I am told Chief Delaney (in white shirt, at center, surrounded by substantially lesser men) pushed for this welcome change in policy.
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Wasn't Delaney the same law enforcement official who put the cart before the horse a couple of days ago, saying that if students could prove they aren't guilty then the charges might be dropped? I guess he's trying to make up for his lapse of knowledge about the presumption of innocence.
Chief Delaney is one of the few law enforcment/city-county adminstration/university participants in this debacle to whom I am inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt. He is a police officer, not a lawyer; I sense he chose words poorly while trying to act properly. I do not have complete information, although my sources seem reliable.
At a technical level, I doubt Pitt police were the arresting/complaining offers on many, if any, arrests. So Delaney is interceding as a matter of grace; if that is true, it seems reasonable for him to apply his standard in determining on whose behalf he is willing to provide assistance. That make the choice of the word "innocent" issue nearly a non-issue in my book.
The bad guys here, as I see it at the moment -- and the picture is yet to develop fully -- are the losers who put the wrong police in the wrong place and then loosed them on a campus, and the police officers who used that opportunity to abuse citizens, cover their badges to avoid accountability, lie on police reports, etc.
Delaney, who seems to be trying to wrong some wrongs not of his making, gets the benefit of the doubt.
Or maybe I just have a soft spot for police officers?
Well, you know the saying, "Two wrongs don't guarantee your rights!"
Yes, Delaney misspoke. He is also, first and foremost, doing what he's told, i.e., the bidding of the Pitt administration. So I wouldn't crown his head with too many laurels.
FOR PRIMER ON ODDS, SEE PROPOSITIONS POINTERS AT END OF BOARD LISTINGS
****FEATURED LINES***** ***********************
RAVENSTAHL PROSECUTION
Original presentment
Luke unindicted co-consprtr 4-1
Luke immunity for testimony 3-1
Luke indicted 3-5
State's evidence against Luke (must testify or affidavit)
(no action w/o charges)
F.Crawford 1-3
A.Bedway 1-2
P.Ford 1-1
N.Harper 3-2
D.Sciulli 3-2
M.Gauntner 3-2
Y.Zober 3-2 R,Gigliotti 2-1
A.Lazowski 2-1
J.Verbanac 2-1 Lamar Media 2-1
C.Zappala 3-1 R.Burgess 3-1
R.Stephany 3-1
D.Lavelle 6-1
Luke's wife (or ex) 9-1
Luke's girlfriend 5-1
Huss (Mr. or Mrs.) 4-3
INSOLVENCITY MAYOR
General Election
B.Peduto 1-12
D.Harris 99-1
J.Wander 99-1
Field 15-1
GOP (10-1) 50-1
GOP (other than Onorato) 51-1
independent (6-1) 12-1
endorsed Democrat (5-2) LOST
RAVENSTAHL INDICTMENT by 6/30/2013 (3-1) 2-1
by 12/31/2013 (3-2) 6-5
by 12/31/2014 1-1
L. RAVENSTAHL
serves full term 1-1
appoints 'interim mayor' 10-1
*****CLOSED LINES****
***********************
PITTSBURGH MAYOR 2013
Democratic Primary
B.Peduto (6-5) PAID
M.Lamb (3-1) LOST
J.Wagner (7-5) LOST
L.Ravenstahl (30-1) LOST
J.Ferlo (9-2) LOST
D.Onorato (25-1) LOST
D.Harris (9-1) LOST
R.Burgess (9-1) LOST
J.Wheatley (20-1) LOST
ORIE-ZAPPALA WAR
Jo.Orie convicted 1-1 PAID
Ja.Orie convicted PAID Jo.Orie off bench PAID
L.RAVENSTAHL INDICTMNT
by 12/31/2012 8-1LOST
***CURRENT LINES*****
***********************
US PRESIDENT 2015 H.Clinton 4-1 C.Christie 8-1
D.Patrick 15-1
C.Booker 15-1
any Bush 20-1
J.Biden 20-1
P.Ryan 20-1
M.Rubio 20-1
R.Perry 20-1
T.Cruz 20-1
S.Palin 99-1
R.Santorum 99-1
Republican 4-3
Democrat 3-5
Third party 15-1
PA GOVERNOR 2014
Republican 1-1
T.Corbett (1-1) 5-4
Democrat 3-2
FIRST TO OCCUR
Big Ben paternity suit 6-1
Mrs. Big Ben splits 3-1
Ravenstahl arrested 3-1
UPMC is non-nonprofit 6-1
Palin kid a college grad 12-1
Obama on Supreme Ct 30-1
Rooneys pay for something 40-1
FIRST FIRED
M.Huss (3-1) 2-1
T.Corbett (4-1) 2-1
F.Coonelly 4-1
R.Coury 6-1
J.Romoff 10-1
M. Tomlin 12-1
HEINZ LEAVES BURGH
by 12/31/2013 7-1
by 12/31/2014 4-1
by 12/31/2015 2-1
by 12/31/2016 1-1
by 6/31/2017 2-3
by 12/31/2017 1-3
2013 PIRATES
winning season (5-2) 3-2
payroll dump 2-5
trade Cutch 3-1
trade Alvarez 3-2
>1 All-Star 1-1
INSOLVENCITY PARKING
PRIVATEERING by 12/31/13 (8-1) 10-1 by 12/31/14 (7-1) 10-1 NEXT STEELERS ARREST
B.Roethlisberger 5-1
P.Burress 5-1 J.Harrison (6-1) LOST S.McBeam 10-1 any Rooney 25-1 M.Tomlin 99-1 Field 1-1
PROPOSITIONS TERMS **************** Wagers accepted while proposition posted (until removed); dds may be revised at any time without advance notice; no winner paid without ticket; all bets are action upon acceptance by management. 10% commission deducted from successful wagers PROPOSITIONS POINTERS The number expressed after a proposition identifies the line, or ratio by which wagers for that proposition would be paid upon occurrence of the proposed event. A line of 2-1 indicates that a dollar successfully wagered would generate a $2 winning (with return of the $1 wagered, for an aggregate payment of $3). A line of 1-1 indicates that a dollar successfully wagered would generate a $1 winning (with return of the $1 wagered, for an aggregate payment of $2). A line of 3-5 indicates that a successful $5 wager would generate a $3 winning (and aggregate payment of $8). The greater the ratio the first number bears to the second, the less likely the proposed event is expected to occur.) Examples: 99-1 extreme odds; remote probability 15-2 high odds; low probability 1-1 even odds; 50-50 probability 2-15 low odds; high probability 1-99 extreme odds; overwhelming probability
4 comments:
Wasn't Delaney the same law enforcement official who put the cart before the horse a couple of days ago, saying that if students could prove they aren't guilty then the charges might be dropped? I guess he's trying to make up for his lapse of knowledge about the presumption of innocence.
Chief Delaney is one of the few law enforcment/city-county adminstration/university participants in this debacle to whom I am inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt. He is a police officer, not a lawyer; I sense he chose words poorly while trying to act properly. I do not have complete information, although my sources seem reliable.
At a technical level, I doubt Pitt police were the arresting/complaining offers on many, if any, arrests. So Delaney is interceding as a matter of grace; if that is true, it seems reasonable for him to apply his standard in determining on whose behalf he is willing to provide assistance. That make the choice of the word "innocent" issue nearly a non-issue in my book.
The bad guys here, as I see it at the moment -- and the picture is yet to develop fully -- are the losers who put the wrong police in the wrong place and then loosed them on a campus, and the police officers who used that opportunity to abuse citizens, cover their badges to avoid accountability, lie on police reports, etc.
Delaney, who seems to be trying to wrong some wrongs not of his making, gets the benefit of the doubt.
Or maybe I just have a soft spot for police officers?
"... trying to wrong some wrongs ..."
Well, you know the saying, "Two wrongs don't guarantee your rights!"
Yes, Delaney misspoke. He is also, first and foremost, doing what he's told, i.e., the bidding of the Pitt administration. So I wouldn't crown his head with too many laurels.
Until and unless those students are cleared completely, this story will be short on laurels. Even then, they will have civil claims to root for.
If nothing else, Delaney looks great by comparison to the likes of Harper, Donaldson, Ravenstahl, Onorato and Nordenberg.
Post a Comment