Careful with that axe (gun), Eugene (Al)!

So, I’m up a little earlier than I’d planned this morning, as the Argus Leader has graciously targeted my home, quite literally, with a few free issues of their newspaper.

It hits the front door, the dog starts barking the “invasion alert!” signal, and I wake up a bit on the grumpy side to investigate. I see the paper and think, Jeez, I never got around to reading yesterday’s paper–now there’s another one?!?!

From today’s front page news: “Canton police chief accused in complaint” (here’s the online link) and an article by Matthew Gruchow about how Canton Police Chief Al Warnock and one of his deputies are accused of drawing guns on a couple cleaning guys and taking them outside for questioning about a possible pedophilia incident.

Now, pedophilia is a very serious charge, don’t get me wrong, but why the bloody hell are they drawing their revolvers and leading a couple guys at gunpoint outside for questioning (and it sounds like a measure of harassment, to boot) on a complaint that so far has no proof?

Even if you are one who believes pedophiles ought to be shot (and I am not one of those), would you appreciate being hauled out of your job at gunpoint based on an unsubstantiated claim?

In fact, even if the complaint was valid, what the heck are they doing drawing their guns? Even further–if there was pedophilia in progress, they still should not be drawing their guns because they’d run the risk of shooting the kid.

But there wasn’t. There was no pedophilia in progress; there was a complaint that one of the guys had tried to lure a kid into the cleaning company van (which isn’t necessarily pedophilia), and that complaint should be investigated. But there was no reason to draw a firearm whatsoever. Drawing a firearm is a really good way to escalate a situation that has no reason to escalate.

What were you going to do, Al? Shoot him if he ran? Shoot him if he confessed? Shoot him if…? Or were you just trying to make sure he understood what “protect and serve” really means?

Thanks, Argus Leader, for waking me up in an ass-kicking mood.

And Al, my mood still doesn’t give you a reason to draw your weapon.


2 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Matt Sommers on October 13, 2008 at 12:40 am

    1. A Chief of Police does not have deputies. A Sheriff has deputies; a Chief of Police has police officers.

    2. It was not a complaint of Pedophilia; it was a young child reporting that they were lured to the vehicle. Kidnapping.

    3. Kidnapping is a felony; felons are dangerous. Felons will do anything to not get arrested. How was he to know if he was dealing with felons or not? Thus, for officer safety reasons, a gun was drawn.

    You are very ignorant towards basic law enforcement techniques, yet you are so quick to judge. Take your blog and blog about something you can honestly and knowledgeably blog about.

  2. Posted by flyingtomato on October 13, 2008 at 9:10 am


    I was using the terminology in the article to discuss the article. So, your comments and name-calling might be better directed to the author of the article. The complaint from the men who were apprehended was that the police officers had called them “pedophiles.”

    Read first. Name-call second. That is, if you really feel you need to name-call at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: