I came up with a few other titles but I thought using the words racist and discrimination may attract to many of the kings court to my little corner of the world. Everyone knows I can’t stand the way in which the king rules this department. Until now, I’ve just ranted and raved over stories told to me by other frustrated deputies. This article is a bit different, not much but read on.

The king,without much thought, started hiring corrections officers to replace deputies in the jail. I didn’t care, really deputy-Co who cares really, it’s a shitty job but someone has to do it. Recently, a trend has been uncovered that is alarming to the deputies. When a deputy violates policy they are disciplined. Either verbally warned or more commonly, suspended without pay. A deputy was involved in a case where a misunderstanding in commitment verbage cost them a few days off. I’m ok with that , this officer caught time for a similar offense. The problem- a corrections officer violated the same policy and made the same mistakes and received… NOTHING. Interesting,

A few weeks ago there were two deaths in custody. In the first case the person assigned to the post was immediately suspended and is pending termination. In the second case the person assigned to the post was reassigned to a different post. Which do you suppose was the deputy? Righto! The first was a deputy. Now, I step onto my soap box and preach all the time about how unfair the king is. Most of the time is pure rant. Dear readers this time it’s pure facts. The cases involving deputies are internal affairs cases and the corrections officer got nothing. That just doesn’t seem like a fair work practice, right? I’ve been told by a deputy, of a story that was heard from a supervisor in the jail. The supervisor is in charge of the co’s and deputies but isn’t a seargent. This supervisor went to inspector schmidt and asked about multiple co’s he was having problems with. He had sent paperwork on the problem co’s to schmidt and internal affairs in the past with no response. So he went to talk to schmidt and ask why nothing has come of his formal complaints regarding the co’s. That’s when it happened, the million dollar question was asked, ” Is it safe to say that anything the sheriff has his hand in is {untouchable}?” The response from schmidt was, “It’s safe to say that.” So, the corrections officer program is untouchable and if they let a murderer walk out the door, it’s ok, they’re co’s. The co program WILL succeed, no matter what.

Now that I got that out, here’s the meat of my article this time. This is an interesting case that CAN be backed by internal affairs paperwork. So call and request it, they won’t allow it’s release, but hey it would be fun if you called them. Ok, the story:

In June (say around, or MAYBE on the 17th) a vehicle was stopped for failing to move over or slow down when passing a squad in emergency mode on a traffic stop. The operator, a black man, passenger a black female; the deputy a white man. Per the internal affairs paperwork the black female took offense to being stopped and told the deputy he was racially profiling his stops. According to the papers the deputy tried to explain the move over law and why it’s important. The citizens wanted nothing to do with the deputies explaination. An internal affairs case followed the issuance of a citation for failing to move over (346.072(1)(a) of wisconsin state statutes. The complaint cited the officers profiling activity and demeaning manner in which he talked to the citizen. Now, I’m no fan of the deputy involved, but a racist? No sorry, i have never detected that type of demeanor from the deputy. Now hold on reader… it’s gets a bit better. Internal affairs contacts other people stopped by the officer that night and asks them if they felt the deputy was profiling or was demeaning in his interactions with them. Each one of them backed the deputies version. All six of them. So for once internal affairs does the right thing and clears the deputy of any wrong doing. The results go back to clarke… who effectively reopens the case and gives the deputy one day off. What? How can that be deputy insider? The deputy was cleared by internal affairs right? Ah-ha here’s the beef. The operator stopped is a relative of a milwaukee alderman and I’d hate to say ‘friend’ so maybe associate of clarke is better. So, could I argue that clarke, a black man discriminated against this white deputy cleared of any wrong doing? Could I argue that because the violator is black, the alderman is black and the sheriff is black that the deputy was unjustly disciplined? I think i can. I think I can also argue that clarke most certainly let policy and facts fly out the window to satisfy a grudge held by a relative of a city of milwaukee alderman.

Can I call clarke racist? Would you if it were the other way around?