Of the few who supports the Byrnes Mill Police Department, not one person has chosen to actually listen and respond to the complaints of the citizens. Their responses range from "Obey the law" to slander, defamation of character, and ad hominem attacks. However, they have never addressed the actual complaints.
In the Journal's most recent letter regarding the situation with the Byrnes Mill Police, Michael Frame's attempts at listening to his constituents and addressing their concerns are maligned as "rabble rousing". If one wants to refer back to the town hall meeting, the numbers in attendance of those who were upset with the police speak for themselves that this is not merely "rabble rousing" on Mr. Frame's part and resorting to such ad hominem attacks is only an attempt to again distract from the very real problem our town faces. Moreover, quoting four statements out of context is only a malicious attempt to skew the evidence. Four statements alone cannot and should not taint the entire body of concern that came from the meeting and the honesty of the people who appeared at the meeting to provide a truly forthcoming and sincere perception of the police should never be regarded so belittlingly. I won't waste time setting each quote straight, but hopefully those with open minds can see how easily spun those statements can be without a context.
As one editorial said, this is a representative democracy and Michael Frame's actions represent his fulfillment of duty as an elected official. A democracy speaks and provides change through the will of the people and the majority. However, the majority was not a group of convicts, druggies, or "low-lifes" or even those who hypocritically proclaim "Do as I say, don't do as I do," despite what those who have chosen to attack us say. The majority was a group of upstanding citizens--a bank president, nurses, dentists, lawyers, ministers, and just common folk who above all deserve to be treated with the decency and respect for which they came to ask. Chief Locke states that he stands behind his officers 100% however, if we want to use numbers, 80% of those who spoke at the meeting complained NOT about the tickets, but about the manner in which they were treated. 85% of complaints were peers of Chief Locke, men of his own age. And 90% of complaints were about Chief Locke, himself. Of course he stands behind his officers when his officers are not the problem.
When more people show up to a town hall meeting than do to vote in a town election, such a problem cannot be dismissed. Those who attended the meeting and those who continue to seek reform of the police department are not unsubstantiated in their fight and nor has it been a waste of taxpayer's dollars to address a very real concern of the citizens. The real waste would be to let the concern go unaddressed. This is the issue with those who attack us. They don't want the problems addressed. They want to ignore the problems, pretend that they don't exist. They want to attack those who address the problems. Why is there a need for such an attack if things are already fair and when we only seek a positive change? We do not slander the police department and distract from the problem. We seek change that is just and if the taxpayer's dollars help achieve this, then I am disappointed at those who would call this a waste.
Those who defend the police department are completely justified in their efforts as well. We agree that a police department serves a vital part of our community and we appreciate the protection that, when in the right hands, they can offer. We have not attacked the police department. We have tried to voice our complaints about them and sought reform that is much needed. Yet no one listened--not aldermen nor the mayor nor the police chief himself--and those who write in to "defend" the police from these non-existent attacks do not listen either. When our complaints through the current system are reviewed by the police chief himself, what established method checks the power of the police chief? Who is there to listen to those complaints? The only person I have found so far is Michael Frame.
These articles and letters which constantly emphasize the idea that the police enforce the laws are not only unnecessary but are insulting to the reader's intelligence. The purpose the police serve is obvious and no one questions this or is upset over such enforcement. Rather, it is the way the police have chosen to do so. So please do not waste our time or the readers' time by reminding us that police enforce the laws and by insulting us instead of exhibiting a genuine concern in this situation. Should we really trust those who are so quick to dismiss us and turn their heads to what many people believe is a problem? If no problem exists, then there is nothing to worry about and our efforts to repair what is not broken will ultimately be fruitless. So why are some so worked up? The city has been given thirty days to address this problem. After thirty days, on August 18th, 2007, we invite all people to share their opinions on this matter with us at byrnesmillpolice.com and to help us in seeking the change this town so desperately needs.