Talk:Sanford Police Department

Controversies
Why is the controversies the largest section of the article? I don't think this article was written until after the Trayvon Martin shooting. This article should be a candidate for deletion, its only purpose is to discredit this police department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TyrisNC (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All police departments are notable, if only for their existence and jurisdiction. IF the article is overly focused on controversy, add more to other parts of the article.   --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not the consensus on Wikipedia at present that "all police departments are notable." Most articles about small police departments get deleted or merged. Please note the two recent AFDs which led to the deletion of articles about nonnotable small police departments: Articles for deletion/Chamberlain Police Department (South Dakota) and Articles for deletion/Huron Police Department (South Dakota). This article seems like a coatrack article, where the "controversies" section is so large it dwarfs the actual information about the department. Edison (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, more than one person has said this is a coatrack, there may be something to the idea. But consider this, the SPD is 'troubled.' It has had a couple-of-three notable problems in the last ten or so years. Most of these problems are not (and should not) be covered by the Shooting of TM article. The next time these guys hit the news, and they will, we ought to have an article. Nobody will think to look at the TM article when asking about the SPD. I would prefer a more conventional article, with photos, a better organizational outline, discussion of ranks and so on, but the SPD is not espeically forthcming on their site. I also want to take a minute and thank you all for your kind and thoughtful comments. We all want a good NPOV Wikipedia and I hope my efforts here have been toward and not away from that. Anyone want to start one of those fancy deletion discussions? I vote to keep. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The SPD web site gives little information to add to other parts of the article. In time, those details (and so those sections) will expand. I certainly did start this page after the shooting. The SPD has many, many press mentions, making it very notable indeed. As for the purpose of the article. The purpose is to contribute to a more complete Wikipedia. I hope you can help expand the article. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, for NPOV, please withhold controversies for now. Flesh out the article first. The article does appear to be only to discredit SPD, I see more to question or criticize. For example, The SPD accreditation web page at http://www.sanfordfl.gov/police/accreditation.html indicates the dept is 'A Fully Accredited Police Department.' But last accreditation stated was 2005. The FL LE Accreditation web site http://www.flaccreditation.org/Accredited%20Agencies.html#S says SPD was last accredited on 2008 Feb 20. Accreditation is valid for 3 yrs. Did SPD accreditation lapse? Or are web pages just not updated? Once the basic article is complete, it may be appropriate to reintroduce the controversies.Doctree (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Really, the SPD just does not put a lot on its web page. I just went over it again and it has almost nothing, names of sections, date established, number of officers, size of cannine unit, nothing at all. Going from press reports fills this out a bit, but of course is oriented toward recent events. (OTOH, my goodness Seminole County has a great web site [] Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is important to always write from a neutral point of view. But this is a police department-- we shouldn't be surprised that alleged misconduct carries far more weight in the public eye than years of ordinary (but still valorous) police work. It's not news when a dog bites a man. News is when a man bites a dog. So please do try to keep balance, but don't feel the need to exclude otherwise appropriate material just to avoid a vague sense of unbalance. -HectorMoffet (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bill Lee
Thanks to Tviz for this well-written para: ''Bill Lee, Chief of Police at the time of the shooting, received criticism for his role in the case. The Sanford city commission, including the Mayor, passed a motion of no confidence in regards to chief Lee, and his handling of the case.[20] On March 22, 2012, Lee announced that he had temporarily stepped down from his position as chief of police, stating "my involvement in this matter is overshadowing the process."[21]'' I propose we delete it. Sure it is true, sure it is well-cited, but gosh darn it, we have a fine article on the shooting of TM. I fear this page might become just an adjunct to that. Gosh, I wish we could find ore about the SPD itself. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture of new Sanford police station
I'm wondering if a picture from Sanford.gov of the station would be allowable. The only thing I saw that definitely was had something to do with the government, not local governments. Psalm84 (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We would welcome your snapshots of the SPD building and maybe some police cars. Anything to add more meat to this article. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually don't have any way myself to take pictures of it. The picture I thought about adding is from the Sanford.gov web site. I wasn't sure if that was allowed. Psalm84 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? At least we know the copyright is not an issue. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the Sanford.gov site known to be PD? Remember that federal government works are free of government, but state and local are not always WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A photo taken from a public place, like the road, is perfectly OK. Was that your question? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Psalm84 said "The picture I thought about adding is from the Sanford.gov web site. I wasn't sure if that was allowed." - In that instance, it is possible the City of Sanford could copyright the photo. If a Wikipedian took a photo himself/herself then he/she can license it as a free license. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)