Sunday, February 19, 2012

News flash: Cop calls Grits a liar

Grits is a liar, says Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo! Go here to read why then come back here for, as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story.

Let's start by quickly granting what was incorrect  in my original post about getting stopped twice Friday night a week ago with my granddaughter on the way home from roller skating (an account which received, much to my surprise and without my assistance, an almost absurd amount of social media attention until eventually the Statesman picked it up). Throughout, with the chief's approbation, I declined comment.

Basically two things I wrote were flat-out wrong, both of which are detailed in an Update/Correction posted at the end of the original item on Friday. First, I recalled an officer pulling his taser out when in fact his hand hovered over his weapon but it remained holstered. After I finally got to see some of the video for myself, I posted a correction. I also posted another correction: I originally thought the deputy constable (the first officer who detained us) had called in the rest of the cavalry and assigned blame to her when I shouldn't. Turns out, she did the right thing and IMO it was APD who overreacted, an opinion which explains why the chief is mad.

What's still in dispute? Mostly red herrings. I never alleged police brutality nor misconduct. In fact, in the comment section and more than a few emails to reporters I insisted there was none. I did say in the post I was "roughly cuffed." And if the tape rolls long enough (I don't know what was released to the media) at some point I asked them to loosen the cuffs as they were cinched up tight enough to be painful - a small thing, perhaps, if it's not you, but a "lie"? To his credit, one of the officers loosened the cuffs shortly before I was released.

Acevedo also pretends in the Statesman article that his officers stopped us because I refused to identify myself to the deputy constable. In fact, the deputy constable's written report, which the chief let me read in his office but would not give me a copy of, she said she stopped us, asked Ty a few questions, seemingly did not think the situation required further investigation and had begun to return to the Millenium Center. It was then that APD was told a deputy constable was on the scene, and they had her patched through via dispatch. Moments before APD was about to roll up on us, the deputy constable told APD that she'd spoken to us, gave them the child's name, told them I was her grandfather, and began to run toward the scene. She never told APD I did not identify myself before I was handcuffed, so that fact-bite was irrelevant. (Judging from the one-sided account, Acevedo apparently did not release the constable's written report, nor the dispatch tape of her saying that to APD along with the materials he gave the Statesman Friday.)

What aspects of my original recitation were correct? Well, basically everything else. Despite Acevedo's inflammatory attack on my credibility, not much is actually in dispute. Someone called 911 when I left the Millennium Center with my granddaughter. I was stopped not once but twice. I did, in fact, allow the Constable to question Ty and she left understanding that I was Ty's grandpa. We were then stopped by several APD officers. I counted six cars initially, with three more arriving soon thereafter and a supervisor arriving later. Acevedo didn't dispute any of that. I was handcuffed. Ty was taken away from me, pulled into a police car and questioned. We were not immediately released. Some minutes later, after they finally called my wife and daughter, we were let go without an apology. And the child had numerous questions and opinions about the incidents that I tried to accurately recollect.

So, on the basis of one factual error which I readily owned after seeing the conflicting video, I am a liar, says the chief. The strangest part is, Acevedo brought me into APD headquarters Thursday afternoon to meet with him and his staff, proposing that we do a media interview together and try and make all this a "teaching moment" for the public (his words). He was upset that the issue was being discussed without him getting to "frame" it. I'd turned down more than two-dozen requests for media interviews on this topic, from every local print and TV outlet to Anderson Cooper, but because the media frenzy had gotten so out of hand even without my participation, after mulling it over with the family, I agreed to do a joint interview with him (now decidedly not happening).

My first hint that Acevedo was about to show me an especially Janus-faced visage came Friday afternoon, when he began leaking emails and launching personal attacks on a local listserv through his favorite stalking horse, retired Texas Monthly publisher Mike Levy. Then Saturday in the paper he's calling me a liar. "Teaching moment" my ass.

It would be convenient for him if I were. Grits has been a bit of a thorn in the department's side dating to the mid-'90s when I co-founded a political action committee that successfully pushed for the creation of Austin's Police Monitor Office and ran a website publishing police misconduct reports from the department garnered under open records. So taking this opportunity to try and discredit me personally must have been just too tempting to pass up.

Did I intentionally make up the drawn taser? Of course not, no more than a witness who falsely identifies a suspect by mistake. In 2001, I helped pass the legislation to require cameras in police cars, for heaven's sake, I knew full well the incident was being taped! I said what I remembered and remembered that detail wrong. Vision and memory is not the same as a videotape. Anyone who follows innocence issues knows much of our vision of constructed from memory and witnesses make mistakes. Carl Reynolds from the Office of Court Administration once recounted how, after he and several others were accosted in a robbery in Atlanta, he "learned later that [he and his] colleagues ... did not even agree on the number of young men." Were some of them lying? I don't think so. Neither was I, and I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. Hence the correction.

Similarly, I was wrong to assume the deputy constable called in the cavalry. With 20/20 hindsight, having reviewed all the materials the chief showed me (which is more than the press has seen so far), she's the one who did it right, investigating a serious allegation without needlessly scaring a child or applying more restrictive force than was necessary to contain the situation. She also told APD moments before they detained me that she'd spoken to the child, gave them her name, and said I was her Grandpa. My apologies for my original, false interpretation, both to the deputy and Constable Danny Thomas' shop.

Many, many people have asked whether I will sue or file a complaint, so let me reiterate here, just as I said in the blog comments and in writing to Chief Acevedo and Ms. Osborn (though somehow she didn't find it fit to print): "Not only am I not going to sue the police, I doubt anyone even violated APD policies so a complaint wouldn't do much either - they're TRAINED to respond like that, which is my main beef with what happened. This wasn't a bug in the system, it's a feature."

As I said in Grits comments and to the Chief, both face to face in front of a roomful of brass and in writing, I don't believe what those officers did violated any law, departmental policy or court ruling, and in fact it likely conformed to APD's training and the expectations of their supervisors. I never said otherwise. It was completely "by the book." But there are some really good books that may not be completely appropriate for a five-year old. I'm not saying don't investigate, I'm saying exercise some self-restraint, discretion and common sense, like the deputy did. When your investigation is happening in front of a small child and there's no immediate threat, I prefer the deputy constable's book to APD's approach. That's the full extent of any policy criticism I have on the incident.

What bugs me most about the Statesman article wasn't some cop calling me a liar - that happens twice a week if you read Grits comments. No, what gets my goat is the chief spent nearly two hours glad handing me on Thursday and never once called me a liar, never once alleged bad faith, said he wanted us to move forward to respond together, blah, blah, blah. Then the next day he ropes in some in-the-can Statesman reporter, dripping out partial information to do a hatchet piece.

There are many types of courage in the world. The kind of courage to confront criminals on the street is certainly one type. Then there's the courage required to admit a mistake. And there's having the grit to look a man in the eye and say the same things to his face that you do behind his back. Or perhaps that last one has become an outdated virtue?

RELATED: Just so Grits can say they've been published as prominently as the original post, here are the two corrections I appended to the original blog post on Friday:
UPDATE/CORRECTIONS (2/17): Yesterday afternoon I had the opportunity to review the documentation, video, audio and police reports related to this incident in Art Acevedo's office and heard his pitch why this blog post was unfair. There are really only two corrections I'd make having now seen the videos and other documentation Chief Acevedo showed me yesterday. (I'm probably going to write about it again over the weekend.) First, I recollected in the blog post that an officer had a taser drawn and from the video the officer's arm was only crooked and prepared to draw. It happened in a flash and like many eyewitnesses, when under a perceived threat, my mind filled in some pieces erroneously, I'll be the first to admit in light of the video evidence. It was not an intentional error. That said, I correctly perceived that all of a sudden a LOT of cops were on us out of nowhere and if I'd made any sudden or untoward moves I'd be tazed or worse. I think it wasn't unreasonable for either of us to feel threatened by them rolling up on us like that.

The other error was that the original post cast unfair blame on the deputy constable. Her report said that after we'd spoken, she was heading back to the Millenium Center thinking the incident was over when the dispatcher patched into the constable's frequency because they'd heard from the Millenium Center she'd gone after us. In the dispatcher's audio, she tells APD just before they roll up on us that she'd spoken to us, gave them Ty's name and told them I was her grandpa. Though I blamed her (unfairly) both at the scene and in the initial post, falsely thinking she'd called in the cavalry, she did not. In fact, in the scheme of things she got it right. Basically two departments with overlapping jurisdictions responded to this complaint: One came at us based on a community policing approach where she walked up calmly, asked a few questions, and according to her report was satisfied and had begun to return to her shift until she heard on the radio APD was coming. By contrast, APD handcuffed first and asked questions later. That's the big difference between the two departments' approaches.

229 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229
Richie B said...

whiskeydent,

The point of my post is that the peace is kept through the enforcement of state, local and federal laws. So I apologize for any confusion and hope this clears up my intentions of that post.

Further, Chris, I don't know what kind of cops you hang out with, but when you refer to the unions, I would say that every union on Earth lobbies for those things on behalf of their members. What's different about cops?

Anonymous said...

Phelps,

Is it not acceptable to you that an officer be able to protect themselves as well as the public?

Are they not allowed to expect to go home to their significant other and children? Funny thing is, the night in question; everyone went home (to include Grits and his granddaughter, as it should be).
You definitely sound like you have a chip on your shoulder.

How is it now a job, cops get paid for what they do, same as anyone else that has a job. Who said it wasn’t a job. But part of the job is making sure you and your partner (if you have one) get to go home at the end of the day.

Would it be nice if the APD had offered some sort of condolences for the temporary inconvenience placed upon Scott and his granddaughter as a result of responding to limited information provided from the 911 caller? Sure, but I suspect that any apology given that night would not have changed Scott’s perception (based on his preconceived bias) nor would it really have made a difference to changing your disposition towards APD or cops in general.

In reference to the Active Shooter incidents, in the past, the typical police agency manual dictated that the first officer(s) on the scene were to establish a perimeter and hold said perimeter while a SWAT team was called upon, along with negotiators, etc. Times have changed. (funny how that happens) and now there are more agencies and officers that have received ALERT training to respond to active shooters differently. I am guessing you don’t have children, but even if you did, if an active shooter situation ever took place at your child school, I seriously doubt you would be permitted anywhere near the school to take care of anything yourself. You are just bloviating now.

I do agree that each of us have a personal responsibility to protect ourselves, but you really can’t expect a five year old to accomplish that task. It is up to everyone else, particularly the parents and family, to provide that protection.

In a sense, I realize that in responding to you, that I know I won’t change your negative perception of law enforcement and that is fine, I accept that. You are free to have your opinion, although, I would hope to help others from falling into the dark pit of animosity that you have fallen into. As previously stated, could APD have handled this situation differently, yes, but no one got hurt, everyone went home safely, and yet somewhere tonight, in this huge world, a child was kidnapped, rapped , and killed & police officer was killed in the line of duty, but we shouldn’t let that affect our hatred towards others. Why can't we all get along and have world peace? Wait, I know the answer to that question. It is because we are human beings.

Anonymous said...

There are certainly situations where a police officer is justified to handcuff a person who has been detained, while the officer sorts out the situation, then releases the person from said detention, without having to take the person to jail.

Heck, for that manner, anytime that you, as a motoring driver, gets pulled over for a traffic violation, you are being temporarily detained and are not free to simply go without either signing a promise to appear, being taken immediately before a magistrate, or being detained overnight to see a magistrate in the morning. There are only two offenses in the Texas Transportation Code that requires the officer to offer you the opportunity to sign a promise to appear, Speeding and an Open Container violation. Now, does it make sense for an officer to detain a driver overnight for any of the other traffic violations in the transportation code? NO. Nor would we want our police officers arresting people and taking them to jail for said Class C offenses.

Phelps said...

@9:47: if your reaction and demeanor were the rule rather than the exception, my opinion of police professionalism would be the opposite of what it is.

The reality is that I have to treat any interaction with a LEO like confronting a stray dog that might be rabid. If they aren't badge heavy, then my wariness doesn't matter, and if they are one of the significant number that are, I am screwed either way.

Richie B said...

Methinks phelps has a chip on his shoulder for a reason. What was it? Were you a punk growing up? Short man's complex? There's no reason for someone to have the animosity and distain that you have for an entire profession just based on the mere hint of the idea that you might someday, someplace be subjected to the scrutiny of a police officer for some offense. The fact that you carry so much bile towards pesons who would gladly lay down their lives so that you can carry on yours speaks volumes about your character, or rather, the lack thereof.

With regard to the active shooter incidents, I love how persons whose only exposure to any form of law enforcement is watching far too many episodes of CSI or COPS (that'd be you) feel they have the expertise to pontificate about police procedure in any fashion, let alone the nightmare call that an active shooter is.

Phelps, the reality is that you have no clue what you're talking about, but you have no qualms spouting off about it, either. The truly sad part is, the more you open your mouth, the more surely you are revealed to be a fool. So by all means, go on and talk big about defending yourself and keep the air of Lay-Z-Boy bravado, because anyone with any sort of a functioning brain can see through your charade.

rodsmith said...

sorry chris but i have to give richie B this one!

"Further, Chris, I don't know what kind of cops you hang out with, but when you refer to the unions, I would say that every union on Earth lobbies for those things on behalf of their members. What's different about cops?"

If they were not trying to get the most for their members. Said members would be hauling them into court to can them!

Gritsforbreakfast said...

BGB, I admitted I blew it - and not just the three-word error out of a 2,500+ word essay that Acevedo is complaining about (see above at 2/20, 8:02, and in the post where I say I was "flat-out wrong"). Also I would say this string has attracted as many cops and their supporters as their critics. Anyone like Richie B (or you) who thinks this has permanently damaged my credibility should just not visit anymore. You're here by your own choice so if you choose to visit sites you consider non-credible, that says more about you than your opinion does about me.

I'd be curious how many people here could go through an intense, rapid, complex situation like that, write 2,500 words about it based solely on memory with no notes or access to primary sources, and when compared to video, audio and other detailed documentation have only three words disputed? Considering I had no sources but my memory, IMO, as this writer put it:

"reviewed closely, the video actually seems to corroborate Henson's basic story of APD over-reaction and excessively aggressive behavior.

"Furthermore, a comparison of the evidence, including the video, to statements by Chief Acevedo and various media sources tends to bolster a contrary case that it's Chief Acevedo and some media outlets that are disseminating wildly erroneous and misleading information."

I made two errors and corrected them as soon as they were brought to my attention. (Notice I also corrected the error about the department that is NOT complaining - I did it because I got it wrong, not from any pressure.) Chief Acevedo has seized on one of those errors to call it a "lie," but mainly as a smokescreen to conceal the more important truth revealed by my other mistake, which is: Harking back to the old "one riot, one Ranger days," they didn't need 9 officers to handle this, they didn't need to cuff me in front of the kid or scare her half to death. The real story here IMO is the comparison of how the two departments handled the incident: One based on a community policing model, the other with a cuff-first, ask questions later approach. Nobody seems to want to talk about that difference, but it's the main public policy issue actually raised by the anecdote.

Oh, and to Richie B, I don't know where you're getting your information on the relative dangerousness of police jobs, but you're utterly clueless on that topic. Here's the most recent data I've seen. Among government employees, garbage workers have by far the most dangerous jobs, more than twice as dangerous as police in terms of risk of death.

Also, you're wrong that an apology at the scene "would not have changed Scott’s perception." In this case, if sincere, there's a decent chance it would have prevented the original post in the first place.

Anonymous said...

I don’t know that anyone “owes” anyone an apology. The original 911 caller was concerned for the safety of a 5 year old girl and misread what was transpiring as they left the community center. I’m sure she feels something about how it all turned out, probable most sorry that Ty had to see her grandfather being dealt with by the police, but she can take some solace in the fact that it was not an attempted kidnapping and sexual assault of the child.
The officers of APD responded to the call with the limited information they had on hand. But should they apologize? “Sorry we didn’t get told it was a grandfather protectively chasing after his granddaughter to keep her from running out too far or into the street.” Of course if the caller had known that, then a call would not have been made. It wasn’t like APD just randomly saw a white guy with a little black girl and instantly made a false assumption and thus a racial profile encounter.
The constable handled the sticky situation with a man with a chip already on his shoulder in a very good way. She even tried to call off APD, once she knew they were responding as well, but events happened too quickly. She owes no one an apology.
Should Scott apologize? Only if he has remorse for his actions, same as I think opine about everyone else involved. I’m sure that he has remorse that Ty had to experience this. What he says to his granddaughter is his business. He appeared in his blog to be about to reassure Ty about the contact with the constable when APD rolls up. Bad timing, but that doesn’t mean they don’t talk about it later. It would be nice if she doesn’t develop the same chip on her shoulder that he appears to have.
Should he apologize about his misrepresenting the events of that night? He has already admitted that he was wrong about a taser being pointed at him. You cops out there should not expect an apology from a person who wrote about his experience from his recollection and perception of the events. It is, after all, his blog and his opinion. If it were intentional, then it was a lie, but does it really matter anyway? And what would an apology from anyone on this matter mean anyway. The anti-police crowd would still have their chips on their shoulder. The cops still have their job to do. Ty is the only one that might benefit, and that all depends on how this whole event is framed by her parents and grandparents.
It is scary to read some of the responses from what appears to be both sides of this story. Name calling by those who appear to be in support of or possible cops to the anti police folks that appear to be in the verge of conducting their own terroristic attack on a police station or the beating up of the constable for her initial approach and response to a person telling her of their fear for the safety of the child. Those are everyone else’s opinion, but some of the thought processing occurring out there is simply scary. (And we wonder why APD had so many units show up at the scene. Seems that gets answered by reading some of these posts and the threats that have been made.) But I am thankful we are ALL allowed to voice our opinion on Grits’ comment section.

Phelps said...

Methinks phelps has a chip on his shoulder for a reason. What was it? Were you a punk growing up? Short man's complex?

Nope. Never had any trouble as a kid, and I'm well over six foot tall. I'm just a libertarian who not only read Robert Peel's writings on police reform -- I understood them.

It is amusing to me that the only way you can conceive of someone having a problem with you being a bully is if they had been bullied.

Anonymous said...

Grits, I read the posts that you referenced on the “relative dangerousness of police jobs”. As I read the information being provided, it appears this is a statistical analysis of the number of deaths compared to the number of people in that particular field. These statistics don’t answer the question of why? In reference to police, could it be that they are better trained and more cautious than the fishermen? I don’t know, but certainly in watching programs such as the Deadliest Catch, it appears much of what a greenhorn learns in on the job. And the dangers of the ocean can’t be overlooked. Those are some very dangerous environments they have to work in.

But I think we can see one of the most inherent risks to police officers and that is the motoring public. And a traffic officer on a traffic stop will have up to 100 cars go zipping by the traffic stop. That was 100 potential crashes. There is a strong likelihood that several intoxicated drivers passed by as well. The fact that the crash doesn’t occur does not make the potential go away nor lesson the chance of the fatal crash. That is not represented in the statistical analysis. An officer responding to a domestic in progress has to face any number of dangers. From the dangers of driving fast to respond quickly, the dangers of the other driver’s on the road between where the officer is coming from to where the domestic is occurring, the unknown dangers upon arrival at the domestic, such as an ambush by the abusing party (who doesn’t want the police there in the first place), the dangers of any number of weapons in the house, to the danger that the victim suddenly twists around to protect her abusing husband (it happens). The fact that several units safely get to the domestic, handle the situation, and leave without getting killed or injured is not reflected in the statistical analysis.

These stats don’t really mean much in determining what line of work is most dangerous. They definitely reflect with jobs had the highest rate of death. But they don't answer the why question.

I would hope that we continue to train police officers and improve tactics to the point that the number of deaths of officer drops even more, but it doesn’t take away the dangers of the job. In determining dangerousness of the job, it would appear to me that you would have to take into consideration deaths, injuries, and the potential of death and injury.

Just as we can see that firefighters are listed at 6.9 deaths per 100,000. Does that mean that they don’t have a dangerous job? That number looks to me to mean that they receive extensive training, have great equipment, and follow their safety protocol. But it doesn’t mean they don’t have a dangerous job to do when they go into a burning house to search for victims.

Anonymous said...

I must apologize for my typos in my previous post(s). It is funny how even when you proofread something before posting it, you can still miss things.

Anonymous said...

Hey, hey!!!
Cops are listed at the 9th most dangerous job in this Business Insider website. That is a change from #14 to #9 when comparing the 2008 data to 2010 data. Yea, made the top 10, whoopi, where is my red solo cup! Glad we can put that discussion to bed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-2011-9#no-9-police-and-sheriffs-patrol-officers-7

Richie B said...

That's the point, grits, that law enforcement isn't that dangerous, and that not every cop in the world seeks glory for putting their lives on the line the way people on this site are claiming. You've been proven to be a liar, but I at least thought you were literate and had some intelligence. The fact that you missed that in my posts makes me lose what little respect I had for you. You did you just "mis-remember" what I posted?

As for you phelps, again, that's my point. There's no reason for you to have such venom and bile towards law enforcement, so what is it? What's the reason you so hate and loathe people paid to protect you and enforce laws enacted by your elected representatives? There must be something. I'll even accept "just because I'm an unhappy person who despises authority in any form," which is what it's beginning to sound like. You absolutely hate police officers so much that you're willing to take some percieved slight and run with it until in your mind it's akin to what the nazi's did to the Jews. My question still stands. Why? You haven't answered it.

But something tells me you won't, either. Either way, I pity you and grits. Making up trepasses against yourself just for the sake of justifying your loathing and seething hatred for a profession that, again, would lay down their lives for yours without question just proves you have no character whatsoever.

Phelps said...

It is simple for me. I respect justice. I do not see that same respect from the police. I see cops who spend thier days as stealth tax collectors on the side of the road, picking spots that improve revenue rather than safety. I see cops who cover up for criminals simply because the criminal also wears a badge. I see cops campaigning to abridge the citizens' freedom -- while carving out exceptions for themselves.

I see people who think that rather than keeping the peace, seek to enforce the law -- and either think that they are the law, or worse, are above the law.

This episode in particular shows how far from Peel's principles American policing has strayed. If cops saw themselves as part of the community, why do they keep calling us "civilians"? If the really wanted the support of the public, why call names and try to intimidate critics on the Internet and in person? Why did the APD go straight to force when the constable had already demonstrated that words were sufficient?

Worst of all, this particular instance violates the last peel principle -- that the police should do what is necessary to stop crime, NOT what gives the APPEARANCE of stopping crime. Nine cars for this was all show. Even if it HAD been a kidnapping three cars would have been more than enough.

The other cars showed up because responding to an abduction call is exciting, and frankly, fun. Here's a rule that is as true in law enforcement as it is in litigation -- if you are doing something mainly because it is exciting, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Richie B writes, "You absolutely hate police officers so much that you're willing to take some percieved slight and run with it until in your mind it's akin to what the nazi's did to the Jews."

Here's the deal: I feel no compunction to defend positions I've never taken just because you want to attribute them to me. I've taken responsibility for what I wrote, but I can't and won't take responsibility for whatever foolishness you think I think. I've never said any of that, and defy you to find anything remotely similar in anything I've ever written.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

BTW folks, just as a thought experiment:

What if it HAD been a kidnapping and I had an accomplice? Just having a phone number with a woman on the other end was enough to get me released; they had no way to confirm the person on the other end was the Mom. Ultimately, they could only rely on the demeanor and word of the child. How was APD's approach supposedly so superior to the deputy's?

Richie B said...

Seriously grits, are you able to read? Is there something wrong with the way you take in and process information that we should know about? You seriously couldn't read the first line of the second paragraph, indicating that everything after was meant for phelps? I'll tell you what, just keep flappin your gums, you prove with each post or word how little you actually know, and how no person with common sense (or apparently the ability to read) should pay you any attention.

AND AS FOR YOU PHELPS (hope that clears it up, grits), you take the absolute worst of a profession, much of which you assign without proof beyond "that's what I saw/heard/felt one time," and make a sweeping statement regarding everyone who wears a badge. Only a fool deals in absolutes, and you've proven that's all you can deal in.

The bottom line is that niether of us will convince the other of their stance being the correct one, so I'll be the bigger person and end this. I'm sure you and grits will flame me after I'm gone, but I'm done coming to this site, as it is an exercise in arguing with idiots. You've dragged me down to your level and now you're trying to beat me with experience. I won't respond any further.

I only ask that you both (yes grits, THIS means you too) take a long, hard, honest look at yourselves and try to figure out why you hate a specific profession with such intensity. But let me guess, you're the only ones that can see the truth, and everyone else is wrong, right? There's a name for that - paranoid schizophrenia. Seek help, for the sake of everyone in your lives.

I hope that you seek the help you so obviously deperately need, and that you learn to let go of your unwarranted, seething anger. I truly do. Until that day, I shall continue to pity you both.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Sorry, Richie B, you've been taking a lot of potshots ad it's hard to tell sometimes who is your target. I'm glad you've chosen to be the "bigger person" and I promise not to take offense if it turns out to be true that you're "done coming to this site." best,

Anonymous said...

I agree with the poster above that stated everyone needs to chill. Not everyone hates the police, nor does everyone deify them.

Grits, you dug your own hole on this one. The whole "babysitting while white" was inflammatory, and when it was shown to be hyperbolic you should have fully expected the backlash. Based upon your email exchange with Acevedo, I suspect you did and tried to save face. I read your blog as it is sometimes informative and amusing, but your credibility took a hit on this.

As for the irate cops, don't get your panties in a wad. It's not as if you shoud be surprised considering the previous site APD Hall of shame. To coin your vernacular, "Move along, there's nothing to see here".

Anonymous said...

I love how every loon on here thinks there is some grand conspiracy to get APD officers to post multiple times without reading the article. It's beyond your comprehension that there are actually a majority of citizens that support APD and what they did in this incident.

I see your typical conspiracy freaks here.

Doc Ellis 124 said...

for your entertainment

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/676150--man-shocked-by-arrest-after-daughter-draws-picture-of-gun-at-school

4-yr old sketches picture of toy and panics older persons to the point that they assault her dad.

more at

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/676744--gun-leading-to-dad-s-arrest-was-a-toy

how cool is that?


btw Mr Hensen if this is inappropriate to this thread, please delete

Gritsforbreakfast said...

3:49, Don't kid yourself; a lot of these comments came all at once when this hit some APA listserv or message board, and many indeed are repeaters. To say cops packed this string is an understatement. If it were a "majority of citizens," more would spew their venom under their own names, because most citizens are not cowards who hide behind anonymity like a child behind mommy's skirt.

2:38, I get backlash all the time and expect it. In this case the backlash had turned in part toward a little girl and her family, sometimes on hateful, racial terms, and that's why I wanted her privacy protected. Moreover, if I hadn't made that request they wouldn't have even blurred her face. And fwiw, it was a family decision to try to keep images of her out of the media, not just mine.

As for my credibility, I judge the issue a little differently. This blog's credibility doesn't stem from its reputation or what Art Acevedo says about it. It stems from the fact that policy makers and people who work in the system find information and analysis here that they don't get anywhere else. As long as that's true, they'll come. For the most part, the general public is not my target audience.

Besides, in the media world, as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Indeed, this whole episode has bumped up my email subscriptions about 5% in the last few weeks - the majority from Texas state and local government domains. To my knowledge, only one person unsubscribed because of it.

You're are right it will blow over. Indeed, I've been telling reporters since it first happened that it wasn't actually "news" by any of the public policy criteria I was taught back in the day.

Blue_in_Guadalupe said...

The amazing thing to me is that so many of the critics have missed the point that the Constable told the APD officers responding that she'd already handled it and all was well yet they felt the need to not only question Grits again but to escalate the situation.

Why wasn't the Constable's judgement satisfactory?

Anonymous said...

Blue in Guadalupe….
It wasn’t that the Constable’s judgment in question. She didn’t know APD was responding, until after they were already converging on the area in question. Once she discovered they were responding, she switched her radio channel to APD and communicated to the dispatcher the information she had. All of that takes time. And before dispatch could call off their oversized response, APD was already in contact with Scott and Ty. I agree that APD should have handled this with a smaller response and could have handled their contact with Scott without handcuffing him. But it is easy to Monday Morning Quarterback the situation.

Anonymous said...

Man, you just swim in the negative, don't you? I love how you spend 99% of your time on what is supposedly wrong and give only brief mention to what is good, or right (like the female constable- she got, what? a sentence?).

My anger over your lies has given way to sadness for the horrible life you must live. Hate on cops all you want but for whatever bad goes down they also do GOOD, which is more than I can say for you, you pathetic lump.

Anonymous said...

Hey Scott, just a couple pointers:

1.) No one gives a shit. You're not a martyr, so stop acting like one.

2.) You're white, she's black. A rational human being would question if you were related; it's not about racial profiling, it's called heredity.

3.) You look like a pudgy sex offender, so there's that too.

Anonymous said...

Dear Chief Acevedo,

Good job. Your staff responded promptly to a citizen's report of a child in danger, and acted quickly to resolve the situation with only minimum inconvenience to an unnecessarily uncooperative dumbass citizen.

Shannon said...

I don't care for political BS nor do I care for typical posturing by various testosterone thumping "men" all yowling that their truth is the only one.

What I do care about is how the police should be ASHAMED of terrifying a 5 year old so much that no one would be surprised if she is terrified of cops the rest of her life. A sign of the times perhaps? Even in easy going Canada, the police isn't seen in a positive light.

I am more outraged that Grandpa was nearly arrested for babysitting his grand-daughter just because they didn't have the same skin color. I'm not sure I wouldn't have been MORE vocal than he has been about it, too. I'd have pushed for a public apology! Who cares about the he said crap, an apology IS in order. At least to that precious little 5 year old who is now likely terrified of cops >.<

Good on you Grits, for telling it like it IS. Haters will be haters and trolls can never help themselves, even if it means coming out from under their dark, dank bridges.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry to have to say this but just because you have a badge on doesn't make you an honest trust worthy person. Mr. Acevedo proves the point! Another Policeman scrambling to "cover the ass's" of his department. I'm sick of this "Blue Wall" of either silence or white wash. Please tell me why with story after story of abuse and corruption and white wash by Police Chiefs should we ever trust a cop!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229   Newer› Newest»