Civilian Complaint Review Board

[Editor]

Average Joe:

I respect your criticism, but let's be clear about something: I do not guarantee anyone's 1st Amendment rights on these boards. That's especially true for anonymous posters who lash out at people who may or may not view these boards and have an opportunity to defend themselves.  Anyone looking to fully exercise their right to free speech can get on soap box on Main Street.

What’s more, while the author of the offending post may know something to be true, I may not.  As such, I’m in the unfortunate position of constantly trying to discern what’s true from what isn’t.  Opinions, stated as such, are a different matter.  That's not to say that I won't consider some opinions as attacks, but posters often state opinion as fact.  If a poster wants to link to another news source that supports the allegations, he or she may do so.

Secondly, while I agree that the targeted individuals are public figures, I don’t like being put in the position of having to defend a lawsuit to confirm I’m right. 

I intended these boards to be forum for meaningful, robust discussion and not as a platform for insult or innuendo.  As for the deletions, "I call ‘em as I see ‘em." That goes for both sides of the aisle. 

If you’re looking for boards were you might be granted "wider latitude" for comment, might I suggest the Dunn’s forum here: http://www.nj.com/forums/hackensack.  In the alternative, visitors are free to start their own message boards and assume responsibility for the sites’ content.

[hamburglar]

I find it interesting that a substantive discussion deteriorated so quickly when Eric joined in. Maybe it's because instead of sticking to the facts as we perceived them as each of us did, he injected his usual skewed political rhetoric and now I need to correct misrepresentations in every one of his paragraphs.                                                                                 

Neither Devil nor I ever said that this issue shouldn't be addressed because the group raising it lost the election. We believe that the issue is being CREATED for political reasons and does not exist as it's being represented.

I think Irish Eyes summed up how ridiculous the concept of addressing every single person's individual wish is. Since I doubt that our part-time City Council has the time to address 42,677 wishes during their term, I assume that they will focus on the issues that they believe are most important to our community at large. Living in a democracy means that we will have an opportunity to pass judgement on their efforts at the polls 4 years from now. It does NOT mean that council genies grant all of our wishes.

Nothing I have read in the paper or on this forum indicated that the Carver Park meeting was a public meeting. It was held by a private group to address concerns of minority residents living in the central part of town. That's the way it was billed by the organizers and reiterated on this site by itsme. Although I have never personally met Joan Dunn, I don't think she fits the description of the target audience. If that was a really a public meeting, would the Rag have stood still when they were excluded?

Finally, Eric concludes that a Civilian Review Board is necessary because "major segments of the community have bad relations with the police, and they go around accusing the Chief of Police of attempting to run the city like a modern-day Julius Caesar". Where'd all that stuff come from? I think it's more like a couple of dozen people got together to discuss some general concerns about a few police officers and the Chief and those residents are trying to work it all out. Eric should stick to the facts and not project his feelings about the police onto an entire community.

[Editor]

I deleted a post that appeared here for a few reasons:

1. It was a full article from The Record.  I do not have permission to use the Record's articles.  That is why I link to their site. Their articles are not stored on my server and visitors need to register with the Record to view articles.  The article was about charges brought against a message board member for animal cruelty years ago. 

2.  The article was not germane to the discussion of a CCRB and added nothing to the discussion.  It was obviously meant as an attack on a member. 

3.  "irisheyes" posted the article and did so anonymously. 

I meant what I said in my prior post.  If visitors are not comfortable with the terms of use, I would ask that they do not post messages. 

[ericmartindale]

zL4TIT  suuodxmalhel, dzyyjcjhlizp, [link=http://hyyjgiqabilf.com/]hyyjgiqabilf[/link], http://kagdzmvekneb.com/

[hamburglar]

Why does Eric keep speaking for Devil and me? He has enough trouble logically organizing his own thoughts. Why would I care if residents attend council meetings to express their concerns? That IS appropriate for them to do. And I'm sure that the police appreciate him speaking for them too in explaining how beneficial a civilian review board is for them. I guess that's why police all over the country are demanding that civilian review boards be established in their towns.

[itsme]

As you may or may not recall, I initiated this conversation after a meeting at Carver Park regarding unfair treatment of some minority members of this community by some officers of this community.  At that meeting at Carver Park, the Police Chief gave out his business card and asked that anyone who had a problem feel free to contact him directly.  This statement was made in response to individuals who indicated that they were not allowed to file a complaint against a police officer after a confrontation between the police and themselves.  Sometime after that, I was asked by an individual to go with her to file a complaint.  The complaint involved her minor daughter who was handcuffed to a pole and claimed to be unfairly treated by a police officer. It was my understanding that  the complaint would be taken and the proper authorities would address it.  Upon arrival at the police department, we were told that a complaint could not be filed because we needed to wait for a particular officer was not present.  I and the individual questioned the desk sargeant as to why the complaint could not be registered at that time, while it was fresh in her mind and was told (not so nicely) that was the procedure.  We requested to speak with the police chief and was told he was not available.  I am sure that his unavailability was true and not just stated to blow us off.  When asked if I could leave a message for the Chief to return our call, the desk sargeant refused to take the message (again not so nicely).  We left the station not wanting to have a disorderly confrontation.  Remembering that I had the card that Chief Zisa handed out, I called his office and left a message.  At that time, I was involved in volunteer work at a church on Central Avenue and mentioned the situation to a former president of the Bergen County NAACP who was at the church.  He then contacted the police chief and was immediately put through to him.  After discussing the situation with the Police Chief, the chief advised him to have us come back to the police station to file the complaint.  We went back to the police station and again was told (not so nicely) that the complaint could not be made.  We told him about the conversation with the Police Chief and then only after that was the complaint allowed to be filed.  The individual filing the complaint had requested that I go with her to make the statement because she would feel more comfortable if I was there.  I was told very nastily by the desk sargeant that she could go make the complaint but I would not be allowed to be present.  Not wanting to further complicate the situation, I told her to go make the complaint.

In the past couple of months, I have read articles regarding the complaints and disciplinary charges going on in the police department.  I have read the civil complaint which was on the internet.  Some of the same complaints made by those officers against superior officers are similar to the complaints of some members of the minority community.  I am not sure who is right or wrong. I can only await the outcome of all of these lawsuits and internal affairs hearings.  If the allegations against the Police Chief and other superior officers are found to be true, it will make me wonder if the police chief took the concerns of the citizens seriously having operated his force and internal affairs complaints in such a manner.