Questions that go against the grain

This post will be entirely my opinions, instincts, and experiences.

QUESTION @1...When you ( A man) are able to talk to a woman, and you have a strong like for this woman, and it is apparent that feeling is reciprocated, and NOT based on some potential monetary, material, or financial benefit to this woman... Why is it almost always assumed that you--the man- are trying to obtain some sexual favor from that woman?

If I answered that, my answers are:
A. The guys asking if I have obtained those favors yet, and what quality of pleasure did I receive--are the same dumbsh*ts who have a subpoena for a lawsuit, claiming an action for Sexual Harassment, somewhere in their future. An old phrase: You suspect of others what you know to be truse of yourself.

QUESTION #2. I see a woman, somewhat like the attached photo. She is feminine as far as I can tell ( It is not a He-She, a guy who hasn't had a sex change yet) She looks good, she smells good, she has feminie gestures, and I find her very easy to talk to.
WHY do most men want to terminate my association and deter any that they might have with this STUPID phrase:" She's a Dyke!".

Maybe she is Gay. SO WHAT? She is a human being, has feelings, blood in her veins, and I'm sensing a good person. I really enjoy this person's presence. And some dumbsh*t demonstrates his perceived superiority with " She's a Dyke".

So, my answer to this guy is no answer. Action speaks louder than words. I will ask the person to meet for coffee, or in the past, to partner up with me on patrol.

Barriers

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0826bdcancel0826.html
County faces canceling 84 school races

More than half of the 147 Maricopa County school board elections may be canceled this year because of lack of interest or competition, leaving beleaguered County Schools Superintendent Sandra Dowling to fill vacancies by appointment. In all, 84 races could be canceled: 65 races have only one person running, and 19 have no candidates.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15228041.htm

Few former drug users recruited to LAPD despite new lenience
LOS ANGELES - Despite police Chief William Bratton's policy permitting recruitment of former drug users - a move decried by critics as too lenient - the police department still has "one of the most conservative policies" in the country, a city official told the Police Commission on Tuesday.
Only six admitted former drug users were hired from January 2004 to April 2006 while 866 were rejected, said Phyliss Lynes, assistant general manager of the city's personnel department.
"After checking with law enforcement agencies throughout the state and throughout the country, I can tell you that we have, still, one of the most conservative policies or criteria as it relates to this issue," Lynes said.
She said two of the recruits admitted to one-time cocaine use years ago and the others said they couldn't remember whether they used illegal drugs, but said it was possible.
"The real question is how long it has been since the person last used these drugs," Lynes told the commission.
Bratton, facing dwindling recruitment, has said one-time experimental drug use should not preclude employment in the department.

COMMENT:
Why the reluctance?

Because anyone in authority has become job security for attorneys.
EXAMPLE: In Poway, CA, the School Board, going along with pop culture, banned "Hate Messages" . A student wore a T-shirt that says the homosexuality is perversion. Student is told to go home, change shirt, then come back. Student sued. Case is still being litigated after the Ninth Circuit Court of Clowns agreed with the School Board.

Lawsuits are public information. That public information may block you from being able to sell property or arrange financing.

In LAPD's case, getting recruits is becoming more and more difficult. Why?
Again, attorneys LOVE to sue governments (READ=DEEP POCKETS).
They way they get to sue is if SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING. Who does the most, is the most visible? The Police Department.

Why sign up for something when you are almost guaranteed to be sued?

Gullible

Will I ever contribute to "Charity" again?

The answer is in pink.

If you contribute to the Catholic Church--it goes to fund: 1. Lawsuits involving pervert priests, that were protected by THE CHURCH. or 2. Aid for Illegal Aliens.

A year ago, we were urged to contribute to Tsunami Victims. We later found that the aid went to warlords in the area.

We were urged to contribute to "Pakistani Earthquake Victims". Now, we find that the money went to IslamoFascists plans to blow up Infidels in aircraft.

We were not asked, but our tax money is being sent to Hezbollah under the guise of "rebuilding" Lebanon that was "destroyed by Israel". READ Ka-Ching!: U.S. Aid to Lebanon Will Go Straight to Hezbollah by http://www.debbieschlussel.com/

SO, don't come at me with your hand out.

Whose Priority?

http://www.yonitheblogger.com/
Despite the circumstances, Netanyahu didn't take advantage of the situation for to go for a total knockout; if there had indeed been a duel at the Knesset Monday, it took place without firing a single shotSima Kadmon YNet
While thousands of soldiers are still deep inside Lebanon, millions of civilians are slowly coming out of the bomb shelters and hundreds of families are mourning their sons - many of whom are still to be buried - the prime minister concluded the second war in Lebanon in his Knesset address Monday.
It wasn't just an address to the nation; Olmert gave his version of the war. From now on the version presented at the Knesset will become the official version presented by his advisors, his attorneys, his aides and his supporters when they try to prevent the setting up of a commission of inquiry and when they try to stabilize the coalition and prevent discord within the Kadima party ranks.
Olmert is an excellent orator. He combines a measured dose of emotion and rationalism with poetic anecdotes and matter-of-factness. It was an expected speech, and its timing important. It came at a time when the public was attuned to the messages, its emotions yet to be consolidated.
However, Omert directed his speech primarily at public opinion. At the public sitting at home still unable to digest the developments of the past month. The public's stance will in the coming weeks become a deciding factor on whether and what type of commission of inquiry will be set up.
This was the reason Olmert addressed everyone yesterday, and I mean everyone, with a warm embrace. No one escaped his embrace: not the chief-of-staff, the commanders, the soldiers, the bereaved families, the abducted soldiers' families, the security and rescue forces, the mayors, the volunteers, the northern citizens, the people of Israel, the Knesset members, the defense minister, the foreign minister, nor the cabinet members – no Israeli citizen could argue that he did not appear on the list of Olmert's credits.
Olmert called on everyone with paternal moderation, including those who may have been disappointed - as mentioned in passing as if it were a trivial complaint: friends, have patience, patience. Or in other words, you are yet to discover we won.
Netanyahus' address no less important
Benjamin Netanyhu's address was no less important than Olmert's. As head of the opposition, he could have taken advantage of the moment and challenged the leadership. He could have protested, as Begin did, following the Yom Kippur War by asking why they didn't bring the armament closer? Netanyahu could have accused Olmert's government of failure; he could have called for a legal commission of inquiry. He could have conveyed a message that he was the right person to replace Olmert as prime minister, that there is an alternative to a failed cabinet.
However, Netanyahu chose to maintain a low profile. Perhaps his bitter experience in previous instances silenced him; perhaps he found it difficult to abandon the image he had acquired during the war, an image of a stately opposition leader of fine caliber. His speech was excellent. It was controlled and careful. He managed to maintain this sterile image, almost without friction. The applause coming from the plenum attested to his growing popularity.
The two speeches delivered by the prime minister and the opposition leader met on the Knesset podium. They addressed a country licking its wounds at the end of a war plagued with question marks. Despite the circumstances, Netanyahu didn't take advantage of the situation for a knockout shot, if there had been a duel it took place without firing a single shot.
Perhaps Netanyahu was right when he decided that this wasn't the time to rock the boat, to call for a commission of inquiry at this point in time.
And perhaps, Netanyahu like Netanyahu, lost the moment because of his stateliness.
Nothing can better demonstrate the problem in the Knesset. It is a big happy club with its members sitting in that building being more important than the welfare of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

http://www.lapdblog.org/
Chief William J. Bratton announced on August 14 that Hollenbeck Area Officer James Tuck, 26, remains in good spirits, despite sustaining serious injuries from an AK-47 assault late Saturday night.
"This was an attempted assassination on two police officers," Chief Bratton said. "We can credit the officers’ quick reactions and excellent training for keeping these two violent criminals from getting away. I am very thankful that neither officer was killed."
The incident took place in the Montecito Heights area when Officer Tuck and his partner, Officer John Porras, 48, made a traffic stop. As their police car rolled to a stop behind the vehicle, a passenger violently emerged, charging the officers and spraying the police car with high-velocity rounds.

COMMENT:
O K--What is the common thought here?
The modern day idea of " The Bottom Line" or "Who is getting the Perks".

The focus in the first event is the welfare of the members of the Knesset-Israeli citizens be damned!
In the second case, LA Police Officers still only have short range hand guns tocounter a threat like this--The Officers be damned, and probably killed. Afterall one study showed that it is CHEAPER for the Officer to be killed, than for the officer to kill the suspect. And, OH MY, The Chief might have to defend against the image of Storm, Troopers with Automatic " Assault Weapon" Rifles!

"just coming here to...."

The following pictures illustrate that you don't know who you are dealing with.

The Individual photos are "Most wanted" by San Diego County Sheriff--Murder, assault, sex crimes, etc.

The group photos are the "Egyptian Students" who didn't make it to class.
After looking at the pictures, tell me that you can discern the difference between Hispanic ( most are also Illegal Aliens), and the Islamics.

Plus and minus of use of Force

http://www.ishn.com/CDA/Archives/f3b0dbf7161c7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

By E. Scott Geller, Ph.D.
September 1, 2005

Thinking is critical to People-Based Safety™
At workshops and keynote addresses on People-Based Safety (PBS), I often ask the audience whether they buckle their safety belts automatically, without thinking. Most raise their hands to affirm their buckle-up habit for safety. My reaction: That’s good, but not great. It would be better to think about what you’re doing while fastening your safety belt.
Conscious competence is usually better than unconscious competence, especially when the behavior is safety related. I’d like to convince you of the validity of this perspective, which deviates markedly from the philosophy of behavior-based safety (BBS). Specifically, BBS promotes development of safe habits as a primary objective of applying BBS tools.

Thinking safe behavior
Thinking is self-talk or internal verbal behavior. I advise my audiences to tell themselves what they are doing when they perform a safety-related behavior. For the safety-belt example, I recommend self-talk that acknowledges the behavior — “I’m buckling up for safety.”
When safe behavior is accomplished for positive consequences, it is beneficial to also verbalize the rationale for the behavior. What are your personal reasons for choosing safe behavior? For safety-belt use, you might say to yourself, “I’m buckling up to do the right thing for safety — to be a competent driver;” or “I’m buckling up to set the safe example for other passengers in my vehicle, and for anyone else who might see me driving.”

It’s possible, however, your safe behavior is not self-directed, but other-directed. In other words, you might be working safely because someone other than yourself is holding you accountable. For example, some might buckle up to avoid a fine, as implicated by the popular U.S. slogan: “Click-it or ticket”.

If your safe behavior is other-directed, your self-talk should not include the external controls influencing your behavior. Until you can give a self-directed rationale, you should only tell yourself you are performing the behavior. Forget the external, other-directed reasons for your safe behavior. Let me explain why.

Self-direction and self-accountability
As I reviewed in an earlier article in the PBS series (July 2005) and detailed in earlier ISHN contributions (for example, August and September 1999), when people are mindful about their behavior they are more likely to avoid human error. Self-talk enables the adjustment of behavior per situational factors. It could call your attention to other people not following your safe example, such as a passenger in your vehicle who is not buckled up.
This behavior-based self-talk increases your awareness of the best way to perform under certain circumstances. But there is a more profound reason for thinking about your safe behavior. Your self-talk influences self-persuasion, which in turn enhances self-accountability for safety. Indeed, we hold ourselves accountable by talking to ourselves. What kind of safety self-talk builds our self-accountability or responsibility for safety?

Outside vs. inside control
The reasons we give for our behavior determine the degree to which our behavior is other-directed or self-directed — whether we are accountable to others or accountable to ourselves. This is not an all-or-none state. We can be motivated by both outside and inside controls. But the more our behavior is directed and motivated from within ourselves, the more apt we are to perform the behavior when alone and only accountable to ourselves. This is the ideal safety state for the lone worker.
How do we put ourselves in this state? You know the answer — self-talk. We talk ourselves into being self-accountable. Some situations facilitate this thinking; some do not. In prior ISHN articles I defined environmental factors and contingencies that increase self-accountability thinking (for example, March 1996 and April 2001). In general, self-accountability thinking decreases as the degree of external negative control increases (as in severe threats and strong enforcement), and people’s perception of personal choice decreases. Also, the more a behavior aligns with our perception of who we are — our core values — the greater the self-accountability for that behavior.

Self-perception, personal values & self-accountability
Who do you think you are? In other words, what kind of person are you? Do you hold safety as a core value? How do you know?
Our behavior defines us. We are the kind of person who does the things we do. However, there are exceptions. When we feel our behavior is controlled entirely by external factors, we do not view that behavior as a reflection of who we are.

When we perceive our behavior as self-directed, we use that behavior to define our attitudes and values. In other words, the behaviors we choose to perform provide information for our self-perception. These behaviors are certainly motivated by expected consequences, both intrinsic and extrinsic. The key is to perceive some degree of choice, and perception of choice is stifled by enforcement or negative reinforcement contingencies (as when we act in a certain way to avoid a negative consequence).

Thus, our self-directed behavior informs our self-perception and our core values. And our self-perception and personal values influence our behavior. We strive for our behavior to be consistent with our values, and vice versa. When we perceive an inconsistency between behavior and the values that define us, we experience tension or “cognitive dissonance” (the academic label used by the many social psychologists who researched this phenomenon). We direct our self-talk to reduce this negative state.

Bottom line: The rationale we provide ourselves for performing safe behavior determines whether we feel self-accountable and will continue to perform that behavior in the absence of an external accountability system. And of course the rationale for our behavior is determined by our thinking or self-talk. PBS teaches the kind of thinking needed to develop self-accountability, as well as the kinds of environmental/management conditions/systems needed to promote and support self-accountability thinking.

SIDEBAR 1: How minds turn on to safety
1 - Self-talk, personal reminders, mental notes enable us to monitor and help direct our behavior.
2 - Thinking about our safe behavior helps persuade us that we’re doing the right thing.
3 - When we are personally convinced acting safely is in line with our values, and reflects the kind of person we want to be, we hold ourselves accountable for our own safety.
4 - But this kind of personally-motivated thinking fades in the face of severe threats and strong enforcement. Our perception of personal choice decreases. We feel controlled, manipulated.

5 - The key is to perceive some degree of choice in how we act.

6 - And this perception needs to be supported by personal reasons for acting safely.

7 - Positive personal perceptions and perceived choice form a powerful kind of thinking that benefits safety.



SIDEBAR 2: Essentials of People-Based Safety™
Act to prevent injuries.
Coach one another to identify barriers to safe acts and provide constructive behavior-based feedback.
Think in ways that activate and support safe behavior.

Focus and Scan to See hazards.

These four essentials of People-Based Safety — called “ACTS” — provide knowledge, skills and tools to fully address the human dynamics of workplace safety.


COMMENT:
This is all well and good in your job.
It puts YOU in control of many situations that you were mostly aware of, but didn't recognize due to only giving it part of your attention.
The rub comes in with relationships to a Signifiacnt Other. Women like to control, and feel that THEY are the center of attention.
From personal experience, you are focusing your attention of an on-going case, or a potential case.
The Significant Other "Feels left out", can't control, and friction follows.

HOW ARE 5%ERS CREATED?

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/bouncer.html?target=08/04/2006The same principles that enable a chess player to develop championship
expertise can help a conscientious officer become what's called a
"5%er"--an exceptional performer--in the policing profession, says Dr. Bill
Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at
Minnesota State University-Mankato.

"A highly skilled chess player has total control over the game," Lewinski
observes. "He can see ahead to anticipate what's going to happen, he knows
the right alternatives to choose from many options, he acts with speed and
confidence, and he beats the competition in a confrontation.
Lewinski cites examples of this quality at work in law enforcement:

--A rookie patrol officer and a highly skilled drug interdiction officer
independently approach a vehicle on a traffic stop. The officer with
seasoned criminal patrol skills will likely pick up immediately on cues of
a drug transport through items that are visible in the car, the way the
driver answers certain calculated questions, and the body language he
exhibits. However, the rookie (or an unmotivated officer, for that matter)
might see nothing beyond the initial traffic violation or if he does notice
telltale clues may need to spend considerable time assessing what they
might mean before reaching a conclusion.

--A highly skilled officer approaching a group of subjects on a street
corner might readily notice furtive movements indicating that an attack is
brewing, whereas a less seasoned officer might not quickly grasp the
implications of subtle early warning cues (and end up getting injured or
killed by a surprise assault).

--In a confrontation with a suspect who's resisting arrest, an officer with
less experience and training may cast about desperately along the force
continuum, trying to find something that brings compliance. An officer
who's highly experienced and trained in dealing with resistant subjects
will quickly read what he's up against and promptly and confidently select
the level of force necessary to swiftly control the situation.In chess (and analogously in policing) this kind of instant recognition is
possible because, through experience and study, a master player has
accumulated a vast storehouse of knowledge about chess games and chess
positions. During a game, he can quickly tap into this "well-organized
system of connections" and "manipulate" it to meet the challenge at hand.

Indeed, measurements of brain activity have confirmed that while novices
are analyzing and trying to reason out what moves to make, experts are
retrieving information from their long-term memory about "positions and
associated strategies" and using that to address the problem. "This finely
tuned long-term memory appears to be crucial to expertise," Ross states.

And it's not a matter of experts having a superior memory per se, but
rather a memory that retains professional information differently.

Again comparable to certain law enforcement situations, the memory of chess
masters is specifically "tuned to typical game positions," Ross points out.
In a revealing experiment, "players at various skill levels were shown
positions on a board from actual games and positions obtained by randomly
shuffling pieces. After observing the positions briefly, the players were
asked to reconstruct them from memory."

The masters and grandmasters were "only marginally better at remembering
the random positions" but they were "significantly better than weaker
players at recalling the game positions.

"Beginners could not recall more than a very few details" of an actual game
position, Ross writes, even after having examined the board for 30 seconds,
"whereas grandmasters could usually get it perfectly, even if they had
perused it for only a few seconds." Also grandmasters were significantly
better at recalling "all the moves in a game" they had played.

"This difference tracks a particular form of memory, specific to the kind
of chess positions that commonly occur in play. The specific memory must be
the result of training, because grandmasters do no better than others in
general tests of memory," including the random-placement tests Ross
describes.

Here Lewinski sees a direct link to research recently conducted by FSRC in
England regarding police driving.

[See Force Science News transmission #49, sent 7/21/06, found here:

http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=49 ]

Research indicates that the key "is not experience per se but 'effortful
study,'" according to Ross. Such study involves learning and practice that
entail "continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's
competence." In other words, Lewinski explains, as you gain in ability,
"the bar is constantly moved higher so that your skill level must keep
stretching and improving to reach it."

It's possible, Ross says, for people to "spend tens of thousands of hours
playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond
the amateur level." Yet a student who trains properly "can overtake them in
a relatively short time" and keep on improving. Interestingly, the quantity
of time spent playing chess, even in competitive tournaments, "appears to
contribute less" than effortful study to a person's progress. "The main
training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study,"
Ross says. (Similarly, Lewinski points out, that can be a major value of
debriefing after a policing confrontation.)

Lewinski further frames these findings in a law enforcement context. "In
law enforcement, we typically train to competency, not to proficiency," he
says. "In effect, competency means that someone determines on a basis not
related to science that if you pass a certain test you are skillful enough
to carry a gun and make deadly force decisions, for example. Proficiency
requires the application of effective techniques to a variety of relevant
situations with a high degree of skill and accuracy of judgment.


"We need to establish high standards that challenge officers to grow beyond
a minimum level of competence, to be enthusiastic about getting better at
what they do. How likely is that in departments that require an officer
merely to shoot a thousand rounds in basic firearms 'training' and then to
'qualify' 3 or 4 times a year--period?

"In that environment, there's no real training, no improvement, no one
challenging you but yourself. If you try to improve on your own, you may
run into barriers: you can only go to the range if a supervisor is there,
but the supervisor is always too busy, or you have to pay for any extra
ammunition you use.

"Instead of departmental policies and priorities that encourage mediocrity,
we need a training philosophy that encourages, nurtures and guides the
development of expertise. It's what the community expects and deserves."

If you have the burning drive of a 5%er, determined to maximize your skills
regardless of obstacles, understand that "in the early stages, effortful
study is very difficult," Lewinski says. "Pushing your limits inevitably
involves a lot of failure. When you fail, you need to back off a bit, learn
to correct your weaknesses, and build your way back up.

COMMENT:

THOUGHT#1:I truly believe that I was a 5%er. Some men go hunting. Some fish. Others play video games.
My aim was to be aware of all the hindrances on me, and still do my job as a Peace Officer.

THOUGHT#2: The writer, an expert, compares the reaction of an experieced officer and a rookie. From personal experiece, you learn to observe all visible and audible bits of information, and take action based on the input.

--In a confrontation with a suspect who's resisting arrest, an officer with
less experience and training may cast about desperately along the force
continuum, trying to find something that brings compliance. An officer
who's highly experienced and trained in dealing with resistant subjects
will quickly read what he's up against and promptly and confidently select
the level of force necessary to swiftly control the situation.

The Rookie doesn't know what is going on, and his ignorance might get his ass kicked or kill him. The Experienced Officer terminates resistance with the amount of force called for.

Now, your standard-issue civilian onlooker, and the bad guy that just got subdued will say :"You didn't need to do that!".

It always pissed me off to no end to hear some ignorant citizen tell me how I should have done it. Hell, HE has NEVER done it.
People will not tell their dentist or their plumber how to do their jobs. But everyone is an expert at Law Enforcement and Military projection of force.

Who is going to save you?

The problem I see with the world situation is that, on one side you see Western people, and their upbringing, socialization, and instilled restraints( Hitting is bad, Speaking angrily is unacceptable, etc). You see men and women trained to seek " Conflict Resolution", and an inappropriate response will result in mandatory attendance at "Anger Management" counseling sessions.

The IslamoFascist Ragheads are taught--from the day they can speak--to hate, kill, and regard Westerners as low as sheep or dogs. They are taught that it is virtue to kill--in as gory a fashion as possible--Infidels (Anyone who isn't a Muslim). They are taught that the accrue points in their heaven (paradise) for killing infidels.
NOTE: They are verbally taught. From reports, 85% of Muslims CAN NOT READ. Some old stinky guy in robes tells them to hate and kill, because Allah and the Prophet Mohammed command it, and they buy it totally.

Countering the IslamoFascists are military like the Marines, Army Airborne, Special Ops.(Green Berets, Rangers,and Seals).
These men are trained that the Islamics WILL KILL YOU --ON SIGHT. These men MUST be ready to react with lightning reflexes and "take out" the Raghead facing him, or be another load for a horse-drawn hearse.

So, while you are making sure that YOU are not "over-reacting", or "Being Rude", those Rough Men are saving YOUR ass!


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
George Orwell

Just another DUI arrest?

PHOTO: Daily Blabber.I village.com

The head of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department civilian oversight office said Tuesday that he has concerns about what motivated sheriff's officials to try to conceal Mel Gibson's anti-Jewish statements and belligerent behavior from the public and is troubled by the department's initial description of the arrest as uneventful.

At the same time, Mike Gennaco, who heads the Office of Independent Review, said an initial review of the case found that no laws had been broken and that the arrest had been handled within departmental policy.

Still at issue is whether Gibson — who issued a second apology Tuesday explicitly acknowledging that he had made anti-Semitic remarks and asking to meet with Jewish leaders — was given special treatment by sheriff's officials because of his celebrity status.

Sheriff's Department officials confirmed to The Times on Tuesday that a uniformed deputy drove Gibson from the Malibu-Lost Hills station to a tow yard to retrieve his Lexus LS sedan after he was released on bail Friday morning. Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said the 10-mile ride in a marked patrol car was not unusual.

"We do this for someone from time to time at all of our stations," he said, adding that officials decided to drive Gibson to avoid a confrontation with gathering media.

But one department source, who asked not to be identified because of the case's sensitivity, said it was a courtesy rarely extended to other suspects at the station.

Gennaco expressed surprise that Gibson had been driven by a deputy and said he would look into it. He said the decision to drive the actor could well be within policy, depending on why it was made.

Earlier in the day at a news conference outside his office in Commerce, Gennaco criticized the department's initial handling of the case. Reporters were not initially informed of Gibson's profane outbursts, attempt to escape custody and repeated threats to the arresting deputy. Instead, Whitmore initially described the arrest as "without incident."

"If I described what I know about the arrest, I'm not sure I would have used those words," Gennaco said.

In his comments Tuesday, broadcast live by cable and local media, Gennaco confirmed that the part of the arrest report detailing Gibson's "increasingly belligerent" behavior had been removed from the original report and purposely placed in a supplemental document by station-level supervisors. However, Gennaco said he had found no evidence so far that the decision had been directed, or even discussed, by Sheriff Lee Baca or other top officials.

Gennaco said it was not necessarily unusual to break an arrest report into more than one part, adding that it is sometimes done to protect the integrity of an investigation.

"Was the modification of this report done in a way so that the disclosure of information to the public would somehow be altered?" Gennaco asked. "I don't have the answer to that question."

Gennaco said that his probe was in its early stages and that he still had "some concerns about the access to that information."

Gibson was pulled over about 2:30 a.m. Friday by Deputy James Mee, who said the actor was driving more than 80 mph in a 45-mph zone on Pacific Coast Highway. Mee said he smelled alcohol on Gibson's breath and asked him to submit to Breathalyzer and field sobriety tests. According to sheriff's officials, Gibson's blood alcohol level measured .12% at the scene; the legal limit is .08%. An open bottle of tequila, one-quarter empty, was found in the vehicle.

In a part of the arrest report leaked last week to the celebrity website http://www.tmz.com , Mee wrote that after Gibson realized he was going to be arrested, he grew uncooperative and abusive. Gibson "blurted out a barrage of anti-Semitic remarks" and told Mee: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Then he asked Mee, who is Jewish: "Are you a Jew?"

SOURCE:http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-gibson2aug02,0,7019522.story?coll=la-home-headlines

From 30 years of arresting DUI drivers, aboutr 5,000, there are some things that I can talk to that are ignored:

1.The way you see a person act at .10 BAC ( Blood Alcohol Content)--is the true personality of that person. A lot of people just dismiss it as "Oh, he had a few" or "He was just blowing off steam".
No, at .10, the person's INHIBITIONS fall away. They no longer restrain or caution themselves that this impulse could cost them dearly.

2. Gibson was arrested at 0239 hours. If the Deputy had a Pre-Alcohol Sensing device, the .12 BAC result MIGHT be valid. If it took until 0430 to get him booked, this lends credence to that result.

3.Sheriff's Department officials confirmed to The Times on Tuesday that a uniformed deputy drove Gibson from the Malibu-Lost Hills station to a tow yard to retrieve his Lexus LS sedan after he was released on bail Friday morning. Department spokesman Steve Whitmore said the 10-mile ride in a marked patrol car was not unusual.

"We do this for someone from time to time at all of our stations," he said, adding that officials decided to drive Gibson to avoid a confrontation with gathering media.

B.S! You DO NOT take someone home or to a tow yard. Normal people burn off alcohol at .025 per hour. This is STUPID on the Sheriff's part.
Now he is down to .08. If the Sheriffs did this, it is a perfect defense to the charge of DUI.

4. Mel will not have a license for 6 months.California State Law dictates that after the person gives a sample over.08, the Arresting Officer MUST seize the person's driver's license and give the Arrestee a document stating that the Arrestee can appeal the suspension.
Makes the Sheriff's move of taking him back to his car even more stupid.

5. I'm almost 99% certain that there is an Audio and/or video recording og Gibson at the arrest site, and another in the Jail. You learn that if you are an officer the most common trait of drunks is that they lie. They lie to their friends, themselves, and hours or days after the arrest, to your supervisor. A standard arrest of handcuffing and being put in a back seat becomes Rodney King Beating #2.

SO--you get yourself a tape recorder, and you record EVERY drunk. I carried a recorder in my shirt pocket from 1974 to 2001. That tape recorder saved me about 100 times, and illustrated that Drunks WILL lie. There are ALWAYS tape Recorders (Video and Audio) in Jails. A favorite past time of inmates is creating stories of "Brutality".

6. Mel looked far more intoxicated than .12 BAC. Why did everyone offer him a ride? Just to be close to him? No, they all knew he was S--tfaced!