Sheriff, where is your IA?

"Probation ends for Coat's find" was the headline in the St Pete Times. Remember he wrote the letter for his buddy Mcintyre who was on probation for leaving the scene of an accident with injuries, you know a felony. Mcintyre got 3 years probation. Coats wrote the letter on PCSO letterhead to get his buddies probation shortened. The case got sent to Tampa to a new judge. Mcintrye got his probation ended in less than 2 of the 3 years. Thats actually normal for all people who dont violate the probation.

But what law did Coats break by acting for his political supporter while at work. Isnt that a misdemeanor now? What level 5 rule did Coats break for having a personal relationship with a convictd felon? Thats 5 day suspension to termination isnt it? Conducted personal business while at work, thats inefficiency in duties and conducting personal business on duty, I think 2 level 3 violations. Oh and dont forget you caused discredit to PCSO. Thats a level 3 aint it?

Where is the notice of an active IA so he can sit and wait for a long investigation that he cant talk to anone about? Then he can get questioned by the IA guys and wait for his ARB. Does he sit on his own ARB or does he just choose which cronies to put on it?

Either way, if one of us did the same thing, we would have been hung out to dry. We would have been lucky to get just suspended. If a Captain dthe same thing they would have demoted to Deputy, suspended 15 days, and made to apologize in public if thay were lucky. He gets to just say, "on second thought maybe that was a bad idea." Ahh, ya think?

Coats is guilty of alot of rule violations, 4 at the least. I dont see Captain Pat from IA gunning for him now. She's been bleeding deputies left and right over there, why stop now. Maybe to cover her/himself for the trucker mouth she's got and the sexual harrassment case she dam near causes.

Lets hear it.

See how hypocritical all of these guys are ? Wouldn't it be nice if they showed they had a sack when others made errors in judgement instead of sticking it to you.

Is that Captain Pat from SNL. :twisted: :twisted: :wink:

111 people view this post and one person replies. There should be some pissed off people here. with all the crap deputies have been suspended for and this crap happens. They been handing out 5 day suspensions like candy for minor crap. This is BS.

Maybe no one is replying because the poster is wrong. McIntyre is not a convicted felon. You all talk about the "closeness of the fraternity" what about a friend just writing a letter in support of a friend. McIntyre has been a friend of Law Enforcement for many years, long before this incident had ever happened. I think it's time to let it go.

Maybe no one is replying because the poster is wrong. McIntyre is not a convicted felon. You all talk about the "closeness of the fraternity" what about a friend just writing a letter in support of a friend. McIntyre has been a friend of Law Enforcement for many years, long before this incident had ever happened. I think it's time to let it go.


The problem occured when the Sheriff used agency letterhead when sending his letter of support. That shouldn't have been done. Bad decision on the part of the Sheriff.

If the Sheriff choses to led by example, he should hold himself as accountable as he would one of his employees. If he violated any agency policy he should suffer the same consequences that any other employee would encounter.

This same type incident ocurred earlier this year in Pensacola, when the sheriff wrote a letter requesting a judge's brother get early release from his 15-year prison sentence (DUI manslaughter and Leaveing the scene w/injuries/death). The sheriff thought it would be "ok" until the media published the letter and the MADD group blasted the sheriff. Of course, the sheriff didn't hold himself accountable either.

How sad that the leaders think they should be held to a different level of accountability than their troops. :oops:

The poster was wrong??? Leaving the scene of a traffic crash with injuries is a Felony. He pled guilty or no contest tothis felony and received probation. That makes him a convicted felon. Even a withold of adjudication leaves him a convicted felon.

I get it that he has been a friend of LEO's before then. It does not matter. The Rule says no socializing with known criminals, a convicted felon is a criminal. Hence rule violation.

And a friend just writing a letter? Fine send it from home, on your own letter head signed just Jim Coats. Not on PCSO letter head signed Sheriff Coats. Hence rule violation. Several.

And the media found out about it he first said so what, then admitted it was wrong!!! Hence rule violation.

Its not time to let it go you prick it just happened and came up in the media again!!!!

Associating with a felon (1), bringing discredit to the agency (2), using agency letterhead and your title for personal business (3), and inefficiency in your duties (4).

Fl1 youre the one who is wrong, dead wrong. You go and do your job, get in trouble for doing your job and making a mistake and see how you feel when you get a 5 day suspension for inefficiency in your duty and bringing discredit to PCSO and see if you think its BS.

The Sheriff is the only person in the agency that doesnot have to follow the book. He answers to the voters not u or I. It dont look good that he cant follow the same rule book he expects you to follow but its his bat , ball and gloves so that pretty much ends your seeking justice on the matter so as mentioned earlier......get over it.

From now on use your agency letterhead for personal use. It is obviously not against policy. If you get in trouble, SUE. He has set the precedent. :twisted:

To guest 10-9 ...you get it straight ....Mcintyres' plea was no contest and WITHHOLD JUDICATION after completion of probation. He completed probation and he is NOT a covicted felon. So before you go sounding off get your facts straight!

I believe this friendship between Coats and McIntyre dates back to the early 90's and possibly involves an inappropriate relationship back then and some of you old timers know what i am talking about. I'll just leave it at that. Why would someone change a general order to include 2nd degree felons as being ok to hang out with. Don't even think about asking PCSO IA to investigate this matter because an outside entity would have to do so because of the Sheriff's official title.

Seems that The Sheriff does have to answer to the voters. So if that is the case, As a voter, I demand an answer on the following questions.

1. Stance on ban of gay marraige
2. Pro-life or Choice
3. War in Iraq

This election the Sheriff will advise the voters his position on these. The answers do make a difference to the conservative Republican that he used to become the Sheriff. It's my right to have these answered. He works for you! Please do not forget he is an elected official. You and I pay his salary.

Also, the policy he violated was the prior "association" policy. In fact he and several ranking officials actually violated the General Order and to add insult to injury put the election headquaterrs there! (and it wasn't rented) Was it a coincidence the policy was changed after the Times slipped in the first article back in 2004 and mentioned he had an a DUI conviction in 1984. The second policy was put in place to cover the relationship, the adjudication was just a bonus. The Times can confirm by simply retrieving an old policy book and playing a litle timeline game.

This is the same supporter that personally paid for the SWAT team to compete at the round-up. I guess it's time to put all the facts on the table. HMMM,,

[Ten6Niner]

Really, "Lt"?

The issues you find important for a County level law enforcement official are his opinions on gay marriage (has less than nothing to do with providing professional, impartial law enforcement), abortion (again, not his problem - enforcing current laws about it are), and the war in Iraq (as Sheriff he has no impact on the national politics about this)?

How about a list of issues that would really matter for the position of Sheriff in the next election?

We await your pearls of wisdom on this subject...

I have to agree with Ten goof niner for once. It has nothing to do with Iraq, Gay marrige or pro choice. It does have to deal with a bad decision and a very suspect relationship. Im sure if or when the truth comes out ,,this relationship goes back when someone else was Sheriff. I will only say 1991-1994 you will find all the answers you need and one more thing Focus on the words GAMBLING/BOOKMAKING. I have given you the clues, happy hunting fellow posters. Ill forgive you Ten Niner for now you know what you did.....

[guest999]

Actually, I have to agree with Lt. It is always very important to know the tenants of your candidate. Decisons normally come from the foundations formed from a person's moral stance, beliefs and convictions. His positions and decisions as Sheriff will and have been shaped by those very ideals. It is always important to know where your candidate stands on the big issues at hand. The Sheriff is a politician folks, please do not miss that. Trust me the Republic party will remind him of those very platforms!

Further, Mr Sheriff has a few past compadres he will have to explain. It looks like some of the old dogs are starting to talk. This could get interesting. "Steinhatchie Seven"...Nows that a clue.

[Even Acker can't save me]

I agree, so I have gone to all the rental properties owned by the Sheriff and gotten to know his tenants. They are all really nice, and they like the Sheriff a lot!

Wrong, goto CJIS and see you moron. And show me where it says the Sheriff is not subject to the rules of PCSO. **** Head

This aint congress and Coats aint a congressman. He's gotta follow the same rules as everyone else. He didnt get a free pass when the g.o.'s, s.o.p.'s, and rules and regs were made. It dont say nowhere that he or anyone else can just do as they please. They can choose to ignore it, but that dont mean squat. Wait till national accreditation hears about it. They expect the rules to be followed and they set most of what the rules need to be. We wont forget this crap in 2008 Jimmy. Do as I say, not as I do, eh? No problem buddy. Theres a whole load of crap that can be leaked to the press thatll make you look like a dirty old man in 08' and you know it.

Heres some topics.... covering workman comp injuries for everybody....health and dental for everybody since u feel so strongly about gay live in partners.....transfers without regard to whom you are....just a few issues to smack about

I rather hear about this BS. Man there been more IA's since he became sheriff than ever before. Coates cares more about his image and his politics than anyone that works at this place. Coates aint no Rice not by a long shot. One thing for sure, he hands out suspensions like candy, but he aint following the same rules. This issue shows it. Dont even be discreet about it Jim, use department letterhead to speak up for your convicted felon friend and you can say "on second thought wouldnt do it again??????" You'd have freakin crucified one of us for doin the same thing in front of the SAB and f$%#ing know it. If a supervisor did it youd a had their balls for lunch and yu f$#@ing know it. Youre a fu$#ing hipocrit you son of a *****. Maybe the next embarassing you or one of your "associates" do will be off 4th street :oops:

Im willing to bet the third floor along with legal counsel is trying to figure out a good spin they can put on this story, Its all about image and damage control,,,,this one James might not escape but will try. I will say this, if your gonna even think about filing a complaint , it has to be through FDLE and it cant be anonymos. Welcome to B/S politics. If IA thinks everybody that talks about these issues is dis-loyal I will disagree. What is more disturbing is that some of these oldtimers around here no the real-deal on alot of issues regarding criminal and dept violation but will not say a word do to past threats of retaliation. I understand but enough is enough..................The SAO is also not exempt from certain rules and ethical issues some of you no what im talking about..