4 EPD Officers Appeal Suspensions At Police Merit Commission Meeting

NOVEMBER 14TH, 2016

BRITNEY TAYLOR EVANSVILLE, INDIANA

All four officers suspended after an arrest late last month appeal their suspensions. Dozens of officers show their support for them at Monday afternoon’s Police Merit Commission meeting.

The future of these four officers remains unclear. They all appealed their suspensions, but it could take weeks until a decision is made.

The four Evansville Police officers are accused of using excessive force in the arrest of Matt Healy on October 29th. Officers filed documents stating Healy fought with them during the arrest. But body cam footage showed that was not the case.

Officers Mark Decamps, Marcus Craig, and Nick Henderson could be fired. Sergeant Kyle Kassel could be demoted. Indiana State Police are also investigating to see if the men should face criminal charges.

The officers suspensions will be up on Thanksgiving. The chief will decide if they come back to work November 25th or be suspended with pay.

The next Police Merit Commission meeting is November 28th, but no disciplinary action will be taken. However there could be disciplinary hearings scheduled.

IS IT TRUE we are hearing that the Vanderburgh County Democratic party is about broke, politically ineffective and leaderless?  …special thanks should be given to those democrats who turned their backs on Rick Davis and Gayle Riecken Mayoral campaigns?

IS IT TRUE we are hearing that the poor won and lose record (0-11) of the Evansville Thunderbolts may be causing the owners problems?  …if poor attendence, lack of income from sponsorships and inadequate concession income continues they may be facing a cash flow crisis?

IS IT TRUE we are pleased that VenueWorks are having many successful non-hockey events at the Ford Center? …bottom line, is that Venueworks know what the heck they are doing and the politicians should let them select and run the events  at the Ford Center?

IS IT TRUE  we are led to believe the City of Evansville financial crisis of 2016 is officially over?  …we highly suggest that our City officials better start preparing for the impending 2017 budget crisis?

IS IT TRUE we wonder how much the 2016 City of Evansville General Fund is over budget?  …our guess is that the City of Evansville General Fund could be in the red between $12.5 to $15 million of dollars for this year?

IS IT TRUE  we are hearing that the 2016 City of Evansville Employee Hospitalization Fund is in the red by many millions of dollars?  …we hear that the final figure 2016 will be “whooper”?

IS IT TRUE we wonder why the Mayor has allowed the City of Evansville General Fund to be overspent by an average of $1.2 million per month?

IS IT TRUE if you live within the City limits and Council vote to take 2% from your Homestead Tax Credit you will really be losing about 4% (2% from City and 2% from County) of your Homestead Tax Credit?  … every Vanderburgh County Tax Payer will be losing 2% every year until the Homestead Tax Credit is eliminated by the Mayor and City Council?

IS IT TRUE we can’t wait to see how many million of dollars the Evansville Zoo really lost in 2016?  …we are hearing the figure will be a “whooper” ?

EDITORS FOOTNOTES:  Todays “READERS POLL” question is: Do you feel it was wise for the Mayor to replace the Evansville Icemen with the Evansville Thunderbolts?

Please take time and read our newest feature articles entitled “IU WOMEN’S-MENS SWIM AND DIVING TEAMS”.

Also take time to read “BIRTHDAYS, HOT JOBS” and “LOCAL SPORTS” posted in our sections.

If you would like to advertise in the CCO please contact us City-County Observer@live.com.

City County Observer has been serving our community for 15 years.

Copyright 2015 City County Observer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistribute.

New York Times Publisher And Editor Vows To ‘Rededicate’ Paper To Reporting Honestly

The publisher and editor of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.

Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.

“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.

New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, “because it (The Times) demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.

Sulzbergers letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.

She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump discombobulated.

Spayd wrote, “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”

She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”

“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”

Sulzberger—who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly– also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”

“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.

CCO EDITOR FOOTNOTE:  This Op-Ed article was written by the NEW YORK TIMES Publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and Executive Editor Dean Baquet.

We would like to thank our daily poster Joe Biden for sending this most interesting find.  

We repost this article sent to us by JoeBiden without opinion, bias or editing.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA, YOU’RE FIRED!

By Rick Jensen

Who was the biggest loser in this election?  The Mainstream Media!

Even though millions of Americans believe it was actually American citizens who lost the most in this election, it’s really the national media that lost credibility.

Reporters whose names were revealed by Wikileaks might as well change their occupations to “pundit,” “columnist” or “propagandist” because they will never again be known as unbiased reporters.

Wikileaks proved through leaked emails what conservatives have known and liberals have denied for decades: our national media is infested with left-wing propagandists posing as unbiased reporters.

Now, liberals are faced with admitting the truth or spinning some intellectually contorted web designed to obfuscate the truth.

Thanks to the internet, it’s increasingly improbable to hide such collusion.

John Harwood of The New York Times and CNBC actually asked Clinton campaign Director John Podesta what questions Podesta would like for him to ask Jeb Bush.

Harwood then basked in Podesta’s approval with an email titled, “I imagine” with the body of the message continuing the sentence with “…that Obama feels some (sad) vindication at this demonstration of his years-long point about the opposition party veering off the rails I certainly am feeling that way with respect to how I questioned Trump at our debate.”

The question Harwood asked was, “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

Certainly a question designed to allow Harwood to bask in the showering approvals from Democrats because it’s really an insulting statement shrouded as a question.

CNN hired Democratic Party operative and Clinton spy Donna Brazile as a “contributor,” only to be embarrassed when she was caught bragging about giving CNN Presidential debate questions to Hillary in advance of the debate.

Brazile “resigned” after the light of Wikileaks transparency exposed her theft, the equivalent of a college student caught stealing a final exam.

Sure, some reporters send complimentary and perhaps even swooning emails to campaigns because they are schmoozing to get a story.

Then there’s Maggie Haberman of the New York Times.

Reporters Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang received documents from hacker Guccifer 2.0 that describe in no uncertain terms how Haberman helped the Clintons “plant stories” about Hillary’s run for president in a positive manner when Haberman was at Politico.

Nick Merrill, campaign press secretary, wrote, “… the time is right (to) place a story with a friendly journalist in the coming days…”

“We have has (sic) a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year.We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed.”

Remember, it was the Guccifer emails that revealed the Democratic National Committee conspired with the Hillary campaign to ensure Bernie Sanders would not be the Democratic nominee for President.

These emails resulted in four DNC executives, including DNC president Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, “resigning.”

There are also the disturbing omissions of serious reportage.

Hillary Campaign organizers are caught on video bragging they instigated the violence at Trump campaigns, saying they were paid to do so by the DNC, which was paid by the Hillary campaign specifically to commit these crimes.

Still, the mainstream media chose to ignore these critical news stories while the offenders were “resigned” from their jobs for the crime of being caught on camera.

It is a problem that every national news source is considered “the media” and dozens out of hundreds of reporters and contributors have tainted the entire profession of national political reporters as untrustworthy.

The question is, as news organizations, not the “talk show” or “pundit” personality programs, how do CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC, Fox News, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and all of the national media now establish themselves as unbiased, trustworthy presenters of the political news of the day?

Or, do they simply choose to identify themselves as partisan or ideological like MSNBC, Huffington Post and Breitbart and be done with it, hoping to attract enough partisan advertisers to be profitable?