sanduskysteve says

Czech - I completely agree with you about the actions of SPD and I have been accused of (SR as well) trying to make the SPD look bad with all of my comments concerning their less than professional actions and I have said time and time again that the register NOR I are makign them look bad - they are doing it to themselves.

I stand by my statements concerning SPD's blatant violations of policies and rules AND laws and under your explaination of the possible difference - I would agree with you 100 percent.

czechurself says

Steve...

Filing a complaint against LE action it is usually considered a grievance.  In a complaint against an officer or an officer action, it is perceived that a wrong doing occurred, and it is not naturally assumed that filing a grievance lead to charges. 

A criminal complaint (a complaint filed against someone) suggests absolutely a criminal activity occurred.  It is supposed that with a criminal complaint charges may be filed.  There is certainly more gravity to filing a false allegation than in filing a complaint based on something believed to be true. 

Even in the recent events of the NAACP looking into complaints by citizens of Sandusky, these complaints did not offer any evidence of any blatant false information.  It was the sincere belief that there was unjust treatment.  The actions by LE in the complaints were simply considered justified action (according to another LE) and the complaint deemed unfounded.    

Frankly, in my opinion you should stop concerning yourself with this issue as much and find a heightened interest in the fact that the SPD are making it common practice to commit police perjury which happens every time an officer writes an official affidavit, that does lead to charges, where the officer has changed, omitted or given false information.  These reports are signed, under oath, as well.

I wonder which of these official affidavits you apply more gravity?

sanduskysteve says

Ned - thank you.  Honestly I wish I still worked for Walmart - but I'm not sure I would want to be a store manager as their hands are tied pretty tightly by corporate.  Department managers and customer service managers are probably the highest I would go anyway due to the fact that as soon as you become a salaried manager at Walmart, you loose your ability to be nice to your fellow associates and also to the customer.  The only thing that salaried management cares about at Walmart is how well they can drive the associates crazy and the bottom line is money.

However, they know that they need to bend over for the customer if the customer threatens to call corportate because then they will be told to do whatever it takes to make the customer happy.

Basically the reason why they offer gift cards to solve problems.

My belief was always if the customer was trying to pull something, he didn't get anything from me, if the customer has a real issue, he got my full attention and I solved the problem for him/her.  I followed the rules and I bent the rules - but I never broke the rules.  I also made sure I went with the customer to verify prices if there was a conflict.  Customer always got the benefit of any doubt.  I believed customer service made money and the issue with Walmart today is the lack good customer service. Unfortunately I can't work for a place that doesn't allow me to give customer service and then complain about loss of customers.  Doesn't make sense to me.

sanduskysteve says

DG - Let me respond to your post.  I am not against people filing ligetimate complaints about the wrong doings of a police officer.  In fact, I would encourage it.  But to remove a warning that they can be prosecuted for willfully lying on that complaint is wrong.  The complaint filed against someone else does not have this line removed from it.

To answer Czech - that wording is just fine - but removing the wording that explicitly states they could be prosecuted for filing a report with blaintant false information is wrong. 

czechurself says

LOL.....  "...this town can file complaints against officers possibly for something they didn't even do with no fear of penalties for KNOWINGLY not telling the truth." > Sanduskysteve

I sincerely and truly declare and SWEAR that the facts contained herein are complete, accurate, and true...  

 By signing and filing this complaint you are agreeing to appear and testify under oath concerning all matters relevant to the complaint.  

Only a real DOLT would read these statements and come to the afore mentioned conclusion.. LOL!! Naturally, it is perfectly clear that by signing you are swearing it is the truth and nothing less.  Furthermore, ignorance of the law is no defense, so sign at your own risk, I say.

***Consider this if you are concerned about who is protecting whom: Can police can KNOWINGLY write an official report that does not contain complete, accurate and true information without fear of penalty? Is it alright for SPD to enforce this rule when it comes to citizens of this community writing a complaint against an LE but disregard it when LE are writing a complaint against a citizen of the community?

DGMutley says

sanduskysteve,

Ned Mandingo says

Steve, thanks for the reply. It wish you still worked there, at least friday night. You seem pretty smart, unlike the women managers i delt with. They were some of the dumbest people i have ever met.  If they are the competition you should be a store manager in six months. Three days later and the money still has not been credited back to my account. I broke two of my rules, allways take cash and don't go to walmart.

sanduskysteve says

The register is not making the SPD look bad.  Once again, a decision made by Lang (the SPD themselves) is making them look bad.  The register is just reporting on it - and this is exactly wha tthe NAACP wants them to do to get the word out that from now on the criminals in this town can file complaints against officers possibly for something they didn't even do with no fear of penalties for KNOWINGLY not telling the truth.  That doesn't mean making a mistake or error (God knows the cops do this all the time), but for willfully lying on a complaint - there will not be penalties - at least not on this level.

Now, what the NAACP doesn't want those people to know, obviously, is that State Law comes into play if the prosecutor wants to use it and overrides anything the SPD wants you to believe.

been-there-done-that says

Maybe they can get the OHIO REVISED CODE made to be less INTIMIDATING. Thats what they took out of the document. Easier for them to say when they are charged to say "I didnt know they didnt warn me"?????What a joke!

Marcus M says

Interesting that this article which the registerag jumped on fails to compare the policies of other area law enforcement agencies in dealing wih citizen's complaints.  Yet another case of regeristerags agenda against SPD.  AS for the NAACP maybe they should focus their efforts on the high rate of, crime, drug usage and single family parents in their community, I am sure they can find someone to blame....

DGMutley says

sanduskysteve says

OK Ned, This could happen - it doesn't happen on a daily basis.  It is NOT my beloved walmart - I don't even work there anymore as I have stated in the past.

However, the issue could have been created by several other issues.  Unless the card reader actually reads the card and it reads a valid number - AND obtains a signature, the card is not charged as the transaction hasn't completed.

Now, if, the card was processed when it was declined - and that could have been for other reasons than not sufficient funds, there could have been an authorization placed on the card, and this is typically they way the processer that walmart uses operates, the authorization is NOT a charge on the card, but in the case of YOUR bank they do put a hold on the money and it appears as if there is a charge - although in a few days it will drop off.

My best guess is that this is what happened.  Now, the manager made a huge error in judgement telling you to just take the merchandise and leave.  That should have never been done and I think she realizes it at the point that you called the next day and this is why she offered the gift card.  Walmart gives away thousands of dollars each day in gift card for customer satisfaction.  Not neccessarily the local walmart - but in general.

And yes, this definitely gives walmart a black eye with the customers that have things like this happen to them.  But again, this is not a normal happening no matter what so it is an exception and not the rule.

The manager should have properly handled the situation in the first place.  But also keep in mind, that you may actually have not been charged but only an authorization done on the card.  Every place almost does this now.  Try swiping your card a most gas stations at the pump to purchase gas.  Almost all gas stations now put a hold on up to 75.00 on your card and you won't see it back until one of two things happen - either the actual charge goes thru - or more commonly in 3 to 5 business days when the bank decides to release it even though your gas charge may have already went thru.

Pre-authorizations on cards is very very common these days and it is up to the credit card processor to determine which method and how much of a pre-auth is going to be charged.  And yes, this DOES cause issues for some people with not a lot of money left on their cards - a big issue.

I never pay for gas at the pump - I'll go the window and pre-pay the gas so my card only gets charged for the amount of gas I purchase and I don't have to wait a week or so to get my money back.

And finally - that time period that the pre-auth stays on the card is up  to YOUR bank - not the processor or the business you used the card at.  The banks make a fortune using that extra money they keep for even a short period of time.  Every take something back and get a credit on your card?  Sometimes it can take up to a week for that credit to show up.  The bank is making tons of money by holding onto your money for as long as they can get away with it.

Lastly - I'm not defneding Walmart on this - it was absolutely not handled properly and after your card wouldn't read twice, I would have run it thru manually to prevent issues.

sanduskysteve says

DG - there was nothing on the form that said if the complaint was invalid the complainer was going to jail.  What is said is there COULD be penalties if the complainer was KNOWINGLY making false statements there could be penalties.

That is completely different from what you stated.  And there is nothing wrong with that statement being on the form at all.  If the complainer is incorrect in some of his information and didn't know he was, then there wouldn't have been an issue - the warning was simply if you purposely are not honest about the facts you claim in your complaint then you could be liable for filing a false report or perjury of some sort.

I still say there is nothing wrong with that - if it results in fewer invalid complaints - they that would be good.

Ned Mandingo says

Steve, i have a story to tell you about your beloved walmart. As you know i do not like to shop there but i  was dragged to the store in Norwalk last night by my wife. They are the only store that carries a paticular toy we needed for a present. I reluctantly made a amunition purchase in the back of the store with no problem. I have on occasion purchased american made products from walmart. My wifes debit card was over its daily limit from using it somewhere else so she transfered some money to my card with her iphone. When i was paying in the front for the other products the lady had me swipe my card a dozen times and then she swiped it a dozen more.  Finally she punched in the numbers and it said was declined. I knew right away the card had to be allready charged. My wife checked on her phone and yep it was charged. I found a manager showed her the bank statement on the phone and told he i was charged for the products i wanted them and a recipt. She told me" if you paid for the stuff take it and leave". Then se told me to talk to the bank and tell them i didn't make the purchase and they would delete the charge, yea right. After being left waiting for a hour in customer serivce i never was given a recipt.  I finally left, with no recipt because i had to go pick up furniture at another store before they closed. My wife called back on the way home and the manager told her they called the police because i stole the products, that my debit card was charged for by the way. My wife was worried about me being arrested so she took all the stuff back to the store and waited a hour to get a piece of paper to show my bank the transaction was canceled. it still shows as a deduction on my bank account. I have plenty of money in other accounts, but what if i was someone who didn't have other money and that cart had my groceries for the week in it.

When my wife called today and talked to a manager with all their teeth and grey matter between their ears she was appauled. This manager apoligized and promised my wife she would take care of this matter. She also told my wife if she returned today she would give her a gift card for our troubles. This is great example of why walmart has such a bad reputation. I wish you were there to see all this happen, it was unbeleible how dumb these people were.

czechurself says

Steve...Once again, the NAACP is not complaining that grievances are not being investigated.  There is no truth to that claim.  All grievances ARE investigated. 

How a person can come to the conclusion that removing the disclaimer makes it legal to lie on an official document is ludacris.  Don't be so foolish. 

 It is simple folks... as the form was previously written leads a reasonable person to believe that if a complaint is considered unfounded (by definition unfounded means not factual) they will face retaliation. 

It is an official document and by signing it states you do acknowledge it to be truthful. 

All grievances are still based on an individual perception except those that address an action that is unlawful.

Chief Lang was not cowed into making this decision.  The department wants to improve relations and cooperation from the community, by removing any impression of intimidation and instituting a more effective image.  Kudos. 

Just a thought, more input from the community when necessary could have eliminated the need for an internal investigation in police practice conducted at the expense of taxpayer dollars previously. 

DGMutley says

sanduskysteve,

Blacktigress says

I detest the NAACP, this is another example of their dumb-downed way of thinking.  

sanduskysteve says

DG - you mentioned that NAACP is in charge of complaints for Toledo police - and you think that's a good idea??  Why should any organization like THAT be in charge of anything to do with the police department?

And why shouldn't any complaint form have a disclaimer that it is illegal to file a false report no matter what kind of report or form it is?  The bottom line is that it IS against the law and that would be state law - not local law, which if it isn't spelled out - then the rules fall to the state laws which supercede the local laws anyway?

Not putting it on the form WOULD make someone who has a beef with the cops (and trust me every criminal does) to now start filling up the police station with complaints which they have to at least check into - more time wasted on the taxpayer's dollars.

But why would the criminals care about that?  they are living on the tax payer's dollars anyway.

sanduskysteve says

illuminoctis - once again this has nothing to do with snitching on each other so why does that always come up in this discussion.

This is the NAACP worried that complaints are not being investigated.  I'm still not sure how removing this will change that other than now there will be even more complaints because someone who is stopped for a traffic violation and then is searched or something because of prior histories (many in the complaints they were worried about were in this category) will be more likely to file an unwarranted complaint against the officer that stopped them.  This is just one single example of how this will become a much larger burden.

You think the cops are not worried about crimes involving certain groups now - just wait - they will stay clear of lots more things now that anyone without cause can file complaints and just make up things so there will be a needless investigation after investigation.

The NAACP would have done more good for their kind and for the city in whole, if they would do some educating of the youth in general around town on how to behave - stay out of trouble - and do something besides become criminals.

You can say what you want - but this is still a useless solution to a problem that really doesn't exist.

As for some of the previous comments - if you are stopped at 3AM, maybe you should ask yourself what the hell you're doing running around town at that time - rather than why is the cop stopping me?  Also, someone complained that the cop may check you out when they only stopped you for a headlight out or something.  Do you know how many cops actually catch a criminal in the process of making a perceived silly traffic stop at wee hours of the morning?  Criminals generally run at night in hopes of not being seen so well.  This is a fact.  It is also a fact that Ohio state law - and almost every other state I know of - has laws about proper lighting on a car driven at night.  Do you think that the police should just overlook YOUR car because of who you are or what you look like?  I don't think so.  If you are violating the law you will be stopped - no matter how trivial you believe that law or stop is.  If there is anything on your record that would suggest you may be hiding something - or if the officer sees something from outside of the car, he has the right to make a search of the car AND your person.  Doesn't matter if you are white, black, yellow or red.

It is not the SPD's fault that more blacks are criminals than whites.  If you don't want to be "harrassed" by the police - stay home and off the streets at that time of the morning.  But you have no right to file a complaint because the cop was doing his or her job enforcing the law.

The same people here talking about how wonderful this new complaint form is are some of the same that want the cops to put a stop to crime.  Sorry guys - but you cna't have it both ways.

DGMutley says

I don't like either form.  Why is any qualifier necessary?  Just name, address, phone, and the complaint.

Super Judge says

Direct quote from one of Randelmens family members.

 "ughh gotta write this damn letter to this officer, I dont wanna do it fr.. WT* ! I hate the police"

kURTje says

Margret Sanger & Dr. DuBois had a strange business relationship.           The  NAACP would do well 2look on that 1.   Hell; even Prescott Bush was linked to her & Nazis.        Go figger.

Marcus M says

If the NAACP would put as much energy in making their youth responsible this would not even be an issue. This is also a good reason that Lang should not be the full time chief, to much of a yes man which was the only reason he was chosen.

illuminoctis says

apparently you guys missed my previous comment on this article.. because i see you still going on and on about something that makes no sense.. like i said before, no one is changing the law about lying.. they are just emboldening ppl to speak out about corruption, DUH.. and the police and/or city are making a good move by standing behind this one, and let me tell you why..

picture the scene.. you are about to file a report about a police officer engaging in unlawful conduct.. and you see this big "YOU will be the one to go to jail if YOU tell a lie about US" warning on the paper.. do you REALLY not see the problem with that?.. it will be seen as intimidation, plain and simple.. i highly doubt it was meant to be, but that is how it will be perceived by any avid movie-watcher.. c'mon

do you REALLY think anyone is ever gonna get away with LYING about a police officer? really?..

and also, don't we always criticize the "we didn't see/hear nothin'" crowd?.. don't we always criticize them (the gangster lifestyle kids/adults) for being a part of a community or culture (which is NOT just made up of black ppl BTW) which, among many other problems they cause, engages in reinforcing fear in one another about "snitching"?.. so, what is the problem NOW?

clearly the naacp oversteps it's bounds in a number of things, but this time you guys are really taking the bait and looking like the fools and/or (possibly) racists (possibly) on this one.. BUT the city and police KNOW this is going to work in their favor.. towards the goal of letting cop-haters know that they really want to be honest officers.. and to the goal of squashing all of the racist propaganda against them.. this is a good thing, both in the short-term AND the long-term..

P.S. after this comment (BUT not based solely on it by any stretch of the imagination), i have come to the conclusion that i should be the president : P because i do believe i have a knack for bringing the opposing sides together on issues : P nay, you say? : /

sanduskysteve says

czech - well you obviously got the falsifying records and other documents right - there is a long string of that activity which is what I have complained about in the past when people claim that SR is picking on SPD.

Although they shoujldn't have had to modify the complaint form to satisfy a few who it was already determined had file complaints that had no weight.  I'm sure if the complaint was valid - it would have been investigated - I don' tthink that was the issue - the issue was the outcome of the investigation wasn't what was requested by the complainant - which is when most hollering is done.

I suppose it really doesn't matter because if anything ever goes to a hearing - then they have to tell the truth or be punished for it anyway.

I just think that this will waste more time in the investigation process and prevent the SPD from determining from the complaint itself if there is a need for investigating the complaint.  Some complaints were really off base and stupid.

FruGalSpender says

Frugal Spender, Where in the heck do you by your used cars, Hancrank street?! nope, used car dealers buy cars at auctions. sometimes confiscated cars from police auctions get sold to the public.  wonder how many innocent people get charged because of left over drugs. how about a rental? rent a car with previous renters drugs left behind.  http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/14/san-jose-used-car-buyer-finds-500k-cocaine-stash/  wait until it happens to you.  http://www.jrrobertssecurity.com/security-news/security-crime-news0066.htm 

Joker says

And now you have a built in defense if you actually do provide false information.

MrSandusky says

Another reason I am glad I got out of Sandusky.  If there is no threat of punishment if you lie, then why tell the truth. 

This is just going to make things get even more ugly.

katelih says

 Wow Sandusky Register....I only responed to another commentator with lyrics to the same song as he/she posted. 

katelih says

LabMan says

That's right Lor70 because according to one city commissioner - perception is reality

SimpleEnough says

Frugal Spender, Where in the heck do you by your used cars, Hancrank street?!

gilamonster says

lor70 says

So, if I don't like an officer all I have to do is say a lie about him in a complaint and ruin his reputation and won't get in trouble for it?!  WOW!!!!  Gotta LUV America!!! 

czechurself says

Sam Adams ..The disclaimer does not serve to cover the behinds of any person. The document still requires the person signing to acknowledge its truthfulness.  The complaint form is simply a measure in which a person can file a grievance for a perceived wrongdoing.  It should be able to be done without the declaration of an intention to punish or retaliate against such course of action.

Steve...the NAACP complaints were not that civilian complaints were not being investigated.  The complaint was for failing to file a police report when one was requested, profiling, selective enforcement and falsifying records and other documents. 

Cheif Lang is diplomatically cooperating with the request and acknowledged why a person may be reluctant to make a complaint when it may be needed.   

sanduskysteve says

Wiredmama - you call this a non issue and we should calm down - actually this COULD be a very big issue.  At this point - anyone who wants to can file a complaint against the police and even tell lies without reprocussions.  According to you - there will still be an investigation.  Do you konw how much man power is involved in investigation of complaints like this?

The new turn of events will do nothing more than increase the number of complaints that thte SPD will need to waste it's time on investigating.

And NAACPs complaint wasn't about the filing of complaints anyway - they were at first claiming that tthe complaints were not being investigated - if that is the facts of their complaint, why change the complaint form? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  They fixed a problem that wasn't the problem to begin with.  Unless there was a lot more involved in the consessions given to NAACP.

Do we know the whole story yet?  I doubt it.

sanduskysteve says

Now don't you wish you had Kim back - SPD?  She would never have gone for this crap.  You guys thought she was throwing you under the bus - this is nothing more than telling the cops - do NOT attempt to question or make a traffic stop on anyone suspicious because they now will be able to file a complaint against you for anything they want to even if it's a lie or made up information.

Do you still want to turn off that dash cam and microphone while making traffic stops?

wiredmama222 says

I have to admit that many of you who posted on here are correct in thinking that this is the direct result of the NAACP whining about the police and who wants to file charges against cops. I would imagine that this is what came from that little closed door meeting these guys had with Lang the other day.

But the fact still remains that the NAACP has WAY too much control over what gets or does not get done and it is the police that seem to be buckling under.  Let us all remember that it is THEIR document that is being changed, not that of the City of Sandusky.

I find it funny that this was even given a chance to be discussed and considered without being brought up to eveyone before being changed.  Why a select few????  Because the sqweeky wheels always get the grease. 

When it comes right down to it, does it really matter that much??  Any statement or complaint made still has to be investigated.  What is filed on paper won't really matter in the end when it is investigated anyway. 

I would have cared more if they had said they wanted final control over what decision were made on any investigations.  Then we would all have something to worry about.  With this, there is nothing.

So I suggest that we all calm down and not worry about a claus in a document that is only a starting point.  It is not the finish line.  I am sure that whoever investigates the complaint will find the turth and that WILL set everyone free. 

sanduskysteve says

Hmm this is a strange statement - and it does infer "blacks" as it states NAACP members.

"NAACP members said residents may have been reluctant to file complaints against officers for fear of criminal charges if they provided inaccurate information."

My question is why would they be reluctant if they are not lying?  Why would they fear criminal charges for providing inaccurate information - that's the purpose of the criminal charges.  Why would they be giving inaccurate information in the first place?  If not, there should be no fear??

This whole thing stinks.  The major complaint is that the complaints filed were determined to be unfounded - would a complaint which is more likely to contain inaccurate information get more or less attention?

I think this is going to make things worse not better.

meowmix says

Goofus--you and I differ on alot of subjects but quite frankly, the first thought that came to my mind when I saw this was "auld lang syne".....  your comment cracked me up!!!  

I say, warning there or not, if you are unjustly abused by a police officer you must immediately file a complaint.

However, if your itty bitty nose was scraped on the pavement when you were told several times to "get down on the ground" and you refused, file a complaint about police brutality, if later it  is  found that officers were within their right to behave as they did, then my contention is,  the accused officer should have every right to civilly sue you and take whatever menial possessions you may own. 

Taxpayer says

If you think the UNION employees at Perkins are depressed, I am sure they can join their SPD "breathern" to be proud to "protect and serve" under their own chief.  ALL those members of the liberal freeloaders club of entitlements and complainers are now ALLOWED to LIE.  Hmm, fits the liberal, socialistic, crybaby template perfectly.  Ha! Ha!  So, if a two-bit thug is arrested, then he or she and all their buddies can fill out a SPD complaint form and make FALSE claims, LIES and make up liberal EXCUSES of discrimination against officers with impunity?  Sounds exactly like a UNION!  I could not even make this stuff up.  Liberal "social justice" against liberal, socialistic FOP UNION.  Like I posted before, when enough people FLEE the city, all you liberal freaks will be left to prey on each other and PAY those wonderful levies and city taxes.  Ha! Ha!  This is a great concept for the NAACP to get more "progressive" business.  Here is a thought to ponder.  The NAACP and Lang have now opened the liberal and entitlement floodgates to complaints even when SPD officers simply talk to people, ask them questions, look at them, or request someone to ID themselves.  How about when an officer stops someone on a bicycle riding with no lights, late at night, in front of Firelands Medical??  How many pillars of the city would be willing to LIE and sign a FALSE citizens complaint form as witnesses when that happened??  A few of you can remember the liberal HATE, loser vitriol and many who suddenly appeared on the blog to expound their liberal venom and rancor in SUPPORT of someone who shot and KILLED one of the Sandusky's finest.  If you recall, the Register could NOT control all the liberal RACIST HATE and animosity.  When one side started, it erupted into a WAR of racist, incendiary and demoniacal words.  It is PROVEN most could not use basic ENGLISH syntax to express themselves.  Still believe NONE of them would be willing to LIE??  There is a MURDER trial coming up.  So this "REVISED" form, approved by the chief, comes out before a jury is selected??  I can see why many at SPD have quit, moved on or retired.  WHY should any of them stay when such ludicrous liberalism is allowed to lead them?  I hope (hope and change) Jimmy Lang thought about this decision and considered the bane of unintended consequences.

concernedtruth says

 Once again we cower down to an organization who immediately calls the "race card" and we make changes for a few citizens who want to give false info to the police. I am sure that if the info someone gives is slightly inacurrate because they didn't remember it exactly as it happened is way different from someone outwardly lying to the police with the intent to help a wanted fugitive or to have someone arrested with false accusations. Come on let's get over this thing and if you are guilty of lying then pay the price if you are innocent, I am sure the truth will come out.

SamAdams says

In a series of really dumb moves made by the City, this ranks up there with the dumbest (not to mention the most blatant of kowtows to the NAACP). Is it legal to lie on a sworn statement or not? According to Ohio Revised Code, it is not. It's not legal, but only if you're white; it's not illegal, but only if you're black. IT'S A CRIME. Period.

This opens the door, as some have suggested, to the typical rank-and-file idiot in this town to say, "Well, yeah, but I didn't KNOW lying was a crime!" I know that ignorance is no excuse, but some will use it anyway. And the people in charge will probably let them get away with it just to avoid yet another series of unwarranted whining from the NAACP.

Both sides on this issue have passed from "going too far" and directly into the arena of "are you freakin' KIDDING me???" Put the warning back to cover your legal behinds, City of Sandusky. And save your righteous indignation, NAACP, for something that actually deserves it!

grizzly2504 says

obviously frugalspender you have a problem with the police and have been in trouble before.  they run your plate, see your name and probably the laundry list of charges you've had in the past, well of course they are going to stop you. 

illuminoctis says

not even gonna read these comments, just gonna say this.. removing it doesn't change the fact that people know if you lie to the police you could be charged with perjury or something like that..

everyone knows this.. but i bet they wanted the warning removed as it might tend to make ppl afraid of speaking out for fear of being prosecuted as part of a cover-up even if they were telling the truth.. there have been myriads of scenes/plots in movies that could reinforce this idea in some people..

or minorities also may feel this way if they have some kind of perception that "cops are racist" etc..

this is the obvious motive, to make minorities but also people in general, less afraid to speak out about things..

sanduskysteve says

czech - how can you be intimidated if you are telling the truth?  Although I agree that you are still required to tell the truth during a legal hearing and can still be punished for perjury - the issue is that to save money, there may not be a hearing - a quick cash settlement may be offered or whatever.  It's just that if people no longer have to be honest in a complaint against the SPD, then why NOT just let the NAACP run the city.

This is be far the worse thing to happen and I have never heard of any city in my life that bowed to this kind of tactic.  Finally - if anything it will make the relationship between the average resident and the NAACP even worse than it already is.  And certainly will make eliminating Lang and Ard a lot easier to do.

I would think with this new bill going to be voted on that Ms. Ard would be really on top of her game and would have been the first to stand up and say no to something as triviel and stupid as this.  But maybe she doesn't like her job already and is ready to get moving on to someplace else.

sanduskysteve says

You guys have totally miss-understood this - although it is totally wrong...

This has nothing to do with swearing out a complaint against anyone.  This is to do with a complaint against the police department or officer.  at least this is the way I read the article and this is what the NAACP was involved for in the first place.

FruGalSpender says

remember when helen the cop tried to talk the judge out of punishing that cop rapist fitzpatrick? weak moment my butt. helen knowingly tried to influence the judge to go easy on that rapist. how come helen didn't face any legal penalties? all rapists have a moment of weakness? cops stick up for each other or look the other way.

czechurself says

nobodycares...the name is retained in accordance to tradition, according to its heritage.  Since the NAACP supports advancement of all minorities the term colored people is still embraced.  Colored people refers to people of all color with the only distinction being non white.  It moves the understanding of race beyond the black-white binary.   (Fun Fact: The original founders of the NAACP, which was formed in 1909, consisted of a majority of white members and Jewish Americans with only one black board member (Dr W.E.B. DuBois). )

No, the issue regarding the warning of penalty of law was not directed toward blacks.  The disclaimer was a warning to anyone that is filing a complaint against a LE officer or a police practice.  Its removal works in the interest of any member of the community who may have felt it was a deterence or an act of intimidation against filing a complaint against law enforcement.  Race was not a motive for the request and does not change the fact that the information in the report must be considered true, accurate and complete or you may still face charges of perjury if called to testify to the claims in a hearing that the officer is (as noted in the form) allowed to request.

FruGalSpender says

I see nothing wrong with having the warning. If you are telling the truth, you have nothing to worry about.  i disagree. crooked cops don't care if you tell the truth. the judge will believe the crooked cop and not you.