Sunday, July 24, 2005

How Many Times Can Allen Hancock Abuse His Police Power and Still Get Paid?

NOB HILL--Allen Hancock, the APD officer who is accused of roughing up Dr. Vincent Moss last week in front of a downtown bar, has been involved in 4 lawsuits over his violent behavior. The Moss incident will be his 5th. Why are we putting up with this bullshit? Even forgetting the fact that no one will tell us how much it cost to settle 2 of the lawsuits, the cost in goodwill and credibility is enormous.

Saturday morning I saw several policemen questioning a black man in handcuffs at a bus stop on Central. They were being very circumspect in their witnessed by the distance between them and the man. But no amount of care today can correct the lasting impression of last weekend.

The new accusations follow fast on the heels of James Lewis, Albuquerque's Chief Administrative Officer, reversing findings of the Police Oversight Commission that APD had violated their own policy in shooting at a stolen car suspect. This was released just last Wednesday.

It doesn't take many incidents like these to give the impression to all of Albuquerque (and the rest of the U.S.) that APD is strictly a small-town bully: unprofessional and shameless. We need to do better.


Anonymous said...

I think it is very unfair and stereotypical for yourself to label all officers "unprofessional" for the deeds of a few! That is like saying all hispanics are thiefs just because one got caught stealing. Wrong approach and you are out of line to throw out such comments about a group of people in a particular profession.

I been around our police officers for my entire life I lived here and have never witnessed any police abuse, in fact have found most officers in Albuquerque to be courteous and very professional.

If anyone is abused by a police officer let the process take it's course, but most important do not stereotype. As a NM resident I take offense by your comments which are unfounded and discriminate on a profession.

Unless you know evey police officer's behaviour, stick to individual issues without taking a rigid bias view over every officer for the acts of a couple of high profile incidents.

johnny_mango said...

Dear Anonymous,
Please reread the post. I didn't label "all officers." In fact, I said the opposite. But as I said, a few more of these incidents and the whole country will form a bad opinion of APD. Nevertheless, what excuse can there be to keep a 5-lawsuit officer on the force? The previous 4 lawsuits didn't seem to trigger any action. In fact, they put him on the SWAT team!

Anonymous said...

I did read it:

"It doesn't take many incidents like these to convince all of Albuquerque (and the rest of the U.S.) that APD is strictly a small-town bully: unprofessional and shameless. We need to do better."

You are refering to APD over the few acts of a few. A started to agree with your point about the officer in question until you threw a blanket comment about APD as a whole and by doing that you lost credibility in your point. Made you sound like someone with an anti-police attitude and someone with questioned motives. Did one of these guys give you a ticket or something?

Sorry hope some day you learn to see the good in people, they are not all bad.

Yes lets weed out the few who are bad but no matter what I still have faith in most of all the majority of the cops who daily risk their lives so you can be safe and drink your coffe inside the safety of your home.

You owe them an apology!

johnny_mango said...

Sorry to say it, but these kind of incidents DO reflect on ALL of APD. As far as being "anti-police," grow up. This department is mine least as far as I am a taxpayer and a law-abiding citizen. And I cannot believe that any officer in the department is happy with the Hancock history. This incident will be reported in Dr. Moss' hometown, which is New York. His history of lawsuits will be mentioned...and everyone will wonder why this was tolerated.

I believe that people like you, Mr. Anonymous, should be outraged by any misconduct...especially repeated misconduct. We DO deserve better.

Anonymous said...

Mr Mango I am disappinted about the incident in question, but I wasn't there so I just go by what the media reports. By the way the owner of the club(a real witness) said that the Dr. was out of line and provoked the whole incident, so you were not there, nor was I. But there is an investigation in progress by the citizen board (Police Oversight Commission), you could at least wait until they come up with a ruling of the incident until you make judgement, but I doubt any reasoning will satisfy you.

What is a SHAME here is that you would target a certain group of people for the actions of a few, that sir is the true shame and it is almost equally disturbing as the actions of the few bad officers.

We as citizens should never tolerate stereotypical bigotry attitudes in our beloved country.

ProgDemNM said...

The problem is that this kind of thing is tolerated and even covered up by the Mayor and his cohorts. Think evidence room scandal and more. Anyone who has been downtown when the bars let out knows the police are allowed to harrass and provoke anyone they want. Those on horses are especially nasty, riding into crowds periodically, just to show how tough they are.

Marty gets political points (and bucks) from the "law and order" types in the Repub Party by supporting this stuff both openly and behind the scenes. My question is when will Marty get out of the Dem Party and join the Party he belongs in.

That said, of course there are many, many excellent officers on the force. I would think that logically, they, more than anyone, would want to get rid of the bad apples.

Anonymous said...

ProgDemNM at least you are not saying that the acts of a few reflect on all, which is an ugly stereotype; it doesn't matter on what group we do it to.

I think it is a mistake to have the SWAT team at downtown maintaining order. They are trained in para-military style and many times they over-react. I think 5 lawsuits is five too many and a red flag should be raised. I know of at least three officers who have never been sued for any misconduct and they have been officers for over 15 years.

In downtown we need the type of officer who knows retrain and who knows how to de-escalate confrontations without resorting to violence. I have seen many of the veteran officers on the shift on days that are very calm and collected on the face of chaos. That is the type of officer we need to deal with the drunks downtown, but unfortunately we see the rookies learning from the SWAT members, who are rigid on the tactical side.

What we need are a few private citizens with video cameras recording some of the incidents to make a sound presentation, either in favor or against the officer or citizen.

I personally have always had a positive contact with every police officer I have encounter, but the knuckle heads that get aggressive with all the alcohol in their system makes for a difficult combination when you have officers who don't know how to have restrain.

And I really don't think the officers are particularly targeting citizens at random, I mean they arrested two fellow state police officers in the mix, so the bias contention is really hard to swallow.

Maybe the drunks need to take some of the responsibility and be held accountable.

apdsucks said...

I know two women who were married to APD officers. They both divorced their husbands because they were wife beaters! I'm not saying all cops are thugs. But their environement makes them more susceptible to violent behavior. As for the cop who beat the volunteer dotor, if he is found guilty he needs to be kicked out. But officers cover up for each other- so I bet there won't be any justice.

Anonymous said...

apdsucks said...

Obviously as the name is evident, here is someone with an agenda, but if his ass is in trouble he will be the first to call 911. A hypocrite at is best!

With flakes as this is why some are never taken serious when they raise serious issues; they have a pre-conceived narrow mind that borders on police bigotry.

Anonymous said...

To apdsucks (actually you suck) a civilian board is doing the investigation not APD you moron, know what you are talking about before you open your mouth!

Anonymous said...

Officers in the SWAT unit have been known to use excessive force in the past without any consequences.

One comes to mind, officer Arensfeld (SP?) was once terminated from APD for having numerous complaints of excessive force, he since has been rehired and is now an instructor for APD on,,,,, you guess it use of force. Recently he has been assigned to the SWAT unit.

But we should not vent on other officers who are good officers, instead direct the blame on the real guilty ones, the Mayor and police administrators who continue to conduct training designed more to oppress the citizenship and policies to allow continual abuse of powers!

johnny_mango said...

Well, this post certainly seems to have touched a nerve. Let me again try to clarify the thrust of the post.

I am not stereotyping the police. I do apologise for the apparently imprecise language in the last paragraph. I did not say that APD is a bully, unprofessional, and shameless. What I said was that more of these incidents are going to convince people that they indeed are. I am going to rewrite that sentence to reflect that clarification. I am not changing what I said...but our loyal reader Anonymous, and one must assume others as well...are getting confused with my use of language.

So let me be clear: bad behavior does reflect on the department, especially those at the top. So does good behavior. This is not to say all officers are bad. It just means that this kind of publicity creates an impression that rude and violent behavior is the extent that 4 lawsuits concerning violence are not enough to dismiss an officer. I would not be surprised to see the NY Times pick up this story. We shouldn't have to excuse Allen Hancock. We shouldn't have to say, "But the rest of the department didn't hit him."

We deserve a first rate police department. We do deserve that.

Anonymous said...

Mango you have made yourself clear that you are in fact not stereotyping and I took the content out of context. I apologize to you for my strong words, but I am proud of Albuquerque and want to have faith in the little good we have. I want to be proud of our police department like any other native, I hear so many people who come here and belittle our city

Believe me there are worse places, but I am the first to say that bad rouge cop need to be weeded out!


Ps: will continue to be a loyal reader of your blog!

johnny_mango said...

Thank you...and Peace.

schmedlap said...

Several things in the story bear question. If witnesses are saying is true then the Dr was in violation and the techniqu used to restrain him was standard. Also, a Dr should know that it is very unlikely that he could "reset" a dislocated shoulder by himself - while in handcuffs. That screams of adding to the damages for the lawsuit.

johnny_mango said...

Good point. And here is why the credibility issue is so important. In this case we have a heart surgeon on some kind of "mission of mercy" in Gallup versus a policeman with a history of violence and 4 lawsuits behind him. It is hard to argue that the doctor isn't credible when your own witness has that kind of history.

Claudia said...

Jon, I question the relationship between your photo (and the guy in handcuffs, always a disturbing thing to see, because it is so humiliating) with the other incident that you are pissed off about. It looks to me that any time you see a police officer, you expect and look for misconduct. One might call this prejudice.

Also, your semantic backpeddling doesn't really clear up your remark about APD being a bully force. Perhaps you should consider doing a ride-along to see what police encounter every day.

How much does an individual "represent" any group he belongs to, in the sense of not just tainting the whole group but representing and condemning it absolutely? Are some young poor men criminals? Are all young poor men criminals?

I have some friends with two grown sons. The mom is an artist; the dad is a university professor. They are gentle and thoughtful people. The mother's hope for her sons was that they would grow up to be a poet and a farmer. They have grown up to be a lawyer and a cop.

I'm just saying, be careful about those broad judgments. My husband's cousin is a retired APD officer, and he is as intelligent, thoughtful and gentle as you yourself. And he does not beat his wife.

buggs said...

It was interesting to see the evolution of opinion regarding the problem of stereotyping. First I must caution you, I am a police officer and have been for almost 20 years. So in the eyes of some I am a bad person although they don’t know me on a personal basis. There is such thing as discrimination for being blue, believe it or not.


Perhaps this is so because our job almost always deals with the negative part of life. Think about it, when you encounter a police officer is never because you won a prize. It’s because you are either a suspect or victim of a crime.

I represent:

Sorrow or pain.

Freight or anger.

Loss or tragedy.

I used to teach children a gang resistance education program and we use to talk a lot about stereotyping. I used to ask a hypothetical question that “if a student from this school is caught stealing and is reported in the media, does that reflect badly on your school?” And always 100% the answer was “yes.”

But that is wrong, it should never reflect badly on the school, because the school is not made up of thieves and to think in that manner is wrong. A reputation is never based on the actions of others, how can it? Why do we do it?

I would ask the students for examples of stereotypes concerning cops and they would all laugh when they said, “all cops eat doughnuts.” But we all know that is not true. Then when I made a stereotype that was personal to them, it was no longer funny. And is not, and it should never be and we should never do it.

Stereotyping involves creating an oversimplified image of a particular group of people, usually by assuming that all members of the group are alike.

Do you know me?

Who am I?

When you see me working the streets (by the way I do my work in Nob Hill) who do you see?

Do you see only the uniform, while my face remains oblique and obscure?
Do you not see the person inside the uniform?
I am not just numbers, or interchangeable parts.

When I work the streets my uniform shirt sometimes catches the rays of the sun and warms me through the cloth. I feel strong and right, and your powerful tin badge stays on my chest and gives me reason. I am proud to be a police officer and I constantly struggle against the politics and controversy to do the right thing the best way I can.


schmedlap said...

That was beautiful man.

RETL33 said...


Your bias towards Law Enforcement is obvious. If you have any real information about any officer acting improperly then you should come forward with it so the Independent Review Officer, the Citizen Review Board, the Mayors Office, the City Council, or the courts can deal with it.

It appears that all you really have is a sniveling point of view based on information you read or heard about that you then twist to fit your already biased opinion.

If you really have something to offer this community then sign up as a Police Officer, or a Reserve Officer. Of course that would take courage, honesty and integrity to name just a few traits of the average APD Officer.

If you’re any good at it you will be sued, if you’re really good you might get sued multiple times.

If you do not understand that correlation, then you simply do not understand our system of jurisprudence and the nature of so many in our society to take the "I'm a victim & the Cop is a liar" approach when called to account for their actions.

johnny_mango said...

My bias is against unprofessional conduct. If we give a person a gun and a badge then we better demand he/she acts in a way that is a credit to all of us. All our people need protection.

The problem with the Hancock incident is that by keeping a person with all those lawsuits working "on the street" we risk other people (who may be prejudiced against police or ABQ) drawing conclusions about our professionalism and even racism.

Here, for instance, is the word of a visiting doctor who says he was roughed up against a cop with 4 lawsuits involving violence against women, blacks, and protesters. The policeman has a credibility problem here.

I am not making these things up. How is telling the truth prejudice? The police department is OURS, not just yours. To say that APD should have reassigned or dismissed an officer with his kind of problems seems logical. If you want to argue that point, do it. To claim that talking about it shows prejudice demonstrates an inability on your part to understand the issue. We need to have confidence in the people to whom we give weapons and the authority to use the power of their office.

But there is also another issue. Basically the City of Albuquerque has created a drinking zone on Central Ave. downtown. We even close down the street "to avoid trouble." My God. What kind of behavior do we expect in a situation like that? And certainly it does not seem like the place to put a policeman with Hancock's history of overreaction.

Claudia said...

Jon, the problem in this "discussion" is that you have undermined your seemingly valid argument about the Hancock incident by linking it to every APD officer. The prejudice is there, in the linking, not in the trying to get to the truth about one event. A number of your readers see this readiness to condemn all policemen as the overriding opinion in your blog of the day, which absolutely obliterates anything you might have to say about Allen Hancock.

I would guess that you did not expect or intend your comments to be so carefully scrutinized; that the remarks were in the usual vernacular style. It was not meant to be a formal editorial. Still, you opened a vein for many readers.

johnny_mango said...

If there is prejudice it is not on my part. I only pointed out that it opens APD up to criticism, fairly or not. Anti-Albuquerque Police editorials are already showing up in New York. Here is one in the New York Post.

It begins:
July 21, 2005 -- Most places would welcome a New York heart surgeon — who happens to be a major in the Army reserves — taking a two-month sabbatical to provide his services to those less fortunate.

Apparently not Albuquerque, N.M.

On Sunday, Dr. Vincent Moss, a 34-year-old black heart surgeon allegedly was assaulted by members of the Albuquerque Police Department.

Incidents like this DO give a lot of people the impression that APD is unprofessional, etc. It is not me saying it. And what's more, the editorial doesn't even mention the other lawsuits.

RETL33 said...

Oh I see, if it gets printed in the paper then it must have happened just that way? The New York Post? Talk about a credibility problem.

The fact that you are a doctor or a member of some other esteemed occupation means that you can not have a lapse in judgment and turn into a drunken idiot? I believe that a police officer is one of the most esteemed occupations in our society and yet I would not make the blanket assumption about them that you have made about this particular Doctor. Again your bias shows through your argument.

If every officer that has been sued was taken off the street that department would soon have no officers working, here or anywhere else. As a career law enforcement officer and command level officer I have been as critical of law enforcement agencies as anyone. I have terminated officers when just cause warranted it. The difference here Johnny is that I did so with all the facts not a biased opinion. I have no problem with criticism that is constructive and fact based. This may be a new concept for you, it is called critical thinking.

As far as it being "my" department you again demonstrate your bias by assuming that I have never sought outside opinions or have never worked with the community. I am doing something in my community by my actions and commitment to excellence in keeping the APD one of the finest in the nation, a distinction it has had for some time. I would hardly say that your biased non-constructive criticism rises to the same level.

If I was aware of any officer doing something improper I would take action to stop it and prevent it from occurring again. What have you done but sit on the sidelines with your elitist bias and point fingers?

johnny_mango said...

I sure hope you aren't typical of the kind of people in command. You don't seem to be able to get beyond your own preconceptions of what you think I am saying. Calm down and reread what I said.

And by the way, it is not just the NY Post, it is also the NY Daily News, and even WNBC out of Washington. Perception equals reality in the world of mass media. Now don't be saying that I believe all these stories. That is what is called a "straw man." You want to create your own "biased" enemy and then show what an idiot he is.

Life is not that simple. People are talking. And what they see is a doctor and a policeman. Now who are they going to believe: an MD volunteering to help out in Gallup before he is deployed to Iraq...or an officer with 4 prior lawsuits about violence. Four of them...of the 2 that settled, he lost both times.

Oh you can call ME biased and elitist, but I am not the problem. The problem is the perception. (What the reality is in this case is yet to be decided).

Why don't you write these newspapers a letter explaining how biased THEY are. I only predicted how they would react.

Also, if you are going to throw around your credentials state your name. It might be a little more believable. As it is, you don't seem to be able to digest and respond in a way that would make me think you are/were in a command position. You seem to be the one who is losing control here.

JeremyTwo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JeremyTwo said...

Mine is a difficult and trying job. I remember how proud I was the day my badge was first pinned to my chest. I did not feel powerful or big. I felt... responsible.

I work downtown. I was only remotely involved with the Moss incident.

Its an interesting conundrum that the harder an officer works, the more complaints he generates. This is especially true of the downtown area.

You see, we are outnumbered 50 to 1 at 4th and Central. Our sole purpose is to provide for the safety and well being of the citizens who have come downtown to have a good time.

Inevitably, there are those who can not drink alcohol responsibly and become rowdy and disturbing. They start arguments, and/or fights. Many times police officers first observe these subjects when they are in a verbal confrontation between a patron and establishment. Officers must then intervene.

Upon approach, officers will attempt to make contact with the subject... but, its no surprise that they are intoxicated, agitated or believe themselves to be "entitled" (in some way deserving of special treatment)

The responsible understand that with the appearance of officers, its time to call it a night and go home. All too often this is not the case...

Instead they will refuse the police officer's orders to calm down, or leave. And here is where we will pause in my oration...

There are now hundreds of spectators watching. Most of them are intoxicated to some degree. What do you think goes through their minds when they see a person REFUSE to obey an officers LAWFUL order?

Back to my rant.... When an individual refuses to obey a lawful order, and continues to be disruptive, he places that officer in extreme jeopardy.

Then comes the arrest... when I advise someone that they are under arrest and to place their hands behind their back, palms together. That is exactly what they MUST do! I do not know WHO that person is. They could be a pastor, a terrorist, an auto mechanic, a drug dealer, a teacher, an airmen, another police officer or a doctor. The fact of the matter is, I DONT KNOW. I have been bitten, spit on, punched, stabbed and run from. If I have to touch another person, and they pull away from me or resist, or flex.... or give me ANY indication that they are going to fight with me or resist me... well, my friends, Then I must take control of the situation AND that person.

Its not pretty. I know. Its ugly sometimes, but it all boils down to one thing... FAILURE TO FOLLOW SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS.

As far as the horses, they are our greatest asset. Nothing controls a crowd, or gets through them, better than the mounted officers. If they are "pushing" through a crowd, then its after 2am, and its time to go home!!!

As for the SWAT team, they merely lend a much needed helping hand downtown. The true brunt of maintaining order is taken by the "field" units assigned to that area. SWAT officers are some of the most experienced officers on this department.

And finally, as for lawsuits... well, doctors get sued all the time and they dont lose their licenses. There is a HUGE difference between CRIMINAL and CIVIL law. A civil lawsuit does not necessarily mean that a criminal wrong has been committed.

"There is no nice way to arrest a potentially dangerous, combative suspect. The police are our bodyguards; our hired fists, batons and guns. We pay them to do the dirty work of protecting us, the work we are too afraid, to unskilled or too civilized to do ourselves. We expect them to keep the bad guys out of our businesses cars and houses... we just dont want to see how its done" - Charles H. Webb PHD, Proffessor of Englich, Cal State Long Beacs

johnny_mango said...

Thank you Jeremy Two,
We all appreciate your informed and reasoned contributions to this discussion.

One question, what do you think of the city's creation of that "drinking zone" around 4th and Central? Is it a responsible way to address drinking at all?

RETL33 said...


Since you are so curious I will tell you that I am a 23 year veteran of the APD. I retired in 2003 from a command level position. I remain active as a Reserve Police Officer.

That’s right; I volunteer my time to both make the APD a better department and Albuquerque a safer city.

I am also a court certified expert in matters pertaining to the use of force & police tactics and I hold advanced degrees. I have been a consultant to local and federal Law Enforcement agencies across the USA.

I am also a private citizen (as all police officers are) and have no desire to further identify myself in this forum. You might find it interesting that I spent considerable time working with concerned residents of Nob Hill on a variety of quality of life issues. I’m not sure if you participated in any of that, but I found those who did to be gracious and thankful for the efforts of my officers.

Your assertion that perception is reality is absurd. Such a thing as Due Process prevents that. So in a case where no matter how guilty I believe a suspect to be, I must afford him Due Process. Likewise you must afford the officers that you perceive to be bad the same.

The fact that I have not defended this particular officer seems lost on you. I do not know if his actions were appropriate or not. I apparently lack your clairvoyance. What I defend is the rule of law and the process that all citizens (even the police) must be afforded. You and I can agree on this much, if this officer is a problem officer his duty should be restricted or he should be removed from the department. The presence or numbers of law suits do not constitute due process. Nor does your Perception or the perception of the media.

You may continue to rant and rave against the police if you so choose, after all they ensure that you have that right. But I hope that you would consider revisiting your thoughts with the outlook that the process generally works pretty well. Also keep in mind that lawsuits are a frequent and normal part of working in Law Enforcement. Often lawyers will target an officer that already has been sued to create the appearance of a pattern so they may go after the real target, the city,(taxpayers) who have the deep pockets.

It has been a lively debate but I have said my piece, thank you for the opportunity.

JeremyTwo said...

I do greatly appreciate your open mindedness to hearing opinions that may differ from yours, Johnny.

As far as the "drinking zone" is concerned, I am not yet aware of that.... It may be that it has not filtered its way down to the street leverl yet. Once I get back to work, I will educate myself about it, and then give you a more proper opinion!

schmedlap said...

Ill address the drinking zone concept. The establishment of a "zone" of bars and entertainment is not in and of itself a bad idea. One of the reasons NM has such a big DWI problem is that people often travel many miles from bars to home. Having one localized area is at least a slight improvement.
One big problem with Downtown however is that the Police are there keeping order rather than some security provided by those who make all the money off the drinking and who's establishments cause all the problems. The bar owners do not avail themselves of the "Chief's overtime" program where they can hire officers to provide security, nor do their security personnel handle problems once it goes "outside" of the bar. Quite simply, in the Dr Moss case, that individual was purported to be problem inside a bar and tried to re-enter. The officers never should have been there in the first place... that is a provate security persons job. I would suggest that anyone interested call the "Downtown action team" (listed in the phone book) and ask why their members get free police security when other businesses have to pay.
I for one believe that if law enforcement has to spend that much time baby sitting a business, that business ought to get a bill from the city.

Anonymous said...

I think nob hill area is a model area compared to downtown. But the issue of downtown getting free police service to do security for all the drunk patrons while the tax payers pay the bill is an item that needs ot be address.

These bars that are making a huge profit with all the drinking going on and should pay for their own security. Let the officers respond to call for service, there is not enough officers as it is.

Troy McCoy said...

johnny_mango why don't you take a tour of downtown on a weekend night and see what goes on, perhaps you will get plenty of interesting subjects for your camera, guaranteed!

The Voice said...

Wow Johnny,

It looks like Chief Shultz has all the upper echelon staff busy blogging these days. in the words of Shakespeare, 'me thinks thou doeth protest too much!"

If there weren't any sh**, the flies wouldn't e buzzing Johnny.

Keep being a thorn in their side - the media let them off with the cops running red-lights caught on camera story and the biggest scandal in APD's history - the evidence room scandal - no Pro APD'ers showed up to hammer you for that one huh?

Like it or not, a Black man who happens to be from a respected discipline - a doctor no less – and was here volunteering his services to indigent Navajos had has ass tuned up by a cop who has a history of kicking people's asses. Nothing to dispute there.

Johnny you keep it up. Corruption will always scream the loudest to protect itself.

Om the other hand, good cops don’t mind this at all because it isn’t attacking them. Only those with a bent for violence and hatred who think of themselves as above the law are whining about it here.

They ought to fire that jerk along with the child molester as well.

Claudia said...

To the Voice:

Hmmm. Any cop who responds to this blog must be a "bad" cop("those with a bent for violence and hatred"), with instructions from the chief about what to say. "Good cops don't mind this at all because it isn't attacking them"? What about the perceived notion of APD as a bully force, because of questionable actions of some,of its members?--that, I believe , means all cops on the force.

Dialog implies two sides to a discussion of an idea. Anyone taking the opposing position to yours has no grounds except that he/she is an ignorant fool, with a "bent for violence"?

Three things are on the table: the event involving Hancock and Moss, which deserves close investigation, Hancock himself as an officer of APD (highly suspect), and the carte blanche condemnation of all policemen, due to Hancock's actions. These are separate issues, and the discussion here seems to me to continually mix the things.

The stereotypes and assumptions are flying here. "Doctor" is a "respected discipline". In this context(your response, Mr. Voice), do you imply that "policeman" is not? And just a thought: Maloney's, from what my kids tell me (my only source of information about this bar; my son worked there for a few weeks), is a rude and sleazey college bar. Do we make assumptions about those who drink here? Or those who drink alcohol at all? It just gets flimsy when generalizations/sterotypes are thrown around.

I don't believe anyone has defended Allen Hancock in these responses. But the arguments against him are lost in the muddle of blanket criticism of APD and each of its individual police officers.

The Voice said...


Your errors in interpretation are as broad as the accusations you cast.

Police officers have a tough job there is no doubt about that and when they deal with people, the interaction is bound to be tense because of the nature of the job. However, not all police officers have a history of beating up the people they come in contact with. That 'good' officers are coming in here and offering their take on the Moss incident is all well and good. However, just because they might handle the situation differently does not necessarily mean that is the way Allen Hancock handles his situations.

Once again - Hancock has a history of violence – more so than the garden-variety police officer. Claudia, your blanket assumption that this statement or any other critical statement of APD is an indictment of every officer is nothing more than an emotional manipulative ploy; any questioning of the police is interpreted as ‘anti-police.’ I'm sorry you feel that way because it couldn’t be further from the truth. My task here is not to convince you here who or what I am because doing so simply amounts to responding to another manipulative tactic – and there are plenty examples of that in this thread - purely aimed at diverting the readerships attention away from the focus of this discussion; bad cops and what should be done with them.

Now police officers also carry a tremendous amount of credibility with the public as we all know. For example, in Court, an Officer’s testimony is viewed upon as highly credible – judges believe police officers – and that is a good thing because countless numbers of police officers over the years have demonstrated their reliability and credibility for testimony. I believe this would be one of your, ‘hmm’ moments where I might say, hmm so you really don’t need to be defending the police here. They have that covered – by way of training, experience and history.

But let’s get back to the original topic of this thread; bad cops in APD. An APD patrol officer with a history of documented violence has beaten an apparently upstanding citizen who is visiting this state and performing volunteer work on an Indian reservation for indigent children.

Now, regarding Moss’ ethnicity and profession; if this had been just another black man – and we all are familiar with the existence of such stereotypes although I am certain you certainly don’t harbor such prejudices - the entire case may have never been called to question by the media. That this man was a doctor lends credibility to the notion that bigotry just might exist - especially when the officer involved has a clear history of excessive force.

Yes the Moss beating does deserve close scrutiny if only to determine that police aren't out beating the hell out of ‘colored’ people under the color of law.

This isn't the fifties anymore where blacks can be beaten and no one gives a damn. Fortunately for you Claudia, you didn’t get smacked around. Fortunately for you, you weren’t a 14 year old girl raped by an APD vice detective. Fortunately for you, it wasn’t your property or crucial evidence for someone who committed a crime against you that was stolen. It is understandable why you might be so inclined to defend the actions of a few corrupt people because they belong to a group of honorable men and women who somehow might be tainted if their immoral peers are exposed.

The best way for good police officers to avoid bad press is by dissociating themselves from bad officers. Police are held to higher standards so their actions should be above reproach and not above the law. Getting away with running red-lights while caught on tape is a perfect example of being above the law.

The truth is good officers and good administrations don’t need defending – so you can get off your soapbox.

Finally, you might be interested in picking up the book Breaking Rank, written by Seattle Police Chief Roy Stamper. It covers issues like racism and domestic valence. I suspect what he has to say about issues such as this might be an eye opener. Of course I doubt you will click on that link because you are already convinced that APD is a perfectly well-adjusted police department and why wouldn't you?

The Voice said...

Correction - I inadvertently typed the word 'valence' instead of 'violence' when I typed in domestic violence - my spell checker did not pick it up. sorry.

Anonymous said...

i live in new jersey, pretty close to the city, so the NY Post is distributed here. i was eating lunch and looking at a copy for the hell of it and came across this story. when i got back to work from my break i decided to do some more research in hopes of getting more information than what the post offers because it's just a shitty tabloid that sensationalizes everything. i found this blog, and i have to say, skulls sure do come pretty thick out there (assuming a certain few of the posters are from ABQ).

first, thank you johnny for finally explaining that you weren't stereotyping the APD, but merely saying that others would when they read this story. the majority of people will see one account and base their opinion on that account. think about it: someone who has never been west of the mississippi (there are actually quite a few) sees this story and if he has never been to ABQ or even NM (holy shit - imagine that!), this will probably go a long way in shaping his idea of how things are done out there, especially when he reads the alleged quote from the office "we do things different out here, boy." that's a para-phrase since i didn't keep the paper, and it actually might have come from the NY Daily News, but the 2 papers are pretty much the same.

my point is that incidents like this, along with the circumstances of prior lawsuits, ARE going to affect outsiders' opinions about ABQ, whether any of you like it or not and whether it's right or wrong. please face that reality and don't argue with johnny about it, because he's correct.

now on to claudia... i must say that your posts were infuriating to read. the thick skull comment applies mostly to you. there was no 'semantic backpeddling,' only an explanation of his original intent, which i'm sure we all agree was necessary. again, johnny isn't making the broad judgements, he's merely pointing out the fact that many outsiders will. do you want tourists coming to your town with a pre-conception about the continual tolerance brutal police officers? finally in your last post you comprehend and refer to the perceived notion that this incident creates. don't be a flip-flopper, either there is a perceived notion or there is not.

i don't know the whole stories, but when you add in cops running red lights, cops stealing evidence, and cops raping 14 year-olds, you've got a police force that **appears** to have some credibility issues. i'm not saying they do, i'm just saying that it appears that way, and most people will read it that way.

cops have a tough job. it's damn near impossible for them to get any good press (as one poster mentioned). on the other hand, any hint of misconduct gets jumped on by the press and the public. that being said, when you sign up to be a cop (nobody is forcing you), you sign up to respect every person, accused or not, convicted or not, with the same respect. you also sign up to be held to a higher standard. with that comes the acknowledgement that you might take some abuse from the very citizens you're protecting and serving, but your position dictates that you will not lash out in response. it's a tough job, but it's your choice to embrace the challenge, so you had better be ready to carry yourself accordingly.

Claudia said...

What is the issue here?

For Johnny Mango, I believe it is his outrage over Allen Hancock as a horrible example of what we don't want police to be, and his continued presence in APD. Further, and for the Voice, it is bad cops in general, and what the perception, and possibly the reality, of a crappy police force means to Albuquerque residents and outsiders. For me, the main issue is the damning of an individual, say the one good cop, for the actions of Allen Hancock or any other bad cop.

The Voice's response to mine was far more reasonable than his flippant, goading first remarks, which pissed me off. What I had seen as cops responding here, in an attempt to explain about their jobs and approach, he seemingly
wrote off as having been ordered by Chief Schultz.(HIs further remarks were far more fair). My complaint in this whole thing, the important thing to me, is that individuals attempting to do a good and fair job should be respected. In rereading this entire forum, I am gratified to hear this--that there is understanding and respect for a policeman's job--from the majority of writers .

I do believe that the public needs and has a responsibility to be the watchdog of all government and public officials on every level, and yes, that includes Johnny Mango being a thorn in APD's side about Allen Hancock.

I believe in avoiding violence whenever possible. I think that police officers who commit crimes of any degree (traffic tickets to felonies) should pay in any and every way that any other citizen should and would.

I give. Jon did not directly call APD a bully force. His statements were all about the perception as such. But note that I was not the only reader who perceived a bias on his part. This is what prompted me to respond in the first place, not anything to do with Hancock, which I knew nothing about.

I guess we all hear (and read) what we need to. I didn't think anyone had defended Hancock. (on rereading, maybe retl33 did this). I thought the cop writers were trying to defend themselves as officers trying to do the right thing in a difficult job.

I am no doubt guilty of being inarticulate, and I hope I did not in any way appear to have sympathy with policemen who behave badly or worse.

I am only secondarily concerned about the perception of our police force; I am primarily concerned that good people are recognized for their good behavior rather than lumped with the bad. I am even more concerned about this than the punishment of one who should be punished (Hancock?), kind of along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". (I'm sure there are those who disagree with my priority). If there is a perceived notion (I am trying to be accurate in referring to JM's statement) of inappropriate, cruel, unlawful behavior in APD as a whole, I see no reason why any policeman should not defend himself in exactly the ways that buggs and jeremytwo have done. Dealing with the negative perception is a separate and serious problem, which involves treatments far beyond my ken. To me, everything comes down to individuals, each as a microcosm of how the world is.

I still think this is a confusion of subject. If Hancock is as big a creep as some say (I have no reason to dispute this), go get him. But don't take the good guys with him.

The Voice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Voice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Voice said...


Point of information - I put my life on the line as a police officer - I only recently finished up my career in law enforcement. Perhaps this might put a different spin on it for you. I loved police work and for me, the rewards far outweighed the dangers. The source of my heartburn over this recent incident is that good police officers are all lumped in with the bad apples.

An old Sergeant of mine once said, 'the unique thing about police is that they will eat their young.' This summarizes it for me; there is no room fin any department for dirty cops - I say get them the hell out of the force and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. In their violation of the law, they disrespect every man and woman that puts their lives on the line - and in some cases, have died protecting complete strangers. The actions of dirty cops are a disservice to everyone including their community. I admit, I was not there for the Hancock event but my experience tells me something went dreadfully wrong. It looks like this kid, Hancock has a problem with his anger and he needs to be put in check. His actions are not only dangerous to the public; they are dangerous to the officers who wear the same badge and uniform as he does because the public does not see a bad cop – they see a uniform and a badge like the one every other officer wears.

Regarding the scoundrels who think they are above the law I say - and I am not alone in voicing the concerns of other police who are good and law abiding - 'Get out. You are bringing shame and disgrace to the badge.' A bad cop is worse than the criminals s/he is supposed to be protecting the public from.

I agree with the anonymous poster from New Jersey - the caveat emptor for all police is, ‘you better have a thick skin. Moreover, as a police officer, you shouldn't have to be defending the recklessness of a rogue officer because the public in fact does respect and love you for putting your lives on the line.’

The actions of this most recent administration (Evidence room scandal and red light violating cops exemption) which was brought in as a result of perceived improprieties on the part of the last leadership has only served to reinforce people’s lack of confidence in an administration that blatantly ignores the rule of law and has been so lackadaisical in its handling of the biggest scandal in APD's history - the Evidence Room Scandal. The leadership has shown no leadership at all because in failing to aggressively pursue prosecution of their own, they are condoning criminal activity. Which brings to mind the old maxim, ‘If you condone it, you own it.’

The appointment of the current leadership of ‘yes-men’ brought in to replace Chief Gallegos seems to have been aimed at appeasing the public perception that it was time for a change. In truth, the change seems more like ‘business as usual.’ The intent to change what is fundamentally wrong with APD - a double standard whereby police are not held accountable for their actions which, if they were your average citizen, they would be seeking to have prosecuted – has gone largely ignored. Cops are still getting away with breaking the laws they are sworn to uphold – and, the irony of it all is that good citizens are supporting them blindly.

Just remember this, the community gets the kind of police department it deserves. My question is simple; What kind of police department does Albuquerque deserve?

btw claudia,
You are far from inarticulate. ;O)

Be safe

Anonymous said...

I have lived here all my life and have only kown our police officers to be polite and professional. I am not a police officer so yeah, some of us do apprciate our officers and are proud of them.

The first post of "the voice" is full of police bigotry and is refreshing to know he represents the minority of our community.

Yeah that officer may have a record of abuse but stick to the single incident at hand. Do we automatically condemn someone for an incident based on other incidents that are not related to this one, or do we look at this incident itself and judge based on the merits of THIS incident?

"The Voice" narrow minded bigotry type of style attitude was displayed in his first post, he has no credibility in my eyes and his opinion is totally worthless.

Liquidplastic said...

Darn! My head is spending. What a bunch of crock! Two words for those who attacked Johnny Mango, Reading Comprehension.

Here’s another thought, would you have patted Johnny on the back if the man had been white? OOp! My bad, I don't know too many white men that are subject to excessive abuse from white police officers. Now I could be wrong, but I just don't know of any.

You folks act like this type of negative behavior from some police officers are a big secret, like it’s not going on all over the country! Talk about wearing blinders.

First of all, thank you Johnny Mango for caring about a fellow human being, regardless of the color of his skin, and caring about, what we all should be concern about, justice. You see, not too many folks care about justice until injustice come knocking on their doors.

Secondly, thank you Johnny Mango for allowing others to post their opinions, even if it didn’t agree with yours. The Bush administration could take a lesson from you. It shows the kind of man you are … one with a heart, and good understanding that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and justice.

Last but not least, there are good cops and bad cops … I know it, you know it, we know it. For the bad ones, may you get what you deserve, time in jail with the rest of the law breakers. For the good cops, may you be rewarded with due respect, and not be typecast with your crooked brothers. To Johnny Mango, right on! Peace and blessings!

The Voice said...

Anonymous ‘courageously’ posted – anonymously that is …

"The Voice" narrow minded bigotry type of style attitude was displayed in his first post, he has no credibility in my eyes and his opinion is totally worthless

Aside from your poor spelling and even poorer sentence structure, you have gotten your point across that you believe I am a 'bigot.' That's pretty funny. So, this must mean that anyone who raises the issue about how a black professional was beaten by a white cop who has a history of excessive force is considered a bigot. It sounds strikingly reminiscent of the rapist who attacks a woman and then claims she asked for it. That's the logic people who ran around in white sheets used to use as they terrorized people and relied on their anonymity to do it. Need I say more about this?

In Psychology, there is a saying that police psychologists like to reference when evaluating prospective candidates who wish to become police officers. It goes like this, "Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior." I don't think that statement really bears more expansion.

Your desire to isolate this recent abuse of force incident indicates you are either to limited in your capacity to look for patterns or you are deliberately being obtuse to keep the corruption under wraps. Which is it?

Your opinion is your own and it represents you and people of your ilk who are too dense to realize anyone else's concern over police corruption even if it doesn't fall in line with your narrow thinking.

It doesn't hurt my feelings at all that you disagree with me. That comes with years of experience in dealing with opinionated morons. Feel free to hate me. I won't lose any sleep over it.

If my words bother you, then I have accomplished my goal - I made you think. Voices of dissent always do that. Our founding fathers prided themselves in that however, unlike you, they did it in the open and not under cover of anonymity.

Now, since you have elected to post anonymously it pretty much shoots all your credibility in the crapper. The only conclusion I can reach about that is your sniper tactics are defeating your message. If you cannot realize that anything I or anyone else who posts here has value then, you really deserve to remain anonymous – that way, your name will remain dissociated from your loopy remarks - fortunately for you that is a good thing.

Regardless of my delivery, the fact is that a pattern of behavior is manifesting itself in Albuquerque these days. If you don't see it then it’s only because you choose not to. That you have your head in the sand over it is your problem.

Again, unless you are to intimidated to read words written by a real Police chief who writes about bigotry, Domestic Violence, Hatred of women and cover-ups in police departments then, pick up Chief Roy Stamper's new book called, "Breaking Rank" (ISBN: 1560256931). Chief Stamper just retired from the Seattle Police Department.

Be safe

JeremyTwo said...

Well, I had a long post, but I am so tired. I hope all things will come clear in due time, I doubt it will. Its unfortunate that so many people live comfortably with their own prejudice and bigotry. There was a time when I was young that I hated homosexuals. Then I had two friends that were gay and my prejudice was changed. I wish I had the time to meet all the people on here, but I am sure that even then it would help.

As a Police Officer, I cant help but feel alienated from the very people I serve. I can honestly say that if I had been in Hancock's shoes that day and a subject pulled away, I would have done the SAME thing, for the very reasons I have stated in my earlier post.

In answer to liquidplastic, ma'am, I am sorry for the things you have experienced, but I cant tell you when the last time I have interacted with an Africa-American individual in a negative way was. I know Hancock, and I know he is not like that. Of course, that is only the word of one Irish cop.

So it saddens me. Many officers are content to answer their calls for service, write their reports and take bad guys to jail. Not me. I look through the dark places other cops are afraid to go, why? Because that is where you find evil, and THAT is why I am in this profession. It is my calling.

I dont expect anyone to understand us, I suppose. The voice doesnt seem to understand, even though he claims to have been an officer at one time. I guess I must accept that as the price to pay, that others will refuse to understand the nature of those that serve them.

The Voice said...


An indictment of bad officers is not neccessarily an indictment of you - unless you are a bad officer.

You know very well that officer's motivations to be police are as many and as different as there police officers themselves.

Just because people have worn blue does not mean they all deserved to. Even at the beginning of your career, you have to be aware of that by now.

The most important thing for you to do is keep doing your job because police by and large do have the support of the public – even the ones who criticize them openly. What I am cautioning you and every one else here to do is to always maintain a vigilant watch for corruption and when it does occur, first distance yourself from it ASAP and then do everything you can to rout it out.

That you know Hancock to be different from how he appears to have reacted to citizens and offenders in five separate incidents where ciizens have alleged that he used excessive force is not at all surprising. I have seen officers who were described as 'stand up' and, 'a cop's cop' who turned out to be major jerks in the way they comported themselves with offenders or even ordinary citizens who these 'stellar' officers felt were challenging their authority.

If you showed up on scene and pulled up someone's record check and that suspect turned out to have a history of five different incidents where the offender committed Battery on a Police officer, how would you approach that call? Would you be saying, "Well this is a seperate incident - isolated by time and space from the other five."?

Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. That's one of the reasons you run a criminal history on the people you stop. Isn't it?

Now about your conclusion 'supposing' I don't understand you and your veiled remarks regarding bigotry; what’s up with this sad sac tone throughout your latest comment? Are you really a police officer? You don't act like this on the beat do you? If you do, how did you ever get through FTO? I mean, this level of 'naked intimacy' you’ve expressed here is kind of creepy. You better get thicker skin or you aren't going to last very long as a police officer. Maybe you are tying to play on people's emotions here. I really can't say. Truthfully however, I don't get it. Are you asking for sympathy?

If you really are a police officer, then you will come to see that while the uniform and badge are consistent, there are some bad officers whose actions end up damning good officers as well.

Amid all your droopiness and idealism, you really don't mean to imply that you have never seen a single police officer utter an inappropriate remark or make some questionable action do you? Do you really believe police are infallible – at every level?

I agree others here that good police should not be lumped together with the bad ones – where I differ is that I think they should be culled out from the force - because bad cops they don’t deserve to wear a badge.

In time, your idealism will be tempered by experience. Experience will show you that it is healthy to be wary – yes, even of your peers.

Feeling alienated is nothing new Jeremy. Welcome to the club. Despite your contention that your job is a calling - and many police officers feel that way. Apparently you are aware of this reality because you wrote, "So it saddens me. Many officers are content to answer their calls for service, write their reports and take bad guys to jail. Not me..

So, you do realize that to some officers, police work it is not a calling. Those are the ones to be careful of.

No amount of writing on my part here is going to convince you to believe anything you do not want to believe. That is where time comes in to play. You wrote, “I look through the dark places other cops are afraid to go, why? Because that is where you find evil and THAT is why I am in this profession. It is my calling." The ‘dark places’ you’ve mentioned are precisely what I have been trying to point out for you in this thread. I am sorry you can’t see them yet. I’m sorry you think of me as a bigot for pointing it out to you. Rest assured, time will reveal them to you.

Lastly as you are aware, lack of vigilance around an offender can have disastrous consequences. I maintain that lack of vigilance for those who do not respect their badge is equally as dangerous for you as well.

You can off-handedly question whether I am or ever was a police officer and that does not bother me. I know who I am. Again, my purpose is not to convince you of that. I really don't care if you believe me or not. You are free to take nothing of what I have said here to heart if you are so inclined - it won't change the realities I have pointed out here - quite frankly; most of what I have written here is for you and the other officer who has attempted to explain police procedure in layman's terms on this thread.

All I can say is this; Please re-read the entire thread and realize you haven't got as many enemies as you seem to think you have. Sometimes, those who care about you the most aren't the ones who tell you what you want to hear. They are the ones who tell you what you need to hear.

One of the best pieces of advice I got from a fellow officer was this, 'Make sure you are prepared in every way when you show up to a call and be prepared to do whatever it takes to make sure your partner gets out of there alive. Because, if s/he does the same, chances are you both will get out of there alive."

Take care of yourself Jeremy and keep your eyes open.

mjh said...

ABQjournal: Doctor: APD Cops Beat Me
Moss said he had heard people talk about Albuquerque and wanted to visit.

So, on Saturday he got a room at a Downtown hotel, had dinner at a restaurant and went to Maloney's.

While at the tavern, Moss said he tried for 30 minutes to get served but that all of the bartenders ignored him. At one point he reached over the bar and touched the bartender's arm to get his attention, he said.

The bartender got angry, and eventually Moss went outside to talk to Buehring.

While the two were arguing over Moss' treatment, Albuquerque police officers saw the dispute and stood next to the bar manager.

Once the dispute calmed down
, Moss said Buehring went back inside to see if Moss had left his credit card at the bar.

The manager took his identification. Moss said he started to follow the manager inside but was stopped by APD officers who grabbed the back of his shirt."

From the original story. The points I have bolded intrigue me. Was Moss drunk? Was the bartender rude? Did police litterally take sides? "Once the dispute calmed down..."?

How may people in the bar and on the street saw this? Where are they? mjh

LEO said...

To "the voice," shut up you are a moron and an idiot! Quit unsulting anyone who disagrees with you. You are no better that the abusive cops. No one cares what you have to say. If you don't like it here, Iraq has plenty room for your sorry ass!!!!!!!

In behalf of everyone you insulted which is 99,9% of the city residents!

The Voice said...

Leo wrote,
“To "the voice," shut up you are a moron and an idiot!”

Wow Leo - you sound like a real genius - in comparison to me that is. Your words indicate you are a real big thinker indeed.

According to Webster’s:

1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Leo, I am shocked. You are insulting me aren’t you? Your redundancy in references to me as a, ‘stupid person’ tell me that I am not dealing with a garden variety genius here.


Actually, your word choice and patterns are reminiscent of first commenter on this thread - the angry old geezer who was in a tizzy because he initially misread Johnny Mango’s original post. Hint: The exclamation points gave you away Leo.

Leo wrote,
“Quit unsulting anyone who disagrees with you.”

"Unsulting?" Leo, please avail yourself of your computer’s spell checker - the white out on your screen isn’t working. Of course, a genius like you knows that though. "Unsulting?" Oh Boy - this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Leo wrote,
“You are no better that the abusive cops.”

So you do agree, “those abusive cops” are abusive? Well, at least we agree on something I suppose. And you call me a moron? This is too much fun - taunting a mental giant like you Leo.

By the way, that last sentence is a fragment – I have a book called, ‘Eats shoots and leaves’ that you may be interested in reviewing – it is a humorous look at how ‘smart fellows’ like you abuse the English language. By the way, that really is the title of the book. It's not, "Eats, shoots and leaves" - big difference.

Leo wrote,
“No one cares what you have to say.”

Apparently you care Leo. You have major red ass over it I’d say. Calm down Leo. You are going to burst a vessel there buddy.

Again, what you just wrote is another wonderful example of a sentence fragment. Thanks for teaching by example Leo.

Leo wrote,
“If you don’t like it here, Iraq has plenty room for your sorry ass!!!!!!!”

Oh I like it here Leo. Pretty please Leo, can I stay? Iraq? You want me to go to Iraq? So that would be a punishment? Anyone who raises questions about bad police and corruption should go serve their country in Iraq? Now, now Leo - that’s not nice. Are you implying that serving one’s country is a punishment? Or are you modifying the sixties admonition for people who don’t share your views to, “go to Russia?” I would have expected something more and original from a genius.

You do realize you rely excessively on clichés right Leo? You know what a cliché is right? Overused phrases that imply laziness and lack of originality is what they are Leo. They are something smart fellows tend to avoid.

I didn’t realize geniuses used words like, “sorry ass.” Now you typed seven exclamation points – that’s a nice touch. Am I to take this you are redundantly using them to indicate your emphatic expression or do they mean you are shouting? Can’t you be a really nice genius Leo?

Leo wrote,
In behalf of everyone you insulted which is 99,9% of the city residents!

Uh, Leo – that would be, “On behalf” not “In behalf.”

Now about that 99.9% - is that like ivory soap? 99.9%? Please reveal your source Leo? Was this a scientific study or did you wet your index finger and feel the air?

By the way Leo, city residents should be city’s residents - as you should have learned at the Acme School for the Intellectually Gifted – apostrophes are used to indicate possession as in residents of the city would be, “city’s residents.”

Also, periods are used in America to indicate decimals – not commas as you have used here. Usage of the comma makes me wonder if you aren’t – God forbid - a ‘foreigner.’ That might explain your poor grammar – a genius using a second language and all. It’s completely understandable Leo.

Oh Leo, you used yet another exclamation point – oh my!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry Leo, I wanted to try out the multiple exclamation points. It felt good. I understand why you use them!!!!!!!!!!! Oops! Sorry! Can’t help it!!!

You’d get a big fat “F” in High School English over such grammatical blunders Leo.

Sorry Leo, I’m not shutting up. I’m not going away – the First Amendment lets me do this – taunt geniuses that is.

Leo, you might want to contact Acme – they ripped you off.

Anonymous said...

The Voice you suck!

Post something of substance rather than spending so much time trying to insult the intelligence of others. I started to like your comments until you started attacking everyone.

Just cause you have a spell checker in your computer doesn't make you a higher being.

Please spare us!

Rusty said...

The Voice said...
Also, periods are used in America to indicate decimals – not commas as you have used here. Usage of the comma makes me wonder if you aren’t – God forbid - a ‘foreigner.’ That might explain your poor grammar – a genius using a second language and all. It’s completely understandable Leo.

Are you trying to insinuate that foreigners are inferior?

Perhaps the claim of bigotry made earlier has substance. Since you are having a hard time debating true topic, please feel free to insult my intelligence too. Because that is your own little selfish way to prove your point, bringing people down to make you feel bigger.

You should be ashamed!

The Voice said...

Oh Anonymous, or Leo or whoever else you may be - relax already!

Anonymous wrote
"The Voice you suck!"

According to Webster’s:

1. To draw (liquid) into the mouth by movements of the tongue and lips that create suction.
1. To draw in by establishing a partial vacuum: a
cleaning device that sucks up dirt.
2. To draw in by or as if by a current in a fluid.
3. To draw or pull as if by suction: teenagers who are sucked into a life of crime.
3. To draw nourishment through or from: suck a baby bottle.
4. To hold, moisten, or maneuver (a sweet, for example) in the mouth.
5. Vulgar Slang - To perform fellatio on.

Ugh - 'suck?' Uh no thanks Anonymous. That opening is no way to win friends and influence enemies.

Anonymous wrote
"Post something of substance..."

What might you consider substance?

Anonymous wrote
"...rather than spending so much time trying to insult the intelligence of others."

Anonymous, this is a blog where people engage in dialogue. If someone lobs a grenade at me, I lob it back. By the way, why aren't you jumping on Leo or the other anonymous posters? I'm just curious.

Anonymous wrote
"I started to like your comments until you started attacking everyone."

Thanks, I liked your comments right from the opening line, 'you suck."

Anonymous wrote
"Just cause you have a spell checker in your computer doesn't make you a higher being."

Anonymous, you to have a spell checker - it missed the word "cause" unless you meant to write the word because as a contraction, " 'cause."

Or did you mean that I have a 'just cause?' In which case, I apologize and thank you for seeing things my way.

Anonymous wrote
Please spare us!

Okay, you are spared.

One final thought; exclamation points are seriously over used!!!!! Don’t you agree?

The Voice said...


That remark was made in jest. I'm sorry you missed it. What do you think about Leo's insinuation about going to Iraq? Are you incensed at that too?

I agree with you that foreigners are not inferior. We are after all a nation of foreigners.

Thanks Rusty, I'm glad we agree.

I don't feel ashamed at all.

JeremyTwo said...

The Voice: My "Naked Intimacy" is simply because the internet is an anonomyous place, therefore it is far easier to show emotions that I would otherwise be unable to display. My aim was not sympathy, but to highlight the emotional impact that events such as these can have on an individual.

I am an idealist, it is true. The day that I am not is the day I need to find another job! I was not attempting to make a veiled inference to bigotry on your part. My statement was rhetorical in nature. Wether or not you were a police officer really has no bearing on our conversation, does it?

I guess the source of my "sad sac" post was simply that people are so very quick to judge officers. You continually use the phrase "Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior." All we know in regards to Hancock is that he has been sued before, and that the city has settled twice on those lawsuits. I know this may sound silly but: Sometimes people are looking for a payday! An offender put in jail for life has little else to do except file a lawsuit. I also must point out that if Hancock had done anything criminal, he would have been gone a long time ago. These lawsuits are civil, not criminal.

Am I saying that Hancock has never committed a wrong? No. That would be naive. Even though you superciliously ask wether I believe police are infallible at every level. (Lord knows I'm a little too quick to tell some people exactly what I think of them!) What I am saying is that before the public trys, judges and hangs Hancock, maybe they should take a step back and wait for the end result. Its that whole, "Innocent until proven guilty." thing.

I wonder if anyone has stopped to wonder if Moss is looking for 1. An aforementioned payday and/or 2. A way to keep from deploying to Iraq. I wonder if maybe anyone has had the thought that maybe if Moss had been a little more levelheaded he would never have been involved in this mess!

Instead, it seems to me that the public has jumped to conclusions about a fellow officer without knowing all of the facts.

We agree on at least one thing, Voice... no amount of writing on our parts is going to change how we believe. Dialogue is, however, always good for the intellect.

LEO said...

The insignificant "voice" in addition to a spell checker on his computer, it is painfully obvious with his constant quotes from Webster’s that he also possesses a dictionary.

Let me give you a hint and break the sad news to you, quoting phrases from a dictionary is not impressing anyone.

You lost control and have resorted to cheap pathetic squabbling. You ran in half-cocked and came out looking like a total fool. Do yourself a favor and put it to rest.

buggs said...

It is amazing how an alleged event reported by the media can create such heated debate. Officer Hancock did not give his side of his story to the media because there is a time and place to resolve these issues. So why not wait for the case to be concluded by an independent police oversight mechanism (a citizen board) before we reach any conclusions?

It is very easy to Monday-morning-quarterback when you were not there.

Please be nice to each other and do not contribute the “us vs. them” attitude. Do not set up barriers beween cops and citizens, utimately justice will prevail for who ever is right.

I encourage you to read the Rookie Principle.

Peace out!

buggs said...

Also remember a judge still has to decide if the Doctor is guilty of the crime he has been accused.

I am sure more will come out in due time and this should never be tried in the media or in this case by concern bloggers regardless of the good intentions.

Over and out!

The Voice said...

Jeremy and Buggs,

You two have some good points and they are well taken. I agree that dialogue is much better than none at all - even if we do not seem to agree. I certainly hope you took what I said as being something more than a perfunctory admonition.

What I’ve been trying to get across is that we simply need to be cautious - nothing more. As I wrote before, feel free to take what you want from this dialogue. I am certain time will bear itself out and my words will either make sense to you or they will not. It is as simple as that.


Your feeble attempts at banter are boring. The only thing painfully obvious for me is that you are too dim-witted to realize when you are getting your tail whipped. Keep me in mind after you have completed the remedial English class offered at TVI.

Come back when you are more proficient okay? Maybe we can ‘squabble’ then.

Sorry Leo, I couldn’t help it. Review of the definition for ‘squabble’ brought yet another laugh at your expense. You really ought to try using a dictionary buddy!!!!!!


A noisy quarrel, usually about a trivial matter.

Your word choice suggests you consider engaging about dialog about police brutality and corruption to be, ‘squabbling.”

On the other hand, if you were you referring to the ‘trivial’ details of your poor grammar and terrible spelling then, I understand why you might want to play down your deficiencies.

Beaver said...

Sorry to see that so many people don't understand or relate to the concept of "honor of profession".

I'm not a police officer, but an attorney. I belong to a profession. If I commit acts that are against what my profession stands for, because I am A MEMBER of the profession, not just an individual who does whatever the hell she wants, those acts will impact on the image of attorneys at large.

Obviously, the same goes for Mr. Hancock. His behaviour should be denounced by society at large (which it is, obviously, since we are all discussing it). MORE IMPORTANTLY, HIS BEHAVIOUR SHOULD LEAD TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION FROM APD, precisely because of the concept of "honor of profession". If no action is taken, then APD is as well discrediting itself.

Paralleling this to any racial stereotyping is out of line. I dont choose to be white, black, latina or whatever. I do choose to join the police, the bar or the medcorps. It's about what it means to be a professional. Not about individual actions.

Finally, I'd like to say this to all of you people who comment anonymously : if you want to be taken seriously, take credit for your opinions.


LEO said...

Words: "The Voice"

Defenition: "A noisy quarrel, usually about a trivial matter."


The Voice said...

Good God Leo.

You just keep coming back for more.

'LOL?' Now that is funny. The only way you can respoond is by laughing out loud?

You get into name calling - you are refuted on every point and you stupidly keep coming back for more.

Okay Leo you win. You get the pointy cap. I suppose, 'Ignorance is bliss' really applies to you here.

Don't you have a clue that people are here reading all that you say? Your moronic remarks are not helping those you seem so intent on defending. Leo, we have a saying in police work; "Don't show up to a gun fight with a knife."

I must admit, this banter was kind of fun at the beginning but your denseness precludes you from even making this a fair exchange.

I'm sorry Leo. I apologize. I didn't realize I was dealing with a mouth-breather.

LEO said...

"Good God Leo."
Thought I give more so you can stupefy yourself some more.

"You get into name calling - you are refuted on every point and you stupidly keep coming back for more."
I counted more name-calling from you than anyone else, you can't be that stupid? You refuted only in your mind, genius ( I can just hear the pages of your dictionary going wild).

"You get the pointy cap!"
That was funny. Only a moron could come up with something like that but for you (A nerd with no common sense)it was funny.

"Leo, we have a saying in police work; "Don't show up to a gun fight with a knife."
You are not in police work (your type couldn't survive a second as a police officer) and if you ever were, you are an embarrassment. Please don't insult every men and women that wear the uniform.

Ooooh! That hurt. Hahahaha! Next time you want to look up the word moron, look in the mirror.

Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes! Laters I am through playing with you, you are starting to bore me.

Anonymous said...

‘the voice’ lost all credibility when he found it appropriate to argue, like a child, on a blog. The lack of maturity to just turn the other way shows lack of character and earns a lack of respect. As for the others, nobody needs to agree on this situation, that’s what is so nice about America; we are all free to feel our own way about these matters. There have been a lot of good (valid) points made by just about everyone. Agreeing to disagree seems to be the answer for the time being.

I think it is pretty simple. IF Officer Hancock had done something wrong, he should be dealt with. If not, the matter should be dropped…completely! One’s past incidents should be considered to determine punishment, not guilt.

As for Moss, same goes for him. IF he’s guilty, he should be dealt with. If not, the matter should be dropped…completely. As for the civil allegations, that’s another matter for another court. It was said by someone before, lawyers go after those known to have a flawed past. Until the judgment is handed down, we will not know the whole truth. It is easy for any one of us to read into the allegations and pass our own judgment. It takes a responsible and mature person sit back and let the legal system do its job.

The Voice said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Beaver said...

Anonymous has a point - though you did not shed the veil on your identity, you obviously have enough education to understand the difference between "guilty" and "accused".

My friend the Voice may have lost a bit of his cool, but thick-headedness does that to the best of us. In the meantime, listening to the voice of reason and agreeing to disagree is a mediocre but acceptable middle ground.

Hey, this is only a discussion, and nobody is going to change anything in the immediate by posting on Mango's blog.

My conclusion to this :
BOF ! (see my blog for the definition.)

JeremyTwo said...

Anonymous has nailed the correct!

The Voice said...

Anonymous - from New Jersey pretty much summed it up mid-way through this thread when he wrote,

"I don't know the whole stories, but when you add in cops running red lights, cops stealing evidence, and cops raping 14 year-olds, you've got a police force that **appears** to have some credibility issues. I’m not saying they do, I’m just saying that it appears that way, and most people will read it that way.

cops have a tough job. it's damn near impossible for them to get any good press (as one poster mentioned). on the other hand, any hint of misconduct gets jumped on by the press and the public. that being said, when you sign up to be a cop (nobody is forcing you), you sign up to respect every person, accused or not, convicted or not, with the same respect. you also sign up to be held to a higher standard. with that comes the acknowledgement that you might take some abuse from the very citizens you're protecting and serving, but your position dictates that you will not lash out in response. it's a tough job, but it's your choice to embrace the challenge, so you had better be ready to carry yourself accordingly.

Nice job Anonymous from New Jersey. Thank you.

Owing to that and a couple of other posts, someone actually changed her position on a couple of her views. I admire that demonstration of openness to logic and dialogue.

It is evident that at least one person has posed as several different commenters throughout this thread. Anyone who reviews the posts will see it – e.g. Sentence structure, wording, misspellings etc. observed in the comments of those who posted their names at certain times.

Despite all those people’s finger wagging regarding 'credibility,' the readership following this thread will ultimately decide for themselves about where they stand on:

1] Abuse of power by a police officer with four previous claims against him for the same type of infraction - two of which he has lost in court.
2] The Evidence Room Scandal,
3] The rape of a 14 year-old girl by an APD vice detective and finally,
4] Red-light running cops.

These issues were discussed in varying detail while others were touched upon only briefly. They all point to the notion that at least some members of APD consider themselves privileged enough to be above the law which they have sworn to uphold for everyone – including themselves.

I agree with NJ Anonymous and Johnny Mango; credibility is a major issue for APD and they need to address it soon.

The person/people in here who have been motivated to defend such abuse of power have many different reasons for doing so. Some want to avoid bringing public shame upon good officers who don’t deserve to be lumped in with the bad officers. Others believe in defending fellow police simply because they are members of a ‘family’ that is misunderstood and alienated by those they are sworn to protect – they are the ones who seek to mollify the abuses because they consider the life of a police officer ‘special’ and a ‘calling.’

Whatever their reasons, these ‘defenders’ of the badge have made their best effort to discredit anyone who raises the specter police misconduct. However, such sniping doesn't change the reality that APD has a few people on the force who just might not deserve the honor of wearing a badge and protecting the public.

All the mischaracterizations that have been posted in this thread are now available for all to review.

Thanks for the lively debate folks but, my work is now done here - no more posts from me on this thread.

Thank you Johnny – keep being a thorn in APD’s side. God bless you for it because you love your city, you love your police department and you love your bloggers.

johnny_mango said...

Well, I had to have my hard drive replaced this week. I swear it's because the drive can't take the stress! I hope to be back to blogging real soon. Meanwhile, cheer up...this discussion is the wildest police/public interface in the city.