2 WEEKS FREE!    Circulation Center    Submit News    Submit Letter to Editor    Courier NIE    Submit Classified    Purchase Photos    Print Ads    Advertise    RSS Feeds
Advanced Search
(older than 14 days)
High 81°F
Low 56°F
 News » Regional
Article rated a
0
by
0
users
This image shows one of several abrasions on Skylar Converse's torso that some in Sumner allege were caused by Police Chief Arlin Rieck. The image circulated from the e-mail address sumnercitizens@hotmail.com.
SUBMITTED PHOTO
~ADVERTISING~
Advertise  |   Marketplace  |   Classifieds  |   Cars  |   Homes  |   Jobs
Thursday, August 9, 2007 12:05 PM CDT
Sumner waits for decision on investigation of police chief
By KAREN HEINSELMAN, Courier Staff Writer
SUMNER --- An investigation into allegations the Sumner police chief assaulted a minor is now in the hands of the Black Hawk County attorney.

Tom Ferguson said the case involving Police Chief Arlin Rieck arrived in the mail Tuesday. Bremer County Attorney Kasey Wadding said he forwarded the information to Ferguson, his counterpart in Black Hawk County. The practice is common when authorities perceive potential conflicts of interest.

"We have received it. We are reviewing it," Ferguson said Wednesday. "We are hopeful we'll have a decision within the near future."

Ferguson did not assign a timeline to the process, adding he may need to gather more information before deciding if charges are warranted.

Lisa Converse of Sumner, mother of Skylar Converse, the alleged victim, declined an opportunity to comment because the incident is under investigation.

Bremer County Sheriff Duane Hildebrandt last week confirmed his department investigated allegations of an assault by Chief Rieck against a minor. The incident was reported to the sheriff's office around July 26, Hildebrandt said.

Sumner Mayor Gary Walke declined to answer questions about the situation, but confirmed that the investigation was in the hands of Black Hawk County. Attempts to contact three City Council members were unsuccessful and a fourth declined comment. Several phones calls to Chief Rieck at home and at the police department were not returned.

Talk about the investigation --- a sensitive topic in the small community --- is circulating through businesses, eateries and households.

Barb Grabill, an active member of the community, said she doesn't have firsthand information about the incident. But she applauded the track record of the long-standing police chief, noting Rieck's service in the armed forces and work on the veterans memorial project in town. She said she has faith in Rieck's decision-making abilities on the job.

"It's a good, solid family, and he's taken care of business for Sumner," Grabill said.

Candy Quail of rural Sumner said she took photographs of Skylar Converse's alleged injuries. Kelli Morgan, Quail's friend, distributed the images via e-mail. One message reached the Courier from the address sumnercitizens@hotmail.com.

The photos show several red marks on the boy's torso.

Quail said the boy and her 14-year-old son, Cody Copp, came to her after an alleged altercation with Rieck. Her son said he and his friend were confronted by Rieck for jumping off a bridge and into the creek below.

Copp said his friends like to swim under a bridge accessible from City Park in Sumner. Copp said the activity apparently attracted Rieck's attention, and he approached as Copp, Converse and another boy were getting ready to leave.

"He said that we weren't supposed to be jumping there," Copp said.

Copp added he argued with Rieck and questioned the chief's assertion that, in the past, the boys had been ordered not to jump from the bridge.

Copp said he did not see everything because he went to retrieve personal belongings, which were by the creek. When he returned, Copp said he saw Rieck holding Converse's arm behind the boy's back. Rieck also was pushing the youth against a bench, Copp said.

Morgan said she distributed Quail's photos to add credibility to the allegations after some people in town reportedly questioned the boys' story. She said she decided to take a stand against what she feels is a misuse of authority and poor judgment by Rieck.

"We don't understand why he was not put on a leave of absence until the investigation is over," Morgan said.

Dean Jacobson, a retired investigator with the Bremer County sheriff's office who lives in Sumner, urges people to remember two sides exist for every story. He also expressed concern media coverage would push the public to form opinions based on incomplete information.

" ... Please let the system run its course before you make judgments," Jacobson said.

City Clerk Lisa Oberbroeckling said the policy for placing city department leaders or officials on a leave of absence depends on the situation and advised those with questions to review the city code.

Contact Karen Heinselman at (319) 291-1581 or karen.heinselman@wcfcourier.com.
Previous Next
     
 More Stories from News » Regional

ramblin wrote on Aug 9, 2007 1:04 PM:

" Acutally, there are 3 sides to every story. In this case, maybe more. To be honest, I understand where all parties are coming from, but to have a 14 year old not listen when told is asking for touble in the first place. I see the victims point, but I do believe that the youths were advised not to jump from the bridge. The chief, as I see it, (from readng the story), MAY have used excessive force, but what was the reasoning for it?? There is always a reaction, in which causes an equal and opposite reaction. "

a6g wrote on Aug 9, 2007 2:36 PM:

" Everyone is so quick to jump on the police, but rarely stop to think what the perpetrator did in the first place. "

classof69 wrote on Aug 9, 2007 3:38 PM:

" For all the years that Chief Rieck has been in law enforcement, I believe this is the first allegation of his misuse of authority. Some of today's youth seem to "push the button" with no accountability. "

nsr wrote on Aug 9, 2007 6:14 PM:

" Interesting...they were jumping from a bridge and he ended up with marks on his skin. Can't imagine how that happened. "

JUSTACITIZEN wrote on Aug 9, 2007 7:22 PM:

" I agree with nsr. My thoughts exactly. Mean police officer just wants to stop them from having fun. I wonder how he'd like to spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair paralyzed from the neck down. If a policeman stopped my kid from jumping off a bridge, I'd be grateful. Be thankful all he has is a full marks, instead of the officer coming to your door to tell you your son is dead. I've heard of people jumping into a swimming pool the wrong way and breaking their necks, let alone from a bridge. "

jackryan wrote on Aug 9, 2007 10:17 PM:

" It is important to remember that the Chief is presumed innocent unless facts prove otherwise. People need to be patient and let the system work. I question the Courier's decision to publish a submitted photograph. How can the photo be credible unless it is provided by an objective party? "

grammainiowa wrote on Aug 10, 2007 7:43 AM:

" I agree with jackryan, innocent until proven guilty. If this police officer has had a good track record up to this point then there has to be more to this story than what you are hearing from the mother and the boy's friends. I can't even see the officer putting marks on the boy for just spouting off at him; there has to be more. The truth will come out. "

cjackhoover wrote on Aug 10, 2007 8:38 AM:

" Again a total lack of respect for authority. If the young men wouldn't have been doing something stupid the officer would of never bothered them. If the young men would of left the area it would have ended with just a tongue lashing. IF the officers behavior was in question there would have been other avenues to pursue. When this story 1st broke on the news it sounded like this officer was really guilty of something serious. The officer it seems to me is only guilty of doing what he is paid to do. Find another tree to climb. Mr. Ferguson, unless there is more info on this matter find something more serious to do like get the drugs outta town. "

dothemath wrote on Aug 10, 2007 10:15 AM:

" why is it when someone's "poor baby" has a run-in with the law it is always the officer who uses excessive force and poor judgement. it seems to me there was misuse of authority by these mothers for not teaching their boys to respect authority and poor jugdement by them letting it go this far. i know that as a boy if i would have had a similar incident of this nature it would have ended a lot different. my dad and i would have had a "come to jesus" meeting. as far as the marks on the boy, they could have come from jumping off the bridge or even from the bench the officer used to help restrain the boy, not from excessive force. "

snowball wrote on Aug 10, 2007 6:06 PM:

" I have several statements. For starters I only emailed the photos to one person in town, and gave the prints to someone else of authoritie.The photo in this article is not one candy took, so obviously someone else felt the need to take photos. We did not submit any photos to the waterloo courier. Second, these boys weren?t the only youth jumping off that bridge this summer. This activity has been going on all summer. If it was prohibited, why wasn?t a sign posted before this incident accrued, instead they posted one several days later. I don?t know how anyone can comment on this story." Were you there?" Candy & I only took pictures of a boy who was scared & shaken up. I would hope others in this town would do the same thing if put in this same situation. "

olof wrote on Aug 11, 2007 11:11 AM:

" The boy deserved to be "scared and shaken up" for confronting a cop snowball. Maybe he learned something from it. But then, here we are at the "it takes a village to raise a child" scenario with no discipline at home. Just because "everyone else was doing it" is no defense. Tell me who would have been sued had one of the boys been seriously injured? Don't say no one would have been screaming and pointing fingers... I would have not been concerned about my son being scared and shaken..he would have more problems dealing with me for having done something so stupid and this would not have been in the paper. "

Steady wrote on Aug 13, 2007 10:09 AM:

" Snowball, you cannot jump from ANY bridge and it is written within city and state laws. Even if the boys had an ignorance of the law how many times were they given a lawful order to remove themselves before he had to be removed for his safety? Oh by the way, did the injuries happen the first time he was asked to leave or when he turned around and ran back on the bridge in defiance of the officer? Now you have an officer that was cutting a kid a break and not charging him, which he should have, and gets charges placed against him for his lenience. "

snowball wrote on Aug 13, 2007 8:14 PM:

" Hey Steady... Where did you learn of a law about jumping off a bridge? I don't know of any. I find it interesting that all the comments printed are for the cops. Let me tell you if ANYONE grabbed my child and gave him/her injuries I would do everything in my power to see that person charged. Is this man any better than Joe Blow on the street just because he has a badge?? Any other person would have been arrested that very night and charged with assault and probably would've spent the night in jail. Get a grip people and think about it. An assault is an assault no matter what you're occupation!!! "

Steady wrote on Aug 14, 2007 2:28 PM:

" I am sorry you are unaware of such laws, doesn't change the fact that you can't. It still doesn't answer the question that even if they were not aware of the law how many times were they given a lawful order to leave the bridge? Did the injuries happen the second time he went back? If you have an officer ordering someone to remove themselves and they refuse, what will you have the officer do - ask pretty please with sugar on top? The other posts are refreshing, nice to see the public support for the cops. What example are we going to send people if they are taught it doesn't matter what you do wrong becasue you won't be held accountable for your actions. Lets go after the cops even though they are only there because of someone else's actions. "

olof wrote on Aug 14, 2007 9:19 PM:

" So snowball, your kids would be without blame regardless, and it's the big bad cop "picking" on them?? I am SO sick of parents who defend their little darlings no matter what they've done. I would not be happy if my son came home with scrapes and bruises from a run in with a cop, BUT it is much preferable to the alternative of a cop coming to your door to inform you that your son is dead from a broken neck jumping from a bridge. Too many put their precious "rights" ahead of obeying the law, and to them everything is a right-including insubordination to a law officer. Too many cry about their rights, but totally ignore their responsibilities to the law. "

shirley wrote on Aug 15, 2007 12:48 AM:

" in my opinion i think that there is something that the boy is leaving out. there are bad cops everywhere but i dont see why the cop would be doing something bad with a witness. "

Havoc wrote on Aug 15, 2007 10:59 AM:

" I agree with Snowball. If people allow mistreatment of a child by a Law Official, where does it stop?? Are we going to allow Teachers, Daycare providers, Physicians or just any person to physically assault our children?? Would you still consider it justifiable if your elderly parent were abused at a Nursing Home by a CNA?? Steady-Maybe Snowball isn't UNAWARE of such laws; I've done some checking, and I can't find where that law exists!! (explain bungee jumping from bridges???)And as far as the boy running back up to the bridge; WHERE YOU THERE TO SEE THIS HAPPEN?? I dont think so!! You all need to stop making excuses for this officers actions. "

snowball wrote on Aug 15, 2007 11:16 AM:

" Hey Steady.... WHO told you the kids returned to the bridge after they were told to leave??? I have never read that anywhere in any article pertaining to this matter. Are you friends with Mr Rieck?? You people are getting so far off track of this matter is not funny. I agree that kids should have respect, but, the whole thing centers around the fact that an assault took place no matter who it was. If this had happened between 2 people on the street you can bet arrests and charges would have been filed. If Mr. Rieck would have went about this the right way, there would have been no problems. He did an asssault and now needs to face the consequences of his actions, just as you and I would have. Get back on track "

Barnstormer wrote on Aug 15, 2007 1:58 PM:

" Snowball, I've heard the "kid returned to the bridge" from several folks I work with from Sumner. Take it for what it's worth. Does it matter? Sounds like you're gonna take the word of a 14 year old kid over a long serving police chief. The funny thing is, if the cop didn't yank him off the bridge and the kid jumped and hurt himself, the same folks would be yelling at the cop for not grabbing him off the bridge... "

cornfed07 wrote on Aug 15, 2007 5:39 PM:

" Obviously the facts are not out yet, and the decision will be for the Black Hawk County Attorney. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that you are looking at a Chief with an outstanding record. ...Knowing Sumner quite well I can not think of a bridge that would be at all safe to jump off of, and I believe Chief Rieck was looking out for the safety of the kids. "

Steady wrote on Aug 16, 2007 8:37 AM:

" Talk about not staying on track. Was the boy given a lawful order by the police to move from the bridge? At that point, as stated in previous posts, it does not matter if they knew of any laws. No I do not know Mr. Rieck, can't tell you where I know my information and have not been to Sumner. Of course I will be told to stay on track we'll discuss other things other than the facts of the matter. The boy was given an order to leave and refused to do so. Snowball claims if Rieck would have done it the right way there would have been no problems, but he was only there because of the boy. A citizen called in, an officer responded, an officer gave an order to leave, the boy refused, the boy was removed, the boy given a verbal warning, parents overreacted, here we are. Marks in the photo look pretty consistant of someone hanging on to a bridge refusing to leave. (The bridge issue, bridges are owned and maintained by state, counties or cities and are their property. It is not the act of jumping, even though some cities list this specifically, but the act of trespassing. Once you leave the roadway or sidewalk and go onto the structure of the bridge it is illegal. It does not have to be posted, similiar to rail road tracks. As far as bungee jumping, those are done legally with a permit or permission of the property owner. The ones done without permission you see being arrested when they get to the bottom, similiar to those wanting to free jump from bridges and buildings.) I know people will agree/disagree with this and is why I continued to point out the fact it does not matter once you are given an order by police to remove yourself. "

upset wrote on Aug 16, 2007 12:35 PM:

" I have been reading all of these comments from peole who have an opinion on something, but have gotten so off track of the real story. Steady, your opinion seems to be the strongest. I have read this story numerous times and have not read anywhere that a citizen called in and complained. This is why stories are getting so blown up. Everyone adds something to the story that is not true to justify your opinion. Even if someone had complained, Mr. Rieck had no right to put his hands on this kid or on anyone. If in fact he told them to leave, it does not automatically become a trespass. I would think someone from the park would have to ask for the kids to be removed and then if the kids don't leave it becomes another situation entirely. An officer can't physiclly remove someone without going through the proper channels. I would just like you to confirm your sources because you have more information (or so you think) than has been given out to the public. The whole thing centers around the fact that Mr. Rieck was wrong in his action as was the kids in this. I am very aware of the law and what a police officer can do as I know quite a few. Please people, get back to the base of this story. If you can't remember on your own what it is, read it again. Time will tell the outcome when charges are filed or not. "

a6g wrote on Aug 16, 2007 3:08 PM:

" Wow, I always learned to do as I was asked by authority figures. Cops are still considered authority figures, right? 14 is old enough to know right and wrong, and not listening to an officer of the law is wrong. Those marks, "alledgedly" caused by the police chief don't look all that upsetting to me. "

Havoc wrote on Aug 16, 2007 3:41 PM:

" In agreement with upset; Steady, where have you read (or heard) that a citizen called in and complained about the boys swimming by the bridge in the park? To my knowledge this information has never been printed or brought to the attention of the public!! Prior to the day in question; these same boys were given permission to swim there by other Sumner Authorities!! Steady...You state: "The Marks in the photo look pretty consistant of someone hanging on to a bridge!!" and thats your opinion. In my opinion, I'd say that they look pretty consistant to marks that would be left on this child from having his arm placed behind his back, and then being shoved against the rails of the bridge!! If you have an explaination for all the injuries this child sustained, then explain the gouge marks on his back??? Or weren't you aware of them?? "

Barnstormer wrote on Aug 16, 2007 4:12 PM:

" "whole thing centers around the fact that Mr. Rieck was wrong in his action" Woah, woah woah... It is not a FACT that Police Chief Riecks was wrong. That's what Black Hawk Country will determine. Please explain this line to me: "An officer can't physiclly remove someone without going through the proper channels." He's the Police Chief doing his job for crying out loud. What channels does the chief of a small town go through to do his job? "I have a report of a breaking and entering... We better hold an emergency city council meeting to help determine what I do next..." Silly.... "

upset wrote on Aug 16, 2007 5:44 PM:

" `Barnstormer, please take my whole statement into account would you?? I said Rieck was wrong as well as the kids! An officer cannot remove someone without the proper channel. If you have someone on your property and want them removed, it is YOUR property and you can have this done..YOU are the proper channel. The Park needs to be the one to ask to have the person removed with out a complaint. As far as I know and have read none was issued. I don't care if it is a small town or a big city officer, do your job right. Does this mean that if a kid is stopped in his car for something the officer has the right to pull them from the car and slam them on the hood or to the ground because the officer is argued with?????? I guess in your opinion it is. "

Independent wrote on Aug 17, 2007 1:53 AM:

" Oh, come on OLOF when you were just 14 did you do anything wrong? Seems like you want to clean up America but you forget what is was like to be a child. The police of today are quite different than the Mayberry of your day. "

Steady wrote on Aug 17, 2007 8:53 AM:

" Upset, you don't suppose after 20 plus years of service as Chief of Police that the "procedure" you stated Rieck should of went through has been gone through and is a standing request? You mention it was a park, that would mean it is a City of Sumner park, boy that puts it right into the lap of a City of Sumner police officer responsibility to control. To think the Police Department director needs to call the Parks & Rec director prior to trespassing someone from City property is naive. This point was made by another person in their post - what would of happened to Rieck if he stood there and did nothing and this kid was hurt? What if Rieck stood there to double check the "procedure" to ensure he had the right to tell the kid to move (as Upset suggets) and the kid gets hurt. Do we really believe people would say that it was fine for him not to do anything? Here we go again WHEN THE CHILD WAS GIVEN AN ORDER TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THE BRIDGE, WHY DIDN'T HE? Havoc, the complaint was not about them swimming NEAR the bridge, nothing wrong with that. The complaint is from them being ON the bridge, can't do that. I stated it in an earlier post that we would go back to talking about other things. I refer back to the same question in caps, once somone refuses - what do you do? What do you do with your own child if he is jumping or climbing on something they are not supposed to? How long do you let them disobey you before you remove them? "

VBFan wrote on Aug 17, 2007 11:24 AM:

" I tend to agree with Steady on this one. Exactly what channels does the police chief have to go through? Also, he's a cop, he has every right in the world, especially if the boys were on the bridge, to approach them and remove them. Also, maybe the picture doesn't do them justice, but the marks don't look to bad to me. Shoot, I got worse marks than that from baling hay as a kid. Maybe there's more, I saw a reference to a gouge on his back, but I don't see much of an "assault" that allegedly took place. Yes Independent, I'm sure Olof did something when he was a kid, but that doesn't make it right, does it? And it shouldn't stop him from reflecting on it now and saying it was stupid, does it? "

upset wrote on Aug 17, 2007 1:14 PM:

" Steady... I didn't know you counld'nt be ON a bridge, gosh I sure am glad you let everyone know that! Soooo don't anyone take you kids to watch the water or feed the ducks or fishing, cause it is illegal!! Give me a break ... We all are now aware you are for the cop no matter what. "

Barnstormer wrote on Aug 17, 2007 2:46 PM:

" One question I have is why did Bremer feel it needed to offload this to Black Hawk county? What is the point in having a County Attorney if they can't investigate anything, you know, in the actual county? From what I now of Wadding, if the cop was in the wrong, he wouldn't have a problem going after him. Dunno. "

Havoc wrote on Aug 17, 2007 4:31 PM:

" I guess my question is "If it's ILLEGAL to be ON a bridge(as stated by STEADY), then how do you get to the other side?? I guess I break the law constantly when driving, because I cross bridges everyday. Maybe all the victims of the collapsed bridge in Minnesota should be charged for trespassing; because according to STEADY, they shouldn't have been there to begin with. Then STEADY goes onto say: "What do you do with your own child if he is jumping or climbing on something they are not supposed to? How long do you let them disobey you before you remove them?" Key words here are "YOUR OWN CHILD." If I were to leave these same marks on MY OWN CHILD because he/she disobeyed me, I'd be dealing with DHS for child abuse!! Mr. Reick's past servce to the community is not in question here, nor is his ability to perform his job duties now (since he is still on duty) What is in question is whether or not the appropriate actions were taken by Mr. Reick to resolve this issue?? Did he CROSS THE LINE when dealing with this child?? I believe he did!! "

Angel05 wrote on Aug 17, 2007 7:35 PM:

" Seriously what planet are you people living on...Can you seriously tell me that if something like that happened to your child you wouldnt be upset and you wouldnt do anything about it?...who would you believe...i mean come on who has more reason to lie here? The cop for "assulting" the kids, or the kids who have nothing to hide...trust me, ive seen the bridge, its not that high off the ground and not that big of deal...It seems to me everyone is blowing the whole "the boys were on a bridge" thing out of proportion. I dont know what the big deal is anyway, they were jumping off a bridge, dont tell me any one of you didnt do things that you probably shouldnt have EVER in your lifes... "

notsosure wrote on Aug 17, 2007 10:40 PM:

" here we go again always questioning law enforcement. A fourteen year old should not question or argue with a order given by a police officer. Talk to police or teachers, kids have a attitude that nobody can tell them what to do. Kids mouth off to authority figures and their parents support them. Kid get ineligble for drinking hire a lawyer to get them out of it. Kids are not being taught any respect towards adults. "

shirley wrote on Aug 18, 2007 10:57 AM:

" i was always taught to respect your elders. law enforcement or not. when you are told to do something you just do it whether you like it or not. if you come to my house and all the chairs are full the youngest gets up. i agree with notsosure. kids are not taught respect. "

olof wrote on Aug 18, 2007 2:32 PM:

" Things WERE different for me, I guess. In Mayberry we didn't grow up learning to question cops, thinking that we didn't have to listen to them, spitting on authority, and then having our parents condemn the cops for doing their jobs. When we were on public property,like a bridge, the cops had the authority to tell us to leave if we were loitering, or doing something stupid like jumping from that bridge. I guess in some people's America the police and the military are the enemies. Maybe thats why it needs to be cleaned up, along with some left wing hate America attitudes. "

Angel05 wrote on Aug 18, 2007 4:54 PM:

" Well duh, who isnt going to question someone after what happened? I dont care if the boys were arguing with Mr. Reick or not, The "police officer" shouldnt have put his hands on a 14 year old boy in the first place unless it was self defence, and im thinking probably a 230 pd officer against a 100 "MAYBE" pd boy, who do you think would win. I mean seriously, do you want someone like that as an "authority figure" just because they have the upper hand doesnt always mean they are right. "

Nottelling wrote on Aug 19, 2007 10:08 AM:

" This is actually cedar Valley news worth the ink and paper for which it was printed on. Much more of a REAL issue to us then lesbians getting to raise a hubub about thier definition to society. Some people just can't accept that. If you think about it we should all be posting on articles like this before the others so that we don't look so stupid to the rest of the WWW. "

Havoc wrote on Aug 19, 2007 12:14 PM:

" The photo printed with this story does not show the real damage caused to this child; this child WILL have permanent scarring from this incident. I've had worse injuries also, but not at the hands of Law Enforcement!!! "SERVE AND PROTECT" isn't that an Officers motto? As previously stated these boys were all minors. So, were any attempts made to notify the parents of the Officers concerns of the "POTENTIAL DANGERS" of being on this bridge?? You all keep talking about RESPECTING YOUR ELDERS AND RESPECTING AUTHORITY!!!! These boys showing RESPECT is NOT the issue here ; Its about whether Mr. Reick used the appropriate actions to handle the situation!! Officers are trained to handle ALL kinds of difficult situations. If he assaults a teenager for being on a bridge, is he going to shoot a speeder?? "

olof wrote on Aug 19, 2007 1:27 PM:

" 1. A 14 year old boy is old enough to know basic right from wrong-unless of course the parent(s) have abdicated that duty to others-such as peers. In that case, the kid will have problems with all authority. 2. This had nothing at all to do with who was bigger, or self defense. The cop HAS the authority to order minors off of public property at any time that he considers those minors engaging in something dangerous or stupid. 3. When ANYONE CONFRONTS a cop instead of COMPLYING with his orders, then they are in fact resisting, and he has the lawful authority to take that person into custody. No matter if it is a 100 pound boy, or a 100 pound woman. 4. If you think that this kid was so right, then by all means get with his parents and take it to court. If this cop is such a hazard to the community, then it is your duty to have him reprimanded or removed. "

Steady wrote on Aug 20, 2007 8:32 AM:

" Upset and Havoc I do appreciate the sarcasm in your posts, however it just shows that you are not reading as clearly as you should. You both jumped on the word "on" even though I explained it in an earlier post that it is being "on" the structure outside of the public right of way. So yes you can get from one side to other and be fine as you both jest. I post my original question that I had, "When given an order to remove himself by a police officer, why didn't he?" I guess I am agreeing to disagree. "

confused wrote on Aug 20, 2007 10:38 AM:

" I guess I am asking again. What makes some people think he didn't remove himself from the bridge? I don't see anywhere where he didn't. If this was true and he didn't then why wasn't the boy charged with resisting and placed under arrest? In the article it states one of them was picking up his things. The boy may of been going back to get his and questioned why he was told he could then couldn't. That to me is resonable. The point is. Just because someone asks a question. You can't go arround assaulting people. We as citizens would of not gotten the investigation before being placed under arrest and taken to jail. I just can't believe a person could sit here and keep justifying this? I can't believe if there is even a question about Chief Rieck doing this why he is still working! "

putz69 wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:09 AM:

" I agree with olof, 14 is old enough to know better and be respectful of authority! This is where a 14 year old needs to have been taught by his parents (mom AND dad) respect and right from wrong! If Chief Rieck did do what is claimed, he crossed the line and should be reprimanded, but not lose his job! This looks like a public witch hunt to me!! What provoked the Chief if he did do this?! Teenagers push the bounderies by nature but parents,teachers, law enforcemet,and elders work to keep them in them boundries for thier own and society own good. Kids that come from a intact, faith filled home can and do, do wrong, but you still have to send the right message to the kids! Handling this in a more private discreet way as a parent would have been my choice! But thankfully it was not my choice! We as a society have got to quit letting the inmates run the asylum! If this 14 year old is this disrespectful of authority now, wait and see how disrespectful he is if he gets the Chief run out! "

Independent wrote on Aug 22, 2007 2:19 PM:

" I hope the Chief doesn't watch Grey's Anatomy with Domino. "

olof wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:13 PM:

" The BH officials have had this now for a few weeks, where is the determination? This has been ongoing since July. Either this is much ado about nothing, or there are serious matters at hand. "

confused wrote on Aug 23, 2007 7:37 AM:

" I still am curious as to who said the 14 year old was disrespectful? He asked a question. I can't believe you would want an officer of the law that broke the law himself and disrespected the law by saying it was ok to assault a 14 year old. I know kids do push buttons but you can't go assaulting them at a whim because they did. You talk about respecting authority. Well the law is an authority and if Chief Rieck did this. Chief Rieck disrespected it. Was it his parents fault he did this? Yes he should loose his job if he did this. He broke the law. He is suppose to SERVE and PROTECT. "

shirley wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:03 AM:

" good point olof. "

shirley wrote on Aug 23, 2007 9:28 PM:

" the boys admitted to arguing with him. that is disrespectful in my book. you need to respect elders and your authority figures. If a cop tells you something do you argue with him? I dont! "

putz69 wrote on Aug 23, 2007 10:32 PM:

" So i'm confused, the boy questions the Chief gets beat up but the boy who admitted to his mom to arguing and questioning the Chief had nothing done to him?!!!! Sorry for thinking he had done something disrespectful! Not buying some of these rectally produced defenses of this "completely innocent" 14 year old.Chief probably crossed a line here but come on people let's look at the whole picture here! "

baffled wrote on Aug 24, 2007 7:00 PM:

" I tell you what, if my kid came home to tell me he argued with any authority figure (police, teacher, any adult other than his parents), he would be writing a letter of apology!! What is happening to our society? It's ok for our children to be disrepectful, I don't think so! What are we teaching them? I think it's time we as parents take the bull by the horn and teach our children to be respectful of all adults. Take a look at the marks on this boy's body, it looks to me as if he probably scraped himself while he was climbing up on the bridge to jump off ILLEGALLY! Since none of us were there, no one has the right to say Chief Rieck had just cause to "put his hands on the boy" or not. How do we know this boy did not become confrontational and Chief Rieck felt he had to stop him before things got out of control? Regardless of whether he is 14 or 44, being disrespectful (and it sounds as if he was since he was arguing) which can also become confrontational is wrong!!!!!!!!! Let's remember...."Innocent until proven guilty". "

Havoc wrote on Aug 25, 2007 11:42 PM:

" It seems to me that NONE of you are reading the story and jumping to conclusions as to what happened!! If you read, it says that the Copp boy questioned Officer Reick, because in the past the same boys had been told by other officials that they COULD be there. The boy with the injuries is a Converse boy. My question "BAFFLED"is; If the Copp boy is the one that questioned Officer Reick, then why was the Converse boy the one with the injuries? Because it states in the story that the Copp boy went down to gather his belongings!! It also states that the boys were getting ready to leave so... Another question is, If the boys were getting ready to leave, why was there a problem at all? Officers deal with disrespectful people on a daily basis and are trained to handle themselves Appropriately. Belligerent drunks are handled in a more civil manner. None of you should be speculating as to how these injuries occurred or how severe they are; because as alot of you have stated: "YOU WEREN'T THERE." "

shirley wrote on Aug 26, 2007 9:28 AM:

" so do u actually think that only one of the teenage boys were arguing with the cop? i for some reason think if one was they both were. maybe not just my opinion. "

confused wrote on Aug 26, 2007 11:01 AM:

" I just can't believe people think that saying something if it is a kid to an adult, think it is ok to assault them? I wonder if those of you think it was ok if you asked a question to an officer, teacher whatever you think it would be ok to be assaulted? Wow, I didn't know just because someone agrues or has an opion they should be hit or be assaulted! What has this society come to? Especially from someone suppose to be enforcing the law. Not breaking the laws! Police Officer's are trained to deal with all kinds of situations and not to resort to violence! If an officer argues and is disrespectful and there are some, should we have the right to assault them? "

confused wrote on Aug 26, 2007 11:03 AM:

" P.S. The 14 year old is also INNOCENT until proven guilty. In this case he isn't the one under investigation!!!! "

putz69 wrote on Aug 26, 2007 1:02 PM:

" Havoc were you there? The Copp boy had nothing done to him and he admitted to arguing which is the point, we don't know what the Converse kid did but one is lead to assume that it must have been worse! just speculating though because I wasn't there, just like you. Police are trained to deal with belligerent drunks like you said, so I,and maybe only I, believe something disrespectful happened here that the public is not being told about. We are told some of the details of what the Copp kid did, what the Chief did but nothing of the Converse kid did. You can assume nothing just as freely as I will assume he did something!! Chief Reick doesn't sound like he has a record of kicking kids off their bikes and assaulting them!! I believe the system works most of the time so I guess we will let it play out!!I just pray something good can come out of this, although I don't know what! Maybe some parents can be reminded our kids are watching EVERYTHING we do and say and need to be reminded and shown the difference of right and wrong! "

confused wrote on Aug 26, 2007 5:01 PM:

" Putz69 are you saying that Chief Rieck has been acused of kicking kids off of their bikes and assaulting them to?? I am wondering if there are teachers or other cops in here that is saying it is ok to assault someone for sticking up for theirselves (as we all have) just to make the excuse for assaulting kids? That is all I am going to say. I think that it is sad. That some of you think kids should be seen and not heard. "

Havoc wrote on Aug 26, 2007 6:44 PM:

" Good Point Confused, The 14 year old ISN'T the one being investigated now is he??? I guess we all have our own opinions about this matter! We will all just have to wait for the investigation of OFFICER REICK's actions to become final before we get a verdict!! "

baffled wrote on Aug 26, 2007 7:42 PM:

" CONFUSED: I was implying that both Converse AND Chief Rieck are innocent until proven guilty! Also, I did not say that an officer or teacher has the "right" to use force if someone is being disrespectful. Like many have said, there must be part of the story missing. Plus, if you read the article.... this section: Copp added he argued with Rieck and questioned the chief's assertion that, in the past, the boys had been ordered not to jump from the bridge." .......key word being "not". HAVOC, it does not state that Copp was told by other officials that it was ok. As for the arguing, Converse does not state anything in this story whatsoever, the only thing we see is the injuries that were supposedly caused by Chief Rieck. Maybe Mr. Converse should give his side of the story instead of letting someone else do it for him! My main point in my previous post is that if my son or daughter came home and told me that they were arguing with any adult figure, it's not acceptable unless their life is in jeopardy. From what Copp states, his life was not in jeopardy at the time he "argued". PUTZ69, you put it perfectly: "Maybe some parents can be reminded our kids are watching EVERYTHING we do and say and need to be reminded and shown the difference of right and wrong!" Thank you, thank you, thank YOU!! "

Havoc wrote on Aug 26, 2007 10:40 PM:

" Once again I'm going to ask the same question that I've already asked!!! WERE THE PARENTS OF THESE MINOR CHILDREN EVER CONTACTED??? "

confused wrote on Aug 27, 2007 7:05 PM:

" I am sure Chief Riecks life wasn't in jeopardy either to give him a reason to assault the boy physically if this is what happened Baffled. It does state in the article that at one time they were told they could by the authorities and then told they couldn't. As a kid that would warrant a question. And any of the kids should of been able to ask without being assaulted. That is my point. "

putz69 wrote on Aug 27, 2007 8:53 PM:

" ... The days of parents using the "board of education" on the "seat of understanding" with their kids are gone !Is that a good thing? I don't think so! 30 plus years of excellent, problem free service to a community and country should not give a man a free pass but it should not be overlooked either. "

confused wrote on Aug 28, 2007 6:49 AM:

" Just one more point. With my opinon on the law. I would think that if the boys marks on him was from the bridge and he said Chief Rieck did it and was lying. I would think the boy would be under investigation also. Just my opion. "

Havoc wrote on Aug 31, 2007 1:36 PM:

" Putz69; Are we to be lead to believe that by this comment: "The days of parents using the "board of education" on the "seat of understanding" with their kids are gone !Is that a good thing?" Are you justifying child abuse? As a parent, I agree that our hands are tied when disciplining our children, but I do not think that your choice of discipline is the correct one. But once again, discipline in the home is not the issue, nor is the Chief's past performance. Try to stay on track and deal with the issue at hand!! "

If you would like to comment on this story, please log in with the form below. If you are not a registered user, please CLICK HERE to sign up.
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
 
If you are not a registered user, please CLICK HERE to sign up.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
NEWS | SPORTS | COMMUNITY | BUSINESS | ENTERTAINMENT | FEATURES | OPINIONS | OBITUARIES | CLASSIFIEDS | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | CARRIER PAGES
© 2008, Courier Communications, Waterloo, IA,
A subsidiary of Lee Enterprises