A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by 911Dispatcher on Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:03 pm

In response to your email and the editor’s note attached to
R. Ortez’s letter in the Rumford Reporter.





First I gave you Rob Cameron’s name as a reference to verify
who I was. You have questioned many persons
identity in the community who were sending you emails and I wanted to make
clear who I was. In no way was my letter
a representation of Rob Cameron, his opinions, or his character.





Second, because I no longer live in the area does not mean I
do not have a grasp on what happens in the community. I stay educated and informed and am not
afraid to use multiple sources to stay in tune.
Not only that but I have family and friends who live both in and around
Rumford and I speak with them daily over their concerns for the community. I care about the area and hope one day to move
back. Demeaning my letter and my
opinions by stating I no longer live there is wrong.





Finally I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a
few things and hopefully educate you on the profession of law enforcement. I hope you sincerely take this to heart and
understand this is a mere chance to learn from someone who has more knowledge
about the topic at hand. Learning is
never a bad thing and can only broaden your horizon.





In the letter written by R. Ortez he states “The only reason
your crime is high is because you go looking for it so you can justify your
bloated budget.” and also states “The bottom line is that you go looking for
crime and anyone that you have targeted, you use as a statistic to justify the
number of police officer's you have or want.”
Law enforcements job is two fold.
One, it is to respond to calls for help and two, it is to enforce laws
both city and state. Looking for crime
is part of that. It is referred to as
reactive and proactive work. Reactive
work would be responding to a call about a bar fight. Proactive work would be considered traffic
stops, or checking businesses after hours for criminal activity. Statistics are drawn from that work not out
of made up crime. Polls show that many
community members across the country were concerned about the low level of
police presence during late hours, where more crime occurs. This was the reason a program called
neighborhood watch was created. Many
citizens in these programs work closely with law enforcement and often request
more officer presence in the area. When
you talked about the FBI crime index, an organization that I report personally to
on a monthly basis, you should know they show the crime that occurs. They do not show the crime that was deterred
because of proactive policing. They also
do not show a large number of crimes that leave numerous victims in their
aftermath.





I have questions with the statement “If you read the crimes,
they are police driven.” I wonder how
this is possible. Is it that you believe
because the crime is found and not reported it is there for “police driven”. Also whether crime is found or reported it is
still committed and still able to be charged by an officer. Law enforcement officers are mandated by law
to charge for all crimes and to not turn their heads when they occur.


The statement made “We don't give a damn about your mangled
license plate stops, your unregistered or uninspected vehicle stops, your
headlight, taillight, or license plate light out stops, your no seat belt
wearing stops, or your administrative duties that include arresting people
because they forgot to pay their fines for the first stupid offense you got
them on.” states the you are listing off
laws passed by law makers. Law
enforcement officers are not allowed to pick and choose which crimes they
enforce. If you have such issues with
these laws your gripe should be with the law makers. However you should know that most of these
laws have a specific purpose of keeping society safe. Let me explain this to you. Having properly working headlights was
created so that at night a driver can properly see the roadway, other vehicles,
and things crossing the roadway. It
helps you drive safely at night. It also
ensures that passing motorist see the on coming vehicle and can identify its
position on the roadway. The same
purpose can be said for having properly working taillights. It prevents motor vehicles accidents that
cause damage, injury, and death. Wearing
a seat belt has been proven to safe lives.
Enforcing that law ensures everyone is aware that it is an important and
life saving device and also ensures person are not driving around without their
seatbelt on. Some in society argue that this
is considered a nurse law, but again this is an argument that needs to be made
to law makers not law enforcement. I do
see in the letter today it has been revised to have the OUI .08 stop comment
taken out. I am glad you can see the
importance in this law. Driving even
slightly impaired is dangerous and can cause death or injury not only to the
driver but to innocent victims.





This is just a few examples of many things the everyday
citizen does not realize, or has a hard time comprehending. It only takes an open mind and someone who is
willing to educate themselves on the profession. Again I suggest taking part in the citizen’s
police academy or going for a few ride alongs.
It would make you sound more legit in your arguments and help you to
form a better argument over proper staffing and funding for certain programs.
avatar
911Dispatcher

Number of posts : 469
Registration date : 2008-10-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Admin on Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:16 pm

Nicely done! That was a wonderful explanation. I'm not sure our own police force could have done that as well because they would have been accused of just trying to "pad their already bloated budget" but from you, it is an excellent piece of police work!
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by 911Dispatcher on Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:26 pm

Thanks, I was completely surprised when I was re reading the TRR letter today and saw that the OUI example was removed. I wonder if someone reasoned with her or if common sense kicked in.
avatar
911Dispatcher

Number of posts : 469
Registration date : 2008-10-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Admin on Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:30 pm

Hard to say. Maybe you're just making a difference. Either way, any positive direction that we can get is welcome. Thank you again, for caring enough to write.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 356
Registration date : 2008-05-24

View user profile http://rivervalleyfreepress.easydiscussion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by T on Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:33 am

911Dispatcher wrote:I was completely surprised when I was re reading the TRR letter today and saw that the OUI example was removed.

I wonder how R Ortez feels about his/her letter being edited? Very Happy

T

Number of posts : 2617
Registration date : 2008-06-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:22 am

Great letter, 911! It politely and respectfully points out the ridiculousness inherent in the R Ortez's post. It's kind of a shame that it was necessary for you to explain the obvious, but you did it well.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:37 am

I just read R Ortez's letter again. Does anyone know if it's been further edited? It seems shorter to me.....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by 911Dispatcher on Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:42 pm

It has been edited again. They made some grammar corrections. Nothing else has been removed though. Wink
avatar
911Dispatcher

Number of posts : 469
Registration date : 2008-10-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:25 pm

Just noticed the entire letter has been removed. (All is not lost, however.....)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by T on Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:49 pm

There can be only one reason why The Rumford Reporter removed that letter...

T

Number of posts : 2617
Registration date : 2008-06-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:59 pm

And we know the reason.......

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:04 pm

It's too late we believe the damage is done. Jason is very very upset with JSN and so am I. We will never associate with her again


Steph and Jason

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:10 pm

Stephanie and Jason,
That's very brave of you to say. Unfortunately you'll now be on her hit list. I think she stockpiles vendettas.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by xmashen on Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:20 pm

Jason and Stephanie, on a personal note, do you guys feel used at all?

xmashen

Number of posts : 949
Registration date : 2008-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by xmashen on Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:23 pm

On second thought, that might be an inappropriate question to ask in the general forum. I just feel bad that she continues to use and abuse people who are simply trying to do their best for the community.

xmashen

Number of posts : 949
Registration date : 2008-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:58 pm

xmashen wrote:Jason and Stephanie, on a personal note, do you guys feel used at all?



VERY MUCH SO

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:00 pm

bug wrote:Stephanie and Jason,
That's very brave of you to say. Unfortunately you'll now be on her hit list. I think she stockpiles vendettas.

So be it. We aint gonna fight with her, She is just a waste of our time.


Jason and Stephanie Thompson

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Chuck on Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:12 pm

Good for you for not fighting with her and moving on with your life.

Welcome!
avatar
Chuck

Number of posts : 73
Registration date : 2008-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by 911Dispatcher on Sat Oct 18, 2008 12:34 pm

I just wanted people to know (but I'm sure you all are aware) TRR removed the letter from their website. I am happy that they were aware that the letter was offensive and that there are better ways to address their concerns.
avatar
911Dispatcher

Number of posts : 469
Registration date : 2008-10-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by xmashen on Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:47 pm

TRR makes constant changes to its site, depending on litigation fear level, community outrage, (one would be hard-pressed to call it " examination of conscience") or change in hormone levels. The "ORTEZ" letter is a classic example of fraudulent "journalism" and TRR's feeble attempts at subsequently trying to whitewash their actions and intent. In any case, they felt quite free to malign, impugn and distort under a transparently fake LTE. Not the first time, and probably not the last time.

911, I think that your honest, factual and real posts about the reality of law-enforcement work went a long ways towards TRR's redacting that garbage. Thanks so much!

xmashen

Number of posts : 949
Registration date : 2008-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:42 pm

There is only one person who writes on the TRR and it's JSN, That's it, NO ONE ELSE


Jason

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by xmashen on Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:49 pm

that was brave of you to say. Do you think she might suffer from multiple personality disorder? Or is she just " really creative"?

xmashen

Number of posts : 949
Registration date : 2008-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by xmashen on Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:51 pm

actually, that was a cheap joke. Her writing style is clearly and easily identifiable, whether it's on TRR or the Lisbon reporter.

xmashen

Number of posts : 949
Registration date : 2008-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Guest on Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:05 pm

Jennifer Stowell-Norris-Ortez, affectionately known as J-SNO.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by C on Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:48 pm

xmashen wrote:TRR makes constant changes to its site, depending on litigation fear level, community outrage, (one would be hard-pressed to call it " examination of conscience") or change in hormone levels.

Lol, I once mentioned to someone that we should chart TRR's level of maliciousness on a calendar for a few months... perhaps the moon does strange things...
avatar
C
Admin

Number of posts : 707
Registration date : 2008-05-24
Location : Rumford, ME

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to the Editors comments on TRR

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum