What can we blame the police for today huh???

Blast from the Past · March 29th, 2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by craig.:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I do understand that they're upset.

That may be, but I find your lack of empathy toward their situation to be most cold and rather disturbing.

[ March 29, 2005 01:07 PM: Message edited by: craig. ]<hr /></blockquote>Be careful not to fall from that self-appointed high horse of yours Steve. You have shown over the years a marked contempt for civility and understanding whenever someone does not agree with you. On many occasions you have made condescending and insulting remarks without regard to how it may affect your target, going all the way back to Cincinnati.com so spare us your drama for once...

**reason** · March 29th, 2005, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by G L:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by craig.:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I do understand that they're upset.

That may be, but I find your lack of empathy toward their situation to be most cold and rather disturbing.

[ March 29, 2005 01:07 PM: Message edited by: craig. ]<hr /></blockquote>Be careful not to fall from that self-appointed high horse of yours Steve. You have shown over the years a marked contempt for civility and understanding whenever someone does not agree with you. On many occasions you have made condescending and insulting remarks without regard to how it may affect your target, going all the way back to Cincinnati.com so spare us your drama for once...<hr /></blockquote>First, using actual names violates a code of conduct.

Secondly, jumper doesn't need for you to speak for him. He's a big boy, and quite frankly much thicker skinned than you. I suspect you see no irony in your preaching about being on high horses.

I don't expect him to like that comment, but I gave it considerable thought before I typed it. I think his tone sounds harsh, cold and unempathetic.

I would like to stick to the topic at hand before you turn this into yet another thread hijack about why you don't like me.

Blast from the Past · March 29th, 2005, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by craig.:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by G L:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by craig.:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I do understand that they're upset.

That may be, but I find your lack of empathy toward their situation to be most cold and rather disturbing.

[ March 29, 2005 01:07 PM: Message edited by: craig. ]<hr /></blockquote>Be careful not to fall from that self-appointed high horse of yours Steve. You have shown over the years a marked contempt for civility and understanding whenever someone does not agree with you. On many occasions you have made condescending and insulting remarks without regard to how it may affect your target, going all the way back to Cincinnati.com so spare us your drama for once...<hr /></blockquote>First, using actual names violates a code of conduct.

Secondly, jumper doesn't need for you to speak for him. He's a big boy, and quite frankly much thicker skinned than you. I suspect you see no irony in your preaching about being on high horses.

I don't expect him to like that comment, but I gave it considerable thought before I typed it. I think his tone sounds harsh, cold and unempathetic.

I would like to stick to the topic at hand before you turn this into yet another thread hijack about why you don't like me.<hr /></blockquote>Clearly I hit home with that remark, your reaction proves it. What, does a little truth hurt the all mighty reason? He who whines and bitches about everything and then accuses others about being able to dish it out and not take it? My comment wasn't so much a defense of Jumper as it was calling you out on your imperious attitude. I don't need to hijack a thread to demonstrate how much I dislike you, any comment you make generally serves as raison d'etre.

Code of conduct? LOL! Since when has this board ever had any code of any sort? I have never used the name "Gary" on this board but many have seen fit to refer to me by my whole name. You never saw me whining about it. Stevie.

**reason** · March 29th, 2005, 09:08 PM

Last time I checked we were discussing the situation regarding the family of the dead woman found on I-75. You clearly see fit to deviate from that discussion and persist in doing so.

Personally, I can easily ignore you (without the ignore function) just as I did in the past. I guess we're back to that, which is unfortunate. I was hoping your return was to be more productive, but sadly it is not.

For the record, there are many easy targets to hit here, but I will refrain from aiming at any of them.

**reason** · March 29th, 2005, 09:25 PM

There is no fault to be assigned to the police in this case. No fault for not finding her.

What I'm curious to see is if policy is changed by this incident. I don't think anyone believes police officers saw a dead body and intentionally left it out on the road. In all likelihood, the police arrived at the scene and handled the situation as commonplace business.

Unfortunately, much of what the police do is not commonplace, and unusual circumstances occur. Unfortunately, "unusual" happens all the time.

I can't help but wonder how different things would be if the police did survey the scene better. The car was apparently severely damaged, and it is clear the damage did not all occur at the point where the vehicle stopped.

On a cold, rainy night, the easy, comfortable thing was to tow the car and go onto the next wacky incident. How nice it would have been for all of us if things had turned out differently.

I for one, was very disturbed when I heard about a woman found on the freeway near my home - on a stretch of road where I totalled my own car. I can't help but wonder if I'd feel any differently than the family of that woman if it were my mother, or my sister, and wonder just how devastating it would be to know one of them was dead on a major interstate for 9 hours, and taped for the entire city to see over and over and over.

**Lew** · March 30th, 2005, 01:27 AM

I agree that perhaps some review of policy may be in order. It's moot in this particular instance because it appears she died instantly, and finding her body would have made zero difference.

But, what if she had been alive for a few hours or so?

I don't believe in raining down on the police, but I see no harm in reviewing the situation and if someone can offer a worthwhile idea about how to handle such a thing in the future....go for it. Maybe a life will be saved some day.

Now, if the family files a lawsuit.....

**reason** · March 30th, 2005, 04:58 AM

I defy any of you to spot the body when: 1. you're not looking for one.

I guess if you're not looking for anything, you'll find nothing. I think you and the family can agree on this point.

[ March 29, 2005 01:09 PM: Message edited by: craig. ]

**reason** · March 30th, 2005, 12:02 PM

Oh and Reason, I work with CPD officers every day and I can tell you first hand that they never take the easy and comfortable way out of anything they do. The men and women of the Cincinnati Police Department are above all else professionals and they do their job. NO MATTER HOW DIFFICULT IT IS. So for you to sit there and say that the officer had this car towed and did not look for her b/c it was the "easy and comfortable" thing to do is completely off base and borderline libel.

As Lew pointed out, there's nothing wrong with reviewing policy. In this particular case, at least one - probably more - police vehicles drove directly by the dead woman, close enough that it was caught on tape.

I think your attitude that ALL police officers at ALL times are above reproach is a dangerous position to take. So is talking in absolutes, using the words "never" and "always," when talking about human behavior.

I think the mediation (arbitration?) procedures as set forth by the agreement with police union pretty much guarantee bad apples get back out on the street.

I'm not at all for dumping on the police, as I think they are an easy target for cheap shots in this town. I probably have more objectivity on this than you, and I'm all for questioning if this can and should have been done differently. And I do think "following policy" has the affect many times of preventing people from thinking outside the box and becomes an excuse for not doing things better.

I happen to disagree with the dead woman's family's statement to the effect that because of the extent of the damage to the vehicle the police should have known there was a dead body somewhere. That's nutty talk. Due to the extensive nature of the damage to the car and the fact that the damage did not occur at the point the car was found, perhaps a greater survey of the surrounding area was in order.

[ March 31, 2005 08:45 AM: Message edited by: craig. ]

**reason** · March 30th, 2005, 12:03 PM

I can tell you first hand that they never take the easy and comfortable way out of anything they do.

I may be wrong, but I think trav and gae have a story about dealings with neighborhood thugs that resulted in a letter to city council.

**Gunslinger** · March 30th, 2005, 04:21 PM

Quotes from the article in the Enquirer:

Monday, the chief looked at pictures of the inside of the car and saw nothing alarming.

"You have to take away what you know now, which is that the body's there," Streicher said. "If you approach a car and you see a tremendous amount of blood or hair or other evidence, sure, you would say to yourself that something was wrong. But that didn't happen here."

Citizens would be surprised at how many cars are left running and abandoned by drunken drivers, people wanted for crimes, people who've stolen the cars or drivers who've gone for help, the chief said.

"The officer did what his experience told him to do,'' Streicher said. "The tragedy of it is there's a reason the accident occurred. And that answer, we'll never know.''

But Streicher said Uhlenbrock had no reason to do think there was anyone or anything to look for. The department has no policy, he said, that requires officers to search around a disabled car. It would be almost impossible to write one, he said, that made sense - "How would you decide what the radius or perimeter would be?''

OK you two, where do you start with something like this? Do you set up a certain amount of time to search? Do you set up a certain distance to search? If so how far is it, 1/10th of a mile, 1/2 mile, 1 mile? How many officers do you use in the search?

If they set up a policy for this, it will take manpower away from the streets and possibly put the city and other police officers in a dangerous situation when a really serious problem arises.

The police did NOTHING WRONG. Like Jumper, I have been on patrol in a driving rain storm (actually a tropical storm) and seeing anything in the conditions that officer faced is extremely difficult. What do you want him to do, leave the vehicle in the middle of the highway while he looks for a body that may or may not be there.

Oh and Reason, I work with CPD officers every day and I can tell you first hand that they never take the easy and comfortable way out of anything they do. The men and women of the Cincinnati Police Department are above all else professionals and they do their job. NO MATTER HOW DIFFICULT IT IS. So for you to sit there and say that the officer had this car towed and did not look for her b/c it was the "easy and comfortable" thing to do is completely off base and borderline libel.

You wanna blame someone for this, blame the media. They are the ones who have blown this tragedy way out of proportion and have been showing that video so often.

Thread: What can we blame the police for today huh???

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions