Transfer from command staff

[Unregistered]

anyone know why KT is being transferred from the patrol commanders office and while she’s not at work?

[Unregistered]

Who cares?????

[Unregistered]

So for those of us who don't know...what exactly happened and why'd she get transferred?

[MOD 1]

This is apparently a sensitive subject. I have restored posts that do not violate the Terms of Use. Those posts that were deleted violated the Terms of Use inferred or implied improper allegations against someone. That will not be tolerated.

Do not post anything on here that violates the Terms of Use. If you can't post proof of something, then don't post it. I won't hesitate to yank this thread off of here and ban anyone who violates the Terms of Use by making improper allegations.

Mod 1

[Unregistered]

Even I know the answer to that and I’ve been gone for a few years. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Unregistered]

This is apparently a sensitive subject. I have restored posts that do not violate the Terms of Use. Those posts that were deleted violated the Terms of Use inferred or implied improper allegations against someone. That will not be tolerated.

Do not post anything on here that violates the Terms of Use. If you can't post proof of something, then don't post it. I won't hesitate to yank this thread off of here and ban anyone who violates the Terms of Use by making improper allegations.

Mod 1

I understand the intent of the rules. I understand the reason to have rules. I even understand removing personal attacks just for the sake of attacking. I do not understand the belief that this site or any other site can limit free speech. There are opinions i may have you wouldn’t agree with and i am curious who decides which opinion is right? An allegation may need discussion before proof is discovered. This post makes me wonder exactly who the Mod is.

[MOD 1]

I understand the intent of the rules. I understand the reason to have rules. I even understand removing personal attacks just for the sake of attacking. I do not understand the belief that this site or any other site can limit free speech. There are opinions i may have you wouldn’t agree with and i am curious who decides which opinion is right? An allegation may need discussion before proof is discovered. This post makes me wonder exactly who the Mod is.

I'm Mod 1, have been for over 12 years now. I oversee all of the Message Boards and all of the moderators. I have nothing to do with your agency and never have. I don't know any of the people involved.

This site or any other site has the right to limit speech as long as we are footing the bills. There is no such thing as free speech on a privately owned web site. With that said, I am pretty generous with what I allow, and made the decision that some of this needed to be put back up.

With that said, one of our rules is that allegations without proof are not allowed against named or easily identifiable persons. That's been a rule ever since I have been around. I didn't make the rule, I just enforce it. Now, if there is an IA done and it is sustained, the it is no longer an allegation and it can be posted on here.

Easily identifiable persons basically means that if I, with no knowledge of your agency can figure out who it is, or make a phone call and ask a simple question, like "Who is the commander of Professional Standards" then they are easily identifiable.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks,

Mod 1

[Unregistered]

Who cares why she was transferred??? Y’all are so quick to start bs it’s sad

[Unregistered]

I'm Mod 1, have been for over 12 years now. I oversee all of the Message Boards and all of the moderators. I have nothing to do with your agency and never have. I don't know any of the people involved.

This site or any other site has the right to limit speech as long as we are footing the bills. There is no such thing as free speech on a privately owned web site. With that said, I am pretty generous with what I allow, and made the decision that some of this needed to be put back up.

With that said, one of our rules is that allegations without proof are not allowed against named or easily identifiable persons. That's been a rule ever since I have been around. I didn't make the rule, I just enforce it. Now, if there is an IA done and it is sustained, the it is no longer an allegation and it can be posted on here.

Easily identifiable persons basically means that if I, with no knowledge of your agency can figure out who it is, or make a phone call and ask a simple question, like "Who is the commander of Professional Standards" then they are easily identifiable.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks,

Mod 1

I have no reason to doubt anything you said. I think it was honorable to answer my comment. I am not one to make outrageous claims as you are aware i am not banned. Keep this in mind. The folks that post here are discouraged with the agency. The leadership is a failure and they are far more Vedic time than you would imagine. This is an outlet for them to vent to have some voice against all of the wrong that is present inside the walls of the agency. Compare this forum to the others. There are thousands of posts over the average and so much more vile. Conduct begins at the top so do the math. Truth being told most of what you see on here is actually true. Much of it is impossible to prove or at least document. I also believe there is apprehension to provide proof because the mod positions are unknown and to be outed would cost jobs of people who really want the right thing to happen. With the familiarity you have of the site how many agency leaders have you know that terminate dozens of employees for frivolous violations or even investigations that are lies? How many agencies are you aware of that has 30+ lawsuits in less than ten years? Where there is smoke there is fire. Provide the people here with a secure and safe process to provide information and i bet you would feel the leo’s are not only justified but victims of a leader that is a fraud. You are in a place to make tough decisions and you are not blamed you are just the one that gets to be the target. Thank you again for the explaination and i apologize for being an ass.

[MOD 1]

I have no reason to doubt anything you said. I think it was honorable to answer my comment. I am not one to make outrageous claims as you are aware i am not banned. Keep this in mind. The folks that post here are discouraged with the agency. The leadership is a failure and they are far more Vedic time than you would imagine. This is an outlet for them to vent to have some voice against all of the wrong that is present inside the walls of the agency. Compare this forum to the others. There are thousands of posts over the average and so much more vile. Conduct begins at the top so do the math. Truth being told most of what you see on here is actually true. Much of it is impossible to prove or at least document. I also believe there is apprehension to provide proof because the mod positions are unknown and to be outed would cost jobs of people who really want the right thing to happen. With the familiarity you have of the site how many agency leaders have you know that terminate dozens of employees for frivolous violations or even investigations that are lies? How many agencies are you aware of that has 30+ lawsuits in less than ten years? Where there is smoke there is fire. Provide the people here with a secure and safe process to provide information and i bet you would feel the leo’s are not only justified but victims of a leader that is a fraud. You are in a place to make tough decisions and you are not blamed you are just the one that gets to be the target. Thank you again for the explaination and i apologize for being an ass.

No apology necessary. These boards are here just for the purpose that you described. For officers and deputies to be able to anonymously vent and air their grievances against their agencies and higher ups.

Now, we do allow a little more leeway in what is said about public officials than we do about Joe Blow Deputy. What I mean by this, is that you can say something about the sheriff who is a public official and it could be left alone, but the same statement about a deputy could be deleted.

Now, allegations involving sexual situations, criminal activity, and the such would not be allowed. But allegations of mishandling the agency, or talk about how the agency is run would be allowed. Proof would not be necessary about your opinion of how the agency is run or mishandled.

Your boards Moderators DO NOT have access to IP addresses. Only I have access to IP addresses. So you don't have to worry about anyone "outing" a poster's identity. Besides, with the IP address all I can get is who your service provider is and what city you are posting from. Nothing that identifies you personally. To get information like that someone would need a subpoena issued to the service provider.

LEOAFFAIRS has gone to court in the past to protect deputies identities from a sheriff who wanted to know who was posting about internal agency issues. The 2nd DCA ruled that we did not have to turn it over without issuing an opinion. This means there was no place left for them to appeal to without an opinion.

If you have any further questions or issues, please let me know.

Mod 1