Friday, November 14, 2008

Monique Quashes 1st Amendment

  • First Chicago police arrested Mike Anzaldi for videotaping a crime scene while standing on private property with the owner’s permission.

    Then they deleted more than 500 images from his still cameras before releasing him from jail nine hours later.

    And now they are refusing to return his video camera along with the tape inside, claiming they need it as “evidence” to justify the arrest against him.

We usually have little tolerance for the press. They and police are constantly at odds. Here's what we are disturbed by:
  • Anzaldi was charged with obstruction against a peace officer after he refused to stop filming an investigation of an incident involving an off-duty police officer who shot and killed a man trying to rob him Tuesday night.

    But the initial order for him to stop filming came from a civilian, a police spokesperson named Monique Bond who is not even a police officer. A flack without a badge.

    [...] Anzaldi’s photos also show that he was clearly across the street, close enough to photograph the investigation but far enough not to interfere with it.

  • By that time, Bond had arrived on the scene to disseminate the news to the media. Instead, she did her best to censor the news.

    “She told me to stop shooting, that you can’t shoot a crime scene that is under investigation.”

Um, it would seem that this political hack just put a sergeant, a detective and two PO's in the trick bag. Ordering a photographer arrested? On private property? We foresee a large payout from the taxpayers based on Monique's interpretation of law.

Labels: ,

102 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mo' money, Mo' money, Mo' Money!

Coho Lips better pay my money!

11/14/2008 12:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't wait for the day Moe-Neek tries to give me an order.

11/14/2008 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who's in charge????

If the on scene police, (Sgt, or not), did these things, it sounds like they put themselves in the trickbag.

If they did these things at the direction of Ms. Bond, then they still trickbagged themselves for not telling her to STFU!!!!

She is not the ranking SWORN member on the scene and has no authority.

11/14/2008 12:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did she pull up in her new crown vic with all the lights and sirens activated? did the heat from the headlights wilt her makeup, she puts her makeup on with a trowel! Does she want to be police? Hey boss another huge salry that could be cut, nothing but a complete of clout waste!

11/14/2008 12:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

should have written a contact warning card

11/14/2008 12:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Carlos Miller said...

Thanks for respecting and understanding the First Amendment.

11/14/2008 12:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear that the four officers listened to a CIVILIAN and her assinine order. Officers she is not a Sworn member and she is NOT your supervisor. Please rememebr that in the future. Becareful of TwoLips.

11/14/2008 01:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The story says the Sergeant ordered the arrest. Seems to me he is likely to be in the trickbag. He likely has little clout. Monique obviously has some juice.

Once again Monique Bond helps embarrass the department. I personally prefer it when sworn personnel embarrass the department. Easier to keep track of that way.

Now of course the largest embarrassment to the Department is a certain unfrozen caveman Superintendent. Previously, Phil Cline was the LARGEST embarrassment.

I wouldn't expect a huge payout on this. Perhaps the price of a nice SUV.

Cameras are everywhere. Get used to it. If this story as described is true, then the City of Chicago and the Police Department are at fault. I forseeth neweth training material coming out on Police/Media relations. I just hope Monique doesn't "write" it.

11/14/2008 01:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more thang. Before anyone criticizes the First Amendment realize it is what protects the author of this blog and allows him to express his opinions. Sure he is a stinkin' hockey fan with a gun fetish, but he does more to illuminate the way the department is actually run than anyone else.

Maybe, just maybe, some positive change will come from it in the future. If not it is amusing to think about how the meritcloutacracy reacts to it!

11/14/2008 01:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1st monique is an idiot. 2nd most of you media/quasi media people need to get lives and let police/fire/construction workers be it who it may just do their jobs..you media hacks are part of the problem not the solution..and you media people should also take you're share of responsibility for the rise in crime in chicago with your anti police, print anything to sell a newspaper stories.

11/14/2008 01:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monique Bond may be the dumbest person to ever represent the police department. What she is though is normal for the political, clout, and corrupt city. She is part of "the chicago way" Even though she embarrasses chicago her behavior is normal for chicago. Just listen to the Mayor speak. He's so embarrassing that it's very funny. To the mayor she's the smartest women in the world! These fools that have destroyed chicago, cook county and now the entire state could care less about being proud of our reputation!

11/14/2008 03:23:00 AM  
Blogger RoaVaPD said...

Why did they follow an unlawful order from a non-cop? I wasn't there and I don't want to second guess them, perhaps there was more to the story. But like you posted, there's going to be a pay out for this. WTF???

11/14/2008 03:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I sure hope the coppers didn't take any orders from Monique "dumbass" Bond. I hope someday she is on scene when I'm around so I can totally disregard her. She is a nobody! She is part of what's wrong with chicago. They just keep giving the political fools authortity!

On a side note, she kinda looks like the bone my dog just finished chewing up yesterday!

11/14/2008 03:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that is why when someone of higher rank or monique bonds orders you to arrest someone, you put them in box 1 and in the narrative-you put 'per sgt or lt so & so or monique bonds' especially if you didnt witness the incident or if you know the arrest is unjustified. CYA

11/14/2008 05:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read this article at policeone.com and thought how insane...yet it can happen to any of us. slow down that work, cause the police arent the police anymore, just paper makers in the new world order. Read it. Think about it. Keep your family, house, etc.

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-
issues/articles/1756134-P1-Exlcusive-
How-a-wave-of-racial-hysteria-crashed
-over-two-cops-accused-of-murder/

11/14/2008 07:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If anyone arrested this guy on an order by Lips, then they get what's comming. What happened to police officers conducting an investigation. It should have been politely explaned to Lips that no crime had occured. Further more if she insited, ask her to have the w/c or street dep. order an arrest.
It would have ended there.

Always document all orders by any boss to arrest someone. You will end up in federal court. It will help having it on the reports.

11/14/2008 07:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Next time I'm at a crime scene, I'm gonna call my wife to start filming so we can get paid like everyone else.

11/14/2008 08:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a f*cking hack. Something tells me she's not gonna take time but everyone else that is involved with this arrest will. Wasn't there a street deputy or someone with higher rank there to tell her to close her suck hole? It was a police shooting, so some gold star had to have been there.

I hope the first line of the case and arrest report reads: From a direct order by Monique Bond, Director, Media Affairs the A/O's were instructed to......

11/14/2008 08:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are wrong SCC. You do not know the facts of the case and unfortunately are causing an uproar while the Department attempted to legally protect the privacy of those actually involved in this incident. That private property was not the private property of who you so loosely call a "photographer." This was not a photographer, but a voyeur and while he has very valid 1st Amendment rights, he did not have those rights at that scene. And no, I don't work for Bond or know her but I do know the facts of this case and I can say that I am for the Department finally doing something to protect victims (the officer) from acts like this from non-media citizens who are not involved in the incident. Its been a long time coming.

11/14/2008 08:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with a political hack like Monique is she has no clue what the police do and she really could care less. She will not take any suggestions from anyone below the rank of D/S and when she does, it is usually J-Feds policy of tell the media nothing. When you are at the scene of a good shooting, you want the media to get the basic facts of what the mope was doing before he was shot by the police, like trying to stick someone up or pointing a gun at the police. How many times did you see the offenders gun at a police shooting when Camden, or Agent Orange as you affectionately called him, was on the scene. A picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe Monique thinks the 1st Ammendment is part of the Fairness doctrine that Barry wants to put in place. There should be a law suit following shortly.

11/14/2008 08:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the police actually obeyed her orders? Get a C.R. # on her, and monitor its progress.

Send the police for training on who's WHO?

11/14/2008 08:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great. Just Great. How many hundreds of thousands of tax dollars did Moron Monique just light on fire?

We are truly our own worst enemies. Couldn't the Sgt. and/or dick have told Monique that the man was NOT committing a crime? Instead, we just routinely bow down to our civilian clout-laden bosses. The Sgt. and the dick will now be sued along with Monique.

11/14/2008 09:05:00 AM  
Anonymous ken stabler's beard said...

I feel that the CPD and Oakland Raiders have a lot in common:
1) once proud franchise run into the ground by an out-of-touch boss
2)numerous changes at the top where one incompetent is replaced by another
3)pretty much despised by everyone but a few
4)constantly ripped in and by the media
5)outgunned by the opponent
6)steroid poster boy (romanowski,j-fed)
7)babbling owner (davis, daley)

Our BDU's are even silver and black!

11/14/2008 09:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Captain Buslik tried to control the media in 025 last year Monique wanted him demoted.

The same standard that she tried to apply in that instance should be applied to her.

What is good for the gander is good for the goose!

11/14/2008 09:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She should have the price... Never heard make any comments that make sense. Who is her connection?

11/14/2008 09:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a couple things need to be kept in mind. first, 'everybody' in this case is aware of most of the media coverage surrounding the arrest. yes, this blog is media. second, the facts of this incident are unfortunately undisputable. i witnessed the event, and can confirm the accuracy of the reporting on it. the photographer is a news stringer who shoots both spec and assignment. i've seen his byline in the tribune and with the associated press. the video is usually sold to local TV. i believe most stringers are self-employed. i don't know about this guy. that said, whether you consider stringers as "real" media or not, i believe their rights are the same as any network media, which are the same as the general public. i can confirm that a media credential does not provide photographers or reporters with any more access than the general public, as one story pointed out. defense of monique bond in this case is a risk the city and states attorney can't possibly afford. any defense of her actions at all would indicate a disregard or intolerance of chicago code, illinois law, and the constitution of the united states, by the chicago police department. the CPD will be forced to say bond acted outside her authority, and does not agree with her actions.

the arresting officer will likely need to be slapped too. the article says it was a sergeant! even worse. if supervising officials like sergeants and the media director are not familiar with simple laws like media rights, then the state of the department is indeed troubling. the first amendment is, well, the first one on the list! if you can't get that one right, what chance do these folks have of processing a complex homicide scene? yikes.

11/14/2008 09:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 8:22am.
All of us are for victim rights.

Going on what the original post said.
If this incident was in a place where there is no expectaion of privacy, like the public way, then there is no crime.
If the photographer crossed no polce line there is no crime.

Maybe the department should drop some $$$ and buy portable curtins like real departments do.

Finally, if the original post is wrong on the facts please post
the correct facts.

Now go tell Lips you finished washing her car.

11/14/2008 10:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can remember when all those city hall flunkys would tell me have the person arrested in various situations. I'd say what charge they would say on anything just hold him till "this is over". I'd ask are you going to be the one sitting with the attorneys from the PLO or the one sitting in federal court? Obviously, I didn't do well with the new breed of city hall geniuses. The Sgt. and perhaps the officers are the ones hanging here. Whoever is the arresting officers and the Sgt. are going to suffer. You can't base your defense on "I was ordered by this goof to arrest him". The I was ordered to do it defense went out the window during the Nuremberg trials.

11/14/2008 10:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The guy was arrested the next week for the same thing

11/14/2008 10:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monique was simply trying to protect the off-duty detective involved in the shooting, pure and simple. She didn't want his picture on television.The guy was inside the crime scene (yellow tape) when he was asked to move. If you weren't there you probably shouldn't comment.He is not a regular newsman. The regulars know better.

11/14/2008 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Rich Rostrom said...

I am very glad to see that nearly all the responses to this post recognize that photographing or videoing the police in a public area is not a crime.

There have been some incidents of police forcing a citizen to stop photography or video, confiscating cameras, or even arresting the person, only to find there is no legal authority whatever for such actions.

I understand that police officers are very worried (with good reason) about such imagery being used against them maliciously. But if citizens have the right to look (from a safe distance), which they do, they have a right to record what they see.

The claim of obstruction is completely absurd. How can observing from a distance obstruct anything? Maybe if the observer was shining a spotlight on the area...

And of course in many cases the police might not even be aware of the observer. He might be hundreds of yards away, using telescopic lenses, or inside a building looking out of a window.

If Ms. Bond was the originator of this misbegotten action, then she should apologize and resign. Not that she will, of course.

Just a Civilian

11/14/2008 11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Ms. Bond had the 500 stills deleted, then she should be prosecuted for:
• Obstruction
• Evidence tampering
• Prosecutorial misconduct

Felonies ALL.

No BOND for Bond

11/14/2008 11:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If i were an FTO still I would instruct my PPOs to simply ignore the commands of any civilian member of this department. Walk past them as if they do not exist. If they interfere at a crime scene arrest them for interference/obstruction. They do not understand the requirements of PC to arrest and have not been through trials. Nor do they have the legal or administrative authority to give you an order and therefore i do not see how the department could substantiate an insubordination beef should you ignore their order.

11/14/2008 12:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LIPS OF PAIN!!!!

11/14/2008 12:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She is not the ranking SWORN member on the scene and has no authority.
------------------------------
It appears that even if she was the ranking sworn member on the sceen she would not have had ther authority to issues such a blatanetly illegal order.

This kind of thing just furthers the stereotype of CPD being completely out of control.

11/14/2008 12:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did they follow an unlawful order from a non-cop?
--------------------------------
why did they follow an unlawful order at all? it really does not matter who gave the order, it was still almost certainly unlawful.

11/14/2008 01:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:22am said

"This was not a photographer, but a voyeur and while he has very valid 1st Amendment rights, he did not have those rights at that scene."

I got news for you me bucko. If someone is standing on property away from a scene and wants to take pics or video they have a legal right to. Assuming a property owner doesn't object if they are filming from private property. Doesn't matter if they have the "credentials" given by the hacks in Media Affairs or not.

I personally hate being on video whether it is walking into Jewel or on the street. The only exception to that is the video I have in my mind of a young Angelina Jolie and me on a rooftop as the EL goes by. Now that would be video to be proud of. Too bad it only exists in my fantasy life.

Get used to it. The best comment here was by the officer who was going to send his wife to film at a crime scene and hopes she gets arrested.

Cameras are reality. Cameras are nearly everywhere.

Now go back to Dugan's and tell everyone how you stood up for the "real police" on SCC and how the "job" just ain't the way it used to be.

11/14/2008 02:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Failed Model Approach

11/14/2008 02:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although Monqiue is a complete an utter idiot, why in sam hell did a SGT and POs listen to a ridiculous order as that. Anyone with half a brain would know given the details you published, that you cannot lock someone up for that. Get ur heads out of ur asses people.

11/14/2008 02:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monique was simply trying to protect the off-duty detective involved in the shooting, pure and simple. She didn't want his picture on television.The guy was inside the crime scene (yellow tape) when he was asked to move. If you weren't there you probably shouldn't comment.He is not a regular newsman. The regulars know better.

+++++++++++

Did you even click on the link provided? The published photo there is OUTSIDE the yellow tape. Strike one against Monique.

If you read the article by the photographer, he says he recovered all the deleted images from the camera. If true, the City is fucked because he is under no obligation to release any photos in question that might prove he was inside the tape. That camera should have been inventoried and the memory card downloaded as EVIDENCE of him violating the yellow tape space. No photo, no crime, except the ones he chooses to release showing he was outside the tape. Strike two against Monique.

Unfortunately, with telephoto lenses and ubiquitous cell phone cameras everywhere, if you are involved in a shooting, your pic is going to end up somewhere on the TV or internet. How? When the bosses walk you through the scene to show positioning and such, the cameras are going to key on you. The only possible way to avoid it? Make the damn crime scene as big as possible. Cut off alleys, gangways, vacant lots. Unfortunately, you aren't going to be able to stop some media type from knocking on a back door and offering the owner $100 to take pix from the living room picture window. Strike 3, but this time against the people running the crime scene.

Now show this guy the money because he is going to kick the City's ass in court.

11/14/2008 03:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey will Monique get a police pension when she retires?

11/14/2008 04:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

She is not the ranking SWORN member on the scene and has no authority.
------------------------------
It appears that even if she was the ranking sworn member on the sceen she would not have had ther authority to issues such a blatanetly illegal order.

This kind of thing just furthers the stereotype of CPD being completely out of control.

***********************************

Learn to spell, MORON!

And, who says we're completely out of control. We're just not under control of any law enforcement professionals!!!!

Instead, we're under the control of a stupid little mayor who thinks this city belongs to him, and a puppet little police supt. who never worked as a police officer for a day in his life before he was hired!!!!

Sounds like a recipe for disaster, doesn't it????

11/14/2008 05:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Time to get rid of Monique. Send her off to another bureau in the city. She is waaaay too much a liability with the popo.

11/14/2008 05:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love Mr. Ken Stabler's Beard. Great post.

I got an idea. On first down, Mark Van Egan up the middle for 2. Hell yeah!

11/14/2008 06:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shame on the Sergeant - most probably the supervisor was Merit pick without the common sense, street smarts, or knowledge of Department orders.

She cannot tell you to do anything. The only members she can order to do anything are those who work and report directly to her.

Where are the legal beagles on this one. Kirby and crew should be castigated for not releasing this man immediately and not returning his property (including photo disc).

The only reason this incompetent fool probably did this is the reporter had some images that would help the PO's case. She is a bought and fully owned "bitch" of the Mayors mouthpiece Jackie Whatshername (not worth posting her name).

Hope the Detectives and PO's skate on this one and the totally asshole Sergeant gets burnt.

11/14/2008 08:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did they follow an unlawful order from a non-cop? I wasn't there and I don't want to second guess them, perhaps there was more to the story. But like you posted, there's going to be a pay out for this. WTF???

Do we not all follow orders from a NON-COP???? Yeah i'm talking about you Jody you retarded looking weasel

11/14/2008 08:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We must give credit,where credit is due. People as Monique, and the mayor, make satire easy.
The problem is this is not funny anymore.
Satire is only funny, when its the exception, not the rule.
These people are so incompetent, it's scary.

11/14/2008 08:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monique has been and is a joke and an embarrassment to this Dept. She has no clue what to say on a scene and no people skills. For all of you who did not like Pat at least he was able to form a sentence and was pro Police.

11/14/2008 09:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO: This was not a photographer, but a voyeur and while he has very valid 1st Amendment rights, he did not have those rights at that scene.

THink again....they are on the public way and unless Monique can get the constitution repealed, SFU

11/14/2008 09:26:00 PM  
Anonymous JCH said...

Voyeur or no - which this guy was not, and that's a ridiculous, uninformed thing to say - any person is allowed to film on a public street. That's what our constitution says, deal with it.

Whether it was Bond's or someone else's call, it was woefully misguided.

11/14/2008 09:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love how people who were NOT THERE are able to comment on this incident. I WAS there and the photographer was told to not cross police tape a few times and when asked for credentials, he provided some BS story that they were in his car. He never was issued any Department Media Creds. For all you superstars out there, you are smart enough. See who the A/O was. The photog was given enough chances to do the right thing, he just failed to do the smart thing. Oh yea, big surprise, he was a J/O.

11/14/2008 09:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Voyeur or no - which this guy was not, and that's a ridiculous, uninformed thing to say - any person is allowed to film on a public street. That's what our constitution says, deal with it.

Whether it was Bond's or someone else's call, it was woefully misguided.

11/14/2008 09:34:00 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love how people who were NOT THERE are able to comment on this incident. I WAS there and the photographer was told to not cross police tape a few times and when asked for credentials, he provided some BS story that they were in his car. He never was issued any Department Media Creds. For all you superstars out there, you are smart enough. See who the A/O was. The photog was given enough chances to do the right thing, he just failed to do the smart thing. Oh yea, big surprise, he was a J/O.

11/14/2008 09:40:00 PM

Hey tard boy, it's not the arrest, it's the deleting of photos.

If this goof was in a secure area, lock him up. Destroying his property is another matter.

If any you don't want to be seen in the media, you're in the wrong job.

11/14/2008 10:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm calling B.S. on this one. The media can't stand Monique and I haven't seen this story anywhere. Try it for yourself. When the reporters show up on your scene, ask if they would like to speak to Monique and look at their face. It's priceless.

11/14/2008 10:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCC SAYS:

Um, it would seem that this political hack just put a sergeant, a detective and two PO's in the trick bag.

I SAY:

WHAT!?!? Those four fumduckers put themselves in the trick bag when they started taking orders from civilians. That whole "I was just following orders" bullshit did not work at Nuremburg and it won't work in Federal Court when all the tards face a jury. Too bad, so sad.

11/14/2008 10:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was on the scene as a lot of you guys were not. The photographer was asked several time to stay behind the tape which he refused. The 7th District Commander gave the order to arrest him not Bond. The guy said he had creds to be there which he refused to produce. This guy was trying to incite the crowd so something had to be done. You guys seem to get incorrect information and run wild it. I was there you were not. The guy had filmed the police doing a walk through of the shooting, showing the Det's face and everything. I can't fault the Commander for trying to protect the Det.

11/14/2008 10:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was not a photographer, but a voyeur and while he has very valid 1st Amendment rights, he did not have those rights at that scene.


----

???? Say Whaaaat? You have your 1st Amendment rights EVERYWHERE. Seems you don't know what you are talking about.

11/14/2008 10:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said...
Monique has been and is a joke and an embarrassment to this Dept. She has no clue what to say on a scene and no people skills. For all of you who did not like Pat at least he was able to form a sentence and was pro Police.

11/14/2008 09:16:00 PM

What you guys fail to see is that Bond was incredibly pro-police. She was protecting the officer involved in the shooting and this is what you respond to her efforts with? Wow... I was on the scene and this guy did NOT follow procedures. He violated the scene and had no credentials. You guys are goofs who think there was a violation of 1st amendment. There was not. You should be glad Bond cared enough to protect this officer. I hope you are not in this position. If I was I am glad she did what she did. As a civilian, I take my hat off to her.

11/14/2008 10:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fricken morons, all of 'em.

Slow down, and THINK before you act. Otherwise, you will see your CU decrease as your sustained CRs accumulate.

11/14/2008 10:48:00 PM  
Anonymous I Work 99 said...

Monique was HOT back in the day.

---Abe Lincoln.

11/14/2008 10:50:00 PM  
Anonymous HATER said...

PROTECT THE OFF DUTY OFFICER CMON!

THE CITY WANTS TO GIVE OUT OFFICER PICTURES FOR THE NEW MEDIA AS SOON AS THEY R ARRESTED.

CHECK THE FOP WEBSITE AND C 4 UR SELF.

JUST LET THEM FILM WHAT THEY WANT WE ALL CANT HAVE JENNIFER HUDSON DETAIL PROTECTING R FAMILIES AFTER A TRAGEDY.

DONT FORGET TO HAVE UR PRETTY BASEBALL CAP TILTED!?!

11/14/2008 10:57:00 PM  
Anonymous dilligaf said...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is the 1st amendment. Where does it say anything about video cameras, tape recorders or the like. It just says our legislative branch will not pass any laws against these "rights." We have judges that legislate from the bench, which they are forbidden to do. It's been interpreted by the courts that video is okay on the public way, but audio is verboten. Yet, I can hear stuff just as well as see it. Makes no fucking sense to me. If the jagoff crossed the tape to get recorded images, lock him up. If he was as the news reports, then shame on MB. I have my doubts as the MSM is totally FUBAR.

11/14/2008 11:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DALEYS MERRY PUPETS.......

11/15/2008 01:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought she quit months ago and took a job at Target.

11/15/2008 06:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She was an idiot when she was the mouthpiece at the airport and she's even a bigger idiot now!

11/15/2008 07:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She needs to find another embalmer to do her face!

11/15/2008 07:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monique? that name sounds like royalty ...

Monique what? Monique of Arabia?

you had better wipe that disgusting grin off your face or I will gouge out your eyeballs and ...

11/15/2008 07:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sgt. Dumshit says---

Honest. I didn't mean to delete all the pictures. I was just trying to turn the camera off to save his batteries.

11/15/2008 09:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anybody can take pictures or video tape on the public way.If the guy was a photographer or not if he did not interfere with police you can't lock him up because you don't like what he is doing.

11/15/2008 09:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

&^%$#&^%$%# OFFICERS ($%6*$%^%$

YOU BETTER KNOW THE LAW. IN ORDER TO ARREST SOMEONE A CRITERIA MUST BE MET AND THATS, P.C. TO MAKE AN ARREST. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ORDERS YOU TOO, DOES NOT EMPOWER YOU TO ARREST.

WE ARE COURT OFFICERS AS WELL AND WE MUST ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC, THERE IS THE CONSTITUTION TO UP HOLD.

SHAME ON THE PO, DET, SGT,

MONIQUE, (OK HACK) DID NOT PUT THEM IN THE TRICK BAG, THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN THE TRICK BAG BY MAKING THAT UNLAWFUL ARREST.

WE (OFFICERS) ARE HANDING OUT LOTERRY TICKETS.

11/15/2008 10:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monique for Mayor
she likes the police

11/15/2008 11:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Bond, or whoever ordered or made this arrest was probably off base in arresting this guy whether he was on public property, his own property, or someone else's property the owner wasn't kicking him off. If he wasn't a member of the press, I don't know if the First Ammendment applies, but our society tends to operate on the principle that anything not specifically prohibited is allowed, so it was probably a bad arrest. What troubles me though, is the fact that if he had been allowed to continue taping a P.O. who had just been involved in a shooting, you guys would have been all over the boss for allowing it. You can't have it both ways. You expect the bosses to back you when you screw up, maybe you should consider some support of the bosses when they are trying to protect one of us.

11/15/2008 12:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
anonymous said...
Monique has been and is a joke and an embarrassment to this Dept. She has no clue what to say on a scene and no people skills. For all of you who did not like Pat at least he was able to form a sentence and was pro Police.

11/14/2008 09:16:00 PM

What you guys fail to see is that Bond was incredibly pro-police. She was protecting the officer involved in the shooting and this is what you respond to her efforts with? Wow... I was on the scene and this guy did NOT follow procedures. He violated the scene and had no credentials. You guys are goofs who think there was a violation of 1st amendment. There was not. You should be glad Bond cared enough to protect this officer. I hope you are not in this position. If I was I am glad she did what she did. As a civilian, I take my hat off to her.

11/14/2008 10:46:00 PM

...........

Signed
Moniques Mom.

11/15/2008 01:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameraman is probably her friend and are both in on it to get some $$$

11/15/2008 01:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was on the scene as a lot of you guys were not. The photographer was asked several time to stay behind the tape which he refused. The 7th District Commander gave the order to arrest him not Bond. The guy said he had creds to be there which he refused to produce. This guy was trying to incite the crowd so something had to be done. You guys seem to get incorrect information and run wild it. I was there you were not. The guy had filmed the police doing a walk through of the shooting, showing the Det's face and everything. I can't fault the Commander for trying to protect the Det.


ah-hem...protect the detective from what? bad media? i thought the detective was a hero? the story the CPD fed the media was that an ex-con held up a CPD detective at gun point. detective discharged 1 shot into the offenders abdomen- in self defense. period.

pretty straight forward to me. where's the need for protection? if that's the story, then put the guy in front of the camera so the city can see and congratulate him on his bravery and commitment to serve and protect, even off-duty. i would certainly support that.

oh, but wait. what if that isin't exactly how it went down? what if, by chance, the family of the offender claims that there was a second offender? what if the family produces a coroners report disputing the "one shot" story fed to the media by monique bond, and the CPD? what if witnesses at the scene came forward to dispute the exchange between the dick and the perps? what if one of those media hacks took pictures or video of the 6 shell casings found from the one bullet that was fired? uh-oh. now there is a reason to protect the detective. and yes, now there is GREAT reason to get that f--king photographer the hell out of there.

whoever posted the comment i copied above is speaking foolishly, and coming dangerously close to identifying themselves as one of the arresting PO's. as a colleague, i suggest you clam it. claiming this asshole has shots of a detectives face is only possible if you saw his photos or his video. the problem we face here is that who knows what this guy has shots of? we tried, appearently unsuccessfully, to delete pictures. why the f--k did we do that, by the way? we also kept the video camera? what's on that tape that we are concerned about?

the issue i have is that we need to at least be as smart as our opponents, preferably smarter. in this case, this picture taker. does anyone know if this guy has support? god knows we wouldn't be locking up a fox photographer. they have lawyers. my point is we better be more prepared than this guy. if he comes out of nowhere with video tape that supports his claim, and implicates a detective in some far-fetched wrongful death suit, then forget discipline. worry about termination and civil action.

call me a big puss. i avoid the press at all costs because of this type of shit. i don't know all the local, state, and federal laws protecting press. but, you can bet your testicles that THEY do! i cautiously give our people the benefit of the doubt in this case, just because. but on the other hand, has anybody come up with a reasonable motive for a photographer to risk incarceration to take a picture of dicks standing around holding notebooks?

11/15/2008 02:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shame on you for doing something ILLEGAL without having a supervisor give you an order to do so.

Lots of police officers on this job do not know the law.

11/15/2008 03:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WHO FUCKING CARES IF THEY FILM A DEAD BODY IN THE STREET!

Get your priorities straight people.

11/15/2008 03:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That private property was not the private property of who you so loosely call a "photographer." This was not a photographer, but a voyeur and while he has very valid 1st Amendment rights, he did not have those rights at that scene.
--------------

Did someone post something about lots of police officers that don't know the law?

Amazing how those constitutional rights just evaporated at the edge of the crime scene tape.

But, this really has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. This has to do with the 4th Amendment. The photographer was illegally arrested (seized). He didn't break any laws, but was arrested anyway. That's the grounds under which all those officers on the arrest report will be sued. And even though the city will settle to protect Bond, if your name gets in the media over the next 20 years, they'll report the settlement as money that you "cost" the city.

Maybe no money out of your pocket, but certainly a stain on your reputation. And for what?

11/15/2008 03:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love how people who were NOT THERE are able to comment on this incident. I WAS there and the photographer was told to not cross police tape a few times and when asked for credentials, he provided some BS story that they were in his car. He never was issued any Department Media Creds. For all you superstars out there, you are smart enough. See who the A/O was. The photog was given enough chances to do the right thing, he just failed to do the smart thing. Oh yea, big surprise, he was a J/O.

11/14/2008 09:40:00 PM

What G.O. states that media credentials allows a person cross the yellow tape? Why even ask? What does media credentials have to do with anything?

What actually happened was this person was able to access an area NOT TAPED, but within the overall taped area, because he was able to get on a private residental porch within the taped area, probably through the rear of the residence with the owner's consent.

But, in the end, this discussion about where he was is pointless. HOW DID THIS PERSON OBSTRUCT THE POLICE? What did he do?

He will say that he was filming and the police didn't want him to film them, so the police arrested him. And that is indeed what happened. That arrest was illegal, he will sue, and he will win.

If there is a crime scene, and a person comes onto his PRIVATE porch without interfering with the processing of the scene, and he watches you process the scene, HE IS NOT BREAKING ANY LAW. If he is filming you, HE IS STILL NOT BREAKING ANY LAW.

If you want him to get off his porch, you need to have an ARTICULABLE reason for ordering him to do so. Is there evidence on the porch? Is there the possibility of evidence on the porch? Is he getting in the way of the processing or photographing of the scene? Is he in any way stopping the police from completing the processing of the scene? If the answer to all these questions is NO, then you can't make him get off private property.

The Chicago Police Department wants problems out of the way. They have been encouraging officers to make illegal arrests for decades because that is the easiest way of solving crime and disorder problems. A citizen complains of people hanging out, the dept. wants you to "sweep" them up. A witness doesn't want to cooperate, the dept. wants you to "make" them.

The problem is the dept. no longer gives a rat's ass about you, your reputation, your freedom, or your money. The people that run this dept. are too lazy and too stupid to give you the legal tools to solve problems, so they just tell you to do the wrong thing because that's the easiest way for them make this problem go away and move onto the next one.

This department is a joke and it has been for years. Don't let it make you do something you'll regret down the road.

11/15/2008 04:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11/15/2008 02:11:00 PM

You're a big puss.

11/15/2008 06:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just so nobody else has to look silly when they run their mouth about media, credentials, and the law...have a look at the chicago municipal code pertaining to this subject.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il

nowhere in the code does it indicate that crossing police/fire lines is cause for arrest. in fact, it says that so long as you are a legal holder of credentials- which he is- you ARE allowed to cross to gather news. also, the code does not require you to display them, but simply to be a holder. having the card on your person is not required by law. just like a drivers license. you are required to be licensed to drive, but there is no offense for not having the card in your pocket.

bond has been telling the media that this guy was arrested for crossing the tape. the states attorney will have to prove beyond a doubt, the he crossed the tape- and in doing so, obstructed the investigation. that'll be a neat trick, seeing that he claims to have pictures and video of him outside the line. plus, the code suggests that press card holders have the clearance to cross lines for newsgathering purposes anyway!

just a guess, but i'm thinking they arrested him for not following directions. they said 'stop recording.' knowing the law, he said 'blow it out your ass.'

there's no law against being an asshole. and there is no obligation to comply with an unlawful order. sorry folks, but ordering someone to stop filming is an unlawful order in these, and most circumstances.

11/15/2008 11:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nowhere in the code does it indicate that crossing police/fire lines is cause for arrest. in fact, it says that so long as you are a legal holder of credentials- which he is- you ARE allowed to cross to gather news. also, the code does not require you to display them, but simply to be a holder. having the card on your person is not required by law. just like a drivers license. you are required to be licensed to drive, but there is no offense for not having the card in your pocket.

bond has been telling the media that this guy was arrested for crossing the tape. the states attorney will have to prove beyond a doubt, the he crossed the tape- and in doing so, obstructed the investigation. that'll be a neat trick, seeing that he claims to have pictures and video of him outside the line. plus, the code suggests that press card holders have the clearance to cross lines for newsgathering purposes anyway!

just a guess, but i'm thinking they arrested him for not following directions. they said 'stop recording.' knowing the law, he said 'blow it out your ass.'

there's no law against being an asshole. and there is no obligation to comply with an unlawful order. sorry folks, but ordering someone to stop filming is an unlawful order in these, and most circumstances.

11/15/2008 11:28:00 PM


Wrong. For one, there is a law against not having your ,license on your person, it is called failure to produce. Look it up jerk off, it is on every traffic ticket. Crossing the crime scene tape and disturbing the evidence would or hindering the investigation would be a physical act. The charge for this would be obstruction of a police officer. Which I'm sure you or your beat off client is charged with. For the record the "police line" and crime scene tape are totally different. The media credential does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. Remember turd breath the card is granted by the Superintendent of Police, you are not entitled to shit.

11/16/2008 08:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...having the card on your person is not required by law. just like a drivers license. you are required to be licensed to drive, but there is no offense for not having the card in your pocket...
-------
Yes you are .... 6-112 can be written for failure to carry/produce

11/16/2008 08:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

failure to produce? come on. those are promptly throw out when in court.

Crossing the crime scene tape and disturbing the evidence would or hindering the investigation would be a physical act. The charge for this would be obstruction of a police officer. Which I'm sure you or your beat off client is charged with. For the record the "police line" and crime scene tape are totally different. The media credential does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. Remember turd breath the card is granted by the Superintendent of Police, you are not entitled to shit.

you guys just keep bringing the stupid.
the poster isin't claiming the code reads "carte blanche". and actually, it seems to say they ARE entitled to cross police and fire lines to shoot news. are we reading different codes?

this attitude is what will land the sgt. and bond in hot water. the tape might be a magic line for the public, but the code indicates press pass holders can cross to take pictures.

you are saying there is a difference between police lines and crime scene tape. you want to elaborate, or just yap like a power-crazed wacko? support your statements like an educated professional. an anonymous blog is no place to spout unsupported, bullshit claims. it's senseless.

if you want to claim- somehow- that the dude went into a red tape area and compromised evidence, then there is nothing further to discuss, since such a claim has not been mentioned anywhere in the linked stories. funny how many complaints there are about media unfairly judging or convicting stereotypes. don't look now, but i think the pot is calling the kettle here.

11/16/2008 05:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so you are saying that if your wallet is misplaced or stolen, you are committing a crime by driving to the DMV to get a new one?

11/16/2008 05:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who cares let the buzzards eat!

These sack of shit media types need to make a living too. Hell I am already paying the income taxes for these ghetto rats. I don't want to pay more for some dirt bag who can skull fuck a story to death with a camera. If this guy can't get the story he will be hitting the unemployment line. Keep the video Rowling. Keep those crime scenes full.

11/16/2008 07:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"so you are saying that if your wallet is misplaced or stolen, you are committing a crime by driving to the DMV to get a new one?

11/16/2008 05:50:00 PM"


Technically, yes.

Welcome to the nation of laws gone wild.

11/16/2008 11:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you guys just keep bringing the stupid.
the poster isin't claiming the code reads "carte blanche". and actually, it seems to say they ARE entitled to cross police and fire lines to shoot news. are we reading different codes?

this attitude is what will land the sgt. and bond in hot water. the tape might be a magic line for the public, but the code indicates press pass holders can cross to take pictures.

you are saying there is a difference between police lines and crime scene tape. you want to elaborate, or just yap like a power-crazed wacko? support your statements like an educated professional. an anonymous blog is no place to spout unsupported, bullshit claims. it's senseless.

if you want to claim- somehow- that the dude went into a red tape area and compromised evidence, then there is nothing further to discuss, since such a claim has not been mentioned anywhere in the linked stories. funny how many complaints there are about media unfairly judging or convicting stereotypes. don't look now, but i think the pot is calling the kettle here.

11/16/2008 05:47:00 PM

A"police line" would be the area where police set up perimeter and keep the general public away from.
The crime sceme is the area that is marked by yellow and red tape. It's not power crazed its fact. The person drunk on press pass power is you. When have you EVER seen a reporter on television reoprting from inside the crime scene? You haven't dickweed, and this is the reason.
The "reports" of asshole crossing the red line are from the arrest report. I also personally know people who work in the 007 and were present this night. I don't have to take my "facts" from your asshole buddy or your photographer rights website.
Like the code says dummy the pass is issued by the Superintendent of Police. It is vague for reason. All the rest of you fucking snakes know the rules. When guarding major scenes like the Midway plane crash, I have had multiple roaches like yourself try and move into the crime scene. Most notably turd breath Rob Johnson tried to pull the good old but your boss said it was fine. Did Rob make it past the press area? No. Did Rob bitch and whine? Yes. Did Rob do an expose about his CPD issued press pass rights allowing him to disregard police orders and disturb crime scenes? No. Because he knows the rules. Why does he know the rules? Because channel 7 has a legal department that briefed piss breath about what he is allowed to do.
Don't get your panties in a bunch asshole. Your a photographer, not the president.

11/16/2008 11:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "reports" of asshole crossing the red line are from the arrest report.
--
well then, case closed. if it's in the arrest report, it's gotta be true.

11/17/2008 12:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

assholes, snakes, turd breath, piss breath...



did these guys give you wedgies back in grade school or something?

i like your style man...light 'em up! fuck the press. fuck 'em!

11/17/2008 01:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Possession of news media credentials is not a authorization to:
1. violate existing laws.
2. violate parking restrictions.
3. disobey police orders.
4. provide access to any police activity before the completion of the investigation.
a. If the on-scene supervisor determines that the news media
personnel will not interfere with a police activity the supervisor
may allow the news media with Chicago Police Department issued news media identification within the yellow (outer perimeter) crime scene taped area before completion of the processing of the crime scene.
b. At no time will the news media be allowed within the red
(inner perimeter) crime scene taped area before the processing of the crime scene by all appropriate units.

11/17/2008 02:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anzaldi is a little sneak ... I just had him on a crime scene and he was running around taking his pictures ... He did not identify himself until asked and at first refused saying he was from the media ... I believe he has to display his media I.D. card ... watch out for this guy

11/17/2008 01:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

... watch out for this guy





yeah. sounds like a real renegade. how about a dedicated tactical unit to seek and destroy this dangerous force.

he must be stopped. it's critical that this menace be sentenced before he snaps any more pictures of inane auto wrecks and crime scenes. the public is not safe with such a mentally unstable luny roaming freely.

do they still do the "calling all cars, calling all cars" thing?

11/17/2008 11:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The media credential does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. Remember turd breath the card is granted by the Superintendent of Police, you are not entitled to shit."


ok, professor. press has to go through a background check and finger-printing to get a pass. if the pass didn't authorize some level of access beyond that of the general public, what would be the point of getting one?

didn't think of that? how about reading the chicago code that covers media passes? in this discussion, a quick review is probably useful. i see you chose to highlight that the police chief 'grants' the passes in more than one post. nice touch, but unfortunately it's probably the least important language in the entire statute. read the parts that discuss what the pass "entitles" the holder to. other related documents every officer should get the cliffs notes for is illinois state law and statutes, and maybe the constitution of the united states of america. just a thought.

please tell us that your contribution to the CPD is restricted to writing parking and speeding tickets. if not, god help chicagoans.

11/18/2008 06:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok, professor. press has to go through a background check and finger-printing to get a pass. if the pass didn't authorize some level of access beyond that of the general public, what would be the point of getting one?

didn't think of that? how about reading the chicago code that covers media passes? in this discussion, a quick review is probably useful. i see you chose to highlight that the police chief 'grants' the passes in more than one post. nice touch, but unfortunately it's probably the least important language in the entire statute. read the parts that discuss what the pass "entitles" the holder to. other related documents every officer should get the cliffs notes for is illinois state law and statutes, and maybe the constitution of the united states of america. just a thought.

please tell us that your contribution to the CPD is restricted to writing parking and speeding tickets. if not, god help chicagoans.

11/18/2008 06:47:00 PM
Both of the posts are mine. The second post was a response to a response my first post. I really didn't think I was being slick, but if your that fucking dense? Yes, I admit they where mine.
I answered every retarded question you just whined about in the second post. Did you read the post, or is reading comprehension a problem for you? Must be why you take the pics instead of writing the stories huh? Leave the debating to the big boys son.

PS Your (KEY WORD ALERT) CPD issued press pass does not transform you into an autonomous being exempt from the ILCS or police orders. It not a security clearance cheese dick. Dude your a fucking photographer. Why would you be allowed to walk into a crime scene? Why should you be? A police cannot even take pictures of crime scenes unless you have been authorized by a supervisor.

How about this: You use your magical press pass and style take a picture that will make you some money. I'm thinking something beyond the Final Call level of photography. Take that money and buy a zoom for that piece of shit camera of yours and your problems are solved. No more breaking the law and going to jail for you.

Any other questions refer to my Rob Johnson story(second post) it should clear up any questions you have.

PRESS=USED CONDOM

11/19/2008 11:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think someone had to many bad ins with the media....

But anyways Police Rep without a badge who was a civy...Last time I checked the only thing she could have done is file a complaint then the police could maybe, IDK done something.

Well anyways hope everything goes well.

11/19/2008 10:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think someone had to many bad ins with the media....

But anyways Police Rep without a badge who was a civy...Last time I checked the only thing she could have done is file a complaint then the police could maybe, IDK done something.

Well anyways hope everything goes well.

11/19/2008 10:55:00 PM

She didn't do anything. Who arrested dude? The police, not Monique. It's like when someone shoplifts, the store wants them arrested but the police do the arresting

11/20/2008 06:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"She didn't do anything. Who arrested dude? The police, not Monique. It's like when someone shoplifts, the store wants them arrested but the police do the arresting"


Actually from the reports and the like she did, but I would understand if it was her property and she was in charge, but she wasn't she is basicly a liason between the cops and us the civilians, she had NO authority to tell those police officers to arrest him.

So I'm guessing for your example if I see you taking pictures of me I call Blond and have her arrest you since she has the ability to tell officers what to do.

11/20/2008 03:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"She didn't do anything. Who arrested dude? The police, not Monique. It's like when someone shoplifts, the store wants them arrested but the police do the arresting"


Actually from the reports and the like she did, but I would understand if it was her property and she was in charge, but she wasn't she is basicly a liason between the cops and us the civilians, she had NO authority to tell those police officers to arrest him.

So I'm guessing for your example if I see you taking pictures of me I call Blond and have her arrest you since she has the ability to tell officers what to do.

11/20/2008 03:19:00 PM

What reports and the like are you talking about?
How about this example:
You walk on to my crime scene, and Monique sees you and says get out you say no, Monique gets me and I lock you up for being in the crime scene. Do you understand now?

That is the example you should be using. The scenarios the you guys keep manufacturing in typical retard fashion leave out key elements to try and garner support for your cause. That shit might fly at one of your wacko liberal, sights but not here.

Look up what "critical thinking" is, and apply it. Then maybe you can be taken seriously.

11/21/2008 03:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THIS WORKING NO CLOUT P.O. FROM EDISON PARK SAYS: HAVING THE DISPLEASURE OF HAVING TO DEAL WITH MONIQUE WHEN I WAS HANDLING SOME VERY BAD ACCIDENTS, I CAN SAY THIS MUCH , A PERSON DEFINITELY PROMOTED BEYOND HER ABILITIES, A COMPLETE IDIOT, REMINDS OF A PERSON WHO IS ON CRYSTAL METH.

11/21/2008 02:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw Patrick Swayze last night at the Drake with a PO detailed to him. We never hear about VIP coverage on SCC -- any fun facts to be learned?

11/21/2008 03:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monique should keep out of police work. Feel sorry for the chicago police

11/28/2008 10:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've dealt with "spokespeople" for thirty years. Monique is the dumbest and most clueless of any of them. She knows, with her clout (does she have pics of the mayor with a goat or what?), no one will ever fire her. So she does what she wants, in any job she's had, regardless of the rules. She did it in Nov of '08 and she's still doing it. She has no idea what it means to represent the department just like she had no idea what she was doing at DOA or anywhere else she's worked. So you lost Pat Camden, a guy who revered the department and respected the rank and file, and got her. Some trade.

1/28/2009 06:52:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts