Efforts to Weed Out Extremists Among Police Meet Resistance

In the battle to stamp out extremism from the ranks of the police, lawmakers from California to Minnesota have proposed solutions they thought were straightforward.

Some laws would empower the police to do more robust background checks of recruits, letting them vet social media to make sure new officers were not members of hate groups. Other laws would make it easier for departments to fire officers with ties to extremists.

But legislators working to get these measures passed in recent months have found themselves confronting a thicket of obstacles and somewhat unexpected opposition, ranging from straight Republican vs. Democrat clashes to profound questions about protecting constitutional rights.

Last month, a police officer in Fresno, California, was fired after videos surfaced that showed him supporting the Proud Boys at a protest. “Such ideology, behavior and affiliations have no place in law enforcement and will not be tolerated within the ranks of the Fresno Police Department,” the police chief said.

Yet when lawmakers in the state recently proposed legislation to give police departments more power to weed out officers with extremist ties, they met resistance.

Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, said in a statement that the organization supported the idea but not the legislation that was drafted. It would “infringe on a person’s individual rights,” he said, and possibly prevent someone from becoming an officer based on personal beliefs, religion or other interests.

Police officers, like everybody else, enjoy First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly, so the challenge for lawmakers is figuring out how to preserve those rights while barring extremists from infiltrating the ranks.

California is one of four states, including Oregon, Minnesota and Tennessee, along with Washington, D.C., that have proposed new laws to give law enforcement agencies more power to exclude officers with ties to extremism.

Police officers prepare to disperse protesters in Portland, Ore., on Nov. 4, 2020. The state is considering a bill that would allow potential officers to be screened more closely. (Mason Trinca/The New York Times)

Such efforts have been simmering around the country for years, spurred by FBI reports starting more than 15 years ago that document a concerted effort by white supremacist and other extremist organizations to infiltrate the police.

The events of Jan. 6 brought new momentum to those efforts, with more than 30 active or retired police officers coming under scrutiny for joining protests in Washington, and at least seven facing charges for storming the Capitol.

“When Jan. 6 happened, it gave an even more visceral sense as to why this kind of legislation was necessary,” said Ash Kalra, a Democratic member of the California Assembly. “This has been a long-term problem that really has not been directly addressed by law enforcement agencies.”

Racist gangs among Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies have been a problem for decades. In Virginia, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska and Louisiana, law enforcement officers have been dismissed in recent years for ties to the Ku Klux Klan. And various agencies have been shaken by revelations of police officers exchanging derogatory remarks about minorities on social media, with the Philadelphia Police Department dismissing 13 of the 72 officers it put on leave in 2019 because of such Facebook posts.

There is little hard data on the number of American police officers with explicit ties to extremism, although senior officials have repeatedly characterized domestic extremism as an accelerating threat.

“We have a growing fear of domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said during a hearing on Capitol Hill last week.

Many legislators say that the spread in the country is mirrored in police departments.

Police officers themselves, at least those who acknowledge that there is an issue, tend to welcome the idea that added scrutiny will drive bad officers away. Major unions in California have supported the general idea of scrutinizing applicants more closely, but they opposed the first draft in February of a law that would reject all candidates who had been members of hate groups, participated in their activities or publicly expressed sympathy for them.

They feared that the legal basis for defining extremist groups was overly broad, and that members of organizations opposing abortion or same-sex marriage might be ensnared by the law.

Legislators in California negotiated compromise language for the bill with the main police unions in Los Angeles, San Jose and San Francisco, which then endorsed the change. The settled-upon language says, “No member of a hate group should be in law enforcement and if you are a member of one of these groups don’t apply, you have no place in our profession.” Still, some police officers and unions in California reject the modified legislation because of issues of civil rights and freedom of speech.

Some legal experts agree. The proposed measures are all bound to prompt challenges on constitutional grounds, said Philip M. Stinson, a former police officer who is now a professor of criminal justice at Bowling Green State University. It would be preferable to prohibit certain types of behavior rather than to focus on membership in an organization, he said.

“The idea that we can systematically reform policing through a bevy of legislative actions in short order, I don’t think that is possible,” he said.

In Oregon, state Rep. Janelle Bynum began last summer to shepherd a new bill to screen potential officers more closely.

Given Oregon’s history of opposition to changing laws governing the police, she and her allies consulted senior police officers throughout the state before writing the bill. They narrowly focused it on screening officers before they enter the force, allowing law enforcement agencies to review applicants’ social media posts. Although the legislation seeks to establish a uniform background check for Oregon police officers, it leaves it up to individual law enforcement agencies to set their own rules on issues like hate speech. The bill does state that “racism has no place in public safety.”

“We are trying to thread that needle to ensure those rights, but also not to tolerate any type of hate group,” said state Rep. Ronald H. Noble, a former small-town police chief who entered the Oregon House after 28 years with law enforcement. A Republican, he forged a rare bipartisan effort with Bynum, a Democrat, to craft the bill.

Daryl Turner, the head of the Portland Police Association, said he endorsed the heightened vetting because it left it up to individual departments how to deal with extremist candidates.

Officers must hold themselves to high standards, Turner said in a statement, and “the degree that this legislation accomplishes that is going to depend in large part on prudent and careful implementation at the agency level.”

In Washington, D.C., the new police chief, Robert Contee III, has expressed support for an independent screening mechanism for police officers that is expected to become law by the fall. The measure has faced little criticism there, which the city councilwoman who proposed it, Janeese Lewis George, attributed to a year of traumatic demonstrations over policing and social justice issues, as well as the storming of the Capitol.

Standards vary widely among police departments for how to confront extremists because many of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States set their own. They have their own contract language, as well, plus state labor laws differ.

In Minnesota and Tennessee, the proposed laws bar current officers from being affiliated with white supremacist or other hate groups. The Minnesota bill is subject to negotiation between the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democratic majority in the House, while in Tennessee the Republican-controlled Senate has already stalled the bill.

In Minnesota, the death of George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, who was convicted of murder last month, brought new scrutiny to relations between the Minneapolis police and the city’s Black and Latino communities.

State Rep. Cedrick Frazier, a Democrat, thought the circumstances would make it easier to pass a new law barring any police affiliation with white supremacist organizations, even if Chauvin was not directly linked to any. He was wrong.

While Frazier’s Republican colleagues did not oppose the idea, they said they found it insufficient. State Rep. Eric Lucero sought to add other organizations to the ban, including al-Qaida, al-Shabab and Hezbollah, along with members of anarchist, environmental and animal rights groups.

The proposed bill moved out of the House criminal justice reform committee on a straight party-line vote. Among the amendments, Frazier sought to preserve one clause focused on white supremacy.

“This is about building trust within the Black community, and a large part of that is addressing the issue of white supremacy,” he said.

In Oregon, Bynum said the bill was prompted by both the intense protests over the past year and earlier conflicts.

One of them was a prolonged episode involving a Portland policeman, Mark Kruger, who was off duty when he hung plaques honoring five Nazi-era German soldiers in a city park around the year 2000. A decade later, when they were exposed, a review board found that Kruger had brought “discredit and disgrace” to the police.

When Kruger countered that he was merely a history buff exercising his First Amendment rights and threatened to sue, the city settled, withdrawing the criticism while erasing his suspension with 80 hours of vacation plus $5,000.

After 26 years on the force, he retired as a captain in 2020, not long before Bynum began formulating the new law.

For Bynum, getting a statement of principle against extremism set into law would be an important first step.

“Essentially, you have to move the ball,” she said.

Katie Benner contributed reporting.

c.2021 The New York Times Company

36 Comments

  1. Without, I suspect, a single exception, every police executive in this nation has during his or her career supported the systemic racial and gender discrimination known as affirmative action. Though I don’t doubt that a significant percentage of them disliked contradicting their personal commitment to fairness and sworn allegiance to objectivity, they nonetheless accepted the politics of the social extremists, turned their backs on its very human victims, and climbed the ignominious ladder of success.

    What we see now are these same executives being arm-twisted into accepting another directive from the radical commissars, this one requiring not just the denial of positions and promotions, but denying American citizens their political liberty (yes, police officers and police applicants are citizens!). Will these “top cops” cave again? The smart money says yes. These so-called leaders have been chasing the progressive carrot their entire careers, so it would be foolish to expect them to suddenly discover they stand for something other than their own well-being.

    If any of us are free to read books, assemble peacefully, speak freely, and petition the government, then so too must be the men and women in law enforcement, otherwise you can strike the word “civilian” from civilian law enforcement and replace it with “political.” And if you think the witch hunt will stop with the cops then you’re dumb enough to deserve the hell that’s coming to you and your children.

  2. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Without, I suspect, a single exception, every police executive in this nation has during his or her career supported the systemic racial and gender discrimination known as affirmative action. Though I don’t doubt that a significant percentage of them disliked contradicting their personal commitment to fairness and sworn allegiance to objectivity, they nonetheless accepted the politics of the social extremists, turned their backs on its very human victims, and climbed the ignominious ladder of success.”

    The example you described “affirmative action” is a LEGALLY ALLOWED CONDUCT. But many of these groups being identified have openly supported ILLEGAL actions, including Jan 6 the Capitol. The facts are that being a “PEACE OFFICER” is a privilege and NOT a right. If you cannot conduct yourself in a manner that never questions you or the integrity of the law enforcement agencies you represent, you are lost. The APPEARANCE of Justice must be the only one that is acceptable, and any conduct the raises questions whether a person CANNOT equally and professionally act as a PEACE OFFICER is in effect DSIQUALIFED. You wrote:

    “What we see now are these same executives being arm-twisted into accepting another directive from the radical commissars, this one requiring not just the denial of positions and promotions, but denying American citizens their political liberty (yes, police officers and police applicants are citizens!). Will these “top cops” cave again? The smart money says yes. These so-called leaders have been chasing the progressive carrot their entire careers, so it would be foolish to expect them to suddenly discover they stand for something other than their own well-being.”

    PEACE OFFICERS HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT REFLECT IN ANY WAY A DEGRADATION OF THE LAW RNFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR PROFESSION. No one has the RIGHT to be a PEACE OFFICER. It is a PRIVILEGE and you must CONDUCT yourself accordingly to maintain that PRIVILEGE. If you want to express views that raises questions on your practice as a PEACE OFFICER, you have that RIGHT, but you DO NOTY have the RIGHT to do so and at the same time be a PEACE OFFICER. You wrote:

    “If any of us are free to read books, assemble peacefully, speak freely, and petition the government, then so too must be the men and women in law enforcement, otherwise you can strike the word “civilian” from civilian law enforcement and replace it with “political.” And if you think the witch hunt will stop with the cops then you’re dumb enough to deserve the hell that’s coming to you and your children.”

    WRONG on that point, if you want to support any group that has a history of violating the Ciminal Laws, you SHALL DO SO. BUT as a PEACE OFFICER, you SHALL uphold the laws and constitutional rights of others, and if your conduct puts that into QUESTION, then the PRIVILEGE of being a PEACE OFFICER is lost.

  3. Paul,

    I am simply going to say EXTREMISM on both sides is not EVER going to resolve problems. This kind of language is not doing anyone any good. Maybe you just want to instgate more problems?

    The fact that over 40 years, the U.S. has been on a path to potential self destruction regarding the so called “Left” and “Right” starting in the 1980s. If we continue this trajectory, this country will pull itself apart.

  4. Paul:

    You clearly haven’t read the FBI stats on Police on civilian shootings and vs versa. Or, on the other hand, you have and are merely a hate-filled bigot and racist. Your post should be removed as it clearly calls for violence against the police. I note that no one from the Leftest/Marxists posters has condemned you or call for your post to be removed. I note that the SJ Inside hasn’t removed it either.

  5. The question that I have is that the term “extremism” seems like it is only referencing white extremists. Will it be equally applied? Will the extremist on the Left, the Marxists, the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam followers, etc. all be excluded? If so, I can support this type of law.

  6. Pau: Here are a few facts the put the lie to your vicious and hateful comment:

    “MORE THAN 10,000,000 POLICE ARRESTS LAST YEAR – TEN MILLION!
    If anyone doubts the accuracy of these numbers, they are available at Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program — FBI https://www.fbi.gov/services/ cjis/ucr

    According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the Washington Post, last year there were 10 million arrests by police. 10 Million!!

    Out of those 10 MILLION arrests, there were 1,004 officer-involved fatalities.

    Out of those 1,004 officer-involved fatalities, 41 were unarmed.

    Out of those 41-officer involved unarmed fatalities (now you might find it hard to believe I know), but out of 41 deaths, now hear this…19 were white – 9 were black.

    Now 1 is 1 too many, but to me, 41 out of 10 million is a pretty small percentage! (.00041%)

    Now ask me how many police officers were killed in the line of duty. C’mon, take a wild guess.

    89 police officers were killed. Where was the news media when those took place?

    Just to bring it home, guess as how many people were shot in CHICAGO just this last weekend? In Chicago last weekend 82 people were shot within a 48-hour period.

    Of those 82 people, 19 people died.

    Yes, you got it. In Chicago last weekend alone, there were more black people killed by black people than were killed by police in all of last year!

    The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. BLM is based on the lie of police brutality and racism. Now go ahead, do the research and see for yourself.”

    The above quote is by: Bernard Kerik, former NYPD Police Commissioner

    If you would like to follow the crime stats in Chicago, here is a good source:

    https://heyjackass.com

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings/

  7. HB,

    Remember it was you that wrote:

    “HB you constantly want to rewrite your history when caught being nothing but a instigator of more hostility and perhaps violence, Theis is what you wrote again”

    ““Here is a little data that supports the idea that at least half of the trans people are killed by their queer partners. Another huge risk factor about trans women is if they engage in street prostitution. A number of other articles suggest that the victims were engaged in prostitution.

    Very hard to get good stats but it would appear that the queer community is the biggest part of the problem.” (From the SJ Inside Article Supporters Gather for Murdered San Jose Transgender Woman By Bay City News/ April 26, 2021)

    Then LATER you write:

    “To her friends and family: I am very sorry for your loss.” (From the SJ Inside Article A Quest for Love: Natalia Smut’s Death Highlights Trans Struggles By Katie Lauer/ April 28, 2021)

    Which I responded:

    “WAIT A SEC? You first degrade Natalia in the previouse story found here (From the SJ Inside Article Supporters Gather for Murdered San Jose Transgender Woman By Bay City News/ April 26, 2021)

    Then now you just say I am sorry for your loss?

    OMG this is the best example of how many have conducted themselves, coming to conclusions about people, openly criticizing them, and then say “SORRY”?”

    You responded :

    “TO: Steven:

    Your comments posted under this article are in extremely poor taste (actually, disgusting). I commented in a different news article that was discussing, in addition to the loss of Natalia, the problem of violence against trans people (which should never happen — and, of course, the same is true for Cis people).”

    But you said that Trans people being hurt or killed were “Prostitutes” Right? You can’t just make this kind off statement and then try to claim the high ground on different stories, and topics. The fact is you just can’t stay on message.

    The fact is you SELECTIVELY perceive the messages you WANT to hear. And draw inaccurate conclusions from other stories claiming to be accurate only because you provided “THE LINK” to the story. Deception by omission is deception.

    And as Paul Harvey would say HERE IS THE REST OF THE STORY FROM ABCNEWS HB, but you tried to cover it up by only saying what you said and omitting the rest here

    Lets go into what that report said:

    “Tracy Williams, a 22-year-old transgender woman from Houston, had a creative mind and was always smiling and dancing. People who knew her said she had a star quality and seemed destined to become a performer.

    But like a number of other transgender women, Williams appears to have fallen victim to violence at the hands of an intimate partner — an issue that while not particular to the transgender community, has had a profound effect on it.”

    This report is not talking about Natalie here, but another completely different case. Also:

    “Police charged her boyfriend, 25-year-old Joshua Bourgeois, with her murder in late August. It’s unclear what may have led him to allegedly kill the young woman, BUT HER FRIENDS SAID SHE TRIED TO BREAK UP WITH HIM JUST BEFORE HER DEATH.

    Bourgeois was being held on a $195,000 bond on charges of murder and burglary as of Wednesday. He is scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 29. His court-appointed attorney, Feroz Farook Merchant, did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.”

    So it is not yet been determined a domestic violence case, AND YOU KNEW IT. It goes on to say:

    “A 2015 study by UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law found that between 31% and 50% of transgender people have experienced dating violence at some point in their lives, compared to between 28% and 33% of the general population.”

    And :

    “”Trans women of color have the combination of being discriminated against because of race and gender identity, and oftentimes, they end up leaving high school without a diploma,” she said. “They’re hard to employ anywhere, so they’re often on the street, trying to make a living through the underground economy. And that just opens us up to lots of risks.”

    Monica Roberts, a Houston-area transgender rights advocate, called Williams’ murder a reminder of the work that needs to be done when it comes to gender equality.”

    And:

    “She said many deaths involve “excessive levels of violence” that should be classified as hate crimes. Roberts pointed to fatal domestic violence cases like the one involving 33-year-old Yazmin Payne, a transgender woman who was stabbed to death by her boyfriend in the Los Angeles apartment they shared in 2015. Ezekiel Jamal Dear was found guilty of stabbing her multiple times and setting the apartment on fire.

    He was acquitted of the more serious charge of murder and found guilty of one count each of voluntary manslaughter and unlawfully causing a fire. He was sentenced to 12 years in state prison in October 2017, angering transgender rights advocates who had called for much harsher penalties. According to the California Department of Corrections website, he is eligible for parole in March 2025.”

    And:

    “”I think it’s worse for trans people and, to some degree, LGBT people, because when we’re young, we’re often told that we’ll be alone the rest of our lives,” Loree Cook-Daniels said. “So there’s a there’s a sense of ‘I gotta find somebody because it’s going to be really hard. And then once I’ve found somebody, I better hold on to them.’ So, even if the relationship turns violent, people may stay in the relationship because they’d rather be with a violent partner then no partner at all.”

    She said the death of Williams, and so many other slain trans women, is further proof that America needs to do more to show that transgender lives matter.

    Roberts echoed her sentiment.

    “We have the REPUBLICAN PARTY demonizing the trans community along with the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and CONSERVATIVE PASTORS,” Roberts said. “When you throw that negativity out in the atmosphere and demonize a group, it’s not long before people absorb it and start aiming violence at those groups.”

    So please stop trying to mislead the people here. This is the TEXT from that report you linked to here (https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-womans-murder-underscores-problem-partner-violence-plaguing/story?id=65203137)

    And your own typing in effect reinforced the message here. Your writing is nothing but attacks on others while providing no constructive solutions to the problems, like so many others that I have had to correct because if I didn’t the misinformation would be accepted by the readers from your “circle of authority of anonymous posters”

    You recently said you were in a constructive conversation, BUT you did not actually suggest any solutions. IS THAT A CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION?

    In the end the last paragraph from the ABCNews report “Transgender woman’s murder underscores problem of partner violence plaguing community, advocates say Many transgender people killed this year were targeted by their partners. ByKarma Allen September 13, 2019, 1:15 AM describes you to a T regarding this topic even though you are trying to say you didn’t say it:

    “”We have the REPUBLICAN PARTY demonizing the trans community along with the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and CONSERVATIVE PASTORS,” Roberts said. “When you THROW THAT NEGATIVITY OUT IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND DEMONIZE A GROUP, it’s not long BEFORE PEOPLE ABSORB IT AND START AIMING VIOLENCE AT THOSE GROUPS.”

    What we have here is people trying to on one hand clearly promote hostility to anyone they want, and on the other hand try to claim they are RIGHTEOUS and want the AUTHORITY to dictate how everyone must live for THEIR OWN BENEFIT.

  8. HB you wrote:

    “Paul, looks like some people take your hateful speech to heart.

    Chicago today,

    The report actually says this:

    “Two Chicago Police officers were shot on the West Side and were hospitalized on Sunday morning, officials said.

    The shooting happened at 7:30 a.m. local time on the 1500 block of South Lawndale Avenue, according to the Chicago Police Department. One of the officers is in critical but stable condition, and the other officer was shot in the hand and in good condition, said police spokesman Tom Ahern to CBS Chicago.

    The suspect who fired shots at the officers was struck by gunfire, Ahern told the Chicago Sun-Times. The person’s condition is unknown.

    Police spokesman David Brown said that the incident occurred when officers responded to an alert of shots being fired. When they arrived, they saw an armed individual in an alley who opened fire at the officers, who were in uniform, according to CBS Chicago.

    The suspect’s gun was found at the scene of the crime, Ahern said.

    Brown said that the two officers had been on the police force for three or four years.

    Police said that so far in 2021, 29 Chicago Police Department officers have been shot, and in the past 15 months, 108 officers have been shot. Six officers died due to shootings in 2021.

    In the past two months alone, according to the Sun-Times, six officers have been shot in the city. On March 25, an alleged shoplifter fired on a security guard at a Home Depot before shooting a Chicago officer in the shoulder. The suspect later died in a shootout with police.

    Five days before that, an officer was shot in her hand during a SWAT standoff in the Austin area by a man who was believed to have been trying to lure police there, the paper reported.

    Over the past weekend from Friday night to Sunday morning, 29 people were shot and five were killed across Chicago, officials told ABC7. That included an incident at a large party being held on the city’s South Side that left two people dead and several others wounded.

    A website that compiles shootings and murders in Chicago shows that in 2021, there have been 227 total homicides and more than 1,200 people have been shot.”

    This report does not state whether any of the shootings were for “political reasons” again you are trying to misinform the readers here by making a conclusion with on evidence to back it up.

    The report was written in the Epoch Times. A news source notorious for spreading “RIGHT WING” conspiracy news. Also trying to ride the so called “RED SCARE” mentality. In fact there is a great report to read about it from the NY Times titled “Epoch Media Casts Wider Net to Spread Its Message Online” and the other one titled “ How The Epoch Times Created a Giant Influence Machine”.

    It CLAIMS to be an independent news organization, but it in reality is a publisher of A LOT OF MISINFORMATION. It claims to have this:

    “The Epoch Times has received numerous awards for our reporting and design, including from the New York Press Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Society for News Design.”

    However, I have not been able to find The New Your Press Association awards online. The 2020 awards did not include them. Also looking at the awards from the Society of Professional Journalists, I did not see any award issued since 2000. In fact, that award is for STUDENT Journalists, and NOT PROFESSIONAL. As far as the Society for News Design, I could not find any record of an award there either, again it appears to be a STUDENT Journalist group and not a PROFESSIONAL one.

    This “INDEPENDENT NEWS” resource fails to support your claim, and also really doesn’t have the credentials it claims. HB your Modi Operendi is to make outrageous statement, provide a “link” to the claims you make, and then when caught not being accurate, you go on a warpath to say it is the so called “LEFT” wingers that are causing your mistakes. “Take your Meds” and stop doing nothing but trying to start fights.

  9. “Efforts to Weed Out Extremists Among Police Meet Resistance”

    You guys totally confused me now. Weed is good for everyone now isn’t it???

    I smell it everywhere I go now……..

  10. Joe,

    Nice joke, but we are talking about people that carry guns and have “STATE” sanctioned powers to detain, and when investigting a crime are allowed to “LIE” their mouth off to trick a suspect to confessing some error that can be used against them later on. Remember the Miranda requirements:

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.”

    Thus most attornies just say this “NO MATTER WHAT DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHEN IN THE CUSTODY OR VISITING A POLICE STATION OTHER THAN YOU ASKING YOUR OWN QUESTIONS.”

    And since qualified immunity is in the process of being systemically removed, and any evidence of prior motives can and will be used in a civil trial, the idea of getting ahead of this situation is almost common sense.

  11. “The example you described “affirmative action” is a LEGALLY ALLOWED CONDUCT.” — Steven Goldstein

    And with that brainless opening, Steven Goldstein launched his retort to my comment, not because he had anything useful to add but because he is compelled to retort, just as the ruminant is compelled to flatulate. Undeterred by the fact that the actions I referenced in my comment were all legally allowed (i.e. Constitutionally protected), he treated them as if they were not and contrasted them with a practice, affirmative action in government, that he doesn’t realize is illegal in this very state. Two monumental blunders in a sentence of only eleven words. Can he best that? If anyone wants to start a betting pool, my money’s on nine.

    To be fair regarding his first blunder, Mr. Goldstein might assume affirmative action is alive and well in California government based on the mush-mouth performances of numerous police officials as they publicly demonstrate their double-digit I.Q’s. This is because, despite the law on the books and the directive of voters, government officials continue to use affirmative action as if it were a mandate from on high. This is how San Francisco PD, for example, came to be led by the dunce who authorized the forced entry and unlawful search of a journalist’s home (which cost taxpayers $369K).

  12. This discussion is important and happening on several levels. You want to prevent bad police officers from ever joining the force and many departments do facilitate extensive background checks. There is a legitimate concern about the definitions being used and the application for other groups who are not majority white. The vast majority of police are good and the bad ones come in all shapes, sizes, race. The constant attention on one particular group is going to cause some legal issues when talking about police reform or reform in general. For example Steven Miler runs a new legal organization, America Legal First, funded by Trump and his group. They are already suing the federal government for programs like the one that supports Black farmers that are economically disadvantaged, but they are trying to make the case that anyone poor, regardless of color is economically disadvantaged and they have an equal right to that assistance. I’m not a fan of Trump by any stretch but it is hard to deny that the focus on one particular group is going to cause a lot of legal issues. Similar to a bill going through Washington DC that is focused on “white supremacy” in police but does not acknowledge that other groups can also have radical, potentially dangerous (and similar) objectives. It has never worked to single out one group and sadly there is a lot of unfounded demonizing of police officers and white people. Blaming people today for things they have no ties to yet telling them they are “so racist they just do not know it.” That is the ultimate gaslighting and going to result in people justifying violence against a group of people they think are essentially terrorists, simply because of their skin color. It’s undeniable at this point and sort of confusing and sad.

    So the AG may be “afraid” but feelings aren’t what creates laws and policies. I hope everyone agrees on this effort but moves from blaming one group for all of the issues or we are not going to solve anything.

  13. “You want to prevent bad police officers from ever joining the force and many departments do facilitate extensive background checks.” — Opinion

    For more than 70 years the group leading the call for, and most responsible for improvements in, hiring has been law enforcement itself, primarily the unions and associations of the officers themselves (often having to resort to lawsuits). The responsibility to improve their ranks fell to them due to the corrupt tendencies of city leaders who worked tirelessly to defeat a Civil Service System that deprived them of goodies with which to trade.

    Today’s background investigations, not checks, are thorough and, though costly, ultimately cost-effective (an ancillary effect of hiring good people is the reduction of liability). Nevertheless, the hiring process is still routinely contravened by city leaders, including police chiefs, eager to trade jobs and promotions for favor with minority groups (who have duped the public into believing they seek fairness).

    It would be a cold day in hell before Joe Biden passed a police background check, same for Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Donald Trump, or any of the other narcissistic, pathological liars that dominate the political landscape. This is really nothing new, however, with the complete collapse of honest, objective journalism in America politicians of one stripe (guess which) go unrestrained and the calamities they engineer arrive without the public having been forewarned of the idiocy at the helm. In Joe Biden, the alleged majority, aided and abetted by the news media, has put a confused old man, squinting behind his blue blockers, at the wheel of a speeding big rig and endangered the lives and property of every American.

  14. PHU TAN ELLI,

    No matter what you whine and complain about, being a PEACE OFFICER is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. And any conduct happening while a person is a PEACE OFFICER that can indicate any question regarding integrity of the OFFICERS CONDUCT does IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THEIR WORK AND THEIR AGENCY. With the right DEFENSE ATTORNEY doing their homework, would in effect DESTROY the validity of any testimony by said officer. I would strongly state, for any criminal defense attorney with the resources, to subpoena any PEACE OFFICERS online conduct, even uncover any attempts to post anonymously, so that the JURY can see whether there is not a bias in the officers conduct. THIS IS WHY THIS PRACTICE MUST BE DONE. In effect as I said a PEACE OFFICER has the RIGHT to expresses themselves AS LONG AS IT HAS NO NEGETIVE IMPACT ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE WROK BY HIMSELF PERSONALLY OR THE COLLEGUES HE WORKS WITH.

    Opinion,

    You argue that a “BACKGROUND” check prior to hiring a PEACE OFFICER should be sufficient enough to prevent the degradation of the integrity of a LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. That is in fact proven to be wrong, the facts are PEACE OFFICERS undergo quite careful BACKGROUND CHECKS, but VERY bad people get through, does Chauvin maybe be a good example?

    I was involved with a VERY trivial problem with a PEACE OFFICER just trying to abuse me for having what was actually LEGAL decorations on my car. Eventually I got the County Court of Appeals to determine he wrote the citation with no evidence to support it. And that officer wound up having to resign, and he was a Lieutenant who boasted he was a perfect example of a PEACE OFFICER.

    I gathered once the Court of Appeals made that judgement, the LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY he worked for was FORCED to review his conduct and discovered A LOT MORE problems. What happens is that it takes just one defendant to make the right case and you can have the PEACE OFFICERS work and the LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY wind up in a really ugly position. When there are no continual requirements regarding either CONDUCT ON DUTY, or OFF DUTY. But in theory a PEACE OFFICER is NEVER OFF DUTY.

  15. “You argue that a “BACKGROUND” check prior to hiring a PEACE OFFICER should be sufficient enough to prevent the degradation of the integrity of a LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.” Steven Goldstein

    Confronted with evidence that you shared two stupidities in one short sentence, you come back with an avalanche of crapola and attribute the above point to me. The trouble is, Fruitcake, I said no such thing. You made it up so as to have something to argue against while you dodged the glaring errors I exposed in your earlier post.

    You have no credibility and offer visitors nothing other than a chance to see derangement writ large. Have a nice day.

  16. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Confronted with evidence that you shared two stupidities in one short sentence, you come back with an avalanche of crapola and attribute the above point to me. The trouble is, Fruitcake, I said no such thing. You made it up so as to have something to argue against while you dodged the glaring errors I exposed in your earlier post.”

    I simply didn’t feel necessary to repeat the lack of any constructive information you wrote above. When you and your friends simply say don’t listen to “that guy” because he’s in in your words a “fruitcake” or any other insult to claim you are superior, with NO EVIDENCE to support it, that makes your statements in effect pointless. And anyone with “half a brain” knows it. The reality is that you try to avoid the reality, I will have to repeat it again:

    “No matter what you whine and complain about, being a PEACE OFFICER is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. And any conduct happening while a person is a PEACE OFFICER that can indicate any question regarding integrity of the OFFICERS CONDUCT does IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THEIR WORK AND THEIR AGENCY. With the right DEFENSE ATTORNEY doing their homework, would in effect DESTROY the validity of any testimony by said officer. I would strongly state, for any criminal defense attorney with the resources, to subpoena any PEACE OFFICERS online conduct, even uncover any attempts to post anonymously, so that the JURY can see whether there is not a bias in the officers conduct. THIS IS WHY THIS PRACTICE MUST BE DONE. In effect as I said a PEACE OFFICER has the RIGHT to expresses themselves AS LONG AS IT HAS NO NEGETIVE IMPACT ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE WROK BY HIMSELF PERSONALLY OR THE COLLEGUES HE WORKS WITH.”

    Please provide any proof that actually proves this information is false? You can look at the California PENAL CODE – PEN; PART 2. OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE [681 – 1620] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. ); TITLE 3. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING CRIMINAL PROCEDURE [777 – 883] ( Heading of Title 3 amended by Stats. 1951, Ch. 1674. ); CHAPTER 4.5. Peace Officers [830 – 832.19] ( Chapter 4.5 added by Stats. 1968, Ch. 1222. ).

    You went on to write:

    “You have no credibility and offer visitors nothing other than a chance to see derangement writ large. Have a nice day.”

    When one claims that others are “deranged” and have no credibility, it is the BURDEN OF PROOF on those making that call to PROVE IT. Otherwise, it is just another Whining and Complaining.

  17. Steven: You are such a fraud. Just above, in this group of postings, you used the term, “Take your Meds,” addressed to me. So how is that pejorative term different that using the word “deranged?” Either way you are implying/insinuating the other person is mentally ill, right? So climb off your rocking high-horse. I note that you have not even called for a post to be removed that calls for the killing of people and yet you whine about hurt feelings.

    For me, I would much prefer a civil discussion.

  18. HB you wrote:

    “Steven: You are such a fraud. Just above, in this group of postings, you used the term, “Take your Meds,” addressed to me. So how is that pejorative term different that using the word “deranged?””

    Given the way you in one story try to claim you are understanding to a victim of a violent crime, but just prior categorized them as “PROSTITUTES” and tried to in effect justify their higher risk of violence give me proper cause to demonstrate a problem with the perception of reality. So you are in no position to claim I was not justified in making an observation BASED ON YOUR BNEHAVIOR. That does not prove I am a fraud, but rather the opposite. You wrote:

    “Either way you are implying/insinuating the other person is mentally ill, right? So climb off your rocking high-horse. I note that you have not even called for a post to be removed that calls for the killing of people and yet you whine about hurt feelings.”

    As I directly addressed that posting and I quote:

    “PAUL BEREVOESCU May 16, 2021 @ 2:04 pm

    We need to kill every cop on earth before they kill all of us first

    MY RESPONSE:

    “Paul,

    I am simply going to say EXTREMISM on both sides is not EVER going to resolve problems. This kind of language is not doing anyone any good. Maybe you just want to instigate more problems?

    The fact that over 40 years, the U.S. has been on a path to potential self destruction regarding the so called “Left” and “Right” starting in the 1980s. If we continue this trajectory, this country will pull itself apart.”

    I clearly said I am not supporting nor either in any way agreeing with this posting at all. AND YOU KNOW IT. So you are trying to distract from the topic and again I will reiterate:

    “PEACE OFFICERS HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT REFLECT IN ANY WAY A DEGRADATION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR PROFESSION. No one has the RIGHT to be a PEACE OFFICER. It is a PRIVILEGE and you must CONDUCT yourself accordingly to maintain that PRIVILEGE. If you want to express views that raises questions on your practice as a PEACE OFFICER, you have that RIGHT, but you DO NOTY have the RIGHT to do so and at the same time be a PEACE OFFICER. You wrote:

    “For me, I would much prefer a civil discussion.”

    Who said I was not participating in one? Are you trying to imply that I am trying to justify violence, like you did already in the previous postings in other articles? And constantly trying to invoke more hostility by targeting me? Boy you really have an interesting way of perceiving the world. What I would not be surprised is that this “FAKE “ person was in fact PLANTED in the discussion to give justification for people like yourself to attack people like me. WAIT I forget, I AM A REAL PERSON, and you and the rest are NOT.

  19. After falsely accusing me of making a claim I did not make (see above @3:15) you now ignore my protest of that and move on to new business, which is your lunatic rantings about conduct, integrity, and irreversible damage. It seems that among the many delusions from which you suffer, included is the delusion that the existence of a question about an officer’s off-duty conduct constitutes proof of unfitness, or to use a lower case version of your words, “irreversible damage to their work and their agency.” This is, of course, absurd. A vengeful citizen, cop-hating journalist, or even a deranged person like yourself might lodge a complaint about any number of things that are neither the business of the employer nor the complainant’s — even if the complaint gets printed, posted online, or goes viral. A good example occurred here in San Jose, when the posts of a number of current and retired officers upset a bunch of activist wimps, made headlines, and prompted the scoundrel running the DA’s office to launch an investigation. Much ado followed, but in the end nothing was done because the accused had done nothing other than to enjoy their free speech rights (not privileges). The fact that their behavior had the potential to upset a juror, coworker, or other psychologically-fragile person made no matter, nor should it, because free speech, as granted by the Founders, doesn’t make exceptions for offending others.

    The line that needs to be drawn between a police officer’s job and his/her rights to free speech must meet a standard set by tradition, not political expediency. For example, the standard for an officer who posts about his hatred for white people should be: is it reasonable to expect a person voicing such an opinion can objectively police the public? The answer is clearly no, but that would not be the case were the officer guilty of only attending a church ministered by a loud-mouthed racist (as was the case with then congressman Obama), no matter the outrage caused. Absent evidence of criminal behavior or violent intent, an officer’s relationship with his church is, as his relationship with his political party, social club, and personal friends, his business — not that of his agency, the community, or even Steven Goldstein.

  20. Goldstein:

    Your tireless pursuit of justice forced a Police Lieutenant to resign because of his misguided and, presumably, illegal interaction with you.

    Would you be so kind as to provide the name and agency of your tormentor?

  21. WILLIAM ASHBLESS you wrote:

    “Goldstein:

    Your tireless pursuit of justice forced a Police Lieutenant to resign because of his misguided and, presumably, illegal interaction with you.

    Would you be so kind as to provide the name and agency of your tormentor?”

    The Case was : RE: People Vs Steven Goldstein Case Nbr: 1-09-AP-000667 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION Trial Ct. No. 7-08-TR-172786 No. 1-09-AP-000667 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN GOLDSTEIN, Defendant and Appellant.

    ORDER

    This appeal came on regularly for hearing and was heard and submitted on August 14, 2009.

    Appellant Steven Goldstein (Appellant) appeals his traffic conviction for using blue headlights exceeding the legal limit for brightness in violation of Vehicle Code section 25950. Appellant argues that his conviction should be reversed because (1) the blue lights on his car did not exceed the legal limit for brightness; (2) Vehicle Code section 25950 is unconstitutionally vague; (3) Appellant’s lights are LED’s which do not qualify as lamps or reflectors under the statute; (4,) the commissioner had no standing to adjudicate this traffic case; (5) the case was continued without justification; and (6) there were inconsistencies in the documentation that the officer provided to the court.

    The settled statement indicates that Lt. McCloskey, the citing officer, testified that he was on patrol on November 3, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. when he observed a vehicle approach with bright blue lights facing forward on the vehicle. Lt. McCloskey further testified that he made an enforcement stop and found after market bright blue light emitting diodes attached to the washing nozzles of Appellant’s vehicle. Lt. McCloskey issued the Appellant a citation for a violation of California Vehicle Code section 25950, subdivision (a). Appellant’s argument that there is not substantial evidence that Appellant’s lights were bright enough to violate the statute is well taken. Vehicle Code section 25950, subdivision (a) applies to the color of lamps exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination. This section further provides that all emitted light from lamps visible from the front of the vehicle shall be white or yellow unless provided otherwise. Vehicle Code section 25400, subdivision (a) provides that any vehicle may be equipped with a lamp or device on the exterior of the vehicle that emits a diffused non-glaring light of not more than 0.05 candela per square inch of area. Vehicle Code section 25400, subdivision (b) provides that any diffused non-glaring light shall not display red to the front but may display other colors.

    Here, the settled statement does not indicate that Lt. McCloskey ever testified that Appellant’s lights were bright enough to satisfy the threshold of the 0.05 per candela requirement set forth in Vehicle Code section 25950, subdivision (a). Therefore, there is not substantial evidence to support Appellant’s conviction.

    For this reason, the judgment is REVERSED.

    What as amazing is that I presented the SAME facts to the Traffic Commissioner, which ignored my evidence I presented. I presented PROOF that the light emitted from the decorations was in fact BELOW the legal limit. This was an officer of the Sunnyvale Police Department. It took more than 6 months and countless time preparing the case. Here is the relevant Transcript of the Court Hearing:

    “Basically — for example, I have been able to determine that in order to be against the California Vehicle Code, the light has to be beyond half the intensity of a full moon. My lights through my own experimentation — which I have actually acquired a light meter that has been scientifically certified by a national —

    THE COURT: If I may interrupt you.

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure.

    THE COURT: You seemed to be in an area where you are basically presenting additional evidence which isn’t appropriate in this hearing.

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay.

    THE COURT: However, I don’t mean to cut you off, but I did have a question for the People, if I may. Could you point to what testimony or evidence by Lieutenant McCluskey that supports the conviction of the Vehicle Code section 25400?

    MS. AIZPURU-SUTTON: Your Honor, the brief is written by my predecessor. I believe he cites only to the officer saying the light was bright. That’s the extent of my answer, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: And would you agree or disagree that that appears to be insufficient in light of the language of the statute?

    MS. AIZPURU-SUTTON: I would just say, Your Honor, that brightness — brightness was the word that was used, and that doesn’t seem to be the language of the statute and that’s probably as far as I’ll go.

    THE COURT: Thank you very much. And I apologize for interrupting. Do you have additional comments?

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, my additional comments is I draw relevant equivalence regarding the possible standard of the — regarding the infringement of law because of the fact that, given the fact that there’s no measuring tool being used — after all, the relationship to speeding and DUI, they all have basically very, very specific measurements regarding how it’s being determined if it’s a violation or not. For example, if you are driving beyond a cited speed limit or beyond the safe speed of the current road condition, that’s pretty easily determinable. Also, the same thing regarding DUI. They have a very specific method of dealing with it. You have a Breathalyzer and you have a blood administering test regarding the level of alcohol in the blood. However, again, what I’m seeing is that officers have no measurable or objective process to determine when a light becomes beyond the threshold of intensity under which the law states which is 0.05 candela.

    THE COURT: At least in your situation.

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, in my situation, I asked the officer in the original hearing what evidence does he have to support that my lights were beyond that point. And the commissioner in his wisdom decided to shut it down. He simply said the officer – the objection is overruled and the officer will not answer the question. I point out the fact that under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, you have the right to confront and cross-examine a party that’s involved with a situation regarding criminal law. Even though it’s a Motor Vehicle Code, it is in fact still a criminal offense. And, in fact, the burden is on the State to prove its allegations. And in this case, I would basically clearly point out there is none.

    THE COURT: Do you have any further arguments in addition to everything that’s been submitted?

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: Well, I also want to state that because of the employment of the law, the way it has been done has made it so vague regarding its actual employment, that you run into the issue regarding it being unconstitutional because of the fact that it is too vague to be enforceable. Because the processes which are being done right now, because of the fact police officers do not use proper investigations regarding the particular moving violation, or Vehicle Code violations, they have in fact made the law overbroad by saying that any blue light, no matter what the intensity is, is illegal. In fact, under the California Code, it says as long as I don’t reach that threshold, I can have a color of any kind.

    THE COURT: That doesn’t sound like it’s vague. It sounds like it’s pretty specific. And you are suggesting in this — in your particular case, that there wasn’t evidence to support a conviction for that statute. But I don’t see how you can discuss what other officers may or may not –

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: I can because I’ve been pulled over eight times.

    THE COURT: That’s not before us today. We’re talking about your situation and possibly other officers, but to group the entire law enforcement together is –

    MR. GOLDSTEIN: And you are right. It is probably an overgeneralization and I will withdraw that.

    THE COURT: All right.

    I learned after that MR. McCloskey stopped working for the Sunnyvale Police Department and in fact became a Security Officer for Pixar after the case.

  22. What, no more comments?

    Perhaps because so many kept saying “don’t listen to Steve, he dpoesn’t know what he is talking about?”

    Then I provide PROOF, and if McCloskey goes after me for his reputation, I will just say William Ashbless asked about the case, and since it is public record, there is no “privacy” involved.

    I will referr to this posting EVERY time one tries to just complain and whine about me. Time for you critics to either prove your point or conceed.

  23. An idea just dawned on me.

    Given that George McCloskey has had the following work hstory after his departure from the Sunnyvale Police Department:

    Vice President Safety, Security and Business Resilience @ Impossible Foods

    Head of Corporate Security @ Stripe

    Director of Global Security and Trust and Safety @ Square

    Director of Corporate Safety and Security @ Pixar Animation Studios

    That all these positions involve SECURITY, if it turns out ANY of the work contracts he was hired under contained any language that witholding any knowledge of any conduct that disqualified him from working say at the Sunnyvale Police Department was NOT disclosed, would be gorunds for termination and even wrongful compensation liability?

    Given I work indirectly in the SAME field, as an IT Security Professional, I know that my work contracts do include such language. This kind of provision is typically contained in this field BECAUSE if the PRIVATE security officer has to testify in court, they will be subject to CROSS EXAMINIATION by any party they seek to confront in courts ATTORNEY. It makes me wonder if I should contact these groups to notify them of his history?

    Maybe William, you might have kicked over the hornets nest on this one?

  24. And finally, here is the SCIENTIFIC proof that McCloskey DID NOT HAVE to prove the allegation he made I was in violation of the CVC was without any evidence. For a side point, I worked with my Father who was an expert in spectrophotmetry, so I was made by experience aware that ones eyes can decieve you, especially with regards to color and intensity. But of course this mand had no experience in this and just ASSUMED my decorations violated the law.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/13jKrtR5PW6mIOLu8j0bp2epuUmSdZ-jM/view?usp=sharing

    So heree is more proof of my claims.

  25. “When one claims that others are “deranged” and have no credibility, it is the BURDEN OF PROOF on those making that call to PROVE IT.” — Steven Goldstein

    Although there are numerous other SJI pages offering supporting evidence, I will use just this one to make my case, using Mr. Goldstein’s own words and tactics, that he lacks credibility and is deranged.

    — May 16, 2021 @ 2:03 pm, in response to my describing the lawful, off-duty conduct of officers in a comment in which I also assailed affirmative action, Mr. Goldstein responded thusly: “The example you described “affirmative action” is a LEGALLY ALLOWED CONDUCT.” For reasons known only to him (and perhaps his team of therapists) Mr. Goldstein FALSELY implied the lawful conduct I’d described was in fact unlawful, and that I was wrong to complain about affirmative action because it is lawful (despite it being unlawful in his home state).

    — May 17, 2021 @ 12:11 pm, Mr. Goldstein, addressing me, FALSELY alleged: “You argue that a “BACKGROUND” check prior to hiring a PEACE OFFICER should be sufficient enough to prevent the degradation of the integrity of a LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.” This, again for reasons unknown, he invented from whole cloth. Asked to explain this falsity brought no response.

    — May 17, 2021 @ 4:16 pm, Mr. Goldstein wrote, and I quote: “And any conduct happening while a person is a PEACE OFFICER that can indicate any question regarding integrity of the OFFICERS CONDUCT does IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THEIR WORK AND THEIR AGENCY.” The notion that any conduct that comes into question will lead to irreversible damage, etc. is irrational and, when observed in adults, alarming. In Mr. Goldstein’s world, his challenge of an officer’s perception and interpretation of a technical, equipment-related violation of the vehicle code is grounds not only for the man’s termination (which I’m sure is a figment of his immature imagination) but sufficient reason to follow him around in his career and consider bringing him ruin.

    Mr. Goldstein, you have, like you apparently did in the Great Blue Light Caper, made a compelling case, this time against yourself. You have, with your very own words, established that you indeed lack credibility and are very much deranged. May the psych-meds be with you.

  26. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “— May 16, 2021 @ 2:03 pm, in response to my describing the lawful, off-duty conduct of officers in a comment in which I also assailed affirmative action, Mr. Goldstein responded thusly: “The example you described “affirmative action” is a LEGALLY ALLOWED CONDUCT.” For reasons known only to him (and perhaps his team of therapists) Mr. Goldstein FALSELY implied the lawful conduct I’d described was in fact unlawful, and that I was wrong to complain about affirmative action because it is lawful (despite it being unlawful in his home state).”

    Actually from what I understand if you read from the story titled “California voters failed to repeal ban on affirmative action. What signal does that send the rest of the nation?” you will understand it does make problems for the state, primarily that FEDERAL SUBSIDIES are lost to the state regarding education and federal contracts. You won the battle regarding affirmative action but lost out on so much federal resources. You really think that most of CA even remembers that the Harvard University case is likely to force the state to reimpose Affirmative Action? No matter what you try to claim, that situation has backfired on the state of CA because of loss of federal contracting. As an HR graduate, I instructed a MASTERS DEGREE course on Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and without Affirmative Action compliance, FEDERAL CONTRACTORS cannot even apply for Federal contracts unless they in fact BREAK the STATE LAW. You wrote:

    “— May 17, 2021 @ 12:11 pm, Mr. Goldstein, addressing me, FALSELY alleged: “You argue that a “BACKGROUND” check prior to hiring a PEACE OFFICER should be sufficient enough to prevent the degradation of the integrity of a LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.” This, again for reasons unknown, he invented from whole cloth. Asked to explain this falsity brought no response.”

    Actually I paraphrased youe comment here:

    “Today’s background investigations, not checks, are thorough and, though costly, ultimately cost-effective (an ancillary effect of hiring good people is the reduction of liability).” My rewording was sound under the circumstances. You wrote:

    “— May 17, 2021 @ 4:16 pm, Mr. Goldstein wrote, and I quote: “And any conduct happening while a person is a PEACE OFFICER that can indicate any question regarding integrity of the OFFICERS CONDUCT does IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THEIR WORK AND THEIR AGENCY.” The notion that any conduct that comes into question will lead to irreversible damage, etc. is irrational and, when observed in adults, alarming. In Mr. Goldstein’s world, his challenge of an officer’s perception and interpretation of a technical, equipment-related violation of the vehicle code is grounds not only for the man’s termination (which I’m sure is a figment of his immature imagination) but sufficient reason to follow him around in his career and consider bringing him ruin.”

    But what it did do is make it impossible for the officer to testify in any future court because any good sound defense attorney would use my case to prove that the officer makes allegations, and files false citations without evidence, and it was PROVEN in court. In effect Sunnyvale could not AFFORD to use him if he could not EVER testify in court without confronting an irreversible fraud, which was writing a citation without evidence. If anything you try to make ME be the one guilty of another’s misdeed here over and over again. You wrote:

    “Mr. Goldstein, you have, like you apparently did in the Great Blue Light Caper, made a compelling case, this time against yourself. You have, with your very own words, established that you indeed lack credibility and are very much deranged. May the psych-meds be with you.”

    Wait? The Appeals Court rules in MY favor, eliminates ALL DOUBT THAT AN OFFICER FALSIFIED A VEHICLE CODE VIOLATION out of thin air, and you say I AM THE ONE THAT DID SOMETHING WRONG? And you say I HAVE A CREDIBILITY PROBLEM? This is the best example of transference I have ever witnessed. The decision was made by 3 court judges UNANIMOUSLY. The reality is I PROVED that the officer was just ABUSING his power to criticize my car for a legal decoration. You don’t even read what you are presented because it destroys your PREFERRED perception of reality.

  27. PAUL BEREVOESCU you wrote:

    “SJPD tried to assassinate me and frame me for burglary outside my $3000/month downtown apartment; they lied about every single detail including my race and residence and occupation; i want them dead for that, and my family has the ISRAELI and SOVIET military training to make that a reality”

    Paul, you are being BAITED into do things that will get you in MORE trouble. Anyone suggesting you write what you are doing is a fool. You’re going to wind up being targeted for even more abuse with a PRETEXT excuse because of what you wrote here. As I demonstrated, you have to be VERY careful regarding your actions, because when it comes down to it, if you do the right thing the right way, you can get at least some good results.

    But I have paid a price, the Courts in Santa Clara have me on a list for being such a true “whistleblower” where the lower courts Judges are so angry about me proving one of “their team” screwed up. I have found great resistance for any issue coming before the courts.

    I can only imagine the lost investment for the City of Sunnyvale paying for the training and salary of the officer. The cost of the County District Attorney that tried unsuccessfully to prevent the Appeals Court decision. It was SUBSTANTIAL and a major waste of money. And the potential or actual costs of appeals when the people prosecuted when investigated by the officer started. If the defense attorney appeals the original case based on suspect testimony or evidence by the officer, it was almost guaranteed to be properly considered, and even perhaps new trials were ordered.

    Remember once an officer gets the determination of being untrustworthy, EVERYTHING they touch becomes POISONED.

    I would strongly urge you to work the right path, in this case perhaps contacting the Innocence Project or the Federal Dept of Justice to see about getting the right advice to move forward. You sound like you are able to make some positive action here, but writing what you are here is NOT helping you

    Opinion,

    I wish I didn’t have to AIR THE DIRTY LAUNDRY, but it was requested, I still am trying to stay on topic. WHICH IS: That the integrity of law enforcement is in jeopardy as long as the kind of people who work in it are able to have demonstrated bias against anyone, and social media is a great “SUNSHINE” to provide it.

  28. Sorry, Mr. Goldstein, but your smoke and mirrors attempt to make yourself appear rational failed miserably.

    — You cannot escape an incorrect, declarative statement about the legality of affirmative action, or anything for that matter, by changing the subject to its detrimental ramifications, real or imagined. For example, were to you to declare that shoplifting is legal you could not credibly rehabilitate your error by criticizing the law for denying penniless, hungry people the right to steal food.

    — You cannot define as paraphrasing taking a description of a sound process and misrepresenting it as a declarative statement about a desired result. For example, were I to cite the dutiful efforts of the FDA to ensure the quality of our food you could not paraphrase it and attack me as having claimed that those efforts guarantee the absolute safety of all food.

    — You cannot justify a lunatic statement, such as the one you made equating a citizen’s complaint with the absolute ruination of an officer’s career, by any explanation beginning with the word “but.” For example, were you to erroneously claim that your aluminum foil hat makes you invincible you could not justify it by saying, “but” it could prevent me from sun exposure.

    As usual, the more you rant the more you reveal, and what you did by sharing that mountain-out-of-a-molehill version of your vehicle code infraction case was to reveal yourself as so unsound as to be unqualified to interpret or understand human affairs. Your conviction that an officer writing a citation based on his good faith interpretation of a convoluted law was somehow committing fraud is pure lunacy. The fact is, that by proving the officer technically wrong, or at least proving yourself an intolerable nuisance to the appellate court, what you did was to use the system — from the enforcement arm to the judicial — as designed. That doing so required you to purchase measuring devices (unavailable to the officer) and challenge outdated code terminology should have relieved you of any questions about the officer’s credibility, but it didn’t, because you’re nuts.

    If normal people interpreted things as do you, every officer, investigator, and prosecutor involved in the People v. O.J. Simpson would have been branded as frauds and fired, for they too were “proved wrong” by a jury (perhaps the dumbest in California history). Not only that, but O.J. would be beating his chest proclaiming his court-approved credibility, just like you.

    Maybe you two could be buds. I’ve no doubt you could use one.

  29. Phu Tan Elli

    You ramblings of an ANGRY WHITE POLICE OFFICER seems to be unending.

    I pointed out the complete failure of a peace officer, resulting in his loss of employment after the case, and there is no whining or complaining on your part that is going to reverse history.

    Of course you and your friends attempt to do that every day. You wrote:

    “As usual, the more you rant the more you reveal, and what you did by sharing that mountain-out-of-a-molehill version of your vehicle code infraction case was to reveal yourself as so unsound as to be unqualified to interpret or understand human affairs. Your conviction that an OFFICER WRITING A CITATION BASED ON HIS GOOD FAITH INTERPRETATION OF A CONVOLUTED LAW WAS SOMEHOW COMMITTING FRAUD IS PURE LUNACY. The fact is, that by proving the officer technically wrong, or at least proving yourself an intolerable nuisance to the appellate court, what you did was to use the system — from the enforcement arm to the judicial — as designed. That doing so required you to purchase measuring devices (unavailable to the officer) and challenge outdated code terminology should have relieved you of any questions about the officer’s credibility, but it didn’t, because you’re nuts.”

    Actually, I proved that in order to enforce the vehicle code, IN GOOD FAITH as you put it, would require EVIDENCE which did not exist. A PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEMNT OFFICER KNOWS THIS. No officer can charge a person for anything WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND. That is a wrongful arrest. The law was not CONVULETED in any way and the court even said so in its questioning and decision. This is the TEXT of the law:

    “VEHICLE CODE – VEH; DIVISION 12. EQUIPMENT OF VEHICLES [24000 – 28160] ( Division 12 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. ) ; CHAPTER 2. Lighting Equipment [24250 – 26106] ( Chapter 2 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. ) ; ARTICLE 15. Light Restrictions and Mounting [25950 – 25952] ( Article 15 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

    25950.

    This section applies to the color of lamps and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination. Unless provided otherwise, the color of lamps and reflectors upon a vehicle shall be as follows:”

    It clearly demonstrated it was a STRAIGHT FORWARD LAW, that anyone with “HALF A BRAIN” would have understood, let alone a LT McCloskey. You again are trying to TRANSFER the GUILT of the LAW ENGORCMENT OFFICERS MISCONDUCT onto the OFFENDED CITIZEN (ME).

    The comparison on OJ was invalid because there was at least “SOME EVIDENCE” that was acceptable and valid to present in court. MY CASE WAS THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THUS the consequences were justifiably severe in my case.

    Of course you will blame me for the fact that someone didn’t know how to read?

  30. “I pointed out the complete failure of a peace officer, resulting in his loss of employment after the case…” — Steven Goldstein

    If not an outright lie, this seems to be another of your delusions, as the officer in question receives a pension, an option not available to terminated employees.

    “perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination” — Steven Goldstein

    If it took only “half a brain” to determine that you were not in violation, that your childish decorative lights were legal, why did you have to buy an N.I.S.T. certified Sper Scientific 840022 light meter with resolution sensitivity of .001 foot-candle to prove it? Are you so insane that you expected the officer to perceive the candela level without equipment, or to know that three appellate judges would agree that your LED toys should not be included in the description of prohibited light sources?

    You should be proud of yourself for wasting taxpayer money so that you might have the right to pretend you’re a Jedi flying a skyfighter around town. By the way, if the police were so wrong about everything, and you were so right, why was your lawsuit dismissed? Absent additional information, a person relying on Goldstein logic would conclude the court thought your claim was a fraud.

  31. Phu Tan Elli you wrote:

    “If not an outright lie, this seems to be another of your delusions, as the officer in question receives a pension, an option not available to terminated employees.”

    HE RESIGNED SHORT OF BEING TERMINATED, THUS PROTECTING THE PENSION. You wrote:

    “perceptible light of 0.05 candela or more per foot-candle of incident illumination” — Steven Goldstein

    If it took only “half a brain” to determine that you were not in violation, that your childish decorative lights were legal, why did you have to buy an N.I.S.T. certified Sper Scientific 840022 light meter with resolution sensitivity of .001 foot-candle to prove it? Are you so insane that you expected the officer to perceive the candela level without equipment, or to know that three appellate judges would agree that your LED toys should not be included in the description of prohibited light sources?”

    You claimed that a police officer COULD NOT HAVE A LIGHT METER earlier, that is NOT CORRECT. What happened is that no POLICE DEPARTMENT bought them, which clearly was ONE method to prove that the lights were either too bright or not.

    But I also pointed out that they could have had a LED flashlights set of various colors calibrated to be at the “THRESHOLD” of the legal limit, and simply put the two of them together and compared them, and properly photograph the EVIDENCE that the lights were violating the threshold.

    You seem to think that is IMPOSSIBLE for the LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES to actually have the tools to properly write a citation. THEY ALWAYS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEM. IF I COULD BUY THEM THEY COULD. Again you just want to “MAKE ME” look like I did something wrong. And you know I didn’t and it w3as proven IN COURT. You wrote:

    “You should be proud of yourself for wasting taxpayer money so that you might have the right to pretend you’re a Jedi flying a skyfighter around town. By the way, if the police were so wrong about everything, and you were so right, why was your lawsuit dismissed? Absent additional information, a person relying on Goldstein logic would conclude the court thought your claim was a fraud.”

    My lawsuit was demurred and not dismissed, it looks like you are doing some homework now. Yes I did try to get the court to REIMBURSE me for the costs of my case. But by then I was not able to get the courts to listen about that. The facts are that I was stubborn enough to swallow the $1000 in court costs and other costs to appeal the decision,. The courts unfortunately have “qualified immunity” so that a police officer can in fact make a person lose money and time but not be accountable for it. And the Prosecutors have immunity as well.

    I learned that my major error was to not file in the Santa Clara County Court but the State Court, but by that time I was too busy to go any further. So you cannot “CLAIM” fraud, because my case was for REIMBURSEMENT and not alleging FRAUD in court.

    You just are so desperate to try to make me look like I am offending the law, when I never did, but the Court Decision Stands. They never “APPEALED” the court of appeals.

  32. “You just are so desperate to try to make me look like I am offending the law” — Steven Goldstein

    Predictably, your conclusion is off the mark. What you offend is the spirit of intelligent discourse.

  33. PHU TAN ELLI you wrote:

    “Predictably, your conclusion is off the mark. What you offend is the spirit of intelligent discourse.”

    WAIT, the SPIRIT of INTELLIGENT DISCORSE? There is NO SUCH THINGS AS SPIRITS.

    And as far as intelligent discourse goes, insulting others and trying to deceive them is not INTELLIGENT.

    You constantly try to change the subject, here it comes again:

    “Many of these groups being identified have openly supported ILLEGAL actions, including Jan 6 the Capitol. The facts are that being a “PEACE OFFICER” is a privilege and NOT a right. If you cannot conduct yourself in a manner that never questions you or the integrity of the law enforcement agencies you represent, you are lost. The APPEARANCE of Justice must be the only one that is acceptable, and any conduct the raises questions whether a person CANNOT equally and professionally act as a PEACE OFFICER is in effect DSIQUALIFED. You wrote:

    PEACE OFFICERS HAVE THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT REFLECT IN ANY WAY A DEGRADATION OF THE LAW RNFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR PROFESSION. No one has the RIGHT to be a PEACE OFFICER. It is a PRIVILEGE and you must CONDUCT yourself accordingly to maintain that PRIVILEGE. If you want to express views that raises questions on your practice as a PEACE OFFICER, you have that RIGHT, but you DO NOTY have the RIGHT to do so and at the same time be a PEACE OFFICER.

    You so far have proven only to whine and complain, that is NOT intelligent discourse.

    And what’s worse you insult others, and try to deceive the readers, get proof from others the prove you wrong, and provide absolutely nothing in return.

    THAT IS NOT INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *