It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On-Duty Cop Shows Up Plastered Drunk For Target Practice, Will Not Face Any Charges.

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Meh.

I long for the day where something like this really matters.


i long for the day when a police officer may be considered an ally and not a loose cannon.

but, you know, meh.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Low hanging fruit.....there's a reason its more worth your time going after.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

He lost his livelihood. I'm okay with that. It'll be the gift that keeps on giving until he dies.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well, it does matter...in its own way. Honestly, it calls into question prior decisions made by this particular LEO, does it not? It does for me. It forces me to acknowledge the possibility that this guy is an alcoholic, which if true begs the question "was this the first time this guy was drinking on the job"? I'm going to venture to say that the answer to that is a resounding NO. Even alcoholics don't get plastered when they initially start drinking before/during work.......so that makes me think, how many people could be sitting in cells, lives essentially destroyed because this guy made a "bad call", a wrong decision, an improper decision? If coming to work (as an LEO mind you, not some cook at a burger joint) drunk is within his "moral range" then what else is acceptable to this guy?

...but you're absolutely right. It doesn't matter. This is but a TEENIE TINY little "symptom" (albeit not a direct one) of a MUCH larger problem.

.....However, I do think calling out the "symptoms" (in this case, the double standard and the lack of accountability for some while others are essentially destroyed over, often, MUCH more minor "infractions") IS important and does matter, no?
If that is what it takes to wake up those apathetic to what is a much larger problem....if it forces them to take a deeper look, is that not worthy of our time and effort?

How many of those potential lives that this guy destroyed over infractions less severe than his own would be an an acceptable number before we just say, "meh, he got fired...screw it, no big deal"?
Sure, it is but one cop, but one more look is often all it takes for those with apathetic eyes to be shaken, juuussstt enough to cause them to arise from their slumber. (Okay, done being optimistic)

I think I am still pressing on the point I was trying to make with the "trickle down" comments I made earlier in the thread.....



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Yeah, I'm ok with that as well. I don't know about, "the gift that keeps on giving until he dies" because cops aren't making a fortune anyways. Of course, cozy pension.....
I still want to see the guy catch a charge of some type though. This is simply a slap on the wrist. Some type of "public endangerment" charge or whatever they can drag up to actually charge him with. Get him into the court system for some forced AA. Some community service so he can face what the rest of us would. Paying fines.....let him experience what he has hypocritically put others through while...well, while being a f###ing hypocrite!

...I wouldn't doubt if the guy gets hired by another department somewhere along the line if people don't keep track of him and hold any department that would hire him accountable for said actions....Come to think of it, maybe that is why he was "forced to resign" rather than being outright fired. "Fired" would look bad on the resume.
edit on 16-10-2014 by Jakal26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Jakal26

I like to think that humans, from time to time, can make mistakes and not end up in prison. Especially when no one was made a victim.

This goes right to the heart of my libertarian values. No one was shot, no one was harmed, there is no victim. They don't want to pursue DWI because he wasn't caught int he act. Firing seems good enough to me.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TzarChasm

Low hanging fruit.....there's a reason its more worth your time going after.


its rather disheartening that you are comparing proper police effort with high hanging fruit. as though there SHOULD be a challenge in acquiring properly trained and disciplined law enforcement officials. i didn't realize we were making a competition out of security. in my humble opinion police decorum shouldnt be treated like a "everyone goes home a winner" game where the only factor is how hard you are willing to try after everyone goes home. in matters like these, one chance is all you get sometimes. i dont want an undisciplined officer taking that chance on my behalf because that lack of discipline might mean its me or my dog paying the price for my neighbor's mistake. Hint hint.
edit on 16-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




I like to think that humans, from time to time, can make mistakes and not end up in prison. Especially when no one was made a victim.


Don't get me wrong...as do I.
I am not advocating prison for this guy. Read my last post again. I pointed out what I would like to see happen.
People make mistakes.....but if I go to work (construction industry) and make a mistake or cut up and waste a bunch of materials that I had to pay for, no one is harmed. Who is to say this guy hasn't made "mistakes" in the past that were more of the improper nature than simple "mistakes"? Like I said, this is more than likely not the first time this guy has been drinking on the job. I would actually be quite shocked to find out otherwise (which of course, we can never prove)...
If getting drunk to go to the firing range for mandated practice is acceptable to him, morally.....what else falls in that category? Would he frame a person? Has he? I know it is a bit of a leap but instances like this have to raise an eyebrow about his past, no?




Firing seems good enough to me


Again, re-read the article (and it is something I brought up in my last post in a question type of format).....he wasn't "fired", he was "forced to resign"....Like I said, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked to find that this guy ends up working for another department and the appearance of his future resume may have very well been the reason for the "resignation" rather than outright firing.

ETA: Personally, I find it hard to call a choice to get drunk before work "a mistake". I have never "mistakenly" been drunk in my life! I have got too drunk while catching an alcohol buzz. I have drank too much and ended up face down...but I have never "mistakenly" got drunk. How does one go about that?
.....becoming intoxicated (regardless the choice of intoxicant) barring being drugged, is a choice....the consequences of drinking alcohol are well known. If he is making such amateur mistakes, akin to a college kid getting smashed while thinking he is going to out drink a buddy, then he should have never been hired. Surely than can spot someone that childish and immature? They screen these guys, right? Guess he just "fell through the cracks"

edit on 16-10-2014 by Jakal26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I don't think charges should be brought against this cop, what he got was appropriate in my mind. It also taught other cops how to handle this kind of situation. If the penalty is too strict, then the others may have just let it slide.

A thirty day suspension is appropriate, along with going to AA to meet some of the people he put there.


So, was he driving around, armed, in uniform, drunk? That's enough punishment?

I always think...what would happen to ME in that case? If I showed up at the pistol range, with a firearm and ammo, drunk, and was on the firing line when a bunch of cops found me, would I get the same "Oh, I didn't see him drive drunk so no DWI", "He didn't mean it", "I just won't book him in properly", "We'll help him get home"? No. No, I wouldn't.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Lots of hunters up here are out hunting after they have a few. Not many of them are drunk though. People drink down at the rifle range, but I have yet to see a member shooting that is real drunk. I am sure that there are some people that have been drinking that used to site in their guns there. Now they have a fenced in shooting range so only members can access the rifle range.

In this article it stated that the cop did not fire live rounds, only blanks. If that is true he is only being punished for coming there drunk, not actually discharging a real bullet. I only know what the evidence states.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Blanks can kill as well.
This guy didn't just "have a few beers", catch a buzz and then go to the range for a day of shooting. He was TOASTED....check the article again for his BAC. That is well and proper drunk! Not to mention, he wasn't on "his time" and on a hunting trip, he was in uniform on the range with others who apparently realized just how drunk he was.
If a bunch of fellow cops pulled him to side to give him a breathalyzer test, you can damn well bet he was hammered and not just buzzed up a bit.

I fail to see how him not firing a live round makes a difference. Like Bedlam pointed out, if it was ME or YOU or any other Joe Smuck the common slave man, even being in possession of a firearm while drunk would be a fairly serious offense. There would be no, "meh, he just made a mistake, drunk too much....it happens. Let us secure that weapon for you and follow you to your house...maybe even tuck you in....oh...but we got to stop by the police station so we can BOTCH the arrest record and NOT EVEN PUT YOUR NAME ON THE DAMNED THING!!!" < Really?? And that is not proof that others were covering for him, even when he was drunk and armed....IN UNIFORM and on the range? Cover ups are like criminals...it progresses from something "small" like this to larger scale cover ups about really important stuff. Like the criminal who gets away with some petty sh#t and becomes more and more active, all the while more and more violent over time, progressing from simple burglary to violent home invasion in no time. (A crude analogy, nonetheless...valid, imo)

P.S. Sorry about all the caps, I'm not yelling or getting emotional. Just trying to emphasize my "talking points" a bit and get across the points that stand out most to me about this case.

ETA: Regarding the "he didn't fire a live round" comment. I highly doubt this guy showed up with his gun empty. I doubt the service weapon he was carrying when he showed up at the range was empty either...unless he picked the weapon up when he got there. That is doubtful though, because he was "in uniform" which means he would have his weapon, right? If that is the case, it wasn't empty...this isn't Mayberry and this guy wasn't Barney Fife.
edit on 16-10-2014 by Jakal26 because: ...just adding a passing thought.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Anyone who is sworn to uphold the law and to 'protect and serve' the citizens of their county with deadly weapons at the ready should be held to a higher standard. In my mind, that means random, frequent drug and alcohol screenings, psychological tests, and the possibility of your person being searched for contraband and stolen items (thinking of that guy who stole money and jewelry off the dying guy that made the news the other day).

And take away their ability to arrest people and seize assets, that's just setting the scene for all sorts of criminal behavior on the parts of the cops.

I might add, those criteria should be the standard for everyone in public service up to and including elected officials. I'd love to know how many people in Congress could pass a drug test, a psychological test or an IQ test, for that matter.



new topics




 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join