Hiding in Plain Sight: Due process for Kelsy Metzler?
The Riverside Police Officers' Association has gone to bat for former police officer, Jose Nazario, who was fired shortly after being told he potentially faced voluntary manslaughter charges in relation to a killing of an unarmed Iraqi prisoner in Fallujah, according to the Press Enterprise.
(excerpt)
Meanwhile, the Riverside Police Officers' Association is asking that the Riverside Police Department place Nazario back on the force, and put him on paid administrative leave until the investigation is concluded.
Nazario was terminated by the Police Department after his arrest on the federal charges. Police Chief Russ Leach said that at the time he was terminated, Nazario was still serving the probationary period as a newly hired officer.
Nazario was eight weeks shy of completing his probationary period, according to a statement by the police officers' association.
"We are concerned that due to a flaw in that process, a new Riverside police officer nearing the end of his probationary period has been dismissed without any evidence of police misconduct," President Ken Tutwiler said in a statement. "While the Riverside Police Officers' Association is not in a position to cast judgment, or assess guilt or innocence, we are here to call attention to a police officer's right to due process."
By doing so, it's just fulfilling its responsibilities as a union to look out for its members which are the department's police officers, detectives and sergeants. As a stand to take for what it represents, it's a commendable one and one in line with its responsibilities towards its members.
But the leadership should take it a step further and apply their standard of addressing a "flaw" in the process to another probational officer who was fired by the department two years ago. This one was not accused or charged with committing a crime and it's not clear whether or not there was any investigation of misconduct that had been done by the department in this officer's case. The sin of this officer appears to have been in believing that the police department meant it when its employees encouraged officers to report discrimination and/or harassment involving race and gender that they experience or witness. However, the past and present seem to be blurring when it comes to addressing these problems. As far as the department and city seem to be concerned, employees stepping forward and reporting this bad and discriminatory behavior might as well be committing a crime.
The officer in question was a woman named Kelsy Metzler who was fired during the summer of 2005 not long after graduating 21st out of 70 in her class, which isn't bad at all. After graduating from the academy and fulfilling all of its requirements to become a police officer, Metzler showed up for her first day at work at the police department to receive her assignment. Instead, she was led to a room where a representative from the Internal Affairs Division was present along with defendants later listed in her law suit and told she was fired. When she asked why, she stated in her law suit that she was told by them that they didn't have to give a reason and that they didn't like her. It's not clear whether a union representative was present with her on her behalf when she received the notification of her termination as a police officer before her career even had a chance to begin or when she was told that she wouldn't be given a reason for her termination. Somehow, it's doubtful that anyone stood up and advocated for her rights as has been done for her male counterpart. She certainly didn't mention any such advocacy in her law suit.
In her law suit, Metzler had stated that she had complained that a male cadet at the academy was sexually harassing her and possibly other women there. She was told it would be investigated in accordance to the policy put in place to do so. She was later told by her supervisor that she couldn't access a copy of her complaint nor could she receive an update on the investigation, both rights that anyone who files a complaint under any reputable policy would have. Was there anyone able to help her have access to either of these things?
Two Riverside Police Department officers came to visit her at some point after she had filed her harassment complaints. It would have been great if these two male officers who visited her and who are listed in her law suit would have been there to tell her that the department had heard about the complaint and was concerned about her well-being. After all, it had spent a huge chunk of money and time recruiting her, screening her application, going through the extensive hiring steps and taking her through the pre-academy phase before she even entered into the police academy. At this point in her employment, the department and city had already invested a six-figure sum in her future and in its future.
According to her law suit, none of that happened. What allegedly happened instead is that the two men informed her that her employing agency had heard about the sexual harassment complaint and was very unhappy with it and with her. One would think they would be unhappy with the prospect that one of their employees was being harassed rather than at her, but law enforcement is funny in that it has a tendency to punish those who complain about poor treatment. However, that mistreatment often costs in terms of thousands, even millions paid out litigating it. Riverside was about to learn that lesson the hard way, when several months after Metzler's termination, it would be slammed with a $1.64 million jury's verdict in connection with a racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation law suit filed by a Black male officer.
Her alleged meeting with the two officers from the Riverside Police Department was when she should have known that trouble was coming if indeed that's how it played out.
She complained further and told the department she wanted her complaint to go to the state's civil rights office but the department apparently kept it inhouse. It only left the "house" when she filed a complaint first with Fair Employment and Housing and then through the state court system where it was dismissed because the statutory period of one year had expired.
In the past including that which is not so distant, employees have been fired soon after complaining of hostile work environments that are either racist, sexist or both in other city departments outside of law enforcement. Employees were also threatened with termination or given poor evaluations after complaining of racism and/or sexism in the workplace as well. The sad thing about the police department is that one wonders whether or not Metzler's situation is an isolated incident, given that the law suit filed in connection with it comes 10 years after another female police officer working for the same department had filed her own law suit.
How much have things changed in this regard? A lot, a little bit or not at all?
In the wake of news that the RPOA is advocating for Nazario, it would be nice to see the leadership for the labor union for the rank and file take its advocacy of those included in its membership one step further and also demand the restoration of another police officer who has been fired while on probation so that this individual can also be placed on administrative leave. The RPOA could take the same principled stand based on its mission statement that it is taking when it decided not to make a determination about Nazario's guilt or innocence but to advocate for his due process, and apply it to the case of Metzler as well.
An investigation needs to be done into Metzler's allegations that is not compromised by a culture that defends racism and sexism in its ranks and punishes those who complain about it or report it. An investigation needs to be done regarding the police department's role in her firing so soon after she filed a complaint of sexual harassment and very soon after she graduated fairly high in her academy class. An investigation needs to be done to determine whether the management of the police department fired Metzler because it was fearful that she might make a similar complaint involving the police department if she made similar allegations of misconduct there or whether she was indeed fired for legitimate reasons. An investigation needs to be done to determine whether there's a "flaw" in Metzler's ability to exercise her due process rights and whether her due process rights were upheld, given that both she and Nazario are probational officers who are not afforded the same rights as those who complete the required probation.
Metzler's lack of the right to be told the reason for her termination prevented her from being able to defend herself in the one appeal process available to her, the "name clearing" hearing, because she had no idea what she was defending herself from. On the other hand, Metzler apparently learned that the same thing didn't apply to her employer who when questioned by prospective employers could provide reasons to them why it fired her. According to her law suit, these "reasons" ranged from her being unfit to be an officer(which makes you wonder what that says about the fitness of the 49 officers who allegedly graduated behind her in her class) and even that she had sexual relationships with her instructors at the academy. If the latter were true, then one wonders why there hasn't been massive terminations or other discipline at the training academy of instructors engaging in improper fraternization with trainees. That would be taking the "boys will be boys" adage pretty far to only punish Metzler and let the instructors off of the hook if this fraternization actually took place.
Law suits and grievances involving racism and sexism in terms of discrimination, harassment and retaliation had been filed in the past involving officers, Rene Rodriguez, Roger Sutton and Sgt. Christine Keers. However, all or a majority of the allegations of misconduct included in these legal actions took place before the imposition of a stipulated judgment involving former State Attorney General, Bill Lockyer and the city. It's not clear what these officers received in the form of advocacy or support from their labor union, although in Keers' case, she was assigned an advocate from the union leadership who did lobby strongly on her behalf.
The White male sergeants who filed their reverse discrimination claims in 1999 not only received strong advocacy from their labor union but one of them, Sgt. Jay Theuer, actually became its president in 2000. The union showed its support of the White male officers who were fired in connection with the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1999 but appeared to turn its back on Rodriguez and perhaps Sutton as well, when both complained about racism in the department during that same time period. In fact, one officer left his job permanently while the other took a leave of about one year.
Of the White male sergeants, several including Theuer, Wally Rice and Mark McFall have retired, albeit all in the lieutenant rank. Several others are lieutenants and one, Mark Boyer, is a captain.
The RPOA board is predominantly composed of men, with only a couple of women serving on it in its recent history. Experts say that police unions tend to elect leadership that the department as a whole is the most accepting of, which is why many if not most police unions tend to include only or largely White men in their leadership. The Latino officers are integrating into its leadership which is a good sign but there is scant to no representation by Black male officers or female officers of any race in either the department's management or the leadership of the RPOA. This seems to mirror the department in terms of how these racial and gender groups fit within its ranks and also in terms of how they move up the hierarchical ladder. If the department continues to integrate in upcoming years and the union's leadership does likewise, then that will be seen as more of a cultural change than if the department becomes more integrated but the union's board does not.
Advocacy for its members is an integral function of every labor union including the RPOA. That's one of the primary reasons that unionization enters into any profession including law enforcement and it's one of reasons why belonging to a union appeals to employees. And when it comes to keeping city management's feet to the fire, in this city no one does it better.
If so much attention is to be paid to a male officer's right to due process which is the job of the labor union of a police agency, then it needs to be paid and advocated for that of a female officer whose career ended before it even had a chance to begin.
A former Colton mayor lost possession of his vehicle because he had failed to pay out a civil judgment against him according to the San Bernardino Sun.
There's already a lot going on in Colton what with the clash between former police chief, Ken Rulon with both City Manager Darryl Parrish and the police union leading up to the termination of Rulon and the filing of a multi-million dollar law suit by him in U.S. District Court.
Former mayor and city councilman, Abe Beltran was handed the judgment by the Orange County Superior Court for a bribery scandal he was involved in over a decade ago with among other politicians, former San Bernardino County supervisor Jerry Eaves.
(excerpt)
The city is in the process of developing a new ethics policy in an effort to prevent future misbehavior by public officials.
"As stewards of good government and stewards of the public trust, it is essential that we create an environment of accountability and responsibility," City Manager Daryl Parrish said in an e-mail.
Hopefully they will do so but if the city residents want an ethics code to be implemented, they should push for one with more teeth to it than the one implemented in Riverside. While the kangaroo court and the let's make the rules up as we go along process has become interesting to watch and certainly interesting to blog about, it hasn't set the standard in terms of ethics codes for other cities and counties in the Inland Empire or anywhere else for that matter, to adopt. Riverside needs something with a bit more integrity attached to it, but that's not likely to happen any time soon from our "stewards of good government and public trust".
Did the New York Police Department racially profile a family in Howard Beach?
That's the question being asked in an article by the New York Daily News which addresses an incident involving a Guyanese-American family who were cited after trying to report a hate crime.
(excerpt)
Michael Hussey, 19, allegedly shouted the N-word as he menaced Gounden, who was hosting a large party.
Police made no arrests at the time, but ticketed a Hussey pal for blocking a driveway.
Gounden said Hussey was arrested Aug. 18 on hate-crime charges only after he complained to higher-ups at the 106th Precinct.
Several days after the party, Gounden said, the ticketed young man showed up with a cop who gave Gounden a summons for excessive noise. Gounden said the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau was investigating whether Officer Richard Lennon improperly gave Gounden the summons. Police sources confirmed the probe.
Councilman Joseph Addabbo (D-Howard Beach), however, accused Gounden of playing the race card after getting written up for an expensive building violation.
"He knew Howard Beach. He knew its history and he used it to try to get around the building code," said Addabbo. "If he had done things up to code, no one would have bothered him."
Also in New York City, NYPD Capt. Alberto Sanchez was convicted of misdemeanor battery involving his girlfriend who was also a police officer.
A former deputy chief from the Los Angeles Police Department was dismissed from a law suit filed by detectives against him for doing warrantless searches. Michael Berkow, who is now the chief of the police department in Savannah, Georgia, is still facing investigations for sexual misconduct during his stint in the LAPD.
Oh, and Press Enterprise columnist, Dan Bernstein celebrates 25 years of writing columns here. Happy anniversary, Mr. Bernstein and hope to see many more columns in the future.
An unknown individual or individuals put out a threat against Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco through the classified section of the Press Enterprise according to an article in that newspaper. The threat was apparently in response to an injunction filed against the formerly unnamed gang in press coverage, Eastside Riva which was written about here.
People are threatened for reporting crimes. People are threatened for breaking codes of silence in certain professions. People are threatened in different countries around the world for speaking out or criticizing their governments and how people are treated. But all these threats come from the same places and it's not from a position of strength.
Threats especially those of the anonymous kind are for cowards. There are few actions that are lower and more cowardly than doing this whether it's through classified ads, through threatening people who witness crimes or through "praying" in a "beautiful example of poetic justice" harm on an individual or their family.
Some individuals had also told me that if you receive threats, you must be doing something right, which may be true but often it is easy for others to say. That's not much comfort when you feel less safe and worry about family members, or each noise in the middle of the night can seem like something threatening. Property damage can leave you asking was it accidental or something else? Was that hang up call a wrong number, an auto dialer or something else? Was that harassment email sent that originated from a computer ISP that is registered to the city mean someone is going to harm you especially when it's clear this person knows what you look like?
When someone breaks the still of the night and finishes a statement with "or else", what does that really mean? Everything, every noise, every shadow takes on a different meaning when you've been threatened, which just adds to the fear and the injury of the original threat.
Threats are for cowards and anonymous ones usually come from beneath the rocks that exist around us. The only way to address them is to show that you're not going to allow them to stop you from what you are doing. Pacheco made that statement in the news article that he intended to do just that.
(excerpt)
Meanwhile, the Riverside Police Officers' Association is asking that the Riverside Police Department place Nazario back on the force, and put him on paid administrative leave until the investigation is concluded.
Nazario was terminated by the Police Department after his arrest on the federal charges. Police Chief Russ Leach said that at the time he was terminated, Nazario was still serving the probationary period as a newly hired officer.
Nazario was eight weeks shy of completing his probationary period, according to a statement by the police officers' association.
"We are concerned that due to a flaw in that process, a new Riverside police officer nearing the end of his probationary period has been dismissed without any evidence of police misconduct," President Ken Tutwiler said in a statement. "While the Riverside Police Officers' Association is not in a position to cast judgment, or assess guilt or innocence, we are here to call attention to a police officer's right to due process."
By doing so, it's just fulfilling its responsibilities as a union to look out for its members which are the department's police officers, detectives and sergeants. As a stand to take for what it represents, it's a commendable one and one in line with its responsibilities towards its members.
But the leadership should take it a step further and apply their standard of addressing a "flaw" in the process to another probational officer who was fired by the department two years ago. This one was not accused or charged with committing a crime and it's not clear whether or not there was any investigation of misconduct that had been done by the department in this officer's case. The sin of this officer appears to have been in believing that the police department meant it when its employees encouraged officers to report discrimination and/or harassment involving race and gender that they experience or witness. However, the past and present seem to be blurring when it comes to addressing these problems. As far as the department and city seem to be concerned, employees stepping forward and reporting this bad and discriminatory behavior might as well be committing a crime.
The officer in question was a woman named Kelsy Metzler who was fired during the summer of 2005 not long after graduating 21st out of 70 in her class, which isn't bad at all. After graduating from the academy and fulfilling all of its requirements to become a police officer, Metzler showed up for her first day at work at the police department to receive her assignment. Instead, she was led to a room where a representative from the Internal Affairs Division was present along with defendants later listed in her law suit and told she was fired. When she asked why, she stated in her law suit that she was told by them that they didn't have to give a reason and that they didn't like her. It's not clear whether a union representative was present with her on her behalf when she received the notification of her termination as a police officer before her career even had a chance to begin or when she was told that she wouldn't be given a reason for her termination. Somehow, it's doubtful that anyone stood up and advocated for her rights as has been done for her male counterpart. She certainly didn't mention any such advocacy in her law suit.
In her law suit, Metzler had stated that she had complained that a male cadet at the academy was sexually harassing her and possibly other women there. She was told it would be investigated in accordance to the policy put in place to do so. She was later told by her supervisor that she couldn't access a copy of her complaint nor could she receive an update on the investigation, both rights that anyone who files a complaint under any reputable policy would have. Was there anyone able to help her have access to either of these things?
Two Riverside Police Department officers came to visit her at some point after she had filed her harassment complaints. It would have been great if these two male officers who visited her and who are listed in her law suit would have been there to tell her that the department had heard about the complaint and was concerned about her well-being. After all, it had spent a huge chunk of money and time recruiting her, screening her application, going through the extensive hiring steps and taking her through the pre-academy phase before she even entered into the police academy. At this point in her employment, the department and city had already invested a six-figure sum in her future and in its future.
According to her law suit, none of that happened. What allegedly happened instead is that the two men informed her that her employing agency had heard about the sexual harassment complaint and was very unhappy with it and with her. One would think they would be unhappy with the prospect that one of their employees was being harassed rather than at her, but law enforcement is funny in that it has a tendency to punish those who complain about poor treatment. However, that mistreatment often costs in terms of thousands, even millions paid out litigating it. Riverside was about to learn that lesson the hard way, when several months after Metzler's termination, it would be slammed with a $1.64 million jury's verdict in connection with a racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation law suit filed by a Black male officer.
Her alleged meeting with the two officers from the Riverside Police Department was when she should have known that trouble was coming if indeed that's how it played out.
She complained further and told the department she wanted her complaint to go to the state's civil rights office but the department apparently kept it inhouse. It only left the "house" when she filed a complaint first with Fair Employment and Housing and then through the state court system where it was dismissed because the statutory period of one year had expired.
In the past including that which is not so distant, employees have been fired soon after complaining of hostile work environments that are either racist, sexist or both in other city departments outside of law enforcement. Employees were also threatened with termination or given poor evaluations after complaining of racism and/or sexism in the workplace as well. The sad thing about the police department is that one wonders whether or not Metzler's situation is an isolated incident, given that the law suit filed in connection with it comes 10 years after another female police officer working for the same department had filed her own law suit.
How much have things changed in this regard? A lot, a little bit or not at all?
In the wake of news that the RPOA is advocating for Nazario, it would be nice to see the leadership for the labor union for the rank and file take its advocacy of those included in its membership one step further and also demand the restoration of another police officer who has been fired while on probation so that this individual can also be placed on administrative leave. The RPOA could take the same principled stand based on its mission statement that it is taking when it decided not to make a determination about Nazario's guilt or innocence but to advocate for his due process, and apply it to the case of Metzler as well.
An investigation needs to be done into Metzler's allegations that is not compromised by a culture that defends racism and sexism in its ranks and punishes those who complain about it or report it. An investigation needs to be done regarding the police department's role in her firing so soon after she filed a complaint of sexual harassment and very soon after she graduated fairly high in her academy class. An investigation needs to be done to determine whether the management of the police department fired Metzler because it was fearful that she might make a similar complaint involving the police department if she made similar allegations of misconduct there or whether she was indeed fired for legitimate reasons. An investigation needs to be done to determine whether there's a "flaw" in Metzler's ability to exercise her due process rights and whether her due process rights were upheld, given that both she and Nazario are probational officers who are not afforded the same rights as those who complete the required probation.
Metzler's lack of the right to be told the reason for her termination prevented her from being able to defend herself in the one appeal process available to her, the "name clearing" hearing, because she had no idea what she was defending herself from. On the other hand, Metzler apparently learned that the same thing didn't apply to her employer who when questioned by prospective employers could provide reasons to them why it fired her. According to her law suit, these "reasons" ranged from her being unfit to be an officer(which makes you wonder what that says about the fitness of the 49 officers who allegedly graduated behind her in her class) and even that she had sexual relationships with her instructors at the academy. If the latter were true, then one wonders why there hasn't been massive terminations or other discipline at the training academy of instructors engaging in improper fraternization with trainees. That would be taking the "boys will be boys" adage pretty far to only punish Metzler and let the instructors off of the hook if this fraternization actually took place.
Law suits and grievances involving racism and sexism in terms of discrimination, harassment and retaliation had been filed in the past involving officers, Rene Rodriguez, Roger Sutton and Sgt. Christine Keers. However, all or a majority of the allegations of misconduct included in these legal actions took place before the imposition of a stipulated judgment involving former State Attorney General, Bill Lockyer and the city. It's not clear what these officers received in the form of advocacy or support from their labor union, although in Keers' case, she was assigned an advocate from the union leadership who did lobby strongly on her behalf.
The White male sergeants who filed their reverse discrimination claims in 1999 not only received strong advocacy from their labor union but one of them, Sgt. Jay Theuer, actually became its president in 2000. The union showed its support of the White male officers who were fired in connection with the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1999 but appeared to turn its back on Rodriguez and perhaps Sutton as well, when both complained about racism in the department during that same time period. In fact, one officer left his job permanently while the other took a leave of about one year.
Of the White male sergeants, several including Theuer, Wally Rice and Mark McFall have retired, albeit all in the lieutenant rank. Several others are lieutenants and one, Mark Boyer, is a captain.
The RPOA board is predominantly composed of men, with only a couple of women serving on it in its recent history. Experts say that police unions tend to elect leadership that the department as a whole is the most accepting of, which is why many if not most police unions tend to include only or largely White men in their leadership. The Latino officers are integrating into its leadership which is a good sign but there is scant to no representation by Black male officers or female officers of any race in either the department's management or the leadership of the RPOA. This seems to mirror the department in terms of how these racial and gender groups fit within its ranks and also in terms of how they move up the hierarchical ladder. If the department continues to integrate in upcoming years and the union's leadership does likewise, then that will be seen as more of a cultural change than if the department becomes more integrated but the union's board does not.
Advocacy for its members is an integral function of every labor union including the RPOA. That's one of the primary reasons that unionization enters into any profession including law enforcement and it's one of reasons why belonging to a union appeals to employees. And when it comes to keeping city management's feet to the fire, in this city no one does it better.
If so much attention is to be paid to a male officer's right to due process which is the job of the labor union of a police agency, then it needs to be paid and advocated for that of a female officer whose career ended before it even had a chance to begin.
A former Colton mayor lost possession of his vehicle because he had failed to pay out a civil judgment against him according to the San Bernardino Sun.
There's already a lot going on in Colton what with the clash between former police chief, Ken Rulon with both City Manager Darryl Parrish and the police union leading up to the termination of Rulon and the filing of a multi-million dollar law suit by him in U.S. District Court.
Former mayor and city councilman, Abe Beltran was handed the judgment by the Orange County Superior Court for a bribery scandal he was involved in over a decade ago with among other politicians, former San Bernardino County supervisor Jerry Eaves.
(excerpt)
The city is in the process of developing a new ethics policy in an effort to prevent future misbehavior by public officials.
"As stewards of good government and stewards of the public trust, it is essential that we create an environment of accountability and responsibility," City Manager Daryl Parrish said in an e-mail.
Hopefully they will do so but if the city residents want an ethics code to be implemented, they should push for one with more teeth to it than the one implemented in Riverside. While the kangaroo court and the let's make the rules up as we go along process has become interesting to watch and certainly interesting to blog about, it hasn't set the standard in terms of ethics codes for other cities and counties in the Inland Empire or anywhere else for that matter, to adopt. Riverside needs something with a bit more integrity attached to it, but that's not likely to happen any time soon from our "stewards of good government and public trust".
Did the New York Police Department racially profile a family in Howard Beach?
That's the question being asked in an article by the New York Daily News which addresses an incident involving a Guyanese-American family who were cited after trying to report a hate crime.
(excerpt)
Michael Hussey, 19, allegedly shouted the N-word as he menaced Gounden, who was hosting a large party.
Police made no arrests at the time, but ticketed a Hussey pal for blocking a driveway.
Gounden said Hussey was arrested Aug. 18 on hate-crime charges only after he complained to higher-ups at the 106th Precinct.
Several days after the party, Gounden said, the ticketed young man showed up with a cop who gave Gounden a summons for excessive noise. Gounden said the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau was investigating whether Officer Richard Lennon improperly gave Gounden the summons. Police sources confirmed the probe.
Councilman Joseph Addabbo (D-Howard Beach), however, accused Gounden of playing the race card after getting written up for an expensive building violation.
"He knew Howard Beach. He knew its history and he used it to try to get around the building code," said Addabbo. "If he had done things up to code, no one would have bothered him."
Also in New York City, NYPD Capt. Alberto Sanchez was convicted of misdemeanor battery involving his girlfriend who was also a police officer.
A former deputy chief from the Los Angeles Police Department was dismissed from a law suit filed by detectives against him for doing warrantless searches. Michael Berkow, who is now the chief of the police department in Savannah, Georgia, is still facing investigations for sexual misconduct during his stint in the LAPD.
Oh, and Press Enterprise columnist, Dan Bernstein celebrates 25 years of writing columns here. Happy anniversary, Mr. Bernstein and hope to see many more columns in the future.
An unknown individual or individuals put out a threat against Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco through the classified section of the Press Enterprise according to an article in that newspaper. The threat was apparently in response to an injunction filed against the formerly unnamed gang in press coverage, Eastside Riva which was written about here.
People are threatened for reporting crimes. People are threatened for breaking codes of silence in certain professions. People are threatened in different countries around the world for speaking out or criticizing their governments and how people are treated. But all these threats come from the same places and it's not from a position of strength.
Threats especially those of the anonymous kind are for cowards. There are few actions that are lower and more cowardly than doing this whether it's through classified ads, through threatening people who witness crimes or through "praying" in a "beautiful example of poetic justice" harm on an individual or their family.
Some individuals had also told me that if you receive threats, you must be doing something right, which may be true but often it is easy for others to say. That's not much comfort when you feel less safe and worry about family members, or each noise in the middle of the night can seem like something threatening. Property damage can leave you asking was it accidental or something else? Was that hang up call a wrong number, an auto dialer or something else? Was that harassment email sent that originated from a computer ISP that is registered to the city mean someone is going to harm you especially when it's clear this person knows what you look like?
When someone breaks the still of the night and finishes a statement with "or else", what does that really mean? Everything, every noise, every shadow takes on a different meaning when you've been threatened, which just adds to the fear and the injury of the original threat.
Threats are for cowards and anonymous ones usually come from beneath the rocks that exist around us. The only way to address them is to show that you're not going to allow them to stop you from what you are doing. Pacheco made that statement in the news article that he intended to do just that.
Labels: business as usual, consent decrees and other adventures, culture 101
posted by Five Before Midnight | 9:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home