

From the Radio Free Michigan archives



ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot



If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to

bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.

------------------------------------------------





THE LEAA ADVOCATE  Fall/Winter 1994

A publication of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America



Page 23



FORMER ARLINGTON COUNTY POLICE OFFICER SPEAKS OUT



Reveals Intimidation, Threats made by Chief



by Andrew Hays, LEAA Member



As any Pro-Second-Amendment police officer (I.E., working cops) wil tell you, 

working for a chief who support politically correct gun control propoganda 

makes life at one's department trying at times.  If an officer dares to speak 

out about Second Amendment rights, he or she must be prepared to endure often 

intense intimidation by the brass to keep quiet - or else.



Having just recently secured new employment, I have the luxury that no active 

duty officer has:  I don't have to keep quiet any longer; the threats and 

intimidation no longer apply to me.



Up until October 28, 1994, I was a uniform patrol officer with the Arlington 

County Police Department in Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C.



I worked with, and immensely respect, Officer John Donaggio, the officer who 

is suing Arlington County Police Chief 'Smokey" Stover and the county itself 

for forcing him and nine other officer to "lobby" in favor of the "assault 

weapon" gun ban legislation.



My confrontation with Chief Stover over gun control may provide readers with a 

little insight, and perhaps some appreciation, as to the tremendous courage 

that Officer Donaggio is exhibiting in taking a stand for the right of a 

police officer to nobe forced to support a political agenda he or she opposes.



Here's the story from a cop who witnessed it first-hand from the _inside_.



The events began on Sunday, May 1, 1994, four days before the House of 

Representatives voted on that misnamed "assault weapon" gun ban (and passed by 

a one-vote margin).  At afternoon roll call that Sunday, the on-duty Sergeant 

asked for three volunteers from our shift to participate in a photo shoot.  We 

were not told what the event was about, only that it was to be held on 

Thursday, May 5, and that any officer who would be off-duty that day could 

volunteer and collect overtime pay.  The Sergeant said he needed three 

officers from each shift plus one more, for a total of 10 officers.



Nobody knew what the event was about, but many of us believed that it was 

connected to the upcoming Police Officer's Memorial Week.  I volunteered.



On Tuesday evening, May 3, I received a message on my home answering machine 

from my Sergeant, telling me that I should report at 11:00 a.m., Thursday 

morning, May 5, for the detail.  I called him back early in the morning on 

Wednsday, May 4, to confirm what the event was about, and he said it was in 

support of "banning guns that are used to kill cops."



I asked the Sergeant if he meant the "assault weapon" gun ban legislation, and 

he said yes.  I then informed the Sergeant that I was familiar with the 

legislation and did not know of any reference to firearms that were used to 

kill cops as being any part of this bill.  After some "discussion" of the bill 

in which the Sergeant clearly did not know what he was talking about, he said 

he would take me off the list when I told him there was no way I coudl support 

the sham of a bill.



Later that day, May 4, I went to see Deputy Chief Brewer to inform him that 

this gun ban was not about crime and that these guns were used in a miniscule 

amount of crimes, an almost infintesimal number.  I asked Chief Brewer to 

scout the 315-member department to see if any of the weapons that were about 

to be banned had been used in any crimes involving our department.  He said, 

"I grant you I don't know of any such cases."  However, he did cite that there 

was _one_ female officer killed in California involving one of the listed 

guns, although he conceded that particular instance entailed an unbalanced 

person who killed the officer, and not a gang member, or a drug dealer, or 

other "usual" criminal.



I said that, irrespective of the politics involved, it was wrong to send 

county police officers, at taxpayer expense, to participate in a political 

rally.  I told him that there was no difference between this and punching in 

on the County time clock and attending a pro-choice rally, a pro-life rally, 

or an NRA rally.  That it was political activism and that it was wrong.



Deputy Chief Brewer replied that there were "benefits" to be gained by the 

department for supporting the gun band, and that by sending Arlington County 

officers to the Capitol, the department would be in a position to obtain 

federal funding to hire more officers.  He specifically mention CBPOP 

(Community Based Problem Oriented Policing) officers.  He stressed that 

Arlington County's participation in the photo shoot in support of the "assault 

weapon" ban could be a way to help secure federal funding.



I then raised the issue with him that none of the officers involved knew what 

this event was about.  I asked him if he would mind if I contacted the 10 

officers personally, at home, to tell them the details.  He said he didn't 

mind, and then provided me with a list of the officers slated for the detail; 

he was very courteous and polite.



Later that evening, Wednesday, May 4, I called every one of the 10 officers.  

Of all the officers I personally spoke with, not a single one knew the details 

of what the photo shoot was about.  Several believed it was the kick-off event 

for Police Officers Memorial Week.  When I told them that it was in support of 

the "assault weapon" gun ban, more than a few were outraged.  Officer Donaggio 

was not at home when I called him, so I left a message on his machine. 



As the first officer to find out what the photo shoot was actually about, I 

had been able to get out of the detail, and that was the end of my direct 

involvement for about a month.



Then on June 10, 1994, a letter was distributed to all county employees by 

Arlington County Manager Anton Gardner asking for input on the issues of 

employees' political rights and the "Little Hatch Act."  (Section 6 of the 

county code which essentially prohibits political activism in uniform or in 

any way that identifies a person as a county employee.)



I wrote a letter and delivered it to County Manager Cardner on June 17 

detailing to him what had happened on May 5.  I wrote that the officers had 

been duped and that I thought it was reprehensible that they were coerced to 

participate in a political activity against their will.  I stated that it was 

my understanding that the county code already expressly prohibited this type 

of activity and that I believed the county code had been violated and that it 

was wrong that taxpayer's money had been spent.



Six days later, on June 23rd, a scheduled day off for me, I received a call 

from Deputy Chief Brewer asking if I could come in and talk to Chief Stover 

regarding my letter I had sent to County Manager Gardner.



Per the request, I went in to talk to the Chief.  Present in the Chief's 

office were Chief Stover, Deputy Chief Brewer and myself.  They closed the 

door and the Chief put my letter in front of my and asked me if I recognized 

it.  I responded that I did and that it was the letter that I had sent to the 

County Manager at his request.



Chief Stover then said, "Are you tired of working for here, son?"  He then 

started going through my letter part by part, asking me how the county code 

had been violated.



He asserted, contrary to my reference of the code section, that categorically 

there had not been a violation.  He said that as a police officer, I should 

have known how to "read between the lines."  Political activity, he said, 

"means supporting a candidate running for office."



Chief Stover then said that "If you ever pull any 'horse-shit' like this 

again, and if I hear any more about this, when the smoke clears one of the two 

of us won't be here any longer."  He said I could guess which one would be 

gone.  He repeatedly asked me, in a threatening manner, if I was tired of 

working for the department.



One part of the Chief's tirade in particular is etched in my brain, like it 

happened yesterday, when he read aloud one part of my letter to the County 

Manager, in whcih I wrote: "...this affair may have been in haste and may have 

been a mistake.  If this is the case, I hope you will find an apology to these 

officers to be reasonable."



After he read it he circled it with a pen and said, "I will tell you what the 

mistake was.  My mistake was asking for volunteers rather than ordering 

officers to attend.  Next time I will make it a detail, then I will order them 

to go and if they don't I will _fire_ them."  He said that to me twice 

directly and repeated it once again to Deputy Chief Brewer.



When Chief Stover threatened to fire me, he never mentioned what he would fire 

me for.  Normally, when an officer screws up, they pull out the manual and 

show the officer what specific sections have been violated.  He did not do 

that with me, because he knew that I hadn't violated any regulation.  He 

simply wanted to intimidate me into silence.



This whole episode is a perfect example of how far the gun control extremists 

will go to perpetuate the deception that police officers support gun control 

legislation...if you count the cops that are coerced.  That's the tactic that 

Chief Strover employed.



Based on my personal experience in law enforcement, I have found very little 

support among police officers for additional gun control efforts.  Most cops 

know that someone who will shoot a 7-11 clerk to death for $40.00 will not pay 

much attention to another gun law.  The concept is absolutely laughable.



I believe that there were some crucial votes in favor of the "assault weapon' 

ban in the House of Representatives that were swayed by the perception that 

law enforcement supported it, in no small measure, by coercing 10 of my fellow 

officers to go to the United Stated Capitol Building to lobby in "support" of 

the ban.



These officers were used as political puppets -- against their will -- to 

stifle their own Constitutional rights.  And if that doesn't sear the soul, I 

don't know what does.



That's the crux this whole gun control debate.  It's not about law 

enforcement, it's not about police, it's not about crime.  It's about 

politics, the politics of control.



-30-



Surprise, Surprise...



At a White House ceremony on October 12, 1994, Arlington Police Chief William 

"Smokey" Stover, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other officials announce 

that Arlington County, Virginia, had been awarded a $425,475 "Clinton Crime 

Bill" federal grant to add six more police officers.  The county matching 

grant is $604,475; LEAA tried repeatedly to obtain additional details, but was 

unsuccessful.



-30-



LEAA is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization made up of tens of 

thousands of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned 

citizens dedicated to making America safer.  LEAA represents and forcefully 

advocates it's member's interests by:



- Assisting law enforcement professionals



- Securing victims' rights over criminals' rights



- Winning legislative criminal justice reforms that target violent criminals,

  not law-abiding citizens



- Telling the truth from a law enforcement perspective, why gun control is 

  _not_ crime control



For further information, write or call:



Law Enforcement Alliance of America       (703) 847-COPS

7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 421             (703) 556-6485 (Fax)

Falls Church, VA  22043                   (800) 766-8578



Typographical errors are the fault of the poster, not of the LEAA Advocate.

---

Frank Ney  EMT-A  N4ZHG  LPVa  NRA GOA CCRKBA LEAA JPFO 'M-O-U-S-E'

                        Don't Tread On Me

"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for 

rule by brute force, where the biggest, strongest animals among men were 

always automatically 'right.'  Guns ended that, and social democracy is a 

hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work." 

                - L. Neil Smith, _The Probability Broach_





------------------------------------------------

(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the

Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.




All files are ZIP archives for fast download.


 E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)



