Saturday, March 1, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.
Some things seem to be fairly obvious: The background check on officers recently hired by Metro seems to leave a lot to be desired. Whoever was responsible should be disciplined, in my opinion. It would seem that, when it is possible for reports to discover items in a person's past that would be disqualifying for an important job, such should have been discovered beforehand by an agency, one of whose major responsibilities is investigation.
Training would seem to be in question. Recently, an incident occurred that had me wondering why four supposedly trained officers could not subdue one person armed only with a steak knife. Obviously, it is not in an officer's job description that he be allowed to be intentionally carved on by anyone, but you still have to wonder. While the Internal Affairs division has apparently increased its vigilance over officers' behavior, still and all, it is just that -- an internal investigation.
To my knowledge, findings are not made public. It is difficult to believe in an Internal Affairs division's total objectivity. Which brings me to the last item: It is my believe that, as long as we have what seems to me to be a "rubber stamp" grand jury, whose deliberations are in secret and whose results may be sealed by court order, other remedies must be sought.
A civilian overview board just might be the answer. I realize that the last thing Metro wants is a bunch of civilians have an overview of and meddling in police business. However, in the final analysis, all police business is taxpayers' business. The police might just find it to their advantage to have a wholly independent panel review their actions. If approved, it could have a very beneficial effect. Vindication by an impartial agency is most compelling. I believe most taxpayers would approve.
William H. Glaze
archive
