Posted by Rick Denney on May 10, 2003 at 01:15:28:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Orchestra Salaries posted by CM on May 09, 2003 at 18:40:41:
I'm sorry, but I do not understand why this is so important to you. Several of us were visibly skeptical at first, including people who have plenty of training in proper procedure. It took me a while to get a message back from the detective and to check its routing to make sure it was real. I didn't use the telephone.
As to the assumption of guilt, that was why I wrote my response--there was a presumption of guilt on behalf of the accused. Detective Bergson was not slandered in any way by those of us who showed skepticism--he really is a cop and therefore wasn't impersonating one. He could take no damage from it. But if he wasn't for real, then the accused could take plenty of damage from what was said in that first post. My entire expression, in any case, was based on what he himself said in a public forum, and therefore was not the gossip that we both despise. I would have been guilty of slander had I maliciously stated (not accused) that a civilian had impersonated an officer when in fact he hadn't impersonated an officer.
The post, taken on face value, had already convicted Anthony LaBelle, and in fact he is, at this moment, still innocent in the eyes of the law even though he has confessed. The confession seems to lock it all up, but it really doesn't count until the confessor pleads guilty in front of the judge and is convicted. Confessions are routinely contested in court, though, of course, we don't expect that in this case. That's the point of due process. Were I a cop, I might well lay it out as the good detective did in a verbal conversation with a few individuals who I thought might have been taken in, but Tubenet isn't that sort of conversation. Of course, Detective Bergson didn't know that, and he learned about us just as we learned about him.
Now, back off on the subject, please. I post under my own name, or an alias that everyone knows is me. I thus take responsibility for my views, even when they are wrong.
Regarding the salary list, yes, I realize that it is base pay and not individual salaries. That wasn't my point. My point was that when everyone is focused on salaries, they are not focused on their job or their service. But it is what they do, not how much they are or are not paid, that will win the support of the taxpayers from whom they seek that support. It is okay with me if you disagree.
Rick "out in the open" Denney