[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 78°F  
High: 83°F ~ Low: 55°F
Thursday, May 5, 2016

A couple of things

Friday, July 1, 2011

A story that borders on being unbelievable occurred last week involving a plane crash that critically injured a University of Michigan basketball recruit. According to the Associated Press, Austin Hatch, a 16 year old junior at Canterbury High School in Fort Wane, Indiana, suffered his injuries in a plane flown by his father, Dr. Stephen Hatch. Dr. Hatch and his wife Kim, Austin's stepmother, were both killed in the crash. That part of the story is bad enough but it is compounded by the fact that this was the second plane crash Dr. Hatch and his son have been in. The first one, in 2003, killed Austin's mother and his two siblings. The fact that a teenager could be in two plane crashes before his 17th birthday that cumulatively wiped out his entire family is almost more than the mind can process.

So the next time we're feeling sorry for ourselves, we need to think about this young man.

I don't know about fate, luck, or divine intervention and there's an old saying that the Lord doesn't give us more than we can bear but this comes pretty darn close to being more than anyone could bear.

*

Last week's column certainly created a firestorm of criticism for me, especially since I was only offering an opinion. People are certainly entitled to respond negatively to the message of any column I write but some of the comments became personal and that was a little upsetting, especially Mr. Darling's letter which appeared in the print version of this newspaper on Tuesday. He made some statements I feel a need to address because they bring my character, my reputation, and my livelihood into question.

He said I always reference my "illustrious" career with the Tulsa Police Department. I don't "always" do anything and certainly not when it comes to my police department experience. In fact, I rarely write about police work but when I do, of course I refer to my own experiences which anyone would but I've certainly never referred to my police experience as being "illustrious." He also stated that I was a police officer for only a year and a half when, in fact, I was a Tulsa police officer for four and a half years. When I write a column that requires fact-checking, that's what I do. I'm sorry Mr. Darling didn't subscribe to the same principle.

He alleged that I didn't serve in law enforcement long enough to understand the concept of living in a fish bowl. Not only did I address that in last week's column but I've addressed it before in other columns.

Perhaps the most troubling thing was his assertion that I've lost insight into the inner circle of police work, am completely out of touch with current law enforcement, and that my experience stayed in the '70s with my badge.

I assure Mr. Darling that I haven't been living in a cave for the past 40 years. In fact, I've been teaching criminal justice classes for most of that time. I stay current on as much going on in law enforcement as possible and that includes the code of silence and looking the other way.

In fact, there's a story in the news just this week about a New Orleans police supervisor who helped cover up murders committed by other New Orleans police officers during Hurricane Katrina. Officers shot and killed unarmed people and the supervisor knew the shootings were without justification. His testimony in court stated "The guys who were involved in this were co-workers, and some of them were friends of mine. I didn't want anybody to get into trouble."

He told them to "get their story together" and then come back and tell him what happened, although he didn't expect them to tell the truth.

Even though this is an extreme example of what I was talking about in last week's column, this happened just a few years ago, contrary to Mr. Darling's contention that police officers don't act like that anymore.

Mr. Darling ended his letter by printing the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, probably more for the reader than for me because it's been around for a long time. But just because you take an oath to something doesn't mean you abide by that oath. We've seen police detectives boldly and blatantly lying on the stand in a trumped-up murder case brought against a 16--year-old African American in Jacksonville, Florida, just a few years ago, which was made into a documentary by HBO called "Murder on a Sunday Morning."

There are several websites you can go to that keep track of police corruption, malfeasance and brutality and it's just as out there as it's ever been. It certainly didn't stop when I left the police department in the '70s.

Finally, Mr. Darling talks about his 27 years on the McCook police department. The annual average number of violent crimes in McCook is 13 and the average number of property crimes is 295.

I went to the Tulsa Police Department web page and found the breakdown for crimes committed there since 2005. The average number of violent crimes in Tulsa annually is 4,705, which includes 60 murders and the average number of property crimes is 23, 530. The population of Tulsa has increased 8 percent, from 331,000 in 1970 to 392,000 in 2010.

The crime rate, however, has decreased since 1970. In the early '70s we had to deal not only with "normal" crime but also with the divisions brought about by the Vietnam War and the Equal Rights movement. So current crime numbers are a pretty accurate reflection of the crime occurring when I was a Tulsa police officer.

Now I didn't work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week but neither does any other police officer. That was what was happening in my city during the time I worked and the crime statistics for McCook is what's happening in Mr. Darling's city.

If last week's column offended McCook police officers and their families, that was not my intention at all and I'm sorry you took it personally. Perhaps our local law enforcement officers are as clean as a whistle and none of them would ever consider violating their code of ethics.

But that's not the way it is in a lot of places and it's not an attitude or a behavior that went away in the '70s either.


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

ROFL, It's good to know that your character and reputation are above reproach. Or are they?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 5:14 PM

Logic would dictate that a reasonable man would be better off admitting a mistake, displaying some humility, and eating some crow, rather than continuing to attack the position of those who may have thought an issue through more thoroughly than he.

At least that's the way we do it on Vulcan, which is very much like Tulsa was in the 70's . . .

-- Posted by Spock on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 5:33 PM

To say the least, I'm really rather confused, Mr. Hendricks. One part of me says to just let it go because it's a "round and round" situation, but the other part says that I'm seriously interested in your opinion and really wish for you to explain what you mean.... exactly. Maybe it would help if you got to the point, meaning, what was your bottom line intention with the column in the first place? What were you trying to convey to your readers? Maybe, just maybe, you were trying to inform the public that crooked cops exist. Well yes, they do, and I think people are well aware of that. But I ask you this... How would we even know that if someone didn't step up and take action against them? Ponder this. Why are more and more police officers getting convicted of crimes today than in days past? Because TIMES HAVE CHANGED and people aren't tollerating it anymore. In with the new, out with the old. You've heard the old saying "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch." Well, no one is arguing that there aren't bad apples out there, but I will argue to the end that it doesn't have to spoil the whole bunch - and that mentality is prevailing all across law-enforcement.

But what I personally read from your article was this (and yes, I'm paraphrasing) "I can't believe the police would arrest another police officer; instead, they should have turned the cheek and let it go because that's the way they teach you to do it in the big city." How far off base am I with that? Is that really what should have been done? So yes, Mr. Hendricks, it did spark a reaction as you've now seen. Yes, it was insulting; and yes it appears it was personal to many. But what I would like to know is what, exactly, would you do given the exact same situation, today, on the Tulsa Police Department? Would you arrest a fellow officer for committing a serious crime? Would you do the right thing, Mr. Hendricks? If you're answer is yes - then why are you being so critical of the actions that were taken? If you're answer is no - then I'm very, very thankful that I don't have to work along side you. So, Mr. Hendricks, what level is your integrity? I won't insult - I will just come out and ask...

Right is right, Mr. Hendricks, and wrong is wrong. No one claimed to be perfect or as "clean as a whistle" and I don't believe Mr. Darling claimed that "police officers don't act like that anymore." Corruption exists and it probably always will. My thoughts leave me to wonder why it appears that you endorse it.

-- Posted by SWHUSKER on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 5:33 PM

Everybody just let it go. An opinion is an opinion and Mike isn't writing a blog where he seeks conflict. He just wants to state his opinion and move on.

Cut him some slack and move on.

Wallis Marsh aka wallismarsh

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 10:14 PM

Wallis,

I applaud your magnanimity. Seeing you post here does make me think, Mike says: "When I write a column that requires fact-checking, that's what I do"

I seem to recall an opinion piece that was printed that accused you of not being a real person. So much for "fact checking".

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 10:50 PM

I seem to remember an opinion piece that defined addiction that had little in common with most accepted criteria. Guess that didn't need fact checking either.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Jul 2, 2011, at 1:33 AM

Wallis,

I understand that opinion pieces are just that, but when he starts to attack people he might want to remove the beam from his eye first. Besides this side of a educator alarms me.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Jul 2, 2011, at 1:36 AM

I see your point guys.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jul 2, 2011, at 7:42 AM

Officers run the risk of not coming home at the end of their shift regardless of the size of their jusrisdiction. Yes, officers in larger cities deal with more serious crimes more frequently. But one does not have to work in a big city to be in danger. Nebraska has lost 11 officers in the line of duty since 1990. Two were from a metropolitain area (Omaha PD). Some of the others? Gothenburg, Gordon and Hastings.

http://www.nememorial.org/officers.htm

Mr. Hendricks comparing the crime rate and his years of service to McCook's crime rate and Mr. Darling's years of service has nothing to do with anything. And unless Mr. Hendricks was a detective or in a special divison, he did not likely get that involved in serious crimes. Officers in small departments have to do it all. They don't take the basic information and wait for a detective and CSI to show up.

-- Posted by bntheredunthat on Mon, Jul 4, 2011, at 4:28 PM

Just for clarification:

Michael said "Last week's column certainly created a firestorm of criticism for me, especially since I was only offering an opinion."

Something I read in some sort of founding document was actually bold enough to state that freedom of speech was a right. I guess that would include rebuttal of one's opinions. After all, opinions are not facts and can very well be wrong, can't they?

Another thing Michael sez: "He said I always reference my "illustrious" career with the Tulsa Police Department. I don't "always" do anything and certainly not when it comes to my police department experience. In fact, I rarely write about police work but when I do, of course I refer to my own experiences which anyone would but I've certainly never referred to my police experience as being "illustrious.""

I'll grant that speaking in absolutes is not entirely an accurate style in which to make a point. But is it necessary for this column to bear this amount of "come-uppance" for the purpose of disparaging a fellow citizen exercising his right to free speech? Also - if you use your former career as a police officer to illustrate a point...then it is being wielded as "illustrious" regardless if you ever said it or not, Mr. Hendricks. You use your former to career to make a point - ergo "illustrious".

This is not meant as a criticism. Merely a point of clarification.

-- Posted by Mickel on Mon, Jul 4, 2011, at 7:24 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Mike Hendricks
Mike at Night