Posted on 10/23/2002 11:04:28 AM PDT by Maedhros
And the matter of catching the perp(s) is not necessarily tied to competence or diligence anyway. Sometimes, it's just dumb luck. (The SF cops never caught the Zodiac Killer, despite monumental efforts.)
Be that as it may. That is your opinion. No one condemns you for it. However, other threads are replete with sarcastic posts trying to silence people that voice their opinions. It seems to me that right or wrong, all are entitled to their opinions.
Did you forget that the first killing and more than half of the murders occured in his County. That the investigation began there and was in place when the first murder took place in Virginia. Since his investigation was already underway, why start a completely new investigation in Virginia. If you recall the County Commisioner was out there inititally but has backed off because there really wasnt anything for him to say. As murders occured in Virginia other police officials spoke to the police and bowed out in favor of having one voice for the task force. Do you really prefer the idea of having five or six different news conferences a day with each run by the locals?
When 9/11 hapend it was the Mayor of NY in front of the camera not the fire chief or the police chief. In this case, I imagine it should have been the head of the FBI, not that one small time QUOTA police chief?
The FBI doesnt want the case. They couldnt have taken it over long ago if they so desired. One reason they dont want it is both MD and VA have death penalties in place and currently the Federal death penalty is under some legal question. This small time quota polic chief heads a force of somethingn like 500 Montgomery county police.
Maybe you are also arguing that we ought to get rid of state departments of education in order to make sure that a more effective role is taken by the feds?
So other than you dont like who appointed him and his friends, what has he failed to do that J. Edgar Hoover or your ideal white hope would have done?
Sure, they are entitled to their opinions, but arent we entitled to hear WHY they say he is clearly over his head. If its that clear, then they should be able to list three or four reasons why they say that rather than just joke about him being a diversity hire and that he cant speak properly.
For clarity, I will stipulate the "theoretical" BEST candidate may not always be available. So, the hiring official(s) should hire the very best of those who do apply within the time limits available (assuming the candidate indeed is "qualified").
More specifically, with regard to filling the position of Chief of a large Metro-area police department, the goal should be to hire the candidate with the strongest law enforcement background, who has demonstrated the ability to lead police officers and manage the requisite administrative burden.
Satisfaction of the NAACP is not the PRIMARY factor in that equation, in my view.
You must understand, I am not criticizing Chief Moose specifically -- rather, in the context of this article, in a general sense, I am stating my opinion that affirmative action and racial quotas are descriminatory, and they are wrong. With respect to Chief Moose, as an area resident who is familiar with his brief record in Montgomery County, I certainly agree that he does appear to be qualified to do his job. But, I do not know the records of the other applicants over whom he was hired.
In fact, it may be that Chief Moose was the BEST qualified candidate available, and in that case, it was a correct decision to hire him. Nothing more, nothing less.
When I hire a physician or a lawyer, I'd prefer to hire one with the very best record of success. If the scores were available, I'd prefer to select one who achieved 100% on their board/bar exams instead of one who scraped by with a minimum score of 70 percent.
For example, Ben Carson is reputed to be one of the very best, if not THE BEST neurosurgeon in the world at the moment. If I needed brain surgery, I would go to him -- it matters little to me that he is black.
Nor should it matter to you. I am neither a racist, nor a bigot - and no matter how much you protest, or attack me, you cannot characterize me so. And, you will never convince there is any argument that justifies prejudice and descrimination, which when spelled backwards equals affirmative action.
Once again, my original post concerned those trying to silence dissenting opinions. The use of sarcasm and personal insults to dissuade others from posting is not what FR is about.
If you express an opinion, that is all that it is. Having to justify that opinion to someone else has the same effect as the insults and sarcasm. Any person holding an opposing opinion will never accept the reasoning behind an adverse post.
Respecfully, I disagree. When I go to Morton's, I order the best steak on the menu, that I can afford.
Otherwise, I'd have supper at IHOP.
When I hire someone, I hire the very best candidate available we can afford to do the job in question - their race, ethnicity, gender, age or any other non-job related factor are simply not material to the decision.
Hey fella, I dont know how long you have been around here but everytime I make some claim I get ten guys telling me to prove it and list ten links or references for them to check. My opinion is invalid if it doenst match theirs. This is particularly true of some second ammendment people that say "its my right to own a nuclear bomb", the Tancredo and Ron Paul fan club, those who are extreme pro life, and those who believe everything they read in the Bible based on how pastor so and so explained it to them (if its in the Bible, then I dont have to prove it).
Collect evidence? In police work? Perish the thought!
You have never taken into consideration how the person would fit in with and get along with the rest of the staff, whether the person in question was too qualified for the job, whether the person might challenge you for your job, that the person might not find the position challenging enough and might leave causing you to go through the process again or that your boss or bosses boss might not approve of the selection or has someone else they favor for the position?
Candidates who "do not fit it" usually are identified in the selection process because they do not have the best records of solid achievement.
I've never felt threatened by hiring the best candidate I can -- their success and outstanding performance have always leveraged my own career, without exception in 33 years.
In fact, some have replaced me - AFTER I have been promoted.
In fact, it may be that Chief Moose was the BEST qualified candidate available, and in that case, it was a correct decision to hire him. Nothing more, nothing less.
Given that we dont know the record of the other applicants and we dont know whether it was the correct decision, isnt it better to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since I havent heard anyone voice any real criticism of what he has done. As far as affirmative action, I agree its wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.