Talk:John Balcerzak

Headers Needed

Perverted. Getting back pay for assisting murder and getting elected as president? Probably only in the US... ~~

Unions are important, but cases like this show they sometimes have too much power... 67.175.167.58 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to live in the same town with this particular local, and they don't have a very good record as far as union solidarity goes. But speaking as a sometime union steward for another union, I will point out that from their point of view, the cops were fired for being too accomodating to what they thought were two members of a gay community which in prior years they were encouraged to persecute. A union's job is to keep their members from getting punished to an extent not proportionate to that of the mistake. The "members of the year" thing, on the other hand, was obnoxious and in the worst possible taste; but was aimed mostly at the department and the then-chief thereof (with whom they were not happy).--Orange Mike 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What a bizarre country is the US. This sick son of a bitch is gonna get his, sooner or later. Why no website advertising who this sick fuck is? 201.19.129.197 13:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"...not getting punished proportionate to their mistake." - Let's see, a fourteen year old boy, with a hole drilled in his head, is wandering naked, and all the good officers do is return him to his abuser and ultimate killer. A simple background check would have revealed Dahmer as a twice convicted sexual abuser and more questions would have been asked. A simple background check on Sinthasomphone would have shown he was fourteen and certainly should not be left with a grown man. And doing both would have revealed that Sinthasomphone was the brother of the boy Dahmer molested and got ten months for. I doubt the gay community would have gotten too up in arms over a few simple checks such as this. And then to make jokes about it over the police radio band, likely as Sinthasomphone was being killed. Nice police work. But let's not fire them or anything. That would be too drastic, policeman who don't do their jobs so severely that a boy is dead, as are several others, had Dahmer not been on the street. But by all means, let's make him Union president for his courageous fight! It makes be ill. But we only have ourselves to blame. We get the government, and bureaucracy, we deserve. If we accept that policemen aren't there to actually protect us when clear violations have been commited, but instead sit preditorially by the highways and byways to pick up the Dillingeresque speeders going ten over the speed limit, then this is what we get. Perhaps someday we'll learn that the State isn't your friend. The Barney Fifes persecute the least dangerous and let the dangerous do as they please. Which makes revenue for the State again...?

Point of talk pages and "orphan" status

As disturbing as Balcerzak's actions were, the Talk pages on Wikipedia aren't open forums for discussing your opinion of the person or event in the article; they are for discussion of how to improve the article itself. Also don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes.

Also I removed the "orphan" status heading and category links because I added a "See also" link from the Jeffrey Dahmer page. Inoculatedcities 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite correct Inoculated, but some friendly advice - you may want to refrain from commenting in what can be interpreted as a condescending tone. It could be taken the wrong way. Happy editing!  :-) CanadianMist 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

---

You both are virgins arent you...

this article is badly written

someone needs to go through this and sort out the article, a lot of it sounds like children wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.12 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Such as? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree that this article looks "like children wrote it", I do agree that it should be cleaned up in order to separate info on his connection to the Dahmer case and his subsequent service as President of the Milwaukee Police Association, rather than switching back and forth. Furthermore, the article should ideally be expanded to include additional details of Balcerzak's life and career. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, articles are written in chronological order. As to the rest: he's a marginally notable figure at best, and as a Milwaukee historian I'm telling you, it's extremely unlikely that the article can be meaningfully expanded from the requisite reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of figured there might not be a whole lot of publiclly-available information of Balcerzak beyond his connection to the Dahmer Case and his service as President of the Milwaukee Police Association, because like User:OrangeMike said "he is a marginally notable figure", but at least the article looks better. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is inappropriate in its overt slant and value judgments.

This article is completely unacceptable as an encyclopedia entry. I am not defending John Balcerzak as I am not an expert on the facts. But could it be any more obvious that the author has engaged in a smear campiahn by stringing together as many negative facts and assertions as possible in order to paint a deliberately unflattering portrait of the man?

One other issue: I can understand couching the word "righteous" in quotations since it is a strongly positive value judgment, and the author would want the reader to understand that the term is not his own. But there is no justifiable reason for placing the phrase Officer of the Year in quotations: it is an objective term, the title of a particular award and honor. The use of this phrase does not in any way imply approval of the awarding of this honor to Balcerzak. One might say that the quotations were simply used as a matter of good punctuation, except for the fact that the phrase is deliberately left uncapitalized, as if to belittle the honor. The obvious reason for the quotation marks and lack of capitals is to pass judgment on the fact the award was given in the first place. It drips with sarcasm and doesn't belong here.Dmacewen (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Dmacewen (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)]] comment added by Dmacewen (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have other information about the subject, go ahead and add it. What's in here is all properly sourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)