Re: What's up, Doc?
Why is it the reporters from the Mercury repeatedly write things that are false and get away with it? Also, seeing fellow officers who are legitimately hurt or made sick at work, and then getting dragged through a process where they are presumed to be making something up, unfortunately forces officers to think twice before putting themselves in harms way and into an adveserial process at a time when the officer should be trying to get well. The reason we have a high proportion of officers on disability is because we have too few officers. The less officers we have means a higher proportion of those officers suffering injuries or illness increases to the total amount of officers. If we only had 2 officers and 1 went on disability, we would have 50% of the department on disability. This is the bean counters at the city and reporters twisting facts around and distorting facts.
Re: What's up, Doc?
The POA has insurance for this officer. Why hasn't she used that? Someone from the POA dropped the ball and hasn't provided her with the information. You might have saved her the problems.
I know SJPD officers are not allowed to go on strike. I can also see how low morale might increase the temptation to slow down self-initiated activity. Is this the solution to the problem of poor staffing and low morale? It would not seem so. Instead, what might be the result of a “work speed up”? If officers did no self-initiated activity until the end of the shift, then made as many car stops as possible and wrote tickets or made arrests at the end of shift, using at least an hour of overtime to do so, provided this works into an officer’s personal schedule, (assuming he or she doesn’t have to pick up kids, make a doctor’s appointment or get to secondary employment right after work etc that day), what would the financial impact on the City be if at least half or more of the patrol division, on all 3 shifts, put in at least 1 hour of overtime each and every day? I understand officers do not get paid for their overtime and can’t use these hours by getting time off, so these hours would accumulate into unfunded liability for the City. I’m sure the City would jump on the Department and overtime would become heavily scrutinized but what can a supervisor say when a citation or an arrest report supports an officer’s use of overtime? What would happen if a supervisor orders an officer not to make the arrest or issue the citation and the officer follows that up with a memo to the chief, AND the SJPOA AND the city manger confirming that this was done and asking for a formal explanation as to why? What would happen should this occur? Would it finally get the City to notice what is going on and the price (unfunded liability) of low morale?
Honorable Mayor Reed and Council Members,
Tonight you are being asked to decide whether to expand the types of police records that should be made public on a routine basis or not. I am writing to support Mayor Reed's recommendation for the following reasons:
I beg you to start putting victim's rights at the fore front of your decision making process when it comes to this issue. If you need an example of the harm opening Police records can do to families of victims of violent crimes look no further than the Hosseini family. The Mercury News and a candidate for the DA's Office has used "the public's right to know," as a guise for selling newspapers, and to run for a position in the DA's Office with zero regard to the family involved. These news stories have hurt and re victimized this family in ways that should not be acceptable to any of you who care about victim's rights, and victim's rights to privacy.
Secondly, I work with immigrants who are crime victims. We have a horrible time getting them to report crimes because in their countries they fear the Police and authority as it is. How do you think they view knowing they could be the Mercury News's next victim thanks to you opening the private details of their victimization to a heartless media?
I get that groups like the NAACP, the ACLU, De Bug, La Raza, and other anti-Police groups are putting pressure on you to do this as a means to seal their own agendas, and "catch the racial profiling, terrorist, racist Police Department" doing something wrong, but they aren't looking at the whole picture.
As our elected Representatives, you are responsible for the safety, and well being of this community. Start by imagining yourself as a victim splashed all over the media after God forbid your husband, wife or family member is raped, murdered, or shot by Police for wielding a weapon and refusing to drop it. I ask that you stop listening to just one side of the issue and give some serious consideration to the needs and rights of victims of violent crimes for a change. Be their voice just once and keep them safe from re victimization in the press.
Thank you for your kind consideration of my request.
I am very glad there is now this websight.
I read the Mercury article and posted a comment supporting the officers. Nothing at all outrageous. My post was removed by the next day, however, those that had made negative comments were still there to see. The Mercury has an agenda and apparently now practices censorship of it's readers comments. Pathetic
I completely agree Jim. We as a society have established process in place to legally protect citizens and ensure they have the right to due process when accused of, or charged with crimes. I find it sickening that a newspaper who is usually the first to wave the 1st Amendment, or any other constitutional rights in anyones face with a dissenting opinion, would advocate the violation of an officers rights "just to sell a paper" and give the public a story. Clearly a sign that the Mercury News will go to any length to sell papers and break it's own professional journalistic standards and ethics, if any present to begin with. Then, when they don't get what they want, classify it as a "sunshine reform" and accuse the big, bad, police department of a cover-up. If you don't get teh answers you want, then just spin loosely veiled conspiracies or just fabricate theories into stories. Sound par for the course?
It's no mystery that ANY shooting, whether Daniel Pham's, any homicide, or officer involved shooting resulting in death is a tragedy. I'm sure no officer within the SJPD or anywhere across the country would say that they'd love to go through the mental anguish of being Monday morning quarterbacked, ridiculed, picked apart by the media, and c-workers after such an event occurrs. But if one were to believe the papers, it's just a regular ol' day on the beat when one happens! Oh, and then the police will just "cover up" all the evidence too.. Why not, everyone loves a good crime drama right?
In my short, but eventfull years as a police officer, I can say with overwhelming confidence that the majority of residents I come in contact with DO support the police and read the Mercury News in the morning with a cup of coffee and have a good laugh. As do I.
I agree that the DA made the right decision in Daniel Pham's case, and needs to continue to protect the rights and the process afforded to officers when tragedies like this occurr. The family definately deserves answers in the matter. But those answers should not come at the expense of prematurely painting a target on the back of an officer prior to all the evidence being heard in his/her day in court with the slanted angle of the papers. That type of politically motivated alteration of the process sheds too much light in on cases that require justice to be blind for good reason. Just look at the BART shooting mess as a prime example.
And what's with the veggie peeler comment in their editorial once again? Let it go... Try telling the public not to attack officers with ANYTHING in your hands, let alone attacking one altogether! It's what my parents would call a "teaching moment".
Stay safe out there...
Impressive new site. I hope you continue the content too. I like reading other perspectives that I don't get from the slowly dying newspaper or from the powers that be at City Hall.