The Place Where Ludington Talks
Kiddie Boots: Sheriff Cole Stages Another PR Stunt
Perhaps you have seen the latest press release from the Mason County's Sheriff's Office (MCSO). While you likely haven't seen the actual press release, if you tuned into some of the local news and radio stations today you've undoubtedly seen the release in a form packaged by Mason County's two main media outlets. the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) and the Mason County Press (MCP).
The MCP got the initial story out entitled Parents’ shoplifting leads to deputies buying shoes for their kids which told of us how privileged we are to have such a great MCSO. The article in the COLDNews: Mason County Sheriff's Office crew buys shoes for childre... was a bit shorter, and didn't tell any more other than the title of the person who approached the sheriff.
Half a day after the MCP article a lot of Michigan news outlets ran with the story, either borrowing from the MCP or the COLDNews accounts, including the following:
Did this story go media-viral organically as it is made to look, or was their a concerted effort made by the MCSO to get some positive recognition for themselves on the eve of a sheriff's election year, when many of the MCSO's actions have come under criticism by many in the Mason County public (but never in the two media mentioned)?
I assert the belief that the events were staged, not much unlike the Black Friday video Willy introduced us to. I include the original story at the MCP and the picture provided by the editor, highlighting the various parts I comment on later.
LUDINGTON — Deputies from Mason County Sheriff’s Office get called to retail stores frequently for shoplifting complaints. The evening of Oct. 6 was no different. Sgt. Adam Lamb and his crew of deputies John Balowski and Kyle Boyd, were called to Wal-Mart for a complaint of a husband and wife who were caught by store security for stealing hunting supplies and children’s shoes. The couple was with their two young children.
“Deputy Balowski proceeded to interview the husband while Deputy Boyd and I spoke to the wife,” said Sgt. Lamb. “The children looked to be ages 2 and 4. We found out through speaking with them that they were having an extremely difficult time financially, which is why they stole the items. The husband had hoped to harvest a deer with the hunting supplies and to put shoes on his kids’ feet.
“I noticed the children didn’t have any shoes on and I asked the mother if the kids had shoes. She said yes and showed me two pair of very worn out shoes with holes in them.
“The kids were crying and the 4-year-old kept asking us not to arrest their daddy. It’s always a tough position to be in because when the law is broken we have to do our jobs. But, it’s tough for kids to see their daddy get arrested. We don’t want kids to have the impression that police are people who take their parents away.”
The father was charged with retail fraud third degree, a misdemeanor.
The three deputies talked about the incident and decided they needed to do something for the children. So, they pooled their money and bought shoes for the kids. They didn’t tell anyone. They just brought the shoes to the mother, who was tearfully grateful for the gift, Sgt. Lamb said.
“We weren’t looking for any recognition,” Lamb said. “Any one of the deputies on this department would do and has done the same thing.”
Their secret was safe until word got out and someone spoke to the sheriff.
“Adam, Kyle and John are examples of deputies we expect to serve the citizens of Mason County,” Sheriff Kim Cole said. “I hear these stories all the time, not from my deputies but from the public. These men didn’t do anything for any glory and didn’t even think it necessary to tell me about what they did. They love serving and ask nothing in return. They are similar to officers in uniform who daily protect and serve their citizens across the country.”
“We all have children whose ages are close proximity to the kids from this incident,” Deputy Balowski said. “It’s very likely that our children will go to school with these kids and that we, as parents, will be at school functions and other activities with these parents. I think it’s in our best interest as law enforcement to set an example for our children and for adults. Sure, we have to enforce the law and there has to be consequences for stealing. But, people fall under hard times and we are all neighbors here.”
The first clue is the picture of Deputy Balowski and Sergeant Lamb which heads up the article. The incident happened in October, and yet the photograph was taken very recently at Walmart with the kid's shoe department in the background. You can tell it's been taken in mid to late November because of the officer's beards created during 'No-shave November', another publicity stunt where the deputies sported beards to raise funds for the Boot (see related story).
So these in-uniform, on-duty officers who we are told by the sheriff have a great deal of modesty posed for the camera at the 'scene of the crime', and duly made their own observations to either Rob Alway of the MCP, or in a planned press release (see the blue highlights). All to show us they didn't want any public recognition for what happened. Walmart, in similar manner, humbly donated search and rescue flashlights to the MCSO (as related in the COLDNews and others), without wanting any public recognition for the fact.
Sure. If you really don't want any recognition for a random act of kindness, take a cue from Deputy Kyle Boyd, who didn't pose and didn't say anything about it. That's what modesty is, and if the other deputies were humble they would have done the same, and more than likely would be upset that Sheriff Cole decided to make a big deal of it.
We are told the three deputies pooled their money to buy the two young girls a pair of shoes each, which means they chipped in about $5 each since higher end Walmart baby and toddler shoes cost about $7 each. Five dollars is approximately what each deputy makes in wages every ten minutes.
What we are not told is that the court costs alone for the family will far overshadow the $15 the officers spent and the court may add onto that up to $500 more as punishment for the crime (see MCL 750.356d(4)). If our officers want to cover all that money lost to that family by purchasing necessities for the kids, then their efforts should be really commended.
Police are people that take parents away when the parents do something obviously unlawful like was done here. Their dad may, or may not, have had the right intentions, but the actions he did was wrong and this was a great opportunity to show these young girls that breaking the rules has consequences. Does anyone believe that the two kids will not be more averse to stealing after seeing what happened with daddy? However,...
Two different places say that both husband and wife stole the items. Why weren't both charged? If the law is to be enforced equally, why was she given a pass? Will the mother's two daughters grow up to think that the law applied only to their daddy and not their mommy? Will they think that the way to get new shoes for their kids is to steal from the big box store and get the police to buy them? Is this the best way to "set an example for our children and for adults" on how the system works? Neither are their kids likely to go to school with these kids since their parents live in Manistee.
This turned out to be the truly humanitarian act and something that these officers should be commended for. For if they had fully and reflexively applied the law here, they would have taken both parents into custody, and began the process to have the two children taken in, at least temporarily, by the cold arms of the state's child protection services. Where the two parents would have years ahead of them, at least, in convincing the system that they were fit parents once again, who would never again take them on a shoplifting spree.
And that would amount to the biggest crime, for I have researched both the mother's and father's online presences, and they seem to be otherwise proud and loving parents, who can hopefully recover from this setback, learn from their errors in judgment, and become responsible role models for their children.
Views: 1807
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by stump on
-
I agree that the officers shouldn't be show boating for the news paper on their act of kindness. What they did for the kids was commendable and by just arresting the father was also. Putting the children in foster care would have been a big mistake, it might not be over, someone still may inform protective services about the incident and it'll snowball from there.
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
Aren't there agencies that give clothing to needy families? Why can't this family qualify for State or County assistance? Anyone can get food stamps so why didn't this family qualify? The parents can't say they were to proud to take assistance if they were willing to commit a crime with their children in tow. Also, What hunting gear was he trying to steal that could be concealed and removed from the store? Did he stuff a rifle in his shorts? Did the family walk to Walmart, take public transportation or drift in via hot air balloon? This entire story doesn't make sense including, as X stated, the police's involvement in self congratulations. I do agree that involving Child Protective Services would be a terrible mistake but the parents didn't seem to be bothered by that possibility when they hatched this crime spree scenario.
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
There is little evidence that the perps in this situation were suffering from Dickensian style poverty. As noted, they live in and came from Manistee; from my research they live in a single family residence and appear not to be renting it. That they live in a house and that they have the means to get from Manistee to Ludington does not necessarily mean they are not currently in dire financial stress, but it indicates they were ill-advised to engage in petty larceny like this, especially with their kids in tow.
To his credit, the 29 y.o. man has not been caught stealing before this incident (hence the charge) and the items got were 'family necessities' rather than not. If the deputies really cared about the young family, one thinks they would have tried pointing the mom and dad to agencies in the Manistee area that could get them booties, food, and other help so they wouldn't have to resort to stealing in the future.
-
Permalink Reply by AQUAMAN on
-
Hmm, from Manistee eh? Article didn't say that, did it? I miss something? Goodwill often has many clothing items practically new or slightly used, for hardly anything. What did the guy steal in hunting supplies? He can't get any gun or ammo without going across the counter either. I kinda feel sorry for the young couple, but, they have to use some common sense when going out together shopping, else everyone can steal too. As for the MCSO, I like what the officers on the scene did, but modesty and being confidential in these matters isn't Cole's forte. Hope everything gets sorted out and worked out in the end. It's hard to imagine the kids shoes being so tattered with holes and worn out too, when they grow out of them real fast at that age.
-
-
The articles don't say where the folks are from, but it wasn't rocket science to use the MCP's and the COLDNews fascination with carpet 'cops and court coverage' to get the name of the guy with retail fraud on October 6, and then use other internet resources to verify that he has a couple of girls of the appropriate ages and a big interest in hunting.
I am sure Sheriff Cole heard about what happened that day in October shortly after it happened, and went to the media, who ultimately decided to bring it up at the beginning of December so as to make "Shop with a Cop" time a little bit less scary for the kids.
As stump points out, the police are currently needing some major band-aids in the way they are perceived by the folks, even the law-abiding ones. I offer the same advice they give to the criminals: obey the law, be faithful to your civic duties, and don't violate the rights or take the property of others.
-
-
Stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you. They took property that belonged to Wal-Mart without paying for it. I don't think the deputies had a choice in arresting man, he must have had the items on him and Wal-Mart made the charge,shoplifting. There are plenty of organizations out there mostly used by people who don't need help. I'm sure he won't be stealing anything anymore unless he truly is a dumb ass.
-
Permalink Reply by Jasper on
-
What I find interesting in this article these kid's had no shoes on their feet. The other interesting fact is a four year old telling these MCSO "don't take my daddy to jail." Really??? A four year old understands this??? Unless the four year old has witnessed other interactions with the police in the past. Per the usual Sheriff Cole with all of his narcissist patterns of behavior.
-
-
Seriously if a homeless person was stealing food would the MCSO deputies be this kind and forgiving??? These people broke the law by stealing. What I see is cops recently attempting to preserve their images after so many "bad cops" have tarnished all of law enforcement.
-
-
But if the Deputies would have arrested the mom and dad, Tommy and all of you would be throwing a fit about them being big tough guys and call them jerks. You would be asking why didn't they cut them a break and they should have used "our tax money" to buy the kids shoes. Once again for the LEO"s of Mason County its a lose lose situation. Tom will always find something to throw a fit over, like posting the article to get more attention, but his entire reasoning for posting the article is complaining news outlets posted it.
Stump, why would the kids say, "Don't shoot my daddy?" How often have police shot someones innocent father in front of them? You say it as that its a common technique by police. Or you are just trying to be funny, but it wasn't.
You blame the Sheriff, for this article, but I can you say it wasn't Walmart wanting to do the story? I'll tell you why Tom, its because you come up accusations for everything and twist it into Tommy's story. Did you do any research of finding out how the story got out, or did you just base your personal dislike of law enforcement in Mason County to start finger pointing.
It is my belief that Law Enforcement doesn't have a choice in the charges on the man. I believe if Walmart wants to press charges they can and then the Prosecutor makes the decision. Then again, with your legal background Tommy you may be light years ahead of me with your knowledge.
-
-
Real Talk, your overreactions point to you being a local LEO, and don't like anyone second guessing your authority. Why join and comment on this forum if you have nothing positive to post with other folks? It's hard to agree with hateful posters, don't you think? Authority freaks without real good cop dedication, and over-the-top aggressiveness in their job is what most on this forum have complained about. I don't believe you have lived around here very long, probably from downstate, big city. No one here complained about the actions of the officers in real hysteria, I compliment them, this time. Having a little respect for others here and debating with some decorum would be nice of you, thanks in advance for your courtesies in the future.
-
-
Real Talk, thanks one again for telling us what we think like here, and what we would have done if conditions were different. I remind you once again that it is improper forum etiquette to refer to someone by their off-screen name.
Walmart cannot press criminal charges, they can pursue civil remedies to recover their loss, which they won't in this case (see this source). The deputies have the ultimate choice in considering to file a criminal complaint to the prosecutor, which they did. The Walmart representative is apparently content with what the deputies in this case did, and is also a willing accomplice to Sheriff Cole in being part of this PR campaign, which looks good for Walmart.
As noted in the article, I believed the greatest act of mercy in this scenario was what wasn't touched on in the story, in that they decided not to pursue charges on both parents, even though both were portrayed as thieves. This was a lot more helpful than pitching in $5 each for baby booties, for if they had nabbed both parents, this family would have never ever been the same again.
If you give a young family going through hard times $5 for new boots for their toddlers with one hand, while giving them a bill for at least $500 with the other, even if it's your job and the proper thing to do, it's not the ultimate act of heroism or charity.
As for your aspersions towards my motivations and character, cast without regard to the words and plain interpretations of what I've written, I stand by my writings which clearly debunk your words.
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
