Email to Sarkozy

[heresolong]

imported post

amlevin wrote:

She claims "more American lives have been lost to gun violence than in all the combats fought during the 20th century"

Fact:

World War I = 16,000,000 Deaths

World War II = 50-72 million Total, 9.7 million military deaths and nobody's sure they found all the graves yet.

Korea = 36,000 Military (no estimate of Civilian Deaths in this)

Vietnam = North Vietnam 1,011,000

South Vietnam 266,000

US 58,000

Most statistics for Gun Deaths place the amount at 10,000-15,000 per year

Actually it's only 53k for WWI, 300k for WWII, 34k for Korea, 47k for Vietnam. A total of 434k "American" deaths of servicemen. I think your numbers may be total dead for those conflicts.

Even so her statistics are faulty since I doubt that guns violence deaths add up to 434k people over the past 100 years, especially if you eliminate suicide (which isn't really a death by gun violence and which is over half of all gun deaths in the US) and accidental shootings (which aren't gun violence, they are accidents).

 

[joeroket]

imported post

erps wrote:

kparker wrote:

erps,

She said she was only speaking for herself, but she dressed in her uniform. Which 'message' are we supposed to believe?

Isn't that the whole point of the letter in this thread, that she "used the color of law" improperly as a private citizen to emphasize her point.  She said she was there as a citizen speaking for herself.  She acted improperly showing up in uniform IMO.

 

So does that mean we let an officer search us because he says he is doing it as a private citizen while he is in uniform?

Erps, I understand your point, I just think it is flawed.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

Items #2 and #3 involve making allegations that may have no basis in fact. Let's let the other side swim in that pool.
 

I never said make up "baseless" allegations.  You have to go find evidence of wrongdoing first, which means performing surveys, talking to people, and having accountants look at reports.
 
There is no government agency anywhere that is clean because they are made up of imperfect people. 
 
As far as driving wedges between police and citizens, the Police Chief just did that already. 

Here's what you said:

3) Concerned citizens showing up at city council meetings demanding full audits of mis-allocation of funds controlled by the the police chief.

It's not clear that you are suggesting hiring accountants and find evidence of wrongdoing. It simply suggests trooping to council meetings demanding full audits of mis-allocation of funds.. Mis-allocation according to who? The council isn't going to launch an investigation without some pretty strong allegations.

So, you go hire the accountants and get cracking. Sounds like a worthy project. Good luck with it.

Far as her driving a wedge between armed citizens and street cops, that didn't happen. Every officer I've spoken with in the last 48 hours was appalled at what she did. A couple were even quick to observe that if they had done something like she did, they would be in so much trouble that they'd probably never really see the end of it.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Far as her driving a wedge between armed citizens and street cops, that didn't happen. Every officer I've spoken with in the last 48 hours was appalled at what she did. A couple were even quick to observe that if they had done something like she did, they would be in so much trouble that they'd probably never really see the end of it.

Dave ~ what are the ramifications of her showing up in her taxpayer funded uniform, taxpayer funded sidearm? Did she drive her tax payer funded squad car? Did she use tax payer fuel? Was she paid? or was this a scheduled day off?

Those to me would be legitimate concerns for the citizens whom she represents.

 

[erps]

imported post

So does that mean we let an officer search us because he says he is doing it as a private citizen while he is in uniform? Erps, I understand your point, I just think it is flawed.

That's an example of acting under color of law again. Saying this police chief speaks for the police is like saying any random member of this forum speaks for the forum.

When rank and file police officers are polled on a citizen's RTBA, the street cops overwhelmingly support the 2nd. I can't say the same thing about police chiefs. They are a different animal.

Here is one reference that I keep on hand.

Should civilian ownership of guns be outlawed? 3.2% yes 96.8% no

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/survey/gun_study.htm

 

[joeroket]

imported post

erps wrote:

So does that mean we let an officer search us because he says he is doing it as a private citizen while he is in uniform? Erps, I understand your point, I just think it is flawed.

That's an example of acting under color of law again.  Saying this police chief speaks for the police is like saying any random member of this forum speaks for the forum. 

When rank and file police officers are polled on a citizen's RTBA, the street cops overwhelmingly support the 2nd.  I can't say the same thing about police chiefs.  They are a different animal.

Here is one reference that I keep on hand.

Should civilian ownership of guns be outlawed? 3.2% yes 96.8% no

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/survey/gun_study.htm

Gotcha. I misunderstood a little bit. I do not think she speaks for the officers, however I do think she speaks for the city itself when she is in uniform.

 

[Dave Workman]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Dave ~ what are the ramifications of her showing up in her taxpayer funded uniform, taxpayer funded sidearm?  Did she drive her tax payer funded squad car?  Did she use tax payer fuel?  Was she paid? or was this a scheduled day off?

Those to me would be legitimate concerns for the citizens whom she represents.

Move to the head of the class.
I am trying to find out the answers to those questions right now. If she used a city car, drew pay, and so forth, she's probably got some 'splainin' to do.

This was a rather egregious offense. You simply cannot grandstand like that. i know the anti-gunners think it's just peachy to trot out a cop or two in uniform to stand behind them when they talk into the microphones, but this is a no-no.

Anything from a disciplinary letter to dismissal, or somewhere in between, such as lose a day's pay, have to reimburse the city and so forth.

Depends a great deal on what the city manager decides to do and how much public reaction he gets from Bellevue residents, or other citizens who found this appearance offensive.

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

erps wrote:

As far as driving wedges between police and citizens, the Police Chief just did that already.

she wasn't speaking for the police.

erps, I respectfully disagree. By appearing in full uniform and announcing her position as the chief of police for Bellevue, she used her authority under color of law. By her reference to the IACP, she gave the impression that she was representing that organization, and....she violated one of the Law Enforcement code of ethics "I will not use my position for personal gain"

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

erps wrote:

So does that mean we let an officer search us because he says he is doing it as a private citizen while he is in uniform? Erps, I understand your point, I just think it is flawed.

That's an example of acting under color of law again. Saying this police chief speaks for the police is like saying any random member of this forum speaks for the forum.

When rank and file police officers are polled on a citizen's RTBA, the street cops overwhelmingly support the 2nd. I can't say the same thing about police chiefs. They are a different animal.

Here is one reference that I keep on hand.

Should civilian ownership of guns be outlawed? 3.2% yes 96.8% no

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/survey/gun_study.htm

From wiki:
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may actually operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the color of law authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the 'color of law', that does not mean that the action was actually lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.

That definitely doesn't apply to us here, we don't have the appearance of legal power, She definitely did and has appeared to abuse this power. I think you inadvertently are making our point.

interesting some more from wiki:notice the Bold.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under 'color of law', it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Enforcement of 'color of law' does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include forced vaccinations for school aged children under threat of expulsion or placing the childs' parents under arrest where no law exists to do so. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.[2][/sup] Furthermore, in many states it is unlawful to falsely impersonate a police officer, a federal officer or employee, or any other public official or to use equipment used by law enforcement officers, such as flashing lights or a fake police badge. "Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer.

 

[erps]

imported post

By appearing in full uniform and announcing her position as the chief of police for Bellevue, she used her authority under color of law.

I agree with you that she acted improperly. On the first page of this thread, I think you posted a copy of a letter you sent that indicated she did not speak for you nor other officers that you know. She did not speak for me and officers I know as well. We did not hold an election and send her to speak in a unified voice to represent the various police agencies of this state.

Here's your statement:

I can tell you unequivocally, she does not speak for me, or any of the law enforcement personnel of my acquaintance

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

erps you should send a letter, too, with your concerns.

 

[erps]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

erps you should send a letter, too, with your concerns.

I will do that. I will make an inquiry as to their policy manual down there as to public speaking engagements while in uniform as well.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

erps wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

erps you should send a letter, too, with your concerns.

I will do that. I will make an inquiry as to their policy manual down there as to public speaking engagements while in uniform as well.

+1

 

[erps]

imported post

FWIW, here is an example of some typical language in a policy manual

Members, while on duty, or when acting in an official capacity, or using their official title, or while wearing the uniform or any part thereof, shall not solicit funds, signatures, or otherwise act to influence, interfere with, or affect the election of a candidate, ballot measure, or initiative.

page 77 of this particular department's policy online

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=29867&a=32482

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

erps wrote:

FWIW, here is an example of some typical language in a policy manual

Members, while on duty, or when acting in an official capacity, or using their official title, or while wearing the uniform or any part thereof, shall not solicit funds, signatures, or otherwise act to influence, interfere with, or affect the election of a candidate, ballot measure, or initiative.

page 77 of this particular department's policy online

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=29867&a=32482

So if her policy manual mentions the same she could be in some deep doodoo?

 

[joeroket]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

erps wrote:

FWIW, here is an example of some typical language in a policy manual

Members, while on duty, or when acting in an official capacity, or using their official title, or while wearing the uniform or any part thereof, shall not solicit funds, signatures, or otherwise act to influence, interfere with, or affect the election of a candidate, ballot measure, or initiative.

page 77 of this particular department's policy online

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=29867&a=32482

So if her policy manual mentions the same she could be in some deep doodoo?

No. This was none of the three.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

erps wrote:

FWIW, here is an example of some typical language in a policy manual

Members, while on duty, or when acting in an official capacity, or using their official title, or while wearing the uniform or any part thereof, shall not solicit funds, signatures, or otherwise act to influence, interfere with, or affect the election of a candidate, ballot measure, or initiative.

page 77 of this particular department's policy online

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=29867&a=32482

So if her policy manual mentions the same she could be in some deep doodoo?

No. This was none of the three.

Yep on second look I can see that. She just tried to influence the acceptance of a bill. I wonder why she was so adamant about not representing her department?

 

[joeroket]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

joeroket wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

erps wrote:

FWIW, here is an example of some typical language in a policy manual

Members, while on duty, or when acting in an official capacity, or using their official title, or while wearing the uniform or any part thereof, shall not solicit funds, signatures, or otherwise act to influence, interfere with, or affect the election of a candidate, ballot measure, or initiative.

page 77 of this particular department's policy online

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=29867&a=32482

So if her policy manual mentions the same she could be in some deep doodoo?

No. This was none of the three.

Yep on second look I can see that. She just tried to influence the acceptance of a bill. I wonder why she was so adamant about not representing her department?

Because the department had not taken an official stance on the bill.

In her mind saying she was there as a private citizen, even though she introduced herself as the chief, was all she needed to do for people to think it was not in official capacity.

 

[amlevin]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

amlevin wrote:

She claims "more American lives have been lost to gun violence than in all the combats fought during the 20th century"

Fact:

World War I = 16,000,000 Deaths

World War II = 50-72 million Total, 9.7 million military deaths and nobody's sure they found all the graves yet.

Korea = 36,000 Military (no estimate of Civilian Deaths in this)

Vietnam = North Vietnam 1,011,000

South Vietnam 266,000

US 58,000

Most statistics for Gun Deaths place the amount at 10,000-15,000 per year

Actually it's only 53k for WWI, 300k for WWII, 34k for Korea, 47k for Vietnam. A total of 434k "American" deaths of servicemen. I think your numbers may be total dead for those conflicts.

Even so her statistics are faulty since I doubt that guns violence deaths add up to 434k people over the past 100 years, especially if you eliminate suicide (which isn't really a death by gun violence and which is over half of all gun deaths in the US) and accidental shootings (which aren't gun violence, they are accidents).

My source was that oft challenged "Wikipedia". They referred to combat deaths on ALL sides, not just American Servicemen, and it also included civilian deaths as a direct result of combat (ie. bombing, artillery fire,and collateral deaths on the battlefield) Wecan also add the indirect deaths due to plague or illness brought about by disrupted infrastructure, etc.(The Spanish Flu which was importedas US Servicemenreturned from Europe killes thousands, including the grandmother I never knew).

The real point I was trying to make is two-fold. First HER facts were wrong and Cars kill far more than Guns, everyday. There is no Constitutional right to own a car but there is one that protects gun ownership.

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

Combat deaths direct from the VA archives