Bankrupt city

I believe someone called you a genius earlier!!1! :snicker:

Here is a nice big cup of shot the F*ck up smartass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Records show murder suspect Morgan Smith threatened victim several times


NORTH PORT -- Morgan Smith convinced three police officers she was mentally sound last Friday morning. The 35-year-old said she was "only depressed" and didn't want to harm herself in any way.

But 38 hours later -- at 1:45 a.m. Sunday morning -- police say Morgan went to the Salford Boulevard home of her ex-boyfriend, Daryl Smith, pointed a 20-gauge shotgun at him and his new girlfriend, Andrea Stranko, and shot them. The blast hit Daryl in the shoulder and Stranko in the face, neck and chest. Daryl was hospitalized, and Stranko, 46, died at the scene. It was Daryl's 44th birthday.

Morgan was charged with premeditated murder and attempted murder.

A Baker Act expert at Riverside Behavioral Center in Punta Gorda says Morgan appeared to have exhibited red flags to officers that she might harm herself or others before she reportedly killed Stranko on Sunday.

That Friday, three North Port police officers responded to a call for a possible suicide alert. The caller said Morgan had e-mailed her will, sent "disturbing" text messages about how she was going to harm herself, and sent her and Daryl's 12-year-old daughter up north to stay with relatives, police said.

The officers also knew Morgan owned a new shotgun -- which was in her car at the Toledo Club Apartments where she lived. The caller said he wanted Morgan to get the help she needs.

According to police records, Morgan said she was "fine," and if needed, she would call police to take the weapon. She was asked several times if she wanted help and said she would drive herself to Riverside if she felt the need. She was given the mental health facility's phone number.

Police had responded to Morgan's apartment three times prior to last Friday.

On Feb. 7, Morgan told police that while she and Daryl were still dating in November, he also was seeing Stranko, and that he then broke up with her to date Stranko exclusively. She said Stranko called her five times, and Morgan wanted to press charges.

Police then went to Daryl's home to question Stranko, who denied speaking to Morgan. The couple told police Morgan "has issues."

An officer was called to Morgan's apartment Feb. 22. The caller alleged Morgan threatened Daryl's new girlfriend in an e-mail, saying she would "shoot her and herself, or run her over then take pills."

In November, Morgan was arrested for allegedly attacking Stranko with a hatchet. Records show Morgan asked Stranko over to talk about the situation with Daryl. The two went for a walk along Toledo Blade Boulevard when Morgan reportedly hit Stranko in the back, arm and shoulder before she managed to escape and contact police. Morgan told police she planned to hurt Stranko, "not kill her." She was released from jail few days later after posting $20,000 bond.

Riverside Baker Act coordinator Renee Rogers said it's typical for family members or friends to call police when a loved one shows signs they need mental health assistance.

She said Morgan would have received a mental evaluation by a doctor and been held up to 72 hours if she was admitted involuntarily under the Baker Act, in which a mental health evaluation is done to provide treatment if needed.

"A Baker Act is not jail, but it takes the rights of a person away temporarily," she said. "We do a history of any behavioral and psychosocial issues. We ask questions like, do you want to harm yourself or others, are you depressed, do you use drugs, have you been abused; and we talk about why you might be having those thoughts. Then we work on possible medication and treatment."

Rogers said the facility takes in "a lot" of Baker Act cases from North Port police officers. She believes that if Morgan had a history of attacking her ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend, recently e-mailed her will and had a weapon, that those should have all been red flags that she possibly needed help.


http://www.sunnewspapers.net/articles/p ... htm&pnpg=0

Lewis even stated that only one officer involved in the whole case had any kind of crisis management training.
The one that did apparently did not act on the suspects statements.
Now that the horse has gotten out of the barn Lewis wants to close the door and have more officers get training.
All well and good but unless they act appropriately the training is useless.
Lewis also went on to state that officers spent 45 mins with the subject, as if meaning that was more then enough time to evaluate someone who maybe a danger to themselves or others.
For all anyone knows, the officers may have made a decision about not Baker Acting the suspect with in the first five mins of being there.

It is to bad that the length of time required to process someone to be Baker Acted may have (if not completely) played a major roll in whether to proceed with any king of proper action on the part of the officer.
Possible scenario: My shift ends in a couple of hours. If I Baker Act her it will mean three or more hours before I complete the proper paper work, transport, and log out from my shift.
What are the odds of this person doing anything to her self or someone else if I don't have her committed for observation?

The truth hurts but it hits home, right people?

[quote][Possible scenario: My shift ends in a couple of hours. If I Baker Act her it will mean three or more hours before I complete the proper paper work, transport, and log out from my shift/quote]
You have this all figured out now so I guess anyone telling you that what you are using in your "scenerio" might not have been the case. What??? You don't know everything??? You are not the POLICE EXPERT you think you are??????Did you happen to catch this part of the article:
Rogers said the facility takes in "a lot" of Baker Act cases from North Port police officers

Did you ever think that if everyone the reporter talked to said they agreed with what was done by the officers and what they did was correct based on the at scene facts, then nobody would be buying the newspaper to read the sensationalized version. So now I guess it's time for you to sign back on to BASH-A-LEO.com

[Possible scenario: My shift ends in a couple of hours. If I Baker Act her it will mean three or more hours before I complete the proper paper work, transport, and log out from my shift/quote]
You have this all figured out now so I guess anyone telling you that what you are using in your "scenerio" might not have been the case. What??? You don't know everything??? You are not the POLICE EXPERT you think you are??????Did you happen to catch this part of the article:
Rogers said the facility takes in "a lot" of Baker Act cases from North Port police officers

Did you ever think that if everyone the reporter talked to said they agreed with what was done by the officers and what they did was correct based on the at scene facts, then nobody would be buying the newspaper to read the sensationalized version. So now I guess it's time for you to sign back on to BASH-A-LEO.com

First Mr. Edit, it was a "possible scenerio", I have personally witnessed such actions invovling similar complaints taken by other officers; it is an action that does take place. "Frequently!"

Next you failed to quote Rogers complete statement, leaving off this statement: "She believes that if Morgan had a history of attacking her ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend, recently e-mailed her will and had a weapon, that those should have all been red flags that she possibly needed help."
All of which had taken place and were known to North Port.

Last your opinion that the story was sensationalized version, is just that an opinion.
Just for the sh"ts and giggles "officer???" I have been doing the cop job probably longer then you have been alive.
Oh and yes, I have had more then one occasion in which I have had to work with the admin of the NPPD right down to the road patrol officer as well as other departments.
WIth that aside,all departments have officers who look at the clock and base their decision making process on it.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... ng-herself

For another view besides the guy who says he been a cop for longer than we've been on earth copy and paste this.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100404/COLUMNIST/4041069/2416/NEWS?Title=Lyons-Bad-policy-kept-victim-from-protecting-herself

For another view besides the guy who says he been a cop for longer than we've been on earth copy and paste this.

Link does not work. Plese use the URL box that is provided on the Leoaffairs forums when posting. Go one better and copy and paste the story.
Or is that beyond your ability as well Mr. Net Genius?
Just in Case it is here it is.
--------------------------------------------
Lyons: Bad policy kept victim from protecting herself

By Tom Lyons


Published: Sunday, April 4, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 11:12 p.m.
( page of 2 )

Before Andrea Stranko was shot to death last month, she went to court to ask for help.



What she wanted sounds so reasonable, and so simple. She asked a judge for a restraining order telling Morgan Jane Smith, 35, who police say killed Stranko in North Port on March 28, to stay away from her.

That order was refused.

A civil protective order might not have done any good, of course. Restraining orders aren't magic. They work best in situations where the scary person flies into a violent rage or bullying tantrum only when in the presence of the other person, but otherwise is able to exercise some sane judgment. When a judge orders a wide distance be kept, that often prevents emotional encounters that trigger problems.

This probably wasn't such a case. Police say Smith ambushed Stranko and Smith's former boyfriend, Daryl Smith, with a loaded shotgun. She fired and killed Stranko even though Darryl Smith got between them to protect Stranko and was seriously injured with buckshot himself.

But a restraining order just might have prevented Morgan Jane Smith from showing up so well armed. Restraining orders normally require turning in guns, and are supposed to prevent more from being purchased.

And whether that order would have saved Stranko's life or not, I'm dismayed that our legal system refused it. Was it a case where a judge knew of no past behavior to indicate a deadly attack was reasonably likely?

No. That's the incredible part. The same shooter, police say, had attacked Stranko four months earlier. From behind. With a hatchet.
The two were on a walk to talk things out when, police say, Morgan Smith grabbed the hatchet and attacked Stranko from behind, hitting her three times while aiming at her head. The resulting aggravated assault charge was still pending with the attacker out on bail.

You might think that would be all a judge could possibly need to know to order that the attacker never get too close to Stranko. But Florida law apparently says otherwise.

Stranko found that her relationship with her attacker didn't fit into the usual categories where such orders are granted. The two hadn't been married or lived together or dated, and sexual violence was not involved. The only obvious category remaining was one more often used in cases of, for instance, violently feuding neighbors. Go to the Sarasota County Clerk of Court's Web site to get the forms for seeking a restraining order and you'll see a category listed as "repeat violence."

But apparently Florida lawmakers think just one attack, even a really violent one with, I suppose, a chain saw, or a hatchet, isn't enough. And so, following the law, Circuit Judge Andrew Owens issued a written refusal.

It explains: "Petition alleges a single act of violence. Two are required for repeat violence."

That law needs to have a hatchet taken to it.

Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 361-4964.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...ecting-herself
------------------------------------------------------

With that said and done, please show where it says in Mr. Lyons op/ed piece that the NPPD acted correctly and that Rogers statements were incorrect.
All this does is reinforce the fact that local PD could have taken action Baker Act wise and gotten the suspect off the street and kept the public from harms way.
The piece even says that NP officers new of the judges actions as well as the attack, and the suicide e-mails.
The reason given for not doing such was that the suspect told officers that she was not going to committ suicide.
What kind of responce did the officers believe she would make.
In crisis intervetion when dealing with a mentaly unstable person one of the first things that you are told is that someone who is such will never admitt to it or say, hey I am insane I admitt it.

For whatever reason when North Port is called on the carpet for a mistake, problem, or error, the damage control team for the department goes into full swing.
Right or wrong it is put into action.

So regardless of what is given in the form of opinion or statement of fact the powers that be in the city of North Port believe they can do not wrong.
The same can be said of the CCSO as well.

What is usually put out is that the PD management will state that they are responsible for what happened. Not that they are at fault, but just responsible.
The reason being is that people who are at fault for something, can lose their jobs.
However those who are just responsible do not.

So with that, go bye, Adiós, Auf wiedersehen, au revoir et salut, Slán leat, Shalom, Sayounara, dasvidanniye.
Happy Easter and God Bless all.

You can take the person out of Indianna, but you can't take the Indianna out of the person!

Please!!!! Expand on where this conversation occurred between you and Mr. Tom Knight. The sheriff has way to much class to ever have that conversation with anyone, unless.....

I heard him say it with my own ears.

[quote=high class rat]

Please!!!! Expand on where this conversation occurred between you and Mr. Tom Knight. The sheriff has way to much class to ever have that conversation with anyone, unless.....

I heard him say it with my own ears.[/quote:2fv9mk8o]

I have to go buy a flyswatter, cuz it won't belong before this site will be swarming with them due to $hit like this being printed.

[quote=Guest]

Please!!!! Expand on where this conversation occurred between you and Mr. Tom Knight. The sheriff has way to much class to ever have that conversation with anyone, unless.....

I heard him say it with my own ears.

I have to go buy a flyswatter, cuz it won't belong before this site will be swarming with them due to $hit like this being printed.[/quote:2ah0bjrr]

I went to North Port once and I got lost on a bunch of crumbling backwoods streets that lead to nowhere. The streets don't even have street signs!!!! Let's face it: North Port was created as a get-rich scheme in 1959 by the General Development Corporation in 1959. It was swampland. The swamps were drained and not the entire area has become a fire hazard. North Port is either flooding or on fire, depending on the day of the week.

The General Development corporation started paving streets to nowhere. They paved hundreds and hundreds of miles of crappy streets. To save money, none of these crappy streets have a proper foundation (like normal streets). The corporation just took an inch of blacktop and slapped it down on the earth and called it a "street." Fifty years later, these substandard streets are crumbling EVEN THOUGH CARS DON'T DRIVE ON THEM.

General Development created the "Port Charlotte" to be a grand city, but it was really a fraudulent land scheme. Then some nimrod decided to incorporate 1/2 of "Port Charlotte" and they drew a boundary smack dab on the county line -- so these nimrods essentially divided "Port Charlotte" into two separate communities. If you look at it from an aerial map, it looks stupid. The boundary divided-up this stupid community. :roll:

Now we have the land-boom-bust of the 21st Century. Instead of developing the preexisting empty, crumbling, vacent streets in North Port, the city commissioners annex MORE land -- and then the land-boom-bust of the 21st Century comes along and now we have a rehash of the 1959 General Development fiasco -- all over again! :roll:

Most of the streets in North Port remain empty. And on the streets that DO have homes, some streets have up to 80% of the homes in foreclosure. So are the remaining 20% of the citizens going to pay 100% of the taxes to keep the city of North Port afloat? Nope!!! It ain't gonna happen, genius! If you didn't notice, housing prices are STILL dropping, as of 4/4/10 (today). That means that there will be MORE foreclosures -- NOT LESS.

So who is going to support North Port? When the city taxpayers (what's left of them before they flee) have had enough, the city of North Port will UN-INCORPORATE and will CEASE to be a municipality.

Nuff said. Watch the market. News at eleven.