Latino Police Radio part of the Blog Talk Radio Network will interview Author and former police officer of the NYPD Joe Sanchez. Joe has been trying to tell this story for some time. It’s his story, but not his alone. It’s also the story of those who lived and died alongside him, in Viet Nam and in that other battle, for justice and safety under the shield of the law, that is fought daily in the streets of every big city by every honest cop. In his case, the city was the Naked City and the cop was a Latino. And the battle was neither for the civilians alone, nor just against the bad guys in the street. Sometimes the bad guys were in the Department. And sometimes the people who needed protection were the honest cops. Catch the show live Arpil 20, 2008 4pm or hear the re-broadcast...www.blogtalkradio.com/loafla

Point of view:

Hi to all Blog Talk Radio

As a retied NYPD officer who rose to the rank of a commanding officer of a detective squad, and having special Internal Affairs training, which allowed me to work as an Integrity Control Officer, and to work at the advocate office [ under the Police Commissioner], I have to say that there is a rule three. The rule of three allows the NYPD Police Commissioner discretion in choosing which officers get to return to work, and those that don't get to get back to work, after being tried and found innocent.. Unfortunately, this rule of three has been affirmed in the Supreme Court, and there is no recourse for those denied officers. Therefore, Joe is correct in saying, "I was found innocent, but not given back the job..

In addition, I want to add that the police commissioner usually request feedback from the officer's command regarding whether he should allowed the officer involved, his job back.Furthermore, any other person ,or officer that is aware of the case, can request to see the commissioner , or or write and add their input. Basically the decision is not made capriciously by choosing yes, or no, or via the pick of the hat.. Therefore, is it possible that someone went after him for his prior action against others in the department? The answer is simply, yes!That is just an answer to the possibility. But the truth will never be told unless in a dying breath the person responsible confesses.

Let me add that I am also of Hispanic descent and was born in San German, Puerto Rico. Yet, my being Hispanic does not give me any right to side with Joe, or to defend him. I made this statement so that others are aware that this is not my reason for writing this. This was an injustice and will continue to be as long as there is the rule of three. I would have written this for anyone regardless of their race. creed, or color. Those that know me will support my statement and action.


I found it hard to believe that a retired officer attempted to add to his credibility by saying that he,too, was of Hispanic descent, and believed that Joe had to been guilty, "maybe not to the extent that....:" but that he had to be involved since he was there. Yet Joe's partner was there and they did not think that he was involved, since he was not indicted. It's the tradition of the department and prosecutors to go after both partners in a situation where both partners are working together, and one partner is alleged to have committed a crime in front of the other partner, who fails to report it. You are your partner's keeper and vice versa, and the department will hang both together as a team since both of you should have known. It goes even further when a commander loses his/her command because of a wrong committed by an officer/s, and the commander should have known. What this indicates is that they only wanted Joe, and not his partner. Obviously as someone on your show stated, "He got railroaded." This can happen to anyone that speaks out against anyone that has power.

It's appalling to hear other retired police officers, who write that Joe must be guilty, without knowing the facts.Howerver, those facts are not easily obtained, as one of your writers suggest that they are. Unfortunately, under the so called "Freedom of Information Act, one can not get all the records and facts. Although I taught at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, attended the FBI Academy-- and I am not an attorney-- I do know that there are exceptions to the rules, such as medical records, if it endangers the life, or safety of any person, anything that reveals confidential investivestigative technigues, anything reported in confidence...etc. Joe is apparently correct in saying, "These guys should first do their homework before judging me. They haven't even met me."


I have had the privilege of knowing Joe Sanchez personally, and know the type of person he is. I, too, believe him. There are also other retired officers that know Joe and have stated that his mouth has gotten him into trouble. For this reason...my training and involment in numerous investigations, both in criminal and internal, has let me to believe in what Joe has stated. Unfortunately, this will continue to happen. Good luck to Joe and to Blog Talk Radio.

Edwin Aviles.



"In God We Trust"