| < Silencing the BPD >
< Messages posted to thread: >
< From Date >
< N 05-Jul-99 >
< O 05-Jul-99 >
< E.Goldstien 10-Jul-99 >
< 12-Jul-99 >
< My Two Cents 12-Jul-99 >
< 12-Jul-99 >
< E.Goldstien 12-Jul-99 >
< 12-Jul-99 >
< Oh Yeah! 13-Jul-99 >
< 13-Jul-99 >
< W.T. Door 13-Jul-99 >
< Just Curious 13-Jul-99 >
< Rodney 14-Jul-99 >
< To anybody 14-Jul-99 >
< JollyF-ingRodger 14-Jul-99 >
< E.Goldstien 14-Jul-99 >
< JollyF-ingRodger 14-Jul-99 >
< Skinner 14-Jul-99 >
< bLACK bEARD 14-Jul-99 >
< bpd 14-Jul-99 >
< observer 14-Jul-99 >
< To Observer 15-Jul-99 >
< Carmella 15-Jul-99 >
< To Carmella 15-Jul-99 >
< 2nd ward 15-Jul-99 >
< 15-Jul-99 >
< To Angry Boy 15-Jul-99 >
< To Angry Boy 15-Jul-99 >
< Clancy 15-Jul-99 >
< 15-Jul-99 >
< Oh Yeah! 15-Jul-99 >
< One who cares! 15-Jul-99 >
< 15-Jul-99 >
< Supporter 15-Jul-99 >
< To Angry Boy 15-Jul-99 >
< Wanderer 15-Jul-99 >
< Kojac 15-Jul-99 >
< ??? 15-Jul-99 >
< 16-Jul-99 >
< Simple minds 16-Jul-99 >
< 16-Jul-99 >
< Very Interesting! 16-Jul-99 >
< ALT 16-Jul-99 >
< Accuracy 16-Jul-99 >
< The Quiet One 16-Jul-99 >
< 16-Jul-99 >
< Just Curious 16-Jul-99 >
< clancy 16-Jul-99 >
< JollyF-ingRodger 16-Jul-99 >
< Badge68 16-Jul-99 >
< 16-Jul-99 >
< Chinese proverb 16-Jul-99 >
< The Quiet One 16-Jul-99 >
< The Quiet One 16-Jul-99 >
< 16-Jul-99 >
< 16-Jul-99 >
< Rodney 16-Jul-99 >
< E.Goldstien 17-Jul-99 >
< observer 17-Jul-99 >
< Rodney 18-Jul-99 >
< 18-Jul-99 >
< 20-Jul-99 >
< E.Goldstien 20-Jul-99 >
< E.Goldstien 20-Jul-99 >
< E.Goldstien 20-Jul-99 >
< RWB 20-Jul-99 >
< ~*Blue Willow*~ 20-Jul-99 >
< One who is concerned 20-Jul-99
>
< To the Officer who posted
20-Jul-99 >
< R 20-Jul-99 >
< 21-Jul-99 >
< One in Blue 21-Jul-99 >
< Question? 22-Jul-99 >
< Huh? 22-Jul-99 >
< Ouch! 22-Jul-99 >
< ouch! 22-Jul-99 >
< Wind In His Hair 23-Jul-99 >
< JollyF-ingRodger 23-Jul-99 >
< boob 23-Jul-99 >
< Tempest 23-Jul-99 >
< observer 23-Jul-99 >
< Thank you! 24-Jul-99 >
< JollyF-ingRodger 24-Jul-99 >
< Ha, Ha! 25-Jul-99 >
< JollyF-ingRodger 25-Jul-99 >
< Wind In His Hair 25-Jul-99 >
< Answer 26-Jul-99 >
< 26-Jul-99 >
< JollyF-ingRodger 26-Jul-99 >
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > N
< Date: 05-Jul-99 >
Thank you for responding about the vote count.
To the others: This issue was passed unanimously by the council
members present. So if you disagree, it's either everyone on the
council's fault, or no one's fault. And it's certainly not Gary, Art
or Jim's "fault." !!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > O
< Date: 05-Jul-99 >
So how will this ordinance be enforced? Who will be monitoring the
Police? Internal spies? And why was this ordinance desperately
needed???
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > E.Goldstien
< Date: 10-Jul-99 >
"why was this ordinance desperately needed???" It wasn't,
and as can be seen in court cases across the land (most recently this
week here in NJ with the NJSP) these attempts to silence legitimate
criticisms are mostly toothless. If slander or libel are involved
discipline could be justified (as it should be) but if the matter
concerns legitimate grievances it will be allowed (also as it should
be). The first amendment is still ticking along despite the attempts
that fools and tyrants make to weaken it. Any person or governmental
body that shows a predilection to limit the free exchange of
ideas/thoughts/speech should be regarded with the highest suspicion.
Unfortunately the Bloomfield council seems to have been turning into a
weak, petty, ineffective instrument for some time now. Is this truly
the best Bloomfield can offer as a council, or merely some twisted
popularity contest? We as citizens are becoming lazy, stupid and
uninformed. All one needs to do is read the posts on these boards.
Meanwhile our freedoms and rights are being thrown to the wayside in
the name of safety, security or some other short-term goal. This is a
shame. Hopefully we will wake up in time and be able to see the big
picture. For this nation's future, I pray we do. In response to the
following post (ironically posted on the 4th of July), please refer to
my last paragraph.
"The vote was 6-0, Mrs Skinner was no at the meeting. Not a
devided council at all. This resolution has been long overdue and
despartely needed. Finally, legally the police department can be
disciplined by the Chief or the council. The Chief won't but the
council will."
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 12-Jul-99 >
TRUE, TRUE, TRUE. LET THE COUNCIL TRY TO "GAG" THE POLICE
AND LET THEM TRY TO ENFORCE IT!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > My Two Cents
< Date: 12-Jul-99 >
Is the Chief or the Council going to discipline the P.O. who
recklessly shot at the dog? I have heard that Captain/Town
Administrator Zawacki referred the matter to the Essex Prosecutor. Now
that's a solution. Let someone who is drowning deal with incendiary
Township problems. What a joke! What does Counselor Pirone have so say
about this?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 12-Jul-99 >
I don't know all the facts, only what I read in the newspapers. But
DID the officer shoot recklessly? Was he supposed to let the dog
attack him?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > E.Goldstien
< Date: 12-Jul-99 >
"Is the Chief or the Council going to discipline the P.O. who
recklessly shot at the dog?" Wow Two Cents, I guess you were
there and know for a fact that the Officer shot recklessly. Or
possibly you conducted your own investigation. Have you ever noticed
that sentences that start with "I have heard" usually end up
being completely ignorant? Any discharge of a Police Officer's weapon
(with the exception of range practice) MUST be reported to the
Prosecutor's office. This is policy and is done as a matter of course.
Instead of hanging around waiting to hear something, perhaps you
should take some initiative and attempt to educate yourself (and
reading the gossip on these boards won't do it for you). Then your
observations may be worth somewhat more then two cents.
"incendiary Township problems" LOL
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 12-Jul-99 >
Bravo!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Oh Yeah!
< Date: 13-Jul-99 >
Obviously you were not at tonight's meeting! Everyone who was there
kept repeating one thing: The officer recklessly endangered the lives
of children. One more thing, if you are really trained to deal with
attacking dogs in situations like this, you put out your arm and let
the dog bite you. Then you shoot the dog. Stop defending incompetence
at taxpayers expense. You are obviously the ignorant one.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 13-Jul-99 >
Most of prefer offering a good community activist to attacking
dogs. They have a snarlier bite!
If one isn't available, hold out a cheap rug!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > W.T. Door
< Date: 13-Jul-99 >
"One more thing, if you are really trained to deal with
attacking dogs in situations like this, you put out your arm and let
the dog bite you." Which one are you Oh Yeah? Sigfreid or Roy?
Such experts that post here. Do it that way and you only get 2 chances
at it. I'am shooting the dog before he bites, so stay out of the way.
Of course everyone kept saying the same thing, you didnt hear the
second part though, it was "keep up the mantra, it will make the
settlement bigger". You have got to love this country. Let your
vicious dog run free...hit the lottery!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Just Curious
< Date: 13-Jul-99 >
Who made the claim that the dog was vicious?
This is not intended to belittle the officers involved, for the
most part I believe we have some great people on the force, but it
doesn't seem right that the officer in question discharged his weapon
with so many people in close proximity. How would people judge the
incident if the shooter had been a civilian? How would the police hace
handled it?
Just Curious
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Rodney
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
Good question. DeCarlo made a motion to suspend the officer with
pay. Of course, this wasn't necessary since Zawacki was going to do
that anyway. Perhaps some cultural sensitivity in the BPD would help
matters. After all, officers here are not under siege. They don't work
among savages. These are good people trying to do their best for their
families. Let's show them some respect.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > To anybody
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
why did DeCarlo or Jawacki have to handle the suspension? don't we
pay a chief the big bucks for that? is he still in charge?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > JollyF-ingRodger
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
Yup, they discussed disciplining this township employee in a public
forum. Going to be a hoot when they have to add him to the list of
people the township has to pay in all the lawsuits. Election year
politics are the best don't ya think?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > E.Goldstien
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
Who made the claim that the dog was vicious? In one of the
Star-Ledger articles about this incident a juvenile involved reports
"that although the dog shocked officers when it charged out of
the building, Chances is a friendly dog that would never attack
anyone. The dog was aroused by the crowd and a car alarm that was set
off WHEN HE AND ONE OF THE OFFICERS RETREATED TO A CAR HOOD WHEN THE
DOG CHARGED OUT". He also says that he walks the dog every day
with the owner. So OK the word vicious is not used. But I have to ask,
Why is this kid jumping up on the car hood to get away from this
friendly (110 lb, German Shepard-Rottweiler mix) dog that would never
attack anyone?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > JollyF-ingRodger
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
Whoa! Just read Oh Yeah's post above. Let the dog bite you!?!? I
don't know...but I guess he is the animal expert. Hey Oh Yeah..drawing
on your experience and training in such matters let me ask you. How do
you handle a ferocious cock?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Skinner
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
Makes You want to work for the Township Huh. They don't sit around
praising employees when they do a good job though.The Essex County
Prosecutors Office cleared the officer on the shooting, that say's it
all doesn't it. What is next you arrest a council persons relative and
we then suspend the officer and take away his gun. You people are out
of control.If the officer was in fear for his safety then he had a
right to shoot. Also where do all you people get off saying that the
street was full of people it was the four youths,the dog owner and the
dog. I still can't believe that township council members discussed
this situation and the possible suspension of an employee in public
after he was cleared by the Essex County Prosecutor.Who is in charge
at one police plaza the council? Another situation blown out of
proportion by the wonderful citizens of "OUR TOWN".
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > bLACK bEARD
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
HIT IT ON THE F----ING HEAD!!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > bpd
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
B- BEST
P- POLICE
D- DEPARTMENT
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > observer
< Date: 14-Jul-99 >
To Skinner.
Don't put the blame on the whole council. It was Councilman DeCarlo
who made an issue of it at the meeting and made the motion to suspend
the officer involved.
Also, please don't blame citizens for having concerns. In most
cases the public has only limited information. What they did know was
that an officer discharge his weapon and innocent people were hurt.
For most of us that is a cuase for concern.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > To Observer
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
If there was an officer around to protect my 9 year-old cousin who
was bitten by a dog and pushed out into on-coming traffic MAYBE he
wouldn't have been hit by the car and MAYBE he would still be alive
today.
Observer, things in life happen and an officer's job is to protect
and he or she must make a split second decision - its a judgment call
out there and its unfortunate that kids were hurt but when the officer
discharged his weapon it was not his intention to hurt "innocent
people." Some people just don't get it...
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Carmella
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
I'm with you. It's way too easy to criticize when you don't know
the facts. So far I've heard it was "two or three or four"
shots. Which was it? My cousin is a cop in Newark. He says this is
routine. Whenever an officer fires a gun, there is an investigation as
to why, was it proper, etc. Leave it to the sick-os in Bloomfield to
try to turn this in to an election issue. You chicken-hearts should
get out from behind your computers and see what real men (and women)
are doing for you every day to protect you and your homes so you can
sit on your butts and exercise your right to freedom of speech!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > To Carmella
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
Stop defending incompetents who get paid for "protecting"
us. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen! What gives you
the right to criticize hard-working taxpayers who are outraged by the
shooting incident? The point is that this officer has had other
problems with the community residents in question. The Star Ledger
reported only one side of the story. And what do you men by "real
men and women"? I guess shooting and then asking is routine is
Newark. This is not Newark.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > 2nd ward
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
Bloomfield's not Newark? You sure? You can take the bad boyz out of
Newark, but you can't take Newark out of the bad boyz. That's where
all our fantastic politicians migrated from, isn't it?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
Are all of the council candidates "hard-working
taxpayers?"
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > To Angry Boy
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
Sounds like you have a "personal problem" with this
particular officer... and I believe the Constitution gives me (and
anyone else like Carmella) the right to criticize "hard-working
arm-chair quarterbacks" like you!
To Carmella - the men and women have it tough in Newark - I applaud
them for the work they do. (Just listen to their scanner and you'll
get an idea of what an average night is like.)
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > To Angry Boy
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
... here is a clear cut example of someone "who doesn't get it
at all!!!"
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Clancy
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
Leave it the people to make it a political issue.The politician
uses it for his own reward(don't forget Dennis is running for
relection in November). Rumor has it that they took the gun away but
are now going to return it. What is going on here? They never should
have taken the gun in the first place. The cop did nothing wrong so
said the Essex County Prosecutor. What is going on down at the police
station?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
The BPD has no leadership. Where is the chief in all of this?
Hiding, no doubt.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Oh Yeah!
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
When DD's kid got jumped at the high school I heard he kept making
a pest of himself at the police dept trying to get info that would
have been illegal for them to give him. Maybe besides the obvious
pandering for votes he is still pissy that they did not kiss his royal
ass.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > One who cares!
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
To all the men and women in the BPD remember:
It took you years to build up trust, and only suspicion, not proof,
to destroy it!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
Since when is a taxpayer making a pest of himself when a crime has
been committed. You must be a police officer. Let's remind you that
the taxpayers pay the bill for the police department - you and several
of your ilk have forgotten that fact. I applaude the councils actions
- it calmed the crowd, the officer involved will have his day, and the
police department will be better off for it. What you simple minds
can't comprehend is the actions taken by the council were before the
determination by the prosecutor. Also, why wasn't the Chief or Acting
Chief at the meeting to support the officer. And why did the President
of the PBA suddenly disappear. He was scheduled to speak but suddenly
lost his nerve. So much for Brotherly love in the department. The
officer got no support from his superiors. The action taken was right
- what would have happened if the officer involved found himself in a
situation where he had to draw his gun in the same neighborhood. Even
if he were right he would have be critized and villified and most
definetly lost his job. The action of the council save the
neighborhood, the officers job and if anything comes of this insident
it will be something good. If the police department cannot see this
than they indeed are the most ignorant group of people in Bloomfield.
As for DD as you refer to Councilman DeCarlo I can only guess at the
fact that he must have empathized with the parents of the children hit
by the schrapnel after what happened to his daughter. For you to make
something out of the children or to insult any parent who wants
information about a crime involving their child shows your lack of
compassion or empathy, and indeed if you are a police officer your gun
should be removed immediately also.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Supporter
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
Sometimes the people you expect to kick you when you're down will
be the ones who do!!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > To Angry Boy
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
May I remind you that POLICE OFFICERS pay taxes too!!!
You act like YOU ALONE have a personal say regarding the police
because you "pay taxes." (Plus I got tired of reading your
long thread - you need to check your spelling!!) Stop your crying!!!
Next subject!!!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Wanderer
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
Hey, you people that write in this column don't put a name in the
FROM column. Is it because they are afraid that shomeone may see the
stupidity of what they have to say or are they afraid of a rebuttle.
If people can't respond to what you have to say then what you say is
all Blah Blah Blah. Note: If you really don't know what you are
talking about and you don't have all the facts right the best thing to
do is S H U T U P !!!!!!!!!!!!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Kojac
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
That was one heck of a letter from Galioto in the papers this week!
Who does this guy think he is? Serpico? Personally I hope every police
officer just laughs and ignores him. He's looking for another
15-minutes of fame. Don't give it to him.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > ???
< Date: 15-Jul-99 >
What day was this in the Ledger?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Using the incident regarding the attack of public figure's child as
negative campaign strategy is a clear sign of the Marionettes. Its
what they do best.
The only people who would get defensive about him getting the facts
might be the BOE members that turned their heads to their illegal
student platform when it hit close to home! The word all over the
street is that "somebody" wasn't a legal guardian and the
one of the attackers was in the schools illegally and never had the
proper papers to justify enrollment!
Hold it! A vision is coming through! Could all this be why DD was
dropped from the GOP line? Odd that BOE members are publicly
campaigning against him, huh?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Simple minds
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Glad that you (5 posts up) applaude (applaud) the councils actions.
Hope you applaud them when they have to write a check to the officer
for the suit that will probably follow. To take an improper and most
likely an illegal action to calm the crowd seems counterproductive.The
rule of law should be followed, not how people feel. What your simple
mind does not know is that this action was not taken before a
determination by the Prosecutor's office, they were present and
involved the night of the incident. Cleared the officer to carry a
weapon and go back to work.The council knew this, didnt tell you and
decided to put on a show. This is election year kiss ass to get the
vote stuff and they sucked you right in. The PBA Prez lose his nerve?
Never known it to be the case. Probably went to call the lawyer.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Using the incident regarding the attack of public figure's child as
negative campaign strategy is a clear sign of the Marionettes. Its
what they do best.
The only people who would get defensive about him getting the facts
might be the BOE members that turned their heads to their illegal
student platform when it hit close to home! The word all over the
street is that "somebody" wasn't a legal guardian and the
one of the attackers was in the schools illegally and never had the
proper papers to justify enrollment!
Hold it! A vision is coming through! Could all this be why DD was
dropped from the GOP line? Odd that BOE members are publicly
campaigning against him, huh?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Very Interesting!
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
I think above who stated posters are not using a name in the From
space is probably because they like to confuse people, use personal
names of people who are not the posters, steal other penned names, so
anyone who believes the poster's name is the actual person writing had
better get a life!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > ALT
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
So the Council KNEW about the findings of the Prosecutor's Office
and decided to PLAY DUMB?!! Sounds like the Council was just trying to
stir up trouble!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Accuracy
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Don't blame the whole council. DeCarlo started this by
grandstanding for the crowd.. Up until then the Mayor had said that he
would be willing to talk to the residents involved when ALL the
information was in.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > The Quiet One
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Did the Council accomplish anything that night?
When an officer discharges his weapon in the State of NJ aren't
there formal procedures that are to be followed? Does the the local
town council has any jurisdiction in such a matter or were they just
overstepping their boundaries? (Enlighten me!!)
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
I am sure you will all agree it was and is a very touchy subject.
But remember, there are two sides to every story and you on heard one
side at the meeting. Let's be adults about this and wait and see what
takes place. I'm sure it will be done in the proper manner.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Just Curious
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
What will be done in the proper manner?
The Council already voted to suspend the officer involved.
Just Curious
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > clancy
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
let's get this straight okay. Prosecutors office did clear the
shooting night of. Gun was given back when he returned to duty. Town
council did vote and discuss employee in public. Now rumor is gun was
taken and given back already what's the deal.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > JollyF-ingRodger
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Whats done is done and it was done improperly by the council. It is
all over but the lawsuits! Of course there are formal procedures to be
followed when an officer discharges a weapon. They were followed in
this incident.The council (the whole council. None of them stood up
and stopped it) decided to feed their self importance, play the race
card and go for the votes!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Badge68
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
A view from the inside: The council was right in its actions - we
have a chief who does nothing about dicipline, and the men walk
allover him. We get away with murder. The children were in close
poxsimity when the dog attacked - no weapon should have been fired,
period. the officer inquestion acted irresponisbliy and should be
required to take sensitivity training, not to mention some extra time
on the fireing range.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Is the joker who posted as Badge68 a cop? I doubt it. Is he the one
in the Bloomfield Police Department who has been secretly meeting with
the FBI? Heard it was a patrolman who i not too Bright - that cold be
anyone of them.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Chinese proverb
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
A rumour goes in one ear and out many mouths!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > The Quiet One
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
I don't believe "Badge 68" would risk losing his job and
his PENSION!!!! Too much $$$$ to risk there!!! It must be the
janitor!! I say we "86" this one!! Don't buy it for one
minute - must be someone's PUPPET!!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > The Quiet One
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
I don't believe "Badge 68" would risk losing his job and
his PENSION!!!! Too much $$$$ to risk there!!! It must be the
janitor!! I say we "86" this one!! Don't buy it for one
minute - must be someone's PUPPET!!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Badge 68 is Dick Galioto. He can not be more transparent. What a
scum bag..
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Badge 68 is Dick Galioto. He can not be more transparent. What a
scum bag..
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Rodney
< Date: 16-Jul-99 >
Can we just get along? I don't like the threats several of you are
making, especially that cop saying that the P.O. who caused all this
trouble is going to sue the town. That's a form of blackmail! The town
should not be sued for an officer's stupidity. I agree that DeCarlo
was grandstanding. It was pretty obvious. I also feel that the Mayor
acted properly. He does not want another nasty lawsuit. Playing the
race card? Well, let's see. The blacks in that audience are ten times
better educated than most Council members. They also vote and pay
taxes. How many of our terrific cops have a college education? Eight?
Ten? How many of our terrific police officers, lieutenants or captains
live in town? Pay taxes? Back in 1997, I was at a party when I heard
this Lt. saying that he didn't want his boys studying with
"savages" at Bloomfield High? And we are paying this guy's
salary. Thank you for thinking that our children are savages. That's
why we think so highly of most of you.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > E.Goldstien
< Date: 17-Jul-99 >
Grow up Rodney! No matter what the council did some of the involved
parties are going to sue the town. Did you have any doubts about that?
By grandstanding the way they did, trying to discipline a township
employee in public, they acted improperly and pretty much ensured yet
another lawsuit. This is not blackmail but a right we have to redress
wrongs. Procedures are in place for these types of incidents and were
being followed. How you "feel" about what was done does not
really count. What the law says is what matters, being so well
educated you should know this and so should the council. These
puppetheads decided to attempt (unsuccessfully) to shortcut that, that
is going to cost the taxpayers. Maybe the citizens should get more
involved earlier and pick their representatives carefully. Voter
turnouts in Bloomfield are pitifully small. If people don't care
enough to spend the time to vote wisely, they should not be surprised
with the quality of service they get. Say what you wish about the
Officer involved, I know him. He is a good Officer with a good record
and dedicated to Bloomfield. You were not there, nor was I. From what
I understand of it I probably would have reacted the same. Can't say
for sure it's a split second decision. That makes it easy for people
to second guess and Monday morning quarterback or for racists to turn
into a black/white issue. To refer to the action as stupidity without
firsthand knowledge is ignorant. I am a Bloomfield Cop. I do the best
I can for this job, I am proud of the job I do.Yeah I went to college
but this job will give you another education entirely. Maybe some of
your great minds ought to come and give it a try, it would give you
another perspective on things. C'mon the test is not that hard and I
would be glad to have you. Maybe you could make a difference, but I
guess it is just easier to sit and cry about things. People are making
political hay out of this using race, children and what ever else they
can exploit. "Can we just get along?" I pray that we can,
but too many have too much wrapped up in making sure we never do.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > observer
< Date: 17-Jul-99 >
It's too bad that with all the controversy over one officer's
imprudent dischage of his weapon that the swearing in of five new
Bloomfield police officers was totally overshadowed and overlooked.
So, congratulations to the five. Hope you will do yourselves, your
family and the town proud by doing the best job you can. Have a safe
tour.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Rodney
< Date: 18-Jul-99 >
Goldstein or a.k.a. well-educated Lt. Don't lecture me about voting
for idiots. You were also voting and campaigning back in November.
Don't you remember? Yes, you are right. We have awful candidates and
voters who don't give a damn until something happens to their kids,
friends or relatives. I was merely bringing up an important issue
which you so condescendingly trivialized. I live and pay taxes here.
Like everyone else, I want to live in peace and feel protected by
those whom we pay to protect us. I'm not questioning the fact that law
enforcement, like any other job that involves dealing with people, is
difficult. I was not there, but I spoke to many of the neighbors and
witnesses. I guess everyone is a liar except the officer involved in
this unfortunate situation. There are two sides to every story. And we
the taxpayers should not be forced to bear the costs of someone's
questionable behavior.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 18-Jul-99 >
To Rodney: Well said, as a taxpayer also, I want to trust the
police to do their jobs and to do it right. One incident should not
mean that we cannot trust the police. Afterall, when we really need
them we want them ASAP. We have not heard the whole story from the
police side or the County Prosecutor report. The Prosecutor was at the
scene at the time of the incident. As fo rthe Council's decision I
have to agree with them for several reasons. 1. it had the effect of
calminng the neighborhood by the fact they took action. 2. It did not
hurt the police officer involved - he was mearly taken off patrol and
his weapon surrendered until the report of the Prosecutor. It didn't
blame anyone pending the report from the prosecutor and our own chief
of Police. Personally, I think it took a lot of courage for the
Council to act as it did. I'm really surprised that this Mayor
supported the rest of the Council. Lets see what developes in the next
week before we pass judgement.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
Thanks for the promotion Rodney, but I am not a boss. Actually it
may be a demotion, a few months back when I last posted on one of
these threads they thought I was a Captain. Nope I am just a grunt.
Surprising as it may be to you some of us can actually form a coherent
thought. About the campaigning, wrong again. First I have not run
across too many politicians I would feel strongly enough to work for.
Secondly I have a problem with the idea of officers campaigning for
politicians running for office in the town they work for. I don't know
how many witnesses you spoke with. Could not have been too many though
as there were not many to start with. I am not saying anyone is a
liar. I am saying that a split second decision was made under stress
when the Officer felt threatened. Yes, I know there are two sides to
every story (often more then two) and that is how I look at things and
try to reason them out. I posted earlier about what one of the
involved parties said to the paper. seems like a clear contradiction.
There is more but it cannot be gone into here. To try to turn this
into a racial matter is wrong and disgusts me.To lynch that Officer
for all the perceived wrongs that people have of the BPD is also
wrong! Make no mistake, that is part of what this council is trying.
Could this all have been avoided? Absolutely, a whole set of
circumstances led up to this event, plenty of blame to go around. A
little common sense early on would have done the trick. But it didn't
happen that way. The Officer was forced into a bad position and took
the action he felt necessary. Can one predict where every bullet
fragment or fragment of what is hit is going to go? Of course not.
Anyone that has spent any time on a range knows that, you get hit with
fragments. If you had to stop to consider that you would probably
never fire. One has to weigh the risks against the intended outcome
and know if the action conforms to policy. All in a moment. Every
Officer has had to consider facing that decision. Many will admit
having nightmares about it. The decision to pull the trigger is not
one I think any of our Officers take lightly and I think looking back
at our track record will bear that out. But ya know what? I do not see
too many (any?) posts about the thousands of correct decisions our
Officers make every year. Ya know what else? I would be willing to bet
that a lot of the people complaining about this would take the same
action if put in the same circumstances. It is a survival/human nature
thing. As far as taxpayers bearing the costs of others questionable
behavior, we do it every day (welfare, unemployment, foreign aid,
presidential indiscretions) that is one reasons taxes are so high.
This incident is undoubtedly also going to cost the taxpayers. For the
events of that evening and for the questionable actions of the
council. Feeling that the council did the right thing is not enough,
it has to be lawful, they may have a problem there. Think about it. As
part of a gov't agency do you want me as an Officer making decisions
about arrests, charges, use of force, etc based on how I feel? Or
would you rather it was based on the laws written about such things.
The post after yours says something like "they merely took his
weapon." Well, part of our income is from side jobs. by
"merely" taking away that weapon you interfere with our
making a living. If your going to do that it had better be with due
process. To "calm the crowd" does not cut it. I don't know
why they settled for that anyway, didn't they come to ask that he be
fired? Would you have "felt" that was right? A lot can be
learned from this by all of us. Yes it is a difficult job. Often times
made harder by the lack of cooperation, lies, disrespect and sometimes
assaults we endure. Oh well that is part of the job. If we don't
always have what you think is the proper attitude, Oh well that is
human nature. I am sure you are not always at 100 percent either.
Bloomfield is a good town. We can work together, recognize the good as
well as the bad, work on what needs working on and try to have a good
life. Or we can complain and be bitter. Only reacting when it fits
some agenda. Then we can watch our town go the route of many others. I
promise to do my best. How about the rest of you? Thanks for your
time, I kinda dragged on here but I hope it offers another
perspective. If parts of it sounded condescending or less then polite
I apologize, it was not the intention but I also have strong feelings
about the matter. Take care.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > E.Goldstien
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
Thanks for the promotion Rodney, but I am not a boss. Actually it
may be a demotion, a few months back when I last posted on one of
these threads they thought I was a Captain. Nope I am just a grunt.
Surprising as it may be to you some of us can actually form a coherent
thought. About the campaigning,wrong again. First I have not run
across too many politicians I would feel strongly enough to work for.
Secondly I have a problem with the idea of officers campaigning for
politicians running for office in the town they work for. I don't know
how many witnesses you spoke with. Could not have been too many though
as there were not many to start with. I am not saying anyone is a
liar. I am saying that a split second decision was made under stress
when the Officer felt threatened. Yes, I know there are two sides to
every story (often more then two) and that is how I look at things and
try to reason them out. I posted earlier about what one of the
involved parties said to the paper. seems like a clear contradiction.
There is more but it cannot be gone into here. To try to turn this
into a racial matter is wrong and disgusts me.To lynch that Officer
for all the perceived wrongs that people have of the BPD is also
wrong! Make no mistake, that is part of what this council is trying.
Could this all have been avoided? Absolutely, a whole set of
circumstances led up to this event, plenty of blame to go around. A
little common sense early on would have done the trick. But it didn't
happen that way. The Officer was forced into a bad position and took
the action he felt necessary. Can one predict where every bullet
fragment or fragment of what is hit is going to go? Of course not.
Anyone that has spent any time on a range knows that, you get hit with
fragments. If you had to stop to consider that you would probably
never fire. One has to weigh the risks against the intended outcome
and know if the action conforms to policy. All in a moment. Every
Officer has had to consider facing that decision. Many will admit
having nightmares about it. The decision to pull the trigger is not
one I think any of our Officers take lightly and I think looking back
at our track record will bear that out. But ya know what? I do not see
too many (any?) posts about the thousands of correct decisions our
Officers make every year. Ya know what else? I would be willing to bet
that a lot of the people complaining about this would take the same
action if put in the same circumstances. It is a survival/human nature
thing. As far as taxpayers bearing the costs of others questionable
behavior, we do it every day (welfare, unemployment, foreign aid,
presidential indiscretions) that is one reason taxes are so high. This
incident is undoubtedly also going to cost the taxpayers. For the
events of that evening and for the questionable actions of the
council. Feeling that the council did the right thing is not enough,
it has to be lawful, they may have a problem there. Think about it. As
part of a gov't agency do you want me as an Officer making decisions
about arrests, charges, use of force, etc based on how I feel? Or
would you rather it was based on the laws written about such things.
The post after yours says something like "they merely took his
weapon." Well, part of our income is from side jobs. by
"merely" taking away that weapon you interfere with our
making a living. If your going to do that it had better be with due
process. To "calm the crowd" does not cut it. I don't know
why they settled for that anyway, didn't they come to ask that he be
fired? Would you have "felt" that was right? A lot can be
learned from this by all of us. Yes it is a difficult job. Often times
made harder by the lack of cooperation, lies, disrespect and sometimes
assaults we endure. Oh well that is part of the job. If we don't
always have what you think is the proper attitude, Oh well that is
human nature. I am sure you are not always at 100 percent either.
Bloomfield is a good town. We can work together, recognize the good as
well as the bad, work on what needs working on and try to have a good
life. Or we can complain and be bitter. Only reacting when it fits
some agenda. Then we can watch our town go the route of many others. I
promise to do my best. How about the rest of you? Thanks for your
time, I kinda dragged on here but I hope it offers another
perspective. If parts of it sounded condescending or less then polite
I apologize, it was not the intention but I also have strong feelings
about the matter. Take care.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > E.Goldstien
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
Thanks for the promotion Rodney, but I am not a boss. Actually it
may be a demotion, a few months back when I last posted on one of
these threads they thought I was a Captain. Nope I am just a grunt.
Surprising as it may be to you some of us can actually form a coherent
thought. About the campaigning,wrong again. First I have not run
across too many politicians I would feel strongly enough to work for.
Secondly I have a problem with the idea of officers campaigning for
politicians running for office in the town they work for. I don't know
how many witnesses you spoke with. Could not have been too many though
as there were not many to start with. I am not saying anyone is a
liar. I am saying that a split second decision was made under stress
when the Officer felt threatened. Yes, I know there are two sides to
every story (often more then two) and that is how I look at things and
try to reason them out. I posted earlier about what one of the
involved parties said to the paper. seems like a clear contradiction.
There is more but it cannot be gone into here. To try to turn this
into a racial matter is wrong and disgusts me.To lynch that Officer
for all the perceived wrongs that people have of the BPD is also
wrong! Make no mistake, that is part of what this council is trying.
Could this all have been avoided? Absolutely, a whole set of
circumstances led up to this event, plenty of blame to go around. A
little common sense early on would have done the trick. But it didn't
happen that way. The Officer was forced into a bad position and took
the action he felt necessary. Can one predict where every bullet
fragment or fragment of what is hit is going to go? Of course not.
Anyone that has spent any time on a range knows that, you get hit with
fragments. If you had to stop to consider that you would probably
never fire. One has to weigh the risks against the intended outcome
and know if the action conforms to policy. All in a moment. Every
Officer has had to consider facing that decision. Many will admit
having nightmares about it. The decision to pull the trigger is not
one I think any of our Officers take lightly and I think looking back
at our track record will bear that out. But ya know what? I do not see
too many (any?) posts about the thousands of correct decisions our
Officers make every year. Ya know what else? I would be willing to bet
that a lot of the people complaining about this would take the same
action if put in the same circumstances. It is a survival/human nature
thing. As far as taxpayers bearing the costs of others questionable
behavior, we do it every day (welfare, unemployment, foreign aid,
presidential indiscretions) that is one reason taxes are so high. This
incident is undoubtedly also going to cost the taxpayers. For the
events of that evening and for the questionable actions of the
council. Feeling that the council did the right thing is not enough,
it has to be lawful, they may have a problem there. Think about it. As
part of a gov't agency do you want me as an Officer making decisions
about arrests, charges, use of force, etc based on how I feel? Or
would you rather it was based on the laws written about such things.
The post after yours says something like "they merely took his
weapon." Well, part of our income is from side jobs. by
"merely" taking away that weapon you interfere with our
making a living. If your going to do that it had better be with due
process. To "calm the crowd" does not cut it. I don't know
why they settled for that anyway, didn't they come to ask that he be
fired? Would you have "felt" that was right? A lot can be
learned from this by all of us. Yes it is a difficult job. Often times
made harder by the lack of cooperation, lies, disrespect and sometimes
assaults we endure. Oh well that is part of the job. If we don't
always have what you think is the proper attitude, Oh well that is
human nature. I am sure you are not always at 100 percent either.
Bloomfield is a good town. We can work together, recognize the good as
well as the bad, work on what needs working on and try to have a good
life. Or we can complain and be bitter. Only reacting when it fits
some agenda. Then we can watch our town go the route of many others. I
promise to do my best. How about the rest of you? Thanks for your
time, I kinda dragged on here but I hope it offers another
perspective. If parts of it sounded condescending or less then polite
I apologize, it was not the intention but I also have strong feelings
about the matter. Take care.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > E.Goldstien
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
Ooops!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > RWB
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
Just so you know how some of us feel. I for one think you made some
excellent points. Anyone that thinks an officer straps on a gun and
does not have serious concerns about the day he will have to draw that
gun is not thinking straight. There are a lot of us who respect what
the BPD is doing and stand behind them. The council made a mistake on
this one.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > ~*Blue Willow*~
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
Wow, you people sure can talk, if all of Bloomfield's BPD is sooooo
terribly tragic why don't you move? Go to like....Wyoming or Montana
or something. I'm sure its much safer there and you don't have to
worry or WHINE about the Police department that trying hard to ensure
your sefety night after night.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > One who is concerned
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
I have read the previous postings and can not help but to feel the
bitterness in some people. First, I live in Town. Second, I pay taxes
too. Third and foremost I am a cop. The incident with the dog is truly
one that I am sure the officer involved wished he were never in. I,
also being a father, would be fuming mad if anyone injured my child,
especially with a hand gun. But I know that this officer did not
intend to injure anyone but the dog. To have anyone believe that this
was intentional because of race is totally ludicrous. It was
unfortunate for all involved. There was never any type of cover up of
the facts, as was reported in the Star-Ledger, this department was
open and honest with ALL that were provided information regarding this
incident. The action taken by having the officers weapon taken away
were totally uncalled for. It clearly led the officer to believe that
the governing body did not have any faith in him. Much worse than
this, this action leads the rest of us who are out there every day and
night, to question the action we have to take. And this questioning
takes time. If we have to stop and think about what we are going to
do, where the use of force or deadly force may be involved, the time
it takes to do this could cost us more than our job. So I truly hope
and pray that this doesn't happen, but if one of our officers is
placed in a situation where he has to use his weapon and takes the
time to think about it and during this time he is injured or killed it
will be comforting for some to know that he did't act with haste, had
taken his time and made everyone happy, except maybe for his family
and co-workers. To second guess a cop on the street when you sit back,
read the papers and sip your coffee is an injustice to the officer and
the Department in general. You can rest assured that if this incident
was totally mishandled the Essex County Prosecutor would be on top of
our Department like ants and the public would know about it. Give the
officer and us a break. It's tough enough without the constant
criticsm from arm chair quarterbacks. Bloomfield is still a good place
to live we, the police, truly try to serve the people as best as
possible. Try just a little to be open minded. Don't be blinded by
race, politics and bitterness and we will all be better off. ( Sorry
about going on so long, I could have said more )
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > To the Officer who posted
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
Hi. Don't let local source and its sour grapes get you down. Lots
of people who post here just like to complain...about everything.
They're salivating at the thought of bashing the police department.
But, when I speak to other people, neighbors and friends and parents
of my children's friends, they all have said "THANK GOD FOR THE
POLICE" and understand that you all have to make split-second
decisions and that you're not infallable. I don't know if this officer
made a mistake; but I am POSITIVE he did what he thought he had to do
at that moment. It's easy to be an arm-chair quarterback with 20/20
hindsight. Most of us never have to walk in your shoes, so who are we
to criticize you? Thank you for all you and your brothers &
sisters in blue do to keep the rest of us safe.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > R
< Date: 20-Jul-99 >
I think all of the postings above are eloquent. People will always
judge based on the "limited" evidence available to them. If
some of us who are not thugs or racists question an officer's actions,
we do it out of deep concern for our Bloomfield community. Are we
attacking the Police Department, I don't think so. Some of us wanted
to get at the bottom of this matter. This is America and we have the
right to question authority when we feel that authority oversteps its
bounds or turns into a dictatorship. No harm intended by asking
questions. Goldstein, thanks for responding.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 21-Jul-99 >
To: EG and the other officer: Very well said!! Thank you both for
taking the time to respond. I just want you to know that there are
people in Bloomfield who care and understand the job that you and
other officers do on a daily basis 24/7!! We appreciate it each and
every day! Some people really don't want to take the time to
understand what your job entails or the stress of being on the job.
Thank you for your insight! Thank you for the job you do!!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > One in Blue
< Date: 21-Jul-99 >
I find this very comedic, as you can tell I am a Bloomfiel police
officer. I am Married with children and just as much as anyone share
concerns for our children. However,in my numerous years of experience,
I have had to make several split second decicions none of which were
based upon the race , color or creed of the particular person(s)
invoved. This particular incident was reviewed and cleared by the
prosecutors office and the Bloomfield police dept. So my question is;
how can the council vote on something that was already cleared by the
authority that oversees all Essex county police departments? Is the
council more qualified to judge Police matters then the prosecutors
office? Now there's a laugh for you. The township council made a hasty
decision based on pressure from a select group of people, not based on
the facts at hand. That is why the council quickly backed down from
their decision and let the officer involved go back to doing the job
he was trained to do. For all the Monday morning quaterbacks out
there---- walk a mile in a police officer's shoes, make life and death
decisions in a split second, put your life at risk everytime you put
your uniform on and go to work, then come back to me and let me know
how well you did.
p.s. I am a Bloomfield taxpayer
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Question?
< Date: 22-Jul-99 >
Did anyone check to see if this dog had his Rabbi shots and has a
license?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Huh?
< Date: 22-Jul-99 >
I didn't know the dog was Jewish.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Ouch!
< Date: 22-Jul-99 >
Was he circumcised?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > ouch!
< Date: 22-Jul-99 >
Was he circumcised?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Wind In His Hair
< Date: 23-Jul-99 >
The word is "rabies."
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > JollyF-ingRodger
< Date: 23-Jul-99 >
The word is "rabies." He said so rabidly.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > boob
< Date: 23-Jul-99 >
leave the cops alone,I got a ticket the other day and the cop was a
nice guy.Ya know what Im a man of color.later
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Tempest
< Date: 23-Jul-99 >
I think this thread should be put to rest. I think it's time to
leave judgment of the police up to their supervisers and Internal
Affairs. Who are we to criticize the police? The men and women who
take jobs in law enforcement deserve a lot more credit and respect
than we give them. Today's world seems so eager to find fault with the
people we hire to protect us. And why? "Cause my taxes pay your
salary!" That line is getting pretty damn old. It seems whenever
there is a shooting, use of force (deadly or not), or any other
instance where the officer's judgment may be called into question we
are so ready to scream Police Brutality or swap stories of bad police
experience that we miss the facts. I'm not saying that the police are
perfect, I'm just saying that we should put ourselves in their shoes
once in a while. Better yet, get to know a cop, they're really not
half bad.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > observer
< Date: 23-Jul-99 >
Anyone who has the power of life or death strapped to their belt
had better be more than "not half bad".
Also, no one should be above critisism because of the nature of
their job. We do pay the police salaries and are owed some
accounability for that. Ther are always people in jobs who don't
belong there and they should not be tolerated by their peers or by us.
None of the above is directed at anyone in particular, it is just
posted as a commentary.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Thank you!
< Date: 24-Jul-99 >
Thank you observer. As you state, "no one shold be above
criticism beause of the nature of their job." Let's not make cops
mythical creatures. They are as flawed as the rest of us.
Keep the postings going as long as they don't become libelous or
vulgar.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > JollyF-ingRodger
< Date: 24-Jul-99 >
This thread has gotten entirely too serious. Time for a little
levity! Especially when us same 25 to 30 LOSERS are the only ones
posting or reading this pointless drivel. OK here we go!...Q. Why are
they having trouble finding JFK Jr's plane? A. Because his flight
actions constitute wreckless behavior.....Get it? Wreckless! get it?
hahaha...well ok I am a little late with that one. I will try to be
more timely from here on in.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Ha, Ha!
< Date: 25-Jul-99 >
I fail to see the humor. How about telling us a joke? Any jokes
about Town Council?
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > JollyF-ingRodger
< Date: 25-Jul-99 >
Jokes about the council...Hmmm...nope, don't see how I could come
up with any thing better then they have done themselves.
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Wind In His Hair
< Date: 25-Jul-99 >
OK, how about this one!!!!!
How many T-Council People does it take to screw in a litebulb???????
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > Answer
< Date: 26-Jul-99 >
5, at least for now. The other 2 need the rest of their county
commitee to find the bulb!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: >
< Date: 26-Jul-99 >
And it'll be a dim bulb. Count on that!
< Subject: RE: Silencing the BPD >
< From: > JollyF-ingRodger
< Date: 26-Jul-99 >
Ya call that funny?!? Thats not funny. This is funny...JFK Jr had
not been to the Vineyard for quite awhile. Do you know what he missed
the most about it? THE RUNWAY!!! Hahahahah snort snort Ha! Now thats
funny!
|