Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Reply to Comment on New Chicago Pet Ordinance II
Comment by Melissa:
Honestly I think that the reasoning stating that it will reduce dog attacks is ridiculous.
Thank you. I haven't seen anything lately about dog attacks.
That being said, I think this law is a good idea. The shelters are not thinking of the bottom line, they are thinking of all the animals that have to come to them because they are strays or unwanted.
Not only strays or unwanted but due to the flooding in Iowa and Illinois. I've gotten the bulletins through certain organizations stating that they can't afford and don't have the facilities to keep taking on these animals left behind.
Once the term afford is used then the bottom line is being looked at. The bottom line is constantly looked at when ever a business is involved.
If you are not a breeder or showing them then what is the big deal to get them fixed.
Personally, I'm not fixed. Perhaps I should be but that's still in question. I was created this way and I like how I am. Can you ask your pet if it wants to be fixed? When a dog gets fixed it does change the animal. It becomes more sedentary, gains weight and is less attentive. In some cases, like my Father's dog, it becomes more mean. It effects every being differently and there's no way to guarantee what will come of it.
As for cats. Definitely have them spayed or neutered. There's way too many of them getting into my garbage cans. It will also help to stop the cats from marking their territories.
If you can't afford it there are always places that have low cost deals.
I went to a mechanic once that offered low rates. I bought a new car shortly after.
The amount of unwanted animals is staggering and allowing your pet to get knocked up because you didn't want to bother is pathetic.
People not taking responsibility for their animals and allowing them to get "knocked up" without being fixed is pathetic as well. The people that don't want to bother don't need an animal. By that I mean, if a person has an animal and can't stop it from reproducing without altering it, they should not have an animal. Having an animal is much more than just feeding and watering it.
As for the strays, there are a lot of programs set up to spay and neuter them to help the population control as well.
And then what? Spay and neuter them and put them in cages. Hope someone takes them home? Or release them back into the alleys? Here's an idea. Catch the strays, let them sit long enough that someone might claim them. If not, euthanize them. If someone does claim them, then spay or neuter them.
Sounds horrible but there is a huge overpopulation of strays especially cats.
Head down to the shelter some time and look at all of the little lives that are on the line because their owners didn't want to bother fixing them.
I've been to a few of the shelters here and outside the city. I've seen the many puppies and dogs that are in there. I've seen the sad faces. I've also noticed that a lot of those animals are fixed. Whether they are fixed after arrival or before was unknown to me at the time. And it didn't matter, if I had found the right animal I would have adopted it anyway.
However, I've seen many many animals with sad faces. I've nursed kittens to health with eye droppers. I've raised chickens from the egg. I've had many animals throughout my life. I've had many that died in my hands. So even though it did effect me I'm not going to run out and change the entire population because certain idiots don't know how to take care of their animals.
I also will not try to lead anyone to believe that the shelters are full due to the simple reason that someone didn't get their animal fixed.
I will lead people to believe that the shelters are full due to:
Honestly I think that the reasoning stating that it will reduce dog attacks is ridiculous.
Thank you. I haven't seen anything lately about dog attacks.
That being said, I think this law is a good idea. The shelters are not thinking of the bottom line, they are thinking of all the animals that have to come to them because they are strays or unwanted.
Not only strays or unwanted but due to the flooding in Iowa and Illinois. I've gotten the bulletins through certain organizations stating that they can't afford and don't have the facilities to keep taking on these animals left behind.
Once the term afford is used then the bottom line is being looked at. The bottom line is constantly looked at when ever a business is involved.
If you are not a breeder or showing them then what is the big deal to get them fixed.
Personally, I'm not fixed. Perhaps I should be but that's still in question. I was created this way and I like how I am. Can you ask your pet if it wants to be fixed? When a dog gets fixed it does change the animal. It becomes more sedentary, gains weight and is less attentive. In some cases, like my Father's dog, it becomes more mean. It effects every being differently and there's no way to guarantee what will come of it.
As for cats. Definitely have them spayed or neutered. There's way too many of them getting into my garbage cans. It will also help to stop the cats from marking their territories.
If you can't afford it there are always places that have low cost deals.
I went to a mechanic once that offered low rates. I bought a new car shortly after.
The amount of unwanted animals is staggering and allowing your pet to get knocked up because you didn't want to bother is pathetic.
People not taking responsibility for their animals and allowing them to get "knocked up" without being fixed is pathetic as well. The people that don't want to bother don't need an animal. By that I mean, if a person has an animal and can't stop it from reproducing without altering it, they should not have an animal. Having an animal is much more than just feeding and watering it.
As for the strays, there are a lot of programs set up to spay and neuter them to help the population control as well.
And then what? Spay and neuter them and put them in cages. Hope someone takes them home? Or release them back into the alleys? Here's an idea. Catch the strays, let them sit long enough that someone might claim them. If not, euthanize them. If someone does claim them, then spay or neuter them.
Sounds horrible but there is a huge overpopulation of strays especially cats.
Head down to the shelter some time and look at all of the little lives that are on the line because their owners didn't want to bother fixing them.
I've been to a few of the shelters here and outside the city. I've seen the many puppies and dogs that are in there. I've seen the sad faces. I've also noticed that a lot of those animals are fixed. Whether they are fixed after arrival or before was unknown to me at the time. And it didn't matter, if I had found the right animal I would have adopted it anyway.
However, I've seen many many animals with sad faces. I've nursed kittens to health with eye droppers. I've raised chickens from the egg. I've had many animals throughout my life. I've had many that died in my hands. So even though it did effect me I'm not going to run out and change the entire population because certain idiots don't know how to take care of their animals.
I also will not try to lead anyone to believe that the shelters are full due to the simple reason that someone didn't get their animal fixed.
I will lead people to believe that the shelters are full due to:
- Strays
- Animals being taken out of dangerous environments
- The flooding that occurred in Iowa and Illinois.
- Puppy mills. Like the ones that sell the animals to pet stores.
- People buying pets due to their popularity and not realizing the responsibilities involved.
Reply to Comment on New Chicago Pet Ordinance
Comment posted by Miss Robyn:
Honestly, doll, I think this is a great idea. Nothing makes me feel more stabby than people who don't spay and neuter their pets- it's tantamount to animal cruelty.
Robyn, I'm very confused on how you think not getting your dog spayed or neutered is the same thing as animal cruelty? Is this supposed to mean that I constantly beat my dog every chance I get? Or that I don't feed or give water to my animal? Or perhaps since I don't think it's necessary to alter the animal; I tied a rope around it's neck and hang it from a window? Your comment is ridiculous. According to this I'm constantly treating my animal in an inhumane way because I'm allowing it to live the way it was created.
*So* many animals end up in shelters, or on the street because people didn't feel the need to get their pets spayed and neutered.
So people actually take their pets to the shelter just because they don't want to alter them? I would think that it would be more due to them not being able to take care of them or provide for them. Kind of like how people put children up for adoption.
It actually doesn't even cost that much- there are places that will do it for practically nothing.
Depending on where you live. I've looked into this and found that if you live in certain areas there is no help provided at all. Even still, for some people $50 is a lot. It's either groceries for a couple weeks or get your cat altered.
And hey, anything that prevents people from breeding dogs for fighting is great in my book. Do you know what happens to those poor dogs? It's disgusting. They hang a slab of meat from the wall by a rope, and then get the dogs to jump up and bite it, and then beat the crap out of them while they're hanging there- to dislocate the jaw and make them more vicious.
You don't actually think that this ordinance is going to stop or even help stop dog fighting do you?
The kind of people that are involved in dog fighting are off the radar. It's like the gang bangers that walk around with guns. They must not know that Chicago has a gun ban. Someone should tell them so they get rid of their guns.
How certain individuals treat animals should not be a good reason on how to treat the entire population of Chicago. Yes Robyn, I do know how fighting dogs are treated. I've seen plenty of documentation and clips. They're treated that way so they become fighters. Does that mean that my little 4 pound Chihuahua, that I will not breed, should be spayed?
Why won't I breed my dog? First off, she's too small to safely have puppies. Secondly, I'm a responsible "parent". I'm not going to allow more puppies to come about.
Why won't I spay her? I don't believe in altering an animal from how it's created for the simple ability to not worry about it becoming pregnant. I believe I'm a good enough parent to not let that happen. I've already talked with my veterinarian about having her spayed. It was suggested that it only be done if absolutely needed due to her size.
And then even when they're rescued they can't be adopted out because they're too dangerous. It's so so wrong.
I'll completely agree. Fighting dogs is wrong. It's horrible but it does happen. Any person that actually takes a fighting dog home with them should know the risks. A dangerous animal should be put down, no matter what.
Oh, and it said in the article that if your pet can't have it done for health reasons it would be exempt from the law- not that you'd have to kill it.
I might have read that wrong. The way I read it; you would have to get a breeder's license in order to keep it from being altered. Which, if you can't afford it, would lead to the altering process and possible death. Sure, I read it and write it here as a scare tactic but how else will people take notice.
Honestly, doll, I think this is a great idea. Nothing makes me feel more stabby than people who don't spay and neuter their pets- it's tantamount to animal cruelty.
Robyn, I'm very confused on how you think not getting your dog spayed or neutered is the same thing as animal cruelty? Is this supposed to mean that I constantly beat my dog every chance I get? Or that I don't feed or give water to my animal? Or perhaps since I don't think it's necessary to alter the animal; I tied a rope around it's neck and hang it from a window? Your comment is ridiculous. According to this I'm constantly treating my animal in an inhumane way because I'm allowing it to live the way it was created.
*So* many animals end up in shelters, or on the street because people didn't feel the need to get their pets spayed and neutered.
So people actually take their pets to the shelter just because they don't want to alter them? I would think that it would be more due to them not being able to take care of them or provide for them. Kind of like how people put children up for adoption.
It actually doesn't even cost that much- there are places that will do it for practically nothing.
Depending on where you live. I've looked into this and found that if you live in certain areas there is no help provided at all. Even still, for some people $50 is a lot. It's either groceries for a couple weeks or get your cat altered.
And hey, anything that prevents people from breeding dogs for fighting is great in my book. Do you know what happens to those poor dogs? It's disgusting. They hang a slab of meat from the wall by a rope, and then get the dogs to jump up and bite it, and then beat the crap out of them while they're hanging there- to dislocate the jaw and make them more vicious.
You don't actually think that this ordinance is going to stop or even help stop dog fighting do you?
The kind of people that are involved in dog fighting are off the radar. It's like the gang bangers that walk around with guns. They must not know that Chicago has a gun ban. Someone should tell them so they get rid of their guns.
How certain individuals treat animals should not be a good reason on how to treat the entire population of Chicago. Yes Robyn, I do know how fighting dogs are treated. I've seen plenty of documentation and clips. They're treated that way so they become fighters. Does that mean that my little 4 pound Chihuahua, that I will not breed, should be spayed?
Why won't I breed my dog? First off, she's too small to safely have puppies. Secondly, I'm a responsible "parent". I'm not going to allow more puppies to come about.
Why won't I spay her? I don't believe in altering an animal from how it's created for the simple ability to not worry about it becoming pregnant. I believe I'm a good enough parent to not let that happen. I've already talked with my veterinarian about having her spayed. It was suggested that it only be done if absolutely needed due to her size.
And then even when they're rescued they can't be adopted out because they're too dangerous. It's so so wrong.
I'll completely agree. Fighting dogs is wrong. It's horrible but it does happen. Any person that actually takes a fighting dog home with them should know the risks. A dangerous animal should be put down, no matter what.
Oh, and it said in the article that if your pet can't have it done for health reasons it would be exempt from the law- not that you'd have to kill it.
I might have read that wrong. The way I read it; you would have to get a breeder's license in order to keep it from being altered. Which, if you can't afford it, would lead to the altering process and possible death. Sure, I read it and write it here as a scare tactic but how else will people take notice.
New Chicago Ordinance - Forcefully Making You Spay and Neuter Your Pets.
Despite being the highest sales taxed city in the nation.
The extremely high acts of gun violence bringing Chicago back to the prestigious title of Murder Capitol of the USA 2008.
The City trying to levy a $2,000 Promoter's License on event organizers.
The City that thinks only 4am bars cause problems and forces only those bars to install cameras and have special training for the door staff of these bars. Thus bringing us the Late Hour Liquor License Safety Ordinance.
The tearing down of Grant Park for a Children's Museum.
Now thanks to Bob Barker (the really old Price is Right Host) and the City of Chicago......
Let us present the newest idiocracy to come forth.
I don't know the official name for this new ordinance but let's call it the Cutting All the Nuts Around Barksville to Indulge Stupidity or C.A.N.A.B.I.S. for short. Because someone's obviously smoking a lot of herb.
The italicized text was taken from the Chicago Tribune article. The bold are my thoughts.
The ordinance is sponsored by Ald. Ed Burke (14th), chairman of the Finance Committee, and Ald. Ginger Rugai (19th). They cited dog attacks on Chicago residents and said sterilized animals are less likely to be vicious.
Has this been proven or is this just a speculation? Less likely doesn't sound like something that has a 100% guarantee.
It "strives to control pet overpopulation in the city, seeks to eliminate unnecessary tragic dog attacks [and] can be used as a law-enforcement tool against those who use pets as weapons on our city streets," Burke said.
I'm still waiting to see some reports on how many vicious dog attacks have happened within the year.
A violation would result in a ticket telling the owner to have the pet fixed. If that failed, a $100 fine would be issued after 60 days. If another 60 days passed, a second fine could reach $500, and the city could impound and sterilize the animal. Owners would be able to reclaim their pets after paying the fines and other related costs.
Pets with medical conditions that make sterilization unsafe, show dogs, guard dogs and service dogs would be exempt. Animals belonging to federally licensed breeders also would be exempt, and pet owners could seek an exemption by applying for a city breeder's license, which would require a criminal background check.
So what if your animal can't be spayed or neutered due to health reasons and you can't afford a city breeder's license? Or don't need a City Breeder's License because your not going to be breeding your animal? Looks like the animal will have to die.
The effort was backed by PAWS Chicago, a no-kill humane organization focused on reducing the number of stray animals, and the Humane Society of the United States.
But it was opposed by the Chicago and Illinois State Veterinary Medical Associations, which said decisions on pet sterilization are best made by a veterinarian and pet owner. The groups also said such laws can reduce rabies vaccination compliance.
Who should know better? An organization like PAWS that's worried more about the bottom line or Veterinarians that treat these animals?
"I believe the reason we have this problem is because we have irresponsible pet owners," Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) said, suggesting the ordinance could be viewed as government intrusion. "There are irresponsible parents that are having sons and daughters out there. What's the next step?"
So here's the deal.
Your walking your dog or cat. Yea, I've seen people walk their cat. Someone decides to call 311 and report that your animal isn't neutered or spayed. The cops show up, they feel around and ask to see your records to see if your animal is spayed or neutered. For sake of argument it's not.
Well then, now you get fined $100 and 6 months to get the animal spayed or neutered. Six months goes by and you haven't done this. Because yes, it does change your animals attitude or what ever reason you have. Now more than likely they're going to want you to bring the animal in to prove that you had the process done.
When you show up and your animal hasn't had the operation you get fined up to $500 and the animal gets taken away from you. They do the procedure without your permission and they alter your animal for the rest of it's life.
Then guess what? You don't get your animal back until you pay the fines and the costs of said procedure.
What is wrong with this? The City takes your property from you. They alter it. And then they keep it until you can pay for the fines and costs. Let's consider what the costs could entail. Costs could include the price of the operation, the fees associated with keeping your animal in the pound, food, and handling of your animal during all of this. Hey, someone's got to pay these people for taking away your animal and taking care of it. Don't expect the City to pay for something they're doing to you.
Granted, this could be all looked at the same way people look at The Boot. You know, that thing you get when you get 3 parking tickets. Well, if they boot you then they get to take your car. Then they get to sell your car if you can't pay the fines and fees. Then they keep all the money and add the fees to your fines. They don't even apply the money they get from the auction to your fines. They keep it.
So how bout just forgetting your animal when they decide to take it.
Sound cold hearted and bad? Well imagine how many people just happen to have the money laying around to pay for this procedure. How many of those people have the money laying around to pay the fines?
Sounds like there's going to be a lot of dead animals soon. Because obviously most people won't take the time to contact their Aldermen. They won't take the time to tell their legislative voices that they think this ordinance is ridiculous.
Here's an idea. Go to this website and tell your Aldermen to shoot down this ordinance. Remind them that Bob Barker is 85 years old and should get his head check. Can he even still drive or ride a bike?
Let them know that this isn't about the money. This has a lot to do with the personality of your best friend and they're well being. Most veterinarians will agree that an animal should not be nuetered or spayed before the ages of 6 to 8 years. This is after the animal has fully developed. Even then it's not necessary to spay or neuter the animal.
Contact your Aldermen and let them know what you think.
If you don't then you have nothing to complain about. Your animals will be altered. If any of you decide to relieve yourself of your animals after the operations then you should receive one swift blow to the back of your head with a shovel.
And to anyone that says this must be done in order to stop violent dog attacks.
You are a fucking idiot.
Do you really think that the people with the violent dog fighting dogs will even know anything about this ordinance? Let alone abide by it? They don't even register the animals.
And overall, here's my ultimate question.
Bob Barker, do you even live in Chicago?
The extremely high acts of gun violence bringing Chicago back to the prestigious title of Murder Capitol of the USA 2008.
The City trying to levy a $2,000 Promoter's License on event organizers.
The City that thinks only 4am bars cause problems and forces only those bars to install cameras and have special training for the door staff of these bars. Thus bringing us the Late Hour Liquor License Safety Ordinance.
The tearing down of Grant Park for a Children's Museum.
Now thanks to Bob Barker (the really old Price is Right Host) and the City of Chicago......
Let us present the newest idiocracy to come forth.
I don't know the official name for this new ordinance but let's call it the Cutting All the Nuts Around Barksville to Indulge Stupidity or C.A.N.A.B.I.S. for short. Because someone's obviously smoking a lot of herb.
The italicized text was taken from the Chicago Tribune article. The bold are my thoughts.
The ordinance is sponsored by Ald. Ed Burke (14th), chairman of the Finance Committee, and Ald. Ginger Rugai (19th). They cited dog attacks on Chicago residents and said sterilized animals are less likely to be vicious.
Has this been proven or is this just a speculation? Less likely doesn't sound like something that has a 100% guarantee.
It "strives to control pet overpopulation in the city, seeks to eliminate unnecessary tragic dog attacks [and] can be used as a law-enforcement tool against those who use pets as weapons on our city streets," Burke said.
I'm still waiting to see some reports on how many vicious dog attacks have happened within the year.
A violation would result in a ticket telling the owner to have the pet fixed. If that failed, a $100 fine would be issued after 60 days. If another 60 days passed, a second fine could reach $500, and the city could impound and sterilize the animal. Owners would be able to reclaim their pets after paying the fines and other related costs.
Pets with medical conditions that make sterilization unsafe, show dogs, guard dogs and service dogs would be exempt. Animals belonging to federally licensed breeders also would be exempt, and pet owners could seek an exemption by applying for a city breeder's license, which would require a criminal background check.
So what if your animal can't be spayed or neutered due to health reasons and you can't afford a city breeder's license? Or don't need a City Breeder's License because your not going to be breeding your animal? Looks like the animal will have to die.
The effort was backed by PAWS Chicago, a no-kill humane organization focused on reducing the number of stray animals, and the Humane Society of the United States.
But it was opposed by the Chicago and Illinois State Veterinary Medical Associations, which said decisions on pet sterilization are best made by a veterinarian and pet owner. The groups also said such laws can reduce rabies vaccination compliance.
Who should know better? An organization like PAWS that's worried more about the bottom line or Veterinarians that treat these animals?
"I believe the reason we have this problem is because we have irresponsible pet owners," Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) said, suggesting the ordinance could be viewed as government intrusion. "There are irresponsible parents that are having sons and daughters out there. What's the next step?"
So here's the deal.
Your walking your dog or cat. Yea, I've seen people walk their cat. Someone decides to call 311 and report that your animal isn't neutered or spayed. The cops show up, they feel around and ask to see your records to see if your animal is spayed or neutered. For sake of argument it's not.
Well then, now you get fined $100 and 6 months to get the animal spayed or neutered. Six months goes by and you haven't done this. Because yes, it does change your animals attitude or what ever reason you have. Now more than likely they're going to want you to bring the animal in to prove that you had the process done.
When you show up and your animal hasn't had the operation you get fined up to $500 and the animal gets taken away from you. They do the procedure without your permission and they alter your animal for the rest of it's life.
Then guess what? You don't get your animal back until you pay the fines and the costs of said procedure.
What is wrong with this? The City takes your property from you. They alter it. And then they keep it until you can pay for the fines and costs. Let's consider what the costs could entail. Costs could include the price of the operation, the fees associated with keeping your animal in the pound, food, and handling of your animal during all of this. Hey, someone's got to pay these people for taking away your animal and taking care of it. Don't expect the City to pay for something they're doing to you.
Granted, this could be all looked at the same way people look at The Boot. You know, that thing you get when you get 3 parking tickets. Well, if they boot you then they get to take your car. Then they get to sell your car if you can't pay the fines and fees. Then they keep all the money and add the fees to your fines. They don't even apply the money they get from the auction to your fines. They keep it.
So how bout just forgetting your animal when they decide to take it.
Sound cold hearted and bad? Well imagine how many people just happen to have the money laying around to pay for this procedure. How many of those people have the money laying around to pay the fines?
Sounds like there's going to be a lot of dead animals soon. Because obviously most people won't take the time to contact their Aldermen. They won't take the time to tell their legislative voices that they think this ordinance is ridiculous.
Here's an idea. Go to this website and tell your Aldermen to shoot down this ordinance. Remind them that Bob Barker is 85 years old and should get his head check. Can he even still drive or ride a bike?
Let them know that this isn't about the money. This has a lot to do with the personality of your best friend and they're well being. Most veterinarians will agree that an animal should not be nuetered or spayed before the ages of 6 to 8 years. This is after the animal has fully developed. Even then it's not necessary to spay or neuter the animal.
Contact your Aldermen and let them know what you think.
If you don't then you have nothing to complain about. Your animals will be altered. If any of you decide to relieve yourself of your animals after the operations then you should receive one swift blow to the back of your head with a shovel.
And to anyone that says this must be done in order to stop violent dog attacks.
You are a fucking idiot.
Do you really think that the people with the violent dog fighting dogs will even know anything about this ordinance? Let alone abide by it? They don't even register the animals.
And overall, here's my ultimate question.
Bob Barker, do you even live in Chicago?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Brauerhouse tavern burns in Hillside
Original article found on Chicago Tribune Website:
THE BLOTTER
6:53 AM CDT, July 29, 2008
(Tribune photo by Michael Tercha / July 29, 2008)
Firefighters continue to work a four-alarm blaze at the Brauerhouse restaurant and bar in Hillside Tuesday morning. A fire broke out in the early morning hours.
A Hillside tavern just off the Eisenhower Expressway was consumed by flames early Tuesday morning, but no injuries were reported.
"It was closed, and the information we have is that no one was in the bar at the time," Hillside Police Sgt. Laith Ibrahim said.
The blaze broke out in the Brauerhouse, a bar and restaurant at 57 N. Hillside Ave. in the western suburb just before 2:30 a.m., authorities said.
Ibrahim said firefighters remained on the scene nearly four hours later, beating down the flames that heavily damaged the bar.
Brauerhouse, which opened in 1999, serves pizza and burgers and also is known as a live music venue. According to its Myspace page, punk, rock 'n' roll and rockabilly acts are featured.
Several neighboring suburban fire departments responded to the scene. Hillside fire officials, who are handling the investigation, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Ibrahim said that despite the bar's proximity to Interstate Highway 290, no major traffic problems had been reported.
Dan P.
Blake, Tribune reporter
THE BLOTTER
6:53 AM CDT, July 29, 2008
(Tribune photo by Michael Tercha / July 29, 2008)Firefighters continue to work a four-alarm blaze at the Brauerhouse restaurant and bar in Hillside Tuesday morning. A fire broke out in the early morning hours.
A Hillside tavern just off the Eisenhower Expressway was consumed by flames early Tuesday morning, but no injuries were reported.
"It was closed, and the information we have is that no one was in the bar at the time," Hillside Police Sgt. Laith Ibrahim said.
The blaze broke out in the Brauerhouse, a bar and restaurant at 57 N. Hillside Ave. in the western suburb just before 2:30 a.m., authorities said.
Ibrahim said firefighters remained on the scene nearly four hours later, beating down the flames that heavily damaged the bar.
Brauerhouse, which opened in 1999, serves pizza and burgers and also is known as a live music venue. According to its Myspace page, punk, rock 'n' roll and rockabilly acts are featured.
Several neighboring suburban fire departments responded to the scene. Hillside fire officials, who are handling the investigation, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Ibrahim said that despite the bar's proximity to Interstate Highway 290, no major traffic problems had been reported.
Dan P.
Blake, Tribune reporter
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Past 2 weeks.
This past two weeks has been a little hectic.
I started bartending and bar backing at Estelle's about 3 weeks ago. I only have one actual bar backing shift there, Monday nights. So between working the door and working behind the bar I put in 85 hours in the past 2 weeks. If you work in a bar and your not management then I'm pretty sure you'd agree that that's a lot of hours. If you work a regular 9 - 5 job then that's only 5 hours more than normal.
That's a lot of time to be in a 4am bar when your sober.
I started bartending and bar backing at Estelle's about 3 weeks ago. I only have one actual bar backing shift there, Monday nights. So between working the door and working behind the bar I put in 85 hours in the past 2 weeks. If you work in a bar and your not management then I'm pretty sure you'd agree that that's a lot of hours. If you work a regular 9 - 5 job then that's only 5 hours more than normal.
That's a lot of time to be in a 4am bar when your sober.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy.
Working tonight at Estelle's.
Bartending from 7pm - 11pm and then working the door till close.
Fer joy....
Bartending from 7pm - 11pm and then working the door till close.
Fer joy....
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Racist Doorman.
You know what I really can't stand. People who change stories to try to make an impact.
If you've followed a link to this page then chances are you know me. You've probably seen me at work doing what I get paid to do. I check id's and I keep the peace. If there's problems I try my best to take care of them in a more diplomatic way rather than just throwing people out.
When I check id's at the door it's pretty simple. Show me your id and if your of age, and it's a legal document, you get to come in. Technically, we don't have to accept any type of id that's not issued by the United States or State government. Some people have even said that we aren't supposed to accept passports. Passports don't list any type of descriptions such as; height, weight, hair color, eye color. Passports are also issued for many years and the pictures are rarely up to date. I do accept them though.
I definitely don't accept any type of foreign id that I can't read. Is that my problem that I can't read Arabic, Chinese, German, or any other foreign language? No it's not.
So to Christine P, who has tried to slander me on Yelp, get your story straight. I didn't refuse your friend entry because he was, as you said, "Arabic". I refused him entry because he didn't have a passport and I couldn't read his id. Now remember, I wouldn't have had to let him in even with his passport but I would have had he had it with him. It would have been a 2nd form of identification and the two would have correlated.
The racist card is used way to frequently with doormen. Just because I'm a pale red head doesn't mean I hate someone that has color to their skin. That would be a ridiculous assumption. Such is the mentality that someone would publicly say that I'm a racist due to your friend not having the proper identification.
I wonder if I can sue her for public defamation? Any lawyers that read this please feel free to contact me. I'll give you a cut of the settlement. The review doesn't list me personally but I was working that night.
If you've followed a link to this page then chances are you know me. You've probably seen me at work doing what I get paid to do. I check id's and I keep the peace. If there's problems I try my best to take care of them in a more diplomatic way rather than just throwing people out.
When I check id's at the door it's pretty simple. Show me your id and if your of age, and it's a legal document, you get to come in. Technically, we don't have to accept any type of id that's not issued by the United States or State government. Some people have even said that we aren't supposed to accept passports. Passports don't list any type of descriptions such as; height, weight, hair color, eye color. Passports are also issued for many years and the pictures are rarely up to date. I do accept them though.
I definitely don't accept any type of foreign id that I can't read. Is that my problem that I can't read Arabic, Chinese, German, or any other foreign language? No it's not.
So to Christine P, who has tried to slander me on Yelp, get your story straight. I didn't refuse your friend entry because he was, as you said, "Arabic". I refused him entry because he didn't have a passport and I couldn't read his id. Now remember, I wouldn't have had to let him in even with his passport but I would have had he had it with him. It would have been a 2nd form of identification and the two would have correlated.
The racist card is used way to frequently with doormen. Just because I'm a pale red head doesn't mean I hate someone that has color to their skin. That would be a ridiculous assumption. Such is the mentality that someone would publicly say that I'm a racist due to your friend not having the proper identification.
I wonder if I can sue her for public defamation? Any lawyers that read this please feel free to contact me. I'll give you a cut of the settlement. The review doesn't list me personally but I was working that night.
Monkeys make for Cute Politicians.
If you haven't heard about it yet, you will now. Emobile, one of Japan's largest cell phone service providers, took a commercial off the air recently. Due to a small party of complainants in Japan.
In the commercial a monkey is dressed up in a suit and stands behind a podium. The crowd around the monkey holds up signs with just the word "Change" on them. It's an obvious play on Obama's popularity in Japan.
Here's the kicker. Even though it is the year 2008 and racism is supposed to be close to gone. Which, let's be real, it's not in some parts of the world. This ad was deemed racist by a group in Japan that consisted mainly of African-Americans.
As I've heard it said before, "If your mind is open to racism then don't you think your a little racist yourself?" Every person that is alive is a little racist but that's an entirely different subject all together.
As one of the complainants said, "People's minds should be more open as global citizens." So... everyone in the world should know about everything bad that has ever happened anywhere at anytime within this global world. Stupid. Listen buddy, you live in their world. Your the visitor so deal with it.
Granted, if this ad pisses you off then it pisses you off. There's nothing that can be done about that. But I don't see why. Perhaps I'm cold or not in touch with any particular "breed" of humans.
Part of me really thinks this is all just getting blown up as most things like this do. The monkey is the company's mascot. It's been used in numerous situations and I will guarantee you 100% that if that same monkey was portraying a white politician no one would give a shit. But white men and monkeys haven't been correlated together throughout history. Ok... What if it was a white man dressed in Colonial garb carrying a whip? Would it get as much attention from CNN? Or perhaps a monkey dressed in a sleeveless red flannel, a trucker hat, cigarette hanging from it's lip and speaking horribly broken redneck jargon? Would that be racist or would that be funny? After all, not all white people are rednecks or were slave owners.
Every politician that has ever ran for the Presidential Office has promised change. So how do these people that are complaining even know who the monkey is supposed to be imitating? Well, it is kind of obvious. After all, Obama is running now and "Change" is a big platform in his ploys. The monkey portrays a politician, Obama is a popular politician.
Damn good thing they didn't give the monkey fake glasses and a cigar. George Burns family might be really pissed off about that.
So is it really a bad thing that a company decided to use their mascot - which has been in many other commercials and represents them - to represent a human (not just a black man) that they believe is powerful and well liked? What if the mascot was a giraffe or a hyena? Would it then be a problem because a giraffe represents thinking in the clouds? A hyena would be bad because hyenas are known for their bark that sounds like a laugh and scavenging dead bodies for nourishment. However, monkeys in the Japanese culture are a very high ranking and honorable animal.
Did anyone else notice how this article faded away from the racism based complaints and became more focused on the monkey and the politician?
You did? Good. Maybe you also noticed how a simple commercial that was trying to project a powerful and respectful image got turned around into being racist just due to a small handful of people's thoughts.
Life doesn't change until people's thoughts start to change. If your constantly looking for any excuse to turn something good into something bad then life will never change.
In the commercial a monkey is dressed up in a suit and stands behind a podium. The crowd around the monkey holds up signs with just the word "Change" on them. It's an obvious play on Obama's popularity in Japan.
Here's the kicker. Even though it is the year 2008 and racism is supposed to be close to gone. Which, let's be real, it's not in some parts of the world. This ad was deemed racist by a group in Japan that consisted mainly of African-Americans.
As I've heard it said before, "If your mind is open to racism then don't you think your a little racist yourself?" Every person that is alive is a little racist but that's an entirely different subject all together.
As one of the complainants said, "People's minds should be more open as global citizens." So... everyone in the world should know about everything bad that has ever happened anywhere at anytime within this global world. Stupid. Listen buddy, you live in their world. Your the visitor so deal with it.
Granted, if this ad pisses you off then it pisses you off. There's nothing that can be done about that. But I don't see why. Perhaps I'm cold or not in touch with any particular "breed" of humans.
Part of me really thinks this is all just getting blown up as most things like this do. The monkey is the company's mascot. It's been used in numerous situations and I will guarantee you 100% that if that same monkey was portraying a white politician no one would give a shit. But white men and monkeys haven't been correlated together throughout history. Ok... What if it was a white man dressed in Colonial garb carrying a whip? Would it get as much attention from CNN? Or perhaps a monkey dressed in a sleeveless red flannel, a trucker hat, cigarette hanging from it's lip and speaking horribly broken redneck jargon? Would that be racist or would that be funny? After all, not all white people are rednecks or were slave owners.
Every politician that has ever ran for the Presidential Office has promised change. So how do these people that are complaining even know who the monkey is supposed to be imitating? Well, it is kind of obvious. After all, Obama is running now and "Change" is a big platform in his ploys. The monkey portrays a politician, Obama is a popular politician.
Damn good thing they didn't give the monkey fake glasses and a cigar. George Burns family might be really pissed off about that.
So is it really a bad thing that a company decided to use their mascot - which has been in many other commercials and represents them - to represent a human (not just a black man) that they believe is powerful and well liked? What if the mascot was a giraffe or a hyena? Would it then be a problem because a giraffe represents thinking in the clouds? A hyena would be bad because hyenas are known for their bark that sounds like a laugh and scavenging dead bodies for nourishment. However, monkeys in the Japanese culture are a very high ranking and honorable animal.
Did anyone else notice how this article faded away from the racism based complaints and became more focused on the monkey and the politician?
You did? Good. Maybe you also noticed how a simple commercial that was trying to project a powerful and respectful image got turned around into being racist just due to a small handful of people's thoughts.
Life doesn't change until people's thoughts start to change. If your constantly looking for any excuse to turn something good into something bad then life will never change.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Gun Free?
Thank the gods Chicago is Gun Free, otherwise all these things would have happened for real.
All of these articles happened within the past 4 to 5 days in Chicago.
Boy shot released from hospital, girl still stable
Boy, 15, wounded in Chatham shooting
Boy shot in Austin neighborhood dies of wounds
Boy, 15, wounded in drive-by shooting on Chicago's South Side
Three adults shot to death in Chicago
Chicago arson investigator's shooting changes Fire Department policy
Alleged drug deal results in shooting death
1 killed, 7 wounded in overnight shootings across city
Man charged in fatal shooting at stoplight
You might be thinking, That's only 9 articles in 4 or 5 days.. Here's the kicker. It's 9 articles with 20 people shot or killed by illegal hand guns.
It's a damn good thing that hand guns are illegal. Just think, since they're illegal all the minors are carrying them around now. Why minors? Simple, if a minor gets picked up for a gun it's much more of a slap on the wrist than if one of the older gang members are carrying it. Let me rephrase that, it's more of a slap on the wrist than if an Adult is carrying it. I don't want anyone to think that all these shootings are gang related...
I mean, there are people stupid enough out there to shoot someone over their sneakers. Or because they flirted with their girlfriend. Yes, these people are f'ing idiots, but they're real.
With all these shootings how is it people actually feel safe? I'll admit that I carry a pocket knife. I was raised to always have one on me. I've never lived in an area where I'd carry it in my hand until I came to this city.
I don't make the assumption that I'm safe when I'm walking at night. I never rely on the police to arrive in a timely manner. If needed I'll do what I have to in order to be safe. Maybe one of these days I'll be a blurb on page 8.
Man shot after trying to protect himself from muggers.
So the only people on the street with hand guns are the Police and the "bad guys". Feel safe? Everyone knows what the turn around time for a 911 call is. It's not immediate unless it's really bad or the night is extremely quiet. Can you rely on the help?
I would gladly say that an open carry law in Chicago would be a good idea. I'd also say that there should be certain requirements needed in order to do so. Or maybe there should be more police on the streets. After the July 1st sales tax increase the city should be able to afford it. Oh wait.. maybe that increase was just to raise salaries.
Then again, in Chicago you need 60 college credits to become a cop. They don't need to be from any certain type of schooling though. It could be in basket weaving if you really wanted to become a cop. Weird huh? 60 college credits to become a cop and they still have the academy.
I would have done this already if I didn't think school was a waste of time and money.
All of these articles happened within the past 4 to 5 days in Chicago.
Boy shot released from hospital, girl still stable
Boy, 15, wounded in Chatham shooting
Boy shot in Austin neighborhood dies of wounds
Boy, 15, wounded in drive-by shooting on Chicago's South Side
Three adults shot to death in Chicago
Chicago arson investigator's shooting changes Fire Department policy
Alleged drug deal results in shooting death
1 killed, 7 wounded in overnight shootings across city
Man charged in fatal shooting at stoplight
You might be thinking, That's only 9 articles in 4 or 5 days.. Here's the kicker. It's 9 articles with 20 people shot or killed by illegal hand guns.
It's a damn good thing that hand guns are illegal. Just think, since they're illegal all the minors are carrying them around now. Why minors? Simple, if a minor gets picked up for a gun it's much more of a slap on the wrist than if one of the older gang members are carrying it. Let me rephrase that, it's more of a slap on the wrist than if an Adult is carrying it. I don't want anyone to think that all these shootings are gang related...
I mean, there are people stupid enough out there to shoot someone over their sneakers. Or because they flirted with their girlfriend. Yes, these people are f'ing idiots, but they're real.
With all these shootings how is it people actually feel safe? I'll admit that I carry a pocket knife. I was raised to always have one on me. I've never lived in an area where I'd carry it in my hand until I came to this city.
I don't make the assumption that I'm safe when I'm walking at night. I never rely on the police to arrive in a timely manner. If needed I'll do what I have to in order to be safe. Maybe one of these days I'll be a blurb on page 8.
Man shot after trying to protect himself from muggers.
So the only people on the street with hand guns are the Police and the "bad guys". Feel safe? Everyone knows what the turn around time for a 911 call is. It's not immediate unless it's really bad or the night is extremely quiet. Can you rely on the help?
I would gladly say that an open carry law in Chicago would be a good idea. I'd also say that there should be certain requirements needed in order to do so. Or maybe there should be more police on the streets. After the July 1st sales tax increase the city should be able to afford it. Oh wait.. maybe that increase was just to raise salaries.
Then again, in Chicago you need 60 college credits to become a cop. They don't need to be from any certain type of schooling though. It could be in basket weaving if you really wanted to become a cop. Weird huh? 60 college credits to become a cop and they still have the academy.
I would have done this already if I didn't think school was a waste of time and money.
Real Life Punisher??
Drug Arrests Were Real; the Badge Was Fake
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: July 1, 2008
GERALD, Mo. — Like so many rural communities in the country’s middle, this small town had wrestled for years with the woes of methamphetamine. Then, several months ago, a federal agent showed up.
Arrests began. Houses were ransacked. People, in handcuffs on their front lawns, named names. To some, like Mayor Otis Schulte, who considers the county around Gerald, population 1,171, “a meth capital of the United States,” the drug scourge seemed to be fading at last.
Those whose homes were searched, though, grumbled about a peculiar change in what they understood — mainly from television — to be the law.
They said the agent, a man some had come to know as “Sergeant Bill,” boasted that he did not need search warrants to enter their homes because he worked for the federal government.
But after a reporter for the local weekly newspaper made a few calls about that claim, Gerald’s antidrug campaign abruptly fell apart after less than five months. Sergeant Bill, it turned out, was no federal agent, but Bill A. Jakob, an unemployed former trucking company owner, a former security guard, a former wedding minister and a former small-town cop from 23 miles down the road.
Mr. Jakob, 36, is now the subject of a criminal investigation by federal authorities, and he is likely to face charges related to impersonating a law enforcement officer, his lawyer said.
The strange adventures of Sergeant Bill have led to the firing of three of the town’s five police officers, left the outcome of a string of drug arrests in doubt, prompted multimillion-dollar federal civil rights lawsuits by at least 17 plaintiffs and stirred up a political battle, including a petition seeking the impeachment of Mr. Schulte, over who is to blame for the mess.
And the questions keep coming. How did Mr. Jakob wander into town and apparently leave the mayor, the aldermen and pretty much everyone else he met thinking that he was a federal agent delivered from Washington to help barrel into peoples’ homes and clean up Gerald’s drug problem? And why would anyone — receiving no pay and with no known connection to little Gerald, 70 miles from St. Louis and not even a county seat — want to carry off such a time-consuming ruse in the first place?
Mr. Jakob’s lawyer, Joel Schwartz, said that what happened in Gerald was never a sinister plot, but a chain of events rooted in “errors in judgment.” Mr. Schwartz said he believed that at least three Gerald police officers, including the chief, knew that Mr. Jakob was not a federal drug agent or even a certified police officer.
“It was an innocent evolution, where he helped with one minor thing, then one more on top of that, and all of the sudden, everyone thought he was a federal agent,” Mr. Schwartz said. “I’m not saying this was legal or lawful. But look, they were very, very effective while he was present. I don’t think Gerald is having the drug problem they were having. I’ve heard from some residents who were thrilled that he was there.”
There were numerous arrests during Mr. Jakob’s time in Gerald (the exact number is uncertain, local law enforcement officials said, as legal action surrounding the case proceeds), but Mayor Schulte said that Mr. Jakob had, in fact, gone to elaborate lengths to deceive local authorities, including Ryan McCrary, then the police chief, into believing that he was a federal agent — with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Marshals Service or some other agency.
In addition to having a badge and a car that seemed to scream law enforcement, Mr. Jakob offered federal drug enforcement help, Mr. Schulte said. (Local officials thought the offer must have somehow grown out of their recent application for a federal grant for radio equipment.) Mr. Jakob even asked Chief McCrary to call what he said was his supervisor’s telephone number to confirm Gerald’s need for his help, the mayor said.
When the call was placed, a woman — whose identity is unknown — answered with the words “multijurisdictional task force,” and said that the city’s request for federal services was under review, the mayor said. Mr. Schulte said he now suspects that Mr. Jakob adapted the nonexistent task force name from the “Beverly Hills Cop” movies starring Eddie Murphy.
“Not only were these officers taken in, but so was everybody else,” said Chet Pleban, a lawyer for Mr. McCrary and the other two members of the police force who lost their jobs after Mr. Jakob’s real identity came to light.
Of the firings, Mayor Schulte said, “Nobody wanted to, but the city’s lawyer recommended it.”
When residents first began noticing Mr. Jakob, he certainly looked the part. His hair was chopped short, residents recalled, and his stocky chest filled a black T-shirt he sometimes wore that read “Police.” They said he wore military-style boots, pants with pockets running down the legs and carried a badge (his lawyer said it was from a former job as a security guard in St. Louis). And his off-white Ford Crown Victoria was decked out with police radios and internal flashing lights, residents said.
He first came to town in January, his lawyer said, to meet Chief McCrary, whose experiences serving in Afghanistan Mr. Jakob had read about in a local newspaper. Mr. Jakob was considering contract work overseas, Mr. Schwartz said, and the pair hit it off.
Soon, the arrests began. Some of those whose homes were searched said they had been kicked in the head and had had shotguns held against them. Mr. Jakob, many said, seemed to be leading the crew of Gerald police officers.
“He was definitely in charge — it was all him,” said Mike Withington, 49, a concrete finisher, who said Mr. Jakob pounded on his door in May, waking him up and yanking him, in handcuffs, out onto his front yard.
Mr. Withington said he had not yet been charged with a crime; Gary Toelke, the Franklin County sheriff, confirmed that no local charges had been issued against him. But the mortification of that day, Mr. Withington said, has kept him largely indoors and led him to consider moving. Since the search, residents have tossed garbage and crumpled boxes of Sudafed (which has an ingredient that can be used to make methamphetamine) on his lawn, he said, and he no longer shops in town, instead driving miles to neighboring towns.
“Everybody is staring at me,” he said. “People assume you’re guilty when things like this happen.”
When Linda Trest, 51, a reporter at The Gasconade County Republican, started hearing complaints from people whose homes had been searched, she began making inquiries about Mr. Jakob.
“Once I got his name, I hit the computer and within an hour I had all the dirt on this guy,” Ms. Trest said.
As it turned out, Mr. Jakob, who is married and lives near Washington, a small town not far from Gerald, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2003 when he owned a trucking company, and had, at 22, pleaded guilty in Illinois to a misdemeanor charge of criminal sex abuse of someone in their teens.
Since the 1990s, he had worked, at times, as a police officer in tiny departments in towns like Kinloch, Mo., and Brooklyn, Ill., though he never seemed to stay anywhere long and was never certified as a police officer in either Missouri or Illinois, his lawyer said. (Under some conditions, short-term employees with some departments are not immediately required to have state certification.)
As in Gerald, he impressed some, if only at first. “He seemed to have experience on the street,” said J. D. Roth, the police chief in Caseyville, Ill., where Mr. Jakob was a temporary part-time officer for almost two months in 2000. “He walked the walk and talked the talk.”
In Gerald, just a day before it was revealed that he was not a federal agent, the city aldermen voted to make Mr. Jakob a reserve officer; he wanted the designation, Mr. Schulte said, so he could enforce local ordinances, and he stood before the aldermen, hands behind his back, seeking the title.
Mr. Jakob offered city officials three contact numbers — his personal cellphone, a cellphone he said he used for drug informants and his “multijurisdictional task force” cellphone, Mr. Schulte said.
“It was the movie, ‘Catch Me if You Can’ all over again,” said Mr. Schulte, referring to the 2002 film starring Leonardo DiCaprio as a master of deception. “I’m telling you, with this guy, everything was right.”
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: July 1, 2008
GERALD, Mo. — Like so many rural communities in the country’s middle, this small town had wrestled for years with the woes of methamphetamine. Then, several months ago, a federal agent showed up.
Arrests began. Houses were ransacked. People, in handcuffs on their front lawns, named names. To some, like Mayor Otis Schulte, who considers the county around Gerald, population 1,171, “a meth capital of the United States,” the drug scourge seemed to be fading at last.
Those whose homes were searched, though, grumbled about a peculiar change in what they understood — mainly from television — to be the law.
They said the agent, a man some had come to know as “Sergeant Bill,” boasted that he did not need search warrants to enter their homes because he worked for the federal government.
But after a reporter for the local weekly newspaper made a few calls about that claim, Gerald’s antidrug campaign abruptly fell apart after less than five months. Sergeant Bill, it turned out, was no federal agent, but Bill A. Jakob, an unemployed former trucking company owner, a former security guard, a former wedding minister and a former small-town cop from 23 miles down the road.
Mr. Jakob, 36, is now the subject of a criminal investigation by federal authorities, and he is likely to face charges related to impersonating a law enforcement officer, his lawyer said.
The strange adventures of Sergeant Bill have led to the firing of three of the town’s five police officers, left the outcome of a string of drug arrests in doubt, prompted multimillion-dollar federal civil rights lawsuits by at least 17 plaintiffs and stirred up a political battle, including a petition seeking the impeachment of Mr. Schulte, over who is to blame for the mess.
And the questions keep coming. How did Mr. Jakob wander into town and apparently leave the mayor, the aldermen and pretty much everyone else he met thinking that he was a federal agent delivered from Washington to help barrel into peoples’ homes and clean up Gerald’s drug problem? And why would anyone — receiving no pay and with no known connection to little Gerald, 70 miles from St. Louis and not even a county seat — want to carry off such a time-consuming ruse in the first place?
Mr. Jakob’s lawyer, Joel Schwartz, said that what happened in Gerald was never a sinister plot, but a chain of events rooted in “errors in judgment.” Mr. Schwartz said he believed that at least three Gerald police officers, including the chief, knew that Mr. Jakob was not a federal drug agent or even a certified police officer.
“It was an innocent evolution, where he helped with one minor thing, then one more on top of that, and all of the sudden, everyone thought he was a federal agent,” Mr. Schwartz said. “I’m not saying this was legal or lawful. But look, they were very, very effective while he was present. I don’t think Gerald is having the drug problem they were having. I’ve heard from some residents who were thrilled that he was there.”
There were numerous arrests during Mr. Jakob’s time in Gerald (the exact number is uncertain, local law enforcement officials said, as legal action surrounding the case proceeds), but Mayor Schulte said that Mr. Jakob had, in fact, gone to elaborate lengths to deceive local authorities, including Ryan McCrary, then the police chief, into believing that he was a federal agent — with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Marshals Service or some other agency.
In addition to having a badge and a car that seemed to scream law enforcement, Mr. Jakob offered federal drug enforcement help, Mr. Schulte said. (Local officials thought the offer must have somehow grown out of their recent application for a federal grant for radio equipment.) Mr. Jakob even asked Chief McCrary to call what he said was his supervisor’s telephone number to confirm Gerald’s need for his help, the mayor said.
When the call was placed, a woman — whose identity is unknown — answered with the words “multijurisdictional task force,” and said that the city’s request for federal services was under review, the mayor said. Mr. Schulte said he now suspects that Mr. Jakob adapted the nonexistent task force name from the “Beverly Hills Cop” movies starring Eddie Murphy.
“Not only were these officers taken in, but so was everybody else,” said Chet Pleban, a lawyer for Mr. McCrary and the other two members of the police force who lost their jobs after Mr. Jakob’s real identity came to light.
Of the firings, Mayor Schulte said, “Nobody wanted to, but the city’s lawyer recommended it.”
When residents first began noticing Mr. Jakob, he certainly looked the part. His hair was chopped short, residents recalled, and his stocky chest filled a black T-shirt he sometimes wore that read “Police.” They said he wore military-style boots, pants with pockets running down the legs and carried a badge (his lawyer said it was from a former job as a security guard in St. Louis). And his off-white Ford Crown Victoria was decked out with police radios and internal flashing lights, residents said.
He first came to town in January, his lawyer said, to meet Chief McCrary, whose experiences serving in Afghanistan Mr. Jakob had read about in a local newspaper. Mr. Jakob was considering contract work overseas, Mr. Schwartz said, and the pair hit it off.
Soon, the arrests began. Some of those whose homes were searched said they had been kicked in the head and had had shotguns held against them. Mr. Jakob, many said, seemed to be leading the crew of Gerald police officers.
“He was definitely in charge — it was all him,” said Mike Withington, 49, a concrete finisher, who said Mr. Jakob pounded on his door in May, waking him up and yanking him, in handcuffs, out onto his front yard.
Mr. Withington said he had not yet been charged with a crime; Gary Toelke, the Franklin County sheriff, confirmed that no local charges had been issued against him. But the mortification of that day, Mr. Withington said, has kept him largely indoors and led him to consider moving. Since the search, residents have tossed garbage and crumpled boxes of Sudafed (which has an ingredient that can be used to make methamphetamine) on his lawn, he said, and he no longer shops in town, instead driving miles to neighboring towns.
“Everybody is staring at me,” he said. “People assume you’re guilty when things like this happen.”
When Linda Trest, 51, a reporter at The Gasconade County Republican, started hearing complaints from people whose homes had been searched, she began making inquiries about Mr. Jakob.
“Once I got his name, I hit the computer and within an hour I had all the dirt on this guy,” Ms. Trest said.
As it turned out, Mr. Jakob, who is married and lives near Washington, a small town not far from Gerald, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2003 when he owned a trucking company, and had, at 22, pleaded guilty in Illinois to a misdemeanor charge of criminal sex abuse of someone in their teens.
Since the 1990s, he had worked, at times, as a police officer in tiny departments in towns like Kinloch, Mo., and Brooklyn, Ill., though he never seemed to stay anywhere long and was never certified as a police officer in either Missouri or Illinois, his lawyer said. (Under some conditions, short-term employees with some departments are not immediately required to have state certification.)
As in Gerald, he impressed some, if only at first. “He seemed to have experience on the street,” said J. D. Roth, the police chief in Caseyville, Ill., where Mr. Jakob was a temporary part-time officer for almost two months in 2000. “He walked the walk and talked the talk.”
In Gerald, just a day before it was revealed that he was not a federal agent, the city aldermen voted to make Mr. Jakob a reserve officer; he wanted the designation, Mr. Schulte said, so he could enforce local ordinances, and he stood before the aldermen, hands behind his back, seeking the title.
Mr. Jakob offered city officials three contact numbers — his personal cellphone, a cellphone he said he used for drug informants and his “multijurisdictional task force” cellphone, Mr. Schulte said.
“It was the movie, ‘Catch Me if You Can’ all over again,” said Mr. Schulte, referring to the 2002 film starring Leonardo DiCaprio as a master of deception. “I’m telling you, with this guy, everything was right.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)