Keep Angels’ Patrol

A friend was good enough to email me concerning a recent editorial
in the QC Times titled Suspend Angels’ Patrol that had
the Times editorial board as author. Since my response would take
up a lot of the comment section to the story I thought a response
as the Cruisin’ editorial board may be in order. Please remember
that this is the opinion of the Cruisin’ editorial board.

Since their piece was stated to be an opinion I will try to keep
that in mind with my opinion of their opinion. As someone who has
personally been on over 200 Safety Patrols in which neither a
Guardian Angel or member of the public was injured I have to
wonder how old the editorial board is. It is obvious that the
members have never made a mistake or had a situation get out of
hand.

Anyone who seriously thinks Guardian Angels go out looking to
hurt someone during a safety patrol has not done much research.
The International Alliance of the Guardian Angels would not have
been around for over 31 years if that was the case.

In this age of the internet spreading news almost as it happens
it only takes a short time for any story to span the globe. I
don’t know how an intelligent person could believe that we are
not aware of that.

We, as a group, have asked the city for nothing beyond doing
the background checks. We have never asked the city for a dime
of financing, or a place to meet. As volunteers we are told by
trainers in the Guardian Angels that our jobs, family, and schools
come first.

Based on the wording of the opinion piece I am led to believe
that the Times editorial staff must not read their own paper.
In a recent column it was stated that the local chapter will
not patrol without the supervision of the Chicago chapter. If
we only patrol under the direction of a chapter that has been
around for several years, and those involved and charged with
the incident are not allowed to patrol; where is the problem?

Lastly, I don’t know where a newspaper gets off being judge,
jury, and executioner before the case even goes to court. I
have to wonder what happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
Comments are always welcome.

Advertisements

8 Responses to Keep Angels’ Patrol

  1. QC Ghost says:

    ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ only applies to the actual jury and actual judge; the rest of us can believe anything we want. The arresting officer doesn’t believe they’re innocent or there would be no charges. Cops arrive on the scene and find an injured individual; whether or not that individual has a ‘recored’ is irrelevant. Those of us who support the Angels should avoid the fray. Please remember, when you debate with fools, onlookers won’t be able to tell who’s who. Ghost

  2. Anonymous says:

    You are right on Cruiser

  3. cruisin2 says:

    QC Ghost,
    True, but if the paper brings up the fact that Nitro was arrested 11 years ago for theft they should also mention the alleged victims criminal past. Perhaps if the public knew the victim has been arrested for domestic assault, drug paraphernalia, and possession they wouldn’t give his allegations as much weight.

    Anonymous,
    Thank you. I am just a tad biased on this subject.

  4. QC Ghost says:

    Trying this case publicly taints the jury pool. I’ve only known the Angels personally for two month and all of our meeting have been in a social setting. Not one of the guys came across as a bully; in fact just the opposite…humble, appreciative and friendly. It’s painful reading the crap, but none of us were there. But whatever the outcome, I stand with the Angels, and if I’m wrong, I will still stand with the Angels and help them get through this any way I can. God bless them for what they volunteer to do! Ghost

  5. anonymous says:

    No good deed goes unpunished.

  6. cruisin2 says:

    QC Ghost,
    Thank you for your continuing support.

    anonymous,
    Isn’t that the truth and you should know as well as anybody.

  7. Anon says:

    Suspending the Guardian Angels patrol because of the alleged actions of a few members is like closing a whole school because one teacher had inappropriate contact with one student. Don’t be so quick to judge all on the alleged actions of a few.

  8. cruisin2 says:

    Anon,
    Thank you.

%d bloggers like this: