You're entitled to your opinion, not the facts. To say that it has never been addressed is simply wrong.

Post what you want, but when you say things that are factually incorrect, which happens quite often, - you'll get called on it.

And, the writer knows people's specific opinions re: SPD?

Notwithstanding the troubled history of SPD, has anyone on Gazette's staff done anything to exacerbate that perception?

Bottom line, someone alleged wrongdoing - it's being investigated. He'll get his day in court.

Marincic - I agree that Kilcullen is doing a great job and will continue to do a great job. But, he has only been Chief for a little over 90 days so what this really is a transparent shot at the previous Chief(s). Not that your opinion matters that much, everyone who reads this paper knows you're the rah-rah guy for SPD, regardless of what they do, and more importantly the mouthpiece for malcontents. By the way, crime has been going down for several years.

Time will tell

Innocent until proven guilty?

Fair enough, but a curious statement from someone who accuses DEA agents of corruption, without providing any supportive evidence, let alone a trial.

First, I would take this article with a grain of salt as the reporter has consistently had issues with accuracy in the past.

RE: the relationship between the community and the police - where are they getting the data that the relationship is bad. There is always room for improvement but those quoted assert there is this huge rift between the police and the community and I would like to see some solid data re: data as opposed to the usual appointed community spokespeople stating things as fact, absent any real objective evidence.

RE: nothing done with complaints - I suppose all those officers were fired or resigned simply did so as a matter of conscience.

RE: training - I seriously doubt anyone quoted in this article has good info re: the quantity and type of training the police actually receive.

One final note - the controversial- high profile cases never go to the board because they are often related to criminal or civil litigation.

It was brought up because of the movie. The two I mentioned admitted to robbing someone on the street, and probably avoided other charges by cooperating - so they did plenty wrong.

Some reporters dredge up SPD dirt unnecessarily, however, I don't know that that is the case with this article. People were bound to see the movie and draw comparisons.

And, those are pretty serious allegations you are directing towards the DEA - hope you have proof to back those up.

How did Barnett and Siler get railroaded when they pled guilty? They paid for what they did, so it's over - but railroaded? Heroes?

Circumstantial evidence notwithstanding, it seems to me it would be prudent to know what the qualifications of other candidates were. Writer may be 100% right, but would anyone want to have allegations posted in an editorial absent a thorough investigation. Or, at the least, present some evidence that the Board would not cooperate with the investigation. Maybe that is the case, but I'm not seeing that from this editorial.

gazettereader

the point is that it really will not address the problem. the real problem of obesity is a long term problem and this is nota solution.