While browsing the other day among various blogs, I came across a post at The Johnny Law Chronicles. On the sidebar, “Johnny Law” describes himself as,

“Cop and military vet. I've been doing this for awhile but I'm still loving every day of it (more or less).”

Evidently Johnny Law is a LEO somewhere and he posts about his various police experiences along with his opinions. That’s perfectly fine.

However, my writing here is not about Johnny Law. The main issue is in reference to “Nick” who commented on one of Johnny Law’s posts.

Nick’s comments were in response to a post wherein Johnny Law describes his recent discovery of Carlos Miller’s Photography is Not a Crime blog and his thoughts about the blog and a particular post. Nick commented on the post and referred, I believe, to me and my blog. Nick gleaned his thoughts evidently, because I have commented on occasion at Carlos Miller’s site, mostly involving police accountability and transparency issues and on some questionable police tactics.

The only thing I know about “Nick” is largely... nothing. He comments from behind the secret curtain of anonymity as do so many others. Nick alludes to being a law enforcement officer and he has what appears to be a Phoenix PD patch by his moniker; so maybe he is a Phoenix cop, and then again maybe not, it doesn’t matter all that much either way.

The portion of Nick’s comments in which he referred to me and this blog, and on which I would like to focus is this:

“…one guy who served a few years in Virginia, had some murky personnel issues and now runs a pretty blatantly anti-cop website of his own.”

So here is my response:

Nick, you, or anyone else who thinks Blue Must be True is “anti-cop,” should feel free to let me know which post in particular, if any, is “anti-cop” and precisely why you believe that to be so.

Here is one list of posts from which you can begin your search, and here is another.

Certainly you are also welcome to choose from any of the posts on Blue Must be True other than what I provided. I was just trying to make your searching easier and also provide a way in which you might understand what is meant to be conveyed here at Blue Must be True.

If you pick posts other than those in the links I provided, please explain what the difference is between me posting about certain policing incidents, and the same or very similar posts presented on websites such as PoliceOne.com, Officer.com or LawOfficer.com, like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, (the list could go on) unless of course you think those sites are also “anti-cop.” The fact is Nick, I often find some of the articles about which to post at the popular police web sites I listed.

If you don’t have the desire to diligently pursue a clearer understanding on your own, then please allow me to make something clear.

Blue Must be True is not “anti-cop,” blatantly or otherwise. As the name simply suggests, it is vital to public safety and the protection of constitutional rights that law enforcement officers are exemplary in their conduct and their commitment to integrity and competency. It must be that way or the public and law enforcement officers - those citizens who have been entrusted with vast power and authority - will suffer greatly. Unless one is handicapped with a dull mind, it should not have to be explained that Blue Must be True.

The unfortunate reality is, while some law enforcement officers do exist who are dedicated to integrity and competent policing and who have no problem with accountability and transparency, there are many officers who don’t fit into that mold.

But don’t take my word for it, see what the US Department of Justice has to say on the issue as does an independent study conducted by the National Institute of Ethics. You can get a summary of that information here along with another post to determine whether or not this blog is "anti-police," or, just opposed to incompetency and a lack of integrity.

As far as “murky personnel issues” goes, I am not sure exactly where your mind is going.

My policing career in two agencies consisted largely of responding to 911 calls for service – that means I was out on the street doing my job. Occasionally I instructed in firearms and defensive tactics and conducted background investigations. I was, and still am, a vigorous supporter of officer safety - which also includes the effective use of defusing techniques. I was, and still am, concerned for the general well-being of law enforcement officers. I have no patience however, for law enforcement officers who abuse their authority, engage in various forms of misconduct, and all the accompanying efforts to cover up such antics. I have no tolerance for those who should not be wearing a badge.

During my police career I saw how police misconduct and abuse of authority is tolerated, condoned, and sometimes even rewarded. I have been in law enforcement long enough and have seen plenty of evidence to know how much damage that can do to an agency, individual police officers and society. I know that so often departmental problems stem from the lack of competent leadership. I know that many departments across the country are similar to those at which I served.

I know that reports of misconduct hurts the delicate ears of some law enforcement officers and their strident supporters. I don’t like to hear about it either. I also know that the only way to get problems meaningfully addressed is to shed some light on the issues. I only cover a small fraction of the large problem of police misconduct and quite frankly, I don't see large numbers of law enforcement officers taking a strong vocal stand to demand integrity and accountability. I don't even see small numbers of officers doing that. Just a very, very rare bird on occasion.

Nick would you feel better if this blog concentrated on action packed police stories so that people could read them wide-eyed and breathless? Would you feel better if I concentrated on feeding the already obese egos of far too many law enforcement officers? That won’t solve the pressing problem at hand.