Officer investigated for speaking his mind on St. Pete crime

Officer investigated for speaking his mind on St. Pete crime

www.wtsp.com

ST. PETERSBURG, Florida - A veteran officer with a clean record is being investigated by the St. Petersburg Police Department (SPPD) after he warned the father of a robbery victim about a dangerous part of town.

allegedly warned St. Petersburg father Bob Esposito about letting his 16-year-old daughter hang around the Northshore Pool at night.

The department then launched an investigation into "disparaging comments against the city."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Here is the Mayor of a city with high crime more interested in the public perception of his city (and the performance of his administration) than the safety of citizens. That this cop would be suspended for giving sound advice to someone, concerned about their safety is another example of how crime and the reality of crime is totally covered up in this country and how crime statistics and reporting have historically been used to twist public opinion.

I have been told by folks in airports and by cops not to enter certain parts of town in a number of cities in the US, notably LA and New Orleans. I have also been instructed by police not to enter certain parts of both Paris and Amsterdam. Any cop who would tell you that taking a stroll around Compton or downtown Camden is a good idea is without question being negligent. If a city administration has a policy whereby cops are told not to advise people of the relative safety of their environment to pursue economic gains, they are engaged in a criminal conspiracy and to the extent that someone is harmed should be held liable, in both civil and criminal court.

It is their job to "protect and to serve". That is meant to refer to the citizens within their jurisdiction, not the political reputation of the city or its administration.

If real crime statistics, presented in an objective manner were made available to the public there are hundreds of neighborhoods and entire cities that would see a massive reduction in visitors, potential home owners, tourists.

Crime vis-a-vie the criminal justice/prison system is big business. Under reporting of crime is also big business to the extent that it misrepresents the safety of a city and the city has economic gains as a result.


www.wtsp.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Downtown St.Pete is crawling with the homeless and drug-addicted...
I've seen it myself, I've known a few over the years; this is the town of the 'Homeless Tent City' debacle...
Vinoy yacht basin brushes them into the cracks...Williams park is packed with them all day long. The city installed 'bum-blockers' on all the park benches (a divider that prevents someone from lying down on the bench).

This very sad FACT leads any rational individual to the (correct) conclusion that it is STATISTICALLY LESS safe for the average person in those environs. (

Originally posted by RoswellCityLimits

S & F...why would an officer be punished for serving and protecting?

...um perhaps for saying the truth, you know you should not alarm the residents, you should only protect them when and after a crime is committed not before.

reply to post by cerebralassassins


Thats like a lifeguard telling you its OK to go swimming in shark infested water and only caring about your safety after you've been attacked.

Police officers are professionals who are in a position to know the safety of their surroundings. They have a duty and obligation to share that information with the public to the extent that it is in the public interest. Having a policy whereby police are not permitted to share that information is criminal.

About a year after the Rodney King trial and acquittals I had just moved to LA. My beater broke down on the 101 freeway and I was using a phone booth to call a tow truck. Two cops stopped and asked me what I was doing and I told them. At first, they thought I was lying and looking to score drugs, but when they realized that I was telling the truth told me that they would now have to sit and wait with me for the tow truck. That it was almost guaranteed that I would be a victim of a violent crime were I to remain in that location waiting for the truck. They further listed to me the violent crimes that had occurred in the span of a few weeks within a couple of blocks of where I was. Finally, they told me that due to the tension after the trial that they were under orders not to act on any criminal activity unless a call for assistance was placed from within the community. That were they to drive by and witness a crime, they were not to stop unless so ordered by dispatch.

They sat in their car for over two hours until the tow truck showed up. I'm thinking they were doing their jobs and am glad they did not "wait until something happened".

Originally posted by cerebralassassins

Originally posted by RoswellCityLimits

S & F...why would an officer be punished for serving and protecting?

...um perhaps for saying the truth, you know you should not alarm the residents, you should only protect them when and after a crime is committed not before.

LMFAO! Nice! Here, let me mop that sarcasm up you was drippin' there...

reply to post by dolphinfan


If the officer is being investigated for "disparaging comments against the city" then hopefully he will be fully cleared and commendated for giving good safety advice to a citizen.

However, if the department was smart, they would be investigating him for disclosing confidential information and statistics. A regular officer isn't supposed to be discussing arrests or crimes or anything else with the public. That information is largely confidential, and an assigned public information officer handles any releases that are necessary. If the department follows that road, then the officer is probably in trouble.

reply to post by getreadyalready


That the information is deemed confidential is what is problematic in the first place. Tax payers are paying for law enforcement. Citizens make decisions where to live, socialize, invest, visit. They should be given information that their government has obtained via the ivestments made by the tax payers. Why is it deemed confidential, because the folks can't handle it? It is far more likely that the city can't handle it.

Crime statistics are tremendously flawed. When government grants are on the table, crime goes up. During an election cycle when an incumbant is running, crime goes down.

Two examples from NY.

When David Dinkins was running for reelection for Mayor, he constantly touted dropping crime as a measure of his success as mayor. It came out that he had issued policies that the police were to ignore entire neighborhoods, not prosecute categories of crimes all together, plead down crimes so that lesser crimes made the statistics rather than the actual crime. The cops blew the whistle and the US Attorney did an investigation and determined that crime, particularily violent crime had increased dramatically.

When Rupert Murdoch bought the NY Post he began to institute a deal where every crime was listed and to the extent that criminal was outstanding an accurate description was listed in the paper, under the notion that the public could be of assistance in their arrest. This was back in the days when there were 2000 murders in NYC and it was a war zone. The outrage was tremendous, with business leaders hammering the Post, racial pressure groups picketing, the city government seeking to file suit against the paper, the whole schebang. The Post dropped the feature in about 3 months. It was a fascinating read, page after page after page. It did not want to make you vacation in NYC and definately gave you the information you needed to stay out of certain neighborhoods.

When the facts become unpleasant it is often time to make them more transparent, not to cover them up under the notion that they need to be analyzed and placed into context. x number of assaults between xyz street and abc street is important information for people to know and the government has no right to shield them from it

reply to post by dolphinfan


Crime statistics are extremely flawed and not very useful, and also easy to manipulate at all levels.

But, the reason the information is confidential is because arrest/investigation does not equal conviction.

If you were unfairly accused of molesting a neighbor kid, and in reality they were just mad because you got the promotion that they think their father should have gotten, and the police immediately closed the case, do you think that information should be public? It could ruin you if it was public. What if the police are working a case that will eventually nab dozens of criminals, should they have to disclose it while it is in process and hamper their own operation?

The officers are not supposed to be running their mouths about what is going on in the department or the neighborhood. They assign people to handle those delicate matters intentionally.

**********Now, as I said before. The police are also responsible for educating the public, and if this was just friendly advice to not let a teen child run around in public parks at night, then I think the officer was supplying a great community service and should be rewarded.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I'm not talking about a police blotter, although when used with respect to prostitution have been shown to be effective in some cases (I am for the legalization of prostitution, so am making no judgement on that score).

I'm talking about reported crime and a discription of the person the police are looking for, not names. Even summary information would be useful. Assuming that the police are looking for someone, why should'nt the public be placed into service in an attempt to catch them?

Things like:

101 Main Street. 10:00 PM - Armed assault reported. Suspect is white male, 25-35 in black sweatshirt seen leaving in a blue pick-up truck

Or

Queens
Howard Beach - 9 reported robberys, 15 reported attempted robberys, 5 reported rapes, 8 reported attempted rapes, 2 murders

Things like that. I fail to see how that information should be kept from the public and only see how keeping it from the public is manipulation

reply to post by dolphinfan


I agree, that information would be terrific to get into the public as soon as possible. Still, it should come from an official information officer, not just from a patrolman on the street. Often times the patrolman will have outdated information, or only 1 slice of the information pie. The release of information should still come from the official source, and if the officer is out spreading rumors of his own, then there might be a problem.

I am a big fan of more information, I just want to be sure it is accurate. I don't want an alert for someone fitting my description to go out, and all of a sudden I'm facing down an angry crowd, LOL!

Haha. Wow. The cops in Atlanta just stand in the MARTA stations at certain stops and kindly suggest to you as you are getting off the train that you may have gotten off at "the wrong stop" and that "you may not want to be here." It's all in the technique.

"To Serve and Protect"

The only question, WHO are they serving and protecting?

Obviously, it's not supposed to be the public, otherwise this officer would be getting a promotion instead of investigated.