Saturday, February 10, 2007

Who is protected when law officers commit perjury?

I agree that officers should be supported when they are doing their duties. Some situations can be very difficult to handle. Adrenaline is needed to keep reaction time swift, to keep deputies alert. As long as they don’t go nuts, officers need to be given the benefit of the doubt.

I have a related question for Santa Barbara Sheriff's deputies.

Does it raise morale when the sheriff protects deputies who do wrong OUTSIDE the course and scope of their duties, in a cold and calculating manner? With no adrenaline in their systems?

I'm a teacher in San Diego who had no idea that a Santa Barbara Sheriff's deputy had committed a crime against me until long after the fact. It took me two years to find out his identity. It wasn't such a terrible crime. The deputy wasn't fired when the sheriff found out. He’s still working in the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department. There was no reason not to tell the truth, except to make sure I didn’t get my job back. Instead, both the deputy and the sheriff committed perjury (a far more serious crime) in 2004 to cover up the original misdemeanor. Why?

Bill Brown asked deputies, "If you were the new Sheriff, what would you do?"

I'd like to hear from deputies, too. If you were Bill Brown, would you continue to aid and abet this perjury? Or would you set the record straight and turn over the two audits as promised by Commander Gross?

If the sheriff openly supports perjury, aren’t you afraid that juries will stop believing Santa Barbara deputies?

The story of what happened to me is at

No comments: