| Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne Doesn't MSP or shall I say isn't MSP the only one that does renditions from out of state back to MA? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 Theyre pissed because they didn't get any TV time out of something and now they won't do their "job"? Imagine if every "law enforcement official" didn't do their job because they didn't get publicity they thought they deserved....talk about arrogance...he's gonna tell the DA how to run his office now? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 They did two and you guys took your ball and went home like big crybabies...if we cant do them all we wont do any??....and troopers do them fairly regularly out CPAC offices too so don't make it sound like you got a lock on it.... |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 Yes we are...if the DA decides that is what he wants ..I'll take a trained local cop or trooper ANY day and twice on Sunday over one of GG's buddies who wants a working vacation.. And the troopers assigned to CPAC work at the pleasure and discretion of the DA .... |
| Originally Posted by str8shot52 As I understand it, it wasn't necessarily about those two cases, but about the DA's decision to move "high profile" renditions to State Police in the future. You forgot to comment regarding my thoughts on his motivation for the switch. It's not for public safety reasons, it's not because of any complaints....so I wonder what it could be? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 What statutory authority allows a state or local police officer to return a prisoner to the Commonwealth? PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES TITLE II. PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES PROCEDURE ON INTERSTATE RENDITION Chapter 276: Section 16. Governor’s warrant of arrest; recital of facts Section 16. If the governor decides that the demand should be complied with, he shall sign a warrant of arrest, sealed with the state seal and directed to an officer authorized to serve warrants in criminal cases or other person whom the governor may think fit to entrust with the execution thereof. Such warrant shall substantially recite the facts necessary to the validity of its issue. Seeing as how the Governor appoints the members of the State Police at their graduations....I think that he or she would see fit to entrust them with the execution Governors warrants....and who appoints deputies again to serve criminal process???....Oh the same guy that SELLS appointments to the Deputy Sheriff Association...wait I mean takes campaign contributions.....right STR8?? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 Did you read the article, or forget what you said? Turco (you), "Mr. Turco accused Mr. Early’s office of mishandling the case by failing, prior to the killings, to have Mr. Tavares brought back from Washington to stand trial for the alleged assaults on the correction officers." Do you think that your comment regarding the DA and his office helped your cause at all? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 So you think that I am the bug in the DA's ear? Hardly. CPAC is not for me. Road guy here. If you're insinuating that I have a problem with trained POLICE officers leaving the state, representing MA law enforcement to other agencies, and bringing back dangerous or high profile prisoners, I guess you got me pegged. I am guilty as charged. SD guys are more than welcome to do their jobs, AT THE JAIL. Point out in the MGL's that it is the exclusive authority of SO to rendite prisoners? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 You forgot to comment regarding my thoughts on his motivation for the switch. And you conveniently forgot, yet again, what is your training and experience that makes you qualified to cast judgement on professional law enforcement officers? Not to mention my posts on your EM-50 at a turnout/parade which you so vehemently deny it ever does. |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 ...OTTO I understand what your post states, but as you're pulling it from Chap 37 which concerns duties of Sheriffs, I would again ask where does it say that Sheriffs are the only agency authorized to execute Governors warrants... |
| Originally Posted by kwflatbed "As I understand it, it wasn't necessarily about those two cases, but about the DA's decision to move "high profile" renditions to State Police in the future. You forgot to comment regarding my thoughts on his motivation for the switch. It's not for public safety reasons, it's not because of any complaints....so I wonder what it could be? " It could be that the tin waving sign holders, and money donating club members are not qualified to do the job. |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 First of all...the Sheriff does not dictate to the district attorney what he or she does...so in that sense he does what he wants and doesn't need GG's approval or disapproval...I could care less as I don't do renditions. |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 I'd refer you back to a thread of 57 pages of you saying we should do exactly that in the name of interoperability...funny how when it touches into one of your percieved rights that it takes on a new meaning huh? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 And I asked what specific training you recieve, different than full time police officers recieve, that makes you the exclusive agency capable of performing these duties? OTTO I understand what your post states, but as you're pulling it from Chap 37 which concerns duties of Sheriffs, I would again ask where does it say that Sheriffs are the only agency authorized to execute Governors warrants. Especially when the language of the Governors warrant itself says any officer authorized to serve criminal process. |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 Troopers assigned to CPAC's (DA'S Offices which perform these duties) are not assigned to patrol duties. They are not part of Field Services Division which handle the "road". They work primarily Monday through Friday and are available on callout basis in case of emergency (suicide, homicides, etc). Therefore, they do not take away from public safety or subject the other trooopers on the road to staff shortages. HOWEVER, I would imagine that one of the special boys who are able to do renditions/operate the EM-50 (I'd bet many are the same..), if they returned to the block could add to officer safety a little bit. |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 The DA said a couple, and you guys said if we can't do all, we won't do any. Who took what away?? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 Yes, you are casting judgement. My opinions have not changed. I still think that SD officers belong in the jail, which I have maintained all along. Your mission statement no longer contains those words anymore. You accuse the DA of playing politics and I say look who is calling the kettle black. When you manipulate politics in your favor, take away work from police that could do what you take from them in the spirit of "assistance", and then get a black eye because GG and Turco feel that they (you) can do whatever they like, including accusing a DA of improper conduct in a public venue, then yes, I say boo friggin hoo for the couple guys allowed to do renditions for WSCO. |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 Do you offer these renditions to qualified Correctional Officers from the blocks? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 It does not say, "may be responsible," and I am not aware of anything else that says any other particular officer "may" or "shall be responsible." Of course not, that statute addresses the job description of Sheriffs. Like I said the actual rendition itself is based upon a Governors warrant correct? Therefore any officer authorized to serve criminal process may serve this warrant and take them into custody. It is addressed in the earlier chapter I posted. No. They are full-time correctional officers, sworn as deputies. So the guys from the blocks are called to do renditions and not the guys from Special Services? |
| Originally Posted by SinePari Serving civil process: just about any sworn officer in this state can do it. VFAS or the WCSPDU can handle "high profile" rendition cases. I guarantee that the DAs decision to do what he did came from a higher office than his. Joe and Guy were fishing buddies a mere 2 years ago, now they're in equilevant positions of power withing their respective branch. But when the squashed bug is on Guy's windshield, suddenly it's politics. 13 years of serving papers? Was this back when the county gov't was leveled, and the deal was made that the SO would do renditions? Well, it looks like there's a new DA who's changing how it "used to be". Feel like things are slipping away from you now, str8tjacket? You see now how people have higher-ups they have to answer to? Early has to answer to Coakley, she answers to the Governor, and the G-man answers to the people. And the mighty sheriff answers to...who? |
| Originally Posted by alphadog1 The bottom line is the Worcester DA doesn't want the Sheriffs to handle renditions. So, go back and do the job your suppose to do, care & custody of inmates. Leave police work to the police and we'll continue to leave corrections work to the correction officers. |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 No, the DA wants the State Police to handle only HIGH PROFILE cases, and the SD do the rest...again, without giving a reason or justification. Even to differentiate who conducts renditions based on media attention shows this has NOTHING to do with public safety, but is nothing more than politics. And renditions ARE the job we're supposed to do. |
| Originally Posted by kwflatbed So do any of the three wack jobs posting in Glodis's defense have the balls to post the names of the actual CO DEPUTY'S who are doing the renditions or is that another TOP SECRET of the Glodis clan ???????? Originally Posted by lawdog671 Do you offer these renditions to qualified Correctional Officers from the blocks? They are full time CO's that do renditions..... That is not the question that was asked. Another TOP SECRET ???????? |
| Originally Posted by Otto I am not a wackjob. I have 20 + years' experience. You seem to have only the ability to parrot what others say. I am not defending "Glodis," and I am not one of his "clan." I don't need to parrot anyone, Yes you may think you are not defending Glodis but read your own posts. As I have said before I am not questioning your experience just the way things are done in the WCSO department. Are you actually suggesting I post correctional officers' names? For what? Just to see how evenly the tasks are spread or if it is only the select few that get them. If you had some correctional experience anywhere, let alone with the department you have no first hand knowledge about, yet constantly bash, you would know that my response answered lawdogs' question. That may be the politicly correct answer but it did not answer the question that was asked. A correctional officer has no authority to rendite a prisoner unless he is sworn as a deputy. Once the correctional officer gets sworn so he will be able to do it, he automatically becomes a "hack," by your definition, so why would you care? |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 </p>You honestly think the DA made this decision not on his own, but took his marching orders from Coakley? With all due respect, Sine, I think that's a little naive. And we're talking about 13 years of doing out of state renditions....which doesn't mean serving papers, it means prisoner retrieval. Renditions are something that officers are trained on, falls WELL within our responsibilities and duties, and have been doing very effectively without complaint from anyone. So when it's changed and diverted to another agency, without a reason at all, it's an insult to the officers and department as a whole. And why just HIGH PROFILE cases go to State Police? Even to base your decision on the attention a case gets shows all you need to know. It's nothing more than a political power play...something people on here are usually quick to criticize but, strangely, in this case have fallen mysteriously silent. Where are all the people who posted here saying the SD should stick to jail operations only, and even the perception of one agency taking on another's responsibilities should be met with fury and rage? |
| Originally Posted by truthbetold Alphadog, Isnt the guy they are picking up an inmate. Doesn't he have to be in custody? Oh sorry I thought that picking up an inmate would fall under care custody and control of inmates or tranportation of prisoners. Sorry about that my bad. I think that is why they have been doing that for 13 years. Thank you for clearifying that. Phew I was thinking care custody and control was different from care custody and control. I feel much better now. I am glad I logged on. |
| Originally Posted by Otto What statutory authority allows a state or local police officer to return a prisoner to the Commonwealth? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 No. They are full-time correctional officers, sworn as deputies. So the guys from the blocks are called to do renditions and not the guys from Special Services? OTTO I'll give you that...you're good.....technically any non civilian employee coming into the employ of the WCSO comes in as a correctional staff right? This does not mean that they remain correctional staff in the true sense of the term? While I concede some people are sworn as deputies without politics, I am not so naive as you would think to believe some don't get there faster by politics. And you being a straight shooter would agree, in the spirit of full disclosure, no? BUT I asked how many of the guys working the blocks get them? I would bet your tally sheets would be predominately Special Services though. Would I be wrong there?? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 Again, we don't respond until called upon...so how can we "take away responsibilities" from anyone when it's POLICE that call us for assistance? If you can't get it when it's broken down Barney style for you over 57 pages, don't ask stupid f'ing questions you don't have the capacity to register.. |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 And who the F*ck are you to question ANYTHING the DA does? I traditionally wipe my ass with my right hand, but some days I feel saucy and use my left. Does that upset you also? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 First things first, do you have ANY idea what goes on during the day of a trooper assigned to CPAC?? I doubt it. STFU because you don't. |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 Second, explain to me how this differs from let's say, oh I don't know, a WCSO K-9 officer who should be at jail but goes to post office instead? Added responsibilty? Yes of course. Backfill? Of course. There is nothing convenient about this for me. You get paid to be keepers of the jail. KEEP THE JAIL. Course you won't put that together with your agency right?? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 How about the DA? Or do you guys want to do his job too? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 You came hot out of the gate there Tiger calling out some unnamed MSP personnel having the ear of the DA for all your woes ...you did cast judgement when your 2nd in command (you) called out "they" who fouled up the case in a public forum like THE MEDIA...which...didn't you just whine about why the media gets to make these descisions?? |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 MY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO YOU WERE THIS, WHICH YOU PASSED AGAIN.... 1. YOUR TRAINING/EXPERIENCE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO CAST JUDGEMENT ON A PROPERLY ELECTED DA'S DECISION AND HIS MSP INVESTIGATORS ABILITY TO CARRY OUT HIS DESIRES. 2. WHAT TRAINING EXACTLY MAKES THIS SUBJECT WCSO THE ONLY AGENCY CAPABLE OF PERFORMING THIS ASSIGNEMENT? IT'S NOT HARD. Do these guys get high speed training??? Please tell... |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 And when someone takes away your job, without a reason, you either roll over and take it like a chump, or you stand up and fight. Would you so quickly relinquish your duties, lawdog, despite a flawless record over 13 years? |
| Originally Posted by MSP75 Why does the WCSO want to spend my money for out-of-state renditions when the WSCO needs every dollar it can get for their primary job? Every Sheriff is crying for state money, as Glodis does in this article. |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 We are an extension of the judiciary, much like the DA, that's who. |
| Originally Posted by Otto I'm guessing you mean they may get tranferred from a cellblock to another assignment. Sometimes politics play a part and sometimes they don't. Just like on most police departments. In my first response to your question I said that Special Services does the bulk of them. They do the bulk of all transportation. That is one of their areas of responsibility. There is nothing sinister about it. Just as getting meals prepared is the kitchen officers' responsibility, and fixing things is the maintenence officers' responsibility. |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 Because renditions ARE part of our primary job, pursant to MGL Chap. 37, Sect. 24. But you're right, if the DA thinks renditions can be done better by someone else, whether high profile or otherwise, then let him have them. I'm sure that money can be put towards something else. |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 I'm sure that money can be put towards something else. |
| Originally Posted by MSP75 How come you don't pick up my prisoners at the barracks? |
| Originally Posted by SinePari Again, 57 pages of this very argument. Why the EM-50 when the state has a few? Why get K-9s out of the jail when the state already has a few? Why the rendition teams when anybody can do it? I'll tell you why. YOUR ANSWER TO THE OTHER 57 PAGES WAS BECAUSE YOU WERE ASKED TO DO IT...by the Central Mass Chiefs, CEMLEC, or whoever, and didn't just magically dream up those functions. You just tossed that answer around like a nerf football. But when the DA ORDERS the MSP to do something, it's not OK with you now? It's OK to tell the DA to pound sand? In the check-writing world of jobs, assignments and promotions from which you "manage" or whatever your job description over there is, you may find the concept of things like accountability and chain of command a bit foreign. |
| Originally Posted by MSP75 Not anymore: http://www.mass.gov/courts/admin/intro.html The Massachusetts Trial Court was created by Chapter 478 of the Acts of 1978. Before that time, all trial courts in the Commonwealth, (except the Land Court that was a state court), were county or local courts funded through the counties. The 1978 statute reorganized the courts into seven Trial Court Departments: the Boston Municipal Court, the District Court, the Housing Court, the Juvenile Court, the Probate and Family Court and the Superior Court, as well as the Land Court. Administrative Justices became responsible for the administration of each court department. After 1978, the judges of all departments received the same salary and benefits from the state and all became state judges. Most Massachusetts counties currently exist only as geographic regions, and have no county government. All former county functions were assumed by state agencies in the late 1990's-early 2000. Sheriffs and some other regional officials with specific duties are still elected locally to perform duties within the county region, but there is no county council or commissioner. |
| Originally Posted by MSP75 How come you don't pick up my prisoners at the barracks? |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 You grouped together some very different things, but regardless...don't worry, I'm not going to start THIS all over again, but since you asked: 1. Why the MCV? Response time, availability, technology 2. Why the K-9 unit? Because K-9 units ARE in short supply, and are not readily available. Also, response time and availability 3. Why renditions? Because it's part of the job description. It's what we're trained on, what we've done for the last 13 years, without complaint. Many of them are coming right to the Jail and House of Correction anyway as pre-trial. The differences between your examples are simple: the MCV is called out not because another is sitting by the sidelines with nothing to do, but because it is, for those calling it out, the best option. The K-9 unit is not chosen over another K-9 team sitting idly by, but because they are available, and have had great success. The rendition policy IS substituting one group of officers who do the job well, for another group of officers.....not because of availability or any other issue. Not for ANY reason, in fact, but because the DA wants to differentiate "high profile" from "low profile". You can be as condecending as you like, Sine, but I welcome you to find a flaw with how we've conducted renditions in the past...you want accountability, well there it is. And I assure you, the chain of command is strictly enforced at the Jail and House of Correction. |
| Originally Posted by SinePari Are you saying that the MSP K-9 couldn't, wouldn't, are not available or capable to scan post offices? |
| Originally Posted by sinepari Are you saying the MSP command vehicles couldn't, wouldn't, are not available or capable to assit central Mass towns? That is utter bullshit trying to justify your lame excuses over and over again. |
| Originally Posted by sinepari Face it, GG is trying to forge ahead with a Central Mass Public Safety Agency, as you put it in the other thread. |
| Originally Posted by Otto What statutory authority allows a state or local police officer to return a prisoner to the Commonwealth? |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 . You said before that SD officers should stick with what they are responsible for, and that is the care, custody and control of inmates, pursuant to Chap. 37. In fact, you were quite adamant about that. So when those responsibilities are transferred over to the State Police, without a single reason why, |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 T No, the DA said all "high profile" cases in the future. So who defines "high profile"? And why is media attention deciding who conducts a rendition? |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 Why renditions? Because it's part of the job description. It's what we're trained on, what we've done for the last 13 years, without complaint. |
| Originally Posted by bbelichick Obviously a Deputy screwed up something and now he wants people doing the job right. |
| Originally Posted by bbelichik Apparently somone had a complaint....the DA. |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 That's not true. Not once has any problem been mentioned. This was very much out of the blue. Is it so hard to believe that the SD did everything by the book, and the DA has ulterior motives? That's not good enough. If he's going to strip us of our job, tell us we shouldn't do it anymore, and for no other reason than his preference towards "high profile" cases, that's not good enough. |
| Originally Posted by MSP75 How come you don't pick up my prisoners at the barracks? |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 It all comes down to space. If the cells aren't available, we have nowhere to put them. It sucks, but state and local police suffer from prison overcrowding as well. |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 That's not good enough. If he's going to strip us of our job, tell us we shouldn't do it anymore, and for no other reason than his preference towards "high profile" cases, that's not good enough. |
| Originally Posted by bbelichick I'm sorry, are you somehow the DA's supervisor? No? Then his say so is GOOD ENOUGH. Face it, somebody screwed up. He may be saving your agency the embarrassment, but somebody made a mistake...and probably a bad one. |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 If somebody did screw up, as you're assuming (and f*ck you very much for the assumption), then why would the DA ask that we continue to do 98% of the renditions, and transfer only the "high profile" renditions to the State Police?On a message board where accountability is a common theme, it's amazing how many on here would roll over, shrug their shoulders, and simply say, oh well he's the boss.The fact is, nobody screwed up....there is NO reason for this change other than a political power play, and nothing more. You think the DA isn't political? For those that are defending the DA, remember you are justifying every single thing you've attacked the SD for. |
| Originally Posted by Wolfman INCORRECT. Nice dodge though. State PD barracks and local PDs transport their own prisoners to the HOC and regional lockups all the time. Why doesn't the SD come and pick them up and leave the patrols out on the road where they belong? |
| Originally Posted by bbelichick No, we're not. State Police do renditions all the time; in many counties they do them all and the Sheriff does ZERO renditions. Repeat after me: "Time for count. Lock up. Time for chow. Time for rec. Time for count. Time for chow..." Repeat as needed. There, now you are doing your job. |
| Originally Posted by truthbetold People with power always seem to abuse it to gain something in their favor. |
| Originally Posted by sinepari Face it, GG is trying to forge ahead with a Central Mass Public Safety Agency, as you put it in the other thread. |
| Originally Posted by str8tshot52 I don't even know what that is. |
| Originally Posted by str8shot52 The ONLY reason the Sheriff's Office was involved was because the Central Region Homeland Security Council required a "REGIONAL public safety agency to apply" |
| Originally Posted by lawdog671 I didn't think that I had to say this but apparently I do. ANYTHING THAT I SAY HERE IS MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION AND IN NO WAY SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS BEING THE OPINION OF MY EMPLOYER. First of all nothing I say here is as a State trooper. I speak as an ordinary citizen about my government and its administration. STR8 asked a general question to the forum about what we would do if someone threatened our job. I invited him to come see what I would do. Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities, but that was in no way a verbal threat. If that hurt your feelings, god help you on the road if some bad guy actually says something that might hurt your feelings. Tell him he's immature. As far as being an officer and cherishing your job daily, I value my job. I value the lifestyle that I CHOSE to accept by becoming a police officer. I value the SACRIFICES that I have made, my family, friends, and families and friends of all the other legit cops here made to get where we are today. I did my time in the military, worked at your jail inside, dispatched, rode as an auxiliary and part time local cop. I paid my dues to get where I am today. You find humor about guys getting pissed off when we defend our livelihoods against people who would backdoor us by writing a check, carrying a sign, and take work from us? You think it is funny that guys like STR8 force their way into our profession, by whatever means it takes, and make a mockery of our work? I don't do this work as a means to get my picture in the papers for my next campaign. GG does. My good work does that for me. I don't do this job so I can wear a neato uniform and impress the girls/guys/old people, or whatever floats your boat. Turco does that with his little Colonel emblems on his uniform for his photo shoot. I wear it because that's what I am told to wear. Find the humor all you want. You think that people out there don't read this forum and see what is being exposed about the wastefulness of the WCSO? As I pointed out to STR8, yes there may be 10 or twelve guys here to your three, going back and forth, but there were 257 people that viewed the last thread about the command center. Subtract the 13 (244) and that leaves almost 250 people who read that post. And even though they could have backed up STR8 on any of his posts, they didn't. PEOPLE do read these posts. I know quite a few civilians that read this forum daily. Think what you like. More importantly, I live and work in the Worcester County area. What these threads represent are legitimate concerns to my profession. If this concerned yours, I am sure your attitude about soapboxes would be different. I'd be more than willing to bet that you don't live and/or work in Mass anymore. If you're still with the Border Patrol this doesn't affect you either way. If we can't do the high profile renditions we won't do ANY?? That's mature. |