| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - August 16 2008 : 08:54:07 AM
|
As to DC's 2 questions:
1) Not many--and I have always said that Reno's command was probably unfit for further action anyway, even those who weren't wounded and had horses.
2). The men risk themselves because they are soldiers and in a battle and they are pretty sure their commander is in a fight. It's not like a tag team wrestling match where one guy fights and then says "That's all for me". and leaves the ring.
Heck, even some of the EM's wondered why they weren't doing SOMETHING. ANYTHING. Not a mad rush to the sound of the guns, but at least an effort to look??
Im fact, didn't Benteen sort of respond to the sound of Reno's battle when he came up and saw two trails?? |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2008 : 10:56:36 AM
|
Sgtmajor,
Anytime Wiggs wants to admit he lied, lies, slanders medalled dead officers of the US Army for his own entertainment without evidence, I'll move on. I'm surprised you tolerate it, as a soldier. It's not debatable, his own posts are still up. All his lies, his misquotes, his plagiarism, his misunderstanding of words - including his own - are all still up.
Well, it's a war, not a battle. There are always hotheads who react rather than think it through and act conducive to the mission, and it's officers' jobs to keep all in check. It was very convenient after the battle's results were known for people to suddenly discover that they shoulda/coulda/and woulda done something to save Custer. Weir wanted to be in on the photo op victory, not 'save Custer' because they had no reason to think Custer needed saving. Custer had a known history of moving off and away and leaving folks to their own devices, so this wasn't a shocker. Reno had survived with 60% of Custer's manpower, and the high losses were accorded to his retreat manner.
In fact, it made sense to think Custer'd gone to Terry to come down the valley to their rescue, and not a betrayal to them, which many apparently felt at the time.
If it isn't necessary to do something, it is necessary to do nothing. Imagining three companies trying to rescue five with a thin but long train of mules and walking wounded and infantry staying visible on high ground to make the commute rather defies comment. Leaving divided pockets of the command was a nonstarter.
The 7th simply wasn't up to it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2008 : 10:13:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Sgtmajor,
Anytime Wiggs wants to admit he lied, lies, slanders medalled dead officers of the US Army for his own entertainment without evidence, I'll move on. I'm surprised you tolerate it, as a soldier. It's not debatable, his own posts are still up. All his lies, his misquotes, his plagiarism, his misunderstanding of words - including his own - are all still up.
Dark Cloud, if you were a man I would probably be offended by your remarks. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 16 2008 : 10:54:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sgtmajor109th
Hang in Joe, your alright
Sir, I thank you for your support. In the past, this forum was one of the most informative and creative forums in existence. Sadly, and understandably, some of the posters were unable to deal with Dark Cloud who continuously spewed his venom at everyone who refused to tow to his line of thought. As a result, member after member departed rather than confront the bellicose garbage that exemplifies Dark Cloud. It has driven him insane that I refuse to surrender; ergo his absolute, yet juvenile, dislike for me.
You, Brent, and the others have given new life to this forum. You do so because you are true men, something Dark Cloud can not understand. I ask that you continue to be as you are. Your opinions, perspectives, and takes on this battle will be respected and appreciated by all of us. I hope that all guests who may wish to contribute will do so. Dark Cloud will, eventually, learn to act like a gentleman or stay away. One may only hope. |
|
|
|
Sgtmajor109th
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 17 2008 : 6:28:24 PM
|
DC, In your responce to me. As a soldier for 26 years there were
a great many things that you had to endure. You had to to tolerate
a great many things, you had to be patient and to, you had to have
self control, and above all you had to have self discipline.
If you seen thigs that were wrong, and you were sure, you spoke up
You were always careful about sabre rattling, you could find those
at the top coming down on you. As for the medalled officers,I don't
know who you are referring to, or who was slandered. The only ones
I am aware of that had been given medals were those in the water
party, and of course Capt Tom Custer, who won the MOH in the CW
(2) And Capt Benteen who, Breveted for action at the LBH, and Canyon
Creek, which was after he retired. Any others I know nothing about.
If you are referring to Benteen, to me he was slow at the LBH, but
I consider him a fine officer that,took control when he had to,Reno
is another story, I have always stated I was not keen on him and I
feel he fell well short of being a good officer.
As for either one of them saving Custer, I feel the only one that
had a chance was Benteen, but that to may be doubtful. |
Sgtmajor |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 19 2008 : 8:12:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Sgtmajor,
Anytime Wiggs wants to admit he lied, lies, slanders medalled dead officers of the US Army for his own entertainment without evidence, I'll move on. I'm surprised you tolerate it, as a soldier. It's not debatable, his own posts are still up. All his lies, his misquotes, his plagiarism, his misunderstanding of words - including his own - are all still up.
Well, it's a war, not a battle. There are always hotheads who react rather than think it through and act conducive to the mission, and it's officers' jobs to keep all in check. It was very convenient after the battle's results were known for people to suddenly discover that they shoulda/coulda/and woulda done something to save Custer. Weir wanted to be in on the photo op victory, not 'save Custer' because they had no reason to think Custer needed saving. Custer had a known history of moving off and away and leaving folks to their own devices, so this wasn't a shocker. Reno had survived with 60% of Custer's manpower, and the high losses were accorded to his retreat manner.
Joe Wiggs
If you can recall any battle in the history of mankind in which "all" of the officer's kept "all" in check, I will cede this argument to you gladly. War, battle, scuffles, and confrontations are events that entail human beings and, therefore, by its very nature, can not be perfect thus, open to question. It then stands to reason that if leadership is imperfect, than those who are led are imperfect and such human equations are less than perfect.
It mystifies me when you exclaim, with indignation, of the folk who "suddenly" speak of "shoulda", "coulda", and "woulda" after a battle occurs. These words exemplify you, the dark dissenter who who believes he knows all yet, has never shown the earth shattering knowledge to confirm such an egotistical presumption.
Dark Cloud
In fact, it made sense to think Custer'd gone to Terry to come down the valley to their rescue, and not a betrayal to them, which many apparently felt at the time.
Joe Wiggs
I honestly have no idea what he means by this. Can anyone help out?
Dark Cloud
If it isn't necessary to do something, it is necessary to do nothing. Imagining three companies trying to rescue five with a thin but long train of mules and walking wounded and infantry staying visible on high ground to make the commute rather defies comment. Leaving divided pockets of the command was a nonstarter.
Joe Wiggs
It is never necessary to do nothing. "Nothing" is a choice of the incompetents that will quickly lead to atrophy and death. We who choose to do nothing(regardless of the circumstances)deserve what we sow because by doing so we concede all that is human in us.
Godfrey, with one company held off the very same warriors (according to Benteen 9,000 of them)that destroyed Custer's command driving them back on their heels like frightened jackrabbits. One company Dark Cloud!!! What miracles could three times that number accomplish? We will never know will we.
Dark Cloud
The 7th simply wasn't up to it.
Obviously you are right here. The 7th wasn't up to it. This battle should never have occurred. the names of Benteen, Reno, and Custer will forever be associated in glory and ill-repute for this battle. they were merely pawns in the hands of a higher power.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on August 19 2008 8:26:30 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2008 : 8:43:36 PM
|
| See below |
Edited by - joe wiggs on August 22 2008 8:50:25 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 22 2008 : 8:47:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
.
You operate on hindsight. For all Reno or Benteen knew, there was an equally large village on the east bank. They could not see beyond Sharpshooter except along the bank where it's blocked by Weir Pt.
Joe Wiggs
Let me see, all they had to do was trot across a ravine, up the western slope of Weir Point, and there--Lo and behold--was the village! Oh yea, that's what they did.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on August 22 2008 8:48:31 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 09:16:40 AM
|
That's what Custer did also but the observation and analysis must have been different than actual facts. That's the difference between recon and a plan and winging it. Nothing wrong with winging it which is what happens when plans go bad but Intel about total numbers, exact location, and the terrain surrounding the location should have produced a different initial plan.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 21 2009 : 9:48:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcaryf
[
With respect to Benteen I also do not think there were major things amount of time to effectively assume command over Reno.
I do not think that Benteen told the whole story at the RCOI but I do not think that his motives there were dishonourable and if this resulted in Custer getting a share of the blame for the disaster that was fair.
Mike
Mike, I know it has been sometime since you last posted. I miss your comprehensive, and always fair analysis of the battle. You are so right, Benteen was not forthcoming at the Reno Inquiry.
On Saturday, Feb 1st., he testified that he had his company position themselves at a right angle on a ridge and, planted a guidon at the highest point "that looked over that country." He did this to "present an object to attract the attention of Gen. Custer's command if it was in sight."
The Recorder than asked, "Then in your opinion his command (Custer) was still alive?"
Benteen responded, "I thought so."
At 2PM., the Court adjourned to return at 10 AM on the 3rd. of Feb.
The Recorder then asked Benteen if he received any notification from General Custer at the hands of Trumpeter Martin.
Benteen replied, "I received an order to Come on - be quick - big village - bring packs, bring packs. We than had found - I wish to say, before the order reached me, that I believe General Custer and his whole command was dead."
When asked by the Recorder at what time did he receive this order, Benteen replied, "It was about 3 o'clock."
You can't have it both ways. Why does a sane man attempt to signal a live command at five o'clock that he believed to be already dead at 3 o'clock on the same day?
Tthere must have been a bombshell of silence and awe erupting in Court at that moment. Lee was not a prosecutor and could not attack Benton's testimony (nor anyone else's other than Reno) but, surely intelligent men sitting at this hearing must have taken notice.
Had Benteen admitted to disobeying that order knowing Custer was still alive who knows what may have happened.
I miss your posts and hope you return soon. Let me know what you think about the above.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 10 2009 : 09:33:00 AM
|
Joe it is hard to understand that you are really serious. That leaves one to draw conclusions that are not very positive about your ability to discern what you read.
If Benteen believed on the day of battle that Custer was still alive that does mean forever that he can not change his opinion after being exposed to more facts and time to formulate an expert opinion. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - September 10 2009 : 1:37:49 PM
|
| Benteen may have had good reason to believe that Custer and his command were all dead by the time Benteen planted the guidon. But what information whould lead him to believe them dead hours earlier? After all everyone excepy Benteen and Reno and been hearing sounds of battle for some time. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2009 : 9:04:48 PM
|
Thank you Prolar. AZ's blatant personalizing of everything I write is not a problem with me. However, his inability to look beyond personalties results in tedious threads that defy my understanding.
Benteen made the statements, I referred to, Within a 24 hour period. Benteen's belief "on the day of the battle that Custer was alive that does not mean forever that he can not change his opinion" had transpired three years prior to the R.C.O.I.
Therefore, his opinion should have been solidified (on way or the other)at his testimony. During the inquiry, Benteen himself referred to Custer's message as an order. An order that was not acted upon until hours later. Failure to act upon an order during combat would be embarrassing to say the least.
Yes, Reno as the senior commander is ultimately responsible for this failure but, nevertheless, Benteen's actions would have come under scrutiny to his dismay.
Because Benteen smirched the truth, as he often did, Az draws the conclusion that I can't discern what I read.
Az,the inexplicable venom you spat out during your bizzare defense of Reno has shown me that you are extremely thin skinned and your responses were no more than knee jerk reactions motivated by anger. You see me as an arrogant know it all who needs to be knocked down a peg or two. Unable to do so with knowledge, you vehemently sling false accusations of "Mis-quotes" hoping to portray my freely shared sources (book titles and page numbers) as created in my delusional mind.
That's O.K. with me as your opinions of me do not rankle me in the least. If you wish to share dialogue in the future fine. If you insist on "slings and arrows" please bother someone else.
It is these personal attacks that have done so much damage to this forum. I am just as responsible as you and wish to cease and desist. I will debate any topic you wish but, I will no longer denigrate anyone.
Prolar, you post was like a breath of fresh air. Please visit again, you'er sorely missed. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2009 : 10:53:56 AM
|
Az,the inexplicable venom you spat out during your bizzare defense of Reno has shown me that you are extremely thin skinned and your responses were no more than knee jerk reactions motivated by anger. You see me as an arrogant know it all who needs to be knocked down a peg or two. Unable to do so with knowledge, you vehemently sling false accusations of "Mis-quotes" hoping to portray my freely shared sources (book titles and page numbers) as created in my delusional mind.
I have never seen you as a know it all Joe.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 15 2009 11:25:42 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2009 : 11:05:28 AM
|
Thanks Joe for proving my point. Benteen thought that Custer was alive at 5 PM when he planted the guidon or whatever time. In hindsight he believes that Custer could have been dead earlier which is where the 3 PM comes in.
For someone claiming to be a peace officer at one time why is testimony so hard?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 15 2009 11:26:52 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 15 2009 : 11:24:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by prolar
Benteen may have had good reason to believe that Custer and his command were all dead by the time Benteen planted the guidon. But what information would lead him to believe them dead hours earlier? After all everyone except Benteen and Reno and been hearing sounds of battle for some time.
I think the 3 PM times refers to when Benteen received the message from Martin and at that time Reno was hearing plenty of gun fire in the valley. No one thought Custer dead on the 25th that testified at RCOI.
I think Benteen after looking at the battlefield formed an opinion that what he observed were the Indians celebrating their victory and shooting into the dead bodies. One could derive that it occurred rather quickly from the lack of military formations. Benteen sees it as scattered corn and draws the conclusion that it happened quickly. Since he was there and an officer he could render his expert opinion to the court that he believed it occurred about the same time as Martin was delivering the message.
Expert opinions may or may not be accurate but since it is opinion Benteen could give it to the court. He would qualify as an expert. Happens all the time in courts that there is differing expert opinions. Its up to the jury or court to determine facts.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2009 : 6:16:07 PM
|
AZ, with all due respect, "There are none so blind as they who refuse to see."
The 3 PM. tine line is exactly what betrays Benteen's testimony. In his initial statement, he tells the recorder that he placed the guidon and, placed his troops on the ridge to signal Custer's command. We can only assume that he was not attempting to signal dead men, correct? This event occurred sometime after 5 PM.
The next day, the recorder asked Benteen, what time did you receive an order from Custer. Benteen replied that he did so at approximately 3 PM. He then interjects, as an after thought, by the way, you must under stand that I believe the General and his command were all dead by then. (Paraphrase) How could the men be alive at five PM yet, dead at three PM?
Again AZ, for your edification, this thought process was not a product of hindsight. All of the events had transpired three years hence, before the trial. Benteen's testimony was the result of a 24 hour period.
I was a police officer for 21 years, then retired. I was chosen Police Officer of the Year, 1983, for saving the lives of several citizens while under fire.
I am the recipient of two silver Medals of Valor. More than any officer in the history of our department. One of which for saving the life of a fellow Police Officer while under fire.
I retired as a Lieutenant, but was on the Captain's list when I decided to retire. The Department I worked for is the Prince George's County Police Department. A large metropolitan department of well over a thousand officers. I was a district Investigator for 6 years and a commander of the Police Academy for five years.
Please feel free to PM me if you have a further need to understand why I have such a problem with evidence. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2009 : 1:38:08 PM
|
Nothing you have presented changes my opinion. Nothing presented shows anything about excellence in report reading. I have 30 years completed and I am currently still on active duty as a peace officer with a wall of awards and citations also. So what?
You can't do simple report reading 101.
I thought he saw me. - thought is past tense
Using present tense for stating thought, attitude or emotion:I believe you do not know what you are talking about.
Let's look at RCOI. "I thought so" means what he thought on the day it occurred notice the past tense.
"that I believe" is present tense which is his opinion at the RCOI
There are no two ways about it.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 17 2009 2:02:03 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2009 : 2:33:18 PM
|
Found this on the INTERNET, Is this your former Department Joe?
"This is neither Prince George's County's first attack on American's civil rights, nor the first time a police raid ended in innocent bloodshed in this country.
Prince George's County, Maryland has one of the most notorious police departments in the United States. Few other departments have so brazenly trampled upon civil rights or so egregiously violated human rights in our nation's modern history. Anyone who lives in the beltway area or for that matter Virginia or Maryland has read about their violations and affronts to human dignity for years.
The case, along with other alleged incidents of brutality by Prince George's police, prompted the Justice Department to review the county department. In a settlement reached in January 2004, the county police pledged to reduce the use of excessive force by officers.
Esther Vathekan was mauled and disfigured by a police dog when a canine unit searched her house as she slept. She sued Corporal Jeffrey Simms, the officer conducting the search, and Prince George's County (Maryland) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that the dog's attack constituted excessive force in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court held that Vathekan was not seized under the Fourth Amendment, concluding instead that Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process standards governed the case. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendants after finding that the force used against Vathekan did not "shock the conscience" as required for a violation of substantive due process. The judgment for Simms was based on qualified immunity.
After considering Vathekan's appeal, we conclude that she properly identified the Fourth Amendment as the source of the right she alleges Simms violated. We hold that it was clearly established in 1995 that it is objectively unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing a police dog to seize someone. We conclude that there is a factual dispute about whether Simms failed to give a warning before sending his dog into the house where Vathekan lived. This unresolved factual issue makes it impossible to grant summary judgment to Simms on qualified immunity grounds. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment to Simms. Because the district court granted summary judgment to Prince George's County on the mistaken determination that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to this case, we also reverse the summary judgment for the county. The case will be remanded for further proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow sentenced former Prince George's County Police Officer to ten years in federal prison for intentionally violating the civil rights of a homeless man by releasing her police dog to attack him after he had surrendered, had his hands up, and offered no resistance. The ten-year sentence is the maximum term of imprisonment allowed by law for such a violation. Parole has been abolished in the federal system. In August of this year, a federal jury convicted Stephanie Mohr of violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 242; that is, the deprivation of civil rights under the color of law. The evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of a Takoma Park Police Sergeant who previously pleaded guilty in connection with the same incident, showed that before Mohr released her police dog on two non-resisting suspects, Corporal Anthony Delozier, who was acquitted at trial, asked the Takoma Park Sergeant if the dog could "take a bite" out of the victims. The Takoma Park Sergeant responded "Yes." Mohr then released her dog on the victim and another unidentified Prince George's County Officer beat the second homeless man for no reason.
While calculating the sentence in the case, Judge Chasanow ruled that Mohr had twice committed perjury when she testified at the trials in the case. She also enhanced the sentence because she found that Mohr took advantage of the fact that the victim was physically restrained at the time of the offense."
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 17 2009 2:36:17 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2009 : 5:13:21 PM
|
AZ, you will find similar postings on just about any police department you goggle. Your attempt to blacken the officers who died to protect the innocent is reprehensible.
I will not personalize this thread any further. Having said that, please refrain from any future communication with me. Your cooperation in doing so will be greatly appreciated
I falsely assumed that you too were a retired police officer from Arizona. No police officer retired or active would have resorted to the level you have chosen.
Perhaps you should show more loyalty to your fellow officers (human beings) than to your horses. Good-by Sir.
PS. the media has mis-reported, demeaned, and case police officers in a negative light for a great length of time. a factor that has resulted in causing the job of an officer to be more difficult and dangerous. The media has found an aid in you.o |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2009 : 11:35:03 AM
|
Joe it is you that brought up your past to bolster your position on this board as an experienced officer capable of discerning the contents of a report or court records. I noticed you chose not to address that issue.
You thought it would intimidate or lend credibility to what you state regarding the RCOI accounts by Benteen. Being brave and receiving awards does not make one necessarily competent to read and evaluate reports. As anyone will note I stated nothing about you or any officers acts of bravery. That is not and never has been the issue.
You're the one bringing about one looking into your veracity. You mislead all the time and use other IDs to support yourself.
Again you proved the point of not being able to read and discern. You stated "the media has mis-reported, demeaned, and case police officers in a negative light for a great length of time."
That is different than "U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow sentenced former Prince George's County Police Officer to ten years in federal prison for intentionally violating the civil rights"
That is something anyone can look up and either it happened or not.
As far as your comments about officers active or retired your opinion means nothing to me. I do not value an opinion of anyone who misleads regardless of their occupation or retired from occupation. We value truth in Arizona. There is a difference between a mistakes or opinions and intentional misleading. I gave you my opinion and instead of acknowledging that there could be some truth to what I presented you resorted to bolster your position by stating your personal background as a former officer. You picked the pathway and now want to cry fowl when it didn't work for you. I never asked for your credentials.
The whole point of asking you about your Department was to show that just being a police officer does not make you credible. Every Department has a few bad officers and some bad retired officer. Each individual person is responsible for their own actions. Some police active or retired do lie and some go to jail and prison.
If you think that Arizona peace officers have to stand up for officers just because they are officers you are mistaken. We have a board that looks at all peace officers actions within the state. We value truth and do not tolerate criminal actions conducted by police officers.
See Joe I believe we are equal when it comes to opinions on a board. There is no special weight that goes to soldiers or peace officers or any profession if they intentionally mislead. If you did not want everyone to see your credentials and use them for something why not just PM them to me. Instead you presented them to all thinking it would sway others to your opinion. You chose the open forum.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 18 2009 12:16:00 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2009 : 4:03:51 PM
|
AZ, my last retort. How many times have you assiduously repeated over and over again your disbelief and dismay that I, as a police officer, was incapable of understanding the legal concepts of "Testimony" and "evidence." Can you think of a better way to rile a veteran? Need I pull up your past threads, including the one above?
I have been a member of this board for over six years and only twice have I posted my police experience in depth during that time. Once in response to D.c's slanderous remarks (no further explanation's need here) and you.
You two are the only individuals on this board whose remarks for one reason or another created an atmosphere where I felt my honor as an officer had to be defended.
Your inexplicable need to post English lessons to an adult on this board speaks volumes. It was unnecessary and accomplished little except as a poorly veiled personal jab. It is exactly that type innuendo that many find offensive.
Your biased selection of articles regarding the Prince George's County Police Department is reprehensible because you know full well that the media will used that type of allegation and paste it on the front page while delegated positive stories to the back page, adjacent to the want ads. When you selected that information are you suggesting that there were no positive, informative, and/or declarations that you could have posted instead? Of course!
Your purpose in doing so was to counter my accomplishments with garbage because you interpreted them as my being an obnoxious braggart tooting his own horn. In hindsight, I can see your point.
I did not post my history to bolster my status on this forum. What need would I have to do so?
The issue here is the Battle of the Little Big Horn. With the exception of you and D.c, no one really cares about my past. No one else refers to my past, no one else issues disparaging remarks about my past. In summation no one gives a rat's ass about my past except you and D.c.
What is this fascination you two have with making every effort to befuddle these threads by negative personalization. I freely admit my involvement in the past and, I am ashamed of myself for sinking to such levels.
Apparently I have inadvertently offended you in the past. I say this because your responses to my threads seem volatile, no matter what the subject. I apologize for any insensitivities I may have flung your way.
My primary concern now is to encourage posters to return to this forum and discuss issues that are relative. This will not happen if petty bickering continues. If you wish to join me in this endeavor than fine, I welcome your input. If you do not, that is fine as well.
However, if you do not, feel free to leave me off your mailing list. I promise you I won't be offended. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 18 2009 4:23:58 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2009 : 10:46:23 AM
|
Actually Joe it was testimony and accounts. I explained my distinction that testimony is sworn and subject to cross examination and accounts are not. Sometimes cross examination clarifies testimony or destroys it. You wanted to use the word testimony for accounts of eye witness and hearsay mixed that was translated correct or not.
So did your officers call it testimony when the interviewed witnesses and suspects? That's the point Joe you want to recognized as a former police officer and then state testimony is equal to account. I hold anyone professing to be a police officer to a higher standard of terms used by professionals. You know or should that it is a more serious crime to give false testimony and/or false sworn statements.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2009 : 10:50:50 AM
|
Joe you are not on my mailing list is that a false account of the facts or did you give false testimony.
What started as a look at the RCOI and Benteen's testimony was corrupted in your translation of what he said. I can think of no better example of a mistranslation being used to state what you have about Benteen. How many times did that happen in other translations?
The big difference is that most testimony is recorded as in RCOI and available for all to read with their own eyes. You have an obligation as a long time board commenter to present facts as they occurred or expect to be challenged. If someone that knows better allows your statements to stand then new readers may actually believe your statements. The could mistakenly think Joe a 21 year decorated police officer retired must be correct.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 19 2009 11:05:14 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 14 2009 : 9:33:08 PM
|
I see, if I opine differently from you I have, in effect, mistranslated and knowingly, lied about about RCOI and, ultimately, must be consigned to he;ll for my audacious stand. More importantly, this failing on my part is sufficient to label my career as a lie.
No one can say it better than you. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility for Custer's defeat.
