On the proper use of force
Regarding “Excessive force?” [April 3-9] ... As an employed member of the law enforcement community for the last 17 years (and presently a supervisor for a federal law enforcement agency), I have worked with and trained—both on the streets and in prison—many fine officers. One of the primary issues I convey to the officers under my command is the proper use of force. When and how to use it and how excessive use will not be tolerated.
After reading this article I find myself saddened and appalled that a Chief of Police would fail his officers miserably by not ensuring they are properly trained and, when necessary, held accountable for their actions. Instead it appears they are allowed to go on whatever reckless, egotistical, testosterone-fueled volition they choose.
Furthermore, it is unequivocally sickening that a Chief of Police of any department would not have the fortitude and integrity to immediately make a public apology to the victims for the officers’ blatant misconduct under his command. He should assure the people of the community—who pay his salary—that allegations would be investigated and the officers responsible for the misconduct would be disciplined appropriately to the extent of prosecution.
As for the rest of the law enforcement community, who go out every day and night performing the task of protecting and serving: Those overworked and underpaid officers that leave their families behind, to have a life with some sense of safety in a world of chaos—I thank you.
–J. A. Butler
Giving the benefit of doubt to law enforcement
As a sworn law enforcement officer my entire adult life, I have a professional interest in excessive-force cases. Perhaps I’m a little biased for the police side, but I have very little sympathy for someone in possession of drugs who receives injuries resulting from fleeing and resisting arrest. As one who has carried the casket of a brother officer killed by a fleeing misdemeanor suspect, I support the use of force, however extreme, to effect an arrest with no injuries to the officer.
That being said, in this country we tend to give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement. Ninety-nine percent of the time, this is the right thing to do. But folks, take it from me, abuse does happen. Everyone is real quick to throw rocks at the ACLU, myself included. But there are occasions, I will admit, in which they have done the right thing by holding departments responsible for the misconduct of their officers.
Having got that one off my chest, I do have a comment to make about Chief Perkins. In all my years as an officer, I have never seen a Chief of Police refer to another law enforcement officer in such disparaging terms in a public forum. That was professionally reprehensible, especially in light of Perkins’ statement that he did not know the outcome of the internal affairs investigation. Such an unprofessional comment coming from the head of an agency casts serious doubt upon the accuracy and fairness of any internal investigation. It sounds like the Chief is working very hard to bias a potential jury of his officers’ inculpability.
When the city attorney states some of the settlements were “admissions of guilt,” but the Chief cannot remember a single incident of disciplining an officer for wrongdoing, something is terribly wrong.
... Another caveat to Chief Perkins on this case. When an officer is forced to kill someone’s mother and wife in front of them, it does not make said officer a hero. It’s just something that has to be done. It’s a tragedy, even if there was no other option for the officers save lethal force. And before the courts have made a ruling on it is not the time to bestow laurels upon the officers involved. You were hired to provide leadership to the Department, not to be the PR mouthpiece.
–Greg
Be glad you’ve got cops
This story is very one-sided. Police are a very easy target to pick on, because they have a job that affects people sometimes in negative ways. No one likes getting a ticket or DUI, but who do they blame when they do? Not themselves, the police. This is a dangerous city, and people have a right to defend themselves—even the police. Hindsight is easy a day, week or month later. These people have a split second to make a decision that might decide whether or not they go home. If you don’t like the police, don’t call them next time when it’s 2 a.m. 
and you think someone is in your house and need help. Let’s jump on the throw-the-police-under-the-bus bandwagon. Think, people—this is a defense lawyer talking. Its about the $$$.
–Mike Diamond
The most beautiful person
Regarding the Weekly’s beautiful people issue [April 10-16], you describe them as “striking, breathtaking, distinctive and hot”—? Out of all the picks, hands down, that would have to be Jon Gray.
–Karen Lelli