From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ THE LEAA ADVOCATE Fall/Winter 1994 A publication of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America Page 23 FORMER ARLINGTON COUNTY POLICE OFFICER SPEAKS OUT Reveals Intimidation, Threats made by Chief by Andrew Hays, LEAA Member As any Pro-Second-Amendment police officer (I.E., working cops) wil tell you, working for a chief who support politically correct gun control propoganda makes life at one's department trying at times. If an officer dares to speak out about Second Amendment rights, he or she must be prepared to endure often intense intimidation by the brass to keep quiet - or else. Having just recently secured new employment, I have the luxury that no active duty officer has: I don't have to keep quiet any longer; the threats and intimidation no longer apply to me. Up until October 28, 1994, I was a uniform patrol officer with the Arlington County Police Department in Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C. I worked with, and immensely respect, Officer John Donaggio, the officer who is suing Arlington County Police Chief 'Smokey" Stover and the county itself for forcing him and nine other officer to "lobby" in favor of the "assault weapon" gun ban legislation. My confrontation with Chief Stover over gun control may provide readers with a little insight, and perhaps some appreciation, as to the tremendous courage that Officer Donaggio is exhibiting in taking a stand for the right of a police officer to nobe forced to support a political agenda he or she opposes. Here's the story from a cop who witnessed it first-hand from the _inside_. The events began on Sunday, May 1, 1994, four days before the House of Representatives voted on that misnamed "assault weapon" gun ban (and passed by a one-vote margin). At afternoon roll call that Sunday, the on-duty Sergeant asked for three volunteers from our shift to participate in a photo shoot. We were not told what the event was about, only that it was to be held on Thursday, May 5, and that any officer who would be off-duty that day could volunteer and collect overtime pay. The Sergeant said he needed three officers from each shift plus one more, for a total of 10 officers. Nobody knew what the event was about, but many of us believed that it was connected to the upcoming Police Officer's Memorial Week. I volunteered. On Tuesday evening, May 3, I received a message on my home answering machine from my Sergeant, telling me that I should report at 11:00 a.m., Thursday morning, May 5, for the detail. I called him back early in the morning on Wednsday, May 4, to confirm what the event was about, and he said it was in support of "banning guns that are used to kill cops." I asked the Sergeant if he meant the "assault weapon" gun ban legislation, and he said yes. I then informed the Sergeant that I was familiar with the legislation and did not know of any reference to firearms that were used to kill cops as being any part of this bill. After some "discussion" of the bill in which the Sergeant clearly did not know what he was talking about, he said he would take me off the list when I told him there was no way I coudl support the sham of a bill. Later that day, May 4, I went to see Deputy Chief Brewer to inform him that this gun ban was not about crime and that these guns were used in a miniscule amount of crimes, an almost infintesimal number. I asked Chief Brewer to scout the 315-member department to see if any of the weapons that were about to be banned had been used in any crimes involving our department. He said, "I grant you I don't know of any such cases." However, he did cite that there was _one_ female officer killed in California involving one of the listed guns, although he conceded that particular instance entailed an unbalanced person who killed the officer, and not a gang member, or a drug dealer, or other "usual" criminal. I said that, irrespective of the politics involved, it was wrong to send county police officers, at taxpayer expense, to participate in a political rally. I told him that there was no difference between this and punching in on the County time clock and attending a pro-choice rally, a pro-life rally, or an NRA rally. That it was political activism and that it was wrong. Deputy Chief Brewer replied that there were "benefits" to be gained by the department for supporting the gun band, and that by sending Arlington County officers to the Capitol, the department would be in a position to obtain federal funding to hire more officers. He specifically mention CBPOP (Community Based Problem Oriented Policing) officers. He stressed that Arlington County's participation in the photo shoot in support of the "assault weapon" ban could be a way to help secure federal funding. I then raised the issue with him that none of the officers involved knew what this event was about. I asked him if he would mind if I contacted the 10 officers personally, at home, to tell them the details. He said he didn't mind, and then provided me with a list of the officers slated for the detail; he was very courteous and polite. Later that evening, Wednesday, May 4, I called every one of the 10 officers. Of all the officers I personally spoke with, not a single one knew the details of what the photo shoot was about. Several believed it was the kick-off event for Police Officers Memorial Week. When I told them that it was in support of the "assault weapon" gun ban, more than a few were outraged. Officer Donaggio was not at home when I called him, so I left a message on his machine. As the first officer to find out what the photo shoot was actually about, I had been able to get out of the detail, and that was the end of my direct involvement for about a month. Then on June 10, 1994, a letter was distributed to all county employees by Arlington County Manager Anton Gardner asking for input on the issues of employees' political rights and the "Little Hatch Act." (Section 6 of the county code which essentially prohibits political activism in uniform or in any way that identifies a person as a county employee.) I wrote a letter and delivered it to County Manager Cardner on June 17 detailing to him what had happened on May 5. I wrote that the officers had been duped and that I thought it was reprehensible that they were coerced to participate in a political activity against their will. I stated that it was my understanding that the county code already expressly prohibited this type of activity and that I believed the county code had been violated and that it was wrong that taxpayer's money had been spent. Six days later, on June 23rd, a scheduled day off for me, I received a call from Deputy Chief Brewer asking if I could come in and talk to Chief Stover regarding my letter I had sent to County Manager Gardner. Per the request, I went in to talk to the Chief. Present in the Chief's office were Chief Stover, Deputy Chief Brewer and myself. They closed the door and the Chief put my letter in front of my and asked me if I recognized it. I responded that I did and that it was the letter that I had sent to the County Manager at his request. Chief Stover then said, "Are you tired of working for here, son?" He then started going through my letter part by part, asking me how the county code had been violated. He asserted, contrary to my reference of the code section, that categorically there had not been a violation. He said that as a police officer, I should have known how to "read between the lines." Political activity, he said, "means supporting a candidate running for office." Chief Stover then said that "If you ever pull any 'horse-shit' like this again, and if I hear any more about this, when the smoke clears one of the two of us won't be here any longer." He said I could guess which one would be gone. He repeatedly asked me, in a threatening manner, if I was tired of working for the department. One part of the Chief's tirade in particular is etched in my brain, like it happened yesterday, when he read aloud one part of my letter to the County Manager, in whcih I wrote: "...this affair may have been in haste and may have been a mistake. If this is the case, I hope you will find an apology to these officers to be reasonable." After he read it he circled it with a pen and said, "I will tell you what the mistake was. My mistake was asking for volunteers rather than ordering officers to attend. Next time I will make it a detail, then I will order them to go and if they don't I will _fire_ them." He said that to me twice directly and repeated it once again to Deputy Chief Brewer. When Chief Stover threatened to fire me, he never mentioned what he would fire me for. Normally, when an officer screws up, they pull out the manual and show the officer what specific sections have been violated. He did not do that with me, because he knew that I hadn't violated any regulation. He simply wanted to intimidate me into silence. This whole episode is a perfect example of how far the gun control extremists will go to perpetuate the deception that police officers support gun control legislation...if you count the cops that are coerced. That's the tactic that Chief Strover employed. Based on my personal experience in law enforcement, I have found very little support among police officers for additional gun control efforts. Most cops know that someone who will shoot a 7-11 clerk to death for $40.00 will not pay much attention to another gun law. The concept is absolutely laughable. I believe that there were some crucial votes in favor of the "assault weapon' ban in the House of Representatives that were swayed by the perception that law enforcement supported it, in no small measure, by coercing 10 of my fellow officers to go to the United Stated Capitol Building to lobby in "support" of the ban. These officers were used as political puppets -- against their will -- to stifle their own Constitutional rights. And if that doesn't sear the soul, I don't know what does. That's the crux this whole gun control debate. It's not about law enforcement, it's not about police, it's not about crime. It's about politics, the politics of control. -30- Surprise, Surprise... At a White House ceremony on October 12, 1994, Arlington Police Chief William "Smokey" Stover, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other officials announce that Arlington County, Virginia, had been awarded a $425,475 "Clinton Crime Bill" federal grant to add six more police officers. The county matching grant is $604,475; LEAA tried repeatedly to obtain additional details, but was unsuccessful. -30- LEAA is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization made up of tens of thousands of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens dedicated to making America safer. LEAA represents and forcefully advocates it's member's interests by: - Assisting law enforcement professionals - Securing victims' rights over criminals' rights - Winning legislative criminal justice reforms that target violent criminals, not law-abiding citizens - Telling the truth from a law enforcement perspective, why gun control is _not_ crime control For further information, write or call: Law Enforcement Alliance of America (703) 847-COPS 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 421 (703) 556-6485 (Fax) Falls Church, VA 22043 (800) 766-8578 Typographical errors are the fault of the poster, not of the LEAA Advocate. --- Frank Ney EMT-A N4ZHG LPVa NRA GOA CCRKBA LEAA JPFO 'M-O-U-S-E' Don't Tread On Me "People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, where the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work." - L. Neil Smith, _The Probability Broach_ ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer. All files are ZIP archives for fast download. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)