Bullying on the Waterway ( Sunset Lake , Miami Beach)

[canucksailor]

Ok...first, Khagan's comments. My father was a police officer, I'm quite familiar with how they work, country of birth notwithstanding. I know, better than most, what their point of view is and I'm quite sympathetic to it.
Now, to correct some points - first of all - the police TOLD us that Karlton made the call. I didn't pick that out of thin air. They pointed to his house, and there he was, watching what was going on while pretending to wash his boat.
The officers made it clear that they didn't want to be there, but had no choice, as Karlton has political clout, that he had made some big donations. If you research the man's name, you'll find he supported a number of politicians, including some local ones, and ran (unsuccessfully) himself. There were also allegations about spousal violence a few years ago, but those seem to have gone nowhere and aren't of importance here - although I wonder why, given what I've learned.
His neighbours DO have a dog in this hunt. They've complained about Karlton's playing loud rap music to bother people at anchor. I believe another neighbour has complained about his spotlight shining in her windows from the other side of the lake when he's shining it on someone at anchor. Karlton is smart enough to turn the music off at the time mandated by local ordinance, so he's gotten away with that one. View the video, it's posted earlier on this thread, to see just how loud that music was.
The police are NOT doing their job when they are violating someone's rights - which is what the police were doing, no matter how polite they were about it.
And they knew it. They were not happy about it either, but someone - their sergeant, lieutenant, a local politician, gave them their marching orders and they had no choice.
As for choosing the mayor as my first contact - she's the boss. After over 20 years as a journalist, I've learned - you go to the top in a situation like this one. Since I couldn't identify the person who sent the officers out to us, I chose to go with the mayor. She's the boss.
As for the chief being offended - fine. He's also in the wrong if his officers are dancing to the tune of a private citizen, as they were. These are hardly allegations. This is what happened. If anyone should be offended, it should be me, since it was my rights being trampled on.
The chief is well paid to be offended - he's also paid to see his supervisors and officers obey the law and don't harass people who are legally going about their affairs. I believe our countries have fought a couple of wars over these principals? Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but my rights matter to me. I don't like them being trampled on, however politely.
I'll let you in on a little secret - once I know, for certain, that the police won't be bothering cruisers at anchor there anymore, I won't be anchoring there myself. There's lots of room and I don' t need to aggravate the man. But until this is settled, I'll anchor right in front of his house. Why? Because it's my right to do so. And it's your right too - the difference is, I'm the one fighting for it.
Lifegoal -

To ASSume that one is in bed with someone else with out real proof puts you in no better stance on ethics then the man you've accused.

I'll ignore your use of caps there and presume that the keys on your computer are sticky. To repeat myself, there were no assumptions. This is what I was told by the officers in attendance.

I find it funny to be defending myself here. Aren't Americans the ones who are supposed to be good at standing up for their rights?

[Lifegoal2sail]

Sorry i forget while typing you can't always hear the humor in ones post. My dad always would stress the ass part of the word when i would assume he meant something.
But with that I do have to say that the one thing that you keep say that i think is way off is your statement of your rights being trampled on. How so? The cops had a call and did their job. Now if they would have made you leave then yes they would have been wrong. But they didn't. Now i agree with your point that they shouldn't have been sent out at all. Makes me wonder if it isn't more a procedure/policy issue more then someone on the take. Don't they by law have to go to every call even if they suspect its bs?
anyways like i said i meant no disrespect at all. And forgive the typing. Im still getting use to this droid charge phone.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by canucksailor

To repeat myself, there were no assumptions. This is what I was told by the officers in attendance.

I find it funny to be defending myself here. Aren't Americans the ones who are supposed to be good at standing up for their rights?

There is the assumption that the officers would actually know if the chief had been contacted by this fellow. It seems unlikely to me the Chief of a major metropolitan center would share that information with patrol officers and more likely was an office rumour they were furthering, well founded or otherwise. It certainly wouldn't stand as proof.

Not everyone would choose to stand up for their rights in the same manner as you have. Your belief that because the chief is well paid you should be able to make claims against the man's reputation and still have a meaningful communication with him is flawed and likely to work against any effort to achieve your goals.

Answering the problem of a public nuisance by becoming one yourself may work but I suspect not.

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Lifegoal2sail

The cops had a call and did their job. Now if they would have made you leave then yes they would have been wrong. But they didn't. Now i agree with your point that they shouldn't have been sent out at all. Makes me wonder if it isn't more a procedure/policy issue more then someone on the take. Don't they by law have to go to every call even if they suspect its bs?
anyways like i said i meant no disrespect at all. And forgive the typing. Im still getting use to this droid charge phone.

The police should have said to the complainer: "Sorry sir, the boat has a right to be there, and any harrassment by you is illegal. By the way, we've heard complaints from your neighbors about you shining bright lights and playing loud music. We suggest you be more neighborly (or else ... )."

[canucksailor]

The police should have said to the complainer: "Sorry sir, the boat has a right to be there, and any harrassment by you is illegal.

Thank you Mark Pierce. That is EXACTLY the way this should have been handled, and it is exactly that that I am trying to get the Chief of Police to agree to.
And until that happens, I'm going to be, as Hummingway has said, a "public nuisance".
Change doesn't come from sitting back in your computer chair and complaining online. If it did, the world, from what I can see, would be perfect.

[canucksailor]

Your belief that because the chief is well paid you should be able to make claims against the man's reputation and still have a meaningful communication with him is flawed

Hummingway, that is not what I said, nor meant. The chief is paid to do the job - that means he takes the complaints, founded or not - and deals with them. I've been told, by the officers in attendance, that Karlton has given political donations and as a result, he gets favourable treatment.
As for meaningful communication - he needs to get past his annoyance about my stating that someone has clout in his department because of political donations. Why? Because, based on what has occurred, it's true. And once he's past that annoyance, he needs to deal with it. Dealing with it, in part, means responding to me, since I've asked the questions. If he wants an easier job, he should go sling burgers somewhere.
Doesn't matter WHO got the donation, someone is out of line here if the way the police department operates is affected.

There is the assumption that the officers would actually know if the chief had been contacted by this fellow.

That's not what was said, nor what I've reported. No one, not I and least of all the officers, claimed that the Chief was involved. He's just the guy in charge. The officers just said they were there because Karlton had clout based on his political donations. That points at municipal politicians, since police staff supervisors aren't elected.
See Mark Pierce's remarks above for the way the chief should handle this. And as I said, until I hear that response, I don't intend to go away.

[Khagan1227]

Originally Posted by canucksailor

Ok...first, Khagan's comments. My father was a police officer, I'm quite familiar with how they work, country of birth notwithstanding. I know, better than most, what their point of view is and I'm quite sympathetic to it.
Now, to correct some points - first of all - the police TOLD us that Karlton made the call. I didn't pick that out of thin air. They pointed to his house, and there he was, watching what was going on while pretending to wash his boat.
The officers made it clear that they didn't want to be there, but had no choice, as Karlton has political clout, that he had made some big donations. If you research the man's name, you'll find he supported a number of politicians, including some local ones, and ran (unsuccessfully) himself. He also had allegations about spousal violence a few years ago, but those seem to have gone nowhere and aren't of importance here - although I wonder why, given what I've learned.
His neighbours DO have a dog in this hunt. They've complained about Karlton's playing loud rap music to bother people at anchor. I believe another neighbour has complained about his spotlight shining in her windows from the other side of the lake when he's shining it on someone at anchor. Karlton is smart enough to turn the music off at the time mandated by local ordinance, so he's gotten away with that one.
The police are NOT doing their job when they are violating someone's rights - which is what the police were doing, no matter how polite they were about it.
And they knew it. They were not happy about it either, but someone - their sergeant, lieutenant, a local politician, gave them their marching orders and they had no choice.
As for choosing the mayor as my first contact - she's the boss. After over 20 years as a journalist, I've learned - you go to the top in a situation like this one. Since I couldn't identify the person who sent the officers out to us, I chose to go with the mayor. She's the boss.
As for the chief being offended - fine. He's also in the wrong if his officers are dancing to the tune of a private citizen, as they were. These are hardly allegations. This is what happened. If anyone should be offended, it should be me, since it was my rights being trampled on.
The chief is well paid to be offended - he's also paid to see his supervisors and officers obey the law and don't harass people who are legally going about their affairs. I believe our countries have fought a couple of wars over these principals? Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but my rights matter to me. I don't like them being trampled on, however politely.
I'll let you in on a little secret - once I know, for certain, that the police won't be bothering cruisers at anchor there anymore, I won't be anchoring there myself. There's lots of room and I don' t need to aggravate the man. But until this is settled, I'll anchor right in front of his house. Why? Because it's my right to do so. And it's your right too - the difference is, I'm the one fighting for it.
Lifegoal -

I'll ignore your use of caps there and presume that the keys on your computer are sticky. To repeat myself, there were no assumptions. This is what I was told by the officers in attendance.

I find it funny to be defending myself here. Aren't Americans the ones who are supposed to be good at standing up for their rights?

A Police Office in Canada is NOT the same as one everywhere else. Talk to one in New York City, Miami and Bainbridge Georgia, and you'll understand they all have different needs and problems. The Chief of Police, nor any other Police Officer is NOT paid to be offended; like everyone, they should be treated with respect. Since you are familiar with the duties of law enforcement in the U.S., I'm sure you know the police officers dispatched to the scene are sent there by a dispatcher, not a sargent, and certainly not a politician.

I spent 20 years in uniform (loosing many of the rights my feloow citizens enjoyed) defending the rights of American citizens and guests to this country to say what they please, even if I don't agree with what they have to say. I also served to defend the rights of Mr. Karlton's neighbors and the much malinged Miami Police force. That said, I made no disagreement with you concerning Mr. Karlton, I did not see where you posted the Police Officers informed you who called. I only asked that a cool head rule here and not the outragious passion because there are innocent bystanders involved. If Mr. Karlton's neighbors do not wish to get involved with his conduct, that is THEIR right and as such also have the right to peace, be it from Karlton or a bunch of angry boaters protesting Mr. Karlton. Many communities are banning anchoring in their waters, actions such as I've see proposed on this thread are only a catylst for more communities to follow suit, then you nor I have "rights".

I dare say, and I have no reason not to believe you, but the Police Officers involved were UNprofessional in their conduct. Why, because, no Police Officer I know, and I know MANY (caps not stuck) would NEVER tell who called and complained, it only causes them MORE problems, your issue with Mr. Karlton is a case in point.

In any case, you have no PROOF the Miami Police supported Mr. Karlton's action through political means or otherwise, pure speculation. Making such statements to the Chief of Police didn't help your cause one bit.

I'll let you know a little secret, I would have been the first to anchor off his house and I wouldn't have moved, I don't like bullies either, including those that make unjustifiable statements about my positions.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by canucksailor

Hummingway, that is not what I said, nor meant. The chief is paid to do the job - that means he takes the complaints, founded or not - and deals with them. I've been told, by the officers in attendance, that Karlton has given political donations and as a result, he gets favourable treatment.

There is a considerable difference between a complaint and an allegation. You have made allegations and he would be a fool to carry on further communication directly with you.

[Khagan1227]

As a home owner and part time resident of Florida, I just remembered that Florida has a sunshine law and the transcript of the call the Police Officers received is public, as is the dispatcher's call to the unit responding. Time to do some hunting.

I wonder if GordMay can find the transcripts first..

[canucksailor]

I'm sure you know the police officers dispatched to the scene are sent there by a dispatcher, not a sargent, and certainly not a politician.

That's right, and the dispatcher also gets to make certain decisions. If the call is not legit, he simply informs the person that there are no grounds to complain a la Mark Pierce's remarks, thanks him for calling, and goes on to the next call. That is what the procedure is supposed to be. That it didn't go down that way argues that someone has said that Karlton's complaints are to be acted on.
Who done it? No idea, but it's the Chief's job to deal with it. He's the public face of the force and part of his job is dealing with people like me.

Many communities are banning anchoring in their waters,

Not in Florida they aren't. We've had that fight and we've won it. Municipalities are barred by state law from enacting anchoring restrictions. The few that tried, such as Naples and Stuart, got their asses handed to them by a judge. Now it's just some 'mopping up' actions such as this one. The city is not the problem, it's whoever is putting the pressure on the police to send out these officers.
You have a point about the officers telling us who complained - but I think they are simply fed up with having to run out and do his dirty work for him. A couple of years ago, Karlton used to tell people his wife had a problem with people anchoring, and 'would you mind moving'? Well, his wife has left him (according to the media) and now his tactics have changed, but that doesn't make it right.

In any case, you have no PROOF the Miami Police supported Mr. Karlton's action through political means or otherwise, pure speculation.

The police came out. That's all the proof required. Someone has put the fix in. I guarantee you, if someone in the condos on the south side of the Venetian East bridge called and complained about someone anchoring there, it wouldn't have been acted upon. We'd have heard about it. So what's the difference here?
Yup - political clout. Money.
So - wanna raft up outside Karlton's place?

[canucksailor]

Khagan, now THAT is interesting. Who wants to do the heavy lifting and report back?

[canucksailor]

You have made allegations and he would be a fool to carry on further communication directly with you.

He is being more foolish by not engaging me and proving me wrong - IF he can. Also - he needs to deal with this issue, since it involves his officers violating people's rights.
A smart manager takes a complaint, however unjustified it might be, whatever allegations might be made, and resolves it. Done right, it's a win-win all around.
Where's the Chief's intransigence in not dealing with me going to get him? I'm not the type to give in, so it's just going to give him more grief. I've re-contacted the Mayor and also now the City Attorney - at some point, someone is going to tell the Chief that he's going to have to clean this up, so he might as well cut out the middlemen and deal directly with me.
And regardless of anything - his officers had NO RIGHT to be responding to that call. He has to deal with that. Let's not forget what the issue is here, since you and the Chief seem to have done just that.

[Khagan1227]

Originally Posted by canucksailor

That's right, and the dispatcher also gets to make certain decisions. If the call is not legit, he simply informs the person that there are no grounds to complain a la Mark Pierce's remarks, thanks him for calling, and goes on to the next call. That is what the procedure is supposed to be.

Uh, no. The CAD for MPD take the calls and decides on the criticallity of the call, the communications operators then dispatch the units. The COs are specifically trained for this duty.

Computer Aided Dispatch - Miami Police Department

Done:

Records - Miami Police Department

Please provide the date and time of your anchor/incident, that will make my call (and research) to the MPD easier.

If the local police are in his pocket, I wonder why he didn't call the Police on Seaventure (early January) or MV Closeknit (early May).

[canucksailor]

I'll pm you the information. As for why he didn't call the police on Seaventure or Closeknit, no idea. He's changed tactics a couple of times now.

[doug86]

Originally Posted by canucksailor

first of all - the police TOLD us that Karlton made the call. I didn't pick that out of thin air. They pointed to his house, and there he was, watching what was going on while pretending to wash his boat.
The officers made it clear that they didn't want to be there, but had no choice, as Karlton has political clout, that he had made some big donations.

Canuck, you admit that it is very strange that the officers would reveal to you who was the party making the complaint to the PD; in fact it may have been a violation of dept policy. If not a clear violation of policy, it certainly demonstrates a lack of discretion on their part.

So, you are making a big case here based on what you say the officers told you. I assume you have no recordings of the event, in which case it is your word against theirs as to what they said to you.

What happens to your case if they deny saying the things you claim they said? When they swear to the Chief that they made no mention of Karlton or politics, but stuck with the routine to politely ask you to move based on a local resident's complaint that they heard loud music coming from your boat...

Your allegations are all based on "he said/she said", and it is entirely possible that the story coming from those officers will not be the one you are telling.