Â
|
|
Quote: |
Whether a Tulsa County reserve deputy’s training records even exist — let alone whether they can be found — might be irrelevant due to an exemption Sheriff Stanley Glanz could have granted his friend, a Sheriff’s Office official said Thursday night. [...] Sheriff’s Maj. Shannon Clark flatly denied allegations that training records for Bates, a longtime friend of Sheriff Stanley Glanz, had been falsified, but he said the records of Bates’ training could not be provided until a number of things happened. First, Clark said, the Sheriff’s Office would have to determine who trained Bates so they could be asked for the records. Clark said often those records are kept only by the trainee and the trainer. Secondly, the records, if they exist, were created before the Sheriff’s Office began filing records digitally, he said. That means it would take an unknown amount of time to find the paper records documenting Bates’ training — if they remain on file at the Sheriff’s Office. Thirdly, Clark said, it’s unclear how much of the supervised training Bates theoretically was required to have actually happened. That’s because Glanz can, as sheriff, waive any portion of Sheriff’s Office policy. [...] Also in Bates’ statement, he said he received “active shooter training” from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona. Lisa Allen, chief media relations office for the sheriff’s office there, said they had no record of Bates attending their training. In fact, Allen said, that training is available only to members of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, meaning Bates would not have been eligible to participate. The class, Allen said, has been offered only three times. “We don’t allow out-of-state people to take the class,” she said. |
Didn't watch the whole thing, but no sign of remorse and alot of deflection the real issue: Tulsa's drug problem.
"Its better to be thought a fool, than stand up and remove all doubt"
The old guy said he received it in Dallas, which matches up. That's a no-story there. He did receive the training in Dallas from a member of the Maricopa force, it just was not sponsored by them.
But the most disturbing to me is being able to waive any training and that in 2007 they weren't saving training records digitally?
Seriously, what the fuck?
And only the trainers and trainees keep the records? What kind of backwards ass system is that? They both should have copies, but HR/Training should have a centralized location where they store both the original paper copies for a certain amount of years and digital copies indefinitely.
That's inexcusable for a city the size of Tulsa, IMO.
God forbid they get records proving someone was trained before the fact. No, better to wait for bad stuff to happen and THEN verify.
The old guy said he received it in Dallas, which matches up. That's a no-story there. He did receive the training in Dallas from a member of the Maricopa force, it just was not sponsored by them.
But the most disturbing to me is being able to waive any training and that in 2007 they weren't saving training records digitally?
Seriously, what the fuck?
And only the trainers and trainees keep the records? What kind of backwards ass system is that? They both should have copies, but HR/Training should have a centralized location where they store both the original paper copies for a certain amount of years and digital copies indefinitely.
That's inexcusable for a city the size of Tulsa, IMO.
Agree except for The old guy said he received it in Dallas, which matches up. That's a no-story there.. The end of that particular chapter hasn't ended yet ... from the linked article ...
“We don’t allow out-of-state people to take the class,” she said. “I’m only surmising, and I can’t confirm this because this would not have been our class, but our active shooter instructor did travel to Dallas once to teach a class.”
That class, according to an Arizona Republic report, was taught by a Maricopa County instructor through an organization called the National Tactical Officers’ Association.
However, Don Kester, director of training and education for NTOA, told the Arizona Republic that Bates does not belong to the association, nor is there any record of his registering or attending an NTOA training event.
New training records for Bates surfaced Saturday, when his attorney gave 65 pages of records to national media outlets.[...]
New training records released Saturday by Bates’ attorneys are missing three years of firearms qualification records and nearly all of his Field Training Officer records. Though the Tulsa World requested all of Bates’ training records days after the April 2 shooting, the sheriff’s office refused. [...]
Summary training records were later released during a press conference, but none showing his 480 hours of required training with officers in the field or any logs detailing his handgun qualifications.
Read more ... - ( New Window )
Don't know. An Apr 17 Tulsa World article stated,
Clark said the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office is conducting an internal review as well as being reviewed by the FBI, which the office requested in the wake of the shooting
and a CNN article of the same date said,
Glanz has stated publicly that he's reached out to the regional office of the FBI to look into the shooting.
Special Agent Terry B. Weber told CNN there's no open FBI investigation into the case.
Sheriff Stanley Glanz said Monday morning that the FBI has reviewed a fatal shooting by a reserve deputy and found the Sheriff's Office did nothing wrong.
and
Glanz told reporters that the Sheriff's Office will provide Bates' training records as they are found.
As to the first blurb, I have no idea what that means, that the Sheriff's Office did nothing wrong in the shooting. The 2nd blurb indicates they sent Bates, the volunteer, out there with no knowledge if he was actually qualified to be there since they haven't been able to produce complete records since the shooting, Apr 2.
Common sense would tell one (well, at least me) that without the records that qualified Bates (#2 blurb) how could the Sheriff's Office be held blameless (#1 blurb) for arming him and sending him out with the Violent Crimes Task Force for a sting against a man that could be armed and dangerous?
The two statements seem to contradict each other.
Link - ( New Window )
If they fight, their infighting can be used against eachother to extract more $$$.
But if they collaborate. Neither accuses the other of any blame, it could limit some damages.
Obviouly the conflict of interest requires an outside investigation.
Sheriff Stanley Glanz said Monday morning that the FBI has reviewed a fatal shooting by a reserve deputy and found the Sheriff's Office did nothing wrong.
It now says, concerning the FBI ...
The FBI has reviewed the shooting and incident, finding that there was no civil rights violations, Glanz said.
That sentence wasn't in the the earlier version.Not a hint that the article was updated and the posted time remains at 9:40am. Now that's journalism.
I know that Tulsa is a big city but can't help picturing this as their sheriff.
"The FBI has completed their investigation, and they found no wrongdoing at the Sheriff's Office," Glanz said. "Of course, they look at civil rights violations."
The FBI's statement ...
"It has been determined, based on the information available at this time, that a Civil Rights Investigation into the shooting death of Mr. Harris is not warranted. The FBI will remain open to re-evaluating the matter should new information or evidence come to the surface that would warrant such a review," the statement said.
So there was no formal FBI investigation into the shooting or Bates' qualifications, just a look see about civil rights. I don't know if anyone, including the victims family, claimed there was a racial issue.
The article continues ...
Glanz maintains that state law requires a reserve deputy to be certified only for a weapon, and that he, as sheriff, may waive requirements for further certification, he said Monday.
At the Harris family's attorney's press conference Monday afternoon, attorney Daniel Smolen said the law is unambiguous and that Bates should have been certified with the revolver if he was using it on duty.
"He was not properly carrying the weapon. Period," Smolen said. "They have produced no training, no records, no certifications and no qualifications for Mr. Bates' use of a .357."
No one seems to have produced the actual OK law that defines what weapon Bates was or was not allowed to carry while 'on duty'. If the Sheriff is correct and he can waive the requirement for certification of the weapon a volunteer may carry, he certainly is not saying he did, in fact, make that decision. He's just claiming he can. Since the issue here is that Bates couldn't tell the difference between the Taser and his .357 this seems to be an important point the Sheriff is waltzing around.
Link - ( New Window )
The investigation concluded Bates' training was questionable and that he was given preferential treatment.
The investigation found that deputies voiced concerns about Bates' behavior in the field, almost from the very beginning. Bates reportedly used his personal car while on duty and made unauthorized vehicle stops. When confronted Bates said that he could do what he wanted, and that anyone who had a problem with him should go see the sheriff.
The investigation concluded that high ranking officers created an atmosphere where employees were intimidated in order to violate department policy.
Read more - ( New Window )
They can't be serious in thinking that they're going to somehow survive the investigation and potential trial, right?
When asked about the allegations in the CBS report, Tulsa County Sheriff’s Maj. Shannon Clark said he had learned that a past undersheriff ordered “some type of internal review” into Bates but that it was never classified as an investigation and that there was “no further action” in the review.
“The Sheriff’s Office has no documented record of a report being generated,” Clark said.
Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz mentioned a report regarding Bates made by the same undersheriff in a Monday news conference, but he said he believed that report concluded that Bates received “no special treatment.”
Link - ( New Window )
Clark did not respond to a question specifically asking if records should have been generated with the investigation or review. He also did not respond as to whether the office is investigating their possible disappearance. [...]
The law firm Smolen Smolen & Roytman, which represents Harris' family, issued a statement Thursday morning saying the report must be kept in accordance with Sheriff's Office policy.
"There must be a report that was generated in connection with the internal affairs investigation," according to the statement. "The Sheriff's Office should immediately release the report and all records generated in connection with the 2009 investigation."
The statement quotes Sheriff's Office written policy that calls for a mandatory report of any internal investigation be submitted to the sheriff or undersheriff within 30 days of receiving a complaint for investigation.
Sheriff's Office policy further requires that all records pertaining to internal affairs investigations be kept in a secure area and only the sheriff or designee is empowered to release the details.
Link - ( New Window )
"I am highly concerned about recent allegations that have surfaced and I have been in contact with independent law enforcement agencies regarding further investigation into these matters," Kunzweiler said in a news release Friday afternoon. [...]
Kunzweiler said Friday that the new information is "worthy of further investigation." [...]
Read more ... - ( New Window )