Montgomery County's Policing Advisory Commission's Public Forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not in favor of what Jawando is trying to accomplish but I’m duly impressed you folks are so ridiculous that you would hijack that to pursue your agenda.

Thinking about this again, I encourage you to do this!

I’m confused. What’s my agenda? I would simply appreciate a balanced, logical, and reasoned approach to public safety. I don’t see that coming from Jawando AT ALL. His approach is targeted and hostile, often backed by national anecdotes instead of local data. Personally, I think local officials should be well-versed in a topic before commenting on it or proposing legislation. Have our council members or committee members bothered to do ride alongs? Have they attended the citizens’ academy? If not, they are merely amateurs play-acting instead of being a sincere, educated policymakers. I’ve lost all respect for these PAC members. Until they become well-versed in this field, and sincerely committed to it, I can’t take this seriously.

[Anonymous]

The PAC should be asking how to help police fight violent crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not in favor of what Jawando is trying to accomplish but I’m duly impressed you folks are so ridiculous that you would hijack that to pursue your agenda.

Thinking about this again, I encourage you to do this!

I’m confused. What’s my agenda? I would simply appreciate a balanced, logical, and reasoned approach to public safety. I don’t see that coming from Jawando AT ALL. His approach is targeted and hostile, often backed by national anecdotes instead of local data. Personally, I think local officials should be well-versed in a topic before commenting on it or proposing legislation. Have our council members or committee members bothered to do ride alongs? Have they attended the citizens’ academy? If not, they are merely amateurs play-acting instead of being a sincere, educated policymakers. I’ve lost all respect for these PAC members. Until they become well-versed in this field, and sincerely committed to it, I can’t take this seriously.

His agenda is about pretextual traffic stops like that one he believes that he was targeted for on the ICC. Your agenda is “traffic violence”, which I would assume would include promoting more traffic stops. If people are going to hijack the meeting to discuss Vision Zero I’m going to laugh so hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not in favor of what Jawando is trying to accomplish but I’m duly impressed you folks are so ridiculous that you would hijack that to pursue your agenda.

Thinking about this again, I encourage you to do this!

I’m confused. What’s my agenda? I would simply appreciate a balanced, logical, and reasoned approach to public safety. I don’t see that coming from Jawando AT ALL. His approach is targeted and hostile, often backed by national anecdotes instead of local data. Personally, I think local officials should be well-versed in a topic before commenting on it or proposing legislation. Have our council members or committee members bothered to do ride alongs? Have they attended the citizens’ academy? If not, they are merely amateurs play-acting instead of being a sincere, educated policymakers. I’ve lost all respect for these PAC members. Until they become well-versed in this field, and sincerely committed to it, I can’t take this seriously.

His agenda is about pretextual traffic stops like that one he believes that he was targeted for on the ICC. Your agenda is “traffic violence”, which I would assume would include promoting more traffic stops. If people are going to hijack the meeting to discuss Vision Zero I’m going to laugh so hard.

I don’t really have an agenda, which as an idiom means having an ulterior motive or hidden goal. My rather transparent feelings are simply that rising statistics in pedestrian deaths, car accidents, and (yes) even violent crime can be addressed by working TOGETHER as opposed to happily taking down MCPD. Since you named Jawando, I’ll feel free to comment. Yes, I do believe he has an agenda. If he were truly concerned about anything (pretextual stops included), then he would be at each station talking with officers. He would be attending the citizens’ academy so he could make informed decisions about policing. He would do ride-alongs so he can see the actual stress of being an officer. The same is true for everyone on the PAC. It’s the hostile atmosphere Jawando and others created that has led to our decimated department. It’s really hard to do your job when you are very aware you have no support from county leaders, and that they are legislating away your ability to even do what you are hired to do.

As for Monday’s meeting, it’ll be more of the same. The speakers will all be picked for their anti-police messages that contribute to the rhetoric in the report above. It’s like every other meeting. What’s the point? They already know what they want.

And no, I’m not an officer. I’m a concerned citizen who got tired of uninformed and self-serving comments made by politicians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not in favor of what Jawando is trying to accomplish but I’m duly impressed you folks are so ridiculous that you would hijack that to pursue your agenda.

Thinking about this again, I encourage you to do this!

I’m confused. What’s my agenda? I would simply appreciate a balanced, logical, and reasoned approach to public safety. I don’t see that coming from Jawando AT ALL. His approach is targeted and hostile, often backed by national anecdotes instead of local data. Personally, I think local officials should be well-versed in a topic before commenting on it or proposing legislation. Have our council members or committee members bothered to do ride alongs? Have they attended the citizens’ academy? If not, they are merely amateurs play-acting instead of being a sincere, educated policymakers. I’ve lost all respect for these PAC members. Until they become well-versed in this field, and sincerely committed to it, I can’t take this seriously.

His agenda is about pretextual traffic stops like that one he believes that he was targeted for on the ICC. Your agenda is “traffic violence”, which I would assume would include promoting more traffic stops. If people are going to hijack the meeting to discuss Vision Zero I’m going to laugh so hard.

I don’t really have an agenda, which as an idiom means having an ulterior motive or hidden goal. My rather transparent feelings are simply that rising statistics in pedestrian deaths, car accidents, and (yes) even violent crime can be addressed by working TOGETHER as opposed to happily taking down MCPD. Since you named Jawando, I’ll feel free to comment. Yes, I do believe he has an agenda. If he were truly concerned about anything (pretextual stops included), then he would be at each station talking with officers. He would be attending the citizens’ academy so he could make informed decisions about policing. He would do ride-alongs so he can see the actual stress of being an officer. The same is true for everyone on the PAC. It’s the hostile atmosphere Jawando and others created that has led to our decimated department. It’s really hard to do your job when you are very aware you have no support from county leaders, and that they are legislating away your ability to even do what you are hired to do.

As for Monday’s meeting, it’ll be more of the same. The speakers will all be picked for their anti-police messages that contribute to the rhetoric in the report above. It’s like every other meeting. What’s the point? They already know what they want.

And no, I’m not an officer. I’m a concerned citizen who got tired of uninformed and self-serving comments made by politicians

He got run out of 3D when he tried of visit last year. He went there to talk about himself. No care in the world what the cops on the street thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not in favor of what Jawando is trying to accomplish but I’m duly impressed you folks are so ridiculous that you would hijack that to pursue your agenda.

Thinking about this again, I encourage you to do this!

I’m confused. What’s my agenda? I would simply appreciate a balanced, logical, and reasoned approach to public safety. I don’t see that coming from Jawando AT ALL. His approach is targeted and hostile, often backed by national anecdotes instead of local data. Personally, I think local officials should be well-versed in a topic before commenting on it or proposing legislation. Have our council members or committee members bothered to do ride alongs? Have they attended the citizens’ academy? If not, they are merely amateurs play-acting instead of being a sincere, educated policymakers. I’ve lost all respect for these PAC members. Until they become well-versed in this field, and sincerely committed to it, I can’t take this seriously.

His agenda is about pretextual traffic stops like that one he believes that he was targeted for on the ICC. Your agenda is “traffic violence”, which I would assume would include promoting more traffic stops. If people are going to hijack the meeting to discuss Vision Zero I’m going to laugh so hard.

I don’t really have an agenda, which as an idiom means having an ulterior motive or hidden goal. My rather transparent feelings are simply that rising statistics in pedestrian deaths, car accidents, and (yes) even violent crime can be addressed by working TOGETHER as opposed to happily taking down MCPD. Since you named Jawando, I’ll feel free to comment. Yes, I do believe he has an agenda. If he were truly concerned about anything (pretextual stops included), then he would be at each station talking with officers. He would be attending the citizens’ academy so he could make informed decisions about policing. He would do ride-alongs so he can see the actual stress of being an officer. The same is true for everyone on the PAC. It’s the hostile atmosphere Jawando and others created that has led to our decimated department. It’s really hard to do your job when you are very aware you have no support from county leaders, and that they are legislating away your ability to even do what you are hired to do.

As for Monday’s meeting, it’ll be more of the same. The speakers will all be picked for their anti-police messages that contribute to the rhetoric in the report above. It’s like every other meeting. What’s the point? They already know what they want.

And no, I’m not an officer. I’m a concerned citizen who got tired of uninformed and self-serving comments made by politicians

He got run out of 3D when he tried of visit last year. He went there to talk about himself. No care in the world what the cops on the street thought.

I’m sure it was hard to be receptive to him after his frequent negative social media posts about police, especially since he has made no effort to become informed about the challenges of the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PAC should be asking how to help police fight violent crime

Well, there are a few questions about pretextual traffic stops. Pretextual traffic stops are an effective way to get guns off the street and find dangerous criminals before they act. I think pretextual traffic stops are great -- I am white and have had them happen to me many times, and while being pulled over by police is never fun, I am all in favor of them as a means of reducing crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PAC should be asking how to help police fight violent crime

Well, there are a few questions about pretextual traffic stops. Pretextual traffic stops are an effective way to get guns off the street and find dangerous criminals before they act. I think pretextual traffic stops are great -- I am white and have had them happen to me many times, and while being pulled over by police is never fun, I am all in favor of them as a means of reducing crime.

The report linked above (on the meeting invite link) shows that the PAC is against pretextual stops. Their argument is that the number of guns taken off the street through traffic stops isn’t statistically high enough to make the practice useful. I suspect the people whose lives were saved when those guns were recovered would disagree, but I digress.

Their idea is that police should dramatically reduce how many stops they make, mostly by ending all stops for minor offenses. Simultaneously, the police are supposed to stop traffic accidents. (I’m as confused as you are.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PAC should be asking how to help police fight violent crime

Well, there are a few questions about pretextual traffic stops. Pretextual traffic stops are an effective way to get guns off the street and find dangerous criminals before they act. I think pretextual traffic stops are great -- I am white and have had them happen to me many times, and while being pulled over by police is never fun, I am all in favor of them as a means of reducing crime.

The report linked above (on the meeting invite link) shows that the PAC is against pretextual stops. Their argument is that the number of guns taken off the street through traffic stops isn’t statistically high enough to make the practice useful. I suspect the people whose lives were saved when those guns were recovered would disagree, but I digress.

Their idea is that police should dramatically reduce how many stops they make, mostly by ending all stops for minor offenses. Simultaneously, the police are supposed to stop traffic accidents. (I’m as confused as you are.)

More about the PAC report, since they say traffic enforcement is not increasing road safety: Police don't work toward traffic safety in a vacuum, either. They work with department of transportation and state highways to change road engineering, signage, cross walks, lighting, etc. They have a whole group working on this. So blaming police alone for traffic safety (or lack thereof) is kind of shortsighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasting time on this when murders are hitting historic record highs is typical of why Montgomery County is in decline.

It’s not a historic high. It’s a spike but not higher than historic highs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:was the forum well attended?

It's on Monday. You should go.

No thanks. Got better things to do and everyone else should too.

MCPD are not perfect, but they are fine and significantly better than a lot of police forces around the region and the country. So I am not sure what the point of all of this is.

The point is that some council members need a dragon to slay so they can advance their political careers. If they were truly interested in improving public safety, they would have learned about existing public safety efforts by attending the citizens’ academy and worked with MCPD instead of creating an adversarial relationship.

Okay marky mark calm down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not in favor of what Jawando is trying to accomplish but I’m duly impressed you folks are so ridiculous that you would hijack that to pursue your agenda.

Thinking about this again, I encourage you to do this!

It’s just a few right wing cops that are very vocal. It’s a small but loud fringe minority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PAC should be asking how to help police fight violent crime

Well, there are a few questions about pretextual traffic stops. Pretextual traffic stops are an effective way to get guns off the street and find dangerous criminals before they act. I think pretextual traffic stops are great -- I am white and have had them happen to me many times, and while being pulled over by police is never fun, I am all in favor of them as a means of reducing crime.

The report linked above (on the meeting invite link) shows that the PAC is against pretextual stops. Their argument is that the number of guns taken off the street through traffic stops isn’t statistically high enough to make the practice useful. I suspect the people whose lives were saved when those guns were recovered would disagree, but I digress.

Their idea is that police should dramatically reduce how many stops they make, mostly by ending all stops for minor offenses. Simultaneously, the police are supposed to stop traffic accidents. (I’m as confused as you are.)

Pretext stops is just lazy policing.

Why not just to pretext stops on W school students and get all the drugs off the street. But you won’t because rich parents have expensive lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:was the forum well attended?

It's on Monday. You should go.

No thanks. Got better things to do and everyone else should too.

MCPD are not perfect, but they are fine and significantly better than a lot of police forces around the region and the country. So I am not sure what the point of all of this is.

The point is that some council members need a dragon to slay so they can advance their political careers. If they were truly interested in improving public safety, they would have learned about existing public safety efforts by attending the citizens’ academy and worked with MCPD instead of creating an adversarial relationship.

Okay marky mark calm down

You identify yourself immediately when you use “marky mark.”

I want good government. I don’t need to AGREE with everything politicians decide, but I demand that things get done thoughtfully, reasonably, and with actual non-biased research. So far, I haven’t seen any of that come from the PAC. The fact this report is so easy to pick apart is proof.

And no, I’m not “Marky Mark,” whatever that means. Can you contribute something more meaningful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not in favor of what Jawando is trying to accomplish but I’m duly impressed you folks are so ridiculous that you would hijack that to pursue your agenda.

Thinking about this again, I encourage you to do this!

It’s just a few right wing cops that are very vocal. It’s a small but loud fringe minority

Anything other than uber progressive is called right wing on here. It's so amusing.