Correctional Officers, A dying breed

I took the oath to God to do it right and carry out it with courage

I knew this the job I would see dead men walking

And walking in those shoes for whom I followed

After suffering so much pain and sorrow

I have nothing left to fear but fear itself


I was trained to do the job and not back down from anyone

I was told if their lips were moving they told you a lie

In this life and the life thereafter I wanted peace

My life is fulfilled as some laughter goes with it

There is nothin that will take it from me


I’m not breaking down on this now or ever

I will live with the nightmares in my head forever

Kickin back to those days when a throwdown meant you bled

And every word you said was how it was read

Do not wonder if I am sad


I did my job with honesty and courage

I didn’t get into this because I cared or fought for change

Dancing with the devil has made me stronger and better

But nothin last forever and soon I will be dead


Standing up straight for I did my time with honor

Death can’t take that away from me

And when the smoke of that torpedo fades

That will be the day I will no longer be

A dying breed

The Uniform

The sole purpose of the uniform is to demonstrate harmony and respect

The ability to form a solid entity and stand together against any evil foe

That is fought hard and as we struggle to reject

The evil that is drawn to our dark side everyday and then

We battle the malevolence tomorrow all over again and again

We draw every breath to save our souls

As the words are written true on our sacred scrolls

The uniform is a standard that has been proven to be true

Some wear the brown, the black or the popular blue

Regardless of the colors, it stands for a heart that is strong

As their actions show they can’t do anything wrong

Not intended to brag or to intimidate the evil opponent

They represent the criminal justice system’s outstanding component



Reflecting our spirits and our souls showing just who we are

It is fair to say that none of us are superstars

For we battle for righteousness and justice and power

Causing other men to lay down their arms and cower

We seek no more harm and inflict any more pain than is needed

We work on good faith and the control that is seeded



And as others will confront us with a fight or dare

You will see a gathering of men and women who do not care

Showing no fear to take up arms against those evildoers day or night

After the smoke clears, you’ll see scores or more take off in flight

For the uniform gives us a sense of direction

Who we are, where we are going and giving each other protection



So when you pass on by that place surrounded with the silver razor wire

Know in your heart that our hearts are on fire

To do the job nobody else really wants to chew

But criticize us every step along the way without a mile in our shoes

We love who we are we love what we do with nothin to lose

As we perform our oath and God given tasks right or wrong

We do it wearing the uniform that keeps us strong

Going Rogue

What is “Going Rogue”” really mean to you


Politics adds new words and new phrases every time we have an election or campaign that attempts to expose or revile a person’s personality, reputation or points of view. Although not very positive in characteristics this practice has been condoned and accepted now for many decades thus a matter of record if one chooses to enter the political arena. The most obvious ““rogue”” is Sarah Palin who in her own words writing a book that describes her “story” as an American and dedicated, devoted, loyal and spirited individual who does not back away from a controversy and speaks loud and clear on matters that are important to her and her family. Her conviction is strong and must be acknowledged by those who resent her ethics, energy and motivation to spur others to think for themselves.

It is a given that once you decide to challenge the system on any topic or matter of interest, you are instantly targeted to be destroyed or decimated to a lower standard than those who oppose your points of view or spirit. Digging into your background for mischievous conduct, controversial statements, or even marital or personal relationship questions, they are desperately focused to bury you in your own history and deflect their flaws towards your direction to get you to address your own issues rather than theirs.

Some say a “rogue” person is a mischievous person or someone who stopped or ceased to follow orders that contradict their training or previous position in an organization. Going against other’s expectations and direction not to proceed with your own agenda is often considered a direction to pursue one’s own personal interests or ideas. The word ‘mischievous” is most appropriate as it is not a criminal position but rather an ill-behaved or unacceptable behavior that offends others. In this particular case, it might be your former boss, organization or peer group. Regardless, it is not criminal in nature and could be considered both playful and manipulated to achieve a goal.

A “rogue” may be a deceitful or unscrupulous person in manner or he or she can be honest and attempting to bring out the truth about subject matter that others are trying to hide thus discredit you by labeling you as a “disgruntled” former employee completely disregarding the fact that before you went ““rogue”” you were an acceptable partner in their business like conduct as you conformed to their standards and their expectations. A "rogue" can be a former partner in a business who worked side by side and learned the intimate makings of the business and when he or she decides to go off and start their own business, their former partners fear the competition and smear this person with labels that they think will cause him or her failure and defeat their business attempts to go on their own.

It has been said a “rogue” person keeps bad company. It appears that many times, a “rogue” is in the company of many good people who have the overall good for the masses in mind rather that the good for a few. Such principles are admirable and should be encouraged rather than condemned. Thus we agree that a “rogue” person is an individual who may or may not be politically correct. He or she may produce positivity influences or be regarded as a disruptive negative manipulated persuasion on other’s thinking. Finally, a “rogue” could be a person who switched sides and perceived to be no longer on the same side as they were once thought to be for reasons known the persons but that others are unwilling to accept.

Whether a “rogue” or a non-conformist, your goal is to make people think about the issues you bring forth for discussion and deliberation. This is still the American way to find the truth on matters that are often deeply hidden and kept from the many to serve a few.

For instance if there is an administrator, an accountant, an officer or an individual [group] who is said to go “rogue”. It means that he or she [they] is no longer following the original plan and they decided to follow their own plan that none of his superiors have approved. If the initial plan was to follow Plan A or even Plan B as a back-up and the administrator does something that is completely unrelated to the two plans then he is perceived to go “rogue”. It becomes unsure which side the good side is now because he or she is following their own plan. He or she becomes unpredictable and their actions are spontaneous. Their ethics are questioned by those offended but are applauded by those who benefit from the item for consideration delivered to balance the environment.

Visit us at http://www.thunderrolls.net/ and see what retired rogues do for their fellow officers and state employees free of charge.. You will be pleasantly surprised how we help others and charge no fees to do so.





Source:



http://www.squidoo.com/going-rogue-an-american-life

ADOC policies and procedures

Whenever we read the websites of governmental agencies we always find links that show their policies and procedures. Looking at the basics we find that objectives are shorter steps formulated in an incremental manner to help agencies meet their goals. For one particular public agency, the Department of Corrections, public safety motives its policies. Then as we level off their perspective on this concept we move on to those other reasons for performing to those expectations that result in a safe and secure prison environment, sound custodial practices of those inmates incarcerated, productive measures to allow inmates to be prepared for the release into the community and further motivation to follow state laws and regulations related to safe practices and efficient training programs.

Glancing at one such policies, one can only suspect that the primary goal is to attain substantial compliance with such policies that exist for those purposes stated above and how they are evaluated and reported to the Director for any action necessary to improve their services or methods of operational effectiveness to justify their funding and their purpose to the public and chief executive of the state.

It appears however, where there are incompetent humans in charge of ensuring compliance, these policies are usually communicated ineffectively and seldom understood thoroughly enough to provide the intended purpose or goal of the policy. As a result, policy is usually communicated ineffectively and seldom understood thoroughly by most of the targeted individuals that include managers and subordinates.

Distraction from established policies and procedures can quickly create and become a new standard of operating and essentially evolve into a different practice that was intended to be the practice or procedure as written upon conceptual and visionary thinking. Although contrary to those written guidelines contained within the policy written this metamorphosis takes place often and results in inconsistencies noted during these audits.

Ever since the horrific prison escape from the Kingman prison, the agency has focused on its readiness, standards of security awareness and effectiveness and staff being compliant with those security policies in place to prevent another such disastrous event. Today, I am unsure just how much of that goal we have accomplished and how much more work is to be done to be where the policies and procedures developed wanted the agency to go.

Today, I have proof there are just as many "flaw" inside state prisons that resemble those in the Kingman escape but won't release them for I need to articulate the comparison to show how badly ADOC follows its own policies, ignores the faults and continues to operate like they rogue agency they are.

DOC Investigations - Lackluster and Deceptive Practices

Poor Investigative methods can provide a perfect cover up for executive mismanagement and mistakes inside prisons- One can read the bottom line of every news release submitted by the Arizona Department of Corrections whenever there is an inmate death or suicide other than natural causes inside one of their prisons. The bottom line of every statement made to date reads "The death is under investigation by the department." Regarding critical incidents e.g. escapes, disturbances etc the rhetoric is the same. Looking into this statement very closely reveals a process that is under severe skeptic review by those familiar with the circumstances around each and every death the agency has labeled to be a suicide or homicide but fail to follow up on pertinent and important information that could in fact, reveal to them another possibility or conclusion other than the one determined so quickly after each incident.


Although most investigators are given a time frame of approximately 53 days by the Director or designee to investigate prison deaths or serious events, there are many times that these investigations take the short cut to expedite the findings to take the heat of the agency. As the prison officials scramble to gather the data so they can notify numerous entities for the death or serious incident per policy, much information is not attained at the time of the news release. It has been recorded that investigations that would normally run the course of a month of so would be finished and completed and closed in less than a week. Such haste for meeting an executive deadline defeats the very purpose of an effective and thorough investigative process. In fact, one could glean this to be an effective method of covering up an embarrassing situation or event that would not pass the "headline test."

Regardless of the final results of any such case, the final report is rarely asked for as it won’t differ that much from the original provided earlier in the matter. The very first call is made to the warden of the institution who notifies the Central Office staff of the event. Then this matter is reviewed by the directors and a decision is made to release information through the public information officer. In the meantime, the director must notify the governor's chief of staff, in many cases, the process starts with the Director's authorization to make all notifications to the next of kin, victims or the media may "be delayed when security, sound correctional practice, or investigative reasons exist." This clause is imposed immediately to provide the agency to do some damage control of the situation and get a first hand summary of what may have occurred and who is involved. Political impact is measured by the circumstances, who and where the incident occurred and how this matter will be explained to the media as a reasonable and justifiable event.

Department order 711 outlines "Notifications of the death of an inmate by other than perceived apparent natural causes shall be completed as follows: The Director or designee shall immediately notify the Governor's Office by telephone, followed by a written notification and the Department's Legislative Liaison shall notify the Chairperson of the Joint Select Committee by telephone within one business day, followed by a written notification and the Speaker of the Arizona House and President of the Arizona Senate by telephone within one business day, followed by a written notification and finally the State legislators in the district where the event of consequence occurred by telephone within one business day, followed by a written notification. It is suspected that the news release serves the purpose for many of these notification requirements. It is easy to see where the political impact may come from if not handled correctly by the agency executive team. The same principles are in place for mass disturbances or escapes that will shake the public’s confidence in the prison manager’s ability to protect the public.

Going beyond these announcements illustrates clearly what happens next in this process concerning deaths that are not natural. The agency must collaborate with the investigators immediately to search for those keywords or red flags that may cause embarrassment or flaw with the agency thus the investigators are selected based on their ability to work closely with the executive group in charge of the critical incident. In the course of this matter, the Director will seek a course to impress the media with his obvious willingness to deal with the matter when in fact, he is expediting the process to clean it up and make it deliver a suitable outcome that will be considered to be the least amount of negative impact on the agency or staff involved. This is the damage control element of the critical incident that is often missed by many including the media.

It is reasonable to say that so far, so good as the agency has escaped scrutiny for many of these deaths, disturbances, escapes or other events. none have been challenged by any other law enforcement entity or labor union leaders. It appears that regardless of the cause of death or what kind of unusual circumstances are involved, the Department of Justice, the main agency with oversight of civil rights violations and public safety, sits back and allows the prison agency to conduct haphazard investigations to assist their need to be politically clean. These investigations, both by the Internal Affairs that investigate staff misconduct and the Criminal Investigative Unit that is responsible for investigating inmate deaths and misconduct are directly controlled by the Director and his field officers through informal discussions that involve all the key executive players of the location involved. This method of direct and indirect communication and control provides them the link to guide investigations into the direction desired for a predictable outcome.

There are no external audit formats in place to ensure factual and independent investigations are conducted. The final authority of such an activity remains with the directors involved. When investigators brief those interested in the product, they connect carefully and associate behind close door discussions that are "draft" in nature and cleaned up for the final report according to guidance provided. This applies to both staff and inmate investigations as the purpose is the same to reduce risk and negligence as well as identifying culpable acts of individuals who will either be targeted or selected to take the fall making a strong statement that corrective action was taken and no such conduct will be tolerated by the agency. These vulnerable persons will be disciplined and treated as the reason for the flaw to begin with thus exonerating anyone in the top executive levels of any blame.

Studying these investigative packets can be helpful and indicative of the methodology used to conduct such a task. Attorneys could in fact seek public information requests for these packets but will find them to be loosely narrated and summarized. Specific facts are omitted and all possible incriminating evidence or information is quickly expedited up the chain of command to avoid being included in the final packet. There again, the purpose of drafting such reports eliminates their discovery after the fact as they are not released for review. There are hardly any prosecutions conducted after these deaths that are not natural of nature and the reasons are quite simple. The manner these reports pass through a non-existing quality control process is amazingly smooth as the only standard to be acceptable is the approval of the Director or his designee.

The investigators collect evidence in a poor and unethical manner making them questionable to be used in a courtroom. When these investigative packets are written they are brief and short providing no additional information to anyone reading them for litigation purposes. In fact, many times, the line of questioning of the subject involved are bare of substance and allows the reader no insight on whether the subject answered the questions or evaded them by changing the subject or leading the investigator into an abyss of confusion as many do not have any experience in corrections as a former officer or the corrections academy. They are police certified and conduct their interviews and interrogations with kid gloves compared to street detectives who do their jobs to find the culprit or suspect and the motive aggressively. Ironically, many pieces of evidence come up "missing" contrary to how well trained police detectives handle their roles in criminal investigations outside prisons. The chain of custody is often mishandled giving the department no leg to stand on when it goes to court. On the other side of this coin, the agency does not have to defend any negligence or misconduct viewed in these tapes if available.

Reasons for such critical events or serious incidents are rarely found during any prison investigation unless it is gang related and then the motive is guided into that direction by those above. It will be likely someone will be blamed for poor performance or not following policies and procedures. Lackluster investigations that are accelerated to be brief in substance are the norm for this prison agency. Its serves the public no purpose as it is merely a puppet for the agency and its executive branch. Handing out template investigative packets with predetermined outcomes has demoralized both staff and families. Staff because they are often targets of discussions before the investigation begins and families of inmates who have been impacted by violence but are provided no answers.

It is highly recommended that these critical incidents, escapes, disturbances and inmate death investigations be audited externally by the federal authorities to seek better understandings of how they are conducted and how controls the process. Perhaps, a conflict of interest is injected into the process that appears to be present on the surface but rarely impacted or invoked as deep as the policies allow but rarely executed or given the seriousness of this matter, the consideration to do it and do it right regardless where the harm may fall to correct this matter of reporting prison deaths not caused by natural causes.

A deep analysis can bring closure to such doubt by many staff that were wrongfully accused and disciplined possibly ruining their chances for promotions, further career opportunities with other agencies or just personal ethical satisfaction of knowing their rights were violated by their employer. Staffs are often found to be at a distinct disadvantage when they are found guilty before the investigation has even started. Many witnesses aren't interviewed and a conclusion is drawn on inferences rather than evidence and facts gathered in the case. On the other hand, there are both family of staff and family of inmates who could finally expect some closure to their relative's injuries, death and base their emotions on the fact that the process used to glean the truth was accurate in considering all facts and truthful circumstances surrounding it.

For closing, these "non-public" investigations and behind the scenes negotiations to keep the lid on this billion dollar agency can be easily exposed by the Department of Justice if it seeks an injunction into the practice and position itself as a guiding tool to ensure civil rights are maintained and recognized for both the employees and the inmate. Perhaps, employees can engage their union attorneys to get involved in correcting this imperfection in place.

It is time for the agency to provide a reasonable amount of transparency into its operations and allow others to see how their tax payer's money is spent on a system that is growing yearly as Arizona has one of the highest incarceration rates in the United States. Secondly, there appears to be a high rate of disciplinary involved in these cases where there are gaps of credibility in their findings but brush it off as an employee's fault thus creating more tension between the agency and its employees when the sustained rate of disciplinary action runs as high as 92 % in some complexes around the state. Civil rights of both employees and prisoners are being violated and nobody is holding anyone accountable for such injustice in one of the largest prison systems in the country.

How does a disciplined employee impact creditable testimony in court?

Agency directors and managers should review their disciplinary practices as it might in fact provide a lack of credible courtroom testimony in cases filed against the department. The role of departmental staff to serve as credible witnesses or experts can be easily compromised by a series of poor administrative acts that demonstrates a fundamentally defect in their own witness’s ability to provide clear and concise testimony in most cases. By the mere virtue of being disciplined, an employee has an impact on the litigation by showing what may be inferred as a particular influence on the juries thus it remains important that the agency is fair and equitable in those cases that might go to court.


In the courtroom demeanor role, one must rely on extraordinary credence or fact finding to provide factual testimony creating a possibility that those who have received discipline can be quiet misleading in their presentation to the judge or jury. Providing assistance on the pertinent facts of a specific case will require the attorneys to inquire both the witnesses’ methodology for stating such a fact(s) or opinion but will rely on some specialized knowledge that makes the opinion or fact admissible to the merits of the case.

Is the witness really qualified & how far-reaching Is the expert's Testimony - Normally, the courts will limit the testimony to three factual areas that include the:

• Technical nature of the facts presented by the witness or expert

• The cause and impact of those facts presented by the witness or expert

• The potential or actual damage of those facts presented by the witness or expert

Hence it is important that such a witness is able to provide such testimony without any prior compromises or mistakes since their testimony must provide the judge or jury reliable and significant outcome of such an event. Relying on one’s training as an expert; one must demonstrate a high rate of competence and dependability on making sound judgments and decisions. The margin of error is zero and will be compromised quickly if exposed.

He or she may have to legitimately explain how their testimony could influence the judge or jury to sway the opinion in their favor. Obviously, employees with disciplinary history are poor witnesses and even less credible for expert testimony. One must demonstrate compliance with all protocols of the job and show no exceptions. Any attempt to discredit or refute a written report and “clearly contradict” that report takes the task of the judge or jury the truthfulness of the witness when presenting their facts. An attorney could in a closing argument demonstrate a lack of credibility and untruthfulness for those who have been disciplined by the agency in the past or prior job performances. Although the disciplinary action or history may not be relevant, it could unduly influence the judge or jury.

Whenever a witness or expert is drawn into the role of providing factual information for the agency, their testimony can be powerful and effective if their credibility levels are intact. He or she will be subject to close scrutiny of prior disciplinary actions or history that reveals errors in decision making, poor judgment, reliability and dependability of having the proper knowledge for the alleged protocol and be able to demonstrate this clearly without opposition or controversy in their stance or point of drawing a conclusion.

The summary of this impact statement is clearly stated that the expertise that may arise from the witness’s knowledge regardless of the subject matter depends on their skill, experience, training, education, and a sound and creditable analysis of their personnel file to reflect no violations or no infractions of any protocol established for the job or role challenged. If any violations or doubt appears from either the immediate past or prior job history, these witness or expert statements will demonstrate that their analysis is unreliable and not likely sufficient in credibility to influence the judge or jury their words are indeed factual and accepted to be truthful.

Us versus Them

Prison is a little city of its own and has it own rules of engagement as well as cultures. Every neighborhood is different and staff must adjust to that neighborhood or experience both increased stress and anxiety while working there. The first rule learned in the Academy is the “us versus them” rule. This rule supersedes all other rules and can be invoked anytime something goes wrong. No matter who is to blame, no matter who caused the problem prison rules are to be broken and must be kept intact to survive the harsh and demanding conditions that exist behind the walls that society wants to know nothing about. Thus a code is established and the rules of engagement are clear. This is the way it is and nobody is going to change it.


Prisons are impenetrable structures and many have worked hard to keep it that way. Their philosophy is simple and resembles the rule for going to Las Vegas. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas is pretty much the same code the correctional officers live by most of the time. They often believe that the public, the ones who have cast away those thousands of humans convicted of crimes wants to no longer be involved in their problems thus these “castaways” are now under the supervision of a correctional work force. The prisons are staffed with a majority of correctional officers, supervisors and administrators that have worn the badge. “Once a correctional officer always a correctional officer” and another code has been created or is born. The consequence of such births of different codes creates dynamics that are hard to understand unless one is inside these prisons where these elements develop. Thus one must understand the areas where these codes are born, as the neighborhood changes a little bit to adjust to the new expectation of conduct.

One would be foolish to think that they do not need each other to survive. In fact, team work is preached daily to handle the majority of tasks that clearly illustrates the ratio between staff and inmates are always in the favor of the inmate population. It is reasonable to say that at times, correctional officers must supervisor more than two hundred inmates at a time hoping they are not in the mood to give them resistance or non-compliance that day. Walking upon a recreation field of two hundred or more, sometimes more than five hundred men, the presence of four officers watching them work out and exercise is not uncommon. Thus the risks are calculated and the consequences of these physical dynamics are accepted by the officers to do a job the best way they know how. Often said to just get it done in a hurried manner, shortcuts take place to meet the demands of their supervisors who not too long ago, experienced the same hurried pace and understand why shortcuts are taken.

So more codes are developed to keep the truth from coming out as officers are doing their best to get the work load done in the time given and resources provided. This culture of taking shortcuts can be flawed and often results in serious omissions of critical tasks such as searches, unit checks, counts and other security functions. Having only limited time to walk the perimeter to check the fence line for breaches or tampering is difficult when you know you need to be at another location within the next ten minutes to help your partner out in the kitchen as you get ready to feed the population.

There are three dominant dynamics that occur inside prisons. They are employee to employee interactions; employee to inmate interactions and then there is the always hostile employee to the management and administrative interaction that is often dealt with mistrust of the purpose of the meeting.

Paying attention in the corrections academy you learned the “us versus them” mentality quickly to protect yourself from blame and discipline. You don’t trust the investigative process and you have no faith in the due process regarding any staff disciplinary investigations to glean innocence or guilt. Your experience has grown where you can make your own decisions and although well trained and confident, you notice the subtle changes in your performance realizing you are making more and more decisions on your own without any disapproval from your supervisor. This tacit approval works well for those who are experienced and well established in their routine and practice. It does not however, enhance those who are inexperienced and sloppy in their work habits.

Us versus them creates a line in the sand for the inmates you supervise as you begin to see them not so “human” anymore as your job has become robotic and mundane as time passes. You pride yourself on detecting mood changes and behaviors of others but you completely miss your own changes since you became an officer. Once in a while, a friend will tell you that you have “changed” but as you shrug it off as criticism, you embrace every new code that has been established in your own neighborhood and accept it as it is. No questions, no hesitations and no problems

Speaking about your job at home is rare. Unless your spouse is an officer or another family member is an officer, you will never share what you do because you feel they “don’t’ understand the scope of your job.” You refuse to speak of the work place dynamics that include violence, intimidation, fear and retaliation as normal and not paranormal as others may perceive it to be. This misunderstanding of your job creates barriers that often results in domestic depravations or divorce. Not created intentionally, it now impacts how you do your job and whether or not you show up for work or not. These times are difficult and alcohol and pills can help you sleep but as you awake to the alarm clock, you realize another shift is waiting before you.

When it is all said and done, I can only tell my brothers and sisters, I understand!!!!!!!!!

Be careful and be safe!







.