no more sworn code enforcement

just saw on the news where the sheriff took the commission cards of all code enforcement officers....way too late to do that, but i guess better late than never...

It took two law suits to finally get his attention that they were ( are) a bunch of loose cannons.

It was only because of his good friend Touart that he commissioned them in the first place.

Good riddance, now they won't be able to flash their guns to get half price at the eating joints.

Once again the old blah, blah, blah I'm better than you, blah, blah, blah. Pathetic isn’t it?

The only difference in this case (with the I'm better than you argument) is that it is true.

Code enforcement was untrained... inexperienced... they were a danger to themselves and real LEOs.

They have the POTENTIAL to be equals... if code enforcement was run like a law enforcement agency, and not like a bunch of civilians with guns.

I spoke out in support of them being treated as equals... but their department failed them.

I would gladly take many of them at the SO with us. With the right training and supervision, they would be great officers.

Many of them were rejected for hire as LEO's at other agencies. It was a disaster waiting to happen.

When was this decision made and why? I have not heard of any lawsuits but apparently there were. I also see no need to bash these guys unless I am missing something (which I am sure that I am).

When was this decision made and why? I have not heard of any lawsuits but apparently there were. I also see no need to bash these guys unless I am missing something (which I am sure that I am).

There are two suits, both in Federal Court. They are accused of unlawfully arresting a business man accusing him of not having proper permits and his suit says he did. They’re also accused of not having proper training or supervision and that was why they made the illegal arrests. The Sheriff was made a party to the suits because they arrested him under the Sheriffs authority since he deputized them. The Sheriffs insurance will probably make a settlement in the case like they have most others when he’s been sued.

You won’t find any mentioned of the case in the paper because they have made it a practice not to report suits like this. Who knows why since it is a public official that is involved.

When will the bleeding stop?

The only difference in this case (with the I'm better than you argument) is that it is true.

Code enforcement was untrained... inexperienced... they were a danger to themselves and real LEOs.

They have the POTENTIAL to be equals... if code enforcement was run like a law enforcement agency, and not like a bunch of civilians with guns.

I spoke out in support of them being treated as equals... but their department failed them.

I would gladly take many of them at the SO with us. With the right training and supervision, they would be great officers.


What you’re advocating is for the function of being trash cops to be put under the Sheriff cause that’s the only way they’ll ever come close to being equals.

Better be careful what you wish for. That would give one more place that Smith and the Sheriff would banish those who cross them.

What will be next, take over the animal shelter and spend your whole career locking up stray dogs?

[TheSarge]

Let's see. Deputy pay to work with a clientele that appreciates you much more than the public or your own administration. One that will never talk back or sue you for just doing what was necessary at the time. One that you can pepper spray for acting up, but will lavish you with affection once you rinse them off. Hell, sign me up.

When will the bleeding stop?

When McNesby is history and a real Sheriff with a brain and some integrity takes over this clusterfuc*ed agency.

Didn't one of the code enforcement guys work for us?

I agree that their department failed them.These arrests were authorized by
the administrator, SA, and evidently a judge thought there was enough P.C. to sign a warrant.I do think they lack proper supervision,and structure, but they are LEO certified,I don't think training is the issue. I don't know the whole story or have any answers.I do agree the bleeding needs to stop.I'm not throwing any stones or bashing those guys.

I agree, don't bash those guys. They can only work with what they are given. I have heard that their are only 1 or 2 people at code enforcement that have actual L.E.O. experience. Charlie Walker is a clown that has no business in law enforcement. People that are familiar with Charlie say the only way you can get ahead with him is to have a big bra size! DDD

They are a waste and drain on the tax revenues and should be abolished. The money spent on that function could be better put to use by hiring full time deputies and let them investigate and enforce the county laws and ordinances based on complaints.

We recently voted by over 65% that we want a reduction in taxes and we know that will mean a reduction in having highly paid employees who also have costly benefits riding around town looking for yards that need cleaned up.

If the tree huggers and environmental gestospo whackos want to police his neighbor’s yard by making sure they cut their grass or don’t have a broken down vehicle in their yard, they need to move to a gated community that has a homeowners association. Then they can enforce all their silly rules at their own expense in the courts and not require the rest of us to pay for it.

Have you seen the "sweep"s they do? They are a f__king joke! None of their cars are the same. They look like the Keystone cops coming down the street. The money the county wastes on those "Sweep"s could be better spent hiring more deputies.
That one officer you always see on the news with the skinned head and goatee desperately needs to go to weight watchers. I would be ashamed to be on television if I looked like that.
Thankfully, the Sheriff did the right thing and pulled those cards before anything serious happend.

They do a great job for the county. They have not failed the county their department failed them. If you look around the county and see the good they do by cleaning up the neighbor hoods and the houses that need to be cleaned or taken down. In many cases the sheriffs office is the one that called in complaint's on properties. How would some of you felt if you lived next to a trash pit or a house that needed to be taken down that the homeless live in and wreck the value of your property in the area that you live in. Don't bash the officers for the job that they do, be thankful that you have people that are willing to put up with problems that some agencies have no time to deal with. In many cases the news follows the officers around as they do that job, and if you see the news and the officer that is allways on there it is the same video from months ago.

Be Careful what you say about the "Trash Police", one of them has a dad that is a captain with us. Heard her and Charlie boy are good friends.

the female code enforcement officer you are referring to is probably the only code enforcement officer who would make a good deputy. It's too bad the s/o doesn't have her.

Yea she doesn't work for us because she is to smart. She is a very independent woman and doesn't want to ride her fathers coat tails. She has more degrees in criminal justice than must of our deputies including the admin. staff. She had an opportunity to work at the SO but turned it down. She is looking to go federal. Way to go Jess........

They never needed any of the authority that mcnesby gave them in the first place,but when your booty buddy is touart and whithead you get what you want!

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH Chapter 30
SHERIFFS View Entire Chapter

30.09 Qualification of deputies; special deputies.–

(1) BOND, SURETIES, PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES.–

(a) Each deputy sheriff who is appointed shall give bond as required by the board of county commissioners. The amount of the bond and the bond must be approved by the board of county commissioners. The bond must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court and be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties of his or her office. A deputy sheriff may not perform any services as deputy until he or she subscribes to the oath prescribed for sheriffs. Sureties are liable for all fines and amercements imposed upon their principal.

(b) The board of county commissioners of any county may accept a blanket surety bond issued by a solvent surety company authorized to do business in this state, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties of the deputy sheriffs appointed by a sheriff, in a sum to be fixed by the board of county commissioners. If such a blanket surety bond is accepted, individual surety bonds for each deputy sheriff are not necessary. The cost of the blanket bond must be paid by the appropriate sheriff’s department. Sureties are liable for all fines and amercements imposed upon their principals under the provisions of the blanket bond.

(2) SURETY COMPANIES.–The requisite of two sureties and justification of same does not apply when surety is by a solvent surety company authorized to do business in this state.

(3) LIABILITY OF SHERIFF.–The giving of such bond by a deputy does not relieve the sheriff of the liability for the acts of his or her deputies.

(4) EXCEPTIONS.–This section does not apply to the appointment of special deputy sheriffs appointed by the sheriff:

(a) To attend elections on election days.

(b) To perform undercover investigative work.

(c) For specific guard or police duties in connection with public sporting or entertainment events, not to exceed 30 days; or for watch or guard duties, when serving in such capacity at specified locations or areas only.

(d) For special and temporary duties, without power of arrest, in connection with guarding or transporting prisoners.

(e) To aid in preserving law and order, or to give necessary assistance in the event of any threatened or actual hurricane, fire, flood, or other natural disaster, or in the event of any major tragedy such as an act of local terrorism or a national terrorism alert, an airplane crash, a train or automobile wreck, or a similar accident.

(f) To raise the power of the county, by calling bystanders or others, to assist in quelling a riot or any breach of the peace, when ordered by the sheriff or an authorized general deputy.

(g) To serve as a parking enforcement specialist pursuant to s. 316.640(2).

The appointment of a special deputy sheriff in any such circumstance, except with respect to paragraph (g), may be made with full powers of arrest when the sheriff considers such appointment reasonable and necessary in the execution of the duties of his or her office. Except under circumstances described in paragraphs (a), (e), (f), and (g), the appointees must possess at least the minimum requirements established for law enforcement officers by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. The appointment of any such special deputy sheriff must be recorded in a register maintained for such purpose in the sheriff’s office, showing the terms and circumstances of such appointment.

(5) REMOVAL FOR VIOLATION.–A violation of this section subjects the offender to removal by the Governor.

Did the CEO's have their standards?

The appointment of a special deputy sheriff in any such circumstance, except with respect to paragraph (g), may be made with full powers of arrest when the sheriff considers such appointment reasonable and necessary in the execution of the duties of his or her office. Except under circumstances described in paragraphs (a), (e), (f), and (g), the appointees must possess at least the minimum requirements established for law enforcement officers by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. The appointment of any such special deputy sheriff must be recorded in a register maintained for such purpose in the sheriff’s office, showing the terms and circumstances of such appointment.

(5) REMOVAL FOR VIOLATION.–A violation of this section subjects the offender to removal by the Governor.

Since it's a matter of record that he deputized them without them being qualifed and the law says the he is subject to removal by the govenor, why wasn't he removed?

For the same reason that if you commit a crime, you are SUBJECT to go to jail.. but it doesnt always happen.

Grow up and move on.

Since it's a matter of record that he deputized them without them being qualifed and the law says the he is subject to removal by the govenor, why wasn't he removed?

Possibly nobody has told the Governor. Do we know that they did not have standards for sure? Dooley you should work on your attitude. Not giving a crap about having a sheriff doing things right is why we are in the cesspool we are in right now.

Did the CEOs have their standards? Anyone know?

They did not have stanards certificate or standards training.

So he violated the law by making them deputies?

For the same reason that if you commit a crime, you are SUBJECT to go to jail.. but it doesnt always happen.

Grow up and move on.

Dooley, you defending the Sheriff and saying if he did break the law (not for the first time) that we need to let it go?

I'm saying that if you took the approach that every misstep deserves the harshest punishment possible, we'd all be in jail.

I think the posters who keep saying the CEOs had no standards need to do some research before they write something that makes them look dumb. Every CEO either had full standards or was in a grace period for completing them.

Im sure that making CEOs sworn law enforcement was a good idea.. perhaps not implimented correctly. If you arent out there making arrests every day, you cant be proficient and knowledgable about what you are doing. They needed more guidance. This certainly is a failure of leadership somewhere in the chain, but my gripe is that every time something goes wrong, the 1% of the county population who actually posts on here start screaming for McNesby to be removed.

Get real. If you want McNesby removed, vote him out. But dont gripe to me when reality crashes down and the new guy cant do any better.

I have a news flash for you... the problem in this county is not the person who sits in the sheriff's chair... I firmly believe you will ***** no matter who is there. The problem is that this county wants to GET GET GET without every having to GIVE.

If you want quality law enforcement, you have to GIVE some money to pay for it, you have to show support for officers to encourage them to work hard for you, you have to be understanding of the problems facing law enforcement today, such as the need for technology.

In this case, you have relatively low paid employees (code enforcement) out doing a pretty thankless job in bad neighborhoods, and when they try to get a little status and the ability to protect themselves and enforce the law, they get trashed from the get go.

You cannot trash the employees of ANY job, only to turn around and wonder why they arent accomplishing what you believe is an acceptable result. Crime will NEVER go away. We cant PREVENT a robbery or a drive-by. But we do a DAMN GOOD job catching people once they commit a crime. It is up to the county leaders to create an environment where criem is not the only option to pay the bills. it is up to the legilature and the courts to effectively sentence offenders (most crimes are committed by repeat offenders... if they were taken off the steets the first time, crime would drop dramatically).

You could put a kindergarten techer in teh office of sheriff in some po-dunk town and everything would be fine... likewise, you could have Wyatt Earp himself in charge of this county and there would still be problems. The 300 or so LEOs at the ECSO cannot control every action of 300,000 citizens who have been in a deteriorating economic situation for years, and the sheriff is neither the cause or that problem, nor can he do anything about it. Essentially, crime is not prevented by the police... it is prevented through strong economy, good morales and community values and harsh sentencing of convicted criminals.

Our job is to catch the ones that are not detered by the consequences of their actions, and we are exceedingly good at doing that.

Essentially, crime is not prevented by the police... it is prevented through strong economy, good morales and community values and harsh sentencing of convicted criminals.

You are 100% incorrect.

Crime is prevented by the police. Crime at the lowest level, if allowed to run relatively unchecked, will consume an agency's resources and relegate them to a report writers with blue lights. Crime will then perpetuate and proliferate up the scale. Accordingly, stopping crime at the lowest level with perpetuate and proliferate the positive (i.e., nip it in the bud).

Everything else that factors into crime prevention, while important (even the factors you mention, evironmental variables, etc., ) is secondary to officer presence on the street. To simplify this, you see a cruiser, you slow down. You see a cruiser in the neighborhood doing proactive patrols, you maybe think about going someplace else and committing a burglary. Hopefully you see more po po in the new area you are going to and simply don't commit the crime for fear of getting caught. Now, granted some crimes (crimes of pasion, etc.) are going to happen and you are going to respond. However, a correctly run agency will put a premium value on officer presence on the street.

The ECSO leadership has failed to understand this simple fact. The ECSO can't even respond in a timely manner to crime that has already occurred and thus has no time to be proactive. Report writing to something that has already occured is not crime prevention. Patrol is where the resources go FIRST. When I say patrol, I mean uniformed presence out in the community, the majority being on a shift in the actual patrol unit.


Our job is to catch the ones that are not detered by the consequences of their actions, and we are exceedingly good at doing that.

Are you bragging about being the fastest guy in the slow group?

Granted if you commit a crime you need to understand we will come get you, however, our ultimate goal is to prevent citizens from being victims of crime in the first place.



the sheriff is neither the cause or that problem, nor can he do anything about it

The ECSO leadership is directly resposible for crime prevention or, in our case, the lack thereof.

You really have no clue.

This "simple fact" that you mention the ECSO doesnt understand is the reason you are so lost. Simply put, it IS NOT a fact. At least, not a correct one.

Let me put it to you in the most basic way I can think of...

We are LAW ENFORCEMENT officers...

Not CRIME PREVENTION officers...

While the goals is the same (reduce the number of crimes) the police simply dont have the resources to effect the societal change needed to reduce the DESIRE to commit crimes, which is the real problem.

While the goals is the same (reduce the number of crimes) the police simply don’t have the resources to effect the societal change needed to reduce the DESIRE to commit crimes, which is the real problem.
i never said we are going out with the goal to effect societal change. i eluded to the fact that our presence on the street will make your resident pos think twice about committing a crime. a crime not committed will effect societal change. if this were not the case, why would the "operation brownsville", geared towards turning around the economic fortunes of said area, require the involvement of the sheriff's office in the first place???


We are LAW ENFORCEMENT officers...
yes we are.


Not CRIME PREVENTION officers...
yes we are. if you see someone walking down the street looking suspicisous and you stop and find burglary tools on them (legal search of course) and you make an arrest, you just may have prevented a crime from occuring down the block. that is called proactive policing. if you don't have time to stop that suspicisous person because you don't have enough troops on your shift and calls are stacking, that that is called responsive policing.

you are assuming that since the crime rate is effected by socio-econonmic issues and other contributors that law enforcment has no impact on crime prevention. this is dead wrong. while there are many things a community can do to effect crime, law enforcment has a direct impact. in fact, law enforcement can be a primary contributing factor in effecting better socio-economic conditions in areas where crime hinders such improvements. (e.g., brownsville, however short lived it was).
law enforcement presence on the street is a major factor.

the so putting more troops in patrol effects presence on the street. the sheriff is in direct control of these assignments.

ergo, the sheriff can directly impact crime.

Aren't you forgetting suppression Dooley? Simply by their presence, shining the light, etc. police deter crime. Not enough cops because nobody wants to work for McCriminal and the suppression factor goes into the dumpster. Also, "mis-steps" add up. And when they include failure to act in the face of investigated felony conduct (Sullivan) they add up to a felon (albeit not yet convicted of a felony) running your agency. He should be in jail.

Dooley,

I have a Masters Degree in PA/CJ. You would be laughed at in any program or by any real law enforcement professional.

The previous poster is 100% correct. LE is a major factor in crime prevention and community enrichment. You have taken one of the many factors that lead to crime and gone off on a tangent under the false assumption that it is the only thing that can be countered to prevent crime. Sounds like the subject for a thesis that will get you ejected from any program.

Take out your Criminology 101 book and read beyond the first chapter. First, however, finish your undergrad prerequisites, i.e., Technical Writing, English as a First Language, etc. Your writing skills are terrible. Your offense narratives and pc statements must be fun for the SAO to read through.

You need to get a clue. Don't post a reply. I can't take any more of your illiterate gibberish.

You need to get a clue. Don't post a reply. I can't take any more of your illiterate gibberish.

I'll take part of that suggestion... I won't respond to your posting except to say that I know I have struck a chord of truth when you feel the best way to respond to me is with insults. I would post my college education and training, but it is somewhat unique and would identify me. I dont care if you believe that or not, Im just putting it out there.

TO THE OTHER POSTER THAT MENTIONED BROWNSVILLE

Excellent example. But lets also look at what else had to take place for that to be effective:

1. Code enforcement was very active - much more than normal.
2. County maintenance was focused in the area. Try getting that much attention during any other time.
3. Animal control would actually respond - I called a supervisor during the first week and told him that the appearance of the area would really be improved if we could get all teh roaming dogs off the street, especially at night. It was done the next day. Good luck ever seeing that happen again.
4. County Commissioners put their money where their mouths are - SIG15s in Brownsville make a big difference.
5. Community envolvement was emphasized.

So, in retrospect, it was not just the SO that made the difference there, it was: otehr county agencies, citizen involvement and additional government money.

Id have to go back and read my posts, but I dont think I said the the sheriff cannot prevent crime. There is no doubt that proactive patrol and boots on teh ground prevent crimes.

I believe what I said was that I dont think our current level of crime will be reduced without economic change, increased community morals and values, and tougher sentencing of convicts.

Our PRIMARY job is to catch those who violate the law. We do a damn good job of it and I'm proud to be here at this agency.

POINT ONE:

Nobody above is saying that there are not other factors that prevent crime.

There are environmental factors that help prevent crime (street lights, etc.), there are social programs, job programs and neighborhood watch just to name a few. There are also contributing factors such as drugs, alcohol, plain bad people and just plain dumb ass people.

The point here is that law enforcement is a major crime preventor.


Deputy Dooley said, "Essentially, crime is not prevented by the police..."

POINT TWO:


Deputy Dooley said, "If you want quality law enforcement, you have to GIVE some money to pay for it, you have to show support for officers to encourage them to work hard for you, you have to be understanding of the problems facing law enforcement today, such as the need for technology."

Hey, we agree. Unless you say that McNesby does this...

As for technology, I sat in a SR car at training and they showed me the calls in cad on the map and the units gps on that map so you could see other people. SR? Since when are they better equiped than us?
Since now. SR got Keith Morris and Wendell Hall from us. When Morris worked for us he won a ton of grants and we got equipment. That is why they are better because they are smarter than McNesby. They have support for their officers, they encourage them to work hard, they understand problems facing law enforcement today, such as, well, you said it, technology.

(I say this with a disclaimer: The grass always looks greener, well, you know, over there).

Our PRIMARY job is to catch those who violate the law. We do a darn good job of it and I'm proud to be here at this agency.

read title 5 chapter 30. that is not our primary job. our primary job is to carry out the mission of the sheriff on behalf of the sheriff.

that should be protect and serve the citizens of escambia county which can include catching bad guys. however, i bet every citizen would much rather we prevent them from becoming a victim in the first place instead of doing a good job catching the bad guy after they commit a crime against the citizen.

the troops do a great job. we just are misdirected, misaligned and misplaced and thus don't get the opportunity to do the job we are capable of doing.

I know you are but what am I? my dad can beat up your dad.

the above posts are good interchange and spirited debate. go away mcnugget. harry's calling.

Wouldn't you be more proud if through increased patrols and more citizen trust & cooperation people were not being shot every day? McNesby has alienated his best allies along with most of his deputies.

Wouldn't you be more proud if through increased patrols and more citizen trust & cooperation people were not being shot every day? McNesby has alienated his best allies along with most of his deputies.

YES!!!!

Wouldn't you be more proud if through increased patrols and more citizen trust & cooperation people were not being shot every day? McNesby has alienated his best allies along with most of his deputies.

First, you are insinuating that the police are shooting people every day. If you are not, than clarify yourself. If you are, you are wrong and simply ridiculous. Not to mention biased, prejudiced, preopinionated, etc., and thus no friend of ANY DEPUTY!!!! That makes you a Morgan supporter.

A truthful statement would be more like:


Listen up Dooley,
Wouldn't you be more proud if through increased patrols and more citizen trust & cooperation people were not being made victims of crimes?

McNesby has alienated his best allies along with most of his deputies. He is doing a progressively worse poor job every year (response times and true crime stats).

But wait, he has managed to increase his budget every year so he can spend more taxpayer money on higher admin salaries and less actual service to the citizen.

LARRY NOT HARRY
LARRY NOT THELBERT

I think he was trying to say that Morgan will pay us more (if you are a new deputy) but we won't get to shoot people every day. Man, I was really starting to like that.

Seriously, what a moron. What a crazy accusation.

I am voting for Larry S.

"people getting shot" Was referring to crime victims in the news. Nobody said anything about cops shooting anyone. Are you really this dumb?

"people getting shot" Was referring to crime victims in the news. Nobody said anything about cops shooting anyone. Are you really this dumb?

Hey, if that was the intent, I stand down. Read my post. I said "If you are not, than clarify yourself." Your post was ambiguous at best. Obviously you are jerk-off Morgan support who is not a cop and does not write reports that have to actually be clear and articulate. You report would go over nicely at the SAO. Who was the victim and who was the shooter?


Wouldn't you be more proud if through increased patrols and more citizen trust & cooperation people were not being shot every day? McNesby has alienated his best allies along with most of his deputies.

By the way, the SAO called and they want to know what a Btain is... dumb @ss. Go back and finish your GED.

[quote=Btain Dead Larry Support]"people getting shot" Was referring to crime victims in the news. Nobody said anything about cops shooting anyone. Are you really this dumb?

Hey, if that was the intent, I stand down. Read my post. I said "If you are not, than clarify yourself." Your post was ambiguous at best. Obviously you are jerk-off Morgan support who is not a cop and does not write reports that have to actually be clear and articulate. You report would go over nicely at the SAO. Who was the victim and who was the shooter?


Wouldn't you be more proud if through increased patrols and more citizen trust & cooperation people were not being shot every day? McNesby has alienated his best allies along with most of his deputies.

By the way, the SAO called and they want to know what a Btain is... dumb @ss. Go back and finish your GED.[/quote:1wyfnrve]

BTAIN IS A TYPO. READ = "BRAIN" DEAD. However that won't help you with your comprehension. Have you been living in a vacuum? Homicide on"W" St. Jamal's alleged homicidal shoot up at the Burger King. The drive by a couple of days ago. Don't need to write or read a report to know about that stuff. There is nothing ambiguous about the news reports that have been coming out. No one is asking you to stand down. Just to think before you choose knee jerk attack as your first response. And when Morgan is elected your new sheriff will you still be posting about "jerk off Morgan "support?" (did you mean supporters? Must have been a typo huh. See you in GED class!

Morgan couldn't be the sheriff of Mayberry!

Morgan will be the next sheriff. He has military police training which is continuous and extensive throughout the career path. Far superior to civilian police training. Ask the MPs who became civilian cops. He has the business know how and a Masters In Business that will help right the sinking ECSO financial ship. He has a large civilian support base and other than you Old Cop the complaints about him from the deputies are absent. And he has something that people like you Old Cop will never have. He is a gentleman. He'll be the best educated, best trained and best qualified sheriff that this county ever had.

Not if I can help it.

Not if I can help it.
Which part do you object to? The training? The education? Or is it the gentleman part?

Not if I can help it.
Which part do you object to? The training? The education? Or is it the gentleman part?You left out the peanut gallery part.

Not if I can help it.
Which part do you object to? The training? The education? Or is it the gentleman part?

What ECSO employees object to in respect to Morgan, is the unknown.

Mcnesby has his set of cronies and so does Scapecchi and they both would reward them after the election by putting them in charge. Either way most of us know both sets of these cronies and sort of know what to expect.

Morgan is a big mystery...we know what he says he will do and he may very well do it but who will be his administrators?
It's not that we all disagree with his views but who would assist him in leading us toward becoming a better agency. He can't do it by himself. That is what is so scary when we see/saw Doc and David; they are clueless.

Put together a set of respected folks who would make good administrators and you'll get more support.....a lot more.

Morgan will be the next sheriff. He has military police training which is continuous and extensive throughout the career path. Far superior to civilian police training. Ask the MPs who became civilian cops. He has the business know how and a Masters In Business that will help right the sinking ECSO financial ship. He has a large civilian support base and other than you Old Cop the complaints about him from the deputies are absent. And he has something that people like you Old Cop will never have. He is a gentleman. He'll be the best educated, best trained and best qualified sheriff that this county ever had.

Here is your problem:

You are confusing education with being intelligent. While you can be smart and educated, you can also be either/or. The peanut gallery he has around him makes every deputy question his intelligence. You won't understand that because you are a peanut in his gallery.

You said deputies are not complaining about him. I just did and so does everyone I work with. Well, not him, but you and the other peanuts.

He is not the best qualified nor is he the best trained and you are certainly noone to judge that. The best qualified, educated and experienced persons to be Sheriff would have been Doyle Thomas or John Powell (both with FBI Academy, Masters and decades in in real law enforcement). Your guy is not even in the top ten but he is one better than the current Sheriff.

Lastly, if he were a gentleman he would not act like such an ass on his commercials "make my day?" What a kook.

A kook with a peanut gallery.

The best man in the race today is Larry Scapecchi.

You are not winning Morgan any supporters with your posts. While you are trying to remain calm and sound rational, you are not coming accross that way. You are doing Morgan more damage than good. This is the reason that deputies are not supporting Morgan. Not because of Morgan, but because of people like you. You are a turn off.

Morgan will be the next sheriff. He has military police training which is continuous and extensive throughout the career path. Far superior to civilian police training.

What a kook is correct. This statement will get you some support. Just not here. That is why nobody likes you or your kooks.

Doyle and John aren't running for sheriff. Morgan gave his support to John after his defeat in the 2004 primary. John Powell supports Morgan now. So you respect Powell's experience but not his judgement? What the post said was that he will be the most qualified SHERIFF we've ever had. Not candidate. Morgan hasn't yet announced the staff of his upcoming admin. If you truly respected him as a good candidate then you would respect his ability to choose a qualified staff. Doc isn't active in the campaign and hasn't been for months. David Craig is helping to shape his campaign message and support among the civilians has already turned the tide in favor of David Morgan. That is a fact. But facts often escape your line of thinking. Morgan is being attacked by the union, a dirty tricks effort by the admin, rumors and disinformation. You don't like "make my day?" Can't please everyone all the time. That line was 2 seconds among 180 hours of programming that has been played multiple times online and on TV for 14 months. David Morgan has exposed many horrible truths about the sheriff that had been hidden or just plain unknown to the public. Whoever wins the election it won't be McNesby and you can thank the courage of David Morgan for that. So what do you do in response? Attack him for his "unknown" staff. His supporters. His military experience. His lack of Ensley street time. I hate to be the one to tell you but it ain't working. He is already winning this race and the hearts and minds of the voters at large. He's had the courage to attack McNesby straight on and for that he has been treated with disrespect by some of the deputies posting here. If you can bring yourselves to do anything other then complain about a winning strategy you might try donating to the candidate of your choice. Larry, Lucas or Morgan. The fear you show of McNesby by holding back your support for (pick one) is just that. FEAR. So in conclusion. You show fear. You show hostility and disrespect. You think Morgan is going to listen to that message? He's winning. With or without your endless nattering. You don't give any respect so don't expect any in return. Carry on with your lame excuse for political punditry. The only thing that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men and women to do nothing. And in Ronniemac's Escambia county nothing is all you'll get.

Ok. You win. Go away.

On second thought, you are a kook and you talked me into voting for McNesby. You are worse than Rex.

You are not winning Morgan any supporters with your posts. While you are trying to remain calm and sound rational, you are not coming accross that way. You are doing Morgan more damage than good. This is the reason that deputies are not supporting Morgan. Not because of Morgan, but because of people like you. You are a turn off.

I'll be back.

I will vote for Morgan. Ha Ha Ha I just vomited in my mouth.


Larry Scapecchi for Sheriff in 2008.

in case it wasn't clear over the last several months of debates, here is one more deputy that thinks morgan has no business as sheriff in this county. Not sure where morgan is getting his info, but I don't hear ANY deputies at the office talking good about him, and considering I WORK there, I know quite a few deputies and spend a lot of time with them. How much time do you spend with them David Craig?

I'll be back.

No hurry....

Don't go away mad, just go away...

The Larry supporters sound like McNugget wannabes. I'm voting for Morgan because I want a real change and I CAN USE THE RAISE. We've had more than enough attitude in office.

You obviously have never met Larry. I had the pleasure of working for him. He is not a good old boy. He is not running for Sheriff to get on a power trip. He doesn't even need the job. He has a sucessful business. He is doing it because he hates to see the direction the department is heading and believes the citizens and employees derserve better. He will bend over backwards to help get the deputies what need. He will expect you to do your job in a professional manner (which you should be doing anyway). He will provide you with the tools needed to do your job. He will instill integrity, morales and morale back into a department that has lacked it for some time. Before you say you are not gonig to vote for Larry, I challange you to give him a call and talk with him (554-0593). Express your concerns and listen to what he has to say. It sounds like all you are worried about is a raise. Yes, we could all use one. I am sure if the money is there (who knows with the way they move money around upstairs), Larry will give us a raise. But don't focus on just a raise. Focus on who, in the totality of the circumstances, would make a better Sheriff for the employees and most of all the citizens of Escambia County. I believe you will see that Larry is the right man for the job.

The Larry supporters sound like McNugget wannabes. I'm voting for Morgan because I want a real change and I CAN USE THE RAISE. We've had more than enough attitude in office.

You don't work at the ECSO so don't pretend.

To David Morgan:

Read the posts of your supporters.

They are attacking deputies and their training.

They are "pretending" to be deputies and corrections officers but their posts are incredibly transparent.

These continual posts by your supporters, while intended to garner support for you, are doing nothing but turning people off.

Now you know why you don't get much (if any) deputy support. Your supporters scare the hell out of us.

You may be more qualified than McNesby but then so is my mother.

Ronnie Mc had nuts enough to get rid of the clowns, Morgan hired some, in fact, the one who arrested without PC to be a deputy. You know the one who had to get a pardon for grand thief to get the position.

Wait until you see and hear about the other CE officers Morgan hired!!!!!!!!!!!