TR> This question was directed to cops, and I was just wondering if you
 TR> are a cop.
 SK> No, I'm not. If I were one I would have identified myself as one. And
 SK> on my post it was quite evident that I'm not. I even stated that I
 SK> COULDN'T be a cop because of my ethical standards.
One of the primary purposes of this echo is citizens asking questions of the
police. When a question is posed to a police officer, it is assumed that a
police officer is going to answer the question. There are more than adequate
police officers in this echo to answer questions posed to them, so it was
really not proper for you to answer the question. Yes, you are entitled to
your opinion and you may post your opinion, but the question was directed to
a police officer.
 TR> Would your opinions be flavored by the media frenzy when a single
 TR> cop screws up?
 SK> Not at all. Because there is no such thing.
You must not watch much television or read many publications. Yes, there is a
media frenzy when a cop screws up.
It is fairly obvious that you have a huge chip on your shoulder, especially
regarding the police. You must also have something personal against me, yet
you don't even know me. You know nothing about my personal ethics or morals,
yet you've made several rude observations about me.
You called me a "perverter of the Constitution" in one message. I asked you
which portion of the Constitution you were referring to, and you didn't
answer. In fact, the question angered you. You've said, "I don't think much
of people", but you don't even know me. You've said my examples of civic duty
and the laws relating to them are "silly hypotheticals", yet the examples I
used happen frequently (tornados). In your short few beginning messages to me
you've also said that I have a, "less than reasonable and reasoned opinion"
and that I am "ignorant and intolerant". I answered your messages with a
great deal more kindness than your messages deserved, and further, I didn't
call you any names in the process. Your response was, "I won't take any more
of this abuse", or something to that effect.
You've indicated that you will obey only the laws that you wish to, that you
don't believe in the draft, and you fall back on freedoms, supposedly based
on the Constitution, to validate your opinion. When you write messages such
as these, you can expect questions about the basis for your opinions,
especially when you refer to law enforcement officers as being less than
ethical and perverters of the Constitution. These questions made you angry,
and the examples supporting opposing opinion made you angry. You should
expect differing opinions when you write messages such as this, and you
should also expect that law enforcement officers would not appreciate your
labelling of them as less than ethical and perverters of the Constitution.
Those who risk their lives on almost a daily basis in service to the public
don't really appreciate accusations of this type without specific examples
and some basis for the accusation. Further, they don't appreciate blanket
indictment of the entire profession for isolated cases of abuse or
corruption. If the same were done with your profession, you wouldn't
appreciate it either.
In conclusion, it is very obvious that you have some sort of a bone to pick
with me, and I really have no further desire to communicate with you for that
reason. This is my last message to you unless it involves my duty as
co-moderator of this echo.
Tom Rightmer - A Victims' Rights Advocate
... Batteries not included.
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------