It is time to take Locke Bowman to the woodshed. He has consistently been harping about the Chicago Police Department in the Huffington Post. Mr. Bowman is a Northwestern University law professor. He is not and never has been a police officer or other law enforcement professional. He sits in an ivory tower and throws barbs at the Chicago Police Department.
If you read him you would think the Department is full of brutal sadistic officers like they have in third world dictatorships.
First, the few cases that hit the media unfairly tarnish the whole department. Mr. Bowman and his pals at the ACLU know this. It arouses their prurient interests. It also makes them drool over the kachingos. The only thing that matters to so called social justice lawyers. It is always all about the money. Taxpayer money.
Locke Bowman knows nothing about police work. He just sits in the quaint little burg of Evanston and studies dry statistics. You know those numbers that never lie but liars always use.
Bowman is attacking the IPRA for not sustaining enough complaints against police officers. Here is the unvarnished truth. Something Mr. Bowman and his ilk have no concept of. Policing by its nature is adversarial. It has been that way since the Roman
Legions. It will be that way until the end of the earth.
Policing is a tough job. There is no way you can do it and please everybody. Some people will always complain, always say they were mistreated, always claim some kind of abuse. These cases are investigated. They are investigated under the laws of Illinois and the federal government. We are a nation of laws. A law professor like Mr. Bowman should know that.
If high numbers of cases are not sustained that means legally there was no wrong doing. Mr. Bowman relies on a New York Times article to make his case. What does the New York Times know about the Chicago Police Department?
Then there is this Reader article which begins- "Ilana Rosenzweig didn't flinch. It was either a sure sign that she's open to criticism and committed to her job of investigating police misconduct--or confirmation that she doesn't give a shit..." How can anyone give credibility to an article that uses profanity?
He cites Wikipedia, the source no one in academia or journalism is supposed to take seriously or with any credibility.
Locke Bowman is pro-criminal and anti police. He has never had to stare down violent people. He has never had to fight for his life. He has never had to try to kill someone who was trying to kill him. He never chased an armed offender down dark allies or up pitch black stairwells. He never had to try to settle domestic disturbances, sometimes the most violent incidents the police encounter.
Locke Bowman just sits in his ivory tower in leafy Evanston ivory tower accusing the Chicago Police department of being brutal.
The readers of Huffing Glue Post love that kind of stuff. 29 May, 2011
--
Source: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/middle-class-guy/2011/05/law-professor-versus-police.html
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
If you read him you would think the Department is full of brutal sadistic officers like they have in third world dictatorships.
First, the few cases that hit the media unfairly tarnish the whole department. Mr. Bowman and his pals at the ACLU know this. It arouses their prurient interests. It also makes them drool over the kachingos. The only thing that matters to so called social justice lawyers. It is always all about the money. Taxpayer money.
Locke Bowman knows nothing about police work. He just sits in the quaint little burg of Evanston and studies dry statistics. You know those numbers that never lie but liars always use.
Bowman is attacking the IPRA for not sustaining enough complaints against police officers. Here is the unvarnished truth. Something Mr. Bowman and his ilk have no concept of. Policing by its nature is adversarial. It has been that way since the Roman
Legions. It will be that way until the end of the earth.
Policing is a tough job. There is no way you can do it and please everybody. Some people will always complain, always say they were mistreated, always claim some kind of abuse. These cases are investigated. They are investigated under the laws of Illinois and the federal government. We are a nation of laws. A law professor like Mr. Bowman should know that.
If high numbers of cases are not sustained that means legally there was no wrong doing. Mr. Bowman relies on a New York Times article to make his case. What does the New York Times know about the Chicago Police Department?
Then there is this Reader article which begins- "Ilana Rosenzweig didn't flinch. It was either a sure sign that she's open to criticism and committed to her job of investigating police misconduct--or confirmation that she doesn't give a shit..." How can anyone give credibility to an article that uses profanity?
He cites Wikipedia, the source no one in academia or journalism is supposed to take seriously or with any credibility.
Locke Bowman is pro-criminal and anti police. He has never had to stare down violent people. He has never had to fight for his life. He has never had to try to kill someone who was trying to kill him. He never chased an armed offender down dark allies or up pitch black stairwells. He never had to try to settle domestic disturbances, sometimes the most violent incidents the police encounter.
Locke Bowman just sits in his ivory tower in leafy Evanston ivory tower accusing the Chicago Police department of being brutal.
The readers of Huffing Glue Post love that kind of stuff. 29 May, 2011
--
Source: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/middle-class-guy/2011/05/law-professor-versus-police.html
~
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
Sharing is Sexy !
About the Author
0 komentar: