Dear Editor:
I’ve had it with the police bashing in the opinion section of
this paper and I must respond on their behalf.
Dear Editor:
I’ve had it with the police bashing in the opinion section of this paper and I must respond on their behalf. First, to Kat Teraji (Gilroy Dispatch 3-27-03), maybe you should admonish your friend not to become so intoxicated so as to need police assistance getting home.
In lieu of “unnecessary alarms” how about a big thank you to the officer who took your friend home instead of letting him spend five to eight hours in the Gilroy Police Department drunk tank as the officer most likely could have done? But complimenting the police doesn’t make for good journalism in this town does it?
Let’s evaluate this from the officer’s point of view. Teraji and friend were parked, in the evening (dark), watching the lights of Gilroy (somewhere high on a hill like maybe in Country Estates?), and chatting. The officer may be responding to a complaint from neighbors who are tired of people parking and “enjoying the view” while doing any of the following: drinking alcoholic beverages and leaving the empty bottles behind, having public sex and leaving the condoms behind, or simply smoking any number of illicit drugs. Again we don’t know the motivation because Teraji failed to ask the “polite” officer, or more likely didn’t feel including the facts would bolster the impact of the story.
Since I am writing, I would also like to weigh in on the “Vogel” issues that have been the focus of some lopsided documentation as of late. Vogel is an admitted felon, and based on the letters from Mother Vogel, also quite a “momma’s boy.”
I got an early jump on teaching my children responsibility and aversion to using illegal drugs. It never donned on me to wait until they were on their way to middle age. The equation for Mr. Vogel works like this. A person is on probation (by choice) in lieu of spending time in jail for offenses Mr. Vogel was convicted of. Mr. Vogel has a choice to stay in jail or get out on probation with certain stipulations, one of which is that he will submit to a search of his person at any time. He chose to give up some of his freedom in order to stay out of jail. It’s that simple. Unfortunately Mother Vogel apparently never taught Baby Gary about consequences, and in a few years when he agrees to again give up his right to privacy in order to get out on parole, people will have to listen to this poor mistreated young man, and his mommy whine to the press again every time the Gilroy Police Department does their job and conducts a legal parole search on Vogel’s house.
Based on my understanding, the search clauses are for the purposes of ensuring that a parolee or probationer are abiding by the law, because there is this phenomenon called “recidivism” (wouldn’t want to do an article on how many times Vogel’s been arrested and then re-offended would you?) Maybe look in The Dispatch archives for a little clue – “Rusich said he bought methamphetamines from someone named Gary Vogel” (Gilroy Dispatch 6-28-02).
In sworn testimony, during the arson/triple murder trial, Vogel’s name came up. Apparently Baby Vogel is not just a misguided recreational user of drugs, but (according to The Dispatch’s accurate reporting) he also deals drugs to persons who engage in arson/murder. I think the citizens of Gilroy are better off without this individual in their midst. What would have happened if a defenseless citizen had run across Baby Gary on that day? Instead of the two officers being victimized, maybe it would have been one of Mother Vogel’s neighbors.
The officers that make up the Gilroy Police Department have remained stoic in the face of the public, and inaccurate, accusations thrown at them in this paper over the past months. The citizens of this community can sleep every night because of these people who have dedicated their lives to the service of their fellow citizens.
Police officers are used to doing a thankless job, while being constantly criticized, but I am tired of it. I personally wouldn’t mind reading letters of gratitude occasionally, but that wouldn’t sell more tabloids … I mean “news” papers would it?
Karen L. Stanford, Gilroy
Submitted Friday, March 28 to ed****@gi************.com
