Here's something you might be interested in.
Those Ohio police chiefs that were accused of breaking into the home of the surrogate mother of actor Sarrah Jessica Parker and Mathew Broderick, have been charged with several felonies.
They allegedly were going to sell things to the paparazzi.
And this reminded me of a story I saw on a few talk shows a couple days ago, but haven't seen since.
In Florida about 5 months ago, two cops were conspiring to frame a drunk driver for an accident one of the cops had caused. The videos that lead to a spirited debate on a cable news program, showed officers outside of the their vehicle. At one point, you couldn't see them, but hear one officer say that he doesn't like to lie, but if it means protecting an officer, he's going to do what he's got to do.
If this story turns out to be true, and not some finely crafted editing someone did just to throw on You Tube, I think these officers should be fired. And possibly charged with a few things.
What blew me away was a guy on the talk show that defended them. He said that if they are good cops, they shouldn't lose their pension and everything else.
How hard is it for an intelligent person to realize...that if you are an officer of the law, and are caught in something like this, the ramifications are endless.
Any case the officers may have testified in in the past, can now be re-tried (talk about a waste of money).
Any people out there that don't trust the police (because they're idiots), almost sound like they're justified. That becomes a big PR nightmare.
I remember after officer Craig Peyer killed Cara Knott on Mercy Road in Poway, there was a two year period where cops had a problem pulling people over. Everyone said, "Well...I was looking for a place to pull over where it wasn't so dark."
(Peyer apparently pulled women over in dark areas, and once that came out, everyone thought this gave them carte blanche to decide when and where they'd pull over when they saw the blue-and-red lights behind them).
What if these cops had pinned this accident on the woman who was driving drunk. And because of that, she lost her license. And that lead to her losing her job, and not being able to support her family. That may lead to depression, and perhaps suicide. Unlikely, sure. But it's a possibility.
And really, it just boils down to this. Cops have to follow the guidelines that are laid down for them. Most of them aren't rocket scientists or they'd be...well, making more money doing rocket science.
And all this leads me to the last news story I've heard from a few people (but have yet to see in the paper).
A bank teller in Seattle lost his job because when he was robbed, and decided to chase the robber. A few blocks after following him, and with the help of a bystander, he knocked the guy down and held him until police arrived.
The FBI and police recommend you don't do this.
And so does this bank, which is why they fired the 30-year-old. They say their employees are told to comply with all the demands during a robbery. I guess it's a banks version of "the customer is always right."
And obviously, I can see why the bank has a rule like this. But is it really grounds for terminating the dude?
Okay, sure...you might not want to make him "Employee of the Month" with a photo of him karate chopping a gun from a perps hand. But to fire someone for that just seems silly.
How about a two or three day suspension without pay. A staff meeting showing some goofy, boring film about the dangers of trying to stop a robbery.
And you move on.
Those Ohio police chiefs that were accused of breaking into the home of the surrogate mother of actor Sarrah Jessica Parker and Mathew Broderick, have been charged with several felonies.
They allegedly were going to sell things to the paparazzi.
And this reminded me of a story I saw on a few talk shows a couple days ago, but haven't seen since.
In Florida about 5 months ago, two cops were conspiring to frame a drunk driver for an accident one of the cops had caused. The videos that lead to a spirited debate on a cable news program, showed officers outside of the their vehicle. At one point, you couldn't see them, but hear one officer say that he doesn't like to lie, but if it means protecting an officer, he's going to do what he's got to do.
If this story turns out to be true, and not some finely crafted editing someone did just to throw on You Tube, I think these officers should be fired. And possibly charged with a few things.
What blew me away was a guy on the talk show that defended them. He said that if they are good cops, they shouldn't lose their pension and everything else.
How hard is it for an intelligent person to realize...that if you are an officer of the law, and are caught in something like this, the ramifications are endless.
Any case the officers may have testified in in the past, can now be re-tried (talk about a waste of money).
Any people out there that don't trust the police (because they're idiots), almost sound like they're justified. That becomes a big PR nightmare.
I remember after officer Craig Peyer killed Cara Knott on Mercy Road in Poway, there was a two year period where cops had a problem pulling people over. Everyone said, "Well...I was looking for a place to pull over where it wasn't so dark."
(Peyer apparently pulled women over in dark areas, and once that came out, everyone thought this gave them carte blanche to decide when and where they'd pull over when they saw the blue-and-red lights behind them).
What if these cops had pinned this accident on the woman who was driving drunk. And because of that, she lost her license. And that lead to her losing her job, and not being able to support her family. That may lead to depression, and perhaps suicide. Unlikely, sure. But it's a possibility.
And really, it just boils down to this. Cops have to follow the guidelines that are laid down for them. Most of them aren't rocket scientists or they'd be...well, making more money doing rocket science.
And all this leads me to the last news story I've heard from a few people (but have yet to see in the paper).
A bank teller in Seattle lost his job because when he was robbed, and decided to chase the robber. A few blocks after following him, and with the help of a bystander, he knocked the guy down and held him until police arrived.
The FBI and police recommend you don't do this.
And so does this bank, which is why they fired the 30-year-old. They say their employees are told to comply with all the demands during a robbery. I guess it's a banks version of "the customer is always right."
And obviously, I can see why the bank has a rule like this. But is it really grounds for terminating the dude?
Okay, sure...you might not want to make him "Employee of the Month" with a photo of him karate chopping a gun from a perps hand. But to fire someone for that just seems silly.
How about a two or three day suspension without pay. A staff meeting showing some goofy, boring film about the dangers of trying to stop a robbery.
And you move on.