Once again, post your journal assignment as a COMMENT to this posting.
Bring in a hard copy on Wednesday as well.
Your journal should be at least 400 words. Please include the word count on the assignment.
Journal #3 in response to OTJ p. 29-50
Answer the following:
1. Smith often describes the officers as he observes them during their interviews. (Think back to Officer Spreng and the milkshake.) Focusing on either Rios's, Rojas's, or Hannus's profile, explain how Smith uses this tactic. Why did Smith decide to include this information? How is it effective? How might it be improved?
2. What have you learned about the CPD from reading the biographies in Part 1? What information was new to you? Were you surprised by anything?
3. Write five questions you have about the CPD.
13 comments:
1. I think, of these three profiles, he focuses more on Rojas’s hands more than any other physicality of the other two. He speaks of his broad shoulders, his hands joining in reverence/power, him grabbing his water glass. I think that the least, and possibly most, effective of these three descriptions was the water glass. It seemed like he was just adding it for dramatic effect at some points and it really didn’t seem to work. “He presses his hands around a glass of water but doesn’t lift it.” Why do I really care? This doesn’t add anything to the story and could be totally left out. Is it supposed to show deep reflection on the part of Rojas? I understand the actions by Rojas, but something about the way Smith portrays them just seems . . . unnecessary. On the other hand (no pun intended), when he describes his hands at the end, “continuing to wrap his hands around the water glass, Rojas couples a deep sigh with a nod of the head,” I think this adds to the emotion of the moment and serves as a good segway to the closing of this profile.
2. One of the main things that I have learned is that the people that become police come from all walks of life, but most of them do seem to feel ‘destined’ to be involved in this particular line of work. They also all seem somewhat humbled by having gone through some of these experiences. They don’t take a day for granted and as Rojas’s says, “. . .you never know what can happen on this job and how it will affect you. You never know what the future holds.”
I think it is very cool to live in a city that so many cops take pride in being a part of. I know that I do my job better when it is what I want to do rather than what I just happen to be doing at the time.
3. Five Questions about the Chicago police Department:
What kind of effect does their profession have on their lives after retirement? (Bad dreams, paranoia, etc.)
Looking back on the types of experiences that they have had, would they have preferred to be involved in a different profession?
If they had a choice, would they want to be involved in a different time period of the Chicago police?
Would they rather work in a higher crime zone, such as the 11th district, and get more action, or in a district like the 18th and mainly respond to bar fights and the like?
If there was no one around and they saw someone (convicted of a heinous crime) that was released from jail for some reason or another, would they shoot them? (not to kill them, just for the sake of shooting a really bad guy) Or, how much talking themselves out of it would they go through?
1. Smith uses the method of adding in small observations about the various officers and their appearances often while he interviews them and tells their personal stories. When used properly, it’s interesting as it shows the reader more about each officer and their personalities. While describing Officer Rojas, he often interjected with comments about his hands, which alluded to his respect for the force and how seriously he felt about the subjects discussed.
When telling Officer Hannus’ story, he interjected with brief descriptions of Hannus’ upbeat personality. I think this was effective in comparing it to the bad luck Hannus endured during his life, such as the early loss of his parents and the loss of a multimillion-dollar company. He begins the section by telling the ironic story of Hannus’ grandfather’s death as it is compared to his own close call with death. Smith describes Hannus as telling the story while releasing “soft, genuine chuckles”, which introduces us to Hannus’ easy going personality.
Later in the story, Smith describes Hannus’ office, which contains a book titled Keep Believing and the Holy Bible. These details may seem simple but can tell the reader a lot about a person. His patriotism is shown through the Patrick Henry portraits, which are mentioned as hanging on the wall. Smith describes his actions and words as coming with “speed and confidence.” I think that Smith was effective in describing these observations with the intent on elaborating Hannus’ good-humored spirit. In other cases I think the details were silly, such as the milkshake used when discussing Brian Spreng, but I think that the more minimal approach and subtle details are much more effective. I also thought describing the surroundings of Hannus’ office worked well in this sense.
2. I think from the reading so far I’ve learned that the Chicago Police Department is much more intense than I thought it was. Smith repeatedly mentions the mystique and danger involved with the Police Department here, which I hadn’t ever heard of before.
1. Is the job really as intense as Smith and the officers describe it, or his Smith deliberately just including all of the most shocking stories he hears?
2. How much do the officers get paid?
3. How many hours does an officer work on average per week?
4. Statistically, how many officers have families at home and how many live alone?
5. What’s the average age of a Chicago Police officer?
1. It is easy to forget sometimes the strong significance of body language that someone displays, especially while telling a story. Although the images of a milkshake in Officer Spreng's case or a glass of water in Officer Rojas's aren't ideal symbols to use, the body language surrounding them are what makes it at the very least notable. Using Officer Rojas and his glass of water as a reference, it is clear to see that the glass is not all the author is describing. Smith also decides to involve his description of clear language, broad shoulders, and sturdy hands. His hand gestures and posture at the time of the interview are full of hints as to how the officer was feeling if you investigate their meaning enough. His upright posture leads the reader to believe that he is a confident and strong man, and his sturdy and folded hands are reflections of his seriousness on the topic. Smith even states that "Rojas will bring his hands together to match the intensity of a story". Clearly, Smith included these seemingly irrelevant hand gestures and even water glasses as a look into how the Officer presents himself at the time of the interview instead of simply reading the dialogue. By painting a clear picture of Rojas's body language, it is made easier for the reader to "read in between the lines" of the questions and answers of the interview and I thought they were for the most part good additions to the text. However, at some points, it did seem like kind of a stretch to include the gestures Officer Rojas was making. For example, when he "presses his hands around a glass of water but doesn't lift it" it leaves very little for the reader to interpret. Personally, I think it is a completely empty gesture and was irrelevant to the rest of the story. If Smith took a better look at all of the motions and body language that he included and picked the more powerful ones to put in the text instead of the ones that were only filling up space, it would be a lot easier to understand the messages he is trying to communicate.
2. Since reading the article "Why is it so Hard to Fire a Policeman?" I have had mixed feelings about the Police Department as a whole, and the integrity of the policemen on an individual basis. Upon reading the biographies presented in the first part of the book, it is clear to see that the article I read was not a reflection on the department in its entirety, rather on a few crooked cops that got caught. I never knew how highly regarded the Chicago Police Department was before reading the biographies, most of the officers describe their dreams to be in such a great police force. It also surprised me that the officers maintain such a tight bond when there is such a large group of them, as described by Rojas when he says that "Despite Chicago's size, the department remains a close-knit group with shared goals".
3. Do most of the policemen in the CPD handle the adrenaline of the job appropriately, or do some lose their reasoning and do things they regret?
How is it decided whether or not a policeman was correct in killing a suspect?
How is it decided where individual policemen will patrol? Is it decided based on ability or are they placed at random?
In what ways have the CPD maintained their quality of being "historic" as mentioned by Officer Rojas?
How much involvement do the CPD Officers have in the follow up events of a crime, as in appearances in court, etc?
• I think that he uses these tactics by focusing on the body language of the officers. He is always talking about what he is doing with hands or how what they are saying with their eyes. With Officer C.K. Rojas I think he described his body language more deeply than with the other two officers. All the emotion that was clear in Rojas words seemed to also be a part of his body movements. For example, when he is talking about his beliefs about being active in life and living to the fullest he is sitting upright and is talking with a strong clear voice. On the contrary, when he is talking about the frightening part of being a police officer he is hunched, his eyes are closing at times, and he has his hands around a glass of water. I think that he includes this information because it adds realism to the stories. It adds the emotion that the officers are feeling as they reflect on the events. I think they are effective because it allows the reader to see the mental scars that were left in these officers’ memories. What I think could be improved about the way that he includes these tactics is the way he transitions them into the story. I feel that Smith jumps a lot as he writes.
• From reading these biographies I learned that each officer has his own unique background and that being a part of the Chicago Police Department is like an honor to most of them. When I think, or used to think, of police officers I usually just seen them as crime busters. I overlooked the part that they have lives outside of their work. I always just seem it from my perspective, but it is a whole new experience to hear the way things go down from their perspectives. The one thing that slightly surprised me is the difference in the ways that police officers are portrayed in movies and television versus how it is in reality. Usually in the media the officers always have their guns in their hands and shoot at anyone that is harm to them. In the book every officer has mentioned the importance of not using their weapons.
• Questions?
1. What do they tell their children when they are asked what they do at work? Do they soften it up and just say they protect?
2. Do they have a hard time falling asleep when they lay down to bed?
3. What do they do when they see a relative or friend doing something that is against the law?
4. When off duty do they interfere when they see others doing wrong?
5. Why do they think that in the media police officers are always eating donuts? Is there any truth to that?
1.)
Within this reading, it seems like Smith describes Art Hannus’s movements and surroundings in greater length and detail than the other two officers mentioned. Smith not only describes Hannus’s manner of speaking and actions, but every little detail of the retired officer’s new office in his own business that doesn’t quite relate to the Chicago Police Department. I believe Smith included this information to paint a clear picture in the mind of his audience his exact experience while interviewing Hannus. Smith also wanted to show that Hannus had the quirks of an everyday individual, so we would look at him as a person first and a police officer second. When Smith describes the books that Hannus has with him (Keep Believing and The Bible), it shows that police officers (whether retired or not) need spiritual counseling to get through the many hardships they bear and for all the brutality they must witness.
Although what Smith does with his details about his interviewees does convey appoint, it seems to be sloppily written. The material seems more suited for a newspaper column than a novel. Also, his “over-detailing” is not necessary. I really didn’t need to know what Hannus’s office looked like or how exactly he opened his file cabinet. It seems pretentious and nothing more than filler.
2.)
From the reading I realized that some police officers are really good guys. They really love their work and would do anything to protect Chicago’s citizens and keep the neighborhoods crime free. I also learned to appreciate Chicago more. All my life I’ve been dreaming and about moving to Los Angeles for the glitz and glam. But Chicago has that too; in its own dirty, grimy, violent kind of way. But Chicago has so much history and has housed individuals and groups that will live in infamy. And it also made me appreciate (some) Chicago Police Officers more. Although I know some great Chicago Police Officers, I know a hoard of crooked ones as well. But the straight police officers deserve all the respect in the world. Every single day, they put their lives on the line to protect complete strangers. And they do this with families waiting back home. They risk their families’ well-being just to make things a little bit better for Chicago, or anywhere for that matter. They are really heroes.
3.)
1.) How often does each specific crime occur on a daily basis? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? . . . etc.
2.) Do the officer’s family approve of that officer being in the force?
3.) How many officers make up the Chicago Police Department?
4.) How many women officers are in the Chicago Police Department?
5.) What is the average salary of an officer in Chicago?
6.) If an officer is killed on the job, does their family receive any sort of compensation?
word count: 474
1.I still feel that Smith is attempting to create a narrative aspect to the way he tells each officer's story that doesn't quite work as effectively as he wants it to. The stories recounted by the officers are not recounted in great detail but enough so to communicate the story and in a relatively conversational way, either through the words of the officers themselves or words that sound like they could come from the officers. Smith also finds it necessary to describe the interviews from which he gained this information, but does it less successfully than another writer may have, which I think is really where the problem is. He calls forth several references to the officer's movements and such – Rios covering his eyes while speaking, Rojas's hands, Hannus's jovial and confident attitude – but these references seem to come too briefly and with too little detail to fully take root in the reader's mind. I had to look back at the reading to accurately remember them. He obviously places reasonable importance on the nuances of body language and setting, but does not seem to understand how to portray them in a memorable or truly effective way.
2.I suppose that I've gained a slightly different perspective of what Chicago Police are like. Living here and being used to hearing so many negative news stories about the police, it's easy to gain a negative impression of them. On top of that, having little personal experience with them means that the actions of the department as an institution or of those cops who get on the news (for the wrong reasons) are the only source of any impression of the individual officers. It is refreshing to see human portrayals of Chicago police officers and their lives.
3.
- How do most officers really feel about some of the scandals in the department over the years?
- How do they feel about the media's portrayal of the Chicago Police Department?
- Does witnessing crime on a daily basis make them feel less secure when off duty, or more afraid for their families' safety?
- What do they feel are their limits as police officers? How much more power do they think they should have than a regular citizen?
- Do they ever resent people with easier, more mundane jobs?
WORD COUNT: 403
When Smith is describing the career of Art Hannus, he goes in to detail of what kind of struggles he had as a child. For instance, losing his parents, grandfathers, and business. This shows that he could possibly be a very sad, unhappy person. However, he is very positive and goodhearted and wants to do good for the community.
Smith also mentions that there is a copy of The Holy Bible on his coffee table. This was probably to show that Hannus has a strong belief system and good values and morals. I think these qualities are necessary for a police officer. In order to be in charge f the safety and wellbeing of a large city, you need to have some type or moral code. Smith wanted to show that the police officers have good values and are good people. Sometimes they get put into bad situations and they have to make tough decisions but at the end of the day they are just down to earth, normal guys.
I think that by talking about the Bible and Keep Believing Hannus’s coffee table, Smith proved that he had faith was a believer. I think that it was a necessary part to show how he has overcome his struggles. I also think that it was a little bit of overkill. If he had not mentioned as much of his personal life it would have gotten the same message across. I think more detail should go into the actual story the officer is trying to tell than his background.
I learned a lot about the CPD. These bios showed that the officers value partnership much more than I had thought. It seems to be the biggest part of the force. Almost every officer mentioned something relating to watching out for his partner or another officer. I was also shocked at how many calls they get a day. Coming from a small town, that was hard for me to imagine. I always knew police worked hard but hearing the stories firsthand made it much more concrete.
1. How long do officers usually stay on the force?
2. Do you get your partner on day one and keep him or is there a lot of partner switching?
3. Do police officers have to live in the district that they work in?
4. What kind of community service do police officers have to do?
5. Are most of the officers from Chicago or do they come from all around?
Word Count: 422
Cameron Crosson
Journal 3
Writing and Rhetoric 2
9/17/2008
Journal 3
Smith often describes his interviewees actions and behaviors in the text because it gives us insight into separate areas of their thinking. First, these descriptions provide windows into the character of the interviewee. The reader is given the description of Rojas choking his water glass for example, signifying his unwavering intensity on the job and off. In the case of Hannus, the reader is awarded a look at his bookshelf, including his bible. The details seem to describe the man in a general sense, summed up by a few general possessions. This tact seems disingenuous for the most part. Smith could have delved far deeper into the lives of these officers, and painted them as complex human beings, rather than one dimensional caricatures, symbols to serve a superficial portrait of police work. Secondly, these descriptions allow the reader a window into the emotional truth of the interviews, as evidenced by Rios' hand gestures interweaving with his words during his description of the work. We can tell, as readers, that the police work excites him now as much as ever.
In the interviews contained in this section the reader gets a sense of the danger of the job, the dedication the ob requires, and the toll the job exacts on the financial and emotional security of its participants. Rios' biography is rife with death and pain, that of officers and suspects. Rios' story illustrates the human price of working with the Chicago Police Department. A toll which, whether it be fellow officer, or suspect, resonates with officers for years to come. Hannus' biography was particularly illuminating for me. As Hannus describes his reasons for leaving the job, the reader is afforded a sense, perhaps for the first time, of the bureaucratic necessities of the municipality. Hannus' admission that he was forced to leave the job for financial reasons, and for his family's relocation was particularly surprising to me because in the book the reader isn't often confronted with the human costs of the system. Smith speaks about corruption, long hours, and the risks of the job at length, but for the first time he writes about the limitations of the system in a way that is not absolutist.
Questions about the CPD
1.In what ways could the policing be implemented in a more efficient way neighborhood by neighborhood?
2.How have negotiations with teamsters progressed in the union controversy?
3.How common is it for former CPD officers to work in the private security industry?
4.What are the racial demographics of the CPD?
5.What are the procedures in place for an officer down under fire, and how did Rios violate them in the case of Marquez?
To tell the truth the fact that he relies on this technique in every profile I have read so far is starting to bug me, I wish he could come up with another way to set the mood. Maybe instead of setting the scene for the present time he could avoid the present and jump into the past from the first word on and create more of the actual scene, thus creating a more interesting story. Yet at the same time I think he draws from the present time to show how these situations have formed the officers into the people they are today. Though in Rios’ story he starts the scene just the way I think it should be and it allows the reader to immediately get caught up in the story. He again falls back to his safe technique of discussing Rios’ hands. In one instance Smith says “Rios gazes at the kitchen countertop as he relays the events, pausing frequently to consider his words and seeking assurance that they meet the appropriate tone of reverence.” I find that this sentence is ill placed because it shows that unlike Smith would have you believe Rios actually does not know how to feel. I think that if this was really the sense the author obtained from Rios he should have discussed it more. Maybe discussing the fact that even though Rios does feel a certain amount of sadness he still has mixed emotions because it could have been him who died. I think showing this side of Rios would in a sense made him more human in nature, because only in experiences of great lost do we appreciate what we have. Another thing I dislike about this technique is that Smith uses someone’s physical traits to describe who they are as a person, what their attributes are, and it always seems to be a positive thing these people have. For example Smith says in Rios’ story, “his words joining with moving hands and intense speech, Rios, now 33 years old appears as eager to tackle the work as a rookie cop.” How does moving one’s hands with intense speech give a feeling that someone is eager to tackle police work? I think Rios could be speaking like this because like most people he boasting and telling stories and who wants to hear a story where there is no intensity? Throughout the story Smith describes Rios as being almost guilty of his actions while on the force, and now he is eager to continue his police work. Nay I think it is because Rios is now a detective and to show him in the “most truthful of lights” is to show a man who is not working the beat anymore. To show him in the “most truthful of lights” is to show a man who arrives on a scene after a crime has been committed, not before, not during, but after. If I believed that everyone I met had only positive attributes I would be a very limited person. I feel in every story he is trying to prove the person’s credit by telling us, the reader, how great they are. Show us the situation and let us, the reader, judge for ourselves.
What I have learned about CPD from reading the biographies in part one is that there are many different sides of police work. Some police officers never fire their guns while others will fire it multiple times as their work calls for it. Also I get a sense that like my brother who wants to be a firefighter there is a certain mold that police officers come from. Some call it duty I like to call it either a hero complex or the thrill of the chase, this is not to dismiss their work because it is important. I just find in reading these stories that most of the officers enjoy their work because it gives them a rush or maybe a sense of purpose, like they are preventing crime from happening. Also I learned that most of them start their careers in their twenties and that is a scary thought because at age twenty-two I am in no rush to get shot at. But like I said it takes a certain somebody to do this type of work and thank god because that means I don’t have to.
Questions:
1. What is the process to becoming a police officer?
2. What is the divorce rate in the CPD?
3. How do they decide priority on their calls?
4. What area of Chicago has the most police officers?
5. Where do most police officers live?
1. Smith's idea of commenting on what the police officers do during their interview is actually a very effective technique to help capture the emotion of the story-tellers. In doing so, he shows that even if the officer is telling the story for the first time or the 50th time, they still have many strong emotions attached to it. It's as such in Rojas's stories when he often squeezes a glass, although not picking it up to drink, while telling various tales. Rojas is remembering a strong emotion whenever he does so, and the reader can easily pick up on that.
2. I feel like even though I have only read what I consider a very small amount about the Chicago Police Department, it seems like I have learned quite a bit. First and foremost something about them just seems more “human” to me having read stories about emotional experiences from them. Back in Wisconsin, it always felt like too many people had a very Counter-Authority view on life as a whole, I could never really get an accurate opinion of them, although I sometimes see that here as well. This book gives readers, if anything else, perspective, which too many people fail to consider. I recall the story of Art Hannus (I think) when he said something that really caught my attention. He said that an officer’s finest moment is not when he fires his gun, but when he decides not to. The general idea back home is that every cop is just itching pull that trigger, and it’s something of a relief to know that’s wrong.
Most of the stories didn't really surprise me in any way though, except the part in Rojas's story when he mentioned that the technology there seemed "historic." It would seem to me that a place such as Chicago with as much crime as it gets to be top-of-the-line or at least up to date. There was also the former officer Art Hannus, possibly a one in a thousand person who never lets anything keep him down, ever. Just one of those kinds of people you really don’t see that often and a pleasant surprise to hear one of their stories.
Question 1 -
Roughly how much do CPD cops get paid?
Question 2-
Why hasn't CPD upgraded their technology?
Question 3-
What are some of the heavier crime times during the year?
Question 4-
What all kinds of training and education does someone need to become a Police Officer?
Question 5-
What are the conditions that must be met for a police officer to be able to use his gun?
Word count: 438
Smith uses the tactic of describing the officers as he observes them to give the reader a better understanding of the officers as people. With understanding of the officer comes understanding of his actions and stories. For example, Smith describes in depth how Officer Rojas holds his hands. He describes them as “a sign of reverence and … power.” Describing his hands like this gives the reader the idea that Rojas is in control and respectful. This tactic is effective because it gives the reader more information about the officers, even if it is indirect. Knowing more about Officer Rojas, it is easier for the reader to understand his actions. For example, if Smith had not described Rojas as “focused, intense” when he was speaking about his job, I would not have realized that is how Rojas handles his job as a police officer. Smith uses this tactic effectively most of the time, but sometimes it is very unclear what he is trying to convey with these descriptive details. I don’t understand why it is important to know exactly when Rojas takes a sip of his water. Details like this clutter the flow of the piece and confuse the reader.
After reading Part I, I have a better understanding of subtleties of the CPD. Previously, I was unaware that police could not arrest drug dealers if they did not catch them in the act. I was also surprise by how much overtime these officers must put in. I had not realized before, maybe just because I had not thought about it, that paperwork was so much a part of the job and sometimes family time has to be sacrificed to get the job done. It was very eye-opening to hear about what it’s like to kill a guy on the job. The scuffle went as I expected, but the aftermath of it all surprised me.
How many divisions is the city split up into?
How many officers are employed by the CPD?
Is there one main CPD headquarters or nothing but district buildings?
When in history did police officers have to start doing so much paperwork?
What is an officer’s salary?
!. Thought smith is able to comunicate his thoughts out well, I feel that sometimes he fails to make a connection to the reader. This I feel is because the average reader doesn't understand the life of a police officer, even if this literature was written to help the reader understand. How ever, I feel that some of smith's writing is much more subtle that the reader would like to realize. When he is describing things with what may seem like very insignificant values, He is actually describing much more on a metaphorical level. He made a connection somehow, with the diffuculites of a cop, to the grip that an officer has around a glass of water, which though may seem strange, is very creative.
2. I think that as a I reader I am starting to realize that I never quite understood how crazy it must be to be a police officer, espically in a tough city like chicago. I also think about how lucky I am live in the safer part of Chicago, even though sometimes I do worry about my safety at certain times in certain ares, I know that deep down, I am probably going to be ok.
3. (A) Whats the most intense situation youve been involved with?
(B) How many arrest do you make a day?
(C) How many criminals are injured or killed?
(D) How often does some one make a noticable mistake
(E) How often does a suspect talk his or her way out of a situation possibly leading to jail time?
1. He describes the officers' behaviors when he meets them, perhaps, to illustrate what these people are like when they are off-duty. Rather than telling stories about dealing with criminals and being in situations that most people can't relate to, Smith focused on the mundane. In Rojas's story, Smith focused on the officer's hand gestures, something that every reader could easily picture, while attempting to tell Rojas's experience in Chicago. I feel like Smith thought that these stories were not relatable or interesting to a general audience, and it seems like every mundane interjection he makes is merely a compensation for the fact that most people have never chased criminals around and watching trucks crash into things. I think a more effective technique to show that the officers he interviews are normal people would be to at least give descriptions of more than one gesture. For example, he could once mention Rojas's hands, but the next time, he could mention something else. He also seems to use very mundane word choices; he could at least change the word "says" to something more descriptive like "recalls", or "declares". At least the language wouldn't be boring then. I really don't think that this is at all effective because it makes each story seem longer than it needs to be, since they become filled with irrelevant details. I understand that there needs to be something to ground the stories and make them more relatable to non-officers, but describing how someone holds a glass of water, or sits in a chair, or drinks a milkshake, is too unrelated to their jobs as cops to hold any interest or to improve the story. For example, no reader would suddenly relate to a narration if he or she discovered that the protagonist liked the same kind of milkshake, or if he or she suddenly could clearly picture him holding a glass. I actually think that Smith, by adding his observations in this way, subtracts from the impact of the officers' stories.
2. I learned a little about how the officers deal with their jobs. The most memorable quote was that of Rios: "I'll have to deal with everything else as it comes". This simple quote shows the plain nature of the job; that is, the officers never know what will happen that day. Unlike most other professions, police officers have a job which varies drastically with each day. The stories in this book show just the hard days, or the ones with difficult decisions, or the career-defining ones. I think that the normal impression of officers is that they arrest kids speeding in cars because they have to fill their quota of arrests that month. These stories do show that officers do have to take their jobs seriously because once in a while they have life or death situations.
1. What percentage of officers have actually been in a situation where they could potentially be killed or in serious danger?
2. What is a normal day like for an officer?
3. Does the CPD offer any type of therapy for its officers?
4. We know that alcoholism and divorce are common, so how many officers actually go to therapy?
5. What affect does the career of the individual have on the family?
539
Post a Comment