imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
He did say "If he was intoxicated", 229.
That's the same question I have and really the deciding line between right and wrong. If he was drunk it should be WOP and go straight to the Grand Jury for a decision regarding the other issues.
LEO 229 wrote:
ODA 226 wrote:I do not take sides... I point out right and wrong. It makes no difference who it is. I do have a better understanding how things work in the LEO world and this will help me to decide.You know that I'm a former LEO and as such, I do have a personal tendency to side with Law Enforcement MOST of the time. In this case, however, if he was indeed intoxicated and carrying a weapon and acting in the alleged manner, he should be suspended WOP at a minimum and the DA should refer this case to a Grand Jury. This may not be a clear-cut case of self-defense.
In this posted case... the cop was drinking and armed. It is reported that he was drunk but I have no way of knowing to what level. A cop is not supposed to drink so much that he is publicly intoxicated.
If he wants to drink that much... he should stay home. Drinking socially while being armed is OK in my book. Nobody should be drinking till they are drop dead drunk. Armed or not.
Should this cop be suspended without pay? I do not think so. You are effectively saying that he is guilty and without pay is a punishment before the case has been investigated
And for what act is he to be suspended?
This cop is a victim of a mod assaultwhich is far more serious than any other allegation made against him. Should we be punishing victims?
- The alleged touching?
- Allegedly being drunk?
- Allegedly arguing with others?
- Using his gun against a mod assault?
- All of the above combined?
He should be placed on paid leave while the matter is investigated. This is the right thing to do. Once all the facts are known he department can decide what action to take against him if necessary.
We do not take pay away from victims of other self defence shooting so why should the cop be help to pay before having his case heard.
I am sure the prosecutor will be contacted to see if the details fit self defense. I think this is a no brainier.
He did say "If he was intoxicated", 229.
That's the same question I have and really the deciding line between right and wrong. If he was drunk it should be WOP and go straight to the Grand Jury for a decision regarding the other issues.