Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Apology to law enforcement for the missed intent of this article

Today my reply to Sarah Overstreet was printed in the S~N~L with the metal detector debate, you can also read it online at this link. As I was reading it from the paper I realized my intent to point out the absurd by being absurd would sorely be misinterpreted by many so I have written an official apology to every law enforcement officer who might read that article and think I was trying to say we have a problem with power hungry, over bearing police officers.

I have learned a valuable lesson upon reading this however as intent versus how it is taken could be construed quite differently depending upon who is reading the article. I still don't believe that metal detectors should be installed, but security measures for council chambers, the Busch building and the general public should be a high priority for all involved.

This letter is for the rank and file of the Springfield Police Department. Recently a letter I wrote concerning the metal detectors issue appeared in the Springfield News Leader as a rebuttal to a column from Sarah Overstreet. In this letter I was using the absurd to show how absurd this topic of discussion has gotten. I wrote the following comment to which I'm quoting directly from the article "I must, however, point out that our local police services have perpetrated more violent crime in the past month then any unseen bogeyman has since the city incorporated all those years ago. Just this example shows we are safer in council chambers then we are in our own vehicles with police officers around us".
I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of our law enforcement officers and even have a son getting ready to graduate with a criminal justice degree so how this reads versus how I wanted it to sound came out quite differently upon my reading the article in the paper. In this context I was trying to point out that just because there has been some questioned police procedures in the recent past both here and nationwide that this is no reason to require the citizen to have a personal security officer to protect them from police officers. We don't need at this point a private security firm with metal detectors installed in our public buildings because there has been no intent as of yet to be seen of violence occurring in our city council chambers or in the Busch building, besides we have an armed police officer standing outside council chambers to protect the average citizen and council members. I would imagine our police have the option of checking out an individual if they feel they are acting in a manner that could bring harm during a council meeting.

I apologize to anyone that thought I might be making a comment that the general public should be weary of our police forces just because of what has occurred here locally in the past few months.

Tom Martz
Missouri Liberty Coalition

No comments: