Guest post for Diane Coto, a literary blogger doing business as FICTIONZEAL

Dec 2, 2014 by Wayne Zurl

What Inspired You to Write a Police Procedural Series Set in the Smoky Mountains?

Most cops would like you to believe that they worked their entire career in a combat zone-like sector with more inherent action and danger than that encountered by the Army’s long range reconnaissance patrols during the Vietnam War. Certainly, some places are busier than others and I worked in one that never lacked customers. On New Year’s Eve 1991, just four months before I retired, I left the headquarters building at five o’clock (okay, it was ten to five as the deputy commissioner so often accused me of doing) and while heading home in my company car, the dispatcher cleared the airway and assigned a precinct car to handle a motor vehicle accident with injury. Then in an uncharacteristic, out-of-sequence action he said, “CC (central complaint number) for your paperwork: one million.” That was a lot of responses to calls for service for a department that covered a territory only fourteen miles wide by fifty-five miles long with a population of about one-and-a-half million people.

In truth, no matter where you work as a cop, no one escapes the “cat in a tree” call and sooner or later everyone gets to handle at least one “big one.”

I chose to transplant my former Long Island detective lieutenant from his crowded area of responsibility and 3,000 comrades to a small touristy town in the Smoky Mountains because stories about small town cops solving big time murders are popular. Writers like Robert B. Parker, Craig Johnson, Julia Spencer-Fleming, and Philip R. Craig are only a few who have cashed in on these crosses between hardboiled and cozy crime stories.

I did it because I could also factor in another popular premise, the fish-out-of-water hero. When I left New York and relocated to East Tennessee I experienced CULTURE SHOCK. We had vacationed there a half dozen times, scouted out the territory during different times of the year, and then set about buying suitable land upon which to build a retirement home. But nothing provides emersion training like leaving the familiar (forty-six years worth) and dropping yourself into a new environment. It’s not terribly unlike parachuting behind enemy lines to organize an indigenous resistance in an unfamiliar land. Well, perhaps I exaggerate a wee bit, but you get the idea.

To make writing his part easy for me, I wanted my protagonist, Sam Jenkins, to have had a similar career as I and to have retired to the same area where I did. I’d write about what I knew. I’d let him revisit my old cases in a new venue as the police chief supervising only twelve other cops. A vastly different department, but he’d encounter the police officer’s universal bugaboos—quirky characters, quirky cops, oddball cases, and the ever present meddling politicians.

In more than twenty novels and novelettes, Sam has done the bulk of investigating on his own. That’s a tough job which requires a bit of suspension of disbelief from the reader. Occasionally he gets help from his desk sergeant and right-hand woman, Bettye Lambert, or a few of the patrolmen who steal time from their regular duties. But in a department of only thirteen bodies it’s difficult to solve major crimes. And if you believe what I write, you’ll think that sleepy little Prospect has a homicide rate higher than Detroit. Jessica Fletcher did it in Cabot Cove and Jesse Stone still does it in Paradise, why couldn’t I do it in Prospect? Up until PIGEON RIVER BLUES, I’ve had Sam obtain additional help by bamboozling his friends, FBI Special Agent Ralph Oliveri (another expatriate New Yorker) and TV news anchor Rachel Williamson, into doing him often outrageous favors. But in this new novel, I’ve allowed Sam to hire John Gallagher, a retired NY detective who used to work in Sam’s squad and, after falling on difficult economic times, sold his expensive house in Boca Raton and purchased a modest home in Prospect. The idea that Prospect PD doesn’t have budgeted positions for detectives didn’t trouble Sam Jenkins. Gallagher needed a job. Sam had an opening for a clerk-typist—the match was made in heaven. The mayor agreed to change the job title to police operations aide, Sam swore him in as an auxiliary officer, and made him an honorary detective and comical sidekick.

read more

Are the Sam Jenkins books imitating life or the other way around?

Dec 2, 2014 by Wayne Zurl

Good cops are born actors. All you have to do is watch a pair of world-class interrogators go through their routine and you’d become a believer. And all cops have stories to tell. In many cases, their reality is that which much fiction is based. I’m surprised more cops don’t write books when they retire.

What a reader likes is very subjective. But I’ve heard that some people like my stories. That may be true, because I sell a few books. Here’s where I confess—I have more of a memory than imagination. Most of my stories are based on actual incidents I investigated, cases I supervised, or things I just knew a lot about. Often, I composite incidents into a single storyline and embellish and fictionalize it to make the finished product more readable. Not all police work is a thrill a minute. Recently, I’ve combined things I’ve seen since retiring and incorporate them as components of a story that originated in New York, but as ever, gets transplanted to Tennessee.

PIGEON RIVER BLUES is one of these eclectic blends of numerous vignettes surrounding one story-worthy plot.

The Collinsons and their henchman, Jeremy Goins, that trio of right-wing morons who threaten country singer, C.J. Proffit, are based or real characters I’ve met.

Since I began writing, I’ve been looking for the right place to introduce retired Detective John Gallagher, the goofy-acting but extremely competent former colleague of Sam Jenkins, who suffers from a severe case of malapropism. “John,” who is now a regular cast member at Prospect PD, is also based on a real person with whom I worked for many years.

Giving Sam and company an unwanted job of providing personal security for the famous singer allowed me to recall a few assignments I had in the Army and the reoccurring VIP security details we were bamboozled into taking on during my time in one command of the police department where I worked.

Originally, I had included an addendum or author’s disclaimer at the end of the novel—sort of a “don’t try this at home” statement about some of the things Sam pulled off during this adventure. But the publisher didn’t want it, and he was probably correct because they were all things that in reality, whether good police practice or not, are done for the sake of expedience.

You’ll read a statement at the beginning of all my books sounding something like this: ‘This book is a work of fiction. Any similarity to persons living or dead or to actual incidents is a coincidence and a figment of the author’s immagination.’ Yeah? Nuts. I was there. I knew these people. But I take literary license to change things as I see fit. I make incidents more exciting, people more beautiful or uglier, and to paraphrase Jack Webb’s weekly statement on the old TV show DRAGNET, I change the names to protect the guilty . . . and keep me out of civil court.

read more

BOOK SIGNING TIPS AND HORRORS

Dec 2, 2014 by Wayne Zurl

When I began writing fiction I held many misconceptions; one being that after the final edits and the presses were humming away printing books, my job was almost done. My only other obligation would be to pull up a chair at a table sitting in a highly trafficked area of a local book store, smile at the customers, and sign anything but a blank check. Then I learned about the world of electronic marketing and promotions—but that’s another story.

After twenty years as a cop, I figured sweet talking potential book buyers into choosing one of my novels couldn’t be more difficult than coaxing a confession out of a reluctant-to-talk felon. Sitting next to my nicely dressed and attractive wife, I’d smile for the crowd and as the customers walked by say, “Hi, do you like mysteries?”

In many cases that approach proved successful. When Borders was still doing business in Knoxville, I could sell a carton of books in two or three hours. But the retailing phenomenon was new to me and not all the customers would succumb to my irresistible smile. For every bibliophile who stopped to learn about my books, a half dozen would only give me a sidelong glance, drop their eyes, and scurry away as if I was a timeshare salesman.

All retail stores have their busy times, but plenty of lulls. When buyers or just talkers were at a premium and my eyelids began to feel heavy, I’d ask my wife to man the fort. I’d tuck a copy of my latest book under my arm and head toward the mystery stacks. Fearing that a female customer might scream and claim I tried to molester her, I never confronted anyone in an unlit corner, but in the appropriate place I resurrected the smile and asked a browser if they would be interested in a police mystery about a fictional local murder. I was surprised at how many answered in the affirmative. I learned that pushing the local angle with an explanation about how many readers said they liked the descriptions I wrote showing my hero travelling the same roads they took getting to and from work or the stores.

Some people who had unlimited shelf space and didn’t restrict themselves to eBooks liked the idea of buying a signed copy—especially when I told them it would be worth a small fortune after I died.

Most of my old-fashioned book signings have been positive experiences. Not all were landslide sale days, but I’ve met far more nice people than specimens I was tempted to slap a pair handcuffs on.

However, one event in an upscale indie bookshop might qualify as a semi-horror story. My publisher arranged it. He booked a date, sent the proprietress two huge professionally prepared posters, and said, “Go get’em, kid.” I showed up bright and early in a sport jacket and slacks looking like a detective ready to work a five-to-one tour and found no one but a clerk in the shop. I expected at least a line wrapped around the building. Silly me. The shop owner never told the publisher that I’d be in competition with a festival, only blocks away, which provided not only good bluegrass music, but free hot dogs and soft drinks. The clerk and I looked at each other for about fifteen minutes before one woman walked in wanting a book. Just after she arrived, the shop owner showed up and dropped her bomb on me. I was expected to make a formal presentation and do a reading. Yikes, I thought. I could “wing” a half hour talking about my books and how I came to write them, do a little softshoe, and thank the old girl for coming. But I didn’t have my glasses and hadn’t picked out an excerpt appropriate for a dramatic reading. And I had an audience of only one! Anyone used to public speaking would rather address a crowd of three-hundred any time. That day I learned that if my vision got any worse and my arms didn’t get any longer, I could never again pull off something like that without reading glasses.

read more

FIVE THINGS I WISH I HAD KNOWN BEFORE I BEGAN WRITING

Dec 2, 2014 by Wayne Zurl

No one begins a new venture knowing all the ins and outs of the business. I’d been writing non-fiction magazine articles for ten years before I decided to try fiction. How difficult could it be? You write something good and publishers will be fighting to sign you. I heard that having an agent was a good thing. Another easy thing, right? You want to sell a house, list it with a real estate agent. You want to steal classified military documents, send a secret agent. So, a writer should only have to pick the literary agent that appears to be the best. Agents only make money representing writers. They should welcome a new face. Ha! That brings me to the first thing I wish I had known more about as a fledgling fiction writer.

AGENTS.
I bought a cheap copy of WRITER’S DIGEST on the Internet and made a list of agents interested in mysteries and police procedurals. Then I constructed a proper business letter stating my purpose and described what I was peddling—in this case, my first Sam Jenkins novel, A NEW PROSPECT. The letter spanned a little more than a page and a half. It looked like a masterpiece and I started by sending out a dozen. Fool that I am, I expected responses in a week or two. Ha! (I say again) Months later, the rejections began trickling in with only terse one-liners, “Sorry, not for me/us.” Ninety-nine percent of these nitwits hadn’t read one page of my book. So, I tried another dozen. Same story.

Then I read a local advertisement. Writer’s workshop. First class: The Query Letter. I signed up and showed the instructor my letter. She smiled and began nodding. A good sign. Then she went to page two and the smile turned to a frown and the nods to an almost violent shake. Uh-oh; not good. “This may work if you’re applying for a job,” she said, “but agents want to see a particular format and they DO NOT have time to read more than one page.”

“Huh?” said I. I had visited their websites. Most agents wrote daily blogs—long ones, with precious few or no comments from followers. If these megalomaniacal self-styled power brokers had so little time, why were they wasting it writing blogs no one was reading rather than dealing with legitimate queries and hitting the bricks trying to sell their client’s books? That question has still never been answered.

So, I learned the proper structure of a query letter, had it blessed by the workshop instructor, an author with multiple titles traditionally published, and I sent out a dozen more. And then another, and another. I got so many rejections, I wondered if I needed a stronger deodorant. Only one agent showed the courtesy to send a personal note explaining his reason for rejecting my manuscript. In essence, he said he liked my “voice” and the mood of my narrative. But he told me that a sixty-year-old retired New York detective who embarks on a second career as a Tennessee police chief just wasn’t trendy. He suggested I make my protagonist a young vampire private investigator from Orange County who secretly fights crime as a Batman-like vigilante. I gave up on the agent idea.

TRENDS & MARKETABILITY
I met an award-winning author at our local library. He was a guy who’d been writing good books for more than thirty years. I told him about my novel and he told me the facts of life in the publishing business. “It’s all about money. You don’t have to be good, you have to be marketable.” I thought I was a pretty worldly guy, but had hoped at least some part of the business was for real. He continued, “Agents and publishers all say they’re looking for The Next Great American Novel. Hogwash. They’re looking for what will sell. James Fenimore Cooper couldn’t get a job writing greeting cards today.” He drew my attention to a famous quote from the great Raymond Chandler. “We are dealing with a public that is semi-literate and we have to make art of a language they can understand.” My new mentor went on to say, “You look like an intelligent adult. Read any zombie novels lately? No? You’re one of the few who hasn’t.”

SEMI-PROFESSIONAL PUBLISHERS
When I abandoned the idea of retaining a literary agent, I focused on writing to any traditional publisher who would accept submissions directly from an author. My investigation led me to a crop of both good and questionable publishers. I wasted time weeding through those who were actually aspiring writers who self-published (nothing wrong with that) and knew their way around a computer (unlike me.) In effect, they were like the guy you meet at a new job who is there only three weeks more than you. They act like they know it all and have the world by the tail, but in truth, they may be no more than well-meaning dreamers with little knowledge or experience of publishing and the important components of the business: marketing and promotion.

REVIEWS
Aha! This falls into the realm of pet peeves. I always thought reviews should be honest and objective opinions of someone’s work from critics with knowledge of general or specific genres of writing and good literary structure and style. Ha! (See, I said it again) There are plenty of good professional and semi-professional reviewers who do an honest job for a salary or no compensation and assist would-be readers with opinions upon which to base their decision to buy or not buy a particular book. And good for them, we need people like this. But then I discovered the skullduggery that goes on in many of the Facebook writer’s groups and the percentage of writers who wheel and deal to get spurious four and five star reviews. I’m not fabricating this or blowing smoke at you here. I’ve had offers like that which I’ll describe. “You read my book and I’ll read yours,” they say. “Likes and reviews are the only way you’ll sell books on the Internet. We have to stick together.” Then they pussyfoot around and give glowing reviews of perhaps mediocre work just to get something similar in return. Not everyone does this, but it’s far too prevalent and leaves the system diluted and suspect of being a sham.

DOUBLE STANDARDS
Uh-oh, another pet peeve from Zurl. When I started writing I figured if something works don’t change it. I never intended to plagiarize anyone’s work, but throughout history, people have looked at good ideas and “borrowed” proven styles and themes. Anyone from my generation can think back to television from the mid-1950s to early-1960s. If you weren’t watching an “adult western,” you followed the exploits of cops and private eyes with strikingly similar stories. I once read that try as anyone may, all plots boil down to one of eleven basic storylines.

So, I followed my dream and made my stories mostly embellished and fictionalized accounts of real cases I investigated, supervised, or just knew a lot about, and wrote in the styles of proven artists I admired—the guys who published and sold lots of books. Why argue with success, right? Meanwhile, back in the writer’s workshop I’d hear, “You’re a new writer, you can’t do that.” I thought, “Why not? Joe Wambaugh does it all the time.” Or, “Hey, I just read something very similar from Robert B. Parker.” Or, “Jeez, James Lee Burke shifts from one POV to another all the time.” The response was, “But you’re not (enter any name you’d like,) you can’t start off breaking the rules.”

Double standards stink. If you write something well—something that sounds good, is entertaining, and tells a good story, you should be allowed to stray from the template or formula the “Big 6” permits a new writer to utilize.

read more

ON POLICE SHOOTINGS

Nov 26, 2014 by Wayne Zurl

On Police Shootings

Over the last several weeks, two people, one on Facebook and one on Twitter, questioned me about the recent shootings by police officers, of unarmed civilians. Both of these individuals were white males.

I wrote off the guy on Facebook as a crank, wanting nothing more than to vent his self-perceived anger and put someone from the police community in the hot seat. Unfortunately, he made a fool of himself by quoting many one-sided, unsubstantiated, and out-of-proportion statistics made by people with nothing more on their agendas than to foster unrest and anti-police sentiments within the communities surrounding the shootings and elsewhere. He was nothing more than an angry youth with no legitimate purpose other than to create hard feelings between white and black people.

The second person was a little older, but less willing to listen to any answers to his questions. He began by “following” me on Twitter. When I thanked him for the “follow,” a few minutes later, he wrote, “Hi @waynezurl. As a retired NYPD officer, (I never worked for the police department of the City of New York, nor have I ever represented myself as a former employee of NYPD. Refer to my biography at http://waynezurlbooks.net/abouttheauthor/. I’m retired from the police department of Suffolk County, NY.) can you help me understand why police are breaking the law so often these days? What can we do?”

To which I wondered, ‘How often is so often?’ Perhaps this guy has an agenda? To which I said several things. 1, “This needs much more than 140 characters (the Twitter limit per message) to discuss.” 2, “Don’t confuse guilty cops with cops who have been accused of something. Wait for a conviction.” 3, “For better cops you need the BEST of training. To recruit the best cops you need good salaries and benefits.”

Then he said, “Please don’t pander about me being “confused” @waynezurl. I asked you an honest question.”
My responses in 140 characters or less:
“No pandering. Cops are tried in the media when a shooting occurs. They are entitled to the same rights as any person.”
“IAB [Internal Affairs Bureau] investigators and the FBI are the checks & balances in these incidents. Wait for the results of an investigation.”
“Remember how Al Sharpton fabricated the Tawana Brawley fiasco?” [And made rape accusations against two police officers, an assistant district attorney, and three others who were totally innocent of any wrongdoing. This was substantiated when Ms. Brawley admitted she lied and perpetuated her lie at the suggestion of the Reverend Sharpton and her legal advisors.]
Then Mr. Twitter’s use of English slips to sub-standard.
“You won’t answer questions about the KNOWN police about that we are seeing daily @waynezurl. Are throwing other issues out to distract us?”

And:
Citizens are terrified of abuse and #StreetExecutions like #EricGarner

“Where are the “good cops” when the BAD COPS commit crime after crime, yet go unreported and/or unpunished.”

“What about after we catch the bad ones. Where are the good ones that speaks against the evil?”

“Our Cops [are] r filled w/ [with] Psychopaths. Their GUNS [are] r used 4 CRIME[.]”

I chose not to grace those rantings with an answer. Instead, I remembered a quote from Edward Gibbon. “I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.”

These are my thoughts on police shootings and other alleged police wrong doing:

This second person posted a two part photo on Twitter. One half showed a facsimile of a police shield spattered in blood. Instead of the usual lettering shown on police badges this one said: ‘Officer Darren Wilson belongs in prison.’ The other side of the composite showed what I have heard is a photo of Michael Brown, the black man shot to death by Officer Wilson, at age 12. (Brown was 18 when he died.) Draw your own conclusion if Mr. Twitter intended this to be inflammatory.

Apparently there are two parallel investigations being conducted to learn what actually happened to precipitate this shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, one by local internal affairs investigators and the other by the FBI.

To assume Officer Wilson is guilty prior to the results of these investigations and any formal charges or lack of charges would be premature and unintelligent. The opposite would not be tolerated if a civilian shot and killed a police officer.

Some conjecture on my part:

I have no doubt that regardless of what happens in the coming days, Darren Wilson’s life has been immeasurably changed by killing Michael Brown.

If the IAB investigators determine that he was justified in using deadly force, he will not be charged criminally in a Missouri court. If the investigators have reasonable cause to believe Wilson was not justified, he can be charged criminally—anywhere from a homicide stemming from criminal negligence to intentional murder.

Michael Brown did not need to be armed for Officer Wilson to use deadly force to prevent or terminate the imminent use of force against him (Wilson) if Wilson reasonably believed that Brown intended to and was capable of causing him (Wilson) serious physical injury. If we can believe the press, Michael Brown was six-foot-four inches tall and weighed three-hundred pounds. Wilson was not close to Brown’s size. There was a press statement that Wilson claimed Brown had attempted to forcibly take his service weapon from him. Forensic evidence seems to corroborate that a serious struggle took place in Wilson’s patrol car. Only Wilson can comment on his state of mind while he and Michael Brown were struggling. Perhaps Wilson feared for his life and reasonably believed that if Michael Brown took his pistol, he (Wilson) would be in danger of being killed or seriously injured.

The FBI investigation is being conducted to determine of Wilson is guilty of a violation of Brown’s civil rights, specifically, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If charges are brought against Wilson for this violation of federal law, he would be tried in federal court.

Regardless of what happens as a result of the state and federal investigations, Wilson may be sued in civil court by the Brown family for wrongfully causing the death of Michael Brown. Whether that death was wrongful would be determined by a different burden of proof than that used in criminal court. To be convicted of a crime, the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the plaintiff needs only to prove “wrongful” by a fair preponderance (51%) of the evidence.

To use the term execution (the word of Mr. Twitter) in this case or in most, if not all, cases of police shootings is absurd and meant to do nothing more than inflame the emotions of a target audience. How many people (civilians) will admit they truly believe that when the average police officer “turns out” after roll call or leaves his/her relief point to begin a tour of duty, they do so with the intent to execute or assassinate an unarmed civilian? That thought is also patently absurd.

The laws governing the justified use of physical force or deadly physical force are quite specific and taught to every certified police officer in the United States. These laws are complicated. First, you must identify who is justified in using the force, a civilian or a police officer. Then you must determine when, during the course of certain observed illegal activity, the force which might be used to prevent or terminate unlawful aggressive force is against the person potentially using the lawful force or against a third person, or to effect an arrest for specific violent crimes, and the force is necessary.

I used to teach the defense of justification for basic police recruit classes, in-service training, and for supervision schools and allowed three hours to adequately cover the subject. The above paragraph doesn’t quite break the surface. I completed that block of instruction with an additional three hours devoted to the remaining defenses and affirmative defensives: Renunciation, entrapment, duress, infancy, and mental disease or defect. Three hours to cover one, three hours to cover five. Understanding justification is complicated and important.

An understanding of the key words is essential. Necessary and reasonable. Would a reasonable person believe it was necessary to use deadly force? A police officer is not enjoined to retreat, but in most states (not all) a civilian must retreat if he/she can do so safely before using deadly force. At no time may deadly force be used to prevent or terminate a crime against property. No matter how angry you get, you can’t snuff a teenager for stealing your hub caps. Many gun owners are totally ignorant of the laws governing the defense of justification in the use of deadly force.

Might Darren Wilson have reasonably believed that three-hundred pound Michael Brown (who may have been struggling to get Officer Wilson’s pistol) could have caused him serious physical injury? I might, but I don’t yet have enough substantiated information to draw an educated conclusion.

Moving elsewhere, was the highway patrol officer who beat a fifty-five year old woman as he held her on the ground justified in his use of physical force? He may have been initially justified, if he reasonably believed that she might injure him or she was resisting arrest, but once she lay on the ground covering her head, offering no resistance, he should not have continued to punch her. It would have been appropriate to handcuff her, but the law of justification does not extend to use physical force as a punishment for resisting arrest. These actions were filmed by his dashboard camera. Under those circumstances, this officer was no longer justified and was remiss. Unfortunately, the media did not, in this case, nor do they routinely follow up on reporting the disposition of administrative or criminal charges levied on a police officer who violated the law and educate the sometimes outraged public to show that the system works. I submit that this is because the sensationalism has passed and ratings are more important than truth to the media.

Mr. Twitter pooh-poohed my suggestion of high quality training as a method of bolstering the discipline of all police officers. His understanding of discipline seems sadly lacking. Training is the cornerstone of any and all discipline. Those lacking proper training can’t be expected to perform properly. Ignorance of good procedure can lead to tragedy. Does the cop who finds him/herself in a serious physical confrontation know under which circumstances he/she is justified to use deadly force? They should. If we don’t train them adequately those officers are not the only ones responsible for inappropriate reactions.

Mr. Twitter also expressed outrage that all the “good cops” out there are not being proactive to weed out the “bad apples.” How does he know this? He is privy to nothing more than what he reads in the news—which may or may not be accurate or complete.

Unfortunately, his suggestion requires a perfect world. Individual doctors do not crusade to weed out bad doctors. The American Medical Association is supposed to act as a regulatory body to “police” its own. Individual lawyers do not crusade to weed our bad lawyers. The American Bar Association is supposed to act as a regulatory body to “police” its own. I would suggest that anyone interested check statistics and find the ratio of cops to doctors to lawyers and which profession feels the more severe punishment for transgressions of their relative laws or regulations.

Police officers have enough legitimate police business crowded into their day. To proactively seek out other officers violating the law is not logistically feasible. And it is unfair to assume that officers witnessing violations of law by co-workers will fail to report those crimes to their supervisors or will intentionally cover up the incident.

Internal affairs investigators aren’t hated by the rank and file police officers for nothing. They are effective within their system. “Bad cops” (or more probably cops who have made mistakes in judgment) do not go unpunished. But the average citizen is not privy to all the internal, administrative disciplinary hearings and findings.

Is Mr. Twitter and every other person of the male gender expected to actively go out and seek those males who rape and commit domestic assaults against women? This is only one reason why we have professional police departments. Each person can only answer for themselves. If I police myself, I exhibit the discipline considered socially acceptable. If everyone did that, there would be fewer crimes against whomever.

It only took me ten minutes to learn that the outraged Mr. Twitter worked in the elderly care industry…in the administration of an assisted living facility. I wonder how proactive he is in weeding out the “bad” employees who neglect or abuse the elderly put into their care or his care. This is acknowledged as an extremely serious problem in the country today. Is Mr. Twitter leading an elite group of administrators tirelessly seeking out wrong-doers within their industry? Has Mr. Twitter and his colleagues formed their own “rat squad?” Or as in many establishments, does he sweep these incidents of abuse under his carpet so his facility does not gain a reputation for resident abuse? Bad reputations lead to fewer customers and less profit.

It’s easy to “Monday-morning-quarterback” PO Darren Wilson or any cop who shoots an armed or unarmed civilian. I have more than twenty years of police experience and wouldn’t dare to suggest that I know exactly what Darren Wilson felt during his confrontation with Michael Brown. If he is judged to be unjustified, was his action a mistake of the head or the heart? What was his culpability? You’ve got four to pick from: Intentionally, knowingly, reckless, or with criminal negligence.

But maybe he was justified and guilty of nothing. I doubt that many people in Ferguson, Missouri will settle for anything less than severe charges and maximum punishment—whether Darren Wilson is guilty or not. If the internal investigation and/or the FBI investigation vindicate Darren Wilson, agitators like Al Sharpton will scream, “cover-up” and never allow the chips to honestly fall where they may. Unfortunately, there will never be a simple or adequate solution because of guys like Mr. Twitter and the boy on Facebook who are too impatient to wait for the official ruling and who will never settle for less than blood. Truth is meaningless, their anger must be satisfied.

If a black civilian using a handgun, legally owned or not, shot and killed Michael Brown, there would be no question but that person should get their due process. Initial “eyewitness” or media quotes would not be taken as gospel and everyone would wait until a jury convicted or acquitted the subject before condemning the system, if that condemnation happened at all. But when a police officer, black or white, male or female, is responsible for shooting an unarmed youth, they are assumed to be guilty BEFORE even an indictment, much less a trial verdict. If the grand jury fails to indict, many community leaders condemn the grand jury system or claim a cover-up. No one ever assumes that the officer may have been justified in using deadly physical force because these vocal individuals understand NOTHING of the laws that govern its use.

Eyewitnesses often provide immediate testimony which the media and anti-police critics sensationalize and spread as being the absolute truth. In fact, eyewitness statements are notoriously inaccurate. Later, when subjected to serious and pointed questioning, these eyewitnesses admit that “they heard the shot, but didn’t actually see the shot fired and assumed…” “Other people said the victim raised his hands. I didn’t actually see that, but I assumed…” Or they have trouble agreeing on whether the shooter was five-foot-six or six-foot-five. Eyewitness statements are NOTHING more than one piece to a complicated puzzle handed to investigators. Those statements must be corroborated by physical evidence and plausibility.

read more