Newsok Article regarding lawsuit from 2010
Bottom line of the incident is, a peace officer using deadly force is judged based on the factors at the time of the incident, he was justified in his actions.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Oklahoma Self Defense Act License's
On November 1st of this year (2012), a fundamental change will begin concerning the ability to “Open Carry” a firearm. Over the past few months, law enforcement has
been receiving training about the new law and proper responses to various
issues which may arise. Under the Open
Carry provisions, generally persons with a valid Oklahoma Self Defense Act
(SDA) license can now legally carry an unconcealed firearm. The Oklahoma Legislature also allowed for any
person to lawfully carry a firearm on their own property. One issue I was curious about was the number
of SDA licenses issued and below is my findings based in part on information from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI):
Canadian County Licenses
According to the 2010 Census, Canadian County had a
population of 115,541 people with a land area of approximately
897 square miles. The OSBI prior to 2007 did not indicate the number of applications received from the county. A rough estimate on the number of licenses considering the approved numbers minus the revoked and suspended licenses shows approximately 6,335 active licenses. Related to the Sheriff's Office, the Oklahoma SDA statute allows for the County Sheriff to charge up to $25.00 (twenty-five) for fingerprints and up to $10.00 (ten) dollars for two passport type photographs per applicant. 
State of Oklahoma Licenses
According to the 2010 Census, the State of Oklahoma had a population of 3,751,351 people. The OSBI prior to 2007 did not indicate the number of applications received by the state. A rough estimate on the number of licenses considering the approved numbers minus the revoked and suspended licenses shows approximately 176,033 active licenses. 
CLEET Licensed Personnel
The below graph shows data from the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET). The data shows the number of peace officers (full-time and reserve) as well as private security personnel licensed for 2011 (the last year of data). 
Therefore, based on the estimate of 176,033 active SDA licenses, CLEET certified peace officers and armed security licenses, we have approximately 194,730 lawfully licensed people in the state which accounts for 5.19% of the population of 3,751,351 people (2010 census). When considering just Canadian County and only the approved SDA licenses, we have approximately 5.48% of the population licensed (does not include peace officers or armed security licenses). Interesting trivia,lol.
2011 Uniform Crime Report (UCR)
This past week, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
(OSBI) released the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) for 2011. Since the primary election in late June of
this year, I am no longer a part of the campaign process but the safety and well-being
of the public is important to me, as well as a desire to see honest information
put forth for people to make informed decisions.
On October 30, 2011 during the campaign, I published an article titled County Crime Statistics on this blog concerning the OSBI UCR report for 2010. During the campaign, I cited the increase in crime was attributed (in my opinion) to decreased patrols which is a factor in detecting, deterring, preventing or apprehending criminal activity.
One example, I mentioned several times related to inefficient patrol activity was, having Evening shift patrol personnel saddled with the service of civil processes instead of patrolling the county. Another factor for the decreased patrols is: poor scheduling/staffing patterns including having two and at times one deputy patrolling the entire county.
An additional factor was creating “programs”, while not addressing the core functions of the Sheriff’s Office. One such program, the “School Security” program did nothing but reduce the time on patrol for these personnel while not serving as an adequate deterrent. The program required patrol deputies to spend a significant amount of their shifts checking the six school locations TWICE during each school day. In addition, some of the schools being addressed were within municipalities which have their own police departments to handle the “feel good” program. Although the underlying theory of the program was good, going to the opposite extreme did nothing but create deficiencies. Having day shift deputies checking schools and evening shift deputies serving civil processes ultimately reduced the amount of time devoted to patrol duties. As a sidenote, in all fairness to the incumbent, with the Juvenile Center paying for six Deputies (for over a year now) to handle Truancy issues this has improved the particular situation although an entirely different set of issues could be discussed with this created program.
Upon reviewing the UCR data released this past week, I believe the statistical information continues to support my opinion that the incumbent is not effectively addressing the crime issues of this county. The incumbent has touted the creation of a number of programs but little has been developed to address the core functions of the Sheriff’s Office which is “protecting the peace and dignity of the county” which is evidenced by these increased crime statistics (as noted in the campaign, I do not support creation of programs for the sake of creating new programs often when they are unneeded or a duplication of current efforts). On September 26th, the incumbent claimed in a print media article that crime in the county was not up, larcenies were up "minutely" and he indicated crime in the county was cyclical (not his word and to a point is true). Again, the statistical information shown below bears out the falsehood of the incumbents claim.
I encourage you to reach you own conclusions and thoroughly research the incumbent and the remaining challenger, Joshua Moore which will be chosen during the General Election on November 6th.
Index Crimes of the Sheriff's Office
On October 30, 2011 during the campaign, I published an article titled County Crime Statistics on this blog concerning the OSBI UCR report for 2010. During the campaign, I cited the increase in crime was attributed (in my opinion) to decreased patrols which is a factor in detecting, deterring, preventing or apprehending criminal activity.
One example, I mentioned several times related to inefficient patrol activity was, having Evening shift patrol personnel saddled with the service of civil processes instead of patrolling the county. Another factor for the decreased patrols is: poor scheduling/staffing patterns including having two and at times one deputy patrolling the entire county.
An additional factor was creating “programs”, while not addressing the core functions of the Sheriff’s Office. One such program, the “School Security” program did nothing but reduce the time on patrol for these personnel while not serving as an adequate deterrent. The program required patrol deputies to spend a significant amount of their shifts checking the six school locations TWICE during each school day. In addition, some of the schools being addressed were within municipalities which have their own police departments to handle the “feel good” program. Although the underlying theory of the program was good, going to the opposite extreme did nothing but create deficiencies. Having day shift deputies checking schools and evening shift deputies serving civil processes ultimately reduced the amount of time devoted to patrol duties. As a sidenote, in all fairness to the incumbent, with the Juvenile Center paying for six Deputies (for over a year now) to handle Truancy issues this has improved the particular situation although an entirely different set of issues could be discussed with this created program.
Upon reviewing the UCR data released this past week, I believe the statistical information continues to support my opinion that the incumbent is not effectively addressing the crime issues of this county. The incumbent has touted the creation of a number of programs but little has been developed to address the core functions of the Sheriff’s Office which is “protecting the peace and dignity of the county” which is evidenced by these increased crime statistics (as noted in the campaign, I do not support creation of programs for the sake of creating new programs often when they are unneeded or a duplication of current efforts). On September 26th, the incumbent claimed in a print media article that crime in the county was not up, larcenies were up "minutely" and he indicated crime in the county was cyclical (not his word and to a point is true). Again, the statistical information shown below bears out the falsehood of the incumbents claim.
I encourage you to reach you own conclusions and thoroughly research the incumbent and the remaining challenger, Joshua Moore which will be chosen during the General Election on November 6th.
Crime Index
Below is the Crime Index for the Canadian County Sheriff's Office for 2000 thru 2011, as determined by information submitted to the OSBI. The Crime Index is the sum total of the 7 major offenses used to measure the extent, fluctuation and distribution of crime in a given area. Crime classifications used in the index are: (1) murder, (2) forcible rape, (3) robbery, (4) felonious assault, (5) breaking and entering, (6) larceny (theft), and (7) motor vehicle theft. Note-the incumbent took office in January of 2009, Sheriff Lewis Hawkins was in office during the 2000-2008 period. 
Crime per 1,000 population comparison
In the past, the incumbent has made the claim that crime has decreased statewide. The below graphic shows a comparison of crimes per 1,000 people for crime reported by the Sheriff's Office, the average for Canadian County and the average for the State of Oklahoma. Note-Incumbent took office in January of 2009, Sheriff Lewis Hawkins was in office in 2008 and prior.
Comparison with law enforcement agencies within Canadian County
Below is a comparison of crimes per 1,000 people reported by law enforcement agencies in Canadian County (Sheriff's Office, El Reno, Yukon, Mustang and Piedmont Police Department's) by the OSBI. Data for the Calumet Police Department was not available for three years so it is not shown. In addition, this comparison shows three full years (2009-2011) with the incumbent in office and data for the previous three years (2006-2008) under Sheriff Lewis Hawkins direction.
Index Crimes of the Sheriff's Office
Below is the Index Crimes for the Canadian County Sheriff's Office from 2001 to 2011. Murder, Rape and Arson were not included based on the limited fluctuations of these crimes and to improve comparison abilities. Note-Incumbent came into office in January of 2009, from 2001-2008 Sheriff Lewis Hawkins was in office.
Raw OSBI UCR Data for Canadian County Sheriff's Office
Finally, the last graphic is the raw data from 2000 thru 2011 for the Canadian County Sheriff's Office. Also included is county average and state average for crimes per 1,000 people.
I do intend to do my best to continue to stay out of the race but do feel knowledge is power. I plan to have one other post in the near future related to Concealed Handgun licenses which will be more informational than anything else. For more information related to the UCR information or to review the data yourself, you can visit the following link for additional information: OSBI UCR Data
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
This is definately familiar and something to watch: http://www.news9.com/story/19104754/property-tax-protest-tulsa-county-checks-and-balances-questioned
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Signs, signs, everywhere signs ......
As we continue our efforts to introduce and educate the voters about our message, we also continue our efforts to observe the legal requirements related to campaigns. Many of our supporters have requested campaign signs and are interested in starting the next phase of our campaign efforts. We appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding as well as recognizing the importance, we have attached in waiting for the proper time to place campaign signs.
As we have noted before, we feel if we cannot follow the law through our own actions, how can voters expect us to enforce the law once in office. To be an effective and trusted leader, you must lead by example. This past weekend and throughout the week, the incumbent has started placing campaign signs in various areas, in violation of municipal ordinance. Although, we continually strive to follow the law we know mistakes happen so therefore to help the incumbent and other candidates, we will share our findings on placing campaign signs in the larger municipalities. We understand the incumbents actions should be getting corrected in the future through contacts with many of you that have called and shared their inquiries, thank you for your diligence.
We intend to continue setting the example and not the pace in the campaign, addressing issues and concerns while continuing this philosophy into elected office, carrying out the duties entrusted by you and other involved citizens. If anyone finds anything in conflict with this information, please let us know, we would be glad to share the information (generally in all areas signs are not to be placed within the city easements). 1. El Reno can only post signs 30 days before an election and must be removed within 5 days after the election; website source: http://www.ecode360.com/8106065#8106065
2. Oklahoma City has no significant restrictions on sign placement but cannot be on city easements, http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=17000
3. Mustang can only post campaign signs 30 days before an election and must be removed within 3 days. website source: http://library.municode.com/mobile/document.aspx?_url=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fshowDocumentFrame.aspx%3fclientID%3d13253%26docID%3d0
4. Piedmont can only post signs 45 days before an election and must be removed within 15 days; website source: http://piedmont-ok.gov/ordinances.htm
5. Yukon-cannot be located in the right of way and cannot stay up for more than sixty days; website source: http://library.municode.com/mobile/document.aspx?_url=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.municode.com%2fshowDocumentFrame.aspx%3fclientID%3d10203%26docID%3d0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)