UPDATED
This just in from Mayor Ashley Swearengin's office: "Eddie J. Aubrey of Federal
Way, Wash., who has 29 years of public service experience as a former police officer,
deputy prosecuting attorney and judge, as the city of Fresno's first director of the Office of Independent Review."
Here's today's story in The Bee about the appointment.
This is what city officials said in their news release Wednesday:
"As director of the Office of Independent Review, Aubrey will work independently of the Police Department chain of command to provide City policymakers and the public with an objective, third-party analysis of internal investigations to ensure those investigations are conducted in a thorough, fair and unbiased manner.
"The role of independent reviewer requires excellent analytical skills, research ability, investigative skills, knowledge and experience in the profession of law enforcement, problem-solving, integrity, forthrightness, innovation, transparency and effective communication," Souza said. "Eddie Aubrey has demonstrated throughout his career that he possesses all of those essential characteristics."Mayor Swearengin also said Aubrey's background will put him in a "unique position" to carry out the responsibilities of the independent reviewer.
"Eddie Aubrey's experience as a police officer, prosecutor and judge will give him a
360-degree view of the issues that the independent reviewer will be called upon to
address," Mayor Swearengin said. "Combined with his integrity, excellent communication skills and strong commitment to reaching out to the community, he will be a catalyst in ensuring that there is trust between law enforcement and Fresno residents."
So the hire has been made and now Fresno has a high priced bureaucrat who is not going to have any support staff to help him do his job(budget cuts) and who will be viewed as an outsider by Fresno PD. How effective do you think this guy is going to be after the first time he makes and officer look bad?
Dyer and his good old boys will make sure this guy fails and then what? You have a police auditor earning a bunch of money to tell the citizens of Fresno that we have problems inside the Fresno PD. Duh!
The cops are just doing what they have to do. Anyone that thinks they can do better should go to the academy get hired at let those crazy criminals put your life in danger everyday.
It is my personal believe that Fresno Mayor Swearengin's intent was to hire someone who was destined to fail. It is my personal believe that she played the race card quite deftly. I haven't lived around here in the loop for over 50 years without having learned the local demographics (so to speak.) It is only the past 7 years that I stayed clear of the local politics. I just pay my taxes. It would be good form to say Welcome to Fresno Mr. Aubrey! but I also believe that this is not being extended by the local clique.
They should take money from the Mayor,Police Chief and City Managerpay for this guy as he is doing their job.It's easy to hire someone else to do your job and placate the whiners when your spending the money that belongs to others.
I have provided a link twice now which apparently did not make the cut. This guy was second on the list for the same job in Eugene Oregon, they threw the list away after the first ranked candidate rejected the appointment. He started out in Santa Monica, then LAPD. He has been Chief at a college in Tacoma Washington were he is a Clery Trainer. I don't want to be unfair but the above announcement should at least point to a Sherlock or Oliver W. Holmes. I would like the Bee to present some real information (their job) instead of describing him through the prism of Fresno government. This is becoming more interesting than I thought it could be. We should have a biography on all the perspective candidates as well. It seems there is a class of these guys grooming themselves for this police auditor position, not like they were Solomon's hand picked plucked out of decision making hell...pure public relations. One biographical piece included a (?) after the word judge on Mr. Aubrey. I wonder if the list will be thrown away here if he backs out, I bet not.
"It is my personal believe that she (the mayor) played the race card...." Isabell
Heretofore, race has not been mentioned; it has not been a factor. Why interject it into the mix now? Leave it to a lib - to once again - play the race card. What has race got to do with it?
I have no knowledge on his ability or lack thereof. But I am willing to "judge" this guy on merit and character - not by the color of his skin. What is it with libs and race?
Is it the mere posting of a photo on a web site that sets you off.? WHAT IS IT WITH LIBS AND RACE?
I don't judge him either. It is red-neck Fresno that shall not accept him. Mr. Morgan you either are very inept to comprehend English text, or you are trying to stir up trouble again; as usually?
"Red-neck Fresno" ?? Who is trying to stir up controversy and trouble? Must you always "bait" locals with such race-tinged expressions. What is it with libs and race?
Fresno, a shining example of racial integration and color-blindness. Thanks for the good laugh. I guess you would call Steinbeck a racist, baiting people. Over and out! And back to ignoring your very existence.
wow, libs sure are racist and angry people.
Isabell I understood your statement to be complimentary and indulgent toward the mayor, well within your wierd boundaries of projection. If anyone would know how a race card is played deftly it would be you.
Swearingen didn't hire someone to fail. The problem is that the people that want answers are the relatives of the criminals that are getting shot. They will never be happy with any investigation because they would have to admit that their loved ones broke the law and deserved what they got. If you're gonna run ,threaten an officer or citizen with a weapon you're gonna get shot and you deserve to be.
But if a polioe officer feels threatened by a black telephone in a suspect's hand and just shoots the guy with the telephone. And this is a real case. The police protected us always very well without shooting 11 suspects in less than a year? Maybe the quality of some police officers is not what they used to be. Like Sgt. Friday of TV "Just the facts..." or TV's NEW BREED, college educated cops. I know TV land is phantasy land, but it also is a reflection of the prevailing culture.
Jackie's comments are spot on. Isabelle's comments are even more bizarre than usual; they are a case study in projection.
Jackie-
You are 100% correct.
Society today is nothing like the crime on Dragnet and has noything to do with Sgt Joe Friday. There is no respect for human life. It is a kill society. Whether its a phone, toy gun or whatever they are given a warning to show their hands and if they reach into their waistband that is a threat to the officer and public in the vicinity. Do you want to be the one in the line of fire when it is a weapon and the officer just stood there and let them shoot you? I think not. Its about obeying the laws. When a person calls police and says he has a gun and will shoot the first officer on scene should he just pull up and get out of his car? Its common sense Isabel unfortunately sense is not that common.
"I know TV land is phantasy land, but it also is a reflection of the prevailing culture."
Jackie Krage; that statement had been written in coherent English, and there is nothing bizarre about it. And the statement you made "There is no respect for human life. It is a kill society." made my point that our police had protected us very well in the past without having to kill the suspects. Citing that fact does not make me certifiable as has been implied. But it should be a wake-up call that we the bearers, the makers of prevailing communal cultures must spare no effort to make the pendulum swing back to being sensible human beings. If that is bizarre; then so be it. If a person advocating such ism is certifiable ; then so be it.
Isabell-
Trying a little too hard to win an argument aren't you? I'm told that's bad form.
Question: How does ignorance deftly play a police card?
Answer: "Maybe the quality of some police officers is not what they used to be."
Nor is the standing or quality of police criticism Isabell. When you use the word some, what is your point? Perhaps you could visit the local P.O.S.T. Academy for just one day. You would be better educated as to the level of training officers and deputies receive, and you would more prone to utter such nonsense less frequently.
When I wrote that your comments were bizarre, I was referring to your initial comments introducing race into the discussion based soley upon the new auditor's photograph.
Your comments regarding Jackie's post are offensive. At a minimum, you strongly imply - if not outright state - that the officer who shot the suspect knew, at the time he discharged his gun, that the suspect was holding a cell phone rather than a weapon. How do you know that? It must be very easy for you analyzing what occurred based on a hindsight only test from the safety and comfort of your ivory tower. You are basically accusing the officer of murder. Thank God you are not the police auditor.
Next, you criticize officers for not living up to the standards of Sgt. Friday. Newsflash: South Fresno is not TV land circa the 1960's. Suspects in the streets of Fresno in 2009 are armed, very dangerous, indifferent to life, and intent on not returning to prison. The ending to a confrontation with a suspect in Fresno's mean streets is not dictated by a TV writer who need to ensure that Sgt. Friday is alive for the next show.
The police protected us in the past very well indeed but they did not have to deal with the type of violence that they do now. With gangs there has been an escalation in the violence or have you missed that. I will defend our police officers to the end because they are doing a great service for us. I sincerely hope you will not get one that isn't willing to protect you or your loved ones should that become necessary. I see officers everyday take criminals of the street only to have to do it over and over due to overcrowding. They are trained to protect and serve at all times. Is it possible that one could cross the line yes but it is not the norm. My family members go out there everynight and I pray I won't get that call that they aren't coming home just like a military family. This is war on our streets and you are upset that a law breaker might get shot.
Everyone commenting here is missing the point. It's not about race or who's right and who is wrong. Bottom line is that the auditor will be viewed as an outsider by the PD and therefore will not get the whole truth. Chief Dyer is never going to allow this guy full access to his men and files, never in a million years. There are a lot of problems inside of Fresno PD and the list starts at the top with the Chief. Are there bad cops? Sure, but I think that any police officer who has a weapon pointed at him is going to shoot first and ask questions later. If you don't want to be shot by one of Dyers boys, don't point at weapon at them. If you do, they will fire on you and aim to kill!
OK Jackie Krage! Have it your way. You have chosen to make something of my post which I have neither said nor implied. The open-minded reader of my post would have seen that I am blaming our culture of violence for the problems with the maintaining of law and order. In the final analysis it is always the community that determines the quality of its culture its way of life. Raise the children better and there shall be less gangs and lawless people. It has been written that the morality of a nation rests with its mothers. And if I sound peeved it is because I am. Have a good day!
I am old enough to have lived in a time when the direction was to disable and not to kill. And if our society does not want to turn the culture- clock back to being more civilized,I am too old to do anything about it. Albert Schweitzer's motto was that "LIFE IS INVIOLABLE " But who in hell was he; that old Belgian Kraut? Right?????
Isabelle, you are unbelievably naive. A directive to disable but not kill? It sounds so European. Or perhaps you would prefer the officer to ask the suspect to lay down his weapon, pretty please?
The real world is not television or the movies. If deadly force is warranted, police are trained to shoot at the center of the suspect's torso. That presents the greatest body mass so as to maximize the chances of actually striking the target. The more certain and immediate lethality of such force also increases the chances of stopping the target from presenting a further risk of great bodily harm or death to the officer and/or third parties. Shooting at an arm or a leg of a mobile suspect under stressful circumstances increases the chances of missing the target, hitting bystanders, and not stopping the suspect from continuing to use lethal force against the officer and/or others.
"Old Belgian Kraut" ?? Is that another one of those racial put-downs that you are so frequently use? Or is it just another example of extremely poor taste?
BTW, the police are practically the only ones trying to "turn the culture-clock back to being more civilized." It’s the gang-bangers and druggies that are the barbarians at the gate!
Isabel: With all due respect, I think you may be stretching it a bit here. For as long as I can remember, police, military, etc. have been trained to shoot for center mass, the largest target. Whether you have been expending energy from a chase, whether adrenaline is in your system, etc. you do not aim to wound. To many people have watched TV and seen somebody draw and fire from the hip with a pistol and strike their target at 100 yards and that does not happen unless it is pure luck. When somebody is shooting at you or attempting to do so, you try
to not give them the first chance, let alone a second.
Mr. Morgan! Get off my back! It is the Americans who call Germans Kraut. It is the Americans who have derogatory names for every nationality. You want me to list the American pet names for Italiens, Armenians, Poles, Mexicans, Swedes and all the others? Want a copy of my paper on the American diversity and the incongruity of its disunity? Some folk are intellectuals and some are not. Have a good day!
'Isabelle, you are unbelievably naive."
No "Seamus" I am not naive. The directive for all police depatments to shoot to kill is post Columbine in 2000. But some bloggers here are inbelievably ignorant and too lazy to do proper research. I deal in facts not fiction that suits my mood of the day.
Police are trained to stop a threat that a reasonable person in the same set of circumstances would conclude further action by an assailant would result in the loss of life or grave bodily injury. There are hundreds of individuals in our metropolitan area that are programed to conduct themselves in this aggressive style as a way of life. None want to be incarcerated and many will kill an officer to remain free and criminal without any thought. That there are not more officer involved shootings is a miracle. The citizenry take police protection for granted. It's fun to make references to the chief's "boys," but every officer and deputy has an epiphany at one point in his or her career which matures them individually beyond their years. If you believe that police spend their whole day in a state of discretionary bliss, you're wrong. We are safer with law enforcement than without. Any executive who fears public opinion so much they are compelled to add layers of bureaucracy would be advised to not tinker with working critical components. Trust within a group is hardly ever fabricated successfully utilizing the assets of another. My two cents.
Please, Madam, do not be offended; this is after all a free-wheeling free speech forum!
It is true that "Americans (use) derogatory names" in some instances. But that does not mean we all do!
Wrong again Isabelle. Police officers have always been trained to shoot to kill when confronted with deadly force. You are confusing separate issues as my brief research confirmed.
The post-Columbine change in policy you are referring to is the active-response or rapid-response protocol for dealing with Columbine-like situations. It only applies to certain situations where one or more gunman are holding hostages. Prior to Columbine, the first beat officers to arrive at such a scene would contain the outer area but wait for S.W.A.T. to arrive. The theory was that the S.W.A.T. officers were trained and equipped to invade the premises and take out the bad guys. That is what the first arriving officers did at Columbine. However, given the time it took for the S.W.A.T. team to arrive (30 or 45 minutes), too many hostages were shot and killed.
So, post-Columbine, police departments trained the first arriving officers to wait for several officers to arrive, then form a group ( in diamond formation I believe), storm the building (even before S.W.A.T. arrives), and then directly pursue the gunman or gunman with guns ablazing with shoot to kill orders. The theory is that quick intervention saves lives.
Had you done your research properly, you would have discovered that is the directive which emerged post-Columbine, not a new shoot to kill policy. Those are the facts.
It appears that it did not go through the first time I tried. Maybe it will now? It is the result of my research to show that American Police Departments did not always have the directive to shoot to kill prior to 2000
"O C T O B E R 2 0 0 0
In the post-Columbine world, police departments all over America are adopting new, no-nonsense SWAT-team tactics" (MSN search engine)
".. was referring to your initial comments introducing race into the discussion based soley upon the new auditor's photograph."
My comments were based solely on the fact that unless a politician is totally clueless, nothing in politics happens by serendipity. But content of comments aside, I thought that this is an opinion poll and not a correspondence slug-fest. Disagree, make counter argument attack the message; but refrain from attacking the messenger. It signifies nothing and contributes nothing to the topic on the table. Thank You!
"SHOOT TO KILL
This was only a training exercise. But the point of this training is something radically new and different, and it is unsettling for Larry Layman, his fellow officers in Peoria, Illinois, and thousands of other law-enforcement officers across the country. Historically, the police in the United States have employed a standard response when confronted with armed suspects in schools, malls, banks, post offices, and other heavily populated buildings. The first officers to arrive never rushed in. Instead they set up perimeters and controlled the scene. They tried to contain the suspects, and called in a rigorously trained Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team.
Today, however, police officers are setting aside traditional tactics. They are being taught to enter a building if they are the first to arrive at the scene, to chase the gunman, and to kill or disable him as quickly as possible. This sweeping change in police tactics -- variously called rapid-response, emergency-response, or first-responder -- is a direct result of the shootings that occurred at Columbine High School, in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20 of last year."
This is from my research on the subject. You construe it any way you like, and I interpret it my way. And this concludes my contribution to the topic.
Mrs. Isabell Lawson
You are conflating issues Isabelle. Please try to focus. Let me explain it once again so hopefully you can understand.
Police were always trained to use lethal force when confronted with deadly force by a suspect on the street. The post-Columbine change in policy to which you refer is a specific tactical approach to a specific crime scenario called active shooter protocol. An article in the Bee today about the heroic officer who shot the Fort Hood suspect references the tactic. That policy change applies only to a specific situation involving a gunman or gunmen engaged in a murdering spree, such as the Fort Hood shooting the other day. However, whether pre- or post-Columbine, when confronted with an armed suspect in the street who presents a danger to the officer or the public, officers have always been trained to use lethal force (shoot at the center mass of the torso).
"Please, Madam, do not be offended" Mr. Morgan this is the first polite sentence you wrote since I visited the beehive about a year [or so] ago. You may not be in the habit of using demeaning names for ethnic groups. But go to the file of your posts, and you shall find that the list of your repertoire in rudeness is substantial. Getting on the high horse only works when horse and rider are not known. hahaha! So let's stick to the blog topic. It is far more interesting.
The policy in response tactics have changed, not the rational or legal authorization for the use of deadly force. From a very safe distance, our TV screens, millions witnessed the responding officers at Columbine follow the old policy by waiting for support outside the wall of the school building. They could hear the chaos inside. The new tactical policy addresses a need for public safety organizations to defend the innocent from slaughter in progress, a positive one which requires no apology.
Off the topic. "Seamus" I have not been conflating anything. My post is a direct quote from one source and not the product of several sources. Calling me un-focused, naïve, ill-informed and whatever else does not make it so, and it does not enhance the cerebral capacity of
the name-caller . And I am tired of this. Have a great life!
Seamus: Everything you have said is correct. Isabel at times has a hard time realizing and admitting she is wrong.