Anonymous wrote:If the council felt the beat cops weren't telling the truth, why not then come out ahead of it and set the record straight?

Anonymous wrote:There are probably no named sources because the police are afraid of losing their jobs. I for one appreciate the reporting and think the council should be ashamed of not being open and honest.

Anonymous wrote:From July:
https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2019/07/a-council-member-believes-a-push-for-police-reform-has-resulted-in-a-spike-in-hate-filled-messages/
Montgomery County Council member Will Jawando said more than 150 messages have come in to him and his staff, and many have been concerning enough that he is sharing them with authorities.
“It reached a point where, last week, we referred the matter to the Montgomery County Police Department,” Jawando said.

Jawando is not the only county lawmaker to be subject to hate-filled messages. Council member Evan Glass, who is the county’s first openly gay council member, reported that he received a lot of hateful communication during pride month in June.

https://www.mymcmedia.org/montgomery-council-considers-enhanced-security/
Earlier in September:
“I think all of us have received alarming messages over the last couple of weeks that are based on ignorance and unfortunately in some cases outright racial profiling,” Councilmember Gabe Albornoz said Tuesday.

“It’s been disconcerting to hear some of those messages, often from people who don’t live in Montgomery County.”

Council President Nancy Navarro said the council has filed police reports because of some of the messages.

Capt. Thomas Jordan, spokesman for Montgomery County police, also said <b>some of the messages are not originating within the county.</b>

“When councilmembers get messages that are threatening in nature – not someone exercising their First Amendment rights – they pass them on to us,” Jordan said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good job in an attempt to frame this as pulling resources away from "fighting crime", to protect the council members.

They wouldnt need the extra security if the threats werent real.

The question really is, why did Channel 7 let Kevin Lewis run a story with no named sources, and no statement from the executive branch? It’s the executive branch that runs the police department.. sloppy, tabloid reporting.

Because the station is run by Sinclair Broadcasting, which is why I never watch it.

Oh, wow, I didn’t know that. Explains a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good job in an attempt to frame this as pulling resources away from "fighting crime", to protect the council members.

They wouldnt need the extra security if the threats werent real.

The question really is, why did Channel 7 let Kevin Lewis run a story with no named sources, and no statement from the executive branch? It’s the executive branch that runs the police department.. sloppy, tabloid reporting.

Because the station is run by Sinclair Broadcasting, which is why I never watch it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good job in an attempt to frame this as pulling resources away from "fighting crime", to protect the council members.

They wouldnt need the extra security if the threats werent real.

The question really is, why did Channel 7 let Kevin Lewis run a story with no named sources, and no statement from the executive branch? It’s the executive branch that runs the police department.. sloppy, tabloid reporting.

Anonymous wrote:Good job in an attempt to frame this as pulling resources away from "fighting crime", to protect the council members.

They wouldnt need the extra security if the threats werent real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to look no further than the protest a couple weeks ago at the council building to see where the "threat" came from.

County councilmembers didn't realize there were so many of the constituents who were upset with their shenanigans.


And also worth noting- its plain to see in the photos and video from that day who the police thought was the ACTUAL threat that day, between the protesters, and the counter protesters (allied with the council). All of the police perimeter was facing the counter protesters. Because that's where they knew any trouble would come from. They had their backs to the people protesting the council. The cops knew those people weren't a threat.

But the council sees an opportunity for some cheesy political theater, and they wont be denied that.

I can't wait until the first crime isn't responded to in a timely manner because the cop that should've been on the scene first was busy making sure that no one asked Tom Hucker anything that made him feel uncomfortable.

This post is spot on. You can tell because no one responded to it directly. Good job!

No. In what world does “no response” make something true?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to look no further than the protest a couple weeks ago at the council building to see where the "threat" came from.

County councilmembers didn't realize there were so many of the constituents who were upset with their shenanigans.


And also worth noting- its plain to see in the photos and video from that day who the police thought was the ACTUAL threat that day, between the protesters, and the counter protesters (allied with the council). All of the police perimeter was facing the counter protesters. Because that's where they knew any trouble would come from. They had their backs to the people protesting the council. The cops knew those people weren't a threat.

But the council sees an opportunity for some cheesy political theater, and they wont be denied that.

I can't wait until the first crime isn't responded to in a timely manner because the cop that should've been on the scene first was busy making sure that no one asked Tom Hucker anything that made him feel uncomfortable.

This post is spot on. You can tell because no one responded to it directly. Good job!

Anonymous wrote:You need to look no further than the protest a couple weeks ago at the council building to see where the "threat" came from.

County councilmembers didn't realize there were so many of the constituents who were upset with their shenanigans.


And also worth noting- its plain to see in the photos and video from that day who the police thought was the ACTUAL threat that day, between the protesters, and the counter protesters (allied with the council). All of the police perimeter was facing the counter protesters. Because that's where they knew any trouble would come from. They had their backs to the people protesting the council. The cops knew those people weren't a threat.

But the council sees an opportunity for some cheesy political theater, and they wont be denied that.

I can't wait until the first crime isn't responded to in a timely manner because the cop that should've been on the scene first was busy making sure that no one asked Tom Hucker anything that made him feel uncomfortable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good job in an attempt to frame this as pulling resources away from "fighting crime", to protect the council members.

They wouldnt need the extra security if the threats werent real.

Yeah taking four patrol officers from a district's shift doesn't cause any problems.

The police work overtime. volunteer or mandatory. Districts don’t go uncovered.

Yes, they do.

No, they don’t. Go do a ride along and learn how they cover their beats. Ask them what happens when fellow officers are on leave or call out sick unexpectedly. It is no different.

Do you think I'd say they have shifts that go uncovered if I didn't know it for certain?

I "rode along" for 12 years as the husband of a cop. You'll never BS me.