Comments on: Jeff Schwartz: Police Putting City Employees Under Suspicion By Criminals – August 30, 2011

By: israel

israel — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:27:49 +0000

All that for marijuana? Lol

By: kevpod

kevpod — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:03:35 +0000

A bomber arrested with similar tactics.

http://www.kxly.com/localvideo/index.html?v=24957

By: me again

me again — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:51:05 +0000

“It looked like something put together by children.” I’ll bet there are plenty of children in Humboldt who know how to set up a proper grow.

By: Stone Eternal Love

Stone Eternal Love — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:31:54 +0000

So this dynamic Einstein defense attorney couldn’t even figure out how to contact the City workers’ labor union rep by himself? I guess that’s why he has to write these “opinion pieces” to try and drum up business. Maybe Kevin can show him where City Hall is.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:51:37 +0000

Ah yes, I see that that was our point, my apologies. And it does seem valid. In fact I believe this same principle is why PG&E is so concerned about their field workers being perceived as possible law enforcement agents.

When Jeff’s column was in the works he needed help in locating the City workers’ labor union rep, Art Frolli of Operating Engineers No. 3, so I put him in touch. But the column included no mention of any union position on the utility worker guise, so I called Art. He said he didn’t have enough information on the matter to make a statement. He didn’t seem concerned.

By: Mark Sailors

Mark Sailors — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:34:02 +0000

My point was, it is now dangerous to be a water meter reader, as the criminal element will see them all as undercover police officers.
Now every person that comes to read any meter will be considered to BE the police if not WORKING for the police.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:57:03 +0000

The APD officers didn’t identify themselves on serving the search warrant?

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:40:14 +0000

Kevin, if it were a real standard, police department policy manuals would say unidentified searches are safe. They do not and generally either do not mention the situation or stipulate that officers must identify themselves for safety.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:48:33 +0000

Mark, how would an undercover officer be “dangerous?”

Dangerous to what or whom? If they’re an Arcata Police officer, aren’t they responsible for creating public safety rather than danger?

By: kevpod

kevpod — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 19:39:59 +0000

How could anyone do a newspaper for 15 years without occasion to question the practices of the local police department? While most of my editorial wrath has been directed at the CHP (under previous commanders) and the idiotic/deranged/politicized federal gov’t, yes, there have been at least two occasions that come to mind in which I condemned APD practices. One involved a full-blown scathing editorial titled “Adults behaving badly.”

Sometimes the best thing you can do for someone is to criticize them.

But by and large APD has distinguished itself as having high standards and good consciousness of balancing civil liberties with public safety. It has a pretty healthy culture in comparison to some other law enforcement agencies.

All that said I have no particular loyalty to APD. Remember that it’s not about who you are but what you do.