A seemingly knowledgeable, presumably pseudonymous commenter named Jonas has left some interesting statements at a previous thread. This person says that AJ Blake's situation should already have been reported to the NC Training and Standards Division, but apparently has not been. This person further predicts that the situation will be reported there shortly. Finally, this person calls upon us to contact city council members regarding this situation:
Just remember: the city of Greensboro and the police department do not certify officers in the state of NC. The Training and Standards Commission has the power to stop this train wreck...
The department is required to report any arrest of an officer to Training & Standards. The officer is legally required to do so. Google 12 NCAC 09B.0101(8). This requires all law enforcement officers in NC to report any criminal offense (and some traffic offenses) to the commission if they are arrested or charged within 30 days. They do not have to be convicted. If the officer fails to make the notification the commission can suspend, revoke, or deny law enforcement certification. I have been reading probable cause hearing notes from this year and have not yet found where Blake's incident was reported...
Any citizen or person with knowledge can report the arrest. I predict Training & Standards will know sooner than later...
All of you bloggers need to take the opportunity to voice your concerns to the City Council. They work for us and it is time to stand up for the officers at the police department who turned in his actions the night of January 16 and for the gang unit that he continues to defame.
What are the reprecussions for a chief who fires an officer for criminal conduct, and then failed to report to the Commission?
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | September 27, 2009 at 05:21 PM
I don't know, Brandon, but maybe someone out there does. But "Jonas" says it is also the officer's responsibility.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | September 27, 2009 at 05:53 PM
Jonas doesn't quite have his facts in order. The requirement is not within 30 days of the arrest or charge.
"The notifications required under this Subparagraph must be received by the Standards Division within 30 days of the date the case was disposed of in court."
http://ncrules.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2012%20-%20justice/chapter%2009%20-%20criminal%20justice%20education%20and%20training%20standards/subchapter%20b/12%20ncac%2009b%20.0101.html
Posted by: Roch101 | September 27, 2009 at 06:53 PM
When was the court decision that vacated the previous conviction?
Posted by: bubba | September 27, 2009 at 07:02 PM
Thanks, Roch. The acquittal apparently occurred in early August; so the 30-day time period has elapsed if the required notifications have not yet been made.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | September 27, 2009 at 07:06 PM
And does "disposed of in court" include the original court of record in which the case was heard, regardless of appeal rights?
Posted by: bubba | September 27, 2009 at 07:08 PM
Bubba, Yes!Weekly reported on the story on August 5:
http://www.yesweekly.com/article-6896-blake-acquitted-by-jury-of-assault.html
But it seems to me one could interpret that there would have been a notification requirement after his initial conviction.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | September 27, 2009 at 07:09 PM
I often read this blog just to see Roch defend the other side. Instead of debating the semantics of state law enforcement requirements, why don't you state an opinion Roch? Or do you want your police officers holding press conferences with validated gang members? The bottom line is that our city administration is so incompetent that they would risk bringing an officer back who will have a hearing before the Commission. A domestic violence charge is one of the misdemeanors that they will revoke your law enforcement certificate for five years. Read their probable cause notes for other cases: they do not care what a jury in Guilford County says. They routinely revoke the ability to be a law enforcement officer. Some of you have missed the point. What kind of message does it send for the city of Greensboro to bring someone back and then have the state of NC say no. Other officers do not want to work with this guy. Doesn't that tell you something? All of the cases that have gone on the past few years: Sanders, Wallace, ect. Both of them had their defenders and had people that did not mind working with them. The past three days I have read nothing but anonymous officers state on blogs that they do not want Blake back. There is a reason for this and it is not racism or just because of his most recent situation.
Posted by: Jonas | September 27, 2009 at 08:24 PM
"I often read this blog just to see Roch defend the other side."
What other side? You misstated the rule. I clarified it. A big man would admit his mistake and move on.
Posted by: Roch101 | September 27, 2009 at 08:36 PM
I'll admit the mistake..his time has still expired. Answer my question please..What do you think of police officers holding press conferences with the persons they were investigating at one time?
Posted by: Jonas | September 27, 2009 at 10:26 PM
I think it is unwise and troubling in the particulars.
Posted by: Roch101 | September 28, 2009 at 10:02 AM
"..unwise and troubling in the particulars"
This sounds like a statement that Obama would make on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Stormy | September 28, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Yeah, I know. Thoughtfully articulated sentiments sound objectionable to some people. I understand that.
Posted by: Roch101 | September 28, 2009 at 11:07 AM
That's not what some would call it. It sounds pretty mealy-mouth, political-speak. Of course, Obama tried to write his book for four years and eventually had to get Bill Ayers to write it for him. I guess he couldn't turn a phrase so well, now could he?
Remember, Roch, this not a football game that we try to win. No, it's not.
Posted by: Stormy | September 28, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Hey um, we got a situation here in Greensboro...
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | September 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I get it Stormy, you are one of those yes or no, black and white, there must be a clear and simple unequivocal answer to everything.
The question was "What do you think of police officers holding press conferences with the persons they were investigating at one time?"
I can think of plenty of circumstances where one might think it was a good idea for police officers to hold a press conference with persons they were once investigating.
Apparently, you think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to that question, so I'm curious: What is your answer?
Posted by: Roch101 | September 28, 2009 at 02:27 PM
"Thoughtfully articulated sentiments....."
Assuming that indeed was the case, were written by someone else,but performed by the Teleprompter in Chief.
"......sound objectionable to some people."
....particularly to that category of Americans whose numbers are growing on a daily basis, as the "thoughtfully articulated sentiments" are recognized for disasters they portend.
Posted by: bubba | September 28, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Thoughtfully articulated sentiments? I see none from Roch on this or any other blog. Usually it is some one liner and a reference to the ever present "context". Which I take to mean "how the wind is blowing today but let's see what tomorrow brings and I can change my position in relation to how loud the voices in my head are shouting".
Posted by: delow24 | September 28, 2009 at 04:12 PM
Roch,
To my mind, to give a view of "..unwise and troubling in the particulars" is nothing but a carefully nuanced statement that can be bent to any shape that you want it to be at a later time. It allows you to evolve your position on things as needed. It sounds like something that John Kerry would say.
You are almost correct that I am a person who expresses themselves solidly in one direction, but not necessarily in a one-size-fits-all manner. Giving a thoughtfully-articulated statement is what politicians do, which gives them wiggle room at a later date as needed.
Nuance and careful articulation is the mark of faux elites, which includes people like Barack Obama and John Kerry. That's people that think that using nuance and careful articulation will impress the proletariat, who didn't attend an ivy league school.
Posted by: Stormy | September 28, 2009 at 04:41 PM
In short, it demonstrates extreme arrogance, and many times crossing over into hubris.
Posted by: Stormy | September 28, 2009 at 04:45 PM
Mayor Johnson said of the "black book," "if you are going to have one for black people, you should have one for white people too."
She did not understand the context in which the "black book" was created. Understanding context is essential to grasping reality. So, what idiot still wants to mock an understanding of context? Anybody?
Stormy, I asked you a question in my comment of 2:27 above. Are you going to answer?
Posted by: Roch101 | September 28, 2009 at 05:48 PM
Was anyone able to attend the press conference this morning? Anyone heard back from their city council representatives? I have not.
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | September 28, 2009 at 06:14 PM
Roch, if your intention was for me to respond about police officers holding press conferences with the persons they were investigating at one time, the answer is that it is conduct unbecoming a professional law enforcement officer. More specifically, I think that he violated the following rules for professional police officers. There are probably more, if you find these insufficient.
Personal conduct of a Police officer shall be irreproachable in performing the official duties and in his/her personal life, without the prejudice for the service and his/her own reputation.
Police officer performing his/her duties shall keep to the requirements of law, acting objectively and in a fair way, favoring with his/her conduct and action to call confidence to Police on the part of the public.
Police officers shall not, whether on or off duty, exhibit any conduct which discredits themselves or their Department or otherwise impairs their ability or that of other officers or the Department to provide law enforcement services to the community.
A police officer's ability to perform his or her duties is dependent upon the respect and confidence communities have for the officer and law enforcement officers in general. Police officers must conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the integrity and trustworthiness expected of them by the public.
Police officers shall avoid regular personal associations with persons who are known to engage in criminal activity where such associations will undermine the public trust and confidence in the officer or Department. This rule does not prohibit those associations that are necessary to the performance of official duties, or where such associations are unavoidable because of the officer's personal or family relationships.
Police officers shall not compromise their integrity, not that of their Department or profession, by taking or attempting to influence actions when a conflict of interest exists.
Posted by: Stormy | September 28, 2009 at 08:00 PM
Look, we got more important things to worry about between now and Oct 6. Let's get back on track and get to the bottom of this Blake thing. I'm not counting on council pressuring Morgan. It is up to us. For once I feel like we need to support our chief and listen to what he has to say, if he in fact does not want Blake around. We also need to pay attention to Blake's quote about fearing his colleagues. If his concerns are legit, get to the bottom of it. If he is mouthing off, he's gotta go. Jonas, what's the latest on the Training and Standards angle?
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | September 28, 2009 at 08:41 PM
"Roch, if your intention was for me to respond about police officers holding press conferences with the persons they were investigating at one time, the answer is that it is conduct unbecoming a professional law enforcement officer." -- Stormy
And see, this is why you are stupid. A police officer and a former suspect may appear together to clear the suspects name, to appeal for help in finding the real perpetrator or for conveying some public safety information to the public. You have demonstrated the inferiority of your intellectual rigor mortis. Congratulations.
Posted by: Roch101 | September 28, 2009 at 08:54 PM
"For once I feel like we need to support our chief and listen to what he has to say..." -- Brandon
No, no, no, Brandon. You cannot condemn the Chief under one set of circumstances then support him in another. That would be considering context which, as we all agree, results in "mealy-mouth, political-speak." Like the "faux elites," you are simply going with "how the wind is blowing today." You must get with the program and "expresses yourself solidly in one direction." So, please, take it back.
Posted by: Roch101 | September 28, 2009 at 09:01 PM
And, so, Roach, do you believe that Blake's appearance with Jorge Cornell and his pathetic statement, which had nothing to do with helping Cornell clear his name, fit the scenario you just mentioned? Blake's statement was all about how he was "suspended without pay and made to suffer from the very beginning for flimsy, false charges brought against me by drunk, vindictive people at a drunken police party". His statement was all about A.J. Blake and how badly he was treated, and had nothing to do with clearing Jorge Cornell's name. So, by consorting with Cornell in this manner, and reading such an inflammatory statement about his peers, he exhibited conduct which discredited himself and his Department and otherwise impaired his ability and that of other officers or the Department to provide law enforcement services to the community. We know this to be true by comments from Department officers, who do not want to work with him.
Blake's statement in the event you have not read it": http://www.belovedcommunitycenter.org/newsview/bedef04a0adc29d5a813e40c82905ab2
Roach, you are truly pathetic little piece of humanity, and a review of your pathetic little blog shows that few people ever frequent it and make comment. Indeed, most of your posts never have any comments. Is that because you are intolerably rude or people just don't care what you have to say? Or both?
Posted by: Stormy | September 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Picking on a man's name; what is this, the 6th grade? I think some of us are losing focus of the more pressing issue of: Our city manager just hired back a cop who hates his colleagues and who's colleagues hate him. I for one don't want the man answering any call where his partners will feel compelled to stop for lunch while en route. Why was he put back on the street instead of an office?
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | September 29, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Why was he put back anywhere?
Posted by: Joe Guarino | September 29, 2009 at 06:54 AM
"Or both?"
Actually, he's incredibly wrong about 95% of the time. I sometimes wonder if the remaining 5% comes out right because it's based on a coin flip.
Posted by: bubba | September 29, 2009 at 08:31 AM
"And, so, Roach, do you believe that ..." -- Stormy
And thus you bring context into the discussion, which is what I said needed to be considered to begin with, but with which you had to argue against for three days. Ignorant.
Posted by: Roch101 | September 29, 2009 at 09:24 AM