Did I read it right?

[Mod 161]

The chief was indirectly a part of the original post as he is responsible for the actions or, in this case, inactions of his staff. If he or his staff notified the wife via telephone of the shooting, then he should investigate to see what procedures may have been violated, such as decency and good sense. I mean, let's be real here. If he was going to investigate the wounded officer to see if he violated any procedures, the least chief chuckles could do is investigate why one of his staff didn't make the notification in person.

I can see where you reached your opinions regarding the action of the staff in the shooting incident. You are lacking in the facts and should seek out some additional information as your making assumptions that are not correct. I suggest you meet with a member of that unit if you have any questions about exactly what happened. I don't care about your opinions of our staff or your online feud with other posters. If you,ve been on here long enough you'll know that very little gets deleted (there have been some very pointed arguments as evidenced by the recent Captain Jack/Highly Professional/Bunny posts.) My stance on this topic is to protect the family and I will continue to do so.

I understand your reasoning when you say that you want to protect the family, as that is the intent of all of us. We protect our own. However, I asked in the original thread if it was true. And the reason I wanted to know was to protect our own, ie his family. Because if it is true, then the policy needs to change. The story quotes his wife as saying she received a phone call "as a cop's wife that you never want to get." The implication is that is how she was initially notified. If an officer went out after the call, great. But at no time should she have been notified over the telephone.

Instead of you deleting the thread and threatening me with banishment for asking for the truth, which I feel was somewhat hypocrytical on your part as a Moderator, why not explain why you did it. You have deleted threads (you've even locked one thread because it was 11 pages, and HP and bunny were stirring the pot) in the past with expanation, but in this case you implied that I knew it was false information, which I did not. The intent of the thread was to get info in order to change the procedures if need be.

[Mod 161]

My appologies to you. Sometimes I jump on topics quickly and sometimes I let them go a little to see what path they take. I get just as much entertainment from some of these posts as everyone else. Regarding your original post, I already had personal knowledge of what took place and am more then certain it didn't happen that way. Sometimes a line in the paper can be misleading. In this case a phone call was made and as the article says his wife was at the hospital. Who made the call and how things transpired is something you should seek out in person.

mOD 161

Mod 161, one quick explanation then a question for you. The quote in your last post, in which I mentioned the chief was in response to HP saying he was being attacked. I was pointing out that, although not mentioned in my original post, he IS responsible for the actions and inactions of his staff.

And on that note, you mentioned that you don't care about our "opinions of our staff.......". Were you talking about LEOAffairs staff (which was never spoken ill of), or SPPD staff?

Apology accepted. At least you can see where the confusion arose from. And as far as asking about it, the lips seem to be sealed in the halls. It appears that no one wants to put their foot in it. Need a couple of the older officers and sergeants back who weren't afraid of the political machine. Where's DL, JS, SS, and GR at when you need them?

[Mod 161]

While continuing to be neutral I'll simply say :the SPPD staff!

[MOD 1]

I have corresponded with Mod 161 about the initial post in this thread that was deleted. After further review of the thread, it has been decided that the thread did not violate the Terms of Use, and should not have been deleted.

The post has been re-posted.

Mod 1

Mod 161 wrote: While continuing to be neutral I'll simply say :the SPPD staff!

Taking into account that statement along with several previous statements you have made on here (to include "locking" a thread because you felt it was too long! It sounds like it is important to those of us at SPPD who post on there!), it sounds as if you are a member of SPPD. If so, while I'm no expert, it sounds like a conflict of interest. There is no way you can be objective on here as you have shown a penchant for taking the administrations side on (what you deem) controversial issues.

To Mod 1, I ask that Mod 161 be reassigned and another Mod be assigned the SPPD site.

Taz et al...give it up already....your boy got what he deserved and was fired...let him go already....thank God it was locked the whining BS was getting old.

I'm not Taz. And I didn't ask the that the thread be unlocked, even though I think it should be. (You must have thought it was somewhat important if you read it that much that you found it to be whining BS!) I was only using it as an example of how the mod closes threads when he feels that the administration is getting the shizzit end of the stick. Which has been a problem on a number of occasions, whether you care to admit it or not. If the mod can't be objective and neutral because of their ties to SPPD, he (or she) has no business being a mod on this site and should move to another site.