Guest River Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 He was in YCSO uniform representing the YCSO. I didn't make a determination on his duty status, although technically an LEO is on duty 24/7/365. There is no question that that interview would have to be approved by the Sheriff. The Sergeant was using County equipment that belongs to the Sheriff's dept. If he took it upon himself to do this without clearance, he'd most likely no longer have been working there. While I don't know the specifics of that agency's protocol(SOP), I'm quite certain that their employees cannot make decisions about how they promote the Sheriff's office without his expressed permission. Why would he make an official incident report? It's not a crime to be a large, hairy , Biped crossing the road is it? It's an odd occurance and I suppose he could have done a misc. report, and he may have, but we don't know at this point. There may have been an internal investigation, in which case we wouldn't know about it. Yeah, thats why I put it in quotations. As in on official duty or on the clock. Then again maybe the sherrifs office would allow for him and his wife to cruise around town while being interviewed about seeing sasquatch. If the event really occurred I don't see any reason why the sherrifs office wouldnt want more people to know about the hairy bipeds in the forest near town. Maybe that was the case, and why the interview happened under those circumstances. Certainly we're speculating! haha. The whole point I was trying to make though, a cop is a person like you and I. (being that you have experience as an LEO and you're also a person!) I'm not saying that because GA bigfoot guys (one had leo experience and one correction officer experience) in their off duty time made up the hoax that every officer in their off duty time would create such a thing. Just that it happens, and has happened. The other point was that had an official report been made then I might take it with more credence. (but not as any proof, just that the person is willing to "go on official record") If they were found to be lying would definitely be risking their job by filing a false report. (and possible jail time depending on the circumstances) Its definitely been presented as if the sherrifs office approved the footage we see of the officer. It's hard to know if they did have any "official" permission or not without investigating it though. Probably would be easier to contact him directly if hes still in the area. That would be cool to find out if there was any official report or if it was followed up in any way. (or just another "road crossing" reported incident for the books)
Guest Kerchak Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 I've sent an email to Sgt. Gamache (retired) inviting him to the forum and to take part in a discussion regarding his experiences with Bigfoot. I'll post any updates/replies here. Wow. Very cool. I appreciate your efforts. I well remember watching that same interview with Gamache almost 30 years ago on t.v. I was glad I found it on You Tube. Even if you don't get him to post here it sure would be interesting to hear how he feels about his sighting today.
Guest Kerchak Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 I actually ended up watching quite a few of those after I watched the related ones! Cool stuff. Yes there are lots of cool things to be found on You Tube. Whoever started You Tube should get a medal. I even catch old films I had forgotten about years ago.
Guest stansie Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Just wondering. Has anyone ever asked the eye witness to perform a simple eye sight test?
masterbarber Posted October 29, 2010 Admin Posted October 29, 2010 Wow. Very cool. I appreciate your efforts. I well remember watching that same interview with Gamache almost 30 years ago on t.v. I was glad I found it on You Tube. Even if you don't get him to post here it sure would be interesting to hear how he feels about his sighting today. Thanks, I certainly hope he responds. I'm sure we would all be interested in hearing more about his encounter and his experiences responding to calls of reported activity.
Branco Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 He was in YCSO uniform representing the YCSO. I didn't make a determination on his duty status, although technically an LEO is on duty 24/7/365. There is no question that that interview would have to be approved by the Sheriff. The Sergeant was using County equipment that belongs to the Sheriff's dept. If he took it upon himself to do this without clearance, he'd most likely no longer have been working there. While I don't know the specifics of that agency's protocol(SOP), I'm quite certain that their employees cannot make decisions about how they promote the Sheriff's office without his expressed permission. Why would he make an official incident report? It's not a crime to be a large, hairy , Biped crossing the road is it? It's an odd occurance and I suppose he could have done a misc. report, and he may have, but we don't know at this point. There may have been an internal investigation, in which case we wouldn't know about it. ANY interview that has to be "approved" by ANYONE is not a frigging interview; its what is called censorship. And as an ex-LEO, and the officers I worked with, we did not put up with that s---. The job is one thing, the truth, personal dignity, and one's moral character is different. Forget the d--- job. That is one of the things that has ruined this country.
masterbarber Posted October 29, 2010 Admin Posted October 29, 2010 ANY interview that has to be "approved" by ANYONE is not a frigging interview; its what is called censorship. And as an ex-LEO, and the officers I worked with, we did not put up with that s---. The job is one thing, the truth, personal dignity, and one's moral character is different. Forget the d--- job. That is one of the things that has ruined this country. Thanks for the laugh. If I believed one word of it, I might have a response to that.
Guest Posted October 30, 2010 Posted October 30, 2010 When someone appears in a uniform, correctly or not they are putting the imprimatur of whatever organization the uniform belongs to on whatever they say and do. That's why police, firemen, military, etc have so many regs about what they say and do in uniform.
Branco Posted October 30, 2010 Posted October 30, 2010 When someone appears in a uniform, correctly or not they are putting the imprimatur of whatever organization the uniform belongs to on whatever they say and do. That's why police, firemen, military, etc have so many regs about what they say and do in uniform. D--- right! Some are gutless enough to keep their job by lying or covering up for their "superiors". Some don't. One of the things wrong with this country now. Blatter on, it pegs you for what you are.
Guest Posted October 30, 2010 Posted October 30, 2010 ^Hystrionics aside, you don't seem to understand the necessity for LE to protect it's reputation. The word of an LEO can send someone to jail, or keep them out of it. It is VITAL that they be considered trustworthy and reliable witnesses. The department DOES have a legitimate interest in what is said and done by it's officers, particularly when they are in uniform (on duty or not). That's not being "gutless". That's making sure that when you catch that serial rapist that some shyster lawyer cant' get him off by challenging your officers' reliability. That's why BF incidents that make it to the "blotter" (official police notice) are in my mind such important pieces of evidence: because of the established reliability and integrity shown by the overwhelming majority of LEOs, as required by the nature of the job.
Branco Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 ^Hystrionics aside, you don't seem to understand the necessity for LE to protect it's reputation. The word of an LEO can send someone to jail, or keep them out of it. It is VITAL that they be considered trustworthy and reliable witnesses. The department DOES have a legitimate interest in what is said and done by it's officers, particularly when they are in uniform (on duty or not). That's not being "gutless". That's making sure that when you catch that serial rapist that some shyster lawyer cant' get him off by challenging your officers' reliability. That's why BF incidents that make it to the "blotter" (official police notice) are in my mind such important pieces of evidence: because of the established reliability and integrity shown by the overwhelming majority of LEOs, as required by the nature of the job. If you were and LEO and saw one killing livestock. Would you report exactly what you saw, and not accept any modifications by the Shift Commander? Yes or No?
Guest vilnoori Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 Well a LEO can be descriptive and call it simply the subject, without giving an interpretation on what exactly it was. Just describe. It can still be honest, just allow the listeners to come to their own conclusions on what exactly it is: subject was approximately 8 feet tall subject appeared to be a naked female as breasts were easily apparent subject was covered in a dark material that appeared to be hair or fur which also covered the back of the hands, etc.
Guest Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 ^I would also point out that in such a case there would be physical evidence to back the claim (the dead livestock and associated evidence). Branco, I don't think it's as simple as you seem to want to make it out as. 1) If all I did was see one and had no trace evidence to back the claim up, I would think long and hard before making any sort of declaration. I would have good reason to be reticent. It could, however improperly, cost me my job. 2) If my sherrif/chief ordered me to NOT make any public statements in uniform, I would absolutely comply, as it is a lawful order from my boss. If he ordered me to not make any public statements PERIOD, see #1. IF there was significant evidence to back my claim (the scream recording, or the tracks and hairs in the White Mountain case, for example), I would probably make a straightforward, factual report of what I saw without using a "trigger word" like Bigfoot.
Guest stansie Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 I am not sure on the metohds used when investigating this so i will ask again. Have any of the eye witnesses particapated in a simple eye sight test. I have read that people have used polygraphs etc. But has anyone established the person involved has a good level of eye sight to start with. This would be i think the first thing to establish. If they give you a good description of bigfoot with lots of detail but fail to read a car number plate at twenty feet. Then the obvious speaks for it's self.
Guest Posted November 1, 2010 Posted November 1, 2010 You can put this in the "for what it's worth" file... I'm a 30 year LEO and Deputy Chief of my department. One of my duties is to review videos from the in-car systems in our patrol cars, usually in the neighborhood of 8-12 every couple weeks. Another of my duties is to investigate citizen complaints and a big part of that is to review the incident as it's captured on the video... Almost w/o exception, the citizen's recall & perception of an incident is demonstrated by the video to be incorrect, anywhere from slightly to wildy so. This is usually not because they were lying, but that unless trained to do so, most average joes simply can't assimilate even relatively slowly unfolding events accurately. Also, in the videos I review, there is often alchol and/or drug intoxication, which doesn't help recall at all... On the other hand, LEOs who are trained to observe & report usually do so pretty accurately, as proven to me by these videos. I say usually as under highly stressful conditions, even officers can get tunnel vision & recall as such. I will advise a trained Police Marksman (sniper) whose primary role it is to scout & gather info, the detailed recall is usually very impressive. I am of this brotherhood and a huge part of my training was to observe absorb information then recall and relate it accurately, not just shoot accurately under pressure. So for me with an interest in this subject, I know that often times what is experienced by the layman maybe isn't exactly what happened or at least as they remember it. It can be colored by perception or preconception... Again, for what it's worth...
Recommended Posts