Examining one cop's remarkable victim impact statement

Thats what I said.

I stated nothing about the suspect, if you want to start a thread about the suspect please do, but this thread is about the officer.

I stated that the officer appears ignorant, lazy or inconsiderate because of her choice of words. Ill say it again, not traits I want in an officer even if she was almost murdered.

He tried to kill her...so what?

Does that change the fact that she is still too lazy, ignorant or inconsiderate to pick a logical word? Nope. Even if she wasnt almost killed she would still be lazy, inconsiderate and ignorant.

then why highlight that portion of my post and indicate that somehow i didn't read the article? makes no sense.

really? you equate the use of a phrase with being shot?

and its amazing that you can conclude all this about her based on one statement.

maybe you dont like it, but perhaps she thought this the best way to describe him. when its your turn, you can choose a different set of words.
 
that she was the victim of an attempted murder.

and the use of the words "piece of shit" is rather meaningless in this context.

Yes, she is the victim of an attempted murder.

Had she used these words at the scene of that attempted murder, I would think nothing of it.

Had she used this phrase in the days and weeks following the incident, I would overlook it. The experience she went through was obviously very intense and very disturbing.

But, as has been pointed out, consideration to the context of a person's words is important. She made the statement in question here over two years later. She made it after she had recovered herself and her composure enough to have returned to police work. And she made it in a formal statement to a court where she specifically appeared as and invoked her position as a police officer.

This is not something blurted out by the shocked victim of a terrible, violent attack in the minutes or days following that attack. No. This is a formal, prepared statement made by a police officer to a court.
 
Yes, she is the victim of an attempted murder.

Had she used these words at the scene of that attempted murder, I would think nothing of it.

Had she used this phrase in the days and weeks following the incident, I would overlook it. The experience she went through was obviously very intense and very disturbing.

But, as has been pointed out, consideration to the context of a person's words is important. She made the statement in question here over two years later. She made it after she had recovered herself and her composure enough to have returned to police work. And she made it in a formal statement to a court where she specifically appeared as and invoked her position as a police officer.

This is not something blurted out by the shocked victim of a terrible, violent attack in the minutes or days following that attack. No. This is a formal, prepared statement made by a police officer to a court.



seems to me the point of the statement was to express her feelings at the time of the event, not necessarily how she felt two years later.

still, i fail to see how this act is so egregious that you see it as a blight on the entire profession.

in my previous posts regarding my use of profanity, you were awful quick to judge my behavior with no attempt to understand the context of the language.

this may have been the first time she has seen him in quite a while. people react differently to stressful situations, and not necessarily in the order we would logically expect. it is possible that this time in court, when the verdict was already in, that all the emotions of that day came to the surface.

have you been witness to other victim impact statements? this is the victim's only opportunity to express their true feelings and directly address the suspect, and often the court allows quite a bit of latitude to the victim. it provides closure not otherwise available.

why should this be different for a police officer? does this not also allow the jury and the court to see this professional police officer as nothing more than a human being who chose a dangerous and deadly career?
 
Are you still arguing about this?


bangHeadAgainstWall.gif
 
Been in court as well- testified against a guy who sent a round over my head out of an old British Webley (funny how the mind clings to some details- the lanyard ring on the butt of the pistol...) Was able to give a expletive-free testimony- despite my feelings on the matter.
Decorum is decorum- but truth is truth.
 
Good for her! I am glad she said what she felt, it was a "Victim Statement" it was said from a victim, who happens to be an Officer. If she called him a POS at any other point, then maybe some could look down at it. But to say it damages an entire department....wow.....that is special.

To suffer a tramatic injury from specific person and then to face them, it stirs some emotion.....oh but wait, LEOs cannot have any emotion. What a crock....


So did I not have the right to get "emotional" every time I put my military uniform on and thought about the people that blew this hole THROUGH my leg
Misc20081121.jpg


And I am a LEO....so I might be biased in this "debate";)
 
Last edited:
Gravelface -- Thanks. I think that pretty much sums it up. How can you (Gollnick) be so uber-obsessed with the word "shit", that you can't/won't see past it to the facts. And, ramsay -- so terribly sorry that you are "bothered" by the name calling. But how can you, in good conscience, accuse this officer of being "lazy, inconsiderate or ignorant"?? I would guess that you wouldn't have the courage to speak those words in the officer's presence.
 
As for me, I think we should argue about this endlessly. Everything worth saying is worth repeating! Everything worth repeating is worth repeating again!

Maybe I should start a thread were we estimate how many more pages will be added to this thread. :rolleyes:
i-have-nothing-to-say.gif
 
So, if the officer had said, "You, sir, are a very very bad person." she wouldn't be considered lazy, ignorant, maybe even inconsiderate.

She said, "...worthless piece of shit..." so she has traits we don't want in a police officer.

She's not perfect, and we want/expect perfection in our police officers.

Well, guess what. There are no perfect people out there to make into police officers. If this is the worst thing she ever does (and we have no evidence otherwise), then she should be sainted.

Let's try to keep a little reality in our perspective here.

I'm not a big fan of cursing in any context, and I'm no angel, either, the criticism here is truly making a mountain out of a teeny tiny molehill. Get a grip, fellas.
 
why should this be different for a police officer?

Had she chosen to make her statement as Ms. Jennifer Moore, resident of Phoenix, Arizona, then it wouldn't matter. But, then again, had she made her statement as Ms. Jennifer Moore, I doubt we would be having this discussion nor would there be the story on the site the OP linked to. Why? Because a lot of Ms. So-and-so of Such-and-such-City give impact statements every day and call their attackers all sorts of things and we don't have stories about them or threads about them. So what makes this one different? It is the fact that she is a police officer and she chose to give her statement speaking not as Ms. Jennifer Moore of Phoenix, Arizona but speaking as Officer Jennifer Moore of the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. If you will google up her full statement, you'll see her "wrap herself in the badge" pretty throughly. She certainly choose to speak as and identify herself as a police officer. You can't have it both ways. You can't wrap yourself in the badge on one hand and then not be responsible for that on the other. If she wants -- as she clearly did -- the court to think about her as a police officer, then she needs to realize that with that comes responsibilities to her department, her community, and her profession. If she wants to be more than Ms. Jennifer Moore, then she has to realize that she is responsible for more than Ms. Jennifer Moore.





...who chose a dangerous and deadly career?

This is a completely different topic, but police officers often do like to go on about how they "face death every day... put their lives on the line..." all of that. But, according to OSHA law enforcement just actually isn't that dangerous. Trash Collector is, according to OSHA, much more dangerous and deadly. And the leading cause of deaths and serious injuries among police officers is not shootouts with bad guys but traffic accidents.
 
Yes, yes, yes... All yes. Using an off-color word may not destroy your department or disgrace your community or devastate your profession. But each incident does a little bit of damage.... just a little bit... a tiny bit... maybe imperceptible. But damage nonetheless. And that cumulative damage adds up.

It's like how museums often don't allow visitors to take flash pictures of paintings. They know that the bright light of a camera flash fades the colors of the painting. Oh, the effect of one flash is imperceptible.... even a hundered don't seem to change anything. But, slowly, bit-by-bit, imperceptible changes add up to perceptible sums. The best solution is to stop it before it starts.

There is an old adage: no one raindrop thinks that it is responsible for the flood.

Each incident takes one drop out of the ocean... just one drop. No one drop removed causes the slightest change in the ocean's level. But every drop, drop by drop, every incident by every officer in every department and agency in every community and state and the nation in the entire profession all add up and eventually sea level starts to fall.

And each tiny step toward political correctness brings us further from the humanity that our culture once held dear. We are steamrolling toward some progressive ideal just a little bit at a time.

It is pouring if you ask me.
 
Gollnick -- maybe next time you have an intruder in your home, or you get in a serious traffic crash, or you find yourself on the wrong end of a bad guy's weapon, you should call a trash collector. Sounds like you have a lot more respect for them than you do LEOs.
 
This is a completely different topic, but police officers often do like to go on about how they "face death every day... put their lives on the line..." all of that. But, according to OSHA law enforcement just actually isn't that dangerous. Trash Collector is, according to OSHA, much more dangerous and deadly. And the leading cause of deaths and serious injuries among police officers is not shootouts with bad guys but traffic accidents.

Sir, I hope YOU NEVER need a LEO, and I pray you don't get one that reads your statements.....

Do trash collectors get called out when their is a gang fight, murder, armed robbery, rape, mentally disturbed person covered in feces threatening to kill their own mother (so you KNOW there is NO regard for MY life).

Do trash collectors drive in excess of 100mph to a scene where a child is drowning because "good neighbors" don't want to get involved.....

How many trash collectors respond to school shootings, oh and they can't get emotional when they see dead children...some maybe friends of their own children....

Police do....

And for you to sit there and call his job more dangerous......
NO, he has accident, there is NO danger....he picks up cans and that's ALL he is expected to do. He should have more situational awareness and he wouldn't get hit by cars.....
 
Last edited:
And for you to sit there and call his job more dangerous......
NO, he has accident, there is NO danger....he picks up cans and that's ALL he is expected to do. He should have more situational awareness and he wouldn't get hit by cars.....

I don't make up the statistics. I'm just quoting what OSHA says is true.

If you doubt it, google for yourself.

Don't shoot the messenger... unless you want messenger to rise up the list too.
 
This is a completely different topic, but police officers often do like to go on about how they "face death every day... put their lives on the line..." all of that.

This is the statement I was commenting on. Your words, not OSHAs.

Police do face death and put their lives on the line, that is the point I am attempting to make.
 
Sir, I hope YOU NEVER need a LEO, and I pray you don't get one that reads your statements.....

All I did was to -- as someone else in this thread put it -- call a spade a spade.

I have no doubt that police officers sometimes do put their lives on the line. But sometimes it can be helpful to keep the discussion grounded in the truth by injecting -- of all things -- some facts.
 
This is a completely different topic, but police officers often do like to go on about how they "face death every day... put their lives on the line..." all of that. But, according to OSHA law enforcement just actually isn't that dangerous. Trash Collector is, according to OSHA, much more dangerous and deadly. And the leading cause of deaths and serious injuries among police officers is not shootouts with bad guys but traffic accidents.

That is a misunderstanding of OSHA statistics. OSHA statistics track how well or poorly a class of workers adhere to safety standards, not how hazardous the workplace is. The police have a risky workplace, but they train to minimize that risk. Most of the time, it works.

Every time a trash collector approaches some cans to empty, he or she is at risk for an injury, usually to the back or arms statistically. They don't follow safety protocols, and they end up at a chiropractor. Every time a police officer shows up at a domestic disturbance call, they risk death or maiming. They follow an extremely tightly choreographed procedure, very carefully. And when it goes bad, it's not a chiropractor that treats them.

OSHA is about frequency of accidents, not risk profiles.

For riskiness of the profession and severity of risk outcomes, I suggest you look at life insurance actuary data, not workplace safety violations.
 
Back
Top