Trooper who confessed to fixing ticket back on duty

difficult topic. lots of good points so far

maybe look at it from another angle:
I have known nurses who get in trouble with narcotics through work. they end up stealing narcs, giving a shot of saline to the post-op patient and keeping the morphine for themselves, etc. If they go through rehab and such, they can sometimes get their license back.


Do you want that nurse administering your meds after surgery?

Something to think about.
 
Oh, and by the way, how many of US regular citizens get to have a criminal conviction EXPUNGED upon our release from prison?!
Click to expand...
Not uncommon at all.

I was given a similar sentance when I was 18.
He wasn't released from prison, please read the original article
TBO and Joab, you guys are acting as though you don't think any action by a human being should ever disqualify their character to the point where they are not trusted for a given position where trust is a requisite.
Click to expand...
Actually no.
I am just not acting, as you are, as though every action by a human being should always disqualify their character.
Please read my posts on the subject

How about that subject, actually? You're a parent, selecting a babysitter.
Would you not prefer to exclude as potential babysitters any 15-year-old girls who were known to have hung out with gang members; spent a year in juvi-hall for lighting fire to the home of a rival; been expelled from school for fighting?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but if the girl was known to have fixed a bathroom/hall pass, served her detention or suspension and returned to classess and successfully completed her academic probation I probably would consider her for the position.
Please read the original article

How about you put a lid on the malarkey that every person who has been released from prison after his sentence was served is just as clean-slated as a person who was never in trouble to begin with.
Click to expand...
How about you put a lid on the malarky of comparing ticket fixing to arson and violent crimina; activity

I think that the only reason the judge expunged the scum-cop's record is because, as someone mentioned, his career is useless if he cannot be believed as a police officer.
Click to expand...
Could it possibly be that he had had a exceptional career as a police officer up to this point
The offender's lawyer would impugn the credibility of the cop and make his testimony unbelievable to a jury. "Officer Smith, isn't it true that you were once convicted, and did time in prison, for official bribery and corruption? Why should the jury believe you today as you testify against my client? Didn't a court of law find that you were a liar?"
Click to expand...
He did not do time in prison and his record was wiped clean upon completion of probation.
Please read the original article
 
I see an issue here.

I do not feel the man should be an officer anywhere, ever again. As an officer, I know how extreme that is, and it pains me to say that about another man. However, he broke the trust of the society he serves. What good can an officer be after that trust is broken? Trust is our badge, not that piece of tin.

HOWEVER, in this thread, the same people who are arguing that the cops shoulrd be drawn and quartered, are the very same ones who think felon's rights should be restored. If the time is served, they say, the cost is paid. Let the felon return to lie unencumbered.

So, which is it? Is a felon deserving of losing his or her rights for life, after the sentence is served? Or does this trooper deserve to get his job back, since all of rights should be restored...........


It is the exact same thing, before anyone argues its not.
 
"So, which is it? Is a felon deserving of losing his or her rights for life, after the sentence is served? Or does this trooper deserve to get his job back, since all of rights should be restored..........."

You're comparing apples to oranges. The trooper has had his record expunged, so I guess that means all his rights have been restored. Therefore, he has a legal right to be a police officer again. That said, his crime, whether it's on his record or not, exposes him as a fundamentally dishonest person who should not be hired as a police officer even if it is legal to do so. Having civil rights restored is not the same as getting his job back.

Tim
 
It's like some LEO's know that criminals will repeat offend, due to their record. How do we know that this LEO will not fudge an evidence inventory, fudge on a warrant, fix another ticket? We dont, but chances are, due to HIS record, he will.

Plus, with this, a good defense lawyer would neuter him on the stand if he had to testify on anything.
 
liliysdad said:
HOWEVER, in this thread, the same people who are arguing that the cops shoulrd be drawn and quartered, are the very same ones who think felon's rights should be restored. If the time is served, they say, the cost is paid. Let the felon return to lie unencumbered.

So, which is it? Is a felon deserving of losing his or her rights for life, after the sentence is served? Or does this trooper deserve to get his job back, since all of rights should be restored...........


It is the exact same thing, before anyone argues its not.
Click to expand...


No, it's not the exact same thing.
I'm not one of those people who thinks that felons should automatically get their rights restored. Trying to apply a one-size-fits-all policy to all cases is a mistake. That's why I feel that anyone who society doesn't feel should have all their rights back (like a released armed robber) really shouldn't be released if he's not worthy of having all his rights back automatically. Maybe I'm just in favor of a lot more crimes -- or at least repeat offenses -- being sent to prison for life.

But a COP who breaks the public trust should definitely be treated differently from just an average dude. Sure, on release he should have whatever rights restored to him that society feels is appropriate -- but there is no "right" to be a police officer. Police departments maintain a standard for hiring, and if you're a person who has never done wrong or had a criminal record, they can exclude you from hiring because they don't like your "character," right? Well, why not the same for a guy who was a cop, and who proved, on the job, that he did not have the right character?


-azurefly
 
Trying to apply a one-size-fits-all policy to all cases is a mistake.
Click to expand...
That's my point

The judge that heard the case judged him worthy of a possible future second chance

The people that he worked for judged him worthy of a second chance

Those that have only read a brief summary of the story have judged him unworthy of a second chance

As always I lean towards the decisions of the people actually familiar with the case
 
But a COP who breaks the public trust should definitely be treated differently from just an average dude.
Click to expand...


WHOAH, wait a mintue. I thought that cops were citizens, and that we are all equal. When HR218 was in the news, it seems that all I heard was "Cops shouldnt be treated any differently, they are just like us". Now, from the same group of folks, I hear that we SHOULD be held to a higher standard. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. Seems to me that you want to cops to abide by the same rules and laws you do, but be punsihed more harshly when they do make mistakes.

Seems to kinda skew the whole "Some are more equal" argument, doesnt it?
 
You're a cop, right liliysdad? Is it not true that cops are subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination from their jobs for "conduct unbecoming a police officer"?

That itself is one instance of cops being subject to rules and standards of conduct that are beyond what ordinary civilians are subject to.

So yeah, they're subject to all the rules and laws that we are subject to -- PLUS some OTHERS that must be imposed so that we can be sure the enforcers of our laws are honest and of good ethical and moral character.

Why are you arguing so forcefully for police officers to NOT be held to high standards of ethical and moral character?


-azurefly
 
Azure, I am not arguing against the standards imposed. In fact, I am quite in favor of them. What I do find amusing is that the same people who are angry because we are allowed certain privileges are the same ones who want us held to a higher standard. Its a package deal. With increased responsibility comes higher standards. With higher standards come special privileges.
 
With increased responsibility comes higher standards. With higher standards come special privileges.
Click to expand...

NO. With increased responsibility, higher oversight and standards. NO special privileges at all. If you are guilty, same penalty across the board.
 
NO special privileges at all. If you are guilty, same penalty across the board.
Click to expand...
And the penalty was probation and community service at which point his record was wiped clean.

You have stated a cop should have a clean record, he does.
 
But a COP who breaks the public trust should definitely be treated differently from just an average dude.


I did not make that statement.

If you are guilty, same penalty across the board.
Click to expand...

I did make that one, and stand by it. IMO, the officer in question should not be able to ever be in LE again. Why? Character, integrity. He has none. But, since the powers that be rehired him, not much else we can say, except I told you so, when they catch him in the future doing the same stuff.
 
Wildcard, please note that I am not disagreeing with you. I do not feel that the man should be an officer either, and for the same reasons as you. This man committed a heinous crime, and abused the powers bestowed him.

I was simply playing devil's advocate.
 
liliysdad

FWIW, I see your point and agree with you. One law, applied the same way to all. Sometimes that does not happen with LEO's. It also does not happen with politicians or anyone of power. The common citizen gets the short end here.
 
liliysdad said:
Azure, I am not arguing against the standards imposed. In fact, I am quite in favor of them. What I do find amusing is that the same people who are angry because we are allowed certain privileges are the same ones who want us held to a higher standard. Its a package deal. With increased responsibility comes higher standards. With higher standards come special privileges.
Click to expand...


Would you please enumerate the "special privileges" you feel you are entitled to, above and beyond the rights of "ordinary citizens," by virtue of being a cop?


The reason I feel you need to be held to more stringent standards of behavior and ethics is BECAUSE YOU ARE GIVEN A BADGE, A GUN, AND ARREST POWERS, AND YOUR WORD IS TAKEN AS VIRTUALLY UNIMPEACHABLE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE REST OF US.

Holding you to more stringent behavioral and ethical standards should not buy you "special privileges": It is the cost of being able to wield the special POWER you have as police officers. Those powers should NOT -- I repeat, SHOULD NOT -- be given to those whose ethics are questionable in the least.


And please comment on the following stuff I asked about:

Is it not true that cops are subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination from their jobs for "conduct unbecoming a police officer"?

That itself is one instance of cops being subject to rules and standards of conduct that are beyond what ordinary civilians are subject to.

So yeah, they're subject to all the rules and laws that we are subject to -- PLUS some OTHERS that must be imposed so that we can be sure the enforcers of our laws are honest and of good ethical and moral character.
Click to expand...


I established here what is commonly known -- that cops ARE ALREADY (supposed to be) held to certain levels of personal conduct. And that's just the personal, to say nothing of what they do on the job using (or ABusing) the powers that are granted to them.


-azurefly
 
"You have stated a cop should have a clean record, he does."

At a *minimum* a cop should have a clean record. A cop also needs to be trustworthy. This one is not.

Tim
 
This guy's credibility is gone. Any defense attorney will simply sit back and have the cop admit to forging official documents. Whether his record is expunged or not will not remove that mark from his history. "I lied then but I swear I'm telling the truth now!" I don't see an DA relying on this guy for anything. So, waste of headcount.

Why they'd let him back in is beyond me, unless he contributed heavily to someone's campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top