Insanezeipler has left a comment to "Sexual Harassment - tolerated?" that read, in part, “YES! An 'internal' should be launched! How would that work?”
Well, let’s see. How would that work? Actually, a better question is, “How should that work?”
Let’s say that an internal investigation into an incident involving a deputy reveals that a crime was committed; for example, disorderly conduct or assault and battery.
How would an internal work? The deputy gets a slap on the wrist, maybe a few days off. And nothing gets reported to the newspapers, because it’s a confidential personnel matter. No charges get filed. Witnesses or victims are supposed to “feel good” because it got handled.
How should it work?
If the investigation reveals that a crime was committed, then not only should the “internal” be completed but the incident should be handled as it would be with any non-law enforcement person. The victim should be supported in filing the appropriate charges in the correct jurisdiction, and the case goes to court.
Tell me once more how good “internals” are?
In some cities, when there is a fight involving two people who have been drinking (or even if no liquor is involved), they both go to jail. And isn’t this the case right now with high school students, at least in Woodstock? A recent posting referred to a fight between a deputy and a police officer in a bar in Lake in the Hills; the bar is actually in Crystal Lake.
Who else knows about this? Does the Crystal Lake Police Department know about it? I wonder what would happen, if the Crystal Lake P.D. went to the bar and started asking questions. Of if the Crystal Lake Liquor Commission called in the licensee and grilled him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Gus, let's be realistic, internal investigations are only conducted when certain members of the department deem it beneficial. I was given a written reprimand for calling a guy a "shady f@ck" at the Washington Street Station Bar in Woodstock. I was off duty and having a conversation with other employees. I bet it cost the taxpayers over ten thousand dollars to give me that reprimand. The funny thing is I wasn't the only person to say that this guy was shady. One of the people I was with told me that Deputy "shady f@ck" keeps the jail in business by bringing in 2 or 3 Mexicans a night. (For everyone that doesn't know the immigration wings are over populated and detainees are being housed in the gyms. My sympathies to the corrections officers. I bet you're vastly out numbered and fear for your safety.)I guess me saying "shady f@ck" warrants a full scale investigation and is worth several thousand dollars to the taxpayer. Thing is, it shouldn't have cost the taxpayer a dime, I immediatley admitted to saying it and told Lt. L that I'd say it again. How did they find out I said that in the first place? I told them the conversation took place while trying to get Lt. M. to do something about the racial motivated traffic stops that were being conducted by a couple of "shady f@cks".
I can't wait to read these comments.
Gus,
Don't cut parts of a post out and use them out of context. That was pretty low.
The comment was directed at the ignorant statement by "Zeipler" about the acquirement of IP information. Plus, I answered my own question. It was rhetorical. Get with it.
In regards to your fight comments and charges. If there is no victim there is no crime. You say the police should just charge people on a whim? What if neither party wants charges filed and refuse complaints? Should the police just arrest anyway and waste the taxpayers money? That a dumb idea. This is where you lack of experience in the law comes out.
IZ
IZ, I posted your entire comment where you submitted it. Then I selected a portion of it and commented on that portion of it. Anyone interested in reading your entire comment could easily go to its location. So what's the problem?
No victim in a bar fight? Sure there was. Perhaps you meant no "reported" victim, because the cops didn't want on-duty cops called. And the bar management had to keep its fingers crossed that the Crystal Lake Liquor Commission didn't get wind of it.
I'm looking for more information on this incident, like the date and time and the names of the deputy and the police officer (and his department) involved.
Probably many readers know the answers. You can fax to 815/338-2666; email to gus@woodstockadvocate.com; or mail to Gus Philpott, P.O. Box 1222, Woodstock, IL 60098. Those already in touch with me know that I will NOT reveal your identity.
Crystal Lake and other communities should have zero tolerance on bar fights and require bar managers to call the police on every fight. Period!
Is that clear enough?
Gus I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I'm sure the bar owners have the right to call the police when they believe it is necessary (most places have their own security), not to mention if this was really a "fight", off-duty cop-involved or not, everyone who has a cell phone (um, everyone) would have been dialing 911. You have mentioned taxpayer money more than once in this blog and I think it would be a horrible waste of resources to detail internal investigations on something that was rumor. IZ is correct, no victim/complainant, there's nothing to prosecute, internal or criminal. Is the internal investigation officer going to go question people with, "We HEARD there was MAYBE a fight in here NOT TOO LONG AGO"?
Hmm...more complaints based on what someone "heard"? Go figure.
Quit, thanks for your comment. But I'm not suggesting an "internal." I'm recommending that bar management be required to call the police to ARREST anyone involved in a fight in a bar.
If a customer does not instigate a fight with "fighting words" or other actions (intentionally jostling another person, knocking over a drink, groping someone's date, giving someone the finger) and only defends himself, he can have a pass on the ride to jail.
Gus, I see your point, but I'm not sure how you could ever make the part about requiring management to call the police enforceable. And I can think of a thousand ways this could go seriously off track with he-said-she-said over who started what, an unintentional jostling of another (people do get clumsy when they've had a bit too much to drink) and being clocked for it (tempers tend to flare and fuses get short when alcohol is involved)...
I guess I don't understand the part about wanting the officer/deputy names either. It is suggestive of you leaning towards an internal, no?
I suspect the "enforceable" part against bar management might be the easiest part; they like having the license to serve/sell alcohol. Violations of liquor laws (reporting could be one of them) would put the license at risk. I suspect that bar operators don't want fights in their bars, in their parking lots or after customers have been drinking there. And they even have to worry about a DUI being traced back to their bars, especially if a crash is involved.
Nope, not leaning toward internals.
A previous article stated that Capt. C and Lt. L gave a verbal warning to the deputy involved in the fight. Quit, was that a warning based on a rumor, I doubt it.Why didn't these supervisors dig a little deeper. They do all sorts of useless internals at the SO, what's one more. I'm sure Zane has some experience with this.As far as taxpayer money, these supervisors are already getting paid a nice wage, now they actually have some work to do.I don't know when this fight happened, but it's probably too late to investigate now. What kind of example is this to the public. I bet if Zane or another unliked deputy was in the fight they would have ten guys investigating it.
Post a Comment