Posted on 10/07/2007 10:23:40 AM PDT by janetjanet998
Edited on 10/07/2007 10:34:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
They can try, but success will be questionable. The general policy of letting rural sheriffs deputies take their duty weapons home is not really unreasonable for a small department with a lot of territory to cover.
Now the policy of hiring a 20 year old is somewhat questionable, especially if the training course is the common "community college" type of short course, with minimal field training. In a larger department, they'd have the "kid", even out of much more extensive training program, ride along with a veteran for a good long while. I doubt this little department can afford to do that. That being the case, they'd be better served by hiring veteran officers, either military veterans, likely to be a bit older and maybe quite a bit more mature (or at leas t you could base your hiring decision on a track record from their military service) or veterans of other larger police agencies.
I'm sure in this case the sheriff, and the Chief of police where he was a part timer, *knew* the kid for quite a while, as everyone in these small communities knows everyone else. Even if the Sheriff didn't know him, or didn't know him well, the Chief would have, and the Sheriff would have consulted with him before the hire..at least I'd hope so.
No they are not too young. But they've had more training, and have been instilled with more discipline. They also operate under the close supervision of their NCOs. A small department deputy and/or town cop is much more likley to have to operate on their own. Make a big difference. A larger department would have both more extensive training and would have the green guys, of whatever age, ride along with a more mature training officer, and probably for alonger time.
I recently had occasion to interact with and observe a young MP right out of training. He was operating on his own, but support, and his NCO or supervisor (they worked with civilian post police) was right at the other end of the radio, and much closer than would be the case for a small department, with a big county to cover, deputy . He still was a pretty nervous troop, unsure of himself, but friendly. And that only to take a report of minor fender bender.
Yeh, but the military has a couple of chances to weed 'em out. Basic and AIT (or whatever post Basic training is called in a particular service. Then then don't really trust 'em for a while, sometimes forever. For a good while, their NCOs watch 'em like hawks, sometimes apparently not too friendly hawks at that. (Appearances can be deceiving of course).
Guns are highly controlled on any military base. Basically except when on the range or in the field, no guns are allowed. Guns not in use are kept in a unit armory, not in the individual's quarters, be that a barracks, or on post housing. Although I have seen troops who were getting ready to be deployed carrying their individual weapons with them all day long, even in the mess hall, but they had no magazines, loaded or otherwise.
FWIW, the NCOs also watch the LTs, as do the Captains, Majors, etc. An LT can be a very dangerous creature. I should know too, I was one once, although in blue not green. And our (very technical) outfit didn't have enough Chiefs to raise us properly.
Uumm, you want to try that again? Maybe we can understand what you are trying to say. I think you are trying to say that they don't let the young solider go around unsupervised with weapons, which is quite true.
Although considering some of the officers, commissioned and non-commissioned alike, that I know, of several services (excluding the Marines, 'cause I don't know that many Marines and remembering that I *was* an officer myself) even their maturity is subject to question, as is that of engineers, programmers and pretty much all other so called adults, including myself at times.
That depends on wether it's a "strong mayor" town, or a mayor that is "first among equals" on the town council, but with an administrator hire by the council as a whole.
Remember though that he had been a city cop for a very short time, was only part time, and probably got the gig on basis of being a Sheriff's deputy. So blame the Sheriff, not the Mayor. Since most sheriffs are elected, the voters can fix the problem at the next election. (Or the county commissioners sooner than that if they instead hire the sheriff, doubtful but possible)
She probably was not his "former" girlfriend when he was hired by the Sheriff.
Not all. I only got into two, both sort of forced on me, and neither anything beyond a shove and a little grapple. The first one was in elementary, and he's my bud now, since I turned out not to be the total wimp he thought I was, and he decided not to be the bully I thought he was. (We share a name, although it's only my nickname). I never did know who the second one was, some Jr. Hi. upperclassman who backed right off when I jumped up and got right in his face.
It helps to be a "big guy", I admit.
I know a guy who went through one of these in Arizona last year. They asked for the names of every person he had slept with, along with contact information, all the usernames he had used on the internet and a list of his favorite forums, and of course, his signature to release the information. That in addition to all the bank accounts, credit accounts, Equifax, etc etc.
It is clear this town isnt doing the same sorts of things.
Got a link?
Yeah, he would be dating a minor which wouldnt fly either in a big city.....dont know what the age of consent in Wisc is though.
>>>She probably was not his “former” girlfriend when he was hired by the Sheriff.
I don't think it would be all that unusual for a deputy in a small rural department. Could be a long ways from wherever one might be, to where he'd needed. But if that's department policy, then really should screen the folks before they issue that long rifle. Not that it would matter, he could have walked in to a gun shop and bought one just like it. Something which I'm thinking maybe I should do, sooner rather than later.
“According to a FOX News report, the town’s mayor claims the town is under a “gag order” regarding the overnight event.”
Easy enough to circumvent if you want to...
Did you read you own link ?? "the town’s mayor claims the town is under a “gag order” regarding the overnight event." (& you know the media whores want ALL the news right now)
The Mayor just 'claims' the town is under a 'gag' & 'lockdown" (never says he ordered it) Truth is prolly the Mayor, local cops/deputies, & most of the citizens were all *expected* to follow these orders.
I don't know who else would have such authority
How 'bout "state officials" who were called shortly after the incident (& were there before daylight) or maybe the FBI, who has also been reported to be there.
Did you read todays update ???
Three-term Crandon Mayor Gary Bradley expressed anger and frustration at the state's handling of the case, complaining about a lack of information for officials and families and the length of time being taken in removing the bodies from the home.
When these small communities call for help from the "state officials", it's usually the "state officials" giving all the orders & making all the decisions as to the investigation......& I seriously doubt that any 'locals' were issuing "orders" to state officials/FBI.
Sounds like the Mayor might be a life-long area resident, just as upset about this crime (& it's handling) as ALL the residents are.
Yet, every post from you re: this Mayor says he's "POS", "dictator", and "The Mayor should be removed from office"...etc.
Thank-you.......it's SOP here in TX also if a small community has to call in "state officials" over a major crime.
and usually any "local officials" are ordered to shut-up & follow the "new orders".
It's ludicrous to believe that the mayor of this small town (w/ his 3 cops ??) was issuing any orders.
I questioned the 'mayor bashing' to both of you back in post 254, but never did receive a reply.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't see posting to such a tragic thread only to start criticizing so early on.
I thought this was a 'discussion forum', not a place to post accusations, without any facts.
and this will be day 4 since this tragedy, and very few facts have been released, yet.
This despite -dozens- of 911 calls with the shooters precise location.
And now yesterday we leaned that the perp is supposed to have shot himself in the head -three- times. This only happens in Arkansas.
Additionally the 911 tapes and arrest log are being withheld from the media in direct contradiction of the law.
Read this story which details the huge lapse in LEO response,
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=672136
The state attorney general is saying he most likely killed himself... in the next breath he says he was shot four times, once in the arm and 3 times in the head. That doesn’t add up to me.>>>>>>
Got a link?>>>>>>>
Interesting.....that is what Att. General Van Hollen is saying.
(snip)
“Peterson was hit by four bullets - one to his bicep, which came from a long distance, and three to his head. Two of the shots were nonfatal wounds underneath Peterson’s chin, with the fatal shot entering the right side of his head, Van Hollen said. All three head wounds showed signs the gun was held against the skin.”
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=672931
He was a big guy
He was always getting in fights. I remember when we were in elementary...
He would get in your face and shove....
Officers subject of misconduct claims
By JOHN DOBBERSTEIN
jdobberstein@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Oct. 9, 2007
“Tyler Peterson, whose shooting rampage in Crandon killed six people, and a colleague who first responded to the massacre are the subjects of misconduct claims by a Crandon couple they arrested in July.”
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=673033
After reading a transcript of today’s press conference with the AG here’s some questions I have about what appears to be the most bungled and inept “manhunt” in US history,
- Exactly when in the History Of This Planet (other than in Arkansas) has anyone shot themselves three times in the head with a full power handgun?
- Peterson’s fourth wound was a non contact rifle wound. If a police sniper could hit him in the arm, why not a follow-up shot to prevent further action on Peterson’s part?
- If Peterson was on a cell phone, why was it so hard to determine his location, even if he tried to give a false location?
- If a responding Deputy was fired upon by Peterson, why wasn’t that Deputy able to regain/maintain contact with Peterson?
- The survivor of the Crandon massacre was conscious after the shooting and I presume knew Peterson. Was the survivor promptly questioned as to the identity of the assailant? There should have been no confusion as to whom the assailant was. Was there?
- Why are the arrests logs and 911 tapes not being made available to media requests? There is no law preventing these items being disclosed in a timely fashion
- How about the police radio tapes and police cell phone logs?
- What? “They have also asked me to ask the community at large to stop talking to the press. As such, we in the law enforcement community will do our part by having no further comments to the press from Forest County.”
10-09-07 WI AG Presser,
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/2007/100907_new.asp
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.