Friday, April 1, 2011

Race choices on a ticket are ...

Thanks to the reader who sent me the following information.

"The state law requires officers to use "subjective determination" to label a driver's race as Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, Native American/Alaska Native or Asian?Pacific Islander.

"So it is obvious marking them white covers up that they are a minority."

If Pedro Gomez, of brown complexion, gets stopped and tells the McHenry County Sheriff's deputy in broken English that he is from Mexico, speaks Spanish and shows evidence of being in the U.S.A. legally, how should the officer mark the ticket in terms of race?

Native American/Alaska Native? or
Asian/Pacific Islander?
Most of the deputies (in fact, I'll wager the majority) are responsible about marking tickets correctly. Yes, they like the overtime, promotion to SWAT, promotion to K-9, promotion to (whatever), AND they will still mark tickets correctly as to race. Because that is what is right!


Justin said...

I agree that generally deputies mark the tickets correctly, however the fact still remains that regardless what the intent of this law (traffic stop statistical survey) the Secretary of State and all other reporting agencies fail to use MEXICAN or HISPANIC as a race.
Deputies face a conundrum of marking someone as Hispanic when the computer shows them to be white. They are not allowed to ask so they must choose. This was an idiotic law championed by State Senator previously a community organizer that openly stated in many speeches that police were inherently biased against black and people of color. (his bias) This same community organizer has jumped in siding against the police even when audio and video evidence clearly showed them NOT to be performing racially biased. Of course we are talking about our own POTUS. Obama acknowledged that he had contributed to "ratcheting it up" by declaring the Cambridge Police Department had "acted stupidly" even though he didn't know all the facts of the case and was personal friend of the arrestee being Professor Gates. Cambridge police called on Obama to apologize for the remark yet Obama did not apologize, saying his choice of words was "unfortunate." (You Think?) Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, Police Department was exonerated beyond doubt. Oh they did share a beer at the White House garden...How sweet.

I am not a deputy however I feel confident that I speak for a good majority of them. They are hard working men and women that want nothing more than to work for the county and perform their duties in the highest traditions of professionalism. One plaintiff is clutching to anything trying to validate his reinstatement thereby slandering all of them. People like you try and discredit the department by manipulating, distorting information and printing hyperbole such as the use of PROMOTION as if they are rewarded somehow.

To clarify, please understand this. SWAT and K-9 are NOT promotions. A promotion is a competitive and evaluation based elevation in rank. Promotion to a supervisory position such as Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain. Promotions are via the Merit Commission. Exceptions are the exempt ranks such as Commander and Undersheriff.

SWAT is an added duty requiring extra training and responsibility but NO pay raise. It is not full time and is done in conjuction with normal deputy duties. Deputies’ assigned duties as SWAT get the same pay as anyone else in that particular yearly matrix.

K-9 is a full time assignment. Like SWAT the K-9 deputies receive the same pay as anyone else in that particular yearly seniority matrix.

If a SWAT member is removed or a K-9 Deputy is removed, they are not considered demoted. Simply reassigned. Detectives is an assignment not a promotion. Deputies spend years in detectives and often return to patrol. If they return to patrol or other assignments, they are not considered demotions becuase it was never a PROMOTION.

Gus said...

Thanks for your comment. I believe, if you were a deputy at MCSD, you would write your comment differently.

You comment on many interesting topics, each worthy of separate discussion.

Unfortunately, the muzzle is on MCSD deputies, and they are afraid to comment.

One of the reasons may be the subpoena from the sheriff's attorney, which demands production of correspondence and communications over a 27-month period from current and former employees of the sheriff's department and other named individuals and anonymous screen names.

Did the Sotos firm subpoena the Northwest Herald, Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune for such documents?

Justin said...

Why do you feel they ( deputies) would answer differently? Not knowing the constraints they are under I'm oblivious to any orders or directives that prevent them from making comments. If a deputy posted information which compromised an investigation or libeled a co worker then they should be worried.

What anonymous screen names do they target? What egregious posts would be of interest to them?

Go ahead and give them my email and IP address Gus. Anything I said is truth and supports the men and women of the MCSO.

Gus said...

I haven't seen the General Orders (policies) of MCSD that prevent deputies and other employees from expressing themselves freely.

To my knowledge no one has compromised any investigation.

And I don't know of any cases of libel.

I could write some things about my own experience with a sheriff's department outside of McHenry County. Some people might claim the statements were libelous, yet I would know them to be true.