“I Dealt **** as a Gangsta” High Ranking NYPD Cop Reveals his Criminal Past

a reply to: Indigent

I am not allowed to ask about marital status until they are hired and filling out their w4.

but to actually discuss what you ask.....divorce may not be a bad decision on the part of the person you aare interviewing. My first wife made the bad decisions that ended our marriage. As well, divorce does not cause imprisonment, and my experience has been that a person going through a divorce may be a little less productive, but they still need a paycheck, and still show up to work. The productivity thing is just an ebb and flow/give and take type thing.

As a person running a business, I am concerned with maintaining a stability of operations. If you have a habit of going to jail, that doesn't make my operation stable. Certainly you understand the gist of this?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

getting a divorce is not the bad choice...

Never mind I just saw a bias and I wont try to justify it, in my personal experience people sometimes surprise you and a trial period may be better than judging from other aspects of your life, who know i may be a god flipping burgers but i wont get hired for my X condition unrelated to the job.

a reply to: Indigent

There are laws on employment, unemployment insurance, etc that make your excellent suggestion unworkable.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

laws? insurance?? in what communist country you live?

OH right America the land of the freedom...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would employ him right now at my current business, but we have policies that forbid hiring felons. If i had the authority to overwrite that policy, I absolutely would. Because it is what is keeping me from the best employee I have ever had.

That's fine, and I totally agree with you on this guy. Problem is, is that he nor the one in the article is suitable to be top brass. There is either a rule that any felon can work with law and government or none. It is far too dangerous for people who are breaking the laws to be writing and enforcing them, unless of course that is the standard and everyone is knows about it and is okay with it.

My point is that, a rehabilitated individual could take any job, no matter, the will for them to do well usually overcomes the urge to risk their position.

The person who never got caught tends to use his position of power for his own gains.

There has been so much corruption in police forces across North America, and the world, simply because of the power they hold. They barely even prosecute within their own ranks even if the person came to them with a clean slate, imagine if they hired only criminals and that continued?

The really ironic thing, is in black and white, they do. It could be said that the people who become career criminals, a good many of them want to be police when they are young. They simply end up on one side or the other, depending on what kind of shake they had as kids.

Food for thought.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: thesaneone

What are you talking about?
your ok with crack dealing cops working your streets?


We'll I don't want to live in your neighborhood.

I am. Rehabilitation is the supposed cornerstone of our justice system and society. I think it's fantastic that someone can turn their life around from gang banger to honest citizen (though honesty is always a question with cops) and have a successful life doing so.

a reply to: boncho

and thats the problem: he was never caught.

So how would he have been screened?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: boncho

and thats the problem: he was never caught.

So how would he have been screened?

I don't think it's the screening I think it's the, looking the other way, or downright trying to change the law so it doesn't apply to those enforcing it, along the way. No one noticed his entire career who he was or where he came from? I find that hard to believe.

a reply to: boncho

i have a pretty unsavory early 20's history myself.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: boncho

i have a pretty unsavory early 20's history myself.

Look, it's not about people's histories. Its about the system they are going into. How it operates and how it judges itself especially when it is charged to make judgements against regular citizens.

Half the laws on the books are nonsense and do not even apply to "protecting" people. Someone from a rough neighbourhood or with a colourful past could be a great asset to a police force. As he mentioned in his memoirs that him going into a rough neighbourhood, he could, with littles problems, and police there fine. Better than someone with no familiarity.

The problem is the laws on the books are telling these people to make criminals out of absolutely everyone, directives to go hard into some neighbourhoods more than others. Top brass covering up mistakes, illegal behaviour by their officers, or themselves protecting each other with "the blue shield".

It truly is a divide and conquer scenario.

The way it has to be, is either we stick to being policed and ruled by the supposed clean slate, moral superior people, (and should anyone falter even the slightest they should be kicked out) or we live in a world where no one is judged with a simple stroke.

We have neither now.

I think if the first scenario, which is somewhat what the idea is now, except that the overlords are not investigated or punished properly, should this system actually work, they may run out of people with clean histories to run government and police.

The second scenario is one where everyone needs to drop stereotype and judgements against one another.

Both are probably unlikely to ever happen.

a reply to: onequestion

Wait, He fell off a chair? Thats why he is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars a year tax free?

Are you kidding me?

I dont want to live on this planet anymore.