• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Madison police officer smoking crack on duty

Shotgun

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
O

OCglock1988

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Dousman, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Shotgun wrote:
johnny amish wrote:
Check this out. Madison police officer ran a crack house and was caught smoking crack on duty. Why are they so worried about us?



http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/state-and-regional/article_abc2e7b4-5258-11df-9362-001cc4c002e0.html
Click to expand...
Just setting the record straight. The officer is from Platteville, not Madison. There is nothing in the story about "running a crack house."
Click to expand...
it says right in the first sentence "maintaining a crackhouse" as one of the accusations. I thought cops had "internal affairs" divisions to catch these idiots who think they are above the law just because they have a badge. This kind of shit makes me GAG!
 
J

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Nah, this can't be true. Don't all applicants for Police Officer Positions have to go through a rigorous psychological exam and back ground check? I mean surely the system is so fool proof by now that some one like this officer couldn't slip through the "Cracks" (couldn't help the punn).

I know so many people that were turned away from Cop Jobs that would have made excellent officers simply because they did not pass the so called psychological exam.

I think these departments should throw out all the psychological crap and just start hiring the people who would make good officers.

I have taken some of those exams and I can honestly say it is ridiculous to hire or not hire someone based on the results of those exams.

They are a series of questions that are repeated and asked in different ways. You are suppose to answer with your first initial answer that comes to mind and be honest.

Questions like, If you found a wallet with $1000.00 in it what would you do? Then it gives you 4 or 5 multiple choice answers to choose from.

Some may include keeping the money. Now see if you answer that you would keep the money because that was the first answer that came to mind and of course you want to be honest then you have just disqualified yourself from employment.

Seems fair. What a joke.

No wonder we have officers out there that don't even know the laws they are enforcing. They are too stoned!
 
Shotgun

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

OCglock1988 wrote:
Shotgun wrote:
johnny amish wrote:
Check this out. Madison police officer ran a crack house and was caught smoking crack on duty. Why are they so worried about us?



http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/state-and-regional/article_abc2e7b4-5258-11df-9362-001cc4c002e0.html
Click to expand...
Just setting the record straight. The officer is from Platteville, not Madison. There is nothing in the story about "running a crack house."
Click to expand...
it says right in the first sentence "maintaining a crackhouse" as one of the accusations. I thought cops had "internal affairs" divisions to catch these idiots who think they are above the law just because they have a badge. This kind of @#$% makes me GAG!
Click to expand...
Read the criminal complaint. Nothing about maintaining a "crack house." The paper sensationalizes or doesn't understand the definition of crack house.
 
GLOCK21GB

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
Nah, this can't be true. Don't all applicants for Police Officer Positions have to go through a rigorous psychological exam and back ground check? I mean surely the system is so fool proof by now that some one like this officer couldn't slip through the "Cracks" (couldn't help the punn).

I know so many people that were turned away from Cop Jobs that would have made excellent officers simply because they did not pass the so called psychological exam.

I think these departments should throw out all the psychological crap and just start hiring the people who would make good officers.

I have taken some of those exams and I can honestly say it is ridiculous to hire or not hire someone based on the results of those exams.

They are a series of questions that are repeated and asked in different ways. You are suppose to answer with your first initial answer that comes to mind and be honest.

Questions like, If you found a wallet with $1000.00 in it what would you do? Then it gives you 4 or 5 multiple choice answers to choose from.

Some may include keeping the money. Now see if you answer that you would keep the money because that was the first answer that came to mind and of course you want to be honest then you have just disqualified yourself from employment.

Seems fair. What a joke.

No wonder we have officers out there that don't even know the laws they are enforcing. They are too stoned!
Click to expand...
Keep the money, return the wallet....it's called a finders fee :what::lol:
 
N

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
McX wrote:
gimme my wallet back glock!:cool:
Click to expand...
LOL :D Anyways ...Cops down by Mad town smoking crack, why does this NOT surprise me.:cool:
Click to expand...
Sadly I was not surpirsed when that scumbag Tyler Peterson murdered 6 people in their home with his duty rifle. So a cop smoking rock is no surprise either.
Before I left Milwaukee, I watched a whole MPD-Based drug ring get taken down, they were dealing right out of their cruisers. (1987-88'ish)
 
J

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
Nah, this can't be true. Don't all applicants for Police Officer Positions have to go through a rigorous psychological exam and back ground check? I mean surely the system is so fool proof by now that some one like this officer couldn't slip through the "Cracks" (couldn't help the punn).

I know so many people that were turned away from Cop Jobs that would have made excellent officers simply because they did not pass the so called psychological exam.

I think these departments should throw out all the psychological crap and just start hiring the people who would make good officers.

I have taken some of those exams and I can honestly say it is ridiculous to hire or not hire someone based on the results of those exams.

They are a series of questions that are repeated and asked in different ways. You are suppose to answer with your first initial answer that comes to mind and be honest.

Questions like, If you found a wallet with $1000.00 in it what would you do? Then it gives you 4 or 5 multiple choice answers to choose from.

Some may include keeping the money. Now see if you answer that you would keep the money because that was the first answer that came to mind and of course you want to be honest then you have just disqualified yourself from employment.

Seems fair. What a joke.

No wonder we have officers out there that don't even know the laws they are enforcing. They are too stoned!
Click to expand...
Keep the money, return the wallet....it's called a finders fee :what::lol:
Click to expand...
See that's what I mean you would fail. You answered honestly and that would mean that by taking the money you are dishonest.

Now if you would have said I would return the money there are two ways of looking at this answer. Either you are a liar or your just plain crazy because they know that everyone would probably just take the money and drop the wallet in the mail box.

If you are that honest and would return everything to the owner then how could the department rely on you to lie for them if needed. You are a liability.

Either way you probably fail this question, but still what a ridiculous thing to base hiring someone on.
 
GLOCK21GB

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
Glock34 wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
Nah, this can't be true. Don't all applicants for Police Officer Positions have to go through a rigorous psychological exam and back ground check? I mean surely the system is so fool proof by now that some one like this officer couldn't slip through the "Cracks" (couldn't help the punn).

I know so many people that were turned away from Cop Jobs that would have made excellent officers simply because they did not pass the so called psychological exam.

I think these departments should throw out all the psychological crap and just start hiring the people who would make good officers.

I have taken some of those exams and I can honestly say it is ridiculous to hire or not hire someone based on the results of those exams.

They are a series of questions that are repeated and asked in different ways. You are suppose to answer with your first initial answer that comes to mind and be honest.

Questions like, If you found a wallet with $1000.00 in it what would you do? Then it gives you 4 or 5 multiple choice answers to choose from.

Some may include keeping the money. Now see if you answer that you would keep the money because that was the first answer that came to mind and of course you want to be honest then you have just disqualified yourself from employment.

Seems fair. What a joke.

No wonder we have officers out there that don't even know the laws they are enforcing. They are too stoned!
Click to expand...
Keep the money, return the wallet....it's called a finders fee :what::lol:
Click to expand...
See that's what I mean you would fail. You answered honestly and that would mean that by taking the money you are dishonest.

Now if you would have said I would return the money there are two ways of looking at this answer. Either you are a liar or your just plain crazy because they know that everyone would probably just take the money and drop the wallet in the mail box.

If you are that honest and would return everything to the owner then how could the department rely on you to lie for them if needed. You are a liability.

Either way you probably fail this question, but still what a ridiculous thing to base hiring someone on.
Click to expand...
I was actually joking around, last weekend I found a wallet with money & credit cards in the parking lot, I tracked down the owner and returned it to him.
 
J

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
Glock34 wrote:
J.Gleason wrote:
Nah, this can't be true. Don't all applicants for Police Officer Positions have to go through a rigorous psychological exam and back ground check? I mean surely the system is so fool proof by now that some one like this officer couldn't slip through the "Cracks" (couldn't help the punn).

I know so many people that were turned away from Cop Jobs that would have made excellent officers simply because they did not pass the so called psychological exam.

I think these departments should throw out all the psychological crap and just start hiring the people who would make good officers.

I have taken some of those exams and I can honestly say it is ridiculous to hire or not hire someone based on the results of those exams.

They are a series of questions that are repeated and asked in different ways. You are suppose to answer with your first initial answer that comes to mind and be honest.

Questions like, If you found a wallet with $1000.00 in it what would you do? Then it gives you 4 or 5 multiple choice answers to choose from.

Some may include keeping the money. Now see if you answer that you would keep the money because that was the first answer that came to mind and of course you want to be honest then you have just disqualified yourself from employment.

Seems fair. What a joke.

No wonder we have officers out there that don't even know the laws they are enforcing. They are too stoned!
Click to expand...
Keep the money, return the wallet....it's called a finders fee :what::lol:
Click to expand...
See that's what I mean you would fail. You answered honestly and that would mean that by taking the money you are dishonest.

Now if you would have said I would return the money there are two ways of looking at this answer. Either you are a liar or your just plain crazy because they know that everyone would probably just take the money and drop the wallet in the mail box.

If you are that honest and would return everything to the owner then how could the department rely on you to lie for them if needed. You are a liability.

Either way you probably fail this question, but still what a ridiculous thing to base hiring someone on.
Click to expand...
I was actually joking around, last weekend I found a wallet with money & credit cards in the parking lot, I tracked down the owner and returned it to him.
Click to expand...
I know you were joking, but seriously this is what they rely on to hire officers and it is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top