Depending on the seniority difference between the two officers, I'd say the one who spoke out is at risk of being drummed out of the force eventually.
Law Enforcement Agencies and the types of officers they typically employ, like having the option to "overreact", if too many "do -gooders" start
eroding that ability, I suspect that most officers wouldn't want to be in Law Enforcement anymore.
Contemporary LEOs are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:
1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that contribute and
participate in local politics.
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.
They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from financial consequences and tax paying citizens are picking up the tab. That's the sad reality of
where we are today, in regards to contemporary Law Enforcement Culture, but no one understands this, nor are many willing to accept these facts.
Also most importantly, that’s how Fascism works and in turn uses domestic police forces to tighten the grip on those whom are most likely to dissent
against the status quo. Make no mistake about it, LEO's in the United States are becoming the new Ordnungspolizei (Orpo) and there will NEVER be
enough "good apples" to stop this shift. They do "Protect & Serve", but its the STATE that they "Protect & Serve", not its citizens.
Here is an except from Bowers v. DeVito, in 1982, the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected
by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents... but it does not violate...
edit on 9-7-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)