Riverside Sheriff Department has poor hiring standards. This off duty cop should rot in prison for his arrogance. Riverside Sheriff has caused the County of Riverside and the tax payers millions of dollars in police misconduct law suits. Here are some other case of Riverside Sheriff Deputies Gone Wild.

1. Deputy Jaime Morlaes and Deputy Josephe Sinz of Moreno Valley PD were arrested in the parking lot of the Temecula after they were involved in a physical altercation over some wife swapping issues.

2. Deputy David Kushner of Moreno Valley PD was arrested for lewd acts and raping parolees.

3. Deputy Goodwin of Moreno Valley of PD was sued for police brutality and Riverside Sheriff Dept lost it's case.

Riverside Sheriff Department has poor hiring standards. This off duty cop should rot in prison for his arrogance. Riverside Sheriff has caused the County of Riverside and the tax payers millions of dollars in police misconduct law suits. Here are some other case of Riverside Sheriff Deputies Gone Wild.

1. Deputy Jaime Morlaes and Deputy Josephe Sinz of Moreno Valley PD were arrested in the parking lot of the Temecula after they were involved in a physical altercation over some wife swapping issues.

2. Deputy David Kushner of Moreno Valley PD was arrested for lewd acts and raping parolees.

3. Deputy Goodwin of Moreno Valley of PD was sued for police brutality and Riverside Sheriff Dept lost it's case.

Oh Alicia there are so many more then that but darned if I have the time to look them all up. Remember one up in Chino not to long ago. There was also alot of lawsuits and investigations in the Riverside(northern county and city) and San Bernadino of beatings, deaths, over use of force.
Then of course the ones we don't hear about that get covered up, DUI's domestics.
It doesnt matter what field you are in for employment you are still going to have the same personal life problems like DUI's and domestics, but not getting treated the same as the average Joe is my issue with it. Even the wife as she knows if she says anything he will get fired, and he life of living the status is over. Also in statistics, maybe my good friend Amzing or Secret is out there and know these, but I know firemen and police have a high number of drinking problems, in top 5 of heart attacks, suicides, cheating, divorce. They are way up on the scales for everything unfortunately. **getting side tracked**
I agree, with so many innocent eyewitness bystanders that yes, this Officer who pulled this trigger, as would anyone who did the same, will get sentenced and lets hope its a heavy one. No lesser crime, nothing else would be excepted in this case, this was cold hearted murder.

Hi Brenda,

Not stalking, just got the email notifying me of your post.
I have included stats before only to have "law enforcement" deny what I said without any real documentation backing up what they said. In fact, they were so embolden as to say they don't have to back up what they say.

Actually, there is a major problem with substance abuse in law enforcement as well as the military and other high stress jobs. Every one of the people in those type of jobs are affected by their job and what they experience while performing their job. That is no excuse for letting the stress get the better of them.

Each of those type of jobs have resources that are available to each of the people working those jobs. If they choose not to use those resources, we see these type of things happen. It's an individual decision in most cases not to take advantage of the resources that are available. Some people can't handle the type of job they have to do. In those cases, the individual has to swallow their pride and acknowledge they can't handle it. If they don't, then we get these type of results.

I personally wouldn't want to have to live with the things many people experience as a result of having that type of job. I know I have emotional limitations. This "deputy" should have acknowledged his limitations and gotten help. And definitely stayed out of bars where he obviously couldn't handle anyone opposing his point of view.

LOL, Secrets, no stalking? Shucks! Ruin my woman stalking woman fantasy. I had run across the areas where you gave statistics now, and posted, and now got your email message you posted.
Should have figured your stats would eventually get in there, and thank you for them. If everyone actually read them it would stop a bit of the banter back and forth here.

Well Brenda,

Stalking isn't in my blood.
Sorry to disappoint. lol

Yep, you can count on me finding stats to back up what I have to say.. That IS in my blood... hehe

Ahhh Secrets, yes you are correct in your post and the drugs and alcohol abuse possibilities. IE, so many officers found to be taking bits and pieces from busts.

My ex husband was a fire captain, and in counciling for our marriage his attempt at explaining why he could not have the feelings likes others in a marriage, as a husband or father was this : "I cannot have feelings about anything or anyone because if I do then I will not be able to do the job I do and pick up bodies flattened out on the pavement with a shovel"
I think we made it thru 2 councilings together, and THAT was that. The end.
He never accepted the counciling brought into the station immediately following a particularily bad call with horrible deaths. NEVER once, and it was like he was keeping track, that everyone else reaches out for help but him. The attitude of Ahh shucks I been doing this too long to let it bother me, or have to talk to someone.
And believe me, even though he was the type of person he was, I do not know how they do the job they do these firemen, and good cops.

Your stupid. One bad apple hear

Simple, you lose credibility every time you speak. The correct words you are looking for are "you're" and "here."

It's funny how the police apologists forget the second part of that piece of folk wisdom.

What does the one bad apple do? It spoils the entire barrel.

Bad rap?
1. Armed officer goes into bar. Had recently been removed from active on the streets patrol to court house duty.
2. Walks up and gets into verbal combat with a group of young men. Not one of them knowing at that time he is an officer and carrying a gun.
3. Officer pulls his gun and shoots a man who is innocent of any wrong doing.
4. There is a room full of witnesses including some who were just a foot or two away.
5. No one else in the group of men or in the bar were armed, nor threatened the officer/customer with any type of force. No one even "snarled" at him.
There is no confusion over what happened, there is no bad rap or thugery. Its far more simple, cold blooded heartless murder.

I agree.

Of course Anonymous. Even friends I grew up with in grade school and into high school who were in gangs and murdered others were capable of being a "tight" friend. To this day I often wonder what allowed them to be the sweetest cause we grew up together, and then be a murderer, some innocent people in the middle of a driveby. ???how does someones mind work like that???

People do stupid things with alcohol onboard.... case in point.

Did it ever get into print what his blood alcohol level was? It doesnt sound like he was even there long enough to get THAT drunk. Also a big diffence between do a stupid thing and commit murder to an innocent man you don't even know.

agreed completely, and I also hope he becomes bubba's babe.....

Yes they are very well restrained Steve. A good majority. He did work for the department for 10 years I believe it said, and had recently been removed from the streets and put in the court house system. Of course we know that means he was having some serious issues with something, someone, or himself and the job in general, to get put back in the courts.
You do time there as a recruit, and if you have an injury until you heal, or for disaplinary reasons which is VERY EMBARRASSING to an officer. So he was apparently having "issues".

Hear Hear! My first thoughts when I read that. Probably a screw up to begin with. My opinion is he was drunk, depressed, probably divorced or divorcing. Already stated he was in bancruptcy... Now you can add murder to the list. Unbelievable.

Right on.

But what you fail to report is that yes, this murder at Spelly's is horrible and should never have happened and this cop should fry, however the other cop incident you are referring to in Temecula, that cop was getting his head bashed in by multiple assailants with bar stools and such and he acting more in self-defense, these are two completely different scenarios and so your basis on the 33% factor is completely false because if the cop in Temecula didn't pull his weapon, he would be the murder victim and we could then say that they shouldn't serve alcohol at bars because 100% of murders at bars involve alcohol....stupid argument.....but I do think they should make it law that no carrying guns when drinking, that I agree. I think this is more of an isolated incident with a clown of a cop that probably should have never been a cop in the first place, the sheriff's department will have a lot of explaining to do when the civil suit surfaces that is for sure.....

Well the whole gun thing for here in america is because the constitution allows the purchase of firearms here. Your country has strict gun laws where you can't get guns as easily as here hence your bobbies don't need or have the threat of being shot on their calls. American cops are killed way more often than English cops and last time I checked, your badass country was saved by american pussies from being overtaken by nazis, thats like the French saying they aren't cowards....loser

While I am in agreement about the laws in the United States vs England, it wasn't our "pussy" cops who saved England from the attacks staged by the attempt to rule the world by Germany. It was our military who are in no way pussies and we didn't do it alone.

One might argue that our cops have become militarized without being given the understanding that we citizens are not the enemy. Our cops could learn much more discipline, but our cops are in a completely different situation from those in England.

My experience in England was that the Bobbies were much more involved in being citizens with a job to do and were much more accepted as a part of the community. I do believe that is something the United States has left behind in it's training of our cops.

I do know that the Bobbies wear body protection, so there is an acknowledgement of a threat of being shot or stabbed there.

My question to "SomeEnglishGuy" would be, why are you here if all is so well over there?

I always ask people that who have made America their home, and they then go on to complain SECRETS. Usually the answer I get is "its a free country".
Hmm.........as the room goes completely silent.

Yeah Brenda,
I find it interesting how people who decide to live here have complaints about this country, but have left their own country. If their country is so much better, why did they leave?

Especially people from England. England isn't a bad country to live in. There are pros and cons wherever someone decides to live.

I hope you didn't interpret what I said as me complaining.. I don't. I love this country.

Hi Brenda and Secrets, I was on the "women's rights" blog and my ears started burning, LOL. Yes England is a great country - but chilly and damp, and the politics were a little too socialist for my liking when I left..... Still and all, it gave me my start in life and taught me independent thinking and fair play, and justice. Now I live here, which is also a great country, and this state is sunny and warm - lovely! Still the free speech and the independent thinking, and the constitution stands for fair play and justice. We just need to get back to it (the constitution).

I too love this country.

Amazing, I need to learn to whisper!! LOL Yes America and especially California is a wonderful country still. Even though over my 52 yrs born and raised 6th or 7th generations Californian now, I cannot express the changes, especially visually. Of course growth in business and housing has alot do do with that, but its the "worse for wear", the cities where there is in influx of people who have not cared about a clean street, houses, schools, hospitals etc. That have just continued this way for so many years now alot of cities look like a war zone, even where police will not go in without full gear and a slew of back up. Where fire rescues cannot go in to help someone having a heart attack without being told its clear and safe by patrol officers, which of course looses valuable time.
People cared back then and over the years just grew more and more where they did NOT. I imagine most countries can say this to be true also?
But I wish you had seen the USA through my eyes growing up back then, with dreams, and hopes, white picket fences, LOL. Used to be a nice clean ride through the freeways and streets of Los Angeles to get to Olvera St for Cinco De Mayo, or the La Brea Tar pits, or anything nice to do back then inexpensive with your children.
That is back when we believed in our constitution, that we had a say(if I remember that as a youngun)our soldiers were looked up to, police officers we didn't see much of with not happening.

Hi Brenda, no, don't learn to whisper, it's good to talk to you again, long time no hear!
What you said about California of your youth echoes my thoughts about Britain. It was cleaner, quieter, less people, less pollution, less traffic. The local police sergeant would call into my parents' shop and sit and have a cup of tea with them, then carry on with his shift. He knew all the local children by name, where our parents lived and he kept the peace by giving the culprit a stern talking to. He was a big bloke & being told off by him was terrifying. Serious incidents like shoplifting or window breaking would mean a "family talk". He called my parents Mr. and Mrs. B. We called him Sergeant W. or "Mr. Pleeceman" (yes I was small then). He would play soccer with us in the park, throw a cricket ball, etc. He'd apply first aid to the hurt, then carry the child to its' home or call an ambulance for the more seriously hurt, then he'd cycle to tell the child's parents. He was a part of the community, which seems to be missing here - much to my regret. He was respected, not feared. He seemed to view his townsfolk as people to be greeted and helped, not feared and avoided. He came to my cousin's wedding, he dealt with traffic duty in the tiny village she married in, then joined us for a slice of cake at the reception - all this activity was undertaken in uniform - as part of his job. Fights in pubs were dealt with by donning a pair of gloves - to protect his hands.

Part 2,
The very idea of a pub fight turning out to be fatal was almost unheard of. One bobby would deal with the situation and they were all usually bigger than most of the men they were dealing with. I think 5ft. 10ins was the minimum height for a policeman in my youth - and the average height for a British man then was about 5ft 8ins or 5ft. 9ins. That height requirement has been changed and reduced now I think. If you saw a group of policemen either wearing gloves or putting them on, then you knew there was going to be "some trouble". They would wade into bar fights involving knives and bottles and glass, with a pair of gloves, a truncheon, a whistle and a helmet (which they'd also use as a weapon - in a pinch). What a pity that deadly weapons are now carried as a first line of defence, rather than the last resort. Perhaps Samuel Vanettes and many, many others would still be alive now, rather than just forming part of the tragic statistics.

And 100% of brutal knife slayings of high school students are committed by black people so I guess the statistic remains intact and unscathed that 100% of brutal murders are committed by blacks........hey junior college student, your an idiot and your point is worthless, there's a reason your at MSJC, some day you may make varsity......but probably not.

Go Back,

This is an area to comment to this article, not just randomly make posts insulting someone for no reason.

I wasn't aware that gibberish was an accepted language. Can anyone translate for this foreigner? Or teach him/her proper sentence structure? Or force MSJC to make him/her take a basic grammar class? Or force MSJC to make him/her conduct some basic fucking research before opening up their trap?

Exactly. Never should you carry a gun without accepting and exhibiting the responsability that goes along with it.

George...we'll all be watching the video of a true tough guy like you, getting his ass kicked by a good cop somewhere. Cowards like you are a pleasure to deal with, especially after putting you in the slam for beating your wife and kids, or mouthing off to someone that really knows what they're doing and they separate your jaw from the rest of that empty head of yours.

Secrets of safety,

Great comeback, COPSUCKER! Your intellect is far superior to mine, obviously! Cowards like you are the reason why cops like this murdering pig had the opportunity to commit this crime!

Prisons should be full of cops, judges, politicians, and their sycophants like you!

I'm sorry to take you away from your favorite hobby, you can go back to your COPSUCKING!

sycophants, nice find. Did it really only take you 8 hours to find it in your dictionary?
Only problem with that characterization of someone who simply points out the obvious is you fail to see how the word applies to you from a different perspective.

We all can call names and accuse another of being one thing or another, I'm happy to see that you have the guts to put it in the comments section. I truly hope that when you come face to face with one of the people you so hate and wish to kill, you don't hide behind a woman or a child for protection like so many who show such contempt for other human beings trying to do their jobs do. Or at the very least, don't blame someone else for the way things are.

Look in the mirror and ask yourself why it is you haven't been more productive in the solutions we all seek?

Alicia,

The next time you have to call 911...don't. It's obvious that you don't need, nor will you ever need, any help or assistance. Do it all on your own sweetheart, we know you can. Good luck on that incredibly ignorant planet that you live on...i'm sure the weather there is great.

TO: Secrets of Safety.

Well let's get a committee going and put side Jeff Stone and bring order to the County of Riverside. We the people are the government, we are the Grand Jury, we vote for Council Members, County Supervisors and let's start demanding from our County Supervisors and Law Enforcements ETHICS. Hell with all the Federal Grant money 2008 to 2011, totaling $ 80 Million. In addition to their City Contracts they are raking in the bucks, and I am not including the Citizen Volunteers they bring into the stations to SATISFY THERE STAFFING NEEDS ( Saving on Payroll), but the City Contracts stipulate the amount of police force we should have for every city. But some how they are being REPLACED with plastic policemen. EVERYONE do a Public Records Request and demand the information you need. So, if any one wants to get a committee going and start holding our County Supervisors accountable I am in. I will be providing you with my e-mail: azmedtrans@mac.com.

S.O.S. you really do need help! You live in fantasy land!

I.E. "Let's talk about how to replace these idiots in the County Supervisors offices and then maybe we can tackle the Sheriff's Department."

Let's "talk" about how to replace armed thugs who do the bidding of banks and the state? ! Are you a comedian?

Cops are always the henchmen. The founders were cop killers. Go get a clue and read the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, you moron!

S.O.S. the hospital called, they are ready to perform your rectal decraniotomy!

George Grape,

Again, impressive.
I hope you enjoy the rest of the holidays...

This cop will pay for what he did...that's got nothing at all to do with the fact that you're a complete moron, bereft of any ability to make rational, logical, well-thought out decisions. And accountability goes both ways, n'est pas? If you're an idiot...own it...don't pawn it off on someone that made such a grave error in judgement that any of us would look good for being critical. You sound clueless, regardless of any bad thing that cop may have done. And trust me...when you call 911...we will respond....but not because you pay taxes....but because we know you can't help yourself.

Joe Law,

If you are a cop or a deputy, then you should be aware that the terms of use of this website state that calling names and making characterizations on this comments section isn't allowed. Just because others do it, doesn't negate your responsibility as a law enforcement officer to be above those type of things.

Your statements only serve to establish just how little law enforcement consider themselves to be subject to the rules applied to average citizens.

The fact that law enforcement will respond to 911 calls has nothing to do with a citizen's ability to help ourselves. It does have something to do with the law not allowing citizens to help themselves, thus creating the obligation to respond by law enforcement.

Personally, I believe any law enforcement personnel convicted of breaking the laws they are sworn to uphold should automatically be held to a higher standard and the punishment reflect that standard.

"grave error in judgment"? That's what you call it when law enforcement breaks the law. If it were an average citizen, I believe law enforcement have a different term. Wouldn't you agree?

I personally hate the fact that our law enforcement (locally) consider themselves to be of a higher moral character from the average citizen, when law enforcement are some of the biggest abusers of other people. (fact), more violent personalities, more abusive to their family... Look it up..

With regard to family violence, here is quoted text and the link.

"Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, (1, 2) in contrast to 10% of families in the general population.(3) A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24% (4), indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general. A police department that has domestic violence offenders among its ranks will not effectively serve and protect victims in the community..."
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-257841

With regard to citizens not being allowed to protect themselves and help themselves, it's all over our civil and criminal laws. "DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS, CALL 911". You really had to have me tell you that?

You ARE inexperienced aren't you... (rhetorical)..
Just one off the top of my head... Sorry if I took too long... Hope you didn't hold your breath "Joe Law".

You should know better than to challenge me to provide documentation for things I say. Prove otherwise. That is something I can safely challenge.. You cannot.

Well Joe Law,
I'm waiting..
Where is your proof to the contrary?

Maybe next time you want to spout off, you might want to check the comments of the people you are spouting off to before you say they are "long on rhetoric and woefully short on facts of any kind".

You are the one who seems to be long on rhetoric (and accusations, name calling and characterizations that are totally unjustified) that is unsupported by fact.

Joe,

You could stand to back it off a little bro; all that starch isn't really necessary. That said...I cruised the website provided further down by Secrets and a few of the detectives and I took a look. I'm not saying that I'm going to wear your t shirt anytime soon, but the website looked a little sketchy to us too. I don't know...relying on the media for true and accurate accounting of events is a shell game at best.

veteranbadge,

Us citizens have limited resources to rely on with regard to law enforcement behavior. Law enforcement to this point has not been willing to rebut any of the information with any supporting documentation regarding their opposing view. So, as I stated earlier, I have to stand with what I can find. If you can shed more light on the subject, please do. I am open to learning more about the subject. Are you game, with your other detectives?

I am not, as "Joe Law" suggested a cop hater. I look for the information and I form my beliefs and opinions on the information available to me. Much the same as you and your other detectives might do in the course of your job. Fair enough?

Since some law enforcement people seem to be following my comments, I hope they will look at my user name and follow my comments. I am not anti law enforcement. I am anti law enforcement personnel using comments sections to call names and bully individuals just as I am apposed to anyone else doing the same.

As I have stated before and will state again, I believe that when someone is "convicted" they should serve out whatever punishment the law prescribes. The information I have provided does not say that law enforcement is the major problem in our country and it does not say that we should be afraid of law enforcement, and I do not support anyone who suggests that to be true.

On the whole, law enforcement is not "out to get us". That is a fact. There are a great many law enforcement who go out of their way to help, that fact doesn't come out very often either. Law enforcement is one of the toughest jobs in our country.

However, when it comes to the politicians and the reasoning they are using to pass some of the laws that we have to live by, that is another story. I am not anti government either. But I do believe that we need to be more aware of who it is we are voting into office and begin to vote based on education and knowledge rather than just believe what we are being told.

When I see laws being passed with reasoning that is in direct contradiction to the truth I will comment and state the facts that I have found. I believe we all have that right. (1 of 2)

Because of the fact that there is so much going on in our country with regard to crime and the new laws being passed, many people have been mislead to believe things that are not true. The truth shouldn't be something we need to be afraid of. But using untruth to pass laws is.

This particular situation with regard to a member of law enforcement that is covered in this article, people like "Joe Law" aren't helping to make people feel any safer. That should be a concern to other law enforcement members, in my opinion.

I have mentioned in other comments that some of us are putting together a website so that families, friends and members of the community can connect and learn about the things they have been through. The main purpose of that website is for families to be more effective in protecting their children and helping to make the communities more safe. The site is not going to be closed to law enforcement, we will welcome anyone interested in helping to make our communities more safe for our families. I personally think it is time that truth be the rule of our lives instead of the untruths that have been being spread the last few decades. How about it law enforcement? You feel like being involved? (2 of 2)

"Us citizens have limited resources to rely on with regard to law enforcement behavior."

1) I disagree. The resources are there. If we're going to discuss behavior, then concede that you mean to define both "good" and "bad" for the sake of this argument. The Unified Crime Reports are the only collection of data that is specifically constructed using arrest data and conviction data, for every crime REPORTED. These reports represent "good" behavior, i.e., law enforcement did their job by arresting and incarcerating the criminal element and/or at least placing them on probation/parole and making them pay fines for said crimes. Being the veteran that I am, I can tell you, as can many others in the know, that 8 out of every 10 complaints reference "misconduct" aren't legitimate and that for every one complaint that is, another five are made up because the cops pissed someone off, wrote a ticket to someone that didn't deserve it, etc. Truth is, very few misconduct cases ever go criminal and that's based on several factors, not the least of which is credible evidence. I'm sorry, but a claim of excessive use of force, doesn't constitute a crime. A charge of excessive use of force, once levied and a finding of guilty in court is entered, is then a crime that can be tracked. Most claims, however, are bullshit...plain and simple.

2) The website you're referencing is hearsay and that's a technical term that I'm sure you're familiar with. It tracks word of mouth, which in court and/or in any other venue that matters, is useless and can't be relied upon to make a case, compile statistics, study a trend, etc. Don't believe me? Ask any high school senior if any of the popular females is a "slut" and see just what their evidence is to support a "yes" verdict. It will almost always be anecdotal and media reports are typically just that: One person's side of the story. If evidence is necessary to prosecute a case and or hold someone responsible for their actions, media reports will never be, nor are they currently, relied upon to do much of anything. It's either evidence or its not, but one person's versions of events simply isn't enough.

If you're accused of rape, does the fact that the media reported it make it a fact? Or does evidence, witness statements, DNA evidence, medical evidence, etc., support the facts and carry through to the prosecution?

"Law enforcement to this point has not been willing to rebut any of the information with any supporting documentation regarding their opposing view."

1) Failing to rebut allegations isn't proof that they're true and you're going to have to do better than that. If a crime was committed, a media report doesn't prove and/or disprove the officer's alleged conduct my friend.

2) The Unified Crime Reports do all the rebuttal that's necessary. What proof do you think that you're entitled to? The law protects the victims from the release of any of that information, so just what information would the agencies release? Now, it would be interesting to find out just how many of the arrested individuals in those UCRs are cops, but I guarantee that it's an incredibly small percentage. Let's just take California for the past 30 years: how many cops have been accused of murder, let alone convicted? I'll leave you to it, because I know the answer. How about rapes? How about assaults? I've got those answers too and trust me, the number is phenomenally small, in comparison TO ANY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE, be it gender, age group, race, national origin, et. al.

I'm not saying misconduct doesn't exist, but comparing "reports" (a.k.a. unsubstantiated allegations) of crimes committed by 100 thousand cops to actual conviction data from a mere 100 thousand sample of the citizenry is not only improper, but dishonest. That's my opinion, flame away.

"...that 8 out of every 10 complaints reference "misconduct" aren't legitimate and that for every one complaint that is, another five are made up because the cops pissed someone off..." Yes, I agree you would have more information about that than I do, just as you may have more information about an officer who got pissed off at someone because they didn't respond the way the officer or deputy believed they should, and thus, rather than an event becoming an encounter, suddenly things got violent and the officer wound up arresting the person for some bogus crime. Of course, assaulting a police officer would be the easiest to prove, wouldn't it?

I like what you have to say, and I appreciate you coming at me with some logic rather than calling a name and not engaging in intelligent exchange.

No situation is perfect from either side, and it is unfortunate that there has to be more than one side, but there always is.

With regard to the media, well... we both know that many cases these days are tried exactly there. Many jurors form opinions on a case based on what they see in the media and what law enforcement releases to the public, but as you claim that information for law enforcement personnel is confidential, so all of the information isn't available to the public.
I understand that and understand the need for it, however that does not negate the possibility of the information compiled by an organization is incorrect either. (1 of 2)

I personally don't need proof of an opposing view on this subject. However, when one of your own spouts off and rather than engaging in intelligent conversation, resorts to name calling and belittling and bullying to shut someone up, then I request that person provide some sort of documentation to support his or her position. After all, it is that person who is involved in an exchange which is construed as a debate.

You have provided a logical response and I don't doubt that what you are saying is true.

What I find interesting is when I compare using a large number (citizens) compared to a small number (law enforcement) you don't want that to pass because it is a completely unfair comparison. That is fine and is as it should be.

However, when law enforcement attempts to justify their support for laws such as Megan's Law and other laws like it, or ordinances such as have been passed recently in Riverside county (authored by Jeff Stone), similar unfair comparisons are repeatedly relied upon rather than looking at the raw numbers. In fact, the most recent ordinances passed as "emergency" measures, relied upon a report that doesn't even exist. Yet, law enforcement has chosen to ride along.

So, spreading fear and contempt for one group is okay with law enforcement, but when it comes back at law enforcement it isn't fair. Am I understanding the logic correctly? I realize you don't make the laws, I'm just making a comparison.. lol
(2 of 2)

Okay, so there's three...

I'm not trying to change the subject, I am merely pointing out how in different circumstances, law enforcement wants us to reject percentages because the numbers are too far unbalanced to make such a comparison, but in other circumstances law enforcement has (I know you probably don't like cdcr being included as law enforcement, but they are) even lobbied with those unfair comparisons.

So, in a debate when law enforcement wants to call foul on using such ridiculous comparisons, some people are interested and suspect there is more to the story because they do it the other way when they want to support something..

Do you see what I am saying?

Secrets,

"but as you claim that information for law enforcement personnel is confidential,.."

What I said was that the victims of any potential criminal case enjoy protection from identification by said public and that further, any information on their case is strictly forbidden from release, unless of course the victim decides to release such information; although typically, attorneys advise against such tactics. And you're right, the law enforcement officer is also protected to some degree with respect to an administrative investigation, in that the public has no right to know case specifics. Of course that means that the media fills in all the gaps with whatever innuendo and straight up bullshit that they can find, sometimes gleefully so. Call me old fashioned but I've never been able to build a case on "possibility" and in fact, the allusion to a fact can often damn victim and defendant alike to a lifetime of misery. In other words, people can survive the charge, but not the "stink" even when its unfounded....you follow?

I have no idea what you're referring to with Jeff Stone; politics are rarely on my radar but feel free to enlighten. As for Megan's Law, what possible issue can you have with that? Damning a comparison on already established arrest and conviction data vs. "media reports" (regardless of merit) is hardly the same thing as any police agency sounding the gong (even if it deafens the general public).......

with respect to the danger represented to our children due to the close proximity of registered sex offenders. Can you explain to me exactly what you're talking about?

"So, spreading fear and contempt for one group is okay with law enforcement, but when it comes back at law enforcement it isn't fair."

Well, to be fair, you're going to have to be more specific before I can offer comment. I have no frame of reference with which to render an informed response. I'm not belittling, I'm asking....what issue and/or issues are you claiming that law enforcement is approaching in this way?

With regard to Megan's Law, I will just point you to the places that I have been engaged in conversation. It's better than cluttering this article up with it.

http://missionviejo.patch.com/articles/council-grills-d-a-on-sex-offender-park-ban

http://missionviejo.patch.com/blog_posts/the-importance-of-being-ernest

"Call me old fashioned but I've never been able to build a case on "possibility" and in fact, the allusion to a fact can often damn victim and defendant alike to a lifetime of misery. In other words, people can survive the charge, but not the "stink" even when its unfounded....you follow?"

Yes I do.. And as I said to you on the board, I personally don't watch American news. I prefer to watch the BBC. I find it much more reliable, if that is possible.

Local issues I get involved in the comments and discuss them and try to find reputable information. Regarding law enforcement, other than information generally stated there isn't much. And had I not seen "Joe Law" treating people the way he or she was, I wouldn't have even gotten into it. But I wasn't going to sit and watch someone claiming to be law enforcement act like that. That is something that just shouldn't be happening, especially since it is in violation of the terms of use for this site.

You and I are pretty much on the same page as far as what you have said.

The comparison thing had to do with your suggestion that you can't compare 100 thousand law enforcement with 100 thousand citizens.

veteranbadge,

"Well, to be fair, you're going to have to be more specific before I can offer comment. I have no frame of reference with which to render an informed response. I'm not belittling, I'm asking..."

If you engage me in conversation much you will find that I'm not easily belittled, and I didn't take it as that. It's fair to expect someone to give you some reference to work from if you don't know what it is they are referring to. I pointed you to a couple conversations where those things are discussed.

The comparison thing is something that is done over and over when applying the logic for why Megan's Law website "protects" children. The truth is, it really doesn't.
Thus the reference to "it's okay to do it for one group and not, when it comes to law enforcement. I hope that was as clear as mud.. lol

Secrets,

I'm not going to be able to confer twenty years of experience investigating crimes of all kinds, but I'll be blunt: sex offenders, specifically those that molest children, have never only committed that act once and in my experience, never lose the desire to act out so much so that they will construct their entire social agenda in hopes that they come into contact with as many targets of opportunity as possible. Period, end of story. Anyone that wants to stand up for the rights of these types of criminals, does it at the peril of their own dignity and/or credibility. As for the equal protection argument, its that specific legal principle that protects those that can't protect themselves and/or legally give consent to engage in sexual relations. I doubt Megan's Law will ever be challenged successfully, but time could prove me wrong. Banning sex offenders from public parks? Is that really where anyone wants to pitch their constitutional indignation? Its a free country, but I'll do my best to put sex offenders where they belong, every single time, without fail; I will haunt them, be there to be seen by them at every turn in the legal process. They will never forget who I am and who I speak for. But shed tears for equal protection? Sorry, I didn't do that for the NAMBLA protectionists and I won't do it for these sex offenders either.

And Megan's Law doesn't protect children? Sorry man...I've arrested several as a result of that site....disprove that.

eteranbadge,
I don't mind you being blunt. I tend to be myself especially when people apply one standard to themselves and another to others.
With regard to Megan's Law websites.
While you may boast "I've arrested several as a result of that site.... disprove that." I sense a level of contempt. But hey, that's just probably the way I read it... yeah must be..

While the website offers ample opportunity for law enforcement to "arrest" those on the site, that does not prove the point you are attempting to make. Unfortunately, it is true, if arrested for a sex crime, it is more likely a person will be required to prove their innocence rather than the prosecutor being required to prove their guilt. That's simply a fact of life unless a person has the money to hire an attorney with the skills or desire to force the prosecutor to prove the case. And we can argue that point for ever. That isn't my argument and your contempt as law enforcement and your statement that "Anyone that wants to stand up for the rights of these types of criminals, does it at the peril of their own dignity and/or credibility." is nothing more than attempt to back anyone off who might disagree with your logic.

Fortunately, the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution provides protection for those whom the government classifies as a minority and then refuses to provide the same protection offered other citizens. It goes far beyond your statement.
(1 of ?)

"Banning sex offenders from public parks? Is that really where anyone wants to pitch their constitutional indignation?"

Actually, you have misunderstood the agrument, as far as what I have attempted to say. I have no problem with the websites as long as they do what they were supposed to do, fact is, they don't.

Given the much larger number of new sex offenses being committed by people who were previously convicted of a non sex related crime. Given the fact that the Megan's Law websites have been defended in court with the argument "we don't know which of them will re-offend so we need to monitor them all". I believe that the Megan's Law websites fall short of protecting children. The entire argument that "Megan's Law protects children because 5.3 percent of sex offenders will re-offend and only 1.3 percent of people convicted of non sex related crimes will reoffend therefore, sex offenders are the most likely to re-offend" is on it's face a load of political garbage.

Based on the facts provided in the Department of Justice report of 1994, using raw numbers (as you suggested we should do when comparing the danger of law enforcement compared to the general public) we cannot ignore the fact that people are over 6 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a person who was previously convicted of a non-sex related crime than they are someone who was previously convicted of a sex crime.

(2 of ?)

Of the sex offenders 517 were re-arrested for another sex crime. of the non sex offenders 3,328 were re-arrested for a sex crime (as you pointed out in the discussion about using 100 thousand citizens and 100 thousand law enforcement, we can't use percentages to determine the danger to society), we have to look at the raw numbers to determine the potential danger to society. however, I must add at this point that the majority of people released in that study who were convicted of a sex crime, were convicted of a sex crime after being arrrested multiple times for non-sex related crimes. And that the most likely to re-offend are those who committed a sex related crime as a re-offense, having been arrested multiple times for crimes having nothing to do with sex. And given the the fact that it was also discovered in that report that those who's first arrest was for a sex related crime (their only conviction) were the least likely to commit "any" other crime in the future.

So, based on that information (the same information used to defend Megan's Law), those who have committed crimes not related to sex at all are the most likely to commit a sex related crime. If you are purporting to "protect" children, then why is it the real truth is being ignored? If you want to profess that you are protecting children, then do it. Include all people who have ever committed a crime.

(3 of ?)

Then you will be telling the truth when you say you are doing what can be done to protect children, if you are going to use someone's past to justify a law that has been defended on the bases of "we don't know which of them will do it again, therefore we need to track them "for the protection of the public"". That is what I am saying.

I do not argue that Megan's Law should be overturned. If we are going to have it, then have it do what it is supposed to do. Make it all inclusive or don't have it at all. Because simply putting one class of offender on those sites and proclaiming you are protecting the public while the greater danger is not being tracked, is nothing more than lying to the public.

"Its a free country, but I'll do my best to put sex offenders where they belong, every single time, without fail; I will haunt them, be there to be seen by them at every turn in the legal process. They will never forget who I am and who I speak for." I'm glad to see you are honest about your subscription to the thought process that perpetuated the "Scarlet Letter" logic a few generations ago.. Heck yeah.. haunt them, point fingers at them, be there at every turn, while you ignore the truth about the greater danger to society. And that is, it's going on MORE everywhere else.

"But shed tears for equal protection?" You misunderstand. To legislate a class of people and deny them the rights of others in similar situations is a violation of the equal protection clause.

(4 of ?)

However, I would agree that children should be included in the application of that clause. And I am amazed that child protection advocates haven't stood up and cited that clause for justification to include the greater danger into Megan's Law.

All I am saying is, politicians need to stop lying to the public. Protect our children and quit giving the false impression that the Megan's Law websites are protecting the public. They are not, at least not the way politicians and law enforcement proclaim they are.

www.state.nj.us/defender/news/MegansLawFailure.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf

Sorry to be posting this all in this comments section but rather than engage me in the articles I referred you to, you chose to bring it back here. So, here it is.

(5 of 5, yep that's all)

Oh, I forgot one little thing.

Megan's Law proponents, law enforcement, politicians and prosecutors have been instrumental in creating a far greater danger to our society with the way they have implemented and claimed the effectiveness of Megan's Law websites by fostering the false belief that the greater danger is posed by those on the websites.

Children have been put at greater risk simply by the implication that they are safer because their parents can see who is a "registered sex offender". And those perpetuating the farce have failed to make it clear that there is a greater danger that could be tracked but they (the government) has chosen not to, for whatever reason.

A small example of a thinly disquised insults/nam calling/making fun, by Secrets to Joe. I picked this, it was where I left off earlier and I did not want to back track.
""Its a free country, but I'll do my best to put sex offenders where they belong, every single time, without fail; I will haunt them, be there to be seen by them at every turn in the legal process. They will never forget who I am and who I speak for." I'm glad to see you are honest about your subscription to the thought process that perpetuated the "Scarlet Letter" logic a few generations ago.. Heck yeah.. haunt them, point fingers at them, be there at every turn, while you ignore the truth about the greater danger to society."
This starts with a statement from Joe, that is close to statements I make.
Then you go for the juggler. Most dont read your statements closely to realize you are calling names, comparing them to someone they are NOT like, or you use as an example to demean them.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, stats or not, feelings on something, life experiences give alot to a discussion area, and as shown stats are taken by everyone. Compiling information for stats is extensive.
Who do we believe? In my 52 yrs of life I have probably read/watched on the news 25 cases of some kind of "cop gone crazy". Now that is a statistic for ME, but I would need to know how many I had read or watched on the news, not just say ALOT or you would have my simple stats on the table in a split second.

If I had to put some sort of belief to it I would have to figure out how many news stories I have read or saw on TV. Alot would be Southern California, but NOT in its entirety. Maybe at 25 my news reading broadened.
This is where I would say something you do NOT want on your comments area which would be: I do not know how many bad cops that would be against the percentage of good cops because I do not know the amount of cops working in al these areas at these times. I also do not know how many cases went to actually being prosecuted. I do not know how many regular Joe's(no pun intended) were out doing the same crimes of these officers.
So without my exact knowledge of all these stats my comments are not worthy to be here and do not provide any real or actual information that someone can read.
But in my "simple" mind, I know when I put 25 bad cop stories to all the millions of crimes committed by regular Joe's(sorry Joe)in my 52 years, that the "bad cop" stoires arent even worth time to figure out a true stat. That doesnt even count the bad guys who's story isnt worthy of news, or I missed it.

So you can put facts, stats, which is wonderful at times that you go to that much effort, but also makes one go "Why"' will you argue for pages and pages to get someone else to do the same?. You are a baracuda the second someones statements include "feelings and life experiences" as not being a worthy contribution.
Joe is a no agreeing situation which is sad.

Brenda,

You write about how my words were a complete waste of space and that the Patch would be happy if I retired my keyboard, then you go into this rambling ...

You can't back up your claim that I called you names, so you choose this conversation where you claim I was talking to someone I wasn't talking to. I wasn't talking to "Joe", to my knowledge, unless "Joe" is using more than one username. Personally, I am confident enough in the truth, I can stay with one username.

You claim that by my responding to the statement made by "veteranbadge" (not "Joe") I am calling him a name. Exactly what name would that be?

I responded with the truth. The statement he made was clearly consistent with the rationale used in the days when this country used the "Scarlet Letter" to humiliate and harass people who fell into a certain category. If the truth makes someone who talks like that look like something they don't want to look like, then maybe they should align themselves with the side that doesn't make them look like that. I don't have to call names, the truth is good enough at pointing out what kind of thinking that is.

As far as me going for the "juggler". Actually, I only knew a few jugglers in my life, and I wasn't aware they were available to me. But, now that you mention it, someone with that talent might be interesting if I should ever be so inclined to expand my horizons and consider other types of relationships. Thanks..

Then you allude to a previous conversation that began with "Joe Law" and ended with "veteranbadge". That conversation ended with me agreeing with "veteranbadge" that he and I were on the same page about that subject . Why are you complaining about that?

I do agree that the media is unreliable, I also agree that when law enforcement chooses to use them to slant things in their favor they use them very skillfully. And when law enforcement doesn't like what they say, law enforcement points out how unreliable the media is. So, there is no argument there.

Are you so bent on finding a place where I called someone a name that you are actually going through all of my comments to find something you can throw at me. That-is-sad.

Personally, I AM a barracuda when it comes to the lies that have been spread to foster, perpetuate and defend a law that actually puts our society, families and children in more danger of being victims because of a false belief that they are safe because a bunch of people are on a website.

If you were interested in the truth, with the conviction you have for "justice" in our communities, you should be angry about being lied to by law enforcement, politicians and prosecutors (oh yeah and the media) as well. That-is-sad.

One last note..

Brenda, I'm sure "Joe Law" and "veteranbadge" appreciate you coming to their rescue.

Wow Secrets, you actually understood that nonsense that Brenda posted?

I couldn't make head or tail of it!!

Amazing Lies

I think so.

I am always amused when I see people use the very same tactics that were used by people who had the "holier-than-thou" attitude back in the Salem Witch Hunts and the days of the Scarlet Letter to attempt to discredit the truth today.

In stead of wanting to know the truth, these people seem to just want to attempt to discredit anyone who stands up for it. The most disturbing part of it all is, they appear (by their statements) to care, but they (by what they attack) prove they really don't.

With regard to law enforcement and the things I discussed, there is an excuse made for them. They say "it doesn't happen as much with us as it does the rest of society" and "you can't use the same comparisons with regard to us as we have used against other people in society". Quite frankly, I don't care what excuse law enforcement comes up with, as "trained professionals" they should never have an excuse for "one of theirs" to do any of the "bad" things the rest of society does. And law enforcement should be the first to "deal" with anyone who does. But we all know, that isn't the way it works, don't we?

Based on what I was able to extract from Brenda's comments accusing me of calling names "between the lines", I just pointed out the truth. If I wish to call someone a name or attack them, they can rest assured, when I get done, I will have called them a name (or more). I haven't done that. I have told the truth, something she apparently isn't used to.

Hi Alicia Espinoza,

I am happy to respond to challenges.
I am a firm believer of proving people wrong, who attempt to mislead other people into believing lies spread by law enforcement as well as anyone else.

If I comment, I seldom do so without having done some research that supports what I have to say. I am often criticized for my opinions, yet have not been proven incorrect in any of these comments sections.

It only takes a little effort to research, and it dispels the myths, lies and just outlandish propaganda spread to mislead the general public.

That's why I (with some other people are finishing up a website that people can go to and discuss what is really going on and what we can do to help safeguard our families in today's world). Just a little knowledge can make a world of difference when dealing with these things. We don't have to listen to lies, we can set them straight.

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf

http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml

Sorry, I can't spend all day in my bedroom slippers, surfing the web. The aforementioned links provide ample evidence that domestic violence and assaults are committed in far greater numbers by everyone other than cops. As of 2006, there were 700K law enforcement officers in the U.S. Round up to 800K for today and with the given population of the U.S. at 308,745,538 and cops represent approximately 2.6% of the population. You citied a study that referenced violence against a police officer's own family members, but have you done any studies on the same issue for garbage collectors? bankers? truck drivers? The incident referenced here is an anomaly and I hope he fries, but its not representative of any larger problem. Your stats are incongruous for the purposes of this discussion and whatsmore, they only validate my argument.

Interesting information. Talk about "incongruous".
You provide information that does not break down the numbers or percentages that include law enforcement. However, my information is consistent with the information you provided. 66 percent of women's attackers are intimately known to them. Which does not conflict with the information I provided. You spent 4 days coming up with something that does nothing more than provide overall information and is not directly related to what I said. I guess I can give you an "E" for effort.

However, let's look a little more.
Per 100,000 of law enforcement and 100,000 of other citizens, the following are true.
Law enforcement is far more likely to sexually assault, use excessive fatal force, and be involved in assaulting someone and law enforcement is almost equal to the general public in percentages for all crimes.

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/blog/2011/08/17/is-police-brutality-spreading/

Using your argument that there is 2.6 percent of the population in law enforcement, that only supports my statement that law enforcement is a more violent group than the average citizen.

No Joe, my information is not incongruous at all, it is right on point. However, you are consistent with the general belief that law enforcement tends to try to skirt the issue or cloud the facts with information that is inconclusive when it comes to law enforcement involvement in crime. Your attempt at rebuttal is disingenuous.

"Using your argument that there is 2.6 percent of the population in law enforcement, that only supports my statement that law enforcement is a more violent group than the average citizen."

Considering that the average citizens commit 99% of the crime in the United States, I fail to see the logic in that statement. Are jails and prisons filled with cops or not? Using your logic, since cops are the most violent group, they should be represented equally in the penal population as well. I suppose I can give you an "E" for effort too since you've yet to prove your point.

"Per 100,000 of law enforcement and 100,000 of other citizens, the following are true:
Law enforcement is far more likely to sexually assault, use excessive fatal force, and be involved in assaulting someone and law enforcement is almost equal to the general public in percentages for all crimes."

The FBI's Unified Crime Reports, which are the de facto clearinghouse for crime stats list the following numbers of crimes reported for the entire U.S. in 2010:

Murder: 11,201
Forcible Rape: 20,888
Assault: 408,488
Other Assaults: 1,299,449
Sexual Offenses (other than rape): 72,678

And you're going to now assert that the largest group of people committing those crimes is cops? Seriously? You're a fraud and you've outed yourself as a complete fool.

Joe Law,

While you may attempt to create a foundation for your rebuttal, you still ignore the facts.

The issue is not what the crime rate is. We know the crime rate. We know how many are in prison. What I am talking about is a group of people who are supposed to be held to a higher standard and fail to hold themselves accountable on a regular basis.

If I were making statements without supporting them with a link that others can read for themselves, such as you are doing in most of your comments, then you could assume your name calling was justified. However, that is not the case, and you cannot refute the information I provided.

Again, you attempt to bolster your rebuttal with general numbers. The information I provided is consistent with figures as they relate to law enforcement specifically and provide a legitimate comparison by professionals, not some person claiming to be a member of the law enforcement community. And obviously, the statements you have made here and in other comments sections, prove that you are unwilling to focus on specifics.

Call names all you want, the facts are the facts and until you provide proof to the contrary, my argument stands. And by the way, it isn't you I am talking to, it is the people who are reading what is being submitted. You have proven your disdain for anyone who opposes you or shares an opinion contrary to yours with all your name calling.

Rather childish, by the way, for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable.

"The information I provided is consistent with figures as they relate to law enforcement specifically and provide a legitimate comparison by professionals, not some person claiming to be a member of the law enforcement community."

The alleged facts you provided are mere opinion, as provided for by CNN. I would hardly take credit for that, unless you stand behind the "opinion". As for the other faud website that you so eloquently put forth (like that took a lot of original thought), the NPMSRP claims on its own website: "All the data used by the NPMSRP is publicly verifiable by anyone because the NPMSRP limits itself to media reports of police misconduct." What a joke....they only use media reports. Well.....let's close the books on fact shall we? I provided links to solid data based on actual arrests and criminal conviction information and you provided links based on opinion and news reports. And again, you're attempting to claim that 2.6% of the population commits crimes at a greater rate than the rest of the population in the United States.

I'll take hard arrest and conviction data over the bloviating of a confirmed cop hater any day of the week. Lol....yeah.....let's all use the media to uphold an argument over empirical data.......man....you are funny.

Joe Law,

1 of (probably 3 or 4)

You may decry the information provided by the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project. You stated that:"I provided links to solid data based on actual arrests and criminal conviction information and you provided links based on opinion and news reports". Here is the information provided by the NPMSRP with regard to their data and the method of collection thereof.

"
Did you know that the last time the US government bothered to gather any information about the problem of police misconduct in the United States was in 2002?
Even then, the study they did only covered 5% of the police departments in the US and, on top of that, participation was only voluntary and relied on what police departments were willing to report about misconduct within their own ranks.
One of the biggest obstacles in the way towards solving the problem of police brutality and misconduct is a fundamental lack of information about police misconduct.
The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project (NPMSRP), established in April of 2009, is a non-partisan, non-governmental project devoted to help resolve that problem. The NPMSRP gathers data on police misconduct through reports of misconduct made available through the media and generates statistical and trending information based on those reports.

Joe Law, you still provide no information regarding law enforcement specifically.
That again proves you have nothing to refute what I have had to say.

While information was compiled for a CNN report you fail to recognize the information came from studies that were conducted that supplied that information. Again, you fail to refute any of the information. I am talking explicitly about law enforcement.
You refuse to provide any information directly relating to law enforcement.

Being that law enforcement seldom cooperates with any attempt to compile information about the behaviors of their officers, it is difficult to find information about the subject. However, anyone choosing to do the research will find that the information is as carefully as possible scrutinized by the organizations that do compile the information.

However, being that we are talking about law enforcement, I will rely on the information that is available. Absent any information at all from the opposing point of view that directly relates to law enforcement, I will rely upon the process that law enforcement and the courts use to determine whether or not to believe what has been said. That process is simply, with no evidence directly contradicting the information provided, I will believe the information that has been provided, not the name calling, accusations and cheap shots taken by the person who refuses to back up his or her claim that what has been submitted isn't true.

2 of however many

The project analyzes media reports several times a day to locate reports of police misconduct, records those reports in a database, and then transmits details about each report in a publicly available social media news feed on Twitter.
At the end of each quarter the database is scanned to ensure all recorded reports are not duplicates of reports already gathered and meet all criteria for valid police misconduct reports. Those reports are then categorized and analyzed to produce quarterly and annual police misconduct statistical reports that are then posted on this site along with a copy of the database entries for that report to ensure that the data used for the reports is transparent and publicly reviewable.
At the end of each year a special aggregate statistical report is generated and posted to the site to examine long-term statistical information gathered by the NPMSRP with additional detailed analysis including localized misconduct ranking information and statistical trending data. The annual aggregate reports include detailed per-capita misconduct rates and comparisons between law enforcement agencies for analysis as well.
In addition to these statistical and trending reports, the NPMSRP also produces additional police misconduct-related stories and policy analysis on the site for public consumption while also performing outreach and advocacy for police misconduct victims.

3 of 3

While the use of media reports as a source of data for the NPMSRP is an imperfect solution, there are none better at this time since a vast majority of police departments do not release misconduct data and state laws in many locations eve prohibit the sharing of such data. Additionally, utilizing court records only gives us cases where officers were prosecuted or faced civil action while neglecting data from disciplinary actions taken against officers in the absence of other actions.
The fact of the matter is that, while our solution is imperfect, none are perfect and this is the only project currently attempting to track misconduct on a national scale… so, while imperfect, the NPMSRP can still help identify trends and potential trouble-spots for police misconduct while also providing the public with a better picture to how extensive police misconduct in the US might actually be and how that relates to their lives where they live.
Police misconduct, accountability, and transparency are issues that affect everyone in the US. The more information we have about these issues, the more we can do to help law enforcement agencies improve how they interact with the communities they are entrusted to protect and serve and, in doing so, help build better relationships of trust between the community and law enforcement agencies.

For any questions about the NPMSRP please send us a message ........"

Finally Joe Law,

If your organization had nothing to hide and was proud of its reputation (as you seem to believe it should be), where is the data from law enforcement itself, to prove your point?

One further thought Joe Law,

It seems that you misunderstand the comparison of the data provided per 100,000 individuals. Secrets of Safety is not saying that law enforcement make up the greater number, but that they are proportionately more likely to commit those crimes than any comparable number of the general populace.

"Using your argument that there is 2.6 percent of the population in law enforcement, that only supports my statement that law enforcement is a more violent group than the average citizen."

Considering that the average citizens commit 99% of the crime in the United States, I fail to see the logic in that statement. Are jails and prisons filled with cops or not? Using your logic, since cops are the most violent group, they should be represented equally in the penal population as well. I suppose I can give you an "E" for effort too since you've yet to prove your point.

"Per 100,000 of law enforcement and 100,000 of other citizens, the following are true:
Law enforcement is far more likely to sexually assault, use excessive fatal force, and be involved in assaulting someone and law enforcement is almost equal to the general public in percentages for all crimes."

The FBI's Unified Crime Reports, which are the de facto clearinghouse for crime stats list the following numbers of crimes reported for the entire U.S. in 2010:

Murder: 11,201
Forcible Rape: 20,888
Assault: 408,488
Other Assaults: 1,299,449
Sexual Offenses (other than rape): 72,678

And you're going to now assert that the largest group of people committing those crimes is cops? Seriously? You're a fraud and you've outed yourself as a complete fool.

"The information I provided is consistent with figures as they relate to law enforcement specifically and provide a legitimate comparison by professionals, not some person claiming to be a member of the law enforcement community."

The alleged facts you provided are mere opinion, as provided for by CNN. I would hardly take credit for that, unless you stand behind the "opinion". As for the other faud website that you so eloquently put forth (like that took a lot of original thought), the NPMSRP claims on its own website: "All the data used by the NPMSRP is publicly verifiable by anyone because the NPMSRP limits itself to media reports of police misconduct." What a joke....they only use media reports. Well.....let's close the books on fact shall we? I provided links to solid data based on actual arrests and criminal conviction information and you provided links based on opinion and news reports. And again, you're attempting to claim that 2.6% of the population commits crimes at a greater rate than the rest of the population in the United States.

I'll take hard arrest and conviction data over the bloviating of a confirmed cop hater any day of the week. Lol....yeah.....let's all use the media to uphold an argument over empirical data.......man....you are funny.

Pete, did you file a Citizen's Complaint against him so there's a record?

citizen,

Interesting comment.
First, I am an American Citizen and I will continue to write as long as I chose to write.
Until law enforcement, prosecutors, politicians and people like you stop painting with the broad brush used against citizens and certain sub-classes of citizens, proclaiming you and they are "protecting" children, I will continue to point out the truth. What I fight against is the double standard. Don't like it? Too bad. I have not painted anything, I have pointed out what is there for every one of us to know. The fact that you chose to have a different opinion doesn't change the facts.

Hi citizen,

My comments have been mainly with regard to the alarming information showing law enforcement personnel to be more prone to being violent with their domestic partners, than the propensity for violence in the general population. I don't think you would usually see that kind of behaviour played out in a patrol car.... do you?

I do not deny that law enforcement see a different side of life, and probably suffer psychological damage from it. However, denying the truth of how that affects them and their domestic partners, hiding the figures and ganging up together against allegations of misconduct are not the way to handle the results of that damage.

To then hold themselves out as being somewhat above the law (as opposed to exempt from it), is blatantly dishonest. They should lead by example, be subject to the laws which they enforce, hold themselves to a higher standard and uphold the laws by their behaviour (including driving within the law) and be transparent in their dealings with us, the tax payers who employ them. I am not accustomed to addressing a police officer as 'sir'. They call me 'ma'am'. That is how it should be.

You don't earn respect at the blunt end of a gun. You earn it by behaving as an example of an honourable force for good, a true civil servant, which is after all, what they are.

The police officers we employ are the front line - they investigate and apprehend. They are NOT judge, jury and executioner.

it is a hopeless case citizen, they are in complete denial of the trash they are defending. I have learned your best bet is to just ignore them and move on.

They apply their "statistics" and take something that happened once and apply it across the board to everyone. You can't have a legitimate debate or have any kind of intellectual conversation, you will get nowhere.

I just pity them and move on with a smile :)

justme, I do wish you would make an effort to understand what it is you are criticizing before you put fingers to keyboard, then at least your criticism would have a little credibility.

I consider being in denial of the facts as they are as being more dangerous to society, families and children.

If you actually read what both Secrets of Safety and I have said, you will realise that you are mis-stating what we are saying.

Do try to keep up.

As an afterthought justme - the only people I am defending are the victims of crime. You call them trash? Interesting.

justme...

"There are none so blind as those who have functioning eyes and refuse to see.
There are none so deaf as those who have functioning ears and refuse to hear.
There are none so dangerous as those who have functioning eyes and ears and refuse to see or hear yet insist on speaking."

One only has to look at the comments made by "justme" and see just exactly what kind of "intellectual" conversation she has attempted to have with me. But, I recognize there are a lot of people out there who share her view of life and stick their heads in the sand and believe the lies being passed on to citizens. And then they cry and whine and blubber when their "safe" little world is invaded by someone they didn't see coming because they were too busy believing the lies they so vigorously hang on to. What a shame.

Citizen, Patch would love his keyboard retired as well as alot of his victims.
This was the most ridiculous waste of time and energy I have ever seen, and name calling. But w/Secret you have to read between his lines, as he is a master name caller early on. You just have to decipher, learn,spot the way he insults you.

I was looking for a post that Secrets would be going off that this officer is INNOCENT until proven guilty and should NOT be sleeping on an OVER CROWDED jail house floor with only a blanket, until guilty.
He is usually defending criminals in their right to a trial before we give an emotional response here, like me wanting to castrate a man who is caught molesting a 15 year old girl.(example) I should not say that until a man is proven guilty in comments of an article.
I wasted my time reading all this rhetoric, LOL'd alot, wondered why anyone, even as informed as Joe would bother to waste his time on all this.

In addition, this officer had went through alot personally and was affected in some way to have been assigned to court duty recently which is a horrendous embarrassment to any patrol officer. So he had been on a downhill fall for sometime and no one caught onto it.

I think Secrets is a very angry man, and he shows it here on these forums, arguing with all the nice folks leaving their opinions also, as he runs off to have everyone flagged, and TOS violations. LOL. He just has all the time to look up stats whether they are true of false.

Brenda,

I'm happy to see you didn't miss the opportunity to claim again that I called you names. I have been waiting from the last 4 times you claimed that to show me where I have done that to you.

If you don't like what I have to say, you are free to dispute it, other than claiming what I have to say is a personal attack, you really don't have much to say.

I realize there are people who don't like to believe that what they believe is incorrect. The interesting thing to me is you don't offer anything to contradict the information I share.

If you believe this cop is sleeping on the floor, you are misinformed. This cop is isolated in his own cell, he would already be dead otherwise. And there are ample witnesses of him shooting dead an unarmed man. Even other cops admit that fact.

Your turn.
Ps. I don't flag anyone. Angry? Only toward lies told to create a false sense of security for families and children. I would think you would be angry about being lied to by politicians and law enforcement as well. I guess you are more interested in scouring my posts to be able to somehow prove I have called someone a name. That-is-sad.

The disturbing thing about these type of crimes against citizens is; every citizen (that finds themselves subject to and witnessing that kind of behavior of law enforcement) is helpless in the situation. There is nowhere to turn for help, they can not call for law enforcement to help because it is law enforcement that is doing it.

If another citizen tries to help the victim, that citizen is subject to be treated the same way. There is no defense. That kind of crime should be considered worse than a crime against a child. Reason; A child has someplace to turn for help, these people don't. A child is protected by law enforcement. In these cases, Law enforcement rallies against the victim.

There is no one more helpless than a person who finds them-self in the position of being the victim of law enforcement.

Because of the fact (as law enforcement likes to say) we cannot know which of them is going to do it, we should be aware of how dangerous these people are. It is a shame law enforcement can't see what they are doing to the opinions of citizens when law enforcement rallies around "their own" to defend this type of crime.

Law enforcement has adopted the idea that somehow they (if they can rationalize it) are immune to being required to be just like the rest of the citizens. Subject to the same laws. But, instead of punishing these people (law enforcement), law enforcement does everything they can to protect them, as a general rule.

Before someone jumps on me for my statement about crimes against children, I don't suggest that crimes against children should be downgraded. They are horrific and I do not defend people who commit crimes against children. What I do suggest is that the crimes law enforcement commit against citizens should be upgraded to absolutely, without excuse, deplorable, above crimes against children. People who do these things have no regard for the rights of any citizen, they disregard the law entirely and they disregard the authority of the United States Constitution and everything it stands for. These crimes go against the grain of everything we believe to be good about our country. They are crimes that violate the trust of both individuals as well as the trust of our society in every sense of the word "trust".

We, as a nation, should be outraged by law enforcement abuses of authority. Instead, we have become so used to it that we look the other way (most of the time), knowing that if we stand up against it, we too may be identified and targeted by law enforcement. How unfortunate we have gotten to that point in such an "advanced society".

Furthermore, as has been stated by people claiming to be law enforcement in these comments, the excuse of "lapse of judgement" for a cop that violates the law isn't allowed for average citizens in court or when they are arrested. Any such type of comment from law enforcement (as "trained professionals") should be regarded with contempt.

Yeah, well watch out for those who have posted above. They will tell you how it doesn't happen as much with them as it does with "average citizens". But the fact is, these are "trained professionals". It shouldn't be happening AT ALL.

Alicia Espinoza,

I didn't realize those who urinated on the Taliban were law enforcement.
However, unlike law enforcement, our military will deal with those Marines.
Those type of things shouldn't happen either.
However, with regard to that war, the jury is still out on whether or not it should be going on and that is a whole different subject, isn't it?

Now, now Alicia...

We can't judge everybody before they have actually done something..
Not all Marines join law enforcement, and not all Marines behave like that.

Just the same as not all law enforcement endorse the behaviors of bad cops.

However, in both situations, all law enforcement as well as our military are judged according to what is seen. But, that is the way it is in every situation, isn't it?

Yes, I agree on your points. However, we can't place all military into the category of becoming law enforcement.

I agree, a lot of law enforcement are ex-military.
And I would agree, our law enforcement today, takes a military type stance when looking out over the vast countryside and view American Citizens as the enemy.

An off duty Sheriff Deputy.
Bullies someone, gets into a fight.
Then when someone tries to break up the fight, the Sheriff Deputy (supposedly) yells "I'm a Riverside Sheriff", and everyone is supposed to stop and watch him beat someone up.. Yeah, that's the way it should be... NOT!!

It doesn't matter what color the man is, and it doesn't matter that he served our country. Millions of people have served our country and have not gone on to shoot and kill an unarmed man.

So, you advocate that a Sheriff Deputy, off duty, can go into a bar, start a fight and then shoot anyone who tries to stop him because he yells "I'm a Riverside Sheriff"?

No, we don't live in a society that allows our law enforcement to behave that way.
He killed an unarmed man after he (the "Riverside Sheriff") started a fight with another man.

You come on here and start cursing and accusing those who comment, and of being "low lives" and suggesting they wouldn't serve our country.. or qualify as a "Sheriff". Many of us have done exactly that and we still have not killed an unarmed man, or started a fight in a bar or had to have someone attempt to stop us from beating someone up over a dart game.

I think you have displayed just how high you are on the ladder of life.. lol

I have the email, just responded for link. Don't rmemeber if I did that night or not, LOL, we got chit chatting for so long.
Opps, ohhh I think I hear Amazing!!! <~~going to hide!