Here you will find all of the e-mails I have received from readers. 

Last updated September 20th 2005

These e-mails have not been researched to check the accuracy of the content. Please realize these are e-mails are from readers and their credibility has not been verified. We do not suggest the content of these e-mails are valid or accurate due to the nature in which they were received.

Scroll down for updates, responses, and follow ups. The e-mails are arranged so that you can read down and follow the entire discussion, even if it's a few e-mails long.

I Will Start Posting These Messages on the Discussion Forum. If you would like to have an honest discussion, please join our discussion forum.

Email: January 14th 2007:

Do you have anything better to do than bash the hard working men and women of the Pacifica Police Department?  Put yourself in their shoes and you see how difficult it is to do what they do everyday while putting their lives on the line for people who don\'t even support them like you.  There is only so much they can do with what they are given.  If there is no solid proof of fingerprints, eyewitnesses, surveillance, concrete evidence to find who has committed the burglaries, what do you expect them to do.  Cases like this are a waiting game.  You have no right to judge anyone, until you\'ve walked a day in their shoes. 

Supportive of the Pacifica Police Department

Do you have anything better to do than e-mail people who stand up for the citizens of Pacifica? Being a police officer is one of the safest jobs in the US. You are either uneducated, or haven't bothered to conduct any research in this area. 

Supportive of the Citizens of Pacifica

Email: February 17th 2006, from the spineless anonymous critic:

Oh, by the way, just how many officers on a force of 37 sworn, were born and raised in Pacifica? You say all the officers should be fired? Why? And when I read all the negative comments, there were no proven facts in any of them. They said, she saw, he saw, my son's friend told me, so and so's daughter was arrested and mistreated, no facts, no names, just blind descriptions.

You are a hypocrite, how can you possibly criticize people for not wanting to publish their names when you, yourself, are afraid to publish your name? You did not even include an e-mail with your messages.

Email: February 17th, 2006 from a spineless anonymous critic:

 For a person who professes to know so much, I can't believe you don't know that half a person in a budget means a part time employee. 

Interesting, please point out where I "profess to know so much". And about the half employee, I thought it was funny, it was a joke, but it sounds like you don't have much of a sense of humor.

If you look at the budget of any city, you will find that the largest money spent is on the police department because the salaries are high due to the dangerous nature of the job. 

Please provide some supporting evidence. When was the last Pacifica police officer killed in the line of duty. Are you suggesting the teaching profession is not a dangerous profession?

The next highest item in a budget is usually the fire department.  Why don't you pick on them next?  For all the money they make, they only go on a few calls a day, if that.  What do they do with the rest of their time?   Most of them have side
businesses which they spend the majority of their time working at, because they only have to work about 1/3 of a month.  We had to pass a parcel tax to help pay for them with no accountability of how the money is spent and that money is not
shown against the budget money for the fire department. 

Straw Man Fallacy. We are not talking about the fire department, perhaps if you have something against the fire department, you should try to change it, but I have no problem with the Pacifica fire department. On the other hand, it sounds like you do.

The Pacifica Police Dept. is very professional and the level of training and how that training is applied shows up when any of our officers go to other agencies for jobs.  Our officers are top candidates for job openings all over the state.  The only reason officers leave here to go elsewhere is because they can get much more money for their jobs in any other city. 

Any supporting evidence? Of course not, just groundless claims by a spineless, anonymous, critic.

Yes, the job is dangerous. 

Evidence? How dangerous is the job in Pacifica?

You never know when you will be shot at because the legal system has made it easy to kill a cop and sometimes get less time in jail than for other crimes. 

Evidence? When was the last time a Pacifica Police Officer was shot at? How often does this occur in Pacifica?

People used to be afraid to try and kill a cop, but not anymore. 

Any supporting evidence?

There are more drug arrests in Pacifica than any other crime so the police are trying to stem the use of illegal narcotics.  There are just more and more people turning to drugs and that is societys' fault. Pacifica is viewed a just a laid back tiny community with little crime and less officers than other cities with our population, so low lifes just seem to drift here.

Again, any evidence to support your claims? The majority of those arrested are residents, therefore, your hypothesis is incorrect.

 Also, I think you should spent more time on education and English, since your spelling leaves a lot to desire. Thank you for your time and hopefully you will spent your time and efforts to try and improve Pacifica and be someone who matters.

I wasn't going to post this message since it lacked an e-mail address, but I did get a laugh out of your spelling errors after reading your following sentence, "I think you should spent more time on education and English, since your spelling leaves a lot to desire". You have other grammatical errors, but I don't want to waste my time on pointing out all your grammatical errors, but I did highlight a few above by underlining them for you and others. Perhaps, next time, before you try to criticize someone for their English skills, you will make sure yours are up to par?

Email: 9/13/2005:

Yes there are corrupt officer in all police forces, and only officers that would stand for that type of conduct, in my opinion, would also be corrupt. I agree totally with the webmaster, ALL POLICE OFFICERS, JUDGES, AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, should be held to a higher standard.

Email: 9/8/05:

I AM RESPONDING TO THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY THE SMOKING POLICE OFFICER. THE THE
SMOKING LAWS YOU ARE REFERRING TO DO NOT APPLY IN THE SITUATION YOU DESCRIBED. THE 'LAW' YOU REFER TO AS 'AB 13' IS NOW CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE 6404.5. THE TERM 'AB 13'
REFERS TO 'ASSEMBLY BILL 13' WHICH IS A PROPSED LAW, NOT AN ACTUAL LAW. LABOR CODE 6404.5 DEALS WITH EMPLOYERS ALLOWING SMOKING WITHIN AN ENCLOSED WORKPLACE. THIS LAW DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS SITUATION SINCE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE OUTDOOR AREAS ADJACENT TO ENCLOSED BUILDINGS.

Response: First of all, you should try to type without all caps since it is hard to read and considered yelling. Next, I have already deleted one of your messages due to it containing only a personal attack without an actual message. Therefore, this message almost didn't make the cut due to your last personal insult. In addition, I know you are a city employee and are using the San Mateo Regional Network to send me your messages, perhaps while on the clock. Are you surfing the Pacifica Police Watch Website while on the clock? What do you do for a living? Now, lets deal with the facts. Assembly bill 13 went into affect on January 1st 1995 and is not a "proposed law", but an actual law now in the code books as code 6404.5. Click here for the AB-13 fact sheet. It was a bill which passed and I referred to is directly for those like you who would want to research it. It could be argued that the area directly outside is partially enclosed due to the overhang. But, lets not split hairs, the fact is this officer may or may not have been on break and was engaged in a conversation with a citizen. Police officers are public employees whom should respect the health of the citizens of Pacifica.

THE OTHER LAW YOU REFER TO IS CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 7596. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSES 'PUBLIC BUILDINGS.' THE CODE DEFINES A
PUBLIC BUILDING AS ONE THAT IS OWNED, OCCUPIED, OR LEASED BY A CITY, COUNTY OR STATE AGENCY. THIS OFFICER WAS SMOKING IN FRONT OF A BUSINESS, NOT A 'PUBLIC BUILDING' AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION.

Response: It also says that if part of the building is owned, leased, or occupied by a city, county, or state agency. Therefore, if part of the building is occupied, owned, or leased by a city, county, or state agency, it would be against this specific code. I am currently researching whether or not any part of the building in that area is leased, owned, or occupied by any city, county, or state agency. Again, that's why I chose to use the word "alleged misconduct", because I am still investigating this incident and the current laws at the city, county, and state level. But, you are missing the point entirely. I personally think police officers should set the example for our youth, and I don't think anyone would suggest that smoking cigarettes should be encouraged or promoted by police officers. In addition, what about the person the police officer was talking to? Should those who come in contact with police officers have to breath in his second hand smoke?

THE OFFICER MIGHT BE IN VIOLATION OF A DEPARTMENT OR CITY EMPLOYEE SMOKING REGULATION, BUT I DOUBT SUCH A REGULATION EXISTS. THAT WOULD PROBABLY INFRINGE ON HIS RIGHT TO SMOKE CIGARETTES. IT SOUNDS LIKE HE WAS SIMPLY ENJOYING HIS BREAK, WHICH IS PROBABALY GRANTED IN THE CITY'S CONTRACT WITH THE POLICE OFFICERS. THE SAME TYPE OF BREAK PEOPLE WORKING IN OTHER PROFESSIONS ENJOY ON A DAILY BASIS. JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH HIS CHOICE TO SMOKE DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN CRITICIZE HIS CHOICE AND LABEL IS 'MISCONDUCT'.

Response: You are taking a very large leap with suggesting the officer was taking a break. In addition, how would having a regulation not allowing smoking while on duty or while in uniform be an infringement on someone's right? I never knew the constitution included the right so smoke cigarettes. Couldn't the same argument be made for smoking marijuana, injecting heroin, etc? The officer is not allowed to smoke in the police vehicle according to section 465 of the vehicle code. Do you consider that an infringement on his rights? In addition, I never suggested the officer should not have a lunch break, so please do not try to change the argument. I do not disagree with the officers choice to smoke, but rather I disagree with the officer smoking and civilians having to walk through his smoke to enter a business open to everyone, including children and pregnant women. Do you think these children should have to walk through the second hand smoke? Should the customer have to avoid the store in order to not breath in second hand smoke? What about the customers right to not have to breath in the smoke? Shouldn't the non-smoking customer have the same rights to enter the business?

I HAPPEN TO SEE PEOPLE SMOKING IN THE SAME PLACE YOU MENTIONED ON A REGULAR BASIS. I DONT CARE FOR CIGARETTE SMOKE PERSONALLY AND I WOULD PREFER IF THEY OUTLAWED IT IN OUTDOOR SHOPPING CENTERS AND PARKS ALTOGETHER, BUT UNTIL THEY DO IT IS UNFAIR TO CRITICIZE THE OFFICER JUST BECAUSE HE IS IN A UNIFORM. IF YOUR 'TIPSTER' IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE, THEY SHOULD FIND SOMEWERE ELSE TO ENJOY THEIR COFFEE.

Response: The tipster had to walk through this second hand smoke to enter and leave the businesses in question. I agree with you, I don't think anyone should be allowed to smoke in front of main entrances to businesses because none of us should have to walk through their smoke. But, I don't think its unfair to criticize an officer, whom I feel should be held to a higher standard then the general public. In addition, the officer was conversing with a citizen, whether or not this citizen was being questioned by the officer is unknown, but what about that citizens right to not have to breath in the officers second hand smoke? I have no problem with people who want to smoke, as long as I, and others who don't smoke, don't have to breath in the second hand smoke.

But, as I stated in the "alleged misconduct", this is very petty and I might just remove it entirely. I wasn't going to even post it in the first place because I do not feel it is a big deal and those who smoke may feel this is an anti-smoking website which will take the focus off the main subject. But I did send a message to the Pacifica Police Chief in regards to this tip in order to see if it is possible to form a working relationship with the police in Pacifica, but so far no response. I would be more than happy to actually work with the Chief of Police in a constructive way rather then just posting it on the website for all to read without any feedback on what the city thinks or is going to do about these incidents.

Its too bad your first message sent about a week ago only contained "you are a moron....".  Your second message almost went straight to the spam filter due to that message. Maybe you would like to tell us what you specifically meant by that first message?

Email: 8/29/05 - Seems we are once again rattling the cage.

Some observations on your website... First of all you have every right to voice you
opinion. But, how are you going effect change without contacting the Pacifica Police
department directly and working with them? It is very easy to critique if you only
know half of the story. I think you are also fostering a little of “Us vs. them”
mentality you mention on your site.

Response: First, how would you know if I had or had not contacted the pacifica police department? In addition, if you are going to suggest that I "only know half of the story", why don't you please provide us with exactly what you mean and list some examples and the other half of the story? Yes, there is some Us vs. them mentality; us vs. police misconduct, it really is that simple.

Before you start defaming my comments, yes I am in Law Enforcement and no I did not
list my real name. This is because I work for a public agency and do not speak for
or represent them in any way in these comments.

Response: In what way does being employed by a public agency prevent you from having your own opinions? This is nothing but a weak attempt to hide your true identity. Why would I defame your comments? Lets look at the definition of defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone. Perhaps you can tell us how I have defamed you or anyone else? It seems like it is you whom is trying to defame me and this website.

You my be self-employed and appear to have this luxury. You will just have to trust that I really do exist. Most of the police officers I know spend their time trying to make a difference in their community. Granted there may be some problem children in the group as in any large
demographic. But, a majority of law enforcement officers are in the latter group.

Response: How would being self employed be a luxury you don't have? What would that have to do with anything? In addition, why would I not trust you really do exist? I do have to admit, those two statements alone are extremely out of place and do not make much sense. And you say you are a police officer? Now that is a scary thought.

As I have already stated many times on this website that the majority of police officers are good people who do a very good job, but just as there are bad police officers there are also bad police departments. We cannot ignore the bad apples because the majority are good can we?

Itis interesting that you claim repeatedly that you are not anti-law enforcement, yet
you constantly cry misconduct without any documentation or fact. As a college
student I am sure you know you need documentation to support your allegations. I
could just as easily claim something false about all firebird drivers/fitness
experts/AJ majors.

Response: Its very interesting that you claim that I "cry misconduct without any documentation", but you fail to list anything specific. Did you really think I would allow you to get away with such a false accusation? Again, I challenge you to list the false accusations of misconduct and to provide evidence to your claims. I also find it very interesting that you, as a police officer, would put so much time in trying to research who I am. Maybe you can explain why you would feel the need conduct such research? Especially since I know you are a local resident. Was this an attempt to intimidate me? I will consider this a threat and document it accordingly. Why else would you try to suggest that I am self employed, drive a firebird, am a fitness expert, and a CJ major (At SFSU, its CJ, not AJ, Its AJ at the junior college level)?

If you have any proof that my claims are false, instead of just making these accusations, why not provide it for the rest of us? In addition, not only am I not anti-law enforcement, but I will go so far as to say that I am pro-law enforcement. I believe law enforcement plays a vital role in any civilized society and that is why I chose to study law enforcement in college and will most likely enter the law enforcement field soon, although I am contemplating law school.

What is most disagreeable is I see no workable solutions presented on your site.
Just watch and report and complain.

Response: Once again, please give specifics, unless of course, you don't have any. This website is the start of my solutions, as anyone who reads it can easily attest. Actually, I call it, watch, report, document, and shine a light on it for the citizens of pacifica to see. After all, its the citizens like me who pay taxes in this city, which pay your salary. You try to claim I am making false accusations, but I don't see you or any other law enforcement officer pressing charges against me. If you truly believe that I am making false accusations, I then challenge you as a police officer to take legal action against my false accusations. I guess it comes down to put up or shut up.

Your list of goals are a good start but how can
you judge improvement if you are looking from the outside?

Response: How do you know that I am only looking from the outside? Do you really think I don't get e-mails from those on the "inside" who don't want their messages published? In addition, I study Criminal Justice, which means many of my professors were once police officers themselves with plenty of "inside" information.

If you are so interested in improving the city of Pacifica why have you not contacted the city Manager or
Police Chief for a ride-a-long or problem solving meeting?

Response: Actually, I have contacted the city Manager and talked with Flo Derby in regards to starting a Pacifica Police Watch Committee, but I didn't get very much information. I will be following through with contacting other committees though in order to form such a committee. I am sure you could ask her and she may remember the three phone calls. Seems once again you are not doing your homework and can only make false assumptions and accusations. I do not trust the PPD and feel no need to contact the Chief and have no desire to go on a ride-a-long with at Pacifica Police Officer. Seems you also do not know what college internships entail.

Besides complain on you website what have you done to make the city you call yours a better place?

Response: I consider this website a starting point to addressing many of the issues this city faces. The main focus is eradicating misconduct by the Pacifica Police.  By the way, if it's just complaining, why do you feel the need to pick through it, perform research one me personally, and send me your messages? Although I would suggest that your research is far from satisfactory. I don't think you would fall into the category of detective.

This appears to be a good opportunity to put your degree to good use. Your suggestion of
a drag strip as solution to the city’s meth problem is original. Do you really think
paving over a wetland area is going to popular with the residents?

Response: Last I heard, the "popular wetland" had been sold for development. Click here for more information on the topic, and here for another article on the topic. Seems you are simply trying to find anything you can to criticize about, but have come up short. Is this all you can come up with? Now, are you sure you actually read the article, because a drag strip was not a solution to the cities meth problem as you are trying suggest, because the problem is extremely complex. But rather, that was an example of some of the things we should be doing as a community to try and solve the problem. 

Oh and counseling for drug users?, it is already mandated by state law.

Response: Are you speaking of in-patient, in-jail, or out-patient counseling? Do you know how many are released and whom to do not attend the required counseling due to financial reasons? The reasons why are listed in my article. Again, seems you are trying to nit pick at anything you can, but so far you have found nothing. Are you suggesting the current approach to the meth problem is the one which is going to solve the problem? Perhaps you can expand on that for us?

Lastly, did you get permission to use the Pacifica Police patch on your web site?

Response: Nope, I didn't get permission to use a public agencies patch, since it is only being used to identify the institution in question. In addition, since this website is an educational website, and many copyright laws do not apply. And last but not least, the patch is not the same one used by the Pacifica Police. Maybe you should take a closer look at it?

Now, I have some challenges for your next message (although it seems they never answer when challenged to provide evidence to their claims):

1. Specifically point out the false accusations on this website and proof they are false.

2. Share with us your solutions to the current drug problem in Pacifica.

3. Provide evidence that I only know "half of the story". Present the other half of the story.

4. Share with us your true identity.

5. Share with us why you dislike websites which are against police misconduct, regardless how small the misconduct.

You didn't really think this was only going to be a one way conversation did you? As you can see, I print articles in their entirety and am very fair and open to discussion. But, if you ignore all my questions and challenges, then I will not publish any more of your future letters and will simply direct them to my junk mail filter. Therefore, if you are sincere in your attempt to have a rational discussion, I expect you will play fairly.

If you and others like you did not send such angry messages filled with false accusations and threats, we could have a very civil and polite discussion. We probably have more in common then you realize. In the future, I would suggest that anyone who wants to send me a message and have a polite, intelligent discussion, please refrain from threats, false accusations, and trying to find any small reason to criticize me or this website.
 

Email: 8/12/05 Sent from a false e-mail account and a person calling himself John Doe. I will respond point by point below.

What exactly do you constitute as "Documented" misconduct? Is it conduct that you
have seen and disagree with and have documented it yourself on your site? When I
see police misconduct being referred to as "documented" I think that there has been
a personnel complaint formally filed against a specific officer or officers stemming
from a specific incident or incidents. Furthermore it insinuates that these actions
have been properly investigated and upheld. Is this the case in your "Documented
Misconduct" page or is it simply venting frustrations about actions that you have
taken issue with?

Response 1: Lets look at the definition of Documented:

Documented: attested: established as genuine
Attested: indicated or proved

Therefore, my website is documenting (recording in detail) and this information was attested (indicated or proved) by first hand communication with those directly involved. Does that clear it up for you?

It appears that your definition of documented misconduct is radically different then my definition of documented misconduct. Your definition would seem to be what a Police Officer or someone who works for a bureaucracy would consider "documented" misconduct.

In regards to the speeds of these police cars on the 4th of July. I have no doubt
that police officers drive too fast sometimes and will certainly not try to justify
it, I wasn't there so I cannot speak intelligently as to what you saw. I would,
however like to know how you know the speed of the vehicles. Did you have a RADAR
gun or perhaps a LIDAR, or maybe you have become an expert in visual estimations of
speed. Maybe, though, you are simply throwing out a number that you feel is going
to upset people and the reality is that you have not a clue what the actual speed of
the police cars were.

Response 2: When a car is moving at a rate of speed far in excess of 25 mph, it does not take a rocket scientist to notice. When there is a difference of only 5 or even 10 mph, it would be very difficult to estimate the car was traveling over 25. But, when a car is doing 20 to 25 mph over the speed limit, or double the speed limit, it is not very difficult to estimate the car is speeding. Try it yourself, have a friend drive down the street at 25 mph and then again at 50 or even 40, and I bet you will know when they are exceeding 25 mph by more than 10 mph. Both of these streets have a speed limit of 25 mph. 

I must say that you do seem to be passionate about what you are doing here. I also
would like to point out that your credibiltiy seems to be somewhat in question. If
you are so adamant about bringing changes to what you seem to see as a rogue police
force how could you possibly have forgotten your video camera? Why could you not
have just gone back home to get it?

Response 3: When I went out on the 4th of July, I went to watch the fireworks with my family and friends. I am not paid by the city or anyone else to watch and/or film the Pacifica Police department. Therefore, although I wanted to bring my camcorder, it was not at the top of the list. I work on this website to invoke positive change in my local police department, and you seem to have a problem with that.

You question my credibility for trying to make Pacifica a better place to live, yet  you claim to have no allegiance but you use a false name and false e-mail address. The tone of your letter itself sounds angry and extremely biased. 

Again, I have no allegances either way here, but I do think that you and anyone else
who facilitates any type of site like this has a responsibility to be accurate and
honest and unbiased. I guess you could call me the watch dog's watch dog.....

-John

Response 4: John Doe right? John, please point out where this site is inaccurate or dishonest. In addition, please point me to the rules which state that a website like this must be unbiased? I am biased, I am biased towards the citizens of Pacifica and against police misconduct. In addition, you scour my website searching for any small detail to criticize, and all you can come up with is my usage of the word "documented" and estimation of speed and you consider yourself unbiased? Why would you try to hide your true identity and spend so much time looking for any possible flaw in this website if you were truly unbiased? If you would like to actually hold a discussion, please leave a real name and e-mail address next time.

Follow Up 1: 8/16/2005 Sent from the same John Doe, but this time the e-mail address was omitted. I will respond like usual point by point:

First of all my e-mail address is a real address, I am sorry if you are unable to
confirm this fact. I don't know what to tell you about that. Secondly I did not
say that there were rules that you need to follow in facilitating your web site I
simply stated that if you expect to be taken seriously then you have a
responsibility to report accuratly and honestly. That having been said...

Response 1: I actually tried the e-mail you supplied in your last message and I see that you decided to omit it from this message. And to quote you, "but I do think that you and anyone else
who facilitates any type of site like this has a responsibility to be accurate and
honest and unbiased." Again, I want to know where it is written that I have to be unbiased? In addition, as I asked before and you seemed to ignore, please point out where this site is inaccurate or dishonest. In addition, as demonstrated by yours and others continued e-mail messages, I don't expect to be taken seriously, but rather, I have been taken seriously. Why else would someone like you, whom is obviously biased towards the police, spend so much time sending these angry messages?

I am curious why you choose the Pacifica Police Department as the focus of your
mistrust. In case youu haven't noticed there are a couple of rather big police
departments in the area with big problems and many actual "documented" incidents of
misconduct. You state in your mission that you want to help the police department
weed out the bad cops. What do you constitute as "bad" and who in the Pacifica
Police Dept do you consider to be "bad"?

Response 2: First of all, mistrust is not the issue, but rather the issue is police misconduct. Lets get back to reality for a little bit and not try to spin this. Second, possibly, just possibly, it has to do with the fact that I live in Pacifica, actually I am a third generation Pacifican, and I care about this city. Other "big city" departments don't concern me since I do not live in those other cities. Why don't you share with us your real name and then which departments you feel have "big problems", and then you can spend your time and money exposing those departments misconduct.

I constitute a bad cop as any cop which knowingly violates ethics rules, violates anyone's constitutional rights, violates the laws they are entrusted to uphold, who enforces the law in a selective manner, etc. What do you consider as a "bad" cop? What do you consider a good cop?

Don't flatter yourself by claiming that I have scoured you website searching for any
small detail to criticize, believe me I spent no time and found plenty to criticize
without trying very hard.

Response 3: Are you suggesting I should be flattered because you have searched my website looking for any possible reason to send me an angry e-mail? Is that what you mean by "don't flatter yourself"? I would rather not receive your angry e-mails, so please, step off your soapbox.  Lets be honest, you sent me a message complaining because you did not understand the term "documented" so I cleared it up for you as I did your other questions. If you have other criticisms, why don't you please share them with the rest of us?

I would also like to know how much research you did into the death of Mr. Saulsbury.
While a tragic occurrance, the family is looking for someone to blame and you seem
to be jumping on the bandwagon.

Response 4: My research involved reading the local newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, San Mateo Times, Pacifica Tribune, etc. If you have some inside information, why don't you please share that with the rest of us?

It is my experience that conspiracy theorists such as yourself actively look for
validation to their warped line of thinking and ignore all other facts that may
actually, believe it or not, prove them wrong.
Again, try the e-mail address, it works........

Response 5: Rather than flap your gums about facts, why don't you present some of your own? In addition, please point out, with great detail, any and all conspiracy theories that you have found on the Pacifica Police Watch website. In addition, for someone who claims to have no allegiance, your letter is extremely biased and angry. I wouldn't expect such a letter from someone who is truly un-biased. So, why don't you do us all a favor and stop hiding your identity since its clear from your letters that you are indeed biased. Perhaps you can share with all my readers why you are so against a website which documents misconduct, gives a voice to people who have been a victim of police misconduct, publishes complaints against the police department and city, etc, etc.

Follow up 2: 8/17/2005 From the same person as above now claiming to be Robert Walker:

My e-mail address is (I omited the e-mail this time) if you cannot figure out how to
send me an e-mail or verify that it actually exists, then I don't know why I am even
wasting my time debating with you. My name is Robert Walker and I do not live in
Pacifica, as a matter of a fact I have no ties there what so ever. Let me make a
few comments now as I have time and will continue later.

Response 1: Mr. Walker, If you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks and threats, then as I stated in the e-mail I sent to you, please do not send me any more messages. Next, I see you have once again tried to dodge all of my questions. Now that we have a name, why didn't you tell us what you did for a living and why you have taken such an interest in my website. For someone who has no ties to Pacifica, and no ties to Law Enforcement, you sure are extremely biased towards the Pacifica Police Department. In addition, why didn't you share with us how you found our website?

Your definition of documented is correct, but you are missing the point: DOCUMENTED
DOES NOT MEAN TRUTHFUL OR ACCURATE. All it means is that someone wrote something
down. For instance, and I will be very general so you can get your mind around the
concept.

Response 2: You are admitting I am correct, so now we are getting somewhere. As stated in the above definition, my definition includes Attested: indicated or proved. If the definition is so basic to you, then why did you have such a problem with the definition in the first place?

Have you ever seen the National Inquirer or the Sun newspapers in your local
convenience stores? They have a great deal of DOCUMENTED stories about three headed
babies, Elvis Presley as an alien, the fact that the earth is going to be destroyed
by a large meteor on November 3, 2005. All these stories are DOCUMENTED, but...DO
YOU BELIEVE THEM? Well in your reality, since it is written it must be true!!!

Response 3: Your message is strife with logical fallacies of argumentation. Let me be clear and point them out to you so you can understand what I am saying. You are presenting what is known as a "Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth." You see, we are not talking about the national inquirer or the Sun, we are talking about real local newspapers which hold a reasonable amount of credibility as far as reporting stories goes. I feel like I am debating with a child.

You have done nothing in your little web site but take second, third and sometimes
fourth handed stories and print them as the God's honest truth. This is nothing but
SLANDER and LIBEL, two terms very often used in civil court cases. I think you may
want to familiarize yourself with these two legal terms since you are committing
civil wrong doings and I would not be surprised if one of the officers you have
named does not slap you with a law suit. As a mater of fact, I may contact them
myself and give them the name of my attorney who specializes in these types of
cases.

Response 4: Nice try, if you can't win the debate, just use another fallacy of logical argumentation. Your argument is far from cogent, and you are now using what is called an Appeal to force, but that's not going to work here. First, let me be very clear in that I have studied this topic in great detail, and there is nothing on my website which is libel or slander, plain and simple. I say bring a lawsuit and you or anyone else will be slapped with a counter lawsuit before they know what hits em.

Now, you once again try to make a false accusation and once again I am going to call you on it. Please point out where I have printed "second, third, and sometimes fourth handed stories and print them as the God's honest truth".  I have noticed in your messages that you like to make accusations but provide zero proof to your claims. Please realize if you are going to try that with me, you will be taken to task.

What I also find a bit puzzling is that with all this misconduct that you yourself
claim to have witnessed, why don't you file a complaint? Are you afraid of being
prosecuted for filing a false complaint? Since you are SO familiar with the criminal
justice system, I'm sure you know the penal code section you would be violating,
don't you.

Response 5: Just to slow it down for you and to make it simple, this website is my complaint. Do you understand that? If I was afraid of filing a false complaint, I would not have this website, don't ya think? And finally, how would you know if I had or had not made any formal complaints?

Now, if you could have sent me a nice e-mail and said what you thought, we could of had a friendly debate on the issues you have with this website. But instead, you tried to find the smallest details to rant and rave about and resorted to threats and personal attacks. Therefore, I feel your debate has been invalidated and I will no longer be gracious and post your messages. I tried to be fair and post your entire messages without any alterations, but you realized that you were in a match against a far more educated and deliberate foe and now you want to use threats. Why couldn't you just attack what you felt was wrong on this website? Seems you are emotionally attached to the Pacifica Police Department, or Law Enforcement in general. Just to be clear, as I always like to be, I am not anti-police or anti-law enforcement. My Grandfather was a U.S. Marshal, an uncle was CHP  and I have other family members in various law enforcement positions. Most see what I am doing as valuable because they do not have a blind allegiance to law enforcement and they know how a few bad cops can make them all look bad. What I want to do is get rid of the few bad police officers that give the rest of them a bad name. My main concern is my local force since I consider this my city.

Follow up 3:

Again, from voice_of_reason_4_all@yahoo.com, I sent you many e-mails and you have
not responded to all of them as you claim to have done. You have not rseponded to
my correction about Dog the Bounty Hunter. I am well aware what the term
"documented" means but thank you for clearing up that confusion for me and as far as
your search into that death goes, I guess you are right, because the papers are
always spot on accurate with their reporting....till next time.

Response: Once again, please tell us which e-mails exactly that I did not respond to. In addition, please re-read the Dog the Bounty Hunter report and you will see a minor correction was indeed made. Perhaps you could have shared with us where you get your "credible" information from? In addition, maybe you want to point out why the San Francisco Chronicle, San Mateo Times, and San Jose Mercury are not credible sources.

E-mail: Sent From "Josh Kresha" <booncham@yahoo.com> on June 27th 2005.

Hello,

I just wanted to make a quick statement. You are lucky to live and be protected by the Pacifica Police
Department.

That agency does more for its citizens than any other police department its size. If you want a shock, why
dont you come up north to the Sacramento Area. You wouldnt get a third of the police attention or assistence that you would in Pacifica.

All stops and citizen contacts with PPD officers are recorded. Do you really think an officer is going to
jepordize a 65,000 dollar a year job (not 80,000 like you think) to just stop and profile people?

Finally, let me remind you that the job of Police Officer is just that, a job. Its a job where men and
women put their life on the line everyday for little pay and are under the constant microscope of the
public.

If you think you can do better, man up and head over to the nearest police academy. You may just find out
that things are a little diffrent than you thought or learned at SFSU.
 

My Response:

Hello,

I actually lived in Citrus Heights for a few years and Los Angeles for about a year so I have been around other police agencies. Please list what the Pacifica Police Department does for its citizens that other agencies do not. In addition, please list how the Pacifica Police have recently put their lives on the line for me or any other citizen in this low crime rate city. I would suggest you and the other police officers are lucky to be police officers in Pacifica.

But, before I continue, lets make it clear that I am in no way anti-police, as you have tried to suggest. But I am against police misconduct, violation of civil rights, selective enforcement of the law, etc, etc. I am not sure why the police department in Pacifica would care about this group or any other group which wanted to make sure the police conducted themselves in a lawful manner. What is your problem with shining light on such issues?

To get back to your e-mail, I was there when Pacifica Police Department did profile someone, therefore I would have to say yes to your third statement.

Do you happen to know that the job of Police officer is not a very dangerous job? Do you know it is more dangerous to be a truck driver, farm worker, construction laborer? Don't tell me they are putting their life on the line for me. When was the last time a Pacifica Police officer was killed in the line of duty? I think you should research this a little more and then come back and talk to me. In addition, police are given powers which far surpass average citizens and average jobs. It is anything but a regular job. Which job allows you to use force, carry a gun, the ability to detain, have the backing of the state, and to use deadly force when needed? In addition, the police officers wages are paid for by the citizens and they have a code of conduct they are supposed to follow. They are also supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not violate it.

As for the police academy, you don't even know who I am but you make assumptions. I have been to the Police Academy in San Jose my friend. I passed the entry tests (both physical and written) with flying colors but decided that I wanted to get a degree in criminal justice instead. And just so you know, one of my professors at SFSU was a retired New York Police officer.

As for the salaries, the average Pacifica police officer salary is $70,024 not including overtime. Want to see for yourself? Click here.

Bob

Oh, and by the way, here is a list of the most dangerous jobs in the United States:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/summer1997brief3.pdf

In the future, police officers who send me an e-mail such as the one above, should properly identify themselves as police officers so readers know why the e-mail is biased.

E-mail: Hey I don't want to state my name for fear of retaliation. On 04-01-2005, I  was driving down highway one, just past manor. I was stopped by Officer Klier. He said my car had several violations on  it but would no tell me what. He took my license and went back to his car.  He came back to me and told me said " get out of the car now!" I got out of  my car and he told me to sit on the curb. I asked what the problem was and  he said I was on probation. I have never been arrested in my life and was  not on probation. I told him I was'ent on probation and he said, " shut the fuck up!" Officer Klier said he was going to search my car. As he was tearing through my car I saw him poor a cup of coffee out that I had just bought at Starbucks. Officer Klier later said it was an accident but did not apologize.

Something must be done to stop these cowboys!

My Response: Did the officer give you a ticket? The officer is supposed to tell you why you were pulled over and have probable cause to search your vehicle, unless of course you were on probation with search. If not, then I suggest you file a complaint with the San Mateo District Attorney and the ACLU.

UPDATE: This e-mail was fraudulent and actually a false accusation made by a friend of the police department or so they say. Here is are the actual e-mails exchanged:

My first response to this individual was the following:

"Hello,
 
I would like to post this on the website (without the ad-hominen attacks of course, since his looks and size have nothing to do with his conduct). Would you be ok if I posted this on the website in edited form?

Sincerely,
Bob"

In which they Responded with:

"No Problem, go for it!"

The third e-mail I received as of today:

"YOU NEED TO DO A LITTLE MORE FOLLOW-UP WORK ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO
YOU.
 
I am actually a friend of some members of the Pacifica Police Department. This incident did not really happen, I wanted to see how much of your information is credible. After seeing this, NOT MUCH. I guess you'll post anything anyone sends you.
 
I stumbled upon this excuse for a website while going to theirs. I don'nt know what you have against the police department, but you need to find someway to us your time effectively. You said that you studied administration of justice at SFSU but your anti-police???? You have some other issues with the cops, but I don't know.

Any ways the point of this whole thing is; If you're going to run this website make sure the info. you receive has some credibility. I know not a lot of people don't visit this website, but the majority of people that do probably believe this crap."

This e-mail was sent from: noahunruh@hotmail.com And now my response point by point. First of all, I edited out the personal attack against the police officer in which this accusation was against. The original e-mail contained this personal attack:

"I was stopped by a bald, nazi looking cop (Officer Klier) This cop looked like one of those skin head body builders you see on venice beach."

I actually know of this officer and have seen him many times at the gym since I am a personal trainer and work out at the same gym. I originally edited out the personal attack because I did not feel it was relevant to the discussion. But, now that I feel this was a friend of Officer Kliers', I think its only fair I post the statement and actually add to it. The e-mailer states the officer looks like one of those body builders seen on venice beach, and I did notice a major change in Officer Kliers lean muscle mass in a very short period of time. It is my personal opinion this Officer is under the influence of a controlled substance known as anabolic steroids. Again, this is my opinion based on the fact that I am a certified personal trainer with extensive knowledge of this topic. And if this is true, then this is another violation of the law by a member of the Pacifica Police Department and should be investigated by the internal police investigators. It will be brought to the attention of the San Mateo County DA first thing Monday morning as will the false accusation against a police officer by the fraudulent e-mailer.

Now back to the last e-mail. First of all, this person obviously has a hard time reading, since they must have skipped over the first paragraph of this page. It states clearly "These e-mails have not been researched to check the accuracy of the accusation. Please realize these are e-mails I have received from readers and their credibility has not been verified. We do not suggest these are valid or accurate due to the nature in which they were received and due to the fact that they were sent anonymously"  I guess it appears I have ruffled some feathers at the PPD, and I plan on making a call to the Mayors office on Monday to further investigate how to get this committee off and running. I hope this harassment does not escalate any further since this is indeed harassment and a great example of the good ol boy network or the us vs. them mentality of the Pacifica Police department. This website is not anti-police as this e-mail indicated. This websites purpose is to uncover the police misconduct here in my city of Pacifica and it seems some are a little worried about this stuff getting out. It is our goal to fix the problems with the Police in Pacifica. And, just because someone studies criminal justice does not mean they will condone misconduct by the police. Its time to break the silence of Pacifica Police misconduct.

E-Mail:  I wish to remain anonymous as the actions betrayed by both the criminals in the case and the police department have me living in fear - of both.

Here are a few key points:

An intruder entered my house (2004) would not leave and told me to "put down the phone" after threatening to call police. I hid the phone behind my back in the hopes that 911 would hear the volatile situation. Eventually a friend heard the commotion in my home (I am a taxpaying homeowner) and banged on the front door demanding it opened. The intruder left, and a minute or so later the police department called asking "So, what's going on over there? Shaken I rambled off the incident to which he responded by sending two cops over.

As I explained the events to the offer, he just looked at me not writing anything down... When I took him outside to point out the intruders car still on the street, he continually told me to stop pointing.... and name the street.... At that point I told him and said forget it, you guys never do anything when requested. To which ie replied are you on drugs - the insinuation that I had made the entire event up. He shined a flashlight in my eyes, and I proceeded to tell him the only "medication" I was taking was prescribed Prozac. At that point, he squeezed by my writes behind my back and said he was taking me into custody!

I was shocked and still freighted by the previous encounter. I told him I would go willingly and to please remove the handcuffs ( I was crying) as I didn't want my neighbors seeing my escorted handcuffed by two cops into their cars. He replied no...I asked him if he could remove them so I could get dressed, as I was only wearing a mans tailored shirt and white socks... he said no. I asked him if I could look for my keys to lock the door still in fear of the intruder. he said no and told the other silent offer to keep the door unlocked.

I asked to call a lawyer and was told "this is not tv" - no. He asked me to take a blood urine test to which I agreed IF I could call my lawyer. he said "no". They detained for approximately 2 hours, asked me questions, put me in a holding cell, and basically humiliated me. I have NEVER been arrested nor a speeding ticket for 20 years.

He arrested me for refusing to take a test and drove me home. Before leaving the car, I said "You really believe there was nobody in the house when I called? He said, Oh year, I believe so and you were doing narcotics with him. He basically called me a liar - the following Tribune carried an article of a Pacifica rapist who lured a woman into her own home - they didn't know this? Oh one last thing, the friend of mine who heart me and the intruder screaming and banged on the door causing him to flee - my friend returned to the house and remained there where apparently the police came in with flashlights and stayed for 15 minutes or so unaware of his presence.

There's a lot more to this story, a lot more wrongdoing on both the police and the da. After refusing to "plea" out on something I didn't do, the case was dismissed in its entirety.

Should I hire a private detective as the crimes committed to my by both the criminals and cops are ongoing. and if so, who and what kind.

Thank you so much.... this was the most surreal, scary, introduction to law enforcement of lack thereof.

My Response: When I get these e-mails I really don't know if they are real or just made up stories, but if this story is indeed a real account of what occurred, then I would urge you to also contact the San Mateo County DA and ACLU to file complaints.

E-mail: I was wondering if you have data on how many police officers you have based upon X number per 1000 population.

I am a citizen working on trying to make sure that we have an adequate number of police in our town, but not too many.

the national average is 2.5 per 1000.
for rural settings it is 1.8 per 1000.

Thanks,

My Response: To me this sounded like a setup to try and defend the Pacifica Polices' agenda to hire more police in a city which is already scrapping for cash. I hate the fallacy of argumentation used to justify hiring new police. This is a fallacy of augmentation because it is an appeal to popularity. For instance, because most cities in the United states has lets just say 10 cops for every 1,000 citizens, we also need to have 10 cops for ever 1,000 citizens. This does not take into account the multitude of other variables, for example, population size, crime levels, population demographics, etc. Here was my response e-mail:

Hello,

Nope, but I find such data useless because its the population make up which matters, not just the population density or police to population ratio. For example, will you need as many police officers in an old folk’s community of say 10,000 elderly people, or more police officers in a low income community of say 10,000 young people? Such per-capita statistics are inadequate in this situation.

Sincerely,
Bob