BRATTLEBORO-I recently challenged Ture Nelson, the Republican candidate for Vermont attorney general, to explain what seemed to me like unquestioning support for all controversial police actions.
Having personally experienced, as crime victims, the frustration of the local prosecutor's catch-and-release program, both my wife and I fully get it that we have prosecutors who don't want to prosecute criminals. (In fact, our local state's attorney's office's "victim advocate" seems to think his job is to put us in our place and get us to shut up so that he can focus on routine paperwork.)
I am delighted to see a greater police presence patrolling downtown Brattleboro as well as enforcing traffic safety, yet we all know that there are occasions when a particular officer abuses authority. Although my encounters with police are typically positive, about 40 years ago a police officer improperly threatened me. (Fortunately, at the time, the chief of police, Bruce Campbell, a fair and intelligent person, investigated the facts and ended up sending me a letter of apology.)
"State government has lost touch with Vermont values," Ture Nelson says on his website. "We have prosecutors that don't want to prosecute criminals; instead, they waste tax-payer dollars to persecute [sic] police officers. This provides no public benefit and no public safety. I intend to stand up for police officers on day one!"
I wrote and asked him about my concerns about that statement and how "it sounds like you are promising 'knee-jerk' support to every police officer in every situation."
Here is Mr. Nelson's reply:
"Short answer: I do not support every police officer in every situation. In fact, just the opposite - I have very high expectations for police officers (especially in my case in Berlin).
"In fact, I was once asked in jury selection if police officers can make mistakes. I answered, 'Absolutely, all the time.' Needless to say, I was removed from the jury pool.
"I have had to fire several police officers during my time on the Berlin Selectboard and did so without hesitation or regret. I have also had to hold back the chief a little bit at times saying maybe we shouldn't hire this applicant for various reasons.
"Through my time with the U.S. Department of Transportation I have had the opportunity to work with many officers around the state with many different departments. There are some great officers out there whom I could take their work 'to the bank,' but there were some others whom I wouldn't even trust to attend a 'coffee with a cop' event.
"However, the current situation is that anytime a hindsight question is raised about their work they are instantly ostracized and presumed to be guilty.
"My opponent is one who does such a thing. She was in such a hurry to make a name for herself prosecuting police officers, half of the charges were dismissed by the court for lack of probable cause (PC). PC is covered the first semester of law school! My opponent's intent isn't to improve the system or to right a wrong, but for the publicity and make a name for themselves.
"Another area we need to look into is the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council. Their task should be to develop training standards and provide the training for police officers. They go through the steps by conducting two [Police Academy] classes a year, but do not do much else. What type of advanced training do they conduct, especially when it comes to internet and online crimes?
"The skills to effectively utilize these on-line tools needs to be taught to a much wider audience of police officers, not just one or two detectives in a limited number of departments. These skills are needed for investigation of the "normal" crimes, such as burglaries or car thefts, but are not being utilized.
"The Attorney General is a standing member of this council but sends a substitute and does not participate in the council meetings herself."
Steven K-Brooks
Brattleboro
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].