Hey Chiefski, are you running for office? A little more circumspection in consideration for the judicial process may have been better for all concerned.
PressRlseLeavittNov2010
For our faithful PRU readers who may have missed the conventional press coverage of this story, the Herald-Advocate has an online article for your reading displeasure.
In the article, the following is reported -- "Following the settlement of the lawsuit the State's Attorney's Office, assisted by the FBI, began investigating the Police Department" -- things that make us go hhhmmmmm. We aren't experts on such matters, but we're pretty sure the State's Attorney's Office doesn't make a habit of opening investigations into settled lawsuits. We wonder what their source of investigative inspiration may have been?
November 16, 2010
Ready! Fire! Aim!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? By the tone of his press release, it sure sounds like the Chief has deemed himself Judge and Jury in this unfortunate case. Maybe the facts will prove the officer to be guilty in the end, but doesn't our justice system afford him a fair trial?
Anonymous @ 10:08,
I'm only guessing...
...but my guess is, it isn't Chief Kaminski who is the originator of the press release, though he is responsible for *accepting* it as written..."tone" an all.
If he's found guilty I hoep they throw the book at him. Police brtutality is disgusting and should not be tolerated.
Anon@2:23 --
If he's found guilty, is the operative phrase and should have been the guiding principle for the author and signatory of the press release.
If he's found guilty I hoep they throw the book at him. Police brtutality is disgusting and should not be tolerated.
November 16, 2010 2:23 PM
I find your lack of proper grammar and spelling disgusting and intolerable.
I find it hard to believe that there needed to be a federal indictment before they put this officer on PAID leave. There should have been a full internal investigation into this shortly following the incident in 2006. Fellow officers should have been questioned, medical evidence reviewed, witness/victim testimony verified, and an HR decision made.
If the Feds can bring an indictment based upon evidence gathered 3 years later, there should have been something to go on in 2006.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is true for criminal proceedings, but I would venture to say the union agreement between the city and the officer allows for termination somewhere short of proven criminal conduct.
If this officer did anything anywhere near what he is accused of, the city should have figured it out in 2006, and let him go. This guy was working all these years and currently is still getting paid awaiting trial. Ny now everyone at City Hall should be convinced on his innocence or guilt of violating police policy, and should have acted on this years ago. To do so now is foolish and smacks of insincerity.
PRU,
I think people are missing the flavor of your post. Think they'll figure it out or will they continue to persecute the officer before the trial?
Anon@6:15 --
As the saying goes, SNAFU.
PRU wondered where the state's attoney/FBI got thier "investigative inspiration". i would suspect it came from inside the department.
also, anonymous 5;33 rightfully wondered why this matter wasn't properly and professionlly dealt with in 2006. consider who was the city manager, the HR director and who was running the police department at the time. that may give you your answer.
Anon@7:43 --
We suspect you are correct.
Since you mentioned the questions raised by Anon@5:33, what do you suspect prevented this particular issue from being reported on in the Ekl Williams audit?
PRU,
B-I-N-G-O!
..... don't worry, we have the "chiefs advisory board" challenging the validity of the Ekl report....
I find your lack of proper grammar and spelling disgusting and intolerable.
November 16, 2010 4:45 PM
I find your a jerk! I hope I spelled that right for you!
Actually you just misused "your"...it is supposed to be "you're" which is the contraction of "you are".
Other than that glaring error, your post was grammatically perfect.
Sorry 1:26 but that is hysterical!!!!!
Anon@2:08 --
If you think that's guffaw worthy, you would die of laughter from what we see in some of the searches and emails we receive.
Still, we hold the position that the message is what matters -- not the messenger, not the form of the message, not the lack of elegance and-or sophistication, nor a failure to employ spellcheck.
PRU:
Agreed!! Actually I am normally the one who makes mistakes - typos and otherwise. The error when considering the content/intent of the message was what made me find it so funny.
Howdy boys -- finding everything o.k.? No referring link, eh. We're honored.
"The common law is the will of Mankind issuing from the Life of the People."
That's very catchy. We like it.
Spellcheck only catches typos. If the word is used wrong but exists anywhere in Enlish -- for example, "your" when it should be "you're" -- Spellcheck won't catch it. Worse, Spellcheck gives the wrong answer half the time. If you type "its" it will promptly encourage you to change it to "it's."
Which is why we see so many college-educated people sending things out with apostrophes in every other word. Hey, Spellcheck told 'em to!
This may be one of the few ways you can tell if you are dealing with a real writer or real editor. They know how to do it without Spellcheck's halfassed help.
I, for one, seldom or ever see a non-writer-type boo-boo in PRU!
Welcome IP 198.173.15.250 to our blog. Do let us know if we can help you find anything.
And enjoy the upcoming Christkindlmarket on your lunch break! The Plaza is so very festive this time of year!
Mr IP.....250,
Is a very busy little poster according to Project Honey Pot.
http://www.projecthoneypot.org/ip_198.173.15.250
Post a Comment