Saturday, October 20, 2007


Guilty stamped and delivered by Alderman using the media.

“Not giving out the names is an indication that you are trying to protect people who have committed crimes,” Smith said. Officer's deemed automatically guilty by Smith.

“I personally just want to know how many of them, if any of them, are in my police district and patrolling the streets in my ward. . . .Without that, we’re left in a blind spot,” Moore said. Same here.

Munoz added, “This is about transparency and accountability. Ninety-eight percent of the police officers are good police officers. It’s that two percent [who] are getting caught abusing their authority that we need to root out. The only way to do that effectively is to have all this information out.” Comment of transparency coming from you is a big laugh. Officer's on the list must be the 2% your referring to, you already deemed them automatically guilty.

Preckwinkle said it’s no surprise that 28 aldermen are prepared to force Daley’s hand. Not after a string of what she called “spectacular and disturbing cases” of alleged police misconduct and barroom brawls involving off-duty officers that hastened the retirement of Police Superintendent Phil Cline.
“It’s on people’s radar screens to an extent that it never was before,” she said.
Media has already tainted and influenced this alderman, Officer's must be guilty.

FOP President Donahue argued that many of the complaints are “just allegations.” But, once the names are released, the public will assume the worst, he said.

“The way the media has been covering these issues, the assumption will be that they’re guilty before they get a chance to prove that they’re not. The presumption of innocence will not exist for these officers,” he said.

What Donahue stated is true "releasing the names would not only be “totally unfair” to officers falsely accused. It would be unsafe" and the Aldermen yelling for the names along with their comments to the media show this to be a fact.