twice. Thanks for sharing that.


[Ok, get to it, correct the spelling, tell me what I should've wrote, label me, dissect every sentence I posted, spin my words to play to your buttons, tell me again who I should be and how to behave. Tell me how to think and how to respond; blah blah blah blah blah blah burp @#%&! the most intelligent sentence you've ever posted, You control freak.]

The brackets are a nice touch.

Did you just give me an order? I think we need to reexamine who is trying to be the "control freak" here, LOL.

Well, you uttered that classic line, not me. How were you to know it would be the highest point of your commentary history here? You poor thing. This new martyr card that you are currently playing doesn't suit you by the way.

Control freak. There is that term again. What am I controlling again? Oh yes, your every action performed in your life and your every word written here. Oh yes, certainly. At this point, I think both of us are supposed to put on our tinfoil hats.

Good Day,

Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

I'm not interested in your poetry and besides, I'm over 14, too old for your interests.

Emotionally, you do closely resemble a teenage boy in your behavioral patterns.

Chronologically, you are probably about 10 years older than that. If you are older than your mid-twenties, then your emotional maturity has been severely stunted indeed. My condolences, because you have a tough life ahead.

Perhaps, this is your "oppression".

I was so hoping that "Starsky etal" would contribute a sample of his obvious expertise on police union activities since he threw the gauntlet out to "oh smart one", but he's obviously feeling too shy right now to do so. That's a condition that appears to be going around right now. I wonder why that is?

It shouldn't be too surprising. Bullies lose interest when their targets refuse to be bullied. That, or they are worried that their veils of anonymity are dissipating and it will be proven at the end of the day that there are very small men hiding behind the curtain indeed.

Good Day,

Sunday, July 23, 2006 11:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Mark McFall said...

Mary, perhaps you would enlighten all of us as to what special qualities are necessary to become a "community activist" / agitator.

Sunday, July 23, 2006 6:44:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear "mark mcfall":

Yeah, right.

Why are you using someone else's name? Have you no shame? Are you that much of a coward?

I just have a difficult time believing that an RPD lieutenant would suddenly show up here and join up with some unidentified racist, homophobic misogynists here, while posting under his own name.

I will answer your question when you come back, using your true name instead of hiding behind someone else's.

Good Day,

Monday, July 24, 2006 8:09:00 AM  
Anonymous lance said...

QUOTE:"Mary Bitch,It is aparent to all five people who read your blog that you are the racist, homophobe, misogynist. When you look in the mirror you see a dirty old maid expired sperm depository.
If I looked, smelled and had a reputation like you, I would hate myself as you do." QUOTE

Wow...I find this so bizarre. I almost feel sorry for you, because you're carrying so much anger. But it's scary too - because you also carry a gun. And obviously you shouldn't be allowed to carry one...as your temper should preclude you from continuing as a police officer. Time to take some sick leave to clean out all the anger and come back as a decent human being...which, perhaps, you once were.

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:26:00 PM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

I will answer your question when you come back, using your true name instead of hiding behind someone else's.

Oh yeah, like any of these pathetic bastards has ever had enough balls to do that.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:35:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Sandalou:

Actually, there was one RPD officer who did use his real name. Of course, within 24 hours of that post, an unidentified individual appeared on the site with a similar style and apparently posted most of November. Either they were two different individuals posting separately or someone decided he wanted to eschew his real identity and join in with his buddies.

I believe the unidentified individual was the one who told me not to call the police if I needed assistance. Apparently, he must be the department spokesperson as well.

No, they seem content to hide behind false names, no names at all or apparently the names of real people like Frank Serpico and Mark McFall. Perhaps they are truly ashamed of their behavior and are too embarrassed to disclose their identities. After all, they have not conducted themselves here very well at all. Not well indeed.

Good Day,

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Mark McFall said...

Mary, again you have guessed wrong.

I have never said or written anything anonymously and will not start now.

So, I will repeat my question for you: Would you enlighten all of us as to what special qualities are necessary to become a self-appointed "community activist" / agitator.

Perhaps that is too simplistic and begs the question as the apparent answer, in your case, would be an abundance of available time and an unrelenting hatred of the police.

Is there anything else?

Mark McFall

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:20:00 AM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

Mary doesn't hate the police and I don't really think that you think she does. She does want to get rid of the bad cops, the ones who denigrate and often abuse the very people they are supposed to be serving. You know, the ones that want to refer to the enter Latin neighborhood as a zoo and all female officers as lezzies. The ones that think officers should be allowed free rien to decide when they ought to kill suspects. The ones that have made all kinds of racist, sexual, disgusting remarks to every poster on her that doesn't see things their way. Why do the decent cops cover for them? I never understood that.

As for what qualifies someone to become a self-appointed community activist/agitator, you have to be willing to risk your mental health, your safety and if some of the scum on here is even half serious("we know where you live") potentially her life.

Go back to the beginning and read it all. All the threats, the racial and sexual slurs, the slobbering remarks over proposed acts of deviancy. If this is your finest, Riverside is in a fucking world of hurt.

Explain to me Mr McFall why the good ones are willing to cover for the criminal ones?

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:04:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Mark McFall:

I wasn't talking about you posting anonymously. I am sorry if you believed that I had done so. I had merely assumed that someone else who was posting here had borrowed your name as they had borrowed Frank Serpico's name last October. However, I have been informed that you retired last December. If I was mistaken about your identity, it was because I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Apparently, I was wrong about that and stand corrected. It does really explain a few things and answers some questions.

You asked me for my definition of what a "community activist"/agitator was, yet you provided a definition of your own in its stead. So your question was rhetorical, not inquisitive in nature? You obviously dislike them very much. You probably believe that the community should just butt out of the police department's business and allow it to do as it sees fit, no questions asked.

The problem with that line of thinking is that for years the community did just that and then beginning in 2001, the city's residents got stuck with a $22 million collection notice, on top of millions of dollars already spent paying out in civil litigation claims, settlements, verdicts and legal fees.

Last November, the tax payers of Riverside were stuck with another huge bill, the $1.64 million jury's verdict in the case, [em]Roger Sutton v the City of Riverside[/em], which it could pay now or pay more later on. You do remember that case, don't you?

By 1999, the police department had deteriorated into an agency that was found to be in violation of not only state law, but the state constitution, according to the writ of mandamus filed in the case of [em]The People of the State of California v The City of Riverside[/em]. You do remember what the stipulated judgment is, don't you? It was dissolved not long after your apparent retirement.

Seriously, an argument could be made that the community waited much too long before it became actively engaged in police department reform and we are paying the price for that now. Our children will continue paying that price through money spent on continued reforms.

[strong][em]Is there anything else?[/strong][/em]

Yes. I have a question in return.

Why is it when men of color and women sue to access fair and equal promotional opportunities in the police department, they are viewed as being disgruntled yet when White men like yourself do it, it's seen as correcting an injustice? Why is it that the former group often faces harassment, ostracism and other forms of retaliation while the White male officers do not?

Oops, that was two questions.

Have a nice day,

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:39:00 AM  
Anonymous lance said...

As a former police Lieutenant, you are probably an educated, well-informed man...but you're still subscribing to the "blue wall" syndrome. I know it's tough for police to police themselves; to rat on each other; because police officers continually depend on each other in life-threatening situations. That's why it's more realistic to take serious complaints outside the police service, to be dealt with by an independent group without biases, without loyalties. The cops-can-do-no-wrong philosophy is so outdated. People today are questioning the behavior of police officers - and rightly so, too. Police are sworn to uphold the law and protect the community which appoints them. With the power they are given comes a great deal of responsibility. And sometimes members don't show that responsibility. When there is an abuse of authority, it's an abuse of the reputation and good name of all police officers - and police should be as critical of that abuse as any other members of the community. But, sadly, they so often cover it up in a misdirected sense of loyalty. People like Five Before Midnight are showing a lot more caring about the community and the need for maintaining a high level of policing standards than most people who are either too timid or too afraid to criticize a group of very powerful individuals...

Austin, Texas, is a classic example where policing has left the community behind. This from a recent report:

QUOTE: Austin police officers filed 6,447 use of force reports — nearly 13,000 pages — documenting everything from beatings to lethal shootings between 1998 and 2003. In only one report did a supervisor suggest that an officer failed to follow procedure. Eight officers received additional training after filing reports. Police officials said supervisors counseled 14 additional officers about their use of force, but they don't know whether the officers received additional training.

Nine of the 10 officers who filed the most reports have never been questioned or disciplined for using excessive force, police records show.

Police and citizens who are concerned about officer conduct must file complaints with the department's internal affairs division or with the police monitor's office, which became active in February 2002. The monitor's office has never recommended removing or suspending an officer from the force, and department officials routinely refuse the suggestions the office does make, records show.QUOTE

Sounds to me like Austin needs a few more Five Before Midnights there too.....

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I will answer your question when you come back, using your true name instead of hiding behind someone else's.

Good Day,"

we're still waiting for an answer. in case you forgot the question, here it is again.

Mary, perhaps you would enlighten all of us as to what special qualities are necessary to become a "community activist" / agitator.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for your comments and for repeating the question. Actually, I believe it is you who have yet to respond back to my questions I had asked you earlier. If you can't recall what they were, just tell me and I will be happy to do it for you.

I am thinking of a response to Mr. McFall's question. I'm especially intrigued by the tie-in between "community activist" and "agitator". I find his word choice very interesting indeed both from a contemporary and historic perspective.

By the way, who or what is "we" anyway? I haven't noticed a crowd of you here, just a small handful at best.

Even if you could pass the psychological evaluations and become RPD officers, you still would provide a representation of that agency that is only minuscule at best. That's probably a good thing.

Have a nice day,

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Mark McFall said...

Mary,

I see that you chose not to answer my seemingly simple question, nor to refute the answers that I suspected: lots of free time and hatred of the police on your part, so I must be warm. Instead, you opted to deflect and give us another rendition of the same old song we have been hearing from you all along.

And, no, I do not "dislike them (activists) greatly." Overwhelmingly, good police officers and law enforcement agencies welcome constructive and rational input from the communities they serve. The key words here are rational and constructive. Our irritation comes from the constant, one-sided, negative attacks.

That is why you have been "tuned out" and have been unable to influence decision makers at any level. Therefore you are left with networking with the other two dozen or so hard-core police haters (in a city of 300,000) and trading jabs here with the "small handful" who log on to your web site -- which influences no one outside of your little circle.

Could it be that all those other community members, the "silent majority," are actually supportive of their police officers and are relieved to know that they are on the way when there is trouble?

It appears that you hold yourself out to be some sort of journalist / commentator / analyst / influential community leader -- wanting desperately to be taken seriously. That, however, would also require fairness and balance. And, some credentials in terms of education, training, and experience which would lend credibility to your efforts in trying to accomplish those things (which returns us to my original question for you).

Unless I have missed something, I have never seen a kind word from you about any of the countless good works done by RPD officers. We have also noticed your absence at the funerals for fallen RPD officers and others in our area, and at our annual memorial ceremony honoring all of them. (See fairness and balance.)

It is much easier to sit on the sidelines and pick at those brave souls who are in the arena, going into harm's way handling difficult situations for total strangers on a daily basis, than it is to do what they do.

That brings up another question for you: Have you considered applying for a position as a police officer, and if successful, showing us all how it should be done.

Of course, only a small percentage of applicants actually meet the standards and qualify, and not all of them can pass the academy or field training. So why not give it a go? Let us see what you've got!

Yes, police officers are human and as such do make mistakes, despite the intense training and supervision they receive. A few even get through that turn out to be "bad apples" (malicious / dishonest), which good officers universally despise -- not "cover up" for.

And speaking of small percentages, nation wide -- including Riverside -- that number of bad cops historically has been less than one-half of one percent, which is less than the clergy's number of bad apples.

What is the percentage of bad apples in your business? (whatever that is)

Mark McFall

Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:38:00 AM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

A few even get through that turn out to be "bad apples" (malicious / dishonest), which good officers universally despise -- not "cover up" for.

If you expect to be taken Mr. McFall, quit pretending that the warts don't exist. Good cops do cover for bad cops all the time just like you're doing now.

Nobody here hates cops. Many of us admire the good ones greatly. I've got the feeling that you would not have fallen in that category. I believe 'inflexible' and 'fossil' are both words I've heard when your past career is discussed.

Could it be that the silent majority is silent because they fear retaliation? Could it be that you think any criticism of police is unreasonable? Could it be that you think police should be above criticism from us peasants because we aren't on the lines?

Could it be that the department improved at least slightly the day you retired?

As for not answering simple questions asked of you..pot, this is kettle, you have a lot in common.

Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:51:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Mr. McFall:

Thank you for your comments. They have been most helpful and informative. You have provided a first-hand demonstration of how officers have been and are supervised in the RPD by your appearance and comments here. I can see that you are still taking good care of your boys. An admirable trait in most circumstances. This one? That remains to be seen.

Now let us move on to your most recent comments.

I see that you chose not to answer my seemingly simple question, nor to refute the answers that I suspected: lots of free time and hatred of the police on your part, so I must be warm. Instead, you opted to deflect and give us another rendition of the same old song we have been hearing from you all along.

When it comes to deflecting questions, you are pretty good at that yourself, I see. But you do prove one adage by your appearance on this site at this particular time. A picture does say a thousand words and much more than any song could. I find your sudden appearance posting here(and I do believe what you said about not posting anonymously) very interesting indeed.

And, no, I do not "dislike them (activists) greatly." Overwhelmingly, good police officers and law enforcement agencies welcome constructive and rational input from the communities they serve. The key words here are rational and constructive. Our irritation comes from the constant, one-sided, negative attacks.

You view any "constructive criticism" that you don't agree with as a "one-sided negative attack". You view anything as "rational" or "constructive" as long as people are in agreement with what you are doing, no questions asked. They ask the "wrong" question and constructive criticism becomes a one-sided attack very quickly.

Fortunately, at least now there are officers who think outside that rather confined box. Their numbers will increase to replace the officers who are still confined by the old-school ways. That is always good to see and what many of that "silent majority" of yours have hoped for with the consent decree.

Hopefully, that attitude will continue to increase with the turnover produced when one generation of officers replaces the previous one. You, yourself are the past and are gone now so to speak.

The future still lies ahead and will probably move on without you. Another reason for you to show up and join perhaps other individuals who have been left behind by progress. Why bother to show up on an obscure Web site and criticize someone who's been "tuned out" anyway? I wonder which one of my charming guests here contacted you.

That "silent majority" you talk of, is probably your definition of a "community activist" that is positive in your eyes. You viewed a question that I asked you, as a form of deflection because you didn't want to answer it, did you? It was after all, a simple question. Why is there a double standard between race and gender discrimination suits filed by others compared to yourself and your friends?

Inquiring people have long wanted to know the answer to that question.

Also, how are you so sure that "silent majority" is really so silent? Conversations take place that retired RPD officers like yourself are just not privy to. They don't view the city council as being concerned about their questions and criticisms so they keep quiet. Actually, they should speak up more often. Community input is imperative in order to continue the department's reform process as cited in op-ed pieces written by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Police Chief Russ Leach and AG consultant Joe Brann. Community involvement is one major component of what will define this police department in the present and future. Certainly, you would agree if you were still an officer in the RPD and facilitate that effort yourself. But you left, I see.

That is why you have been "tuned out" and have been unable to influence decision makers at any level. Therefore you are left with networking with the other two dozen or so hard-core police haters (in a city of 300,000) and trading jabs here with the "small handful" who log on to your web site -- which influences no one outside of your little circle.

Ah yes, again, anyone who is not in full agreement with you is a "hard-core police hater". I've heard a lot worse than that. It goes with the territory, I've found. Decision makers are influenced by power and money, not input by citizens as much. Nobody outside of that group really has any influence on them and law enforcement does not tend to be influenced by anyone outside its "little circle" either. Even the two law enforcement unions that gave elected officials money when they run for office have not benefited. If they did, perhaps the RPOA would not be in a stalemate in its contract negotiations and the management union wouldn't be suing the city because of a problem with its negotiations. Both situations which are very unfortunate and not really fair to those involved who deserve to be paid well for the work they do.

But as I've said, these attitudes by both "decision makers" and by police managers is what stuck the city residents with a $22 million(and growing) bill that had to be paid, or else. More community involvement(which historically has never been welcomed by the police department) might have prevented that. Now, add to that $22 million, the eventual payout of the $1.64 million in the Roger Sutton case. A case you yourself were involved in, from what I understand.

It appears that you hold yourself out to be some sort of journalist / commentator / analyst / influential community leader -- wanting desperately to be taken seriously. That, however, would also require fairness and balance. And, some credentials in terms of education, training, and experience which would lend credibility to your efforts in trying to accomplish those things (which returns us to my original question for you).

I see managers of the RPD tap into the same rumor mills as well. LOL.

Wrong again. So, now you are applying restrictions to those "community activists" who can offer "rational" and "constructive criticism". I see. That's very convenient of you. That tells me you are not all that interested or concerned in what most of the 300,000 people(who lack law enforcement experience or training) have to say. That's probably why I've had hundreds of conversations with people in this city about the police department dealing with everything from courtesy issues, to response times(yes, people are more worried than assured that police will respond to them). Maybe they went to the police department and individuals like yourself first, but received no response or a hostile response due to their ahem, lack of credentials. Some of them did complain that some lieutenants did not want to hear about "problems" in the RPD only good things at community meetings. So much for allowing "constructive criticism" in certain circles.

Unless I have missed something, I have never seen a kind word from you about any of the countless good works done by RPD officers. We have also noticed your absence at the funerals for fallen RPD officers and others in our area, and at our annual memorial ceremony honoring all of them. (See fairness and balance.)

You missed a lot. I don't know you. I wouldn't recognize you on the street if I saw you. I did notice a lot of rather interesting expressions on people's faces when I asked about you. Kind of like they were tasting something unpleasant? Maybe it was just indigestion.

No, what you have missed is that I say kind words of appreciation to officers who do good jobs, not those who engage in behaviors that are offensive and just plain wrong. I especially don't give out kind words to supervisors who either ignore atrocious behavior in their midst or actually not only perpetuate themselves but come in defense of it. So much so that they can't even put it aside when their time of service is done. If you haven't heard a kind word from me personally, maybe you don't deserve one.

I'm sure my kind words do not make it back to the RPD rumor mills. It wouldn't make for nearly good fodder as my alleged history of DUIs, personal hygiene and sex life now would it?

It is much easier to sit on the sidelines and pick at those brave souls who are in the arena, going into harm's way handling difficult situations for total strangers on a daily basis, than it is to do what they do.

Actually, it's not. It's easier to blindly praise people for what they do and not criticize them at all in this city. But I get what you are really saying. It's that since civilians can not be police officers, then they should be quiet about even questioning the behavior of police officers, except behind closed doors. Got you.

Actually, I attended several memorial events and candle light vigils for Officer Doug Jacobs. I received some looks of hostility, but not many. I've been to one officer's funeral so far in my life, a friend. I certainly would not attend one just to curry favorable attitudes from law enforcement officers.

How many funerals of community members who have died have you personally attended, outside your own community? How many funerals have you attended involving individuals killed by police officers? You might argue that these are two entirely different situations and you might be right, but that "silent majority" you talk about, many of them have asked me this question. I hear it, even you don't, but by your attitude here, I can see why you don't hear it.

Yes, police officers are human and as such do make mistakes, despite the intense training and supervision they receive. A few even get through that turn out to be "bad apples" (malicious / dishonest), which good officers universally despise -- not "cover up" for.

And speaking of small percentages, nation wide -- including Riverside -- that number of bad cops historically has been less than one-half of one percent, which is less than the clergy's number of bad apples.


You know what Mr. McFall? If it weren't so damned sad, it would almost be funny reading these words from you, considering the circumstances?

A retired officer wanted to ask you if you would answer the question of what was the difference between a good cop and a bad one, but I don't think you're able to do that yet. No wait, in a way you've just shown him in technicolor.

Have a nice day,

Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:56:00 AM  
Blogger Sheelzebub said...

How many funerals of community members who have died have you personally attended, outside your own community? How many funerals have you attended involving individuals killed by police officers? You might argue that these are two entirely different situations and you might be right, but that "silent majority" you talk about, many of them have asked me this question. I hear it, even you don't, but by your attitude here, I can see why you don't hear it.

Yep. What you said.

Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Sandalou and Sheelzebub:

Thank you for your comments.

The interesting thing is that the Press Enterprise with its considerably larger staff and resources, covers the funerals of police officers and deputies with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department as well as other law enforcement events. The Black Voice News has also covered police funerals, though it's usually the editor who covers those stories because they are considered important events. The Doug Jacobs funeral is one example of a funeral that was covered.

However, I have seen several disparaging comments made about the Press Enterprise and its "oh-so-impartial reporters" in this blog. Never mind how many complaints that newspaper received from law enforcement representatives during the year it covered the shooting of Tyisha Miller, not to mention that its employees received threatening phone calls from unknown parties because its coverage was viewed as being "anti-police". Yet they continued writing and publishing stories rather than succumb to that intimidation.

The Black Voice News's news racks were vandalized with hate symbols and even pulled out of the sidewalk and tossed into a truck by city employees who were ordered by then City Manager John Holmes to do so. One RPD officer, currently a sergeant, wearing the extremely fashionable short hair style of the time, told the editor while taking a report on a swastika spray painted on a parking sign outside the building that "we support those who support us". It's no secret to any staff member at the BVN how much certain police officers despise the newspaper, calling it "that rag"(shouted from an officer cowering inside his squad car before he split and also called that in this blog), "ebonics"(overheard in conversation), "trash"(overheard in conversation), "comic book"(this blog) and other terms of endearment. But the newspaper's coverage of the police department attracts a lot of interest from its readership including law enforcement officers from a variety of different agencies across the state because people are concerned about an agency that receives a large chunk of their city's general fund each year and doesn't treat them the same as it treats people outside their race. The department's reform process and stipulated judgment has also attracted a lot of interest as it should being the nation's first state-initiated decree involving a law enforcement agency.

Everyone is also aware that these attitudes and actions do not represent the majority of RPD officers who are probably embarrassed by these antics done by misguided individuals in their name.

That difference in treatment among people of different races emerged in a briefing of the Terry Rabb in-custody death given by a CPRC investigator last night. One of the officers allegedly made a statement that Rabb was acting as if he was on an illegal drug such as crack cocaine in front of Rabb's family members. This was after they had been told about Rabb's litany of serious illnesses including diabetes, a condition that is actually much more common in African-Americans than ingesting crack cocaine is. Maybe they should talk about that in the department's diversity training.

I remember thinking, no counting, how many references were made in this blog relating African-Americans to crack or rock cocaine addicts by individuals identifying themselves as RPD officers. And once an officer has turned a "good" illness into a "bad" drug addiction, then that might influence or shape what comes next in an interaction between them and members of the public. The investigator called this statement, a potential "tactical error on the part of the officer". To me because of what I have read here especially last autumn, it merely felt familiar. Racial remarks and slurs like those that have been used here by unidentified individuals are indeed offensive, but racial stereotypes(i.e. the "Black with crack up the ass" or "rock cocaine addict" found here posted under cute aliases) may be much more destructive.

Although it's hard to assess those statements about Rabb and drugs, because according to the CPRC's investigator, the detectives conducting the criminal investigation never broached that issue in their interviews of both officers.

That report contrasted with that given in the case of Todd Argow, which appears to have been an unavoidable shooting, although tragic.

But at least in part nearly eight years after the Miller shooting, the police department is a better place today than it was back then because of the news coverage by both newspapers and the Los Angeles Times as well as community involvement from a large proportion of that "silent majority" McCall speaks of. It also has made progress because of those who work within it as well and went against the grain. That takes courage and initiative.

So, I do not think it's about being "fair and balanced" for Mr. McFall. Even the television network that patented that statement did not really mean that, LOL.

Actually, I had some interesting conversations with people about Mr. McFall because I was very concerned that someone else was impersonating him. Interestingly enough, some of those individuals I spoke with believed that it really could be Mr. McFall posting here due to his rather brash and outspoken nature. Still, it's impossible to know for sure. However, I have chosen to give this individual the benefit of the doubt that he is who he says he is and respond accordingly.

I do hope retirement is treating him well. As a city resident who shops Riverside, I do not mind paying my share of his current 3% at 50. I might be a bit troubled by his sudden appearance here just as the blog's other visitors have departed, but he probably earned his retirement that he is receiving and has worked hard.

A RPD captain said publicly at a meeting that it would be a deplorable and disappointing situation if it were true that Mr. McFall was posting here. Other people shared similar sentiments. He might believe that he is upsetting me with his comments and thus is getting "warm", but I'm still trying to get past the shock of a former member of the RPD's middle management posting comments here in this environment to really even respond to what he writes on an emotional level.

Indeed, if it is really him posting here, it might be me who is getting "warm". Yes indeed.

Have a nice day,

Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ADAM'S LAW

Today President Bush signed Adam's Law. Adam's Law is designed to better inform the public at large about child molesters and rapists within the community.

Local
activist Mary Shelton was concerned about Adam's Law and it's possible ramifications upon possible violations of the civil rights of suspects, especially those suspects who are current registered sex offenders and are facing a possible third strike.

Friday, July 28, 2006 3:09:00 AM  
Blogger Sandalou said...

So what's your point? That you can't believe that any one would waste time being concerned about violating the rights of suspects? Suspects, hmmm, suspects. That means they haven't even been charged with anything yet, innocent until proven guilty, that basic American right.

Do you really think that the people who read here (other than your friends) are so easily distracted from the real issue just by you crying Wolf?

Who are you going to deem unworthy of their constitutional rights next?

Friday, July 28, 2006 5:12:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Hi Anonymous:

Thank you for that information. Having once lived on a block with four registered sex offenders(since most of them congregate in poor neighborhoods)on it, I believe it's a good idea to inform the public about child molesters and rapists, which came about through the implementation of Megan's Law several years ago. The resultant databases have become a tool that many people use to receive more information on them. Because of the high recidivism rate of sex offenders as well as their tendency to escalate their criminal behavior, I think it's wise to provide this service as long as the information is not abused in any way. All the Megan's Law database sites provide admonitions to this effect.

I had a conversation once with an RPD representative from Crime-Free Multi-Housing about how it was that a registered sex offender could pass the muster as a tenant in an apartment complex under that program, when individuals who commit considerably less serious misdemeanor crimes would be disqualified. She really had no answer to that question. Seems strange don't you think, "Anonymous"?

It was a question that arose from several people from that "silent majority".

However, I realize that providing this information to you is a waste of time, because it's much more convenient for you to paint a picture of me as someone who blindly supports child molesters, simply because I do believe in the importance of our U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. That and the fact that you simply don't like me. If memory serves me, "Kevin, RPD" tried the same tactic last autumn. You are simply doing it to further your defense that you are justified in your past actions here which include the anonymous posting of some rather nasty comments.

But, someone else has arrived here to speak for the police department in your stead and is even apparently using his real name so your services here aren't necessary any more.

As I recall, when I wrote about former RPD officer Adam Brown who is of course a child molester, what I received from unidentified individuals here in return was that I was unfairly targeting White male officers who committed crimes. So who here is defending child molesters?

Ah, I see you still can't sign your comments using your real name. What a surprise that is.

Good Day,

Friday, July 28, 2006 8:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ANDREA YATES

Andrea Yates was found " not guilty " for the murder of her five children. Andrea Yates will be confined at a mental facility where her attorneys said that she will receive a better life than if she'd been sent to prison.

Local activist Mary Shelton hailed the " not guilty " verdict as a victory for feminism and women in general. Ms. Shelton also said that having mental illness is not a crime, but a disease.

Friday, July 28, 2006 11:28:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

I don't know but after having read Mr. McFall's comments, your latest attempts at making noise just make you appear less intelligent than usual. The bar has been raised. Now it's time for you to catch up.

I take it you didn't like my response to your allegation that I support child molesters and of course, you were unable to address the points I raised. I had not yet received an update of the latest round of rumors generated either by yourself or your friends. Thank you for providing me with an update.

How is the Andrea Yates case in any way a victory for feminism or women in general? Could you elaborate? When and where did I state that it was?

Ms. Shelton also said that having mental illness is not a crime, but a disease.

I'm a bit puzzled by this statement as it appears contradictory and makes no sense at all. If something is labeled as an "illness", then it is often also considered a "disease".

So having mental illness in itself is a crime? Could you explain your position further?

If you see mental illness in itself as a crime that should be treated as such, I really hope that you are not entrusted by the public to work in law enforcement. But as I have already stated, I think that the mandatory psychological evaluation would make short work of that process in your case which is good news to the rest of us.

Good Day,

Friday, July 28, 2006 6:10:00 PM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

Just in case you are still reading this blog, here is a question for you, based on a previous post that may or may not have been written by you. Again, when individuals choose to hide behind the moniker, "Anonymous", it is hard to distinguish who is who, though I understand that's the point of engaging in such behavior. This said, I do apologize if I have confused you with another unidentified individual here.

Here is a portion of that post.

WAAA WAAA WAAA WAAA! Immigrants are taking away jobs from our black brothers and sisters WAAA WAAA!

If I recall correctly, there was once an unidentified individual called "RPD" who posted on this blog in early October 2005. He or she was linked to a blog called "RPD WAAA". I noticed that this blog is currently off-line. Did you author it? And if so, why did you remove it from public view, along with the blogger's profile information? What a shame. Blogger.com did leave a message encouraging the blog's author to put it online again.

Again, I do apologize if I have you confused with another anonymous poster but you do understand how it is with these things.

Still, what a loss it is for Riverside not to mention the world if you had indeed written a blog and no one could read it! Wouldn't you agree?

Good Day,

Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FDA CONSIDERS " PLAN B PILL "

The FDA is considering the proposed plan B (birth control) pill.
Feminist / Activist Mary Shelton voiced her non-interest by proclaiming that she has no use for such a pill, nor would she ever allow a man to penetrate and plant his seeds within her body.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006 7:48:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Anonymous:

I guess there will be no answer today about the missing blog as you seem intent on playing more dodge ball. A game very much suited to someone of your emotional age level, I might add. I'm a very patient person. I can wait.

I am aware that you are writing these fabrications about me to get even with me for writing in my blog. In some twisted way, you perceive it as tit for tat. I know this, because you have made this abundantly clear in several of your earlier posts. I'm not sure why you feel so strongly about this to act the way that you have during the last several months. That is your question to answer and in a sense, you have begun that process.

The only mystery is why you began writing posts like this in May(or possibly earlier) and not last autumn. I think with time that will solve itself.

As for the "proposed" Plan B pill, it's not exactly news. I guess you didn't read those news articles written months ago about it. I'm sure you had better things to do.

All that aside, I did have one more question to ask you about mental illness. Since you apparently consider it a crime in itself to be mentally ill, what do you think of the police department's attempts to create training for officers to help them interface with mentally ill people in our city? Do you consider it to be a beneficial tool or a waste of time? I do not know if you are the unidentified individual who recommended that we just lock them up with the homeless population in a city jail. Would you agree with that individual's viewpoint on this issue?

Before you start feeling too badly, remember this. You obviously are struggling with some mental health issues as evidenced by the volumes of very negative material that you have posted here. Look on the bright side. Compared to the unidentified individual who single handedly presented the best argument for gun control laws I have seen lately through his "list", you appear relatively sane. I hope neither of you work in law enforcement.

Oh, and what was your favorite color by the way? It seems that you mentioned having one a while back.

Good Day,

Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:37:00 AM  
Blogger Five Before Midnight said...

Dear Sandalou:

So what's your point?

I've been asking "Anonymous"(one and all) that since he, she, it or they arrived here and have really received very little in the way of a coherent response from anyone here. One "Anonymous" claimed he was here to amuse himself over my "immature prose"(to which he responded in kind). In my opinion, that's a rather weak excuse and clearly designed to deflect from the issue. It's clear that this individual and possibly others have an ax to grind about something he perceives that I have done to him or to RPD officers. He stated in one comment that he believed that I had slandered, harassed and stalked RPD officers, so he is basically treating me in kind, through the nasty postings that he has written here. Because I objected to the nasty comments written here by unidentified individuals, he has called me a hypocrite. In his mind, he probably views this interaction as merely a tit for tat, or perhaps an eye for an eye, but his behavior is vastly disproportionate to anything I have done. He could probably do with some professional help who or whatever he is. His background remains unclear.

The interesting thing is that when unidentified individuals first began posting on the site last autumn, they seemed more interested in gossiping about the department and even in slamming each other in their RPOA presidential candidate selections than in being upset with me. These were posters like "Serpico", "Starsky" and "D.J."(though he or she showed up mostly to warn others not to gossip) who seemed intent on talking about the police department and to a lessor extent, the RPOA's leadership. Perhaps, they were running short of outlets to vent in that were closer to the police department because of the rapid changes taking place under the consent decree imposed by the state of California and the high turnover in the department as a result. That has been offered as a possible explanation.

Information was included in the comments about specific officers that these unidentified individual(s) appeared to know about including confidential information about investigations. One of the officers targeted in their gossip won a $1.64 million jury's verdict from his law suit against the city of Riverside and it is clear from their comments that these (mostly) unidentified individuals did not like him. Maybe the outcome of that litigation was just one more item to complain about amongst themselves along with other things that displeased them. The one thing they all seemed to agree upon, was that White male officers were the true victims of discrimination within the police department. That might be a shared belief system that ties them together, even amidst the turmoil of an agency evolving around them.

One or two unidentified individuals here related the information about these officers and another individual, "D.J.", appeared, telling them to possibly choose a better venue for doing so. This person did not mention the names of these officers discussed but assigned them descriptive nicknames, and he used one to identify himself. It's not clear whether or not "D.J." knew who the other unidentified individuals on the blog were at the time.

Only "Kevin, R.P.D." really appeared upset about the blog itself, in his comments, but in one of his posts, he offered an explanation of the tendency by some there to gossip.

I guess some people were just afraid to speak up because of the climate of RPD.

That desire to do so might have been why some individuals may have been searching for outlets to express themselves. This could have been one of several different venues used.

That was the last that was seen of "Kevin, R.P.D." but that individual probably stuck around to post again. I believe he possibly referred to me, as an "old hippy" in one post written last autumn on one of the Summer Lane discussion threads, a post which bore a similar style to his posts. The author of that post called me that because he had "heard" it from other parties. That sounds a bit similar with the current situation.

There was a major difference between the posting that took place last autumn and what took place this spring. Last autumn, the management of the police department received the brunt of the criticism and hostility from the unidentified posters, down to that comment posted in December where "Starsky" laughed and stated that the RPD management was not too happy about officers "using" the blog. However, the next time around, I became the target of the nasty comments, which began soon after one unidentified individual stated after the second news article was published about the blog investigation, that I was in "bed with management".

However, it is not clear if the two posting periods involved the same individuals or are directly related to each other though it does appear there could have been some crossover of posters between the two, possibly at least involving "Starsky", "Innocent Bystander" and "B. Fife".

Another thing that I find interesting is that when "Kevin, R.P.D." first posted on my blog, it did not clear that he knew who the blog's author was based on his initial comments. However, a couple days after his initial posts, "Kevin, R.P.D." stated the following:

First of all, your identity has never been a secret...you may think we're incompetent, but we've known about his site (and who runs it) long before you ever saw a posted comment.

I wouldn't be surprised if "Kevin, R.P.D." and I have never had our paths cross.

Then even though they had figured out my name(well, most of it), at least one unidentified individual who posted seemed unsure of what I looked like as witnessed in the following statement, posted around October 12, the day he or she graced the blog with his or her appearance and posted several times under the same moniker.

RPD said...
I was there too Five before Midnight...funny I didn't hear anyone go up to the podium and say, "My name is Five before Midnight, Resident of Riverside." hmmm, I wonder if you are one of the same old ladies that talk everyweek about the same old stuff....

Nahh, your a closet activist...no guts...

I'll keep doing my job and wait to see my name in your blog...


So was this individual claiming to be an officer who is not mentioned in the blog? I believe "Kevin, R.P.D." also stated that he was not mentioned in the blog in his initial post, a portion of which is reproduced below.

P.S. I'm a little hurt you dont have anything written about me. Not only am I white with a shaved head, but I've had several complaints and uses of force incidents involving people who were not white. Check your CPRC files and let me know what you think of my work.

Yours Truly,
Kevin, R.P.D.


It could have been "Starsky" too, based on the style. He liked using fake names and maybe "Kevin, R.P.D."'s wasn't fake. "Serpico" was a real name, but there's no reason why they had to have been the same person. In fact, it's possible that they were different people especially in "Serpico"'s second post, where he referred to me as the CPRC's "cheerleader". There, his style is quite a bit different than "Starsky"'s.

By the middle of November, it appeared that an unidentified individual(possibly the poster known as "Ponch/B. Fife"/?) had connected my name with a visual image as witnessed in this statement.

"Gosh,

based on your performance on TV last night I see a little gold statue in your future.

based on you and Ms. Lane's family description at city hall last night Ms. Lane seems so innocent.

Oh yeah...has the family told her 2 kids that Mom was a "Tweaker" with methamphetamine in her system at the time of the incident(per the autopsy report and reported in the CPRC report)or just that Ofc. Wilson murdered their Mom...

Come on now...If your going to get up and tell the story..tell the whole story.."


After that, He Who Likes Ampersands #2 showed up, again soon after he had informed me that I should not bother calling the police for their assistance. He and another unidentified poster began their discussion on the Summer Lane shooting and HWLA appears to have had quite a bit to say on the issue of officer involved shootings. Maybe off-line, it's also a habit with him. After taking the lead in that discussion for a while, HWLA #2 apparently gave up and began writing sexually suggestive comments, the only ones that showed up on the blog last autumn. Nothing compared to this time around.

By December, it was fairly clear that at least one unidentified individual knew who I was by this statement.

Mary,

saw you on TV today sporting the t-shirt from Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition Fall 1983 Collection........really didn't compliment your "tweaker-like" features...

Mr. Blackwell


The name is obviously fake, but the posting style is similar to one that's been seen more recently than December and was fairly prevalent earlier in the comments history as well.

This commentary of mine refers mainly to comments that were posted last autumn and thus might have no bearing on the latest round of nasty comments. There is much about the second round of postings that remains unclear. However, there is a saying by Shakespeare that states, "what is past, is prologue", one good reason to consider the possibility that there is some relation.

Good Day,

Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older