Nypd 'disgrace'

[SW4747]

http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/43279.htm

NYPD 'DISGRACE'
By ERIKA MARTINEZ and LARRY CELONA


November 29, 2003 -- The Police Department is investigating an argument that
allegedly led an officer to tell a police widow: "At least I'm alive to be a
disgrace" to the NYPD uniform.
Police widows Lori Gunn and Pat Boesch flagged down two cops on Sixth Avenue
as they made their way to the NYPD Bomb Squad's centennial celebration Nov.
21 at the New York Hilton.
The widows pulled up by the female officers to ask directions to the Midtown
North Precinct, where they planned to park, sources said.
When the widows asked the cops how far it was to the precinct, Officer
Havonia Holley pointed out Gunn wasn't wearing her seat belt, sources said.
That led to a heated squabble between Holley and the two widows.
When Gunn finally handed over her license and registration, Holley proceeded
to write her a summons for not wearing a seat belt.
Gunn - the widow of Detective William Gunn, who was shot in the head in 1989
as he went to a Brooklyn apartment to arrest a wanted murderer and later
languished in a coma for nearly four years - continued to argue.

As the war of words escalated, Officer Chanae Martin demanded Gunn show
"some respect," sources said.
Gunn told Martin she was a disgrace and should not be wearing an NYPD
uniform.
"At least I'm alive to be a disgrace in this uniform," Martin shot back.
The confrontation was made public in an e-mail posted on a Internet message
board called "NYPD Rant."
The message - signed by someone identified as "Lo" - is a first-person
account detailing the incident and how badly the widows were treated.
The e-mail describes Officer Martin as "an animal" and said her vicious
comment was followed by a "evil, hearty laugh."
Gunn said she did not post the message and refused to comment on the matter.
The NYPD said the incident is under investigation.
Martin, a nine-year veteran, was yanked off the summons unit this week, but
continues to work at the precinct. Holley, a 13-year vet, was moved to the
day shift, sources said.
"If this is how a police officer treats the spouse of a police officer who
is killed in the line of duty, how is she treating the general public?" a
police official said.


AND

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/141033p-125089c.html
Slain cop's widow hit with ticket - and taunts

By JOHN MARZULLI
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
A police widow who asked a cop for directions was given a summons and
taunted over her husband's death, the Daily News has learned.
Lori Gunn, who identified herself as an officer's widow, had protested the
ticket for driving without a seat belt by calling the cop a disgrace to her
uniform, three sources told The News.
The cop shot back, "At least I'm alive to be a disgrace to the uniform," the
sources said.
Gunn's husband, William, was shot in the head Jan. 20, 1989, in a Brooklyn
building and lay in a coma for more than three years until he died in a
nursing home in 1992 without regaining consciousness.
The confrontation over the ticket occurred Nov. 21 in midtown as Gunn and
another police widow were heading to the Hilton Hotel for a party marking
the 100th anniversary of the NYPD bomb squad, sources said.
Gunn stopped near the hotel to ask a cop from the Midtown North Precinct for
directions to the stationhouse so she could park there, sources said.
The cop, who was assigned to the precinct's ticket-writing squad, noticed
Gunn was not wearing her seat belt and wrote her a summons, the sources
said.
According to NYPD protocol, the ticket wasn't mandatory. Cops have
discretion about whether to issue summonses for traffic violations.
The cop who wrote the ticket and her partner have been transferred out of
the precinct's summons-writing detail and could face disciplinary charges
for conduct unbecoming an officer because of the remark.
Police spokesman Lt. Brian Burke said yesterday, "The matter is under
investigation." He declined further comment.
Lori Gunn declined to comment yesterday.
A spokesman for the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association also declined to
comment.
Over the past year, The News has reported numerous instances of questionable
judgment by summons-writing cops, including ticketing a pregnant woman for
resting on subway steps and elderly men for playing dominoes in a park.
The NYPD and City Hall have consistently denied that there are ticket
quotas.

Originally published on November 29, 2003

Here is info on GUNN: http://odmp.org/officer.php?oid=425

[NYPDrob]

This incident is so embarrasing to the job!
Talk about professional courtesy!!!!!!!

I heard PO Martin got transferred already.

[sflcop]

My understanding is both of the officers... and I am using that term very losely got transfered. Being a LEO in FL, I had no idea there was a NYPD division that only handled tickets. We have nothing like that down here. These two officers have ZERO right to be a cop. No compassion for the widow of one of our own... makes me sick to my stomach.

[WAMBAUGHREADER]

Has anyone thought that perhaps the widows might have been out of line? Both articles seem to have an anti cop slant, ever so slight, and really dont go into detail as to what words were sopoken. I want to give the cops the benefit of the doubt, i know id want it. There are always unknown variables on both sides- i try to remember that at work and in life.

[SW4747]

Originally posted by WAMBAUGHREADER
Has anyone thought that perhaps the widows might have been out of line? Both articles seem to have an anti cop slant, ever so slight, and really don't go into detail as to what words were spoken. I want to give the cops the benefit of the doubt, i know id want it. There are always unknown variables on both sides- i try to remember that at work and in life.

I thought about it, then I remembered the time I met Lori Gunn and how nice a lady she was and found that it was not possible that she disrespected these two officers. She does a lot of work for LODD families and knows how to act around officers.

In my opinion, those two officers are losers. Just look at the detail they are in, pct summons detail. By it's very nature, that detail attracts the biggest losers the department has to offer.

[WAMBAUGHREADER]

I recanted in the other forum concerning this topic. Your reply reminds me of something i wanted to bring up. People from different parts of the world have no idea what jobs attract shnit bags in law enforcement, as far a i knew, it was a cushy job for the old timers, thats the thing, you dont know intimate details of my dept anymore than i know yours. I dont mean this for just sw, ive done it and seen it done a lot on forums, people using ten codes and cop jargon that doesnt necessarily carry over into the next city much less the next reigon. I think it would help our sharing of knowledge if we just used plain english and not slang and if we didnt *** u me that others knew what we were talking about. I like officer.c cause there are civilians here and i can see their side of things, but im as guilty of anyone of *** u me ing that they know what im talking about. I promise to try n extrapolate further in the future. As i said, i recanted in the related thread. see thread, same case #.

[3/4s]

Originally posted by WAMBAUGHREADER
I recanted in the other forum concerning this topic. Your reply reminds me of something i wanted to bring up. People from different parts of the world have no idea what jobs attract shnit bags in law enforcement, as far a i knew, it was a cushy job for the old timers, thats the thing, you dont know intimate details of my dept anymore than i know yours. I dont mean this for just sw, ive done it and seen it done a lot on forums, people using ten codes and cop jargon that doesnt necessarily carry over into the next city much less the next reigon. I think it would help our sharing of knowledge if we just used plain english and not slang and if we didnt *** u me that others knew what we were talking about. I like officer.c cause there are civilians here and i can see their side of things, but im as guilty of anyone of *** u me ing that they know what im talking about. I promise to try n extrapolate further in the future. As i said, i recanted in the related thread. see thread, same case #.

Not sure what you mean but you don`t have to beat the apology to death. I read your original post and if I thought you were out of line you`d know it.:D

What interested me was the fact that one has 9 years and the other 13. In a perfect world these two would have never made it off probation. However, for reasons I`ll not mention on a public forum, they`re still around. The probationary period was extended to two years to try and weed out the ones the B.I.s weren`t allowed to disqualify.

Some people including cops are fascinated (or repulsed) by policing in NYC. L.A. too. Bright lights, big city and all that crap. We get people from all over the country that come to NY to try it. It`s a tough job and some can`t handle it. However, if you look close at your own dep`t you`ll probably see people who shouldn`t be there either. I`m sure the two in question would be just a despised in Alabama, at least by the street cops.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by 3/4s


What interested me was the fact that one has 9 years and the other 13. In a perfect world these two would have never made it off probation. However, for reasons I`ll not mention on a public forum, they`re still around. The probationary period was extended to two years to try and weed out the ones the B.I.s weren`t allowed to disqualify.


What has always disgusted me is the FTO's that don't have the guts to write the truth about a bad trainee... When I started writing honest evaluations of everybody, that was the end of my FTO career! And I know exactly what you're talking about as to why they're still around. We have a fairly large group like that on our dept. because of the the same reason.

The day I retired, I saw the new Sergeants list posted. The number one guy on it is frigging illiterate. I'm not exaggerating, he is the dumbest S.O.B. I have ever seen in police work. I know for a fact he took the entrance exam 3 times to get on. And the sergeant's test is 3 or 4X harder. There is no way in God's green earth he could have passed it, much less been #1! I was so glad I was leaving....

[3/4s]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
The day I retired, I saw the new Sergeants list posted. The number one guy on it is frigging illiterate. I'm not exaggerating, he is the dumbest S.O.B. I have ever seen in police work. I know for a fact he took the entrance exam 3 times to get on. And the sergeant's test is 3 or 4X harder. There is no way in God's green earth he could have passed it, much less been #1! I was so glad I was leaving....

Again, a public forum. We had a gym instructor transferred out to Driver Training because he was harassing the female recruits. Normally he`d either be fired or put on a footpost at the end of a Manhattan pier for the rest of his career.

He was on the "quota" list for Sgt, IOW he failed the test. When he made Sgt. guess where he went back to. :mad:

This is a nightmare for the dep`t. They always figured they could bury their mistakes. After all, what kind of trouble can a Summons (Wo)man get into? Now they probably lost 2 of their most "valuable" revenue producers. Of course, there are others who`ll step in to do the job. Beats answering the radio and having to get your hands dirty. Sort of like IAD without the cheap suit and city car. You know my feelings about them!

You know what`s even funnier? Maybe tragic depending on the what kind of person he/she is but their C.O.s career has come to a screeching halt.

LOD widows are "Gold". Even the cynical public has sympathy.

[Invisiblecop]

[COBRA90GT]

:eek: Wow, that's crazy stuff!

[TRUEBLUE]

RESPONSE FROM LORI GUNN
This website was called to my attention by a good friend of mine in MTN. I feel the need to clarify some of the information on these memos. Unfortunately, most of the comments on here are true, however, there are important facts left out and/or misconstrued.

I was on my way to the Bomb Squad's 100 anniversary dinner with another LOD widow, Pat Boesch. We were not pulled over by the Officers. I sought them out to ask directions. Yes it is true that we immediately identified ourselves as LOD widows who were just trying to find the nearest precinct to park my car as all the parking garages in the area were full. It was then that the verbal abuse began over my seat belt. Within minutes, Officer Martin was also at my car and the two of them proceeded to have a "good time" with us. As I am sitting here now , it is very difficult for me to write this to you, therefore, I am not going to go into too much detail. Most facts on here are accurate. Martin's partner was the one who issued me my seat belt summons. She was nasty, ruthless and demeaning towards us while demanding that Pat and I show her some respect. In my personal opinion, this officer is a bad cop as well as a rotten human being. She does not deserve to deal with tourists and good people whose worst crime is not wearing a seat belt or have a cell phone near their ear. She did not think twice about how she was treating Pat and I, so just think how badly she must treat others.
Officer Martin, however, is an animal. The comment she made "AT LEAST I AM ALIVE TO BE A DISGRACE IN THIS UNIFORM" followed by an evil , hearty laugh was printed accurately. The holiday times are very difficult for us, especially for myself. Billy died on Thanksgiving Day and November is a hard month for me get through. Every time I hear Officers Martin's words echo in my head, I cant help but reflect on the four most horrific years that Billy endured in his coma and how that day has changed Jennifer's and my life forever.
I also want to set the record straight that every Cop, Sgt, Capt, and DI who dealt with Pat and I that evening went above and beyond trying to deal with our emotions and the embarrassment they felt. Sgt. Timmoney could not have handled this any better than he did. He was not the Sgt that responded to the scene and from what I am reading, he is not being portrayed fairly. He is a wonderful person and a great friend to me and all family survivors. Also, DI McEnroy was called, but only on a personal level. Pat Boesch is friends with him and he handled this as well a anyone could from home. He is not even assigned to the 18th. He was a personal friend of Pat's deceased husband Al, and I am sure he takes this very seriously.
Pat and I would like to thank everyone for their support and kind words. Maybe I am looking through rose-colored glasses, but I have faith in the top brass to do the right thing. We will always think of everyone on the NYPD as our extended family (with two exceptions, of course!!)

Stay safe.....Lori

[SW4747]

Officer Gets Some Backup
By: Leonard Levitt - Friday, December 5, 2003 N.Y. Newsday


The cop who ticketed police widow Lori Gunn for not wearing her seat belt last month did nothing wrong and should sue if departmental charges are brought against her, says Lt. Eric Adams (known trouble maker) , who heads a dissident group of black officers.

"She was in a summons unit. She has been moved out of that assignment. If they file charges, she should file a suit because she was just doing her job. She was issuing a legal summons," said Adams, whose 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care is not officially recognized by the NYPD and often opposes mainstream police thinking.

Adams - who said he had spoken with the officer, Havonia Holley - said he was making a distinction between her and her partner Officer Chae Martin.

Adams said, "Havonia is a totally different circumstance. She had every right to issue the summons and would have been totally wrong not to issue the summons."

On Nov. 21, Martin created controversy after she reportedly told Gunn - who had called Martin "a disgrace to the uniform" - "At least I am alive to be a disgrace to this uniform."

Gunn's late husband, William, was shot in the head in 1989 and lingered for nearly four years in a coma before he died. She could not be reached for comment, and friends say she wants to let the summons matter pass.

Holley told Adams she did not know who Gunn was when she ticketed her after Gunn had asked directions to the nearest precinct to park her car for the bomb squad's 100th anniversary dinner. Adams criticized department investigators who, he said, told Holley she should have confirmed who Gunn was.

The department has made no official comment about the incident and has not said which unit is investigating it. Neither Deputy Commissioner Michael O'Looney nor Insp. Michael Coan returned calls seeking comment.

"She [Holley] wrote 600 summonses last month," said Adams. " ... If she does not give someone a summons because they are associated with the department, it is an integrity issue." Adams added that he feels Holley acted professionally when she refused Gunn's request to have the officer talk to a supervisor on Gunn's cell phone.

"If she talks on the cell phone while engaging in a car stop she could be endangering the life of her partner," Adams said. Adams said Martin was on vacation until Monday.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by SW4747


"If she talks on the cell phone while engaging in a car stop she could be endangering the life of her partner," Adams said. Adams said Martin was on vacation until Monday.

Yeah, cops' widows are really dangerous people.... I'm glad you got that guy and we don't.:mad:

[SW4747]

Here's his web site.

members.tripod.com/blacksnlaw

teachs the average street mutt how to get honest cops in trouble.

[FedDC]

I just looked at that site and all I can say is WOW. how did those guys ever get to be cops? I always thought NYPD knew how to get rid of troublemakers within its ranks, but man...those guys take the cake. They espouse the reading of works by the Black Panthers...Al Sharpton...I mean, what kind of cops are these? Sounds like a little house cleaning is in order.

[apdwannabe]

LT. sounds like a piece of ****. How is he a LT.?

[Bart]

Originally posted by apdwannabe
LT. sounds like a piece of ****. How is he a LT.?

maybe affirmative action? who knows

[NYPDrob]

sflcop.... every NYPD precinct has a "Safety" unit. Its a few cops in each precinct who write summonses and do nothing else. Some do movers, some do parkers. Basically you get whatever hours you want and weekend off.... the "quota" is different in each precinct.

apdwannabe....... As for LT Adams...... all you have to do is pass the written test! It isnt really that difficult!

[apdwannabe]

Originally posted by SW4747
Here's his web site.

members.tripod.com/blacksnlaw

teachs the average street mutt how to get honest cops in trouble.
seems like an innocent enough site to me. If a cop is doing their job, they shouldn't have to worry that their name and badge number was recorded should they? I took it as informative, except for one misleading statement:
IF STOPPED IN THE STREET BY POLICE...
after you read down aways you'll see this.
REMAIN SILENT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF SILENCE, USE IT.

YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION - NEVER SPEAK WITHOUT A WITNESS BEING PRESENT.

That could get someone in trouble where I'm from. You don't have the right "for" legal representation until you have been charged with a crime. Clam up like that talking to me, and I would FIND something to charge your *** on(assuming I was a cop, and had the authority:)
Oh yeah, and maybe the suggested reading was a little racist(i.e. "white lies").

[sflcop]

Apd is correct. You do not have the right to an attorney until you are charged. If you clam up, and do not give me any info on you, I am going to lock your *** up. Legally, you are obliged to tell me who you are, where you live, and what you are doing in whatever area. If you fail to due so, and fail to dispell my alarm for the persons and property in the area, L&P it is.

[sflcop]

600 citations a month

I should tell that to my Sgt. next time he tells me 40 or so is a lot. :D

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by sflcop
Apd is correct. You do not have the right to an attorney until you are charged. If you clam up, and do not give me any info on you, I am going to lock your *** up. Legally, you are obliged to tell me who you are, where you live, and what you are doing in whatever area. If you fail to due so, and fail to dispell my alarm for the persons and property in the area, L&P it is.

For what? Is there a law in Florida that overrides the 5th amendment?

[Bart]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
For what? Is there a law in Florida that overrides the 5th amendment?

lets say i stop a guy walking out from an alley behind a business in the warehouse district at 330 in the morning. lets say i also know from patrolling the area for x amount of years that the businesses in the area are usually closed at this time. i have enough reasonable suspicion to stop the guy and ask what he's doing. if the gentleman cant or wont identify himself and provide a reasonable explaination for being in the area, FSS 856.021 (http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0856/Sec021.HTM) allows us to make an arrest for prowling.

[retdetsgt]

I bet that could be found unconstitutional if challenged. It's really arresting somebody for what they "might" do. And the courts have been pretty clear for years that I don't have to talk to a police officer if I don't want to. Even if I'm driving, my only obligation is to produce a license, etc. If I'm on a public sidewalk and not on private property and on foot, I can't see how that would be outside my constitutional rights unless an emergency curfew or something is in effect.

Here, if I'm committing a crime, no matter how minor, I can be taken to the police station and finger printed to determine my identity, but not because I'm in a public area you don't want me to be. It's a handy law, I agree, but I doubt it's ever been appealed to the federal court, has it?

[Bart]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
It's a handy law, I agree, but I doubt it's ever been appealed to the federal court, has it?

not that i know of. but then again, i dont keep up on stuff like that. :)

[NYPDrob]

SFLCOP - "Legally, you are obliged to tell me who you are, where you live, and what you are doing in whatever area."

You have a law that makes a person tell you where they live or what they are doing? I never heard of such a thing! Nothing like that in NY, but then again we don't really have an evading/pursuit law either.....

[apdwannabe]

Originally posted by NYPDrob
SFLCOP - but then again we don't really have an evading/pursuit law either.....
What does that mean? It's not a crime to evade an officer?????

[SW4747]

Originally posted by Bart
maybe affirmative action? who knows

Passed the Sergeant and LT test. I understand he passed the captains test too, and is waiting for them to reach his list #.

[NYPDrob]

Nope. We have a Resisting Arrest charge, if you were already under or abput to be etc. We have Obstructing Governmental Administration, but that isn't much. If you run and it becomes dangerous we might be able to charge you with Reckless Endangerment.... but we have no Evading charges in NY!

[SW4747]

[

That could get someone in trouble where I'm from. You don't have the right "for" legal representation until you have been charged with a crime. Clam up like that talking to me, and I would FIND something to charge your *** on(assuming I was a cop, and had the authority:)
Oh yeah, and maybe the suggested reading was a little racist(i.e. "white lies"). [/B]


That's not 100% true. You have the right to a lawer if you are in custody, but not charge has been filed.

Also, even if you have been charged, you have NO RIGHT to a lawyer when the police are conducting a line up. If he happens to be there, that's fine. But you will not delay the lineup for more than a reasonable amount of time for a lawyer to get there.

Also, there are quite a few other situations where you have to answer questions from an officer, without a lawyer. There are to many to start listing them.

[apdwannabe]

Originally posted by SW4747
That's not 100% true. You have the right to a lawer if you are in custody, but no charge has been filed.

Also, even if you have been charged, you have NO RIGHT to a lawyer when the police are conducting a line up. If he happens to be there, that's fine. But you will not delay the lineup for more than a reasonable amount of time for a lawyer to get there.

Also, there are quite a few other situations where you have to answer questions from an officer, without a lawyer. There are to many to start listing them.
These are good points, and it just furthers my original statement that when the blacksnlaw guy says "you never have to talk to a cop without a lawyer if you don't want to", it appears misleading, and might make someone end up in custody when that was not the officers original intent.

[sflcop]

In response to the questions asked... Bart covered my response on our L & P laws in this state. RDS covered the aspect of having an attorney present. Let me go back to L & P. Yes, it has been challanged, yes it has been found to be constitutional. HOWEVER with that being said if you are going to make the arrest, you need to make damn sure you have ALL of the elements of the crime, or a judge will toss it out so quick your head will spin. Not to mention, and I have seen judges do it, lock your *** up for false imprisonment. AND, yes we do have evading/fleeing laws. They only apply to vehicle chases, where our lights and sirens are activated. If someone runs from me, all I have is resisting w/ or w/o violence (with by the time we catch them:D ), and maybe obstruction.

[retdetsgt]

sflcop.

I wasn't talking about the attorney nor the person running from you. The part that bothers me is the guy is standing on the sidewalk near some closed businesses at night and refuses to give you his name, etc. It appears to me from that law, that you could arrest him even there is no evidence of a crime having been committed. The only thing he is doing is standing in a public place and refusing to give up his 5th amendment rights. The law should be called, "Contempt of Cop". If you stop and think about it, why should an American citizen have to talk to a government agent? Even with the FBI, it's against the law to lie to them, but I can refuse to talk at all. That's pretty close to requiring citizens to carry government issued ID. I can't imagine a Federal Appeals Court saying that's a good law. I have been wrong before, but that I'm not bleeding heart and that one seems to go over the line.