ON GREATER LONG BEACH RADIO: COUPLE WHOSE CASTLE WAS BLASTED BY LBPD
By Dave Wielenga
LONG BEACH—Jonathan Cabrera and Elizabeth Bustamante, who were just back from church and preparing for bed just before midnight when Long Beach Police Department officers opened fire on them in their central-city home on May 14, will recount that night and reflect on the LBPD’s latest spasm of deadly force on the current episode of Greater Long Beach Radio with Dave Wielenga.
The weekly show—a co-production of GreaterLongBeach.com and Long Beach State’s online radio station KBEACH.org—airs live Thursday mornings at 10 o’clock, repeats at 7 p.m. and thereafter is available 24/7 on the website and can be downloaded to podcast.
Cabrera and Bustamante say Long Beach Police Department officers opened fire on their one-bedroom home without warning. The only clue that something was going seriously wrong was a sudden pounding at their front door. When Cabrera opened the door, he was shocked to be staring down the barrel of a gun pointed at his face by an LBPD officer, who was backed up by a wide deployment of other officers, who had arrived on the scene in a phalanx of squad cars.
Terrified, Cabrera said he slammed the door and ran toward the back rooms of the house shouting warning to Bustamante as the bullets began to fly.
Police say they were responding to a resident’s report of domestic violence, that Cabrera cursed angrily, resisted arrest, threatened to kill them and moved his hand as though reaching for a gun. Cabrera denies it all. He was charged with resisting arrest.
Cabrera is recovering from wounds he suffered during a spray of gunfire that he says “sounded like popcorn” and left more than two dozen bullet holes in their house, located near the intersection of 11 Street and Orange Avenue.
Bustamante was not hit, but says she has been gravely affected by the experience—especially because she has worked in the criminal-justice system for 10 years as a case manager for high-risk juveniles.
The couple have filed a lawsuit against the LBPD.
“I know the policies and procedures–I was taught by the best,” says Bustamante, who received much of her training through the LBPD. “Those youngsters (LBPD officers) had no idea what they were doing and how it would affect community relations. It was just a ridiculous show of excessive force. They broke my spirit.”
123 Comments
I find it increasingly frustrating that persons who are, or who have been, the subject of law enforcement actions and investigations can readily avail themselves of public fora on which to air their perceptions of the events in question and the grievances they feel they have as a result of those incidents. Meanwhile law enforcement agencies and personnel are constrained, often as a matter of policy, from responding publicly or offering a counter-balancing point of view while investigations, prosecution, or litigation are in progress.
Trying our public safety agencies and personnel in the court of public opinion may have become the local media’s new favorite pastime, but when greater efforts are not made to ensure that such presentations are more fair and balanced, or to provide equal access and exposure to divergent points of view, very little of a constructive or productive nature can really be accomplished.
I find it increasingly furstrating that police officers who are, or have been, the subject of an officer involved shooting can readily continue to shoot other people while relying upon the city and the police department to keep their names secret from the public. Furthermore, relatives of the person shot by police are constrained, as a matter of police policy, from being provided the details of the investigation in order to protect trigger-happy police officers from litigation by the people who pay their salaries. Family members don’t know if this is the first time this police officer has shot someone or whether it is the 50th time.
Trying the Long Beach Police department in the court of public opinion is frequently the only option available to those families wanting a more fair and balanced story rendered. Without the media, there would be no equal access or exposure to divergent points of view. There would only be the Police Department’s point of view.
John B. Greet is a recently retired Long Beach Police Department Officer. Need I say more.
We all have our frustrations, Mr. Ruehle. Some (like mine) are grounded in reason and a true desire to see justice served. While others (like yours) seem grounded in falsehood, fraud, unfounded rhetoric, and unneccesary offerings of insult.
I think there is a signifcant difference between presenting a story like this in as objective a manner as possible, and presenting only one side, in the most favorable light possible to that side, and failing to offer one’s audience access to information that could serve to balance out the presentation.
Perhaps Mr. Wielenga invited an LBPD spokeperson to participate and he or she declined, but if so, he did not choose to disclose that to his audience. Perhaps he invited someone else who could be considered an objective authority on matters of police officer training, patrol tactics, and evidence gathering procedures but he or she was not available. If so, he did not choose to disclose that to his audience either.
I think it would have been more than possible to render a fair and balanced story about this incident, even given that all of the facts are not yet known publicly. But this interview was most certainly *not* an example of how such a fair and balanced approach may have been accomplished.
Yes, Mr. Ruehle, I am a recently retired LBPD officer. As such, I find any and every instance of police officer misconduct to be a despicable abuse of authority and public trust. When misconduct is proven (and as inconvenient as it may be for you, it surely must be proven) no one decris or condemns it more loudly than I.
Cabrera and Bustamante experienced a horrific and potentially deeadly encounter with LBPD. They believe the officer acted improperly. They have no doubt filed a formal complaint, and if it is true that they have now filed a lawsuit, then that means they have already filed a formal claim against the city. Citizens have many avenues of access to a fair redress of their grievances against the police. And this is precisely as it should be.
I will iterate my initial concern and close: “I find it increasingly frustrating that persons who are, or who have been, the subject of law enforcement actions and investigations can readily avail themselves of public fora on which to air their perceptions of the events in question and the grievances they feel they have as a result of those incidents.”
“Meanwhile law enforcement agencies and personnel are constrained, often as a matter of policy, from responding publicly or offering a counter-balancing point of view while investigations, prosecution, or litigation are in progress.”
Mike: Does this remind you of how things actually work? Regarding the beating death of Kelly Thomas by Fullerton Police (Public’s outrage is now being picked up by NBC, ABC and other media).
http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2011/kelly-thomas-story-stirring-worldwide-outrage/
Friends For Fullerton’s Future
Uh Oh. Is the DA’s Investigation in the Hands of the Chief’s Good Buddy?
Posted by Travis Kiger in Orange County Government, The Crime Beat on July 28, 2011
We may have figured out why it took the District Attorney investigators three weeks to start talking to witnesses on the Kelly Thomas police beating case…
According to this unsigned note that just came in to our website, Chief Sellers is a close personal friend of DA investigator Stan Berry, who was immediately assigned to the high-profile Fullerton case:
I suggest you check into the connection between Investigator Berry and FPD Chief Sellers. Sellers hired Berry when he was the Chief at Seal Beach PD. Sellers and his wife Rita Fraser-Sellers, are close personal friends with Berry and his wife, Kristen Berry, the Dispatch Supervisor in Seal Beach. They socialize together, vacation together and entertain each other in their respective homes.
Of all the DA investigators, why choose Berry, other than he will help cover for his friend.
Presumably that case assignment was a decision made by the DA Tony Rackauckas. I have confirmed that Berry worked as an investigator under Chief Sellers for the Seal Beach Police Department.
As for as the familial socializing, entertaining and vacationing together…maybe the Chief can clear that one up for us.
If our informant is correct, this would be a huge conflict of interest in a very high-profile investigation.
“Friends For Fullerton’s Future
Uh Oh. Is the DA’s Investigation in the Hands of the Chief’s Good Buddy?
Posted by Travis Kiger in Orange County Government, The Crime Beat on July 28, 2011
We may have figured out why it took the District Attorney investigators three weeks to start talking to witnesses on the Kelly Thomas police beating case…
According to this unsigned note that just came in to our website, Chief Sellers is a close personal friend of DA investigator Stan Berry, who was immediately assigned to the high-profile Fullerton case:
I suggest you check into the connection between Investigator Berry and FPD Chief Sellers. Sellers hired Berry when he was the Chief at Seal Beach PD. Sellers and his wife Rita Fraser-Sellers, are close personal friends with Berry and his wife, Kristen Berry, the Dispatch Supervisor in Seal Beach. They socialize together, vacation together and entertain each other in their respective homes.
Of all the DA investigators, why choose Berry, other than he will help cover for his friend.
Presumably that case assignment was a decision made by the DA Tony Rackauckas. I have confirmed that Berry worked as an investigator under Chief Sellers for the Seal Beach Police Department.
As for as the familial socializing, entertaining and vacationing together…maybe the Chief can clear that one up for us.
If our informant is correct, this would be a huge conflict of interest in a very high-profile investigation.”
i for one am happy we have local media exercising its first amendment rights to tell both sides of a given story. i would seriously wonder about the motivation of someone who thought otherwise. as greet states above he is “increasingly frustrated” with people exercising their first amendment rights, thankfully greet no longer represents the city as he is clearly unfit for the job, his own ill considered comments above prove that out.
Mr. Greet hates it when people who disagree with him have a forum to tell their story. He would be happy if our corrupt Politicians and our crooked Police Department could do what they want unquestioned. He is also anti-Government but collects a Government check. Mr. Greet is the most frustrating kind of human being as his opinions make no sense. He continually cries bias about Wielenga’s coverage yet has no problem when the Police tell only their side of the story. Imagine if at the City’s expense a dual Press Conference were called and each side were able to tell their story. We pay for the police’s PR machine. No one is there for the victims of teh Police. Nope, the Police will continue to issue very controlled statements and the City will follow up with great big settlements but the Police won’t change a bit. Sorry Mr. Greet, but as long as the LBPD continues killing and wounding our innocent citizens, voices will be heard. And for the purposes of this post innocent means didn’t have a gun, didn’t commit a crime worthy of being shot in the arm and chest. We have to stop giving cops a pass because someone doesn’t comply with an unreasonable order. This is NOT a police state. Yet.
John Greet you could probably use your knowledge of the LBPD to act as an advocate for their victims instead of aiding and abetting them in their crimes and persistent violations of our civil rights.
It’d be good to hear all sides of this story. How old is Elizabeth?
Mr x: If the media, in this case Greater Long Beach Radio, had been interested in “exercising its first amendment rights to tell *both* sides of a given story,” it would have made greater efforts to actually do that during this program. But to the best of my knowledge it made *no* attempt to do so, let alone a greater attempt.
LBSkeptic: Your assertion that I hate it when people who disagree with me have a forum to tell their story is simply false. I encourage open debate and dialog on all topics. The only thing I discourage is dialog that is false, fraudulent, misleading or as blatantly one-sided as this particular Greater Long Beach Radio program was.
Your assertion is also falso that I “would be happy if our corrupt Politicians and our crooked Police Department could do what they want unquestioned.” I beleive that politicians who are proven corrupt should be tossed out of office yesterday. Crooked police officers should be fired and prosecuted for any crimes they commit.
Your assertion is also false that I am anti-government. I am very much in support of small, limited and fiscally responsible government and I argue against the other sort of government constantly.
I have immense respect for Mr. Wielenga and I feel confident that he knows that. I happen to believe he is one of the best independent journalists in our area. This why I was so amazed to listen to him personally hosting such a slanted and clearly biased radio program on this topic. To the best of my knowledge he made no effort whatsoever to offer any counter-balancing information whatsoever and I really think that he should have.
Your comments about police press conferences and how they should be conducted starts from the same false “us v. them” premise that Mr. Wielenga’s own radio program did (as evidenced by some of his own comments at the very beginning of the program.) PD press conferences have one single purpose, to inform the public of the facts surrounding an incident as they are known and understood at the time of the briefing. By contrast, media broadcasts can have any number of purposes. To inform, to opine, to sell products, and to influence public opinion are among these purposes. Knowing Mr. Wielenga to be an excellent and (usually) quite fair-minded journalist, I tuned into the program fully expecting to hear a truly fair and balanced presentation.
What I heard, instead, was something quite different.
Your comments concerning “killing and wounding our innocent citizens” and “police states” bely your apparent belief that police officers are omniscient and have all of the facts -at the time of the incident- that you and others possess (or assume) in retrospect. Neither you, nor I, nor Mr. Wielenga know all of the *facts* surrounding this incident or how it really transpired. Even Cabrera and Bustamante do not have all of the facts, and the facts they do have are based solely upon their personal perceptions at the time. But perception is not always reality, and that’s why there are lengthy and exhaustive investigations following *all* officer involved shootings, so as to discover and report on all of the facts that can be uncovered. Not to conceal them. Not to skew them. Not to influence them. But to collect the facts and to follow the investigation wherever those facts might lead.
When I advocate for fair and balanced media coverage of these incidents I am advocating for the facts, and the truth, and intellectually honest presentations of both. If we present and consider the facts as we know them, and present information from both sides of an issue in as balanced a manner as possible, we are far more likely to serve justice (for everyone involved) than if we do otherwise.
If the police committed misconduct in this incident, a proper investigation will uncover facts that will prove that. Facts that can be presented in internal affairs cases that can result in increased training, appropriate discipline, or termination. Facts that can be presented in court during civil or criminal proceedings.
Facts upon which, I think, we *should* be basing our opinions and our discussions.
During his hour-long program, Mr. Wielenga made no effort, whatsoever, to present or to consider *any* information other than that presented by Cabrera and Bustamante. I happen to think he should have.
You and some others here seem to disagree. So be it.
weak argument greet, as usual. the lbpd has a pio and tame local media that prints their “side” unquestioningly. the victims of this latest police overreach have nothing comparable. other than dave. youre not doing anything to change my assessment that you want to limit peoples first amendment rights.
Below is a relevant May 16th comment I copied from another comment board:
ADRIANA
TO ALL THE COMMENTS THIS IS MY MOM AND HER BOYFRIEND. I CAN TELL YOU ALL THAT THIS IS WRONG!! YEA EVERYONE GETS IN ARGUMENTS BUT IT DOSE’NT MEAN THAT YOU CAN SHOOT HIM.I AM SO MAD AT THE LONG BEACH POLICE! MY MOM IS TRAUMATIZED FROM ALL THIS. AND WE DONT KNOW HOW JONATHAN IS EVEN DOING BECAUSE THEY WONT LET US SEE HIM. HE’S A RAELLY GOOD GUY!! AND NO HE DOSE’NT HIT MY MOM!! JUST BECAUSE HE DID’NT WANT TO LET THEM IN THE HOUSE DOSE’NT MEAN ITS OK TO SHOT HIM THROW THE WINDOW. THESE COPS NEED MORE TRAINING!! AND ONE MORE THING HE DID’NT HAVE NO GUN OR ANY WEAPONS .THEIR ARE NO WEAPONS IN THE HOUSE.PLEASE PRAY FOR JONATHAN!!
Mr. x, I hope you will agree that there is a decided difference between tabloid media and objective and responsible journalism.
Unfortunately the radio program in question seemed to me (an admitted layperson and non-journalist) far more representative of the former and a noteable departure from the latter. If Mr. Wielenga is to be considered a serious, independent, and objective journalist (and except for this radio broadcast I have always felt that he is), then I think he had a journalistic responsibility as the host of the show, to attempt to make mitigating and counter-balancing information and opinions available to his audience during the same program.
Again, perhaps Mr. W. did make an effort to invite an LBPD spokesperson to participate on the program. If he did make that effort, but LBPD declined or ignored the request, then listeners could have reasonably drawn their own conclusions regarding LBPD’s declining to participate.
Given the information that *was* presented and the *manner* in which it was presented, coupled with the absence of any mitigating information or even a divergent point of view, there is just no way that anyone who is being completely honest can possibly suggest that this presentation was fair, balanced or objective.
Ms. Bustamante is portraying herself as a victim in this incident and perhaps if anyone involved *can* be considered a victim, it is she. But under the circumstances, to allow her to sit there during that interview and offer her opinions and conclusions about police tactics and patrol and evidence collection procedures as if she is some sort of objective authority on these topics is, in my view, simply irresponsible.
It seemed clear to me from some of the comments she made that she is laboring under several misperceptions on these topics and as a result the opinions and conclusions she offered simply had no basis in fact. Several of the erroneous procedural comments she offered could have been reasonably and accurately refuted and some of the general questions she, Cabrera, and Mr. W. each raised could have readily been answered had there been someone present in the room who was qualified to do so.
But there was no such person present, because as far as we know, no such person was even invited. If not, why not? If the true purpose of the broadcast was in furtherence of the principles of objective and responsible journalism, why not?
Because there was no divergent point of view offered, listeners were left with only Ms. Bustamante’s and Cabrera’s perceptions, misperceptions and mistakes of fact to consider. This is not objective. This is not balanced. And I think it could and should have been.
It seems clear to me, based upon the manner in which the information was presented, that the intent of this broadcast was not merely to inform the audience but to influence their opinions, and in only one very obvious and incredibly slanted direction. This is unfortunate.
I think Mr. W. had an excellent opportunity to develop the *entire* story and to offer a more complete and balanced package of information and opinion to his audience. Instead, all he really accomplished was to present no less a biased view of the incident in one direction than many here claim that the city and the PD does on the other.
If the complaint against the PD is that their public information is unfairly slanted, then why does the same complaint not also apply here? Slant is slant, whatever the angle or direction.
This radio program was severely slanted, when it could have been balanced. It was self-evidently subjective, when it could have been far more objective. It was, in essence, an anti-LBPD hit-piece, when it could have been something much more, informative, constructive and productive.
What a pity.
show me where the police dept allows the other side to speak at THEIR press conferences and you MIGHT have a point. since you cant, you dont.
Hello, Dave Wielenga here. Jonathan Cabrera and Elizabeth Bustamante came to the Greater Long Beach Radio studio at Long Beach State on Thursday morning at my invitation—and without any attorney present; in fact, I have never communicated with their attorney—and with absolutely no idea what I was going to ask them. All they knew is that I wanted to talk about the May 14 incident, in which a contingent of Long Beach Police Department officers shot into their home, wounding Mr. Cabrera. They answered every question, referring to notes only one time—when giving the website address and telephone number of an organization called http://www.answerla.org.
I was not certain, myself, which way I would take the interview—only that I wanted the unscripted point of view of two people who had gone through this trauma. After interviewing people professionally for nearly 40 years—hell, after having dealt with human beings in my daily life for 55—I am not so naive as to think that ANYBODY can EVER give an unbiased account of ANYTHING … and of course that includes me. I do not believe in “objectivity.” Everything is subjective.
I never intended this single hour of Internet radio to be the ultimate determinate of truth and justice. I leave that arrogance for the courts—which are basically charged with doing the best they can in the face of our tangle of biases. Truth would have been unattainable no matter how many people and perspectives I packed into the studio.
As an interviewer, I try to ask questions that alternately make people comfortable enough to tell their story and uncomfortable enough so that they will try to avoid some of the extremes of self-service. I try to coax and and challenge. Although I try to provide a forum for people who don’t have access to media or experience with it, I don’t think that this “underdog” status makes their stories more accurate. In fact, the “underdogs” I am most trying to serve is the public, which is often deprived of these perspectives—that includes me…I am a curious guy.
Anyway, as the interview went on I decided to abandon any theorizing and simply devote the hour to the experience that Bustamante and Cabrera had on May 14—that is, the way they see it. I thought they were quite open. I thought I challenged them frequently. I thought I was quite open with my perspective. And I think that, having laid out that this was an hour of people telling the truth as they see it, that listeners were equipped to consider for themselves what to believe, what to discard, where somebody had a point they had never thought of, where somebody was spewing the same old crap. I think it was a valuable hour.
I think the varying reactions of listeners show that they are just as absorbed by their own biases—and that’s valuable, too.
This certainly is not the last interview I will do or the last story I will write on this incident. However, I imagine it will be the only one in which the direct participants in the incident will appear alone, without legal counsel, without a public relations assistant, without notes—and without any idea what I may ask.
I will contact the Long Beach Police Department with that offer—that the officer who allegedly knocked on Cabrera’s door and allegedly pointed a gun in his face when he opened that door—come and spend an unscripted hour with me and a live microphone in the studios of Greater Long Beach Radio before the next court date on Aug. 19.
Thanks, Dave Wielenga
“I will contact the Long Beach Police Department with that offer—that the officer who allegedly knocked on Cabrera’s door and allegedly pointed a gun in his face when he opened that door—come and spend an unscripted hour with me and a live microphone in the studios of Greater Long Beach Radio before the next court date on Aug. 19.”
game, set, match except for more greet bloviating about how the police are the victims here.
In early June, a man was nearly stabbed to death (134+ stiches) outside Yankee Doodle’s bar in Belmont Shore. The Long Beach Police chose NOT to report this incident, claiming “this incident did not rise to the level of a news release,” because the stabbing victim incurred “non-life threatening wounds” (??????). The ONLY reason it WAS eventually reported is because a neighbor told me his friend was in the hospital from the stabbing. If the police had their way, this and all other crime (especially the crimes the police commit) would go unreported.
The public frequenly can NOT rely on the police to provide accurate information to the press, especially if police misconduct could be misconstrued. Ask any court reporter. They will tell you the police are the biggest liars of all. That’s why it’s fortunate we have medias such as the GLB to call into question some of the frequent cases of misconduct.
I keep going back to the mother of 4 young children who was mowed down in a crosswalk by a police cruiser. The police initially reported the woman “jumped in front of the cruiser,” implying the woman committed suicide. Not until court proceedings two years later was it revealed the officer drove negligently and the police LIED to protect their own. The city quickly settled for $millions of taxpayers money. Meanwhile, that same police officer still has his job as a Long Beach cop and is still probably murdering people under color of authority. There is no way to know for sure because our city leaders (councilmembers) refuse to release the names of officers involved.
Wow. I cannot believe what I just read!
I am quite certain that I read John Greet say that people who have allegedly been victimized by the police do not have the right to talk to the press–he literally said these people should be gagged. Horrifying, what has our society become when the police believe they can do anything to civilians without any kind of accountability?
I mean jeez…if there really had been a domestic violence situation going down, I am not sure that the police opening fire was the best way to handle it. Couldn’t they have knocked on the door and asked the lady if she needed help? I don’t get this.
Mr. W: Thank you very much for taking the time to address some of the concerns I have raised directly. Thank you also for nit taking person offense, because I certainly did not intend to offer any personal insult (unlike many others who comment here.)
I had a few responses to offer but I will only be accused of bloviating if I do so.
If you like, please call me at the number you have on file for me and I would be honored to discuss this with you further.
Thanks!
Ms. LB you most assuredly did not read that I said that or anything like that. Misrepresenting the things people say serves no constructive purpose.
Mr. Ruehle, the PD does not issue press releases on every stabbing that occurs in Long Beach. If you can demonstrate that it does so, I stand ready and willing to acknowledge your correction.
You, yourself, are woefully ignorant as to the amounts and the types of crimes that occur every day throughout the entirety of Long Beach. If it doesn’t involve your precious Belmont Shore (where you no longer even reside, I hear) or if it doesn’t afford you yet another opportuntity to impugn and denegrate LBPD, you can seldom be bothered to notice.
I find it interesting that you are so quick to allege that others are liars, when you make such a habit of posting false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading information yourself. Perhaps you should consider moving out of that glass house of yours before you start casting so many stones.
Citizen Journalist Quotes of the Day – The Challenge of
Filling Space
“Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge.” — Erwin Knoll
“Journalism is the ability to meet the challenge of filling space.” — Rebecca West
“If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: “President Can’t Swim.” — Lyndon B. Johnson
“You can crush a man with journalism.” — William Randolph Hearst
“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” — Malcolm X
“I fear three newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets.” — Napoleon
“The secret of successful journalism is to make your readers so angry they will write half your paper for you.” — C.E.M. Joad
(Source: quotegarden.com)
And now another Greet Koan, (Koans are a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment):
“Perhaps you should consider moving out of that glass house of yours before you start casting so many stones.”
“目糞が鼻糞を笑う “Eye wax laughing at the snot (Pot calling kettle black.)
Greet:If you are not going to stay on topic (or just complain about the very behavior you are guilty of) then don’t interfere with our right to free speech.
And still other Greet Koans:
“I do not presume to dismiss, diminish, or denigrate your efforts. Why do you seek to do so with mine?”
“@ janis: You seem to be an intelligent person, so I have to presume that you are intentionally misunderstanding some of the things I have said and for no other reason than to then seek to denigrate me for your own misperceptions.”
“Perhaps, rather than trying to construct various flawed analyses of how you believe I think or why, or wasting time fixating upon how many words I choose to use, you should simply try to ask yourself why some others here seem unable to offer information without slanting or falsifying it.”
“And then perhaps you should ask yourself why you seem to consistently align yourself with these types of people, rather than with the many others who manage to engage with one another here in a more constructive manner.”
@ janis: Nothing I write here or anywhere else could possibly interfere with your right to free speech. Were that the case, then the converse would also be true and you would be no less guilty than I of such an offense. A rather inconvenient truth for you, is it not?
My comments are in direct response to either the article at hand or comments offered by others and, so, always directly on topic. Thus, if you dislike the topics, perhaps you should save yourself your apparent annoyance and stop reading them.
Greet Comment:
“I find it increasingly frustrating that persons …… can readily avail themselves of public fora on which to air their perceptions of the events in question and the grievances they feel they have as a result of those incidents.”
Followed by Greet comment to Janis:
“If you dislike the topics, perhaps you should save yourself your apparent annoyance and stop reading them.”
If Greet is “increasingly frustrated” by reading topics like this, then why doesn’t he follow his own advice and “stop reading them.” What a hypocrite.
No Greet. Your cyber-bullying and stalking is interfering with my right to free speech. Your “contempt of cop” badgering (even when you are factually wrong) and and attacks on other posters is interfering with their right to free speech. Quit with the lectures on other peoples behavior and clean up your own act.
Mr. Greet,
I quote you when I write “I find it increasingly frustrating that persons who are, or who have been, the subject of law enforcement actions and investigations can readily avail themselves of public fora on which to air their perceptions of the events in question and the grievances they feel they have as a result of those incidents.” Forgive me if my small mind interpreted that as saying alleged victims should not go to the press.
Sincerely,
LBCG
PS if we could all just hear that 911 call that mustered the police it would answer so many questions. Strangely the PD appears not to want to release that? Perhaps it does not exhonerate them? I know I am speculating….merely speculating.
PPS Dwight: awesome quotes, will you marry me? :–)
Right about now, NWA court is in full effect
Judge Dre presidin’
In the case of NWA versus the police department
The prosecution attorneys are M.C. Ren, Ice Cube, and Eazy
Mothafuckin’ E
Order, order order
Ice Cube, take the mothafuckin’ stand
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothin’ but
the truth, so help yo’ black ass?
“You’re goddamned right!”
why don’t you tell everybody what the fuck you gotta say…
Fuck the police commin’ straight from the underground
A young nigger got it bad ’cause I’m brown
And not the other color
Some police think
They have the authority to kill a minority
Fuck that shit ’cause I ain’t the one
For a punk motherfucker with a badge and a gun
To be beaten on and thrown in jail
We can go toe to toe in the middle of a cell
Fuckin’ with me ’cause I’m a teenager
With a little bit of gold and a pager
Searchin’ my car, lookin’ for the product
Thinkin’ every nigger is sellin’ narcotics
You’d rather see me in the pen
Than me and Lorenzo rollin’ in a Benz-o
Beat up police, out of shape
And when I’m finished, Bring the yellow tape
To tape off the scene of the slaughter
Still gettin’ Swoll’ off bread and water
I don’t know if they fags or what
Search a nigger down and grabbin’ his nuts
And on the other hand
Without a gun, they can’t get none
But don’t let it be a black and a white one
‘Cause they’ll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showin’ out for the white cop
Ice Cube will Swarm
On any motherfucker in a blue uniform
Just ’cause I’m from the CPT
Punk police are afraid of me, huh
A young nigger on the warpath
And when I finish, it’s gonna be a bloodbath
Of cops dyin’ in L.A.
Yo, Dre, I got something to say …
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
SCENE I :
Pull your goddamn ass over right now
Aw, shit, and what the fuck you pullin’ me over for?
‘Cause I feel like it, just sit your ass on the curb and shut the
fuck up!
Man, fuck this shit
All right smartass, I’m takin’ your black ass to jail
M.C. Ren, will you please give your testimony to the jury about
this fucked up incident?
Fuck the police and Ren said it with authority
Because the niggers on the street is a majority
A gang – that’s wit whoever i’m steppin’
And a motherfuckin’ weapon is kept in
A stand-by for the so called law
Wishin’ Ren was a nigger that they never saw
Lights all flashin’ behind me
But they’re scared of a nigger so they mace to blind me
But that shit don’t work, I just laugh
Because it gives ‘em a hint not to step in my path
To police, I’m sayin’, “Fuck you punk!”
Readin’ my rights and shit – it’s all junk
Pullin’ out a silly club so you stand
With a fake-assed badge and a gun in your hand
But take off the gun so you can see what’s up
And we’ll go at it, punk, and I’m a’ fuck you up
Make you think I’m a’ kick your ass
But drop your gat and Ren’s gonna blast
I’m sneaky as fuck when it comes to crime
But I’m a’ smoke ‘em now and not next time
Smoke any motherfucker that sweats me
And any asshole that threatens me
I’m a sniper with a hell of a scope
Takin’ out a cop or two that can’t cope with me
The motherfuckin’ villain that’s mad
With potential to get bad as fuck
So I’m a’ turn it around
Put in my clip, yo
And this is the sound
Yeah, Somethin’ like that
But it all depends on the size of the gat
Takin’ out a police would make my day
But a nigger like Ren don’t give a fuck to say…
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
SCENE II :
Yo, Man, whatcha need?
Police, open now (oh shit), we have a warrent for Eazy E’s arrest
Oh shit
Get down and put your hands up where I can see ‘em!
Man, what did I do?
Just shut the fuck up and get yo’ motherfuckin’ ass on the floor
But I did’nt do shit
Man, just shut the fuck up
Eazy E, why don’t you step up to the stand and tell the jury how
you feel about this bullshit?
I’m tired of the motherfuckin’ jackin’
sweatin’ my gang while I’m chillin’ in the shack an’
Shinin’ the light in my face and for what?
Maybe it’s because I kick so much butt
I kick ass, or maybe it’s ’cause I blast
Oh a stupid-assed nigger when I’m playing with the trigger
Of an Uzi or an AK
‘Cause the police always got somethin’ stupid to say
They put up my picture with silence
‘Cause my identity by itself causes violence
The E with the criminal behavior
Yeah, I’m a gangster, but still I got flavor
Without a gun and a badge, what do you got?
A sucker in uniform waitin’ to get shot
By me or another nigger
And with a gat, it don’t matter if he’s smaller or bigger
(Size don’t mean shit, he’s from the old school, fool)
And as you all know, E’s here to rule
Whenever I’m rollin’, keep lookin’ in the mirror
And ears on cue, yo, so I can hear a
Dumb motherfucker with a gun
and if I’m rollin’ off the eight, he’ll be the one
That I take out and then get away
While I’m driving off laughin’, this is what I’ll say …
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
The verdict :
The jury has found you guilty of being a red-neck, white-bread,
Chicken-shit motherfucker
“That’s a lie! that’s a goddamn lie!”
Get him out of here!
“I want justice!”
Get him the fuck out of my face
“I want justice!”
Out right now!
“Fuck you, you black motherfuckerrrrrrrrrrr!”
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
Fuck the Police
LOL…see? If I ignore all of this silliness, I am allowing it to stand unanswered. If I answer and defend myself, I am bloviating. such is the lose-lose corner some so love to paint those with opposing points of view into.
Ah well, better a bloviator I suppose, than one who allows such intellectually dishonest nonsense to go unanswered.
Mr. Ruehle: You take the comments out of context almost as well as all of the other ways in which you post false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading information.
janis: If you are unhappy with my comments, you are free to choose to not read or comment upon them. If my own free participation is in any way infringing upon yours, then i would suggest you are ceding far too much of your own personal power to another. You might consider not doing so. You’ll probably be a lot happier in the long run.
Ms. LB: While referring to incomplete quotes and out of context comments is a fairly common and deceitful tactic for people like Mr. Ruehle. I know you to be far more discerning and intellectually honest than he. Consider the entirety of what I said, and perhaps the intended meaning will become more clear to you. If not, please feel free to simply ask me what I meant…and I will be happy to try to clarify. Approach me with respect, and I think you know I will return it in kind. Your mind is by no means small nor would I ever presume to imply such a despicable thing. There may be any number of legitimate reasons for not releasing the 911 recording, or a transcript, at this point. Speculation is understandable, but not particularly productive.
Mr. Greet,
You may not be aware of this but I wrote my thesis for my degree on structural linguistics and symbolgy. You have no idea the depth of my knowledge where it comes to intellectual honesty and the way people play with lInguistics.
I have to say I often do not understand your viewpoint because it really doesn’t ultimately jI’ve with my persOnal view of patriotism and what it means to serve our country and community.
I have never said anything inthe least bit in the way if a personal attack on you. I am far to well versed in debate and philosophy for that. It also is counter to my personal belief that all human beings deserve equal respect.
As the General Manager (and Media Adviser) of the Radio Station where this interview occurred, I’d like to state that we attempt at all times to teach true Journalism and can boast some of the best and/or most successful Journalist in Long Beach as Alum. Dave is correct when he states that it is unlikely ANYBODY can EVER give an unbiased account of ANYTHING. That said, we strive to tell both sides of the story where possible. You can find in our archives where we have given Anitra Dempsey of the Citizen Police Complaint Commission and one of her organizations former investigators Tomas Gonzalez more than plenty of time to tell two very different sides of the story. We no longer waste our time attempting to get the city to have a dialogue about anything, a fact which is unfortunate. If we offered to act as a tool and allow them to simply say what they wanted, they’d surely take advantage. However that will never happen either. There are already several Media outlets in Long Beach who perform THAT service for them. If Mr. Greet or any other reader would like, I’m happy to show proof that the LBPD has been extended an open invitation to our airwaves via PIO Rico Fernandez. And no doubt, one day we will have students from our Criminal Justice Department producing a program that has a different spin than Dave Wielenga who was recommended to me by many varied viewpoints throughout Long Beach as one of the best investigative Journalist in town. This is the Journalism I hope we send our students into the world with, not “journalist” who merely repost press releases from various sources. I commend Dave on his ability to ask this couple some tough questions. I would not have been able to be so unbiased.
Now the big “bloviator” Greet knows what will make me happier?
“janis: If you are unhappy with my comments, you are free to choose to not read or comment upon them. If my own free participation is in any way infringing upon yours, then i would suggest you are ceding far too much of your own personal power to another. You might consider not doing so. You’ll probably be a lot happier in the long run.”
LOL at the GREAT JOHN GREET who used to write a column pompously called “On Liberty” in LBPost. You know nothing of free speech or the “arena of ideas” you so want to belong to.
typos via smartphone, I apologize!
Ms. LB: I think it is great that you have studied structural linguistics and symbology. Would you feel these studies give you any additional insight into the predominantly disingenuous, confrontational and insulting manner in which some choose to communicate on sites like these? Reasonable people can always disagree on one concept or another, but so long as they remain courteous and respectful toward one another, much of a constructive nature can still be accomplished. Or so I believe.
Mr. Trapper: Thanks very much for offering a direct response to some of the concerns I have raised. You said that you strive to tell both sides of the story where possible. Do you believe that this particular radio program told both sides of this story? If so, could you offer a couple of quotes from the program that illustrate this? Your open invitation to LBPD notwithstanding, did you extend an invitation to Sgt. Fernandez or anyone else with the PD to participate in this specific program? Did you inform them of the planned interview and ask them for an official comment or statment that might have been read to the audience in lieu of their direct participation? Absent LBPD’s direct participation, did you consider inviting anyone else to participate that you might have considered an authority in police tactics and patrol and evidence collection procedures? A professor from your own University’s Criminal Justice department perhaps? Surely Dr. Fradella might have suggested such a person. If you did not consider inviting such a person, was there any particular reason? Do you disagree that doing so might have been one way to demonstrate your commitment to strive to tell both sides of this story? I think it is very admirable that you provide your Criminal Justice students an opportunity to participate in your stations programming, but why need their be any “spin” in your stations presentations either way? Why not, as you say, do your best to present both sides of the story in every program you produce *about* the story. Why not provide your listeners with equal measures of information from both sides in *each* program so that they might be better equipped to critically consider the event or the issue after *each* program, rather than relying on the possibility that they might hear the other viewpoint in a program produced at some unidentified date in the future? Finally, you said that you commend Dave on his ability to ask this couple some tough questions. Other than, perhaps, the questions posed to Cabrera regarding his past criminal activities, could you provide a coupleof examples of questions you feel Dave asked this couple that you considered to be “tough?” Thanks!
janis: Please review my comment you have referenced and consider that I was very careful to use the terms “suggest” and “might” and “probably” and that neither of those terms either denote or connote any knowledge on my part of what “will” make you happier. You are certainly entitled to your opinions about my former column, but I assure you there was nothing pompous about either the title of the column or the contents of the articles it contained.
Greet your high opinion of yourself surpasses your intellectual capabilities. What follows is the difference between the Dictionary’s definition and Greet’s (wrong again). You are a mirror of the very things you complain about. Your nasty comments about people’s behavior is the only thing you can use to deflect your own ignorance and is intended to squelch their free speech.
Dictionary
suggest: Cause one to think that (something) exists or is the case.
might: Used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past <the president might do
Probably:: Insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt
Greet's BS: "Please review my comment you have referenced and consider that I was very careful to use the terms “suggest” and “might” and “probably” and that neither of those terms either denote or connote any knowledge on my part of what “will” make you happier."
What Greet actually said "“janis: If you are unhappy with my comments, you are free to choose to not read or comment upon them. If my own free participation is in any way infringing upon yours, then i would suggest you are ceding far too much of your own personal power to another. You might consider not doing so. You’ll probably be a lot happier in the long run.”
Yes.it does.
Is there not one person other than JBG to represent the LBPD position here. It’s not good to be represented so, and only builds opposition.
janis: I am pleased that you have access to a dictionary but I would encourage you to avoid being so selective about the entries you find therein. Here are some definitions you conveniently overlooked:
Suggest: Put forward for consideration
Might: In reported speech, expressing possibility
Probably: Denoting a probability
Probability: A strong likelihood or chance of something
Now as I said, janis, none of the terms I used, in the manner in which I intended them to be understood, either denotes or connotes any knowledge on my part of what “will” make you happier. I can tell you what would certainly make *me* happier, if you and some others here would set aside your insulting and confrontational demeanors and try to discuss the issues in a more mature and intellectually honest manner.
You persist in mischaracterizing some of the things I say for the transparent purpose of attacking me on a personal level. When people resort to personal attacks, it often suggests that they lack confidence in the strength of their own position. This may not apply in your case, but I think it certainly is a possibility.
rino2: It is not, nor has it ever been, my intent to “represent the LBPD position here.” I speak only for myself so if, as you say, my comments build opposition, then it should be against me alone. I would suggest, however, that the manner in which this particular radio program was presented might also serve to build a different form of opposition, against programing that is severely and inarguably slanted toward any one point of view.
I won’t bullshit too much. Being the most diverse city is not an asset. Most people know that the prison population is divided by race. So, the police have got to dovetail this reality also. Now, you combine this with the release of inmates, a 13% unemployment rate and budget cuts for gov’t employees, and the sitation is not the fairy land that the lame stream media portrays.
Previous statement should read: Being the most diverse city is not an asset when the economy is bad, like now.
Dear John,
You know, I have had my verbal spats with Mr. Ruehle in the past, but I am going to have to come to his defense this time. I just reread these comments and did not see the insult he gave you? He did point out that you may not be an objective observer since you did just finish a career with LBPD. Regardless of your opinion most of us are likely to agree with Mr. Ruehle on this point.
And then I reread Janis’s comments and to my surprise: she not only did not insult you, but she actually quoted you with your own words–and the best part is that YOU found those very words an insult?!
Hilarious.
Sincerely, LBCG
Dear Ms. LB: I think it is great that you are willing to come to Mr. Ruehle’s defense. I think everybody should have somebody to try to defend them, even when many of their comments are entirely indefensible. I never said, here, that Mr. Ruehle insulted *me.* What I said was that his frustrations seem grounded in falsehood, fraud, unfounded rhetoric, and unneccesary offerings of insult. Perhaps I am mistaken, but given the totality of his comments on this matter and many others involving LBPD, both here and elsewhere, that is how they seem to me. I have never claimed to be an objective observer. I am no more objective than he is, but unlike him, despite my lack of objectivity, I am willing to consider *all* of the information available in a more critical and fair-minded manner, while he does not appear either able or willing to do so.
I am not to any degree put off that some here do not share my opinion. I do not require that they do so, only that they try to consider it in a critical and fair-minded manner, just as they would ask of me in considering their own opinions. It appears to me, however, that some here (Mr. Ruehle chief among them) do not only disagree with my opinion, but with the very fact that I even dare to voice it. Yes, very fair and open-minded of them indeed!
Here are but a few of the examples of janis’ insults as posted in this comment thread alone. Please consider them with an open and fair mind and I think you might agree that they were very obviously intended as insults:
Janis repeatedly refers to comments I make as a “koan,” by which she seems to be suggesting that she feels they represent a paradox that seeks to encourage readers to abondon reason. I believe she intends each of these “koan” references as insults.
“Greet:If you are not going to stay on topic (or just complain about the very behavior you are guilty of) then don’t interfere with our right to free speech.”
(Here janis wrongly accuss me of straying off topic, of being hypocritical, and of seeking to interfere with the free speech rights of others. This was a clear offering of insult, three times over.)
“No Greet. Your cyber-bullying and stalking is interfering with my right to free speech. Your “contempt of cop” badgering (even when you are factually wrong) and and attacks on other posters is interfering with their right to free speech.”
(Here janis accuses me of contempt, cyber-bullying, stalking and badgering when all I have done is respond directly to comments that have been, in turn, directed at me. janis engages in this many times in this thread yet when she does it it is somehow acceptable but when I do it is stalking, bullying, and badgering. Nice.)
“Quit with the lectures on other peoples behavior and clean up your own act.”
(This directive despite the fact that pretty much all she has done in this thread is to lecture me about my behavior. Talk about hypocrisy!)
“Now the big “bloviator” Greet knows what will make me happier?”
(It is not my intent to be either pompous or boastful, so referring to me as a bloviator is reasonably interpreted as an insult. Alleging that I think I know what will make her happier is a patently false assertion and so, de facto, insulting.)
“Greet your high opinion of yourself surpasses your intellectual capabilities.”
(De facto insulting)
“Greet’s BS”
(De facto insulting)
Can you really read that list of janis’ comments with a fair and open mind and not see that I might find them insulting, Ms. LB? Really?
Greet claims he is “willing to consider *all* of the information available in a more critical and fair-minded manner, while he (Mike Ruehle) does not appear either able or willing to do so.”
Why then, if Greet wishes to consider ALL of the information as he claims, is he “increasingly frustrated” (his words) that people are provided the opportunity to tell their side of the story through the media and provide information that would be unknown to all of us if the media did not allow them to do so?
Greet’s first comment on this discussion makes it appear as if he does NOT want ALL of the information to be made public for fear people would indeed be able to make “more critical and fair-minded” observations. These types of circular arguments Greet frequently relies upon to shift the discussion away from the topic of police misconduct are obvious. OOPS. I guess now is the time for me to apologize for somehow insulting Greet because my opinion happens to differ from his.
What are the names of the Long Beach Police officers who discharged their guns into the home of Jonathan Cabrera and Elizabeth Bustamante?
Shouldn’t the public know their names and how many times they have previously discharged their guns in public? How else can we trust the police are controlling rogue cops?
Were these officers who fired into the home of Jonathan Cabrera and Elizabeth Bustamante the same officers who murdered Douglas Zerby under the color of authority for having a hose nozzle?
I think koan is an awesome word, by the way. I’d never seen it used this way before!
Admittedly Mr Greet, I did not ask Rico Fernandez regarding this particular program. It is Dave Ws show. I have it on good authority that our Criminal Justice Department will not likely participate in discussions like this I am assuming because the two institutions are somewhat dependent on each other for survival. I will extend an invitation to the Police Department again on Monday specifically on the Bustamante case. However, we are a radio station and we have open ended discussion when possible NOT one sided public statements. We have much more room than the printed page. Perhaps some of your more revealing questions to the Bustamantes and Cabreras could be sent to Dave directly and he can open the phone lines next time as I’m sure he’ll be keeping up on the story. Here is an example of talk radio doing its job from a recent John and Ken show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDGGV7kjH-c&feature=related
Great information that may not have ever gotten out. That’s the advantage of allowing people time to go beyond talking points. I understand the City’s need for silence, but they still end up paying out tons of money and the problem gets worse. Isn’t it time for a different way of doing things? Imagine if the Police did talk openly and honestly, then maybe we could get to the heart of the problem which would benefit us all.
The cartoon-like graphic of the besieged castle heading this article is pictorial of not just the issue at hand, but also the ensuing debate.
Mr. Greet, it must seem like that’s your castle under attack…
Mr. Ruehle: As I said before, you take the comments out of context almost as well as all of the other ways in which you post false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading information. Please consider the totality of my comments here, and perceive that my frustration springs -as I said- from the fact that persons who are, or who have been, the subject of law enforcement actions and investigations can readily avail themselves of public fora on which to air their perceptions of the events in question and the grievances they feel they have as a result of those incidents. Meanwhile law enforcement agencies and personnel are constrained, often as a matter of policy, from responding publicly or offering a counter-balancing point of view while investigations, prosecution, or litigation are in progress.
My frustration springs from the constraint upon law enforcement, however necessary it may sometimes prove, and not from the liberties of discussion and disclosure others enjoy.
Again you persist in alleging that LBPD committed murder in Zerby. Again you persist in uttering your potentially libelous slurs. No proof, no foundation, no facts. Only your self-annointed omniscience and 20/20 hindsight to inform your judgment. So sad.
Mr. Trapper: You state: “However, we are a radio station and we have open ended discussion when possible NOT one sided public statements.” Please explain how this particular radio program was *not* the sort of “one sided public statement” you claim your radio station avoids. While I appreciate your stated intention to continue this dialog with others who might offer some balance and perspective, will you at least acknowledge that this may prove very difficult now, given the severely slanted and damning presenatation that has already taken place? Far more difficult than it would likely have been otherwise, had even the most cursory attempt been made in that direction to begin with? Thanks for the KFI radio link. The recording excerpts 7min 32 secs of their traditional 4-hour program. Do you know how much of the entire program was devoted to that topic? Do you know whether they made an effort to get someone on the air from Fullerton PD during that program? I am sure you are aware that police and other government officials are often constrained from commenting with much specificity in the midst of on-going investigations. I agree that this is not ideal but it is also sometimes very necessary. I sometimes truly wish that it were not and this is the source of the frustration I voiced in my initial comment here.
DWR: All castles and, indeed, all people, fall in due time. It is the very nature of both to do so eventually.
Let’s ask the greet if he knows if it’s true that many retired cops go to work for the D.A.’s office as investigators? Foxes…henhouses…?
greet…SHADDUP!
Mr. wrong: Yes, I am aware that some retired cops do so. I do not know whether it is fair to say that “many” do. Should former police officers be deprived of their right to apply for such jobs simply because they happen to have been cops? Are there any other rights you would like to deprive people of based solely upon their former chosen profession? During their careers some police officers are able to develop strong investigative skills that are a perfect fit for the position of District Attorney Investigator. Should the people, as represented by the DA, refuse to consider an entire class of applicants just because you and some others seem to feel (quite erroneously) that their employment would automatically represent some sort of conflict of interest? Don’t the various District Attorneys in our area run their respective offices and isn’t they elected officials that the people, as represented by the voters, can remove if they suspect malfeasance on the part of such a person? Finally, do truly believe it is possible for a person to answer a question he or she has been asked while concurrently following your direction to be quiet?
Lao Tzu says, ”No one can insult me because I don’t want respect.” This is what receiving respect is. “You say you wanted respect, but you are getting insults. A person who wants respect has no respect for himself, yet he wants respect from others. He who has no respect for himself wants others to cover it, to hide his lack of respect. This desire for respect is the sign that within, you feel disrespect for yourself. You have the feeling that you are nothing. Others should make you into something, should put you on a throne, should raise banners for you, should hoist flags in your name – others should do something! You are a beggar. You have already insulted yourself when you wanted respect. And this insult goes on deepening.”
janis: You are nothing if not consistent in your offerings of personal insult.
Please note that I do not believe I have ever once said that I felt insulted. Not by you, nor Mr. Ruehle, nor Mr x, nor any other person here who follows your pattern of belittling and scoffing and denigration of others who happen to dare to disagree with you.
I do not choose to cede to you that much power over my feelings.
All I have said is that you have *offered* insult, and that you have *intended* insult and that I have somehow found your comments to be insulting, though not to me, personally. I never once said that I accepted your offerings of insult nor felt the insult you seem to so desperately want and need me to feel.
Perhaps, at the end of the day, that’s what annoys and frustrates you most of all…that your habitual offerings of insult are not having the effect you desire. Unlike some others you have torn into here, I have not tucked-tail and run away, yipping in wounded outrage from your self-annointed and entirely unwarranted personal critiques.
I learned a very long time ago that most types of respect should be earned, not demanded. But I also learned that virtually everyone is due even a most basic level of personal and individual respect and that we should all be willing to approach one another with that in mind whenever we have disagreements.
You and some others here never seem to have learned that lesson. To you, a disagreement is seen as some sort of personal affront, requiring personal attacks and insults in return. This is unfortunate. Because when I disagree with you it is not to any degree intended to be personal. Yet your responses to my disagreements are almost always framed in the terms of personal insult.
You might consider asking yourself why that is, and how much you lose by treating others so very shabbily.
Be well.
Greet Comment to me:
“You take the comments out of context almost as well as all of the other ways in which you post false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading information. Please consider the totality of my comments here.”
“CONSIDER THE TOTALITY.” Greet’s got to be kidding me. My meager brain can in no way understand Greet’s verbose word parsing, circular arguments, self contradictions mixed with his Civics 101 lessons.
Greet’s intent is to defray the discussion from the topic of POLICE MISCONDUCT. He will do so no matter how much of a hypocrite he is made to look.
****SHINY BRAND NEW****
The GLB John Greet Improbable History WAYBACK MACHINE (with deep apologizes to both Mister Peabody and Dog’s intelligence)
John B. Greet July 18, 2011
Nothing like hiding behind one’s anonymity and insulting others.
Greet August 1 2011 “All I have said is that you have *offered* insult, and that you have *intended* insult and that I have somehow found your comments to be insulting, though not to me, personally. I never once said that I accepted your offerings of insult nor felt the insult you seem to so desperately want and need me to feel.”
Citizen Journalist Quotes of the Day – Respect Yourself
“We cannot expect people to have respect for law and order until we teach respect to those we have entrusted to enforce those laws.” — Hunter S. Thompson
“Respect is a two-way street, if you want to get it, you’ve got to give it.” — R. G. Risch
“It’s very dramatic when two people come together to work something out. It’s easy to take a gun and annihilate your opposition, but what is really exciting to me is to see people with differing views come together and finally respect each other.” — Fred Rogers
“As you change your point of view, your views bring about a change in you.” — George Alexiou
“If you want to be respected by others, the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect will you compel others to respect you.” – Fyodor Dostoyevsky
“Tolerance only for those who agree with you is no tolerance at all.” — Ray Davis
“I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don’t even invite me.” — Dave Barry
(Source: goodreads.com)
Mr. Ruehle: Please attempt to assume more responsibility for your own lack of understanding. I suspect that were the totality of our comments on sites like this compared for total number of words, yours would far outstrip my own. Perhaps janis would like to take that on. She seems to enjoy word counting, but seemingly only when it can serve as another avenue by which to offer insult.
Earlier in this very thread I said: “Yes, Mr. Ruehle, I am a recently retired LBPD officer. As such, I find any and every instance of police officer misconduct to be a despicable abuse of authority and public trust. When misconduct is proven (and as inconvenient as it may be for you, it surely must be proven) no one (decries) or condemns it more loudly than I.”
Please explain how that direct quote denotes a desire on my part to “defray the discussion from the topic of POLICE MISCONDUCT.” Thanks.
janis: Perhaps you might consider the reasonable difference between the term “insulting” when it is intended to denote an offering of insult, and the term “insulting” when it it is intended to denote that a person feels insulted. My intention was to denote the former, not the latter.
But please, by all means, do proceed with your next offerings of insult. I can play your rhetorical games as long as you like. Despite that your many offerings of insult have nothing whatosever to do with the topic at hand, you will not find Mr. Ruehle condemning them as blatant attempts to “defray the discussion from the topic of POLICE MISCONDUCT.” He never holds himself or those with whom he who agrees to the same standard he applies to those with whom he does not.
****Janis’s elementary grammar lesson for the word “insult”and an linguistic analysis of GONICS****
Insult when used as a verb describes an action (insult). An adverb describes how a verb is performed (insultingly). An adjective describes a person, place, or thing (insulting).
*Insult (noun) an act or expression showing scorn and usually intended to hurt another’s feelings
*Insult (verb) to cause hurt feelings or deep resentment
Now let’s deconstruct Greets latest comment:
“Perhaps you might consider the reasonable difference between the term “insulting” (Adjective Verb Insult, Janis’s notation) when it is intended to denote an offering of insult (NOUN, Janis’s notation), and the term “insulting” when it it is intended to denote that a person feels insulted (past tense of VERB insult, Janis’s notation) . My intention was to denote the former, not the latter (Huh?, Janis’s notation).”
Gonics (Greet/Phonics) similar to Ebonics (but with no structure or style or common usage) makes no sense in the traditional sense of the English language. Greet’s like Ishi (last member of the Yanni CA Indian tribe) and thinks the world is insulting/insulted or gifted him with insult.
Greet’s Gonics make no sense while Lao Tzu rocks:
Lao Tzu says, ”No one can insult me because I don’t want respect.” This is what receiving respect is. “You say you wanted respect, but you are getting insults. A person who wants respect has no respect for himself, yet he wants respect from others. He who has no respect for himself wants others to cover it, to hide his lack of respect. This desire for respect is the sign that within, you feel disrespect for yourself. You have the feeling that you are nothing. Others should make you into something, should put you on a throne, should raise banners for you, should hoist flags in your name – others should do something! You are a beggar. You have already insulted yourself when you wanted respect. And this insult goes on deepening.”
janis: As mentioned, please, by all means, do proceed with your next offerings of insult. I can play your rhetorical games as long as you like.
Thanks for continuing to seek to deconstruct my chosen use of the language in your ongoing attempts to offer insult. None of which has anything to do with the topic at hand, of course. But, as we have already learned, such standards only apply to those with whom Mr. Ruehle happens to disagree. You haven’t counted my words in a while, perhaps you could spend some time doing *that* now instead of attempting to address the merits of my various arguments.
A flash of insight!!!! Now I CAN read GONICS:
“Greet August 1 2011 “All I have said is that you have *offered* insult, and that you have *intended* insult and that I have somehow found your comments to be insulting, though not to me, personally. I never once said that I accepted your offerings of insult nor felt the insult you seem to so desperately want and need me to feel.”
= STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME…WAAAAAAAAAA
janis: As mentioned, please, by all means, do proceed with your next offerings of insult. I can play your rhetorical games as long as you like.
Lao Tzu says, ”No one can insult me because I don’t want respect.” This is what receiving respect is. “You say you wanted respect, but you are getting insults. A person who wants respect has no respect for himself, yet he wants respect from others. He who has no respect for himself wants others to cover it, to hide his lack of respect. This desire for respect is the sign that within, you feel disrespect for yourself. You have the feeling that you are nothing. Others should make you into something, should put you on a throne, should raise banners for you, should hoist flags in your name – others should do something! You are a beggar. You have already insulted yourself when you wanted respect. And this insult goes on deepening.”
…proceed with your next offerings of insult. I can play your rhetorical games as long as you like.
Greet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk
Also see John B. Greet’s attempts to drive the discussion from the topic of a drunken Long Beach Fire Captain who mowed down a bicyclist.
Greet thinks he is the comment board police on the Belmont Shore Patch and is similarly telling commentors whether their opinons are unacceptable comment board standards (his standards). Greet quote, “Politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not.”
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/fire-captain-accused-of-drunken-hit-and-run-to-appear-in-court-today
Who is John Greet to say what opinions are not welcome on this or any other comment board? Is it his many years as a Long Beach Cop that leads Greet to believe he has the right to tell people what opinions are unacceptable?
Greet no-one is “offering insult” (offer:a : to present for acceptance or rejection : tender ) . 8/1/2011 Greet “proceed with your next offerings of insult.”
To offer means that someone is presenting something for your acceptance or rejection. I have yet to see anyone offering a comment that you perceive as an insult solely for your acceptance or rejection. The intent has to come from the giver not the receiver of such offer. Since you have no way of determining the intent of the comment you cannot say that someone is “offering insult”. You could say that an offer was insulting, that you were offended by a comment but only in Greet Gonics vernacular, is someone “offering insult”.
Mr. Ruehle you have misunderstood my meaning in that comment on The Patch. Had you but thought to ask, I would have been happy to have attempted to explain it. That you did not but, instead, chose to leap into yuor typical offerings of insult, should tell readers all they really need to know about the misleading manner in which you choose to participate here.
janis: The intent of your comments is self- evident in the manner in which you choose to word them and in the context in which you choose to employ them. When you intend offense, you make that very clear. When you do not intend offense, that is even more clear, because it seems to happen so very seldom.
But, please, by all means, do proceed with your next offerings of insult. I can play your rhetorical games as long as you like.
Greet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtwb34Pd1k&NR=1
A new Greet Koan, (Koans are a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment):
“Greet quote, “Politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not.”
Definition: for assertations:
(assertation) An assertion, statement of opinion.
And more Greet Koan, (Koans are a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment):
“Perhaps you should consider moving out of that glass house of yours before you start casting so many stones.”
“I do not presume to dismiss, diminish, or denigrate your efforts. Why do you seek to do so with mine?”
“@ janis: You seem to be an intelligent person, so I have to presume that you are intentionally misunderstanding some of the things I have said and for no other reason than to then seek to denigrate me for your own misperceptions.”
“Perhaps, rather than trying to construct various flawed analyses of how you believe I think or why, or wasting time fixating upon how many words I choose to use, you should simply try to ask yourself why some others here seem unable to offer information without slanting or falsifying it.”
“And then perhaps you should ask yourself why you seem to consistently align yourself with these types of people, rather than with the many others who manage to engage with one another here in a more constructive manner.”
..proceed with your next offerings of insult. I can play your rhetorical games as long as you like.
More GONICS from “You Will Respect My Authoritah!” Greet explaining why I am guilty of “contempt of cop:” A self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. My intentions are determined because he says so.
“janis: The intent of your comments is self- evident in the manner in which you choose to word them and in the context in which you choose to employ them. When you intend offense, you make that very clear. When you do not intend offense, that is even more clear, because it seems to happen so very seldom.”
Hey greet, you are getting beat up pretty bad better call in a code 999.
Wouldn’t code 30 be more appropriate?
janis and Mr. Ruehle: ..proceed with your next offerings of insult. I can play your rhetorical games as long as you like.
bill: This is nothing. This is easy. Some seem to need to try to insult others, usually to help them feel better about themselves. Nothing they can say will have the harmful effects they intend. They will eventually understand that, get bored and move along. Until they do, it’s actually sort of amusing.
Officer Greet is a perfect example of how the Long Beach Police Department treats the public which frequently impores them for their help, only to be ignored by the police in their belief the public will eventually get bored and move along. And they usually do. Until they do, the police actually do find it sort of amusing.
After all, what do they have to worry about. Long Beach Police can murder under color of authority. Their names are protected from being made public. And the public is forbidden from reviewing police officer files for evidence of a rogue cop.
All of this is supported by our City Council which sets these policies supporting cops, most of whom don’t even live in Long Beach.
I am not a Long Beach Police Officer. Mr. Ruehle knows this because elsewhere in this very thread -and so many other places- he has identified me as a former officer. Thus his identification of me, here, as an officer, is intentionally false and misleading, just as much of the other information he posts on sites like this is false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading.
Mr. Ruehle claims that I am a perfect example of how the LBPD “treats the public which frequently impores (sic) them for their help.” I can only hope this is true. He conveniently forgets that he once asked for my personal assistance when I was still employed there, and that I provided it…directly, personally, and publicly…and in so doing was able to prove yet another of his many baseless accusations against LBPD personnel to be entirely and completely *false*, just as so many of his other comments about LBPD and its employees are.
Mr. Ruehle seeks to hold me personally accountable for all of the ills at LBPD, an organization I have not been an active member of for close to a year now and he routinely expresses frustration that he cannot simply walk into police headquarters and demand and receive direct access to employee personnel files. Mr. Ruehle expresses frustration that these files are not opened to him, personally, and infers that because of this LBPD and CLB must be engaged in some sort of cover-up.
Mr. Ruehle seems completely ignorant of the fact that he has a duly-elected representative on the city council that does have access to the information he craves and that this person, as well as that person’s other eight council colleagues have a sworn duty to serve the people and to direct the city manager and, through him, the chief of police, accordingly. To put it simply, Mr. Ruehle seems entirely ignorant that he lives in a Council/Manager form of government that is intended to represent him in matters such as this and that if he truly feels those people are not doing their job, he should seek to have them removed from office and replaced with those who will.
Mr. Ruehle also seems entirely ignorant of the fact that specific language in our State constitution expressly prohibits cities from requiring that their public employees reside withinin the jurisdictions in which they work. Perhaps if Mr. Ruehle is dissatisfied with this language in our constitution he should make efforts to see it changed.
Mr. Ruehle also seems entirely ignorant of the fact that our city’s Civil Service Commission is autonomous and has authority to overturn or modify rulings of employee discipline and even termination, or that such rulings are considered final, whether or not they agree with the actions or the recommendations of the chief of police, the city manager or even their own assigned case officers. If Mr. Ruehle is unhappy with the manner in which the Civil Service Commission sometimes rules in these cases, perhaps he should work to see that authority changed or those Commissioners he disagrees with removed from their positions of authority.
Yes, Mr. Ruehle seems ignorant about a great many things, indeed. But depite this, he will continue to post his false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading comments on sites like this.
As I have said now, twice, on this very thread: “Yes, Mr. Ruehle, I am a recently retired LBPD officer. As such, I find any and every instance of police officer misconduct to be a despicable abuse of authority and public trust. When misconduct is proven (and as inconvenient as it may be for you, it surely must be proven) no one (decries) or condemns it more loudly than I.”
This declaration is apparently insufficient for people like Mr. Ruehle.
So be it.
Meanwhile recently retired Long Beach Police Officer vigorously defends EVERY despicable instance of police officer misconduct and abuse of authority and public trust.
I like “Gronics” more than “Gonics.”
I thought of gonads when I read “gonics.”
Plus the “r” sound is catchy.
Hope you do not mind, Janis, that I am coopting and upgrading this newly coined word.
Sincerely, LBCG
or should I say newly “koaned” word?
Mr. Ruehle, if you are referring to me (there are quite a few recently retired LBPD officers) your assertion -that I vigorously defend every despicable instance of police officer misconduct and abuse of authority and public trust- is false. You surely know this is false because I have been extremely critical of every instance of police officer misconduct that has been proven and later reported here or elsewhere and you have sometimes commented afterward, indicating that you had seen my condemnations.
Since you know, or reasonably should know, this current allegation is false, the most reasonable explanation must be that you are, once again, intentionally posting false information about me in an attempt to mislead others and convince them of your point of view.
More falsehoods, more fraud, more misleading information.
Do you never tire of this intellectually dishonest approach of yours, Mr. Ruehle?
LBCityGirl: Greet “So bet it”. Yes add the “r” with a Spanish roll. Gronics! Could also be used to rhyme with chronic, phonics, histrionic, Napoleonic, catatonic or even hegemonic.
What are the names of the Long Beach Police officers who discharged their guns into the home of Jonathan Cabrera and Elizabeth Bustamante?
Shouldn’t the public know their names and how many times they have previously discharged their guns in public? How else can we trust the police are controlling rogue cops?
Were these officers who fired into the home of Jonathan Cabrera and Elizabeth Bustamante the same officers who murdered Douglas Zerby under the color of authority for having a hose nozzle?
Here we see clear evidence of the intellectual dishonesty with which Mr. Ruehle routinely chooses to comment. He claims I vigorously defend every despicable instance of police officer misconduct and abuse of authority and public trust. I refute this in a reasonable manner that demonstrates his assertion was intentionally false. Rather than acknowledge the correction, he remains silent on that score because he has already moved on to other equally unfounded allegations (Zerby and murder.)
It seems obvious that Mr. Ruehle is not interested in the truth, he is only interested in slinging mud.
He is not interested in working in a productive and constructive way to help affect meaningful change and improvement in his community, he is only interested in desparaging, denigrating, offering insult, and repeating potentially libelous accusations for which he offers no objectively verifiable proof.
He is not interested in a serious and comprehensive dialog on the issues, only in selectively excerpting comments from those with whom he disagrees so as to use those incomplete and out-of-context excerpts as vehicles by which he can offer still more insults.
When his statements are proven false, he ignores the proof.
When he cannot address the merits of a person’s reasonable arguments, he resorts to insults and dismissiveness.
When he is confronted on his repeated posting of false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading information, he accuses the person who confronts him of stalking and bullying and trying to be the comment board police.
Very, very sad.
@Mike Reuhle, please stay on topic, this is not a conversation about getting to the bottom of what happened that night at the Cabrera-Bustamente household. Clearly you are the only one interested in knowing the police officers’ names.
Hello? Janis and I are making history with the invention of a new word,
will you please get with the program?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Janis: yes, so be it, “Gronics” it is. I definitely like how much stuff it rhymes with…in short this new word and it’s associated meaning: stellar! It’s been a pleasure collaborating with you. I look forward to more “koanage” in the future.
LBCG
Guess what. The Long Beach Police Department is inviting everyone tonight to share their UNITY with the police department. I wonder if Jonathan Cabrera and Elizabeth Bustamante received a personal invite from Chief McDonnell?
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/lb-police-promote-unity-with-tonights-night-out
How about the Zerby family? Think they have any interest in unifying with the police after the Long Beach police murdered their son and brother under the color of authority for having the bad luck of holding a hose nozzle?
Mike, got to disagree with you on this one. National Night Out mission is to send a message to criminals that neighbors are unified and looking out for one another, and working with police to keep crime out of their neighborhoods.
It’s pretty evident from the 1992 LA (Long Beach) riots that there is not enough police to protect us. Neighborhood watch, getting to know your neighbors, public searches for missing people/kids, “responsible gun ownership”, even people out walking around in their neighborhood helps reduce crime and make our community a better place to live.
janis, I think National Night Out is a wonderful concept for all neighborhood communities. My point is it will be difficult for some people to accept the Long Beach Police Department’s invitation to unify with LBPD.
If you consider the Long Beach Police Department’s recent track record of raping minors, embezzlement, lying in court, brutality, witness intimidation, theft, DUIs, false imprisonment, concealing officers identities and murder under the color of authority, I’m not sure a reasonable person would want to unify with the Long Beach Police Department for fear of their life or loved ones.
The only way you can change anything is to work with what you have. I was emailed a picture of the homeless guy who was murdered by Fullerton Police a few weeks ago and was so outraged I went to one of the first protests in front of the cop house. I have never done this before…
The group of 20 of us (Dad, Mom, Stepmom, and other assorted strangers) were polite but we had signs that got straight to the point. http://fullertonsfuture.org/
I was standing on at the corner of intersection next to a sign that just said “MURDER”. A motorcycle officer stopped and talked to us about our protest. He said (in uniform) that there were many members of the Fullerton Police Department that agreed with our group. We had a polite exchange of feelings on the issue.
Unfortunately we need a police department. We want the police to hunt down bad people and protect us, but sometime they fail us. The policies in place protect the public, police officers and the public from potential vigilante acts, libel, lawsuits, retribution. If you don’t like the policies then you need to talk to the citizens Police commission or you local elected officials. I don’t like how the police unions have become so powerful (talk to Jerry Brown about that one) and now drive election contributions and send out their own ads. But that is something that also needs to be reformed.
Mr. Ruehle @ GLB: “How about the Zerby family? Think they have any interest in unifying with the police after the Long Beach police murdered their son and brother under the color of authority for having the bad luck of holding a hose nozzle?”
versus
Mr. Ruehle @ The Patch (where he has been put on editorial notice that unfounded allegations of criminal acts by LBPD will not be tolerated): “I wonder how ‘United’ the Zerby family feels with the Long Beach Police Department since their son and brother was legally killed by Long Beach Police for having the bad luck of holding a hoze nozzle.”
http://belmontshore.patch.com/articles/lb-police-promote-unity-with-tonights-night-out
Which is it, Mr. Ruehle? “murdered under color of authority” or “legally killed”? Or do you somehow believe the two are the same?
Yet somehow *I* am the hypocrite, right? Just another example of the false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading manner in which you choose to comment on these sorts of sites.
How sad. How very sad.
No Greet, Ruhle is within bounds the definition of murder has many meanings. GRONIC Greet KOAN “How sad. How very sad.”
noun
1.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2.
Slang . something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3.
a group or flock of crows.
Everest University Online
4.
Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6.
to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
Wow and tomorrow my son begins police academy. What is a mother to do ?
Sorry, janis, no sale.
I was a cop for a long time, as Mr. Ruehle likes to point out every chance he gets. Murder is most assuredly “unlawful” and particularly under color of authority. Murder, in the context Mr. Ruehle employed it here, can in no way be considered a “legal killing,” as he referred to the same act on The Patch.
When directly compared with one another, Mr. Ruehle’s comments are entirely fraudulent.
I think it is sad that you would be willing to try so hard to justify his blatantly fraudulent postings. I think that your efforts speak volumes about your own level of intellectual honesty.
As I said, sad. Very sad.
Congratulations, Ms. LB. May he have a long, fulfilling and very safe career in law enforcement. With you to guide him I know he will be one of the truly good guys.
Greet your argument fails, Ruehle is not “fraudulent”:
Definition above: Murder 5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
A legal killing could be an execution(judicial sentence), war, in self-defense, or an accident.
Two things could happen Zelby’s death by police officers could be determined by a court to be a “Murder” under the law. Or an accidental or defense killing, which was murder(per the definition 5 above)
If you are concerned with intellectual honesty perhaps you might use standard grammar or a dictionary instead of contextual chronic Gronics.
GRONIC GREET KOAN OF THE DAY
“Sad. Very Sad”
janis, you can reach for tortuous justifications all you like. As with all such comments, however, the context is key.
The context in this case was “criminal law.” Mr. Ruehle unwittingly confirmed that context the last time he improperly alleged murder in Zerby on The Patch. I called him on it there, explaning how improper I thought it was for anyone to accuse the officers in Zerby of having committed a “crime” without supporting such an allegtion with any proof.
The editor there agreed, removed both Ruehle’s unfounded accusation of criminal conduct and my objection to it, and then warned her readers that unfounded allegations (against anyone) of “criminal acts” would no longer be tolerated on that site.
From that day to this, Mr. Ruehle has steadfastly avoided using the term “murder” in connection to Zerby on *that* site, but has persisted in using that term, over and over again, in the same context here.
By the way, the appropriate reference material concerning statutory criminal law is the penal code, not the dictionary, so that is the material I most often reference when discussing crime, which is what Mr. Ruehle, himself, was discussing.
But he just couldn’t help himself apparently. When the National Night Out story went up, Mr. Ruehle apparently saw yet another opportunity to offer insult to LBPD.
In order to create a rhetorical vehicle by which to offer that insult, Ruehle decided to call Zerby a “legal killing” on The Patch instead of a “murder.” “Legal killing” there (so his susbsequent insult would not be editorially deleted), “murder under color of authority” here (where a different editorial standard exists.)
In two words…”fraudulent” and “duplicitous.”
Sad. Very sad.
Greet: Murder has many meanings not just criminal. Killings are legal in our society. Ruehle is not a lawyer but you claim his statement is “fraudulent”. Definition “frauadulent”: fraud·u·lent/ˈfrôjələnt/Adjective
1. Obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception.
Greet: “I called him on it there, explaining how improper I thought it was for anyone to accuse the officers in Zerby of having committed a “crime” without supporting such an allegtion with any proof.”
But what appalls most of of us Greet is that according to your GRONIC logic, we must keep quiet to protect police who shot Zerby for some crime the cops thought he was committing. We don’t really know what happened because the police are withholding that information. Sometimes the only way to get that information is to speak out/protest/file lawsuits against our very own police force. Ruehle is exercising his right to free speech and it is you that is wrong for insulting him with claims that his statements are “fraudulent” when in fact even you don’t know what happened that night.
Gronic Koan: “In order to create a rhetorical vehicle by which to offer that insult”
janis, I find it interesting that those who lean toward self-riteousness almost always purport to speak for “all” or “most” of some nebulous and unnamed group. Whenever I speak, I do so only for myself (much though some would like to believe otherwise), yet here we see you claiming to know what appalls “most of us.” This is a common rhetorical tactic some employ. Through it they usually seek to place the person with whom they disagree in some nebulous minority, and themselves in some nebulous majority and, by this, suggest that their own opinion is somehow more valid or accurate because it is allegedly shared by the larger (conveniently unidentified) group.
When relaying how *you* feel, you might consider speaking in the first person and not presume to speak for others. These nebulous others, “most of” whom you presume to speak for, can speak quite clearly for themselves, I think. In fact some, who might be in this nebulous group you refer to, do so quite frequently, and always quite rudely, here…Ruehle, howardx, wrongbeach, and one or two others. Let them hurl their own contemptuous offerings of insult, janis. They have proven themselves quite willing and able to do so.
You erroneously ascribe to me a sentiment I do *not* hold (that “we [again presuming to speak for some unidentified group] must keep quiet to protect police who shot Zerby for some crime the cops thought he was committing.”) and then you presume to be “appalled” by this.
But I have *never* stated or even implied such a foolish thing. I have never said anyone, on either side of any issue, needs to keep quiet about it. All I have ever suggested, on this issue or any other, is that we try to obtain more of the facts before presuming to arrive at a definitive *judgment* about it one way or the other. Mr. Ruehle can accuse LBPD employees of murder in Zerby without ANY proof to support this despicable accusation, and that is somehow ok with you.
Instead, you accuse me of something I never said or implied and then choose to be “appalled” by your own fallacious construct. Come on, janis, THINK. Ruehle seems to play you and some others like so many fiddles. Think for YOURSELF.
I get that you are frustrated that it takes so long to get information sometimes. That frustrates me as well. But that should not give anyone license to allege criminal acts without a single shred of proof to support such allegations. Zerby was a terrible tragedy. But we do not have any proof that any officers did anything criminal (in violation of statutory criminal law) in their response to that call for service. Alleging this without proof doesn’t help anything, all it does is create a divide between the police and their community, or unnecessarily widen the divide that already exists.
And why? Because people like Ruehle have a great big *personal* axe to grind with LBPD and CLB and will use *any* and *every* opportunity to grind it publicly. Despite that there is very great good done by the police in our community every single day and night, Ruehle rarely if ever has a word of acknowledgment for it, let alone -god forbid- praise.
Where our police department is concerned, all Ruehle sees is the negative. All he can utter are epithets and condemnations. He seems so tied up in his personal animosities that even if there is *nothing* negative about a given story, he will willingly post false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading information about it to make seem as if there is. If he cannot make something up, he will ignore THAT story and, instead, dredge up every single instance in which current or former LBPD employees have committed misconduct and talk incessantly about THOSE. He will happily reach back 40 years if he has to, to find an incident or event about which he can berate and denigrate our police department.
When a department spokesperson offers information that later changes as an investigation proceeds, Ruehle calls him a “liar.” When the police department or city government lawfully withholds specific information that, if disclosed, could endanger others or compromise an investigation or a prosecution, Ruehle calls it a “cover up.” Ruehle will constantly and continuously make allegations and accusations for which he offers no objectively verifiable proof, and when I call him on it, he simply ignores these reasonable challenges and moves on to the next unfounded accusation.
None of this false, fraudulent or otherwise misleading tactics serves any constructive purpose, janis. But Ruehle employs them so often and so consistently that it seems clear that it his not his *intent* to serve any constructive purpose.
Perhaps it is not your intent either.
“Most of us”…Greet how many people who have posted on this article “On support your comments? See selection below. Therefore my use of “Most of us” was correct. If defending people’s right to free speech makes me lean towards “self-righteousness” then “So be it” (Gronic Koan)
All Hail Dre August 1, 2011
Greet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk
bill from LB August 1, 2011 Hey greet, you are getting beat up pretty bad better call in a code 999.
Mike Ruehle August 1, 2011
Wouldn’t code 30 be more appropriate?
howardx July 28, 2011
i for one am happy we have local media exercising its first amendment rights to tell both sides of a given story. i would seriously wonder about the motivation of someone who thought otherwise. as greet states above he is “increasingly frustrated” with people exercising their first amendment rights, thankfully greet no longer represents the city as he is clearly unfit for the job, his own ill considered comments above prove that out.
LBSkeptic July 28, 2011
Mr. Greet hates it when people who disagree with him have a forum to tell their story.
LBCityGirl July 29, 2011
Wow. I cannot believe what I just read!
I am quite certain that I read John Greet say that people who have allegedly been victimized by the police do not have the right to talk to the press–he literally said these people should be gagged.
janis, in my opinion, the arrogant culture of the Long Beach Police Department is set its management and the City Council who set the policies. I’ve worked at large corporations long enough to know arrogant or illegal behavior is either allowed, condoned or encouraged by upper management. Until the management and policies are changed, NOTHING will improve. I thought there might be a change with new Chief McDonnell. However, he has bought right into and encourages the same lethal behavior by the cops by not setting the example.
The majority are good cops. However, those good cops somehow are prevented from taking actions against the bad cops. We saw evidence of that during Lobstergate where the good cops were retaliated against by the highest management in the city for pointing out the illegal actions of bad cops. They were harassed, denied promotions and assigned to desk work. Ultimately, those good cops sued the city for retaliation and the jury awarded them many $millions or our taxpayers dollars.
There is no use working WITH the Police Department until their management and policies are changed.
As I stated in the Doug Zerby case, I think cops are playing too many video games, SHOOTING IN SILENCE. Or perhaps they are military trained – do soldiers warn their enemy? Let’s get to the ROOT of this behavior!
As the Doug Zerby family has stated, Police PROCEDURES NEED TO BE REVISED. Especially since adding tasers. I have a Taser Channel on ThePrimeSpot TV which includes adults, kids and animals being tased. The effects of tasers only last seconds and I think they can turn any innocent- including bystanders – into raving lunatics (Translation: RESISTING ARREST) or, those who arfe repeatedly tasered, crying children. If I was tased OR my sis who has a bad heart, I’m sure we’d both expire.
As I stated in the Doug Zerby case, the cops need to have a LEAD – the first responder perhaps – to not only CONTROL THE SITUATION but to be RESPONSIBLE for reporting those (out of line) that don’t follow HIS command. (Imagine the officers getting a tase for that – imagine the reaction!).
Cops need to tell AND remind those they approach (including those with A.D.D., Deafness, Mental Illness, non-English speaking/understanding, etc.) to PUT AND KEEP HANDS UP. This will eliminate thinking someone is reaching for a gun!
My suggestion is DON’T USE GUNS ON THE UNARMED. With their hands in their air…
PLEASE.. I hate repeating myself! What will it take to get procedures changed and officers RETRAINED? If the community offers to volunteer, it will take less money and manpower to complete this.
ALL Officers involved in cases like this (regardless of criminal and LBPD status) should definitely be involved in procedure changes as they prob replay their situation over and over.
If we work TOGETHER we can get it done and PREVENT future heartbreaking and costly and DEADLY police interractions. QUICKLY! The current tensions between residents and police can/may/will/are leading to incorrect assumptions, altered attitudes, and bad situations on the streets.
Perhaps if the Neighborhood Resource Center, the Penny Saver (print delivered to most residences, all cultures) were involved, the online and imprint news sources promoting the change in procedures.
LONG BEACH has been a city of many firsts. LBPD needs to set an example of New Policing OR…
Just make it easier for everyone: Require Cops on duty to record every interaction outside of their vehicles during the day, except for lunch It’s as simple as wearing a pair of sunglass that can record up to 8 hrs of footage. (Battery charge lasts 2 hours).
I’m sure the community would love to raise the money for this equipment.. Then there is PROOF and RECORD on how things went down AND possible training videos for the entire police force, possibly the country.
OR footage for the TV Show “Long Beach Cops” that we can put on LBCTelevision when it restarts.
This Case: I cannot comment on this case until I hear the show ie. I’m under the assumption that no command was given to Bustamante; does he have a criminal record or prior complaints of domestic violence; wonder what his charges are for – I assume resisting arrest but it doesn’t sound like an arrest was warranted; ETC. I have a feeling I will just REstate the above after I read it. Wish I had at least 12 hrs in a day!
Which is it Greet?
Greet August 3 “I have never said anyone, on either side of any issue, needs to keep quiet about it.”
Greet Koan (Patch) “Politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not.” (Webster’s Note and Assertion is a opinion)
(Fixing typos. Should read.)
Which is it Greet?
Greet August 3 “I have never said anyone, on either side of any issue, needs to keep quiet about it.”
Greet Koan (Patch) “Politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not.” (Webster’s Dictionary Note …an Assertion is an opinion)
janis, thank you for your comments. It is clear that I am not able to help you to understand my reasoning here or, if you understand it, that you will ever come anywhere close to agreeing with it. And that is fine. Reasonable people should be able to agree to disagree. You seem to be arguing preferences, while I have been trying to argue principles. Regardless, none of anything you or I have to say to one another is going to have any lasting impact one way or the other upon the larger challenges that concern us.
I understand the points you have made and I simply disagree with most of them, just as you clearly disagree with mine. I can live quite comfortably with that.
Be well and God bless.
Mr. Ruehle, thank you very much for finally affirming part of what I have been saying all along….the majority of cops in Long Beach are good cops. I will go further, based upon my greater amount of personal experience with LBPD, and say that the *vast* majority of cops in Long Beach are good cops and that those who commit misconduct are in the vast *minority.*
It is one thing to raise valid questions and concerns when one observes or reasonably suspects police officer misconduct. All residents in Long Beach should do so. It is quite another to allege police misconduct or, worse, outright criminal acts, when one has *no factual basis* upon which to do so…no *objectively verifiable evidence* with which to support one’s accusations.
One can be frustrated and annoyed and impatient and still deal in the realm of fact and of evidence and of proof. You, sir, very often do not.
One can disagree with a person or a system or an institution and still engage in discussions about them in a respectful and considerate manner. You, sir, very often do not.
One can allow one’s facts to speak clearly for themselves without embellishing them, mis-stating them, or otherwise presenting them in a misleading manner. You, sir, very often do not.
I happen to think you could be far more convincing to far more people than just your little circle of comment pals here, if you would simply give over your various unconstructive and counter-productive methods of discourse.
You seem to disagree. And that is fine, I can live with that.
Can you?
****Greet Gronics Koan of the day****Is freedom of speech a preference or a principle?
(Koans are a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment):
Greet “You seem to be arguing preferences, while I have been trying to argue principles.”
principlesplural of prin·ci·ple (Noun)
1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
2. A rule or belief governing one’s personal behavior.
Definition of PREFERENCE
1 a : the act of preferring : the state of being preferred b : the power or opportunity of choosing
2 : one that is preferred
3 : the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others
4 : priority in the right to demand and receive satisfaction of an obligation
5 : orientation 2b
I believe freedom of speech is a right guaranteed, to all, under our constitution. I believe that preserving and promoting that right, for all, is an important responsibility. I believe that exercising *responsible* and *factual* and *civil* speech are important principles that we should all seek to follow more closely. I think that whenever we depart from those principles we do our right of free speech a grave and unfortunate disservice.
This morning, on The Patch, Mr. Ruehle saw fit to further clarify his position regarding Zerby. He said:
“LBPD murdered Douglas Zerby under color of authority. That is considered a ‘legal killing’ by the police, as are ALL other murders under the color of authority.”
This confusion on his part seems to explain a great deal. Mr. Ruehle seems to be confusing the term “murder” with the term “homicide.” I fully agree that Zerby was the victim of a homicide and that LBPD officers caused his death.
It has yet to be seen whether Zerby’s death is ruled a justifiable, accidental, or excusable “homicide” (or “legal killing”) or whether it is ruled a “murder” or a “manslaughter” (both of which are unlawful criminal acts.)
In any case, no “murder” in this context, whomever commits it and under whatever circumstances, has or will ever be considered a “legal killing.”
In this context, murder is the “unlawful killing” of another. Unlawful, of course, meaning “not legal.”
The public will never hear the FACTS of any Long Beach Police officer involved shooting because the city is able each time to get a court order blocking the information (facts) from being made public. Below are links to two such orders blocking the release of information.
http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110525_0002617.CCA.htm/qx
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/8:2010cv00271/466721/17/0.pdf
Cops and ex-Cops like John B. Greet know only too well these court orders will prevent the facts from ever being made public. That’s why they encourage everyone to withhold judgement while waiting for the facts. That guarantees nobody will ever form an opinion.
Greet 8/3/2011 “I believe freedom of speech is a right guaranteed, to all, under our constitution. I believe that preserving and promoting that right, for all, is an important responsibility”
Greet “Politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not.” (Webster’s Dictionary Note …an Assertion is an opinion)
janis: Why would someone who is being intellectually honest, employ the intellectually *dis*honest tactic of selectively excerpting someone else’s comments? What constructive purpose do you hope to serve in doing so? Just curious.
~~
Mr. Ruehle seems to overlook the fact that Steinhauser’s personal and work-related information *was*, indeed, disclosed and pursuant to a court order. It simply wasn’t disclosed to the general public. It was disclosed to the plaintiff and his attorneys.
Mr. Ruehle seems to believe that he and other members of the general public have an automatic need *and* right to full access to, and review of, the personnel files of public safety employees. Unfortunately our State’s penal code does not support this belief. Is Mr. Ruehle actually presuming to take the court to task for following the law?
I do not agree with Mr. Ruehle’s contention that because a judge properly upholds the confidential nature of public safety personnel files in specific cases, that the the public will never hear the FACTS of any Long Beach Police officer involved shooting. All such public documents are discoverable through due process. This means whomever wants to review them needs to convince a judge that there is a compelling reason to do so. Rodriguez’ attorneys were able to to so.
If Mr. Ruehle feels he has a compelling need to review any officer’s personnel file, he has just as much right as Rodriguez did to retain an attorney and make that case before a judge.
Greet “Politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not” See below for the entire quote.
Greet-If you believe in free speech, just who exactly is going to determine what or how people can express themselves about anything? Are YOU the judge of what “facts” can be talked about here? Who determines whether the foundation is sufficient or the facts are true or not? Or whose opinion is correct? YOURS? The only one constently complaining about being “offered insult” or people being “fraudulent” or “dishonest” or “disrespectful” is YOU and only when people disagree with YOUR comments.
Lao Tzu says, ”No one can insult me because I don’t want respect.” This is what receiving respect is. “You say you wanted respect, but you are getting insults. A person who wants respect has no respect for himself, yet he wants respect from others. He who has no respect for himself wants others to cover it, to hide his lack of respect. This desire for respect is the sign that within, you feel disrespect for yourself. You have the feeling that you are nothing. Others should make you into something, should put you on a throne, should raise banners for you, should hoist flags in your name – others should do something! You are a beggar. You have already insulted yourself when you wanted respect. And this insult goes on deepening.”
———————————————————————————————
12:14pm on Monday, August 1, 2011 Belmont Shore Patch
I can’t speak for others, Mr. Ruehle, but I refer to people as conspiracy theorists when they…you know…theorize that conspiracies exists.
For me it is not an attempt to demonize them but an honest and sincere attempt to classify them according to their stated beliefs. Thus, if a person tends to theorize that conspiracies exist, but interprets the term “conspiracy theorist” to have a negative connotation, then perhaps he or she should ask him- or herself why that might be.
I personally admire people who are critical and independent thinkers. I find such people still more admirable when they resist their seemingly innate impulses to lodge ad hominem attacks, to offer personal insults, or to resort to false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading tactics in efforts to convince others of their points of view. Now here is the jewel:
Politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not, when they have no foundation in objectively verifiable fact, or for which no facts are offered to support them.”
Yes, janis, politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not, when they have no foundation in objectively verifiable fact, or for which no facts are offered to support them.” And I prefaced that entire passage with “I can’t speak for others, Mr. Ruehle…”
I was speaking for myself, janis. I was expressing what sort of comments *I* welcome and do not welcome. I did not say I do not welcome assertions, but those assertions that “have no foundation in objectively verifiable fact, or for which no facts are offered to support them.”
Isn’t it amazing how much more clear a person’s comments can be when they are *not* artfully excerpted and when they are *not* taken out of context?
See what just a small amount of intellectual honesty can reveal?
Amazing, isn’t it?
The game Greet plays is to constantly question peoples’ opinion as not being based on fact, encourage people to refrain from drawing conclusions until all the facts are revealed, knowing full well those facts will NEVER be revealed by the city and police, even to impacted families, except in the case of filing a court order.
Everyone is to withhold judgement until they forget their judgement is being withheld. Eventually, only the families of the innocents killed by the police are left standing in horror that everyone else no longer cares.
Remember that when it happens to your family.
No Greet, What I find amazing is how you took your own words out of context. You used words from the first paragraph and applied them (incorrectly) to the meaning of the subsequent paragraph. See the entire quote below. Thanks Greet for you cooperation, this will add to our understanding of Gronics grammatical rules.
Another Greet Koan …Greet: “Isn’t it amazing how much more clear a person’s comments can be when they are *not* artfully excerpted and when they are *not* taken out of context?
Gronics explained by Greet himself!
“Assertions are not, when they have no foundation in objectively verifiable fact, or for which no facts are offered to support them.” And I prefaced that entire passage with “I can’t speak for others, Mr. Ruehle…”
I was speaking for myself, janis. I was expressing what sort of comments *I* welcome and do not welcome. I did not say I do not welcome assertions, but those assertions that “have no foundation in objectively verifiable fact, or for which no facts are offered to support them.”
Isn’t it amazing how much more clear a person’s comments can be when they are *not* artfully excerpted and when they are *not* taken out of context?”
See what just a small amount of intellectual honesty can reveal?”
————————————————————————————————-
Here is the entire quote:
12:14pm on Monday, August 1, 2011 Belmont Shore Patch
I can’t speak for others, Mr. Ruehle, but I refer to people as conspiracy theorists when they…you know…theorize that conspiracies exists.
For me it is not an attempt to demonize them but an honest and sincere attempt to classify them according to their stated beliefs. Thus, if a person tends to theorize that conspiracies exist, but interprets the term “conspiracy theorist” to have a negative connotation, then perhaps he or she should ask him- or herself why that might be.
I personally admire people who are critical and independent thinkers. I find such people still more admirable when they resist their seemingly innate impulses to lodge ad hominem attacks, to offer personal insults, or to resort to false, fraudulent and otherwise misleading tactics in efforts to convince others of their points of view. Politically incorrect opinions are most welcome. Assertions are not, when they have no foundation in objectively verifiable fact, or for which no facts are offered to support them.”
No, janis, you are deliberately misconstruing my words and meanings to suit your own false premise. They are my words, janis, i know precisely what I meant when I wrote them. The words, themselves, written in the manner in which I did so, support my assertion of the meaning behind them.
I wrote all of the words, in both paragraphs, at the *same* time, in the *same* post and in the *same* context because I intended them to be considered in their entirety, as a single passage, simply divided into two paragraphs.
You accuse me of using my words from my first paragraph and applying them incorrectly to the meaning of my subsequent paragraph. Where can one find the grammatical rule that prohibits this? Entire books are written in which the totality of the words in each sentence, paragraph and chapter of the books are intended to directly relate, one to the other, yet you choose to take exception to the fact that I have followed this very samme literary practice here, with two of my own paragraphs, written at the same time and context?? Really?
Of course there is no such grammatical rule, janis. You have just decided to try to create a false premise by which you can further critique what I did write and what I clearly intended for the words I wrote to mean.
You and Mr. Ruehle and some others just seem to feed off one another in your never-ending efforts to impugn and heap ridicule upon people who simply, and quite reasonably, happen to disagree with you.
I suggest that it is intellectually dishonest tactics such as those you have clearly demonstrated here by which you and Mr. Ruehle and some others seek to *truly* limit, control, and suppress the free speech of others whenever they have the audacity to offer a point of view that differs from or opposes your own.
Sad. Very, very sad.
Mr. Ruehle’s allegation against me in his latest comment is as false, fraudulent, and misleading as so many of his other comments ultimately prove to be.
Every law enforcement-related death is a tragedy on so many levels. No such death, whether police officer, suspect, or innocent bystander, should ever be forgotten and each should be fully and completely investigated. Where the death is found to be wrongful, the person(s) who caused it should be tried and, if convicted, punished to the fullest extent the law allows.
But Mr. Ruehle conveniently forgets that just as some people can sometimes be erroneously reported to the police as having a gun that turns out to be a hose nozzle, or a cell phone, or a toy so, too, others that the police contact are often *not* reported to have any sort of weapon at all, but they end up shooting the police officer to death or grievously wounding the officer anyway.
Law enforcement is by no means either a closed system or an exact science. Police officers are only human. Regrettably, mistakes are sometimes made. Tragic circumstances compound upon themselves to result in unspeakable and sometimes unintended tragedies on both sides of the badge. The vast majority of cops are well-trained, hard working, consummate professionals doing a very tough job that few people are qualified to do and that fewer still are even willing to attempt.
There is no excuse for police officer misconduct. In all cases each allegation should be fully investigated and, if proven, appropriately punished. But just as the cop killer deserves and *receives* due process, so too, does the cop who kills another person in the line of duty.
Mr. Ruehle takes exception to the fact that a court order is usually required before access to public safety personnel, training, and discipline records can be granted. Mr. Ruehle should take issue with the statutory laws that require this level of confidentiality, and with the courts who follow these laws, rather than with the departments who seek only to follow the laws in this area as well.
Tell that to the family of Kelly Thomas, the handicap person beat to death by police in Fullerton.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/FBI-Investigates-Fullerton-Police-Over-in-Custody-Death–126439953.html
Tell that to the family of the mother of 5 children that was mowed down in a crosswalk by a negligent and lying Long Beach Cop.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/oct/19/local/me-lbdead19
Tell that to the Zerby family whose son and brother was murdered under the color of authority by Long Beach Police for the bad luck of holding a hose nozzle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338571/Douglas-Zerby-shot-dead-police-holding-GARDEN-HOSE-nozzle-gun-chief-admits.html
I wonder how many more examples from Long Beach I need to link to make my point? I’ve got at least another 40.
John B. Greet is a recently retired Long Beach Police Officer. Need I say more.
Mr. Ruehle I have seen your lists of links and other examples of police abuse, misconduct and deaths caused tragically. They span a period of 40 years. They average about two each year during that time span. They describe acts committed by less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the total number of police employees during that time span, and they represent about .0001 percent of the total amount of police activity during that time same time span.
Given these facts I would willingly tell the victims and the families on your list what I have already said here:
“Every law enforcement-related death is a tragedy on so many levels. No such death, whether police officer, suspect, or innocent bystander, should ever be forgotten and each should be fully and completely investigated. Where the death is found to be wrongful, the person(s) who caused it should be tried and, if convicted, punished to the fullest extent the law allows.”
-and-
“There is no excuse for police officer misconduct. In all cases each allegation should be fully investigated and, if proven, appropriately punished. But just as the cop killer deserves and *receives* due process, so too, does the cop who kills another person in the line of duty.”
Precisely what part of those two direct quotes do you take exception to?
You persist in reminding others that I am a recently retired police officer, as if that somehow undermines my credibility. Should your past criminal history, then, be likewise seen to undermine your own?
The reason some of my links may span many years is because that is how long many INNOCENT people were wrongly imprisoned for rape and murder by Long Beach cops who were only recently found IN COURT to have coerced witnesses and lied in their testimony sending the wrong innocent people to jail many years ago. It wasn’t until just recently that the REAL bad guys confessed when DNA analysis tied them to the crimes.
It bears noting the City of Long Beach Police Department continued to employ those same LYING police officers AFTER the courts found they had lied in court and coerced witnesses leading to false imprisonment of innocent men, in some cases imprisonment of multiple innocent people in multiple court cases. Not just once, but multiple times they lied in court. And in some cases, those lying cops were promoted.
Meanwhile, the City of Long Beach quietly settled out of court for MANY $million with those multiple innocent people falsely and wrongly sent to prison by the Long Beach Police Department.
No Mr. Ruehle, the reason your links span many years is because you felt the need to go back that far to find evidence with which to denigrate current and former members of the police department, many of whom have done nothing improper in their entire careers but all of whom you consistently condemn and denigrate.
The only time you ever acknowledge that the majority of LBPD officers are good professional employees is when someone like me points out that you almost *never* do so.Then you grudgingly admit it and then go right back to your habit of impugning and ridiculing the entire LBPD, because on a comparatively rare occasion some current or past employee has failed to uphold his or her oaths to the community and to their profession.
Every single time such a failure occurs, it is despicable and it is wrong and, once proven it should be punished. You and I fully agree on that. But you consistently refuse to stop there and let the facts of past or possibly current misconduct speak for themselves.
No sir, you are not content to make that reasonable and intellectually honest choice. Instead you persist in accusing current employees of misconduct and crimes without offering a single shred of evidence to support your allegations. You denigrate an entire class of good hard-working cops because a tiny percentage of current and former employees failed their test of ethics, and principle, and morality, and professionalism.
This habitually fraudulent practice of yours is as dishonorable as it is dishonest. Every time I become aware that you are pulling your nonsense, I plan to point it out and call you on it.
Don’t like that? Simple….stop doing it.
The opposite of Gronics is Engish grammar:
par·a·graph
noun /ˈparəˌgraf/ paragraphs, plural
A distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering
Greet Taking words out of one paragraph (and one conversation or idea) and moving them to another (conversation or idea) to re-invent your statements IS taking words out of context. It has nothing to do with who wrote the paragraph or what you meant to say.
con·text/ˈkäntekst/Noun
1. The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
2. The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
******Greet Gronic KOANS*****
“No, janis, you are deliberately misconstruing my words and meanings to suit your own false premise. They are my words, janis, i know precisely what I meant when I wrote them. The words, themselves, written in the manner in which I did so, support my assertion of the meaning behind them.
I wrote all of the words, in both paragraphs, at the *same* time, in the *same* post and in the *same* context because I intended them to be considered in their entirety, as a single passage, simply divided into two paragraphs.”
————
Greet: “Isn’t it amazing how much more clear a person’s comments can be when they are *not* artfully excerpted and when they are *not* taken out of context?
How the hell can the city justify continuing the employment of those employees shown to be dishonest and grossly negligent, causing great financial harm to the city (employer); not to mention the harm done to those harmed “innocents”? No doubt there was just cause to terminate their employment.
@ janis: Sorry, you can keep trying to find reasonable justifications for your false and unreasonable premises for as long as it pleases you to do so. I know what I wrote. I know what I meant when I wrote it. I know what I wrote is grammatically correct and that the grammatically correct manner in which I wrote it supports my more reasonable interpretation rather than the tortuous and erroneous interpretations you are seeking to achieve and for no other reason than to seek to offer insults. Feel free to respond as you choose, I am not interested in engaging you further on this topic.