www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-edit-phelps-editorial-0927-20110926,0,1281924.story
Here is the text of my chosen editorial. I included my selections of qualifiers and rebuttals.
From the Daily Press
Earlier in September on these pages, we urged Isle of Wight of voters to fire their embattled sheriff, Charlie Phelps on November 8 and elect one of his two opponents. But based on the bizarre and erratic behavior of Mr. Phelps in the last week, we no longer believe Isle of Wight residents have the luxury of time.
We call for the immediate resignation of Mr. Phelps.
[Possible qualifier - immediate]
Mr. Phelps' office has been under investigation by the state police since 2010. The Isle of Wight prosecutor has said he won't use testimony from the sheriff's lead investigator in prosecuting cases.
The straw that broke the camel's back occurred on Sept. 20. That's when Mr. Phelps abruptly walked off the job and told his staff he quit. He deposited his gun and badge on a desk, with the keys to his county vehicles, and hitched a ride home with a family member. This came without prior warning to his staff, consultation with other county or state law enforcement officials or sufficient notice to his second in command, Maj Joseph Willard.
His sudden departure left a void of leadership in the county's law enforcement office. It's a frightening dereliction of duty by an official with immense power over people's lives — who also happens to carry a firearm.
Phelps, apparently, second-guessed his decision. He made an about face the following day and returned to his job, took back his gun and badge, and resumed his role…as if nothing happened.
[Possible qualifier - apparently - casts doubt on his motives/suggests ambiguity of purpose]
It's one thing to have a bad day and go home early. We all have them.
[That is the only point of rebuttal]
It's entirely another to storm off in a huff and announce to your staff that you've quit when you're the county sheriff, potentially putting resident's safety at risk. Too many questions abound: what if something happened? Did warrants need to be issued? Were restraining orders not served? Did Maj. Willard have the proper authority vested in him to make command decisions in crisis?
Mr. Phelps' explanations for his actions are even more peculiar — and worrisome. He told a Daily Press reporter he was "irritated and frustrated" and informed a WAVY television reporter he had a "meltdown."
Those are not exactly words that inspire confidence in the county's top cop.
[Possible qualifier - not exactly]
Mr. Phelps troubles started to come to light about 18 months ago when one of his deputies, Sgt. Ronald Carwile, was arrested and charged with sodomy, indecent liberties and exposing himself to a juvenile. When executing a search warrant, police found crime scene paraphernalia in his car, raising credibility questions about how Phelps' office was handling its evidence gathering.
Next up was the Jonathan Burns fiasco. Burns, a 10-year volunteer, is a convicted felon. He's related to Mr. Phelps through his son, Capt. Paul Phelps. Burns was allegedly issued a stun gun by the younger Phelps, who was later charged with a felony for dispensing a weapon to an ex-con.
Another close associate of the Phelps family escaped prosecution when an arrest warrant fell through the cracks and was not issued for more than three years. The statute of limitations ran out.
Further embarrassing the sheriff's office, Isle of Wight County Commonwealth's Attorney Wayne Farmer issued a statement in August saying his office would no longer use testimony from the sheriff's lead investigator — Capt. Phelps — when prosecuting criminal suspects.
Last week, Deputy Matthew Lyons was forced to resign after state police launched an investigation of allegations he was involved with child pornography.
Law enforcement officials should be held to the highest standard of professional conduct and personal behavior. Unfortunately, Mr. Phelps has managed his office of late to the lowest common denominator.
[Possible qualifier - Highest standard]
Isle of Wight residents deserve better than what they are getting from Mr. Phelps. They deserve it now, not in three months.
I selected this editorial at random from the website of the Daily Press. Much to my dismay, it seems virtually devoid of clear qualifiers or rebuttals. Perhaps I misunderstand the use of qualifiers, but there are very few lukewarm descriptors for what boils down to one major point. The scarcity of qualifiers could be due to the straightforward style of the piece. It relies heavily on its list of facts, rather than rhetorical fireworks, to get its point across.
One apparent deficiency is the lack of rebuttals. The piece does little to actually build an argument or to challenge any opposing viewpoint.
The rest of the piece is a litany of the Sheriff's failings as a commander, each added point simply refers back to the original request/statement. Overall the piece is not particularly well designed, but the facts presented are compelling on their own.
I completely agree with the things you mentioned about this piece. It seems to me that it is acting more of a straight-to-the-point, factual piece that does not make use of many qualifiers or rebuttals. Perhaps this is due to the fact that, as you said, this isn't really a piece of writing meant to be debated upon. It exists simply to present facts. What I understood to be the point of the editorial is that the integrity of the Phelps family is questionable. There is no strong rebuttal to this claim, making this piece very one-sided and biased, it seems.
ReplyDeleteIn making such a strong claim against the Phelps family, the author appeals to emotion of his audience. I believe he aims to expose the faults of the Phelps family in order to acquire legitimate officials for the Isle of Wight residents quickly. His tone seems urgent and, in a sense, feels effective in getting the point across.
Hello, the link to your article does not work, but that's ok, I feel like you provided enough information. I have no police experience but it's odd that Mr. Phelps was allowed to have his job back after walking out. Most people would not have the opportunity of coming back. Do you know if they are still under investigation, or if any progress has been made at that station?
ReplyDeleteIt's clear to me that the authors claim is focused the outlandish behavior on this specific police department. There are specific behaviors mentioned that would result in disciplinary action such as, the ex convict being given the taser gun.
Throughout the article it is kind of difficult to understand a clear rebuttal. I take this passage to be from the point of view of an angry towns person who is fed up with what is happening, and is seeking change.