In one of America’s most dangerous cities, the local police have somehow raised the ire of local Sioux Falls gadfly Scott Ehrisman who spent yesterday attacking Sioux Falls patrolmen for no reason, referring to them as “pigs” like it was the 1960’s:
…the hospital can afford to give thousands of dollars a month out in FREE meals to PUBLIC employees (SFPD) who park directly in front of the property involved (to go feed their faces on sick and dying people’s money). In between loading their bullet proof vests with multiple cartons of milk and feeding their faces on the private health dime…
And
Can’t afford to patrol it? Maybe give a couple of extra monster cookies to the piggies and ask them to go over and ‘butt’ these people away.
Apparently, Scott Ehrisman calling public safety officers “piggies” is what passes for polite discourse in Sioux Falls nowadays. When what he should be doing is thanking them for putting their lives on the line every single day.
Amazing. And a good reminder for the rest of us to thank a cop for what they do.
Most of us head to work and our spouse hardly notices.
The spouse of a law enforcement officer watches them drive out of sight and prays for a safe return. Every day.
That’s one view.
Once again Pat, you miss the entire point of the post, which was really about Avera, not the police (accept for the fact that they have no modesty or shame in taking a free meal, though they are collecting a paycheck) I often wondered if Avera stopped feeding them if they would start going to the Banquet, because in reality, there really isn’t a difference in what they are doing.
Clearly the concept of respect and appreciation are foreign to your makeup.
Many individuals and businesses do special things for police officers because they appreciate them and are thankful that the officers put their lives on the line for us.
Police don’t show up begging for food, and they wouldn’t have to rely on the banquet.
The world would be a much better place if it’s citizens (and so-called bloggers) would respect authority and show appreciation, rather than calling them beggars and piggies!
Your parents must be so proud!
–Many individuals and businesses do special things for police officers because they appreciate them
The gesture is fine, but to accept, would likely be inappropriate if not unethical.
Most LE agencies prohibit LEOs from accepting even small gifts.
IF SFPD doesn’t, it should.
Would you apply that same ethical standard to politicians?
Yes, I would.
Many states require the disclosure of free meals or similar gifts of any amount; other states place a limit before disclosure is required.
SD has none.
That should change.
In any case, if limits were in place, and a a legislator violated them in a de minimus way, I would not excuse such an ethical lapse with “well, they have a tough job”, “they don’t get paid nearly enough”, or “their spouses worry about them leaving every morning”.
Bu then, one would have to know about & practice ethics in order to discuss it.
SFPD Standards:
3. Procedure:
3.1. Soliciting or accepting anything of value that arises from, or is offered because of
employment by the City, except food or beverage that may be immediately consumed,
shall not be permitted.
3.2. Employees shall not use their position to gain special privileges and benefits, including
favors, services, and promises of future employment.
This document is the property of the Sioux Falls Police Department.
Reprinting of this document is prohibited without permission from the Chief of Police.
2
Receipt and Solicitation of Gifts Rev 7/11
3.3. Remedy:
3.3.1. If an employee receives a gift that would violate this policy, the employee should
return the item and send a polite letter to the donor advising that person why the
gift may not be accepted and urging that such offers not be repeated in the future.
So, if Mr. Ehrisman is correct, these LEOs were violating SFPD policy.
The IRS would also be interested in whether these “gifts” were reported as income.
SFPD officer violating policy should be called out & disciplined appropriately, not thanked.
The policy:
“:3.1. Soliciting or accepting anything of value that arises from, or is offered because of
employment by the City, except food or beverage that may be immediately consumed,
shall not be permitted.”
The blogger’s claim:
“In between loading their bullet proof vests with multiple cartons of milk ….:
If the blogger is accurate, that’s a clear violation of the policy.
Unethical behavior should not be admired.
Andrew,
The operative word is “may” and not “must” or “shall” be consumed immediately. Why do you insist on making a false claim?
I’m not the one who called them pigs. That’s all on you.
I’m not sure if you were responding to me, or not, Pat, but my comments were aimed at Scott, not you.
No, they werent directed at you. I tried to respond via my mobile and it went under wrong post
It was so nice around here before the stalker with DID returned.
No big fan of Avera McKennan, but I have no problem with the gratis the Sioux Falls PD, and any other law enforcement agency, receives. Being in law enforcement is a tough, thankless, job, that happens to be vitally important. I wish them all the best. Grow up Mr. Ehrisman
I prefer Avera, and given the current climate in this country thanks to the idiots on the left, I don’t grudge the cops some free grub. They work for less than they deserve, and they are doing more than a lot of people making more money.
This near-religious worship of LEOs is just weird.
Yes, the “blogger” went off in an uncivil manner, but his point remains: Why do public servants behave this way?
Most LEOs do perform admirably, but the blind worship of LEOs is undeserved, and dangerous. Like any group, LE has its problem officers who behave ignobly. Yes, when a good job is done, LEOs deserve our praise, but not for simply “going to work”. Similarly, when LE takes advantage of situations like at Avera, they need to be called out, respectfully. Most important, when LE screws up and needlessly harms the guilty or the innocent, they need to be CONDEMNED and held criminally responsible. To suggest that they get or should get a pass or our prayers because they do a “tough job” is absurd, and not what Christ calls his followers to do.
Unless one has experience working with and among LEO, experiencing and interacting with the myriad of personalities, qualifications, and capabilities, I really don’t think this blanket hero-worship is appropriate. And yes, the families of crappy LEOs suffer the most, and it is THEY who deserve our prayers and admiration, not the crappy LEO.
Every day, garbage collectors get up early, make their rounds, and perform work that makes our lives better, largely without notice or proper reward. Like LEOs, the quality of our lives would diminish VERY quickly without them. In fact, the statistics show that garbage collecting is near the top of the most dangerous jobs in the US, FAR exceeding the dangers of being a LEO. Yet, NO ONE calls the work of the garbage collector noble or dangerous or erects memorials in every state to their fallen co-workers; no employer allows their garbage collector employees to attend co-workers’ funerals in a company car at company expense on company time. Most garbage collectors do the job because they few alternatives; LEO have many more work options if they leave LE. When a garbage collector screws up on the job, it is the garbage collector who is typically harmed; when LE screws up, it is someone ELSE who is typically harmed.
In the scheme of things, the garbage collector is more noble and deserving of our attention than LE.
The desire to jump on the bandwagon of “I Support our Cops Too” is rather childish, and tells us more about the speakers’ faux caring than actual understanding of the complexities of LE work, and LEOs.
The families of garbage collectors watch them leave early every morning and pray for a safe return.
Let’s offer our prayers to those who deserve it for doing a good job, whether they be good garbage collectors good LEOs. Let’s condemn those who behave ignobly or unethically or criminally on the job.
Blanket statements about praying for or thanking any group is just self-aggrandizing grandstanding.
Perhaps people are so passionate about support cops because the leftwing morons and Beyoncé drones hate them so much, yet Beyoncé contributes less to society than any one cop on the lowliest beat in the country.
I do understanding that back-lash against nutjobs like Beyonce.
Yet,there’s no need to swing the pendulum all the way back with a knee-jerk reaction where all law enforcement are placed on a pedestal without a reasonable assessment of their job performance or specific accomplishments. It stinks too much of “everyone deserves a trophy just for participating”.
Anyway, good law enforcement folks know the difference between sincere appropriation for a job well done and this silly “I support all law enforcement” that is more about the speaker’s pat on his own back than real appreciation for cops.
The reason is simple: Police run toward the sound of gunfire.
They deserve more praise for simply ‘going to work’ as you put it because unlike garbage men, electricians, doctors, lawyers, post service, truck drivers, etc….every single day they go to work they have a significantly greater chance than any other profession of having a gun pointed at them and not making it back home to their dinner table with their family that evening.
–garbage men, …very single day they [LE] go to work they have a significantly greater chance than any other profession of having a gun pointed at them and not making it back home to their dinner table with their family that evening.
Well, whether its a gun, or knife, or huge truck, danger is danger, death is death, and disabled is disabled.
There are many professions that are more dangerous than law enforcement–garbagemen (yes, 95%+ men) being much more dangerous than law enforcement. Furthermore, garbagemen are not paid as well, don’t have the retirement or benefits, and don’t get nearly the recognition for doing a dirty, dangerous, and necessary job.
So, in regards to garbagemen, you’re wrong. Being a garbageman is much more dangerous than being in law enforcement. The statistics don’t support your view.
And no, law enforcement don’t “deserve more praise for simply “going to work””–they deserve praise for doing a good job when they do a good job, not just a participation medal for showing up.
According to the Bureau Labor Statistics (BLS), law enforcements jobs are 15th on a list of 21.
Garbagemen: 6th
Truck drivers: 8th
Police: 15th
Electricians: 19th
So, law enforcement dangers are well down the list.
But, this discussion is less about dangerous jobs, it’s mostly about who can beat their chests the loudest in their vocal support of law enforcement, damn reality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/28/charted-the-20-deadliest-jobs-in-america/
T,
I would say it a bit different. I choose to give them extraordinary praise and appreciation because I am extraordinarily grateful they choose to defend and serve my community as they do. Those who have extraordinary gratitude for their garbage collector are encouraged to show their gratitude as they deem. appropriate. Showing gratitude is always a good thing.
NO ONE “deserves” praise simply for showing up at their chosen job, and since slavery and indentured servitude is illegal ,that includes all of us who “go to work”.
Private and public workers deserve praise for doing a good job. Students, children, and athletes deserve praise for accomplishments, not for mere participation or “showing up”.
Otherwise, “praise” without an appropriate action deserving of that praise becomes diminished to the point of meaninglessness. Moreover, misdirected praise (for bad cops for example) actually cheapens the praise deserved and given to cops doing a good job.
We’ve so diminished what is noble and praiseworthy that simply “being this or that” is apparently sufficient for praise to be “deserved”.
ACTIONS are noble; ACTIONS deserve praise (or condemnation), not the choice of professions.
This view of praise for simply “being” underlies racism. If you’re this “color”, you must be deeply knowledgeable about race without having to know much about it. If you’re that “color”, you know nothing about race while you may have studied it extensively. If you’re this “color”, you will bring “diversity” to the workplace, without having worked a day there. If you’re that “sex”, you are more comforting and empathetic than that “sex”, without ever having to show any emotions. If you dress a certain way, you’re either more intelligent or not without having to open your mouth.
We also see it when score is not kept in athletic contests–when everybody gets a medal and everybody wins, then the medals mean nothing and no one wins.
Sorry, folks deserve praise for their actions, not for the job they choose. Without it, the praise is merely hollow blather.
No one job is more noble than another. What makes a job noble is how one performs at a job, not the job itself. Good cops deserved praise for the good acts that they do; bad cops deserved condemnation for the bad acts they perform. It’s meaningless to offer blanket praise simply for being a cop.
God calls each person to be the best at what he does, as best as he can do it. God also each person to counsel others when they choose the easy path, the destructive path, or the sinful path. God doesn’t favor the high-brow lawyer over the lowly garbageman; or the policeman over the waitress, and neither should His Believers.
God favors those who do the best for themselves and those whom they care for, be it a garbageman working a VERY dangerous job to care for his family, or the small businesswoman struggling to afford to employ 2 or 3 workers. God disfavors the cop abusing citizens or Brendan Johnson’s name showing up on sex trafficking websites.
Just as God does, we should be judged by our acts and our character and rewarded accordingly, not just for “showing up” every day.
The other day in the Denver airport, I heard the announcement before every boarding that invited active and retired military to board first. Maybe those individuals so invited never did a thing nobly in service of our country but as an institution and collective they did/do great things. I don’t begrudge them this honor and privilege but endorse it in gratitude.
If the nuns at Avera offer free meals in gratitude to law enforcement, why should law enforcement officers be “called out” for accepting this token of appreciation? There is a maxim there can be no acts of Christian charity without a willing and grateful recipient. Charity depends on the other in mutual measure.
How is this “near-religious worship?” Gratitude isn’t worship.
With regard to your garbage collector, give him a $250 gift card at Christmas. I am sure he will accept your expression of gratitude in the spirit intended.
Finally, thank you Avera for your generosity in appreciation for the people serving and protecting us. And, I am sure their spouse is grateful they don’t have to make a brown bag lunch before they leave the house. They can just concentrate on giving them a hug and kiss. I don’t begrudge or envy you don’t extend free meals to me.
Andrew Shiers,
What policy was violated? Note that 3.1 says “may” and not “must” or “shall.”
Also, site the IRS rules/regulation these meals are taxable.
Calumny is grave matter.
SFPD policy bans such “gifts”, whether out of gratitude or some nefarious purpose–the rationale for the policy is obvious.
If anyone disagrees with the policy, they can encourage the city and PD union to change it.
SPFD policy does not address early boardings, hugs, or off-duty kisses, and as such, those concerns are wholly irrelevant. Nor is Avera is operated by “nuns”–both are nice attempts to deflect the conversation.
Until then, if what Mr. Ehrisman writes is true (despite his nasty tone) , these LEOs were violating SFPD policy.
That’s not admirable.
You clearly don’t understand plain language. The SFPD policy does NOT ban gifts of food. It couldn’t be any more plain. I’d encourage you to read it again. Maybe visit with a lawyer who can dissuade you of your inaccurate interpretation.
And yes, the hospital is in fact controlled by “nuns.” The Avera Health System is owned/controlled by the Presentation Sisters and the Benedictine Sisters, both of whom have orders long-active in South Dakota. Many of these nuns actually are employed within the hospitals and a number of them are also on the board of directors.
1. SFPD policy bans gifts…with an exception for food that has a condition. the condition is that the food must be immediately consumed.
Mr. Ehrismen alleged that officers were TAKING FOOD WITH THEM. And he reiterated that claim in subsequent blog. If true , such actions would violate SFPD policy.
2. SFPD policy SHOULD ban all gifts, even of food consumed on premises or taken elsewhere.
3. The nuns do not operate Avera–they own it as a corporation The CEO and management MANAGE and OPERATE Avera. That’s the way corporations operate, including Avera
I’m quite familiar with how corporations operate. And if you think the nuns don’t involve themselves in the operations of their corporation, you might want to check yourself into their behavioral health hospital as you may have a few loose screws.
If you don’t believe what Mr. Ehrisman claims, fine. Take it up with him.
IF true, LE violated the policy.
IF you think that is wrong, then re-read the policy and we can discuss it further.
In your world up appears to be down and down appears to be up. I’ll give you your own advice, “re-read the policy and we can discuss it further.”
Which part for the policy exempts LEOs from taking gratuitous food/beverage and consuming it elsewhere (as is alleged)?
Andrew Shiers,
The policy you specifically referenced excepts food and beverage from the gift prohibition. Why do you keep falsely asserting a violation of policy?
We just increased his site traffic five fold. He’s a mindbogglingly arrogant twit that thinks name-calling makes him an expert on every single facet of life in Sioux Falls. Of course he’s more of an expert than a thousand city employees, 3,000 Citi employees, 10,000 Sanford and Avera employees, every developer, every taxpayer, every state official, federal official, etc. etc. etc.
Not so long ago:
“anonymous
February 13, 2016 at 11:51 am
It appears that Troys posts simply confirm what Steve and others has said about him. Maybe he should take it to heart or leave who ever he is.
…..
Being a paranoid prick while saying all those Christians things make all Christian look bad. just stop it.”
Cops’ lives suck.
ok Krazy Larry.
It is one thing to comp a donut or a coffee now and again, but to establish a free meal system? I bet you don’t see any Highway Patrol officers pulling up – but I could be wrong.
–So, if Mr. Ehrisman is correct, these LEOs were violating SFPD policy.
–If the blogger is accurate, that’s a clear violation of the policy.
There is no accusation that anyone violated SFPD policy, unless one willfully ignores the multiple “ifs”.
But stalkers rarely read well–that’s not why they’re here: “Being a paranoid prick …” is an apt description of their purposes.
Andrew,
Please explain specifically what the blogger described that is “a clear violation of the policy.”
The charge is an offense for which an officer could face serious consequences. As a matter of justice (giving the LEO his due), you owe it to make your charge specific. And, if defending law enforcement officers makes me a “paranoid prick” in your eyes, I wear the slur with pride.
No cop has been named or accused of anything so hysteria about officers being fired or disciplined seems to be much ado about donuts.
But whatever…
troll away…
I’m pretty sure cops can defend themselves; besides no cop has been named as violating any policy so who needs defending?
but that’s probably not the purpose of all these trolling posts…
anyway…
Andrew Shiers,
I’m not the one who said it was “a clear violation of the policy.” You did. And, it is duly noted that you won’t state specifically what is alleged to have occurred is “a clear violation of the policy.”
Further, I don’t expect you to explain what would motivate you to make a baseless charge against a law enforcement officer. Your attempt to minimize your charge with “ifs” or charge of trolling doesn’t excuse this calumny against law enforcement.
Andrew’s false charge notwithstanding, I want to make it clear: Law enforcement officers who accept food or beverage to be consumed while on shift is not a violation of SFPD policy.
Finally, establishments where I often see police cars or trooper cars get a disproportionate amount of my business as my gratitude for what I hope is their support of law enforcement.
TJ: …I wear the slur with pride.
Such a statement simply proves the earlier suggestion that,
“Blanket statements about praying for or thanking any group is just self-aggrandizing grandstanding.”
See, it’s not really about cops and their jobs, it’s about chest-thumping proclamations on just how much the chest-thumper prides himself on his words about chest-thumping. “I this” “I that” ” blah blah blah.
Anyone who has spent time working with and among cops knows just how all this insincerity makes them uncomfortable–they know when it’s sincere. Cops would be the first to tell you that too many among them don’t deserve blanket praise or defending. But, that would require folks to listen, instead of stacking more empty boxes on the bandwagon of faux pride.
It’s fun watching you get taken to woodshed. You can’t squeal your way out this one. 🙂
It is rather amusing to see how someone reads right through the “ifs” and just goes on and on!
It’s like he just reads what he wants, ignores that which obviously contradicts his views, and just keeps going with some weird personal attacks.
whatever!
Yes, girl, whatever!
Andrew Shiers,
Whether my defense of law enforcement is sincere or not, you have no capacity to discern that sincerity. And the fact remains, you made a false assertion what Scott observed was “a clear violation of the policy” and you have now tried to change the subject to make an accusation against me for which you have no evidence.
P.S. Just so you know, I know quite well more than a few law enforcement officers, some of whom are family members and have been in harm’s way. And, the good one’s know the gratitude expressed to them isn’t to them as individuals or their particular merit but to the badge they carry and the job they are sworn to do.
Law enforcement see the worst of humanity at times besides the risk of getting injured or killed in their jobs.
Am confused: when did Avera offer free meals to public employees?
I’ve eaten a few meals in that cafeteria, never seen cops in there.
–Am confused: when did Avera offer free meals to public employees?
That’s what the blogger is claiming.
But someone seems to have hijacked that discussion with some inexplicable hysteria.
Mr. Ehrisman:
“In between loading their bullet proof vests with multiple cartons of milk …”
He is accusing the cops of taking food/drink with them .
That would clearly violate SFPD policy…
IF (please read that again) he is accurate.
IF one does not believe Mr. Ehrisman, then take it up with him or Mr. Powers who posted Mr. Ehrisman’s rant.
unless you just want to rant & troll then continue…
Some of my good friends are cops!
Some of my best friends are black!
Some attitudes never die.
Andrew,
That is wrong. LEO are allowed to take food and drink they intend to consume on their shift. In particular it is common they fill their thermos/coffee cup or it a soda. Read the policy. It says “may be consumed” vs. must be consumed. The wording is precise to prohibiy larger gifts like a ham for the family.
Andrew:
“if what Mr. Ehrisman writes is true (despite his nasty tone) , these LEOs were violating SFPD policy.” This is an untrue statement. LEO’s are allowed accept food and beverage they intend to consume on their shift.
“If the blogger is accurate, that’s a clear violation of the policy.” Again, this is an untrue statement.
Whether it be in NYC, Ferguson Missouri, Sioux Falls, or rural South Dakota, community policing practices encourage law enforcement officers to be accessible to the public even during their breaks. The policy to allow complimentary or discounted food and beverage is a standard practice to encourage community policing and accessibility lest LEO’s brown bag their meals.
The policy:
3.1. Soliciting or accepting anything of value that arises from, or is offered because of employment by the City, except food or beverage that may be immediately consumed,…
There’s a special place in hell for liars.
SFPD finest:
Michael Green, terminated for conduct unbecoming
Jackie Schlumbohm, terminated for conduct unbecoming
James Madsen (DUI)
Cynthia Holmquest (rear-ended school bus w/ serious injuries)
Pierre, SD: 2013 : Police tasered 8 yr old
Those folks don’t deserve our admiration, they need our condemnation. They don’t deserve freebies from food outlets.
Who prayed for the 8-yr old tasered by a cop? Who bought her a snack? Who prayed for the serious injured school children–injured BY the criminal carelessness of a cop?
Who prayed for the two serious injuries that resulted from Off. Holmquest carelessly rear-ending a school bus, and the mental & physical trauma endured by many others?
We should not have to pray every morning to the good lord to protect our 8- yr olds and our school kids on their school buses FROM the unprofessional, unethical, or indeed, criminal behavior of law enforcement.
It’s sad that other around here are proud to tolerate such evils.
Sioux Falls has roughly 80 cops who every day serve and protect us with honor.
If you want to indict the many because of the malfeasance of the very small few, go ahead. I’m most happy with the job these men and women do every day dealing with the many challenges of our community which includes not only our criminal element but also the mentally ill who are homeless. They are a credit to the badge and the oath they swear to uphold.
Just as it is intellectually dishonest to condemn all LEOs for the bad behavior of the few, it is just as dishonest to prattle endlessly about the noble job all LEOs perform.
Neither is accurate.
You finally agree.
It seems that much of this hub-a-loo originates from the inability of some to separate critical analyses of the work of law enforcement (LE) in general, as an personal attack on specific LE officers, and/or those who support those individuals This is often described as the “halo effect”.
The halo effect is simply not very intellectual, and dangerous for any profession–and in regards to LE, it’s deadly dangerous.
Andrew Shiers,
This hubaloo started with you making a false statement that this is a “clear violation of policy” and that for police officers to accept complimentary food or beverage is “inappropriate if not unethical” and “a clear violation of policy.”
Then you listed three law enforcement officers who were dismissed with the heading “SFPD finest” which is also false. These are the few who betrayed their oath and badge.
Then you denigrated my opening statement about the worry spouses feel when they see their spouse leave the house with “that is one view.”
And, throughout you attempted to obfuscate and justify your false statement. So, what do you mean there is “a special place for liars?” Name a single statement I said that is a lie?
Maybe it will help Andrew if someone explained that the policy states that an officer can do exactly what these officers are purported to have done. Good grief…read the text you have written. It says they can have a free meal as it is food or beverage that can be immediately consumed. This was like reading the transcript of an argument with my child.
Lets try to clear up some confusion that Troy has created while using an invalid argument form—repeatedly.
An “if-then” statement is called a conditional statement. The “if” part is called the hypothesis, and the “then” part is the conclusion (“then” is not always used but it’s still a conditional statement”. It’s called a “conditional “statement” because, in order for the conclusion to follow, it is CONDITIONED upon the occurrence or existence of the hypothesis.
In order to form a valid argument, one must not only have a conditional (“if a, then b”), but also meet the hypothesis (“and a”)—this form is known as modus ponens.
Modus ponens: If a, then b, and a, then b must follow.
Symbolically:
(a –> b) ^ a –> b
So, when a person states, “If Mr. Ehrisman states is correct, then the LEOs clearly violated the policy”, whether the conclusion (“LEOs violated the policy” ) follows is conditioned upon the occurrence or existence of the hypothesis (“if Mr. Ehrisman is correct”). If the hypothesis does not exist or did not occur, then it is illogical to conclude ANYTHING about the conclusion following—an invalid argument form, aka a logical fallacy. This is where Troy became confused: he first refused to recognize the conditional statement by ignoring the clearly written “if”. Then, while discounting the use of “if”, he went directly to the conclusion (“the LEO violated the policy”) and hysterically argued that the officer did no such thing, and anyone claiming otherwise was “lying”. In other words, he inferred the conclusion, and argued about it, without addressing whether the hypothesis existed (“If Mr. Ehrisman states is correct”)—this is required if one is to argue using a valid form such as modus ponens. In fact, one cannot be “right” or “wrong” (or “lying”) without properly applying modus ponens to the conditional statement—one cannot even begin to address the truth or falsity of, “If Mr. Ehrisman states is correct, then the LEOS clearly violated the policy”, unless one can demonstrate the existence or truth of the hypothesis. Unless that is done, one can NEVER determine the truth or falsity of that conditional statement and whether the conclusion must necessarily follow.
Later, Troy tried to address whether the hypothesis ( “If what Mr. Ehrisman states is correct”) was true. He argued that it was not, blabbering about “mays” and “shalls” and so on. In other words, he claimed that the hypothesis was not true. Based on that determination, he then ARGUED that therefore, the conclusion did NOT follow. But that is NOT a valid argument form, since if the hypothesis of a conditional statement is false, NOTHING can then be inferred regarding the conclusion (“then the LEO clearly violated the policy”).
If a, then b, and not a, then not b must follow. WRONG!
Symbolically:
(a –> b) ^ ~a –> ~b NO!
This is called the “fallacy of the inverse” or “denying the hypothesis”. It is not a valid argument form, since the conclusion does not necessarily follow. So, let’s assume Troy was correct—that the hypothesis ( “If Mr. Ehrisman states is correct”) was not true. It does NOT follow that the officers did not violate policy, since they could have violated some other policy (just not the one dealing with food freebies).
So, when Troy claims that one has “lied” in stating that a violation of policy occurred, yet arguing that the hypothesis was not met (or did not exist), he was being illogical. When Troy claims that someone is hiding behind words like “if”, it’s because he does not understand the conditional statement, valid argument forms like modus ponens, and invalid forms like fallacy of the inverse.
But, understanding is probably not the reason he has made multiple posts, and invalid ones at that. As several others have noted, in saltier language, Troy’s become bitter, paranoid, and personal.
–Jay Williams is a smart guy, good person with a fun-loving personality
The sincerity, judgment, and ability to reason of anyone making such a statement should be thoroughly analyzed.
Andrew Shiers,
Why you keep making it about me. You reference to my personal comment about Jay Williams is hilarious. Unless you know him personally, you have no direct evidence to make this a reflection on me. I know him, like him, and think he is politically loony. I like a lot of people I disagree with politically. In fact, I like most people I know.
But, back to this matter. Scott never asserted what he observed was against policy. You did. It isn’t your “then” that is false. It is your “if” because what Scott reported to have observed is not in violation of policy which is YOUR assertion.
I don’t see anyone denigrated anyone else.
We all agree and pray that when loved ones leave home for work ,that they are safe ,whether they are cops, garbagemen, teachers, or tradesmen.
Unless your paranoid, or downright bitter, we all pray for the same things.
A conditional statement: If today is March 1st, then tomorrow is March 23rd.
Any assertion that the conditional statement is false or someone is lying is illogical. It’s a conditional statement! You cannot separate it and look at each part–they go together. That’s why it’s called a conditional statement.
If today is not March 1st, it does not mean someone is wrong or lying or ill-informed–it’s the HYPOTHESIS. It logically means that the truth of the conditional statement is indeterminate. NO ONE is “lying” when making a conditional statement simply because the hypothesis may be false.
Furthermore, if today is not March 1st (it’s false or someone is lying), the conditional statement may LOGICALLY be true (such as if today is actually March 22nd). One cannot simply look at the truth/falsity of he first part and make a reasoned determination of the truth of the entire conditional statement.
Another: If today is Match 1st, then you’ll get $100. Troy claims that the author of that statement is lying because the hypothesis is simply not true. Such an misunderstanding is amazingly idiotic, hysterical, demonstrates an inability to think about and understand abstract concepts. and not well-reasoned (but that not why he’s acting like a child).
This is logic 101.
Look ,it’s clear that Troy doesn’t not know his logic.
That’s his problem…not ours.
When one is so wrong and so detached from reality in an assessment of the character of Jay Williams, the person is largely incapable of judging others as liars, discerning personal attacks, or discussing logic.
Who among you has not eaten a free meal?
Who among you would feed grudznick free breakfasts through the entire month of March?
Has anybody verified that city cops are getting free meals at Avera?
It’s been 25 years since I worked there and at that time I took a meal break every shift in that cafeteria and never noticed this.
In more recent years I have taken many meals, as recently as February 8th, and didn’t see any police in there.
The hysteria over policies regarding municipal employees enjoying freebies here keeps missing the point:
Is the allegation that Avera offers free meals to cops even true?
Good question.
Troy refused to discuss that issue, proclaiming that no such thing ever happened, and thus any assertion that begins with, “If what Mr. Ehrisman says is correct…” must be false, and in fact, whomever says such a thing is lying.
Troy’s first comment wasn’t about the whether city cops were getting free meals or a response to Mr. Ehrisman’s rant. It was about how much prayed for cops, and later, his blind support of cops getting free meals whether on site or taking the food elsewhere. And as usual, he quickly drove the discussion into the sewer with personal attacks, an obsession with a phrase taken completely out of context, followed by the “how dare you question me–I’m a victim” whimpers –his usual two-faced routine (as noted elsewhere by Rev. Hickey).
Good cops avoid even the appearance of impropriety or favoritism by not taking gifts of any kind–I even wager that they’ve been trained or instructed to decline graciously. Mr. Ehrisman seems to have wanted to rant about cops, and vaguely alluded to an incident at Avera. . Besides, how would Ehrisman know whether the cops paid or did not pay (or maybe they had an account at Avera?)–it’s not clear from his blog. It was a nice beginning by PP as the topic of discussion… until it was derailed by you-know-who.
Maybe we could hear from SF cops. if any read the blog.
And if the cops can eat at Avera for free, why are so many eating at the Firehouse sub shop on 41st?
Andrew Shiers,
I never asserted what Scott observed didn’t occur (police officers eating complimentary meals at Avera and taking complimentary cartons of milk in addition to what they consumed in the cafeteria). I accepted his observation as presented.
I never asserted this was contrary to SFPD policy. Did you assert this was contrary to SFPD policy when you said “He is accusing the cops of taking food/drink with them . That would clearly violate SFPD policy”
I never asserted this is improper or should be improper in disagreement with you. Did you assert this was improper and should be changed when you said “Most LE agencies prohibit LEOs from accepting even small gifts. IF SFPD doesn’t, it should.”
You don’t need to repeat your comments about me personally unless you think your views aren’t sufficiently clear.
A person’s sincerity can be determined from what one says & does, and what one does not say.
The original story was about SFPD consuming & taking food from the Avera cafeteria as a gratuity (as alleged by Mr. Ehrisman).
That was soon followed by a comment that families of LE pray for their safe return. It was a very general statement that did not recognize that some LE do not do such a good job and that they were not entitled to our concern or gratuities.
An observation was also made that garbagemen perform a just as necessary public service, are more likely to be injured or killed on the job than LE, are paid less , don’t get free food from the businesses that they visit, and don’t have such a cushy pension. One job is no more noble than the other was the point. It was urged that we all pray for them and their families as well. One would have thought that such a request would not be controversial, but Troy not only refused to acknowledge the struggles and dangers of garbagmen, but refused to join in with prayers and concern for them. He dismissively suggested that $250 could be given to the garbageman as a gratuity at Christmas—not that HE would do such a thing, but others could! $250 would be small comfort to the garbageman whose family was left without a breadwinner because of an injury or death on the job—an event that is MORE likely to occur than LE. Too bad says Troy (in silence), someone else can give them a paltry $250.
An observation was made that blanket statements of concern and prayers for LE were more about self-aggrandizement and me-tooism than genuine concern for LE.
The discussion quickly devolved into an obsessive personal attack based on part of a conditional statement completely taken out of context. And it was noted that indeed, the prescient observation that the LE bandwagon was more about self-aggrandizement than true concern for LE, was fulfilled by Troy’s repeatedly use of “I’ this and “I” that. It wasn’t really about concern or prayers for LE, it was about beating one’s chest in public about who cared the most for LE—or more accurately, who could type the most about caring the most.
Days have passed and yet Troy has not offered any expressions of concern for the families or lives of garbagemen. No prayers… nothing…just that other folks can give them $250 at Christmas. You see, public proclamations of support for garbagemen and their families just isn’t as sexy or fashionable as similar statement for LE. So, why bother? Go for the sexy. And be sure to become indignant when this is pointed out!
What one says or does not say determines one’s sincerity.
Andrew Shiers,
Just because you want to make this about garbage collectors or to equate the job they do to police officers, I feel no need to go down your rabbit hole. Nor do I have any need to address or mention the gift my wife gives to our collector every Christmas except I suspect if everyone on their route did as she does our collector would have free meals for a year.
Because I know in the daily performance of a law enforcement officer’s duties a police officer is more likely to encounter dangerous situations (dangerous to innocent citizens, the person encountered, or the officer him or herself) than a garbage collector, I admit I have prayed for law enforcement officers in general and in particular, will continue to do so, and can recall no instance of praying for my garbage collector (just did but make no promises to do so in the future). Judge and chastise me for this failure to your pleasure.
SFPD Policy: 3.1. Soliciting or accepting anything of value that arises from, or is offered because of employment by the City, except food or beverage that may be immediately consumed, shall not be permitted.
Andrew Shiers: “1. SFPD policy bans gifts…with an exception for food that has a condition. the condition is that the food must be immediately consumed. Mr. Ehrismen alleged that officers were TAKING FOOD WITH THEM. And he reiterated that claim in subsequent blog. If true , such actions would violate SFPD policy.
Andrew Shiers appears to assert that the following are the same thing:
1) SFPD policy: “except food or beverage that MAY (emphasis added) be immediately consumed”
2) Andrew Shiers: “the condition is that the food MUST (emphasis added) be immediately consumed”
Definition of may: have permission to <you may go now (but not required to go): be free to <a rug on which children may sprawl (but not required to sprawl upon)—used nearly interchangeably with can
Definition of must: be commanded or requested to or obliged to
It appears Mr. Shiers equates "may" and "must." I do not. If the policy was intended to require consumption on site, I believe the SFPD would say so explicitly rather than allowing the law enforcement officer to discern they are allowed to accept food and beverage to be later consumed while on duty.
An argument that the food “may” be taken by the LE to be consumed elsewhere defeats the whole rationale for the de minimis consumption of food/beverage on site. Such a ridiculous “interpretation” would allow LE to grab piles of food (or cartons of milk, loaves of bread, and piles of meat to the station or home top consume it there–that silly view would defeat the purpose of the policy to restrict gifts of food to de minimis levels.
The “may” referrers to the food that MAY be consumed, not the ability of the person to take elsewhere. The subject of the exception is the “food or beverage”, not the LEO who “may” wish to eat it elsewhere. In other words, the “may” qualifies the type and amount to food to be consumed (i.e., small amounts immediately consumable), not the ability or decision of the person to take a wagonload of free food home where he MAY consume it if he so desires. The “may” qualifies the FOOD, not the decision of the LEO on when or where to eat it. (Maybe it’s too much to ask for someone who thinks that there’s a word “her’s”?)
Any other view would be unreasonable and gut the purpose for the policy.
It’s really not that difficult….
unless one has a different purpose to go on and on and on and on….
If one has no need to mention gifts to garbagemen every Christmas, then why mention it?
More proof that this is not about a genuine concern for LE or anyone else–it’s about self-aggrandizement, being fashionable, and attention-grabbing cries of “I care too–just read all of my fine words”.
What one says or does not say determines one’s sincerity.
Andrew Shiers,
I am criticized for not mentioning garbage collectors and criticized for mentioning them. It appears obvious you are intent in criticizing and disagreeing with anything I say. So, have a nice day.
From the very beginning, it is clear that Troy’s endless comments had very little to do with LE or prayers, or gifts of food, or SFPD policy.
It was about another effort to attack and badger and demean and brow beat posters into giving up in frustration. Anyone can see his repeated attacks using a phrase taken completely out of context, to incomprehensible lectures about the word “may” that he mistakenly applied to an officer’s choice to eat off premises–to again raising his own banner of victimhood when confronted with his dishonesty, illogic, and proof of ulterior motives. This tactic has become his MO, and it’s just not very becoming.
I for one, will not cede the high ground of truth, rationality, and facts…
to anyone.
Translation: “I’m a control freak and must always have the last word.”
Luke 13:
“Then Jesus told them this parable: “A man had a fig tree that had been planted in his vineyard. He went to look for fruit on it but didn’t find any. So he told the gardener, ‘Look here! For three years I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this tree but I haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it waste the soil?’ But the gardener replied, ‘Sir, leave it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and fertilize it. Maybe next year it will bear fruit. If not, then cut it down.’”
God expects (and requires) fruitfulness from those who call themselves Christians. Many enjoy the privileges of the gospel, and yet bear no fruit in God’s orchards and vineyards.. They do not cease evil, nor learn to do good, but continue on their old courses of sin and vanity–unchanged & unreformed in principle and in practice.
Lent calls Believers to repent & reform–to fertilize the foundation. Those are words of action, not calls for more insincere words affirming Belief as a barren fig tree would.
Hello Newman aka Goofy Andy, this weird and bizarre. You have been made to look crazed. Do you live on 4th floor of McKennan?
It is weird how Troy has posted nothing else but on this blog for days. Talk about a man possessed!
Does anyone have any studies on stalking on the web versus real life stalking?
Andrew, as it says in Hebrews 4:12, Scripture speaks to us always with the right message at the right time. I have been reflecting on Hebrews 4:14-16 lately as a reminder of the intimacy our God desires. I wish you the best during this Lent.
Several others around the DWC have questioned the paranoid prick’s (as Troy prefers to be called) sincerity and Christian values.
None other than Rev. Steve Hickey wrote of his experiences with the paranoid prick. In fact, he wrote of the two faces of the prick: one who speaks of his faith to your face, and he other who later stabs you in the back when he’s challenged.
Other commenters here have used rather salty language to describe his comments, his stalking, and his paranoia in regards to who and what is being written, including the amusing “paranoid prick” moniker that Troy [proudly] adopted as his own. He’s so often wrong about faith, comments, and basic facts that it is a struggle to engage. I for one will continue to do so no matter how nasty he gets. God bless Rev. Hickey’s efforts in his endeavors, and it’s understandable that all those knives in the back begin to really hurt emotionally, but I’ll remain to carry the torch of Truth.
One must believe that the negative karma one creates will eventually return in kind. While I harbor no ill will against the paranoid prick and his behaviors here, the Universe does not forget, and if one believes, neither does the Lord (the same Lord that the paranoid prick so often tells us about). I know of no Christian precept or dogma that sanctions or explains or justifies Troy’s behaviors here or elsewhere. One would hope that a self-proclaimed “humble servant” of Christ would take those words to heart and develop some humility, so we all pray for changes in this time of Lent.
In the end as the beginning of this thread, the paranoid prick’s words mean little to those who know or met him or read of him. As we’ve seen here, Troy perversely enjoys taking comments out of context, badgering them, and making it all himself, as was predicted many days ago.
We’re left with Troy’s claim that , “I have been reflecting on Hebrews 4:14-16 lately as a reminder of the intimacy our God desires”. Based on the prick’s words and behaviors, he hasn’t a clue about what God desires, let alone able speak about those desires.
If the Paranoid Prick cared about scripture, he should probably read and conform his behavior to John 13:34.
Andrew,
I’m sorry I don’t bring out the best in you. I hope the rest of your day gets better.
The moral high ground is always the best way to respond to those who have lost their way and need help.
We all should pray for Troy to find his way.
He seems to know the bible (at least knows how to quote from it) but the fig tree isn’t bearing fruit. Luke 13.
Let us pray:
Lord, from our lips to your Ear, let your wayward servant Troy take to Heart what he writes, so that the fig tree in your Vineyard bears Fruit. Guide him gently to your Heart, cradle him, heal his wounds, soothe his Hatred and vindictiveness, develop in him a purposeful prayer Life, and protect his family from manifestations of his Pain….
with & in Your grace we pray…
amen
Change the name Troy to Andrew and you will have it right.
I suppose prayers are always welcome, but Troy seems to the loudest in his public pronouncements of his Christian faith, all the while acting like a petulant child when confronted by his behaviors not consistent with this self-proclaimed faith…so he may need those prayers more than some.
Rev. Steve Hickey accused him of back stabbing–others have used nastier language. The Truth probably lies somewhere in between. We all have faults, but all not us talk or type from both sides of our mouths like the money changers in the Temple.
So, sure, we all could use prayers, especially those who pray for public consumption in a vain attempt to garner public admiration like the Pharisees & Sadducees.
So we pray,
Lord, from our lips to your ear, we pray for Troy, Pat, Anonymous, Julie, Andrew, Anonymous at 6:29, Shears, Shiers, anon, ymous, Kory, Crazy Jay Williams, and even Krazy Larry, that they all find the Peace and Insight whether on DWC, or in their faith, so that your Vineyard grows fig trees full of Fruit.
In Your Grace,
amen
It appears that only one poster here is being nasty, impetuous, unchristian, argumentative, and juvenile.
Several others have noted these behaviors of Troy’s, and the many lame attempts to blame it on others. Again, it was predicted: “–to again raising his own banner of victimhood when confronted with his dishonesty, illogic, and proof of ulterior motives….This tactic has become his MO, and it’s just not very becoming.” How is it possible that so many recognize these defects but Troy does not? Paranoia does that to a person.
So, not only is “paranoid prick” apparently appropriate, but maybe “projection” is as well?
It seems that Troy brings out the “worst” in several folks, one of whom is an ordained minister of Christ.
Maybe one should consider the seamster of that common thread as the source of discontent ?
The just have a crush on Troy and they can’t handle it not being mutual.
That may be true for some, but anyone can see that Troy’s modus operandi is to pursue, stalk, and attack.
For example: Steve Hickey posted on a thread regarding payday loans and legislative efforts to curtail that business, and used some biblical support for his views. Troy had not posted anything up to that point. Then Troy demands that Pat stop responding to Steve, like a little child who demands to silence all critics! Then Troy begins his stalking of Steve, attacking his religious sincerity, and on and on. Steve described his personal interactions with Troy, calling Troy a backstabber. Soon enough, Steve probably goes a bit too far, and is banned. An amazing but typical engagement with Troy.
You can see on this thread too, that it was Troy who stalked and stalked stalked, using words like “liar”, taking statements out of context, being “outraged” that a serious charge of violating a SFPD policy was alleged and someone could lose his job over it (but no officer has ever been named!), and on & on. The usual MO.
I for one love Troy. I pray for him. I pray for Steve Hickey. God bless us all.
Andrew,
Thank you for your prayers and affection. I am grateful. Back at you.
“back at you” appears to rather insincere, or denigrating.
More hypocrisy?
Andrew,
I apologize for any unintended inference you made.