3 ms·
If the officer did not do anything illegal, then what right do we (as a society) have to fire them? Are they somehow supposed to be more "moral" (for some defin
by jdmichal 12y ago
If the officer did not do anything illegal, then what right do we (as a society) have to fire them? Are they somehow supposed to be more "moral" (for some definition thereof) than the rest of the populace? Because there won't be anything but disappointment with that attitude. There's no reason to romanticize cops as somehow being better than every other person in their society.
Also, these statements are purely as applies to pending court cases, because cops sometimes do have to do things that would otherwise be illegal for anyone else. And it can take a court case to decide if one particular occasion met those necessary criteria. However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether.
- seanflyon 12y agoThere are 2 different issues here, whether or not an action constitutes a crime and burden of proof. We might agree on the first issue. >However, if it's deemed that a cop is not meeting some other performance criteria of their job, then that's a different matter altogether. Would you consider a police officer unnecessarily killing a violent drunk to be "not meeting some other performance criteria"? On the issue of burned of proof we disagree. Employment is a voluntary agreement. If I am your employer and I no longer want to employ you because I am convinced you are a criminal, then that is my call. If I want to lock you in a cage because I am convinced you are a criminal, that is not my call.
- Zigurd 12y agoI don't know anyone who got fired who actually committed a crime leading to their firing. Well, one guy. He got a starring role in the SEC's annual report that year. Needless hands-on with a person who poses no danger should be a swift firing.