LA's Lee Baca in trouble.

[Sweet_Kate]

Sheriff Lee baca is in trouble for making a sexual innuendo on a LA radio drive time show (available on the internet). He called in on his own and it was not and interview.

http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2Dme%2Dbaca7feb07&section=%2Fnews%2Flocal

[ 02-07-2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Sweet_Kate ]

[jellybean40]

I guess the people didnt complain when the hosts used the language that THEY did, though. unreal.

Only problem is, if he goes by the policy that even one offending remark means discipline, then i guess he gets disciplined.

[Sweet_Kate]

That's true, the host was mockingly saying he was injured and might sue, ala the priest scandal.

[Snoopy1]

Not a great choice of words but they originated with the talk show hosts. Technically, Baca broke a rule but that's the way too many people talk.

[ 02-08-2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Snoopy1 ]

[Bill R]

Compared to writing letters recommending Presidential pardons for drug dealers that happened to have contributed large ammounts of money to the Democratic party this is nothing. If Baca would punish one of his deputies for breaking the rule then Sheriff Baca should accept the same for himself.

[drunkhunter]

By calling in to those guys on the air, he showed them that he listens to their show. They had already won before he even said a word.

[Don]

That whole KFI scene is pitiful. Talk about "muckraking broadcasting." I'm not sure that I've heard the two clowns referred to here, but I've heard so much crap from that station, that I quit listening to it years ago.

Um to clarify, I mean years before I left the area where I COULD hear it.

[ 02-08-2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

[bmbl]

My poor torn heart just bleeds for him. He's now subject to investigation under the brilliant policy that he just enacted.

[retired]

bmbl,

quote:

---

Originally posted by bmbl:
My poor torn heart just bleeds for him. He's now subject to investigation under the brilliant policy that he just enacted.

---

Which policy is that?

[bmbl]

I can't rag on about it again. (See "Biggest gripe about your agency" from a couple of weeks ago.)

[SpecOpsWarrior]

Retired, here is the thread that bmbl is refering to, in it he gives a description of the policy he is talking about.

http://www.officer.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001268

That policy sounds really touchy feely, I hope whoever thought of it, falls victim to it!!!!

[ 02-12-2003, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: SpecOpsWarrior ]

[retired]

Spec,

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpecOpsWarrior:
Retired, here is the thread that bmbl is refering to, in it he gives a description of the policy he is talking about.

http://www.officer.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001268

That policy sounds really touchy feely, I hope whoever thought of it, falls victim to it!!!!

---

It sounds to me like the policy clearly violates the Peace Officer Bill of Rights under California Government Code sections 3000-3300.

[drunkhunter]

I just read about about the policy that bmbl mentioned. There is no way that will stand up in front of an administrative law judge. The accused has no due process in that format. The department will be paying off somebody if push comes to shove.

[Sweet_Kate]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bmbl:
My poor torn heart just bleeds for him. He's now subject to investigation under the brilliant policy that he just enacted.

---

Hoist on his own petard, that's how it goes sometimes. Good luck on your job search bmbl.

Kate

[PelicanDriver]

It does sound like a bad policy coming back to bite him in the @$$. OTOH, how could anybody who listens to John and Ken possibly be offended by anything?