Question 2 for patrol officer Bisch and her supporters; after 16 years on the police force, why hasn’t she made sergeant? Has she
even taken the test for advancement; and if she has, how many times? If she has taken the test and still can’t pass, then why
would we want her to oversee an organization that can control our very lives, with a budget of over half a billion dollars? If she
hasn’t taken the advancement test, then why would we want a person who shows no basic personal ambition to run an organization of the size of the Metropolitin Police Department?
Granted, the desire to run for sheriff means that she definitely has ambition, but the type of ambition that bypasses the learning
curve is totally egotistical and not in the best interest of those of us who live and work in this city and county.Those who support her are either being totally niave, totally unaware of the mass of responsibility that the sheriff must undertake(possibly believing that the sheriff is nothing more than a figure head), anti-Gillespie, friends of hers that place friendship above reality, or they are anti-establishment and prefer anyone over the current administration, no matter what their qualifications are.
This is not a position that allows for mistakes in management. People’s lives are at stake, and as has been shown in the far past
and the recent past, even the most qualified sheriff will have management decisions that are borderline in their achievement.

Anytime a police officer does something, especially if that entails the killing of a suspect, the officer and the department becomes the target of suspicion. Whenever an officer is cleared of any wrongdoing someone will accuse the department of “sweeping the truth under the rug”.
There have been several hugh profile cases in which police officers have shot suspects and the public feels that the police over reacted.
Recently there was a shooting outside a Costco Warehouse store, which is currently under investigation. There are people who believe that the Metropolitan Police department will find a way to modify or falsify the truth to show that the shooting was the only way that the situation could have been handled.
Results from past inquests have shown that the officers are almost always within their rights to react the way they react. Lawsuits that might follow after an inquest has shown that rarely, if ever, are those inquests wrong.
Could an officer have followed a different approach in dealing with that suspect? Unless the situation is so transparent as to what
happened, it is impossible to second guess either the suspect or the officer involved.
There are many Metro officers who pride themselves and the department on having a clean record, and to keep that record clean they actually look to prove that any perceived irregularity is not true by trying to prove that it is true; in other words they look for the truth from all angles.
The investigation into this latest shooting at Costco should be an easy investigation for the police department because of all the cameras inside Costco that will show whether the customer was becoming violent inside the store and because there are some cameras right outside the entrance/exits that will give some, if not all cooberating evidence to whether the suspect was dangerous to the police officers or not.
As in any organization there are police officers that should not have been hired and could easily be found to have over reacted to a
situation. Is this going to be the case with the Costco shooting? That will be determined by the internal investigation that is currently being undertaken. Will Metro sweep the truth under the rug and lay the blame on an innocent civilian, or will they dig for and accept the truth to what they find even if the truth were to show that the officers over reacted?
The Metropolitain Police department is very aware that they are under serious scrutiny with the public and contrary to those that believe that everything that Metro does is “covered up”; it isn’t so.
The police department will do their best to bring an honest answer to the reason as to why the officers had to fire their weapons, and to why a law-abiding citizen was killed.

Laissez Faire is an economic theory from the 18th century that strongly opposes any government intervention in business affairs, it is also called “Let it Be Economics” People who support Laissez Faire are against minimum wage, duties and any trade restrictions

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

Sharron Angle calls herself a Libertarian, and the economics that she is spouting is very much Laissez Faire capitalism. Has Ms. Angle
stepped back into the 17th Century? Is she a Libertarian, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, or are they the same philosophy but different words?

Looking at the definitions of both terms, it seems that Right Wing Libertarians are simply the Laissez Faire Capitalists of the 21st Century. So, it isn’t the ultra conservatives that have won the nomination to represent the Republican Party in their effort to eliminate Senator Reid, it is the Laizzez Fair Party of the 17th century that is running under the Republican banner. Even a tried and true Republican must realize that the Laizzez Fair Capitialist approach is not a practical approach to todays’ world.

Of course even those, like Sharron Angle who profess little to no government intervention on most things wants intervention when it suits their purpose.

Anarchy is very close to the philosophies of both laissez Fair Capitalism and Libertarianism which has never been practical, or reliable in the political, or social world.
These Anarchists feel the individual capitalist is the best to make the decisions for the welfare of the country as well as the people who live in this country. But as much as they want individualism, they complain when something goes wrong that affects their financial stability. They want controls when it suits their purpose and want total “freedom” from control when they are stopped by regulations that might cost them money or inconvenience, even when those regulations are in place to protect the consumer from a serious destructive practice.

People like Sharron Angle believe in “Let It Be Economics” which means they also believe in “Let the Buyer Beware” which is something that civilization grew out of over 50 years ago. The only way to protect people from that philosophy is to have regulations, but for Sharron Angle, regulations are not necessary, are an infringement of the “individuals rights”. Sorry, but it can’t be both ways, either there are regulations to protect the people or there are no regulations, and if there are regulations someone has to make them, who makes them is determined by the voters when they decide to have representation. When regulations are needed, it makes no sense to allow each state to make their own regulations since that would create a continent of 48 independent countries, as well as the two independent countries of Hawaii and Alaska. The confusion as to what the laws would be whenever someone would be traveling between states would be astronomical.

Laissez Faire, Libertarianism, States Rights; they are all interrelated. Within these philosophies are some good and even fair ideas, but taken as a whole these philosophies are based upon a belief that people will do what is right, that rich people will generously share with their poorer neighbor to ensure that no one starves. That philosophy has never worked and continues in its failure today. Selfishness is more the norm than sharing, which is why there has to be rules and laws even when those rules and laws “infringe on My rights”
The world has changed in the past 300 years since Laissez Faire was first proposed, and when looked at in this century, Laissez Faire, True Libertarianism, and Anarchy(which has never worked) will not work.