Should this trooper be fired?

"L Sternn" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:47:20 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>> jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>> "L Sternn" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:49:49 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The point is that you are excusing negligent behaviour -- behaviour
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>*could* have resulted in someone's death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I'm not excusing it at all. I don't believe it resulted in a
>>>>>>death,
>>>>>>but
>>>>>>it was inappropriate and he was disciplined for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He *hung up* on a 911 caller, where someone's *life* was on the line;
>>>>>>>literally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes he did. That action does not constitute negligent homicide which
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>what we were discussing in this post.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, we only have the lay opinion of other cops - not a medical
>>>>>opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Holy crap, so now you're wanting an autopsy done on the poor guy...
>>>> Well, knock yourself out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> actually I don't think it makes any difference in this case - because
>>> the
>>> cop couldn't possibly have known whether the incident was already
>>> inevitably fatal at the time.
>>
>>Yeah, that was pretty much my point too. )
>
> Is it?
>
> Parse Nate's words carefully.
>
> Your point seems to be that the cop was merely "rude".
>
> Nate recognizes that the cop could very well have killed someone by
> his failure to act

You've contradicted yourself in these last few posts about your assumptions
of my view on this. Nate says that the cop couldn't have possibly known if
the collision was fatal at the time.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"L Sternn" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:46:47 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>> I'd feel much more confident that the officer's actiosn didn't
>>> contribute to his death if it were DOCTORS saying it didn't matter
>>> instead of cops.
>>
>>I get the feeling there isn't much that would make you more confident
>>about
>>cops at all.
>
>
> Then again, you're just an idiot lowlife.
>
> Fortunately, not all cops are like you.

Wow... even more namecalling. Even though I don't agree with your opinions
and I fail to see your reasoning at times, I've still never resorted to
calling you names and using profanity toward you. I guess that just shows a
fairly good comparison between the two of us.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:37:04 GMT, "B. Peg" >
> wrote:
>
>>> "jaybird" wrote:
>>> Is there another one somewhere supporting the disciplinary action he's
>>> already received as being adequate? I'm not trying to undermine your
>>> cause, there are just some of us who think an 18 year veteran with a
>>> spotless record should be disciplined rather than asked to resign for
>>> making an inappropriate comment and action by hanging up on the caller.
>>
>>What if you called 911 on your family member and got the same response?
>>"Oh, it's okay. He was just having a bad day. He was a good cop for so
>>long." Gimme a frickin' break!
>
> Regardless of who the victim is, the punishment must fit the crime.
>
> This trooper's crime was rudeness and unprofessional behavior,
> resulting in some consternation on the part of the vicims. If we fired
> everyone every time they were rude or unprofessional, the unemployment
> rate would approach 100%.

You're an idiot. In most professions, rudeness and unprofessional behavior
don't result in the possible loss of life. LEO's and the like are held to a
higher standard, and rightly so.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:03:24 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>>>> actually I don't think it makes any difference in this case - because
>>>> the
>>>> cop couldn't possibly have known whether the incident was already
>>>> inevitably fatal at the time.
>>>
>>>Yeah, that was pretty much my point too. )
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> Parse Nate's words carefully.
>>
>> Your point seems to be that the cop was merely "rude".
>>
>> Nate recognizes that the cop could very well have killed someone by
>> his failure to act
>
>You've contradicted yourself in these last few posts about your assumptions
>of my view on this.

How so?

> Nate says that the cop couldn't have possibly known if
>the collision was fatal at the time.

That is true.

It's the same thing as refusing to throw a life-preserver to someone
frantically struggling to keep their head above water.

After all, you don't know that they're going to drown - why should you
go to any trouble?

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:05:44 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"L Sternn" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:46:47 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>
>>>> I'd feel much more confident that the officer's actiosn didn't
>>>> contribute to his death if it were DOCTORS saying it didn't matter
>>>> instead of cops.
>>>
>>>I get the feeling there isn't much that would make you more confident
>>>about
>>>cops at all.
>>
>>
>> Then again, you're just an idiot lowlife.
>>
>> Fortunately, not all cops are like you.
>
>Wow... even more namecalling. Even though I don't agree with your opinions
>and I fail to see your reasoning at times, I've still never resorted to
>calling you names and using profanity toward you. I guess that just shows a
>fairly good comparison between the two of us.

The names fit you - I have logic and reasoned arguments on my side.

L Sternn wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:03:24 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>actually I don't think it makes any difference in this case - because
>>>>>the
>>>>>cop couldn't possibly have known whether the incident was already
>>>>>inevitably fatal at the time.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, that was pretty much my point too. )
>>>
>>>Is it?
>>>
>>>Parse Nate's words carefully.
>>>
>>>Your point seems to be that the cop was merely "rude".
>>>
>>>Nate recognizes that the cop could very well have killed someone by
>>>his failure to act
>>
>>You've contradicted yourself in these last few posts about your assumptions
>>of my view on this.
>
>
> How so?
>
>
>> Nate says that the cop couldn't have possibly known if
>>the collision was fatal at the time.
>
>
> That is true.
>
> It's the same thing as refusing to throw a life-preserver to someone
> frantically struggling to keep their head above water.
>
> After all, you don't know that they're going to drown - why should you
> go to any trouble?
>

Yeah, at least someone got the point I was trying to make. I forget
sometimes that sometimes people have to be bludgeoned over the head with
the point (which tends to break it off, but c'est la vie.)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"L Sternn" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:05:44 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"L Sternn" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:46:47 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'd feel much more confident that the officer's actiosn didn't
>>>>> contribute to his death if it were DOCTORS saying it didn't matter
>>>>> instead of cops.
>>>>
>>>>I get the feeling there isn't much that would make you more confident
>>>>about
>>>>cops at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then again, you're just an idiot lowlife.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, not all cops are like you.
>>
>>Wow... even more namecalling. Even though I don't agree with your
>>opinions
>>and I fail to see your reasoning at times, I've still never resorted to
>>calling you names and using profanity toward you. I guess that just shows
>>a
>>fairly good comparison between the two of us.
>
> The names fit you - I have logic and reasoned arguments on my side.

Where are you hiding those at??

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"L Sternn" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:15:24 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:v00341ta3doucjm0ah3pcpf3vs8iseaomd@4ax. com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:19:22 -0500, "Cory Dunkle"
>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cops so often forget that they are _PUBLIC SERVICE_ officers. They
>>>>>>>>serve
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>public, and the public pays them for that service. They serve every
>>>>>>>>single
>>>>>>>>person out on the streets and sidewalks. Even if they suspect that
>>>>>>>>person
>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>something the cop still needs to treat that person with the utmost
>>>>>>>>respect
>>>>>>>>and courtesy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anyhow, the world would be a better place without all the ass holes
>>>>>>>>like
>>>>>>>>this pig working on the force.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your hypocrisy is dripping off my screen and onto my keyboard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So let me ask you a question, Cory: why do you expect courtesy and
>>>>>>>respect from the police when you refuse to extend thst same courtesy
>>>>>>>and respect to them? Do you believe that paying the officer's salary
>>>>>>>entitles you to treat them with disrespect and hatred?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't believe that anybody deserves to be treated with disrespect or
>>>>>>hatred just because they are a LEO.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree, but jaybird's defense of this piece of **** is really making
>>>>>me wonder why.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'll tell you exactly why. All you have to do is ask. The only thing
>>>>I'm defending the cop for is against losing his job. I have said
>>>>already that is comment was inappropriate and so was hanging up on the
>>>>caller. I think 15 days off is more than appropriate punishment for an
>>>>18 year veteran with no record of previous disciplinary action.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Even when it quite possibly (for all he knew at the time) could have
>>>resulted in the unnecessary death of a civilian?
>>>
>>>I dunno, at my job, if I screwed up where a customer got ****ed off or
>>>something I'd expect a stern talking to and maybe a couple days off. If
>>>it resulted in someone's death, I'd *expect* to get fired, and indeed it
>>>would be inevitable as the company would want to minimize its exposure to
>>>lawsuits. Tenure is irrelevant - and that's the way it *should* be.
>>
>>
>> I guess we'd have to put it into perspective then. His inaction was not
>> to deliberately kill someone. He had no idea the extent of the injuries,
>> nor were the injuries his fault. The guy could've died no matter what
>> anyone did which is pretty much what happened. At the most his inaction
>> would've delayed emergency response by the time it takes to make 3 phone
>> calls but his bosses were quoted as saying there was no delay.
>>
>
> No, YOU need to put it in perspective. This is not a little screw up,
> this is an action with life and death consequences. (yeah, we know that
> response time "wasn't delayed" but it sure could have been.) The guy
> needs to go. At the very minimum a permanent transfer to a position that
> has no interaction with the public and no emergency response involvement.

But it wasn't. You can't enforce actions that could have been, you have to
look at exactly what happened. He made rude comments and he hung up the
phone. Responders were still dispatched and there was no delay.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:29:47 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>> No, YOU need to put it in perspective. This is not a little screw up,
>> this is an action with life and death consequences. (yeah, we know that
>> response time "wasn't delayed" but it sure could have been.) The guy
>> needs to go. At the very minimum a permanent transfer to a position that
>> has no interaction with the public and no emergency response involvement.
>
>But it wasn't. You can't enforce actions that could have been, you have to
>look at exactly what happened. He made rude comments and he hung up the
>phone. Responders were still dispatched and there was no delay.

How could there NOT have been a delay?

It took 3 phone calls to 911 before anyone took the accident
seriously.

If a cop were to knowingly walk around with his sidearm unsecured -
bullet in chamber, safety off, holster not strapped shut, should he
not be reprimanded just because nothing bad happened?

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:46:51 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:34:43 GMT, "Iggy" > wrote:
>
>>> Regardless of who the victim is, the punishment must fit the crime.
>>>
>>> This trooper's crime was rudeness and unprofessional behavior,
>>> resulting in some consternation on the part of the vicims. If we fired
>>> everyone every time they were rude or unprofessional, the unemployment
>>> rate would approach 100%.
>>
>>You're an idiot.
>
> Leading off with an Ad Hominem attack == admission of defeat.
>
> I win, you lose.

Where does it say Leading off with an Ad Hominem attack = admission of
defeat?

You can lead off with attacking the person and still be right.

Granted, attacking the person is poor form, but it doesn't mean the
attacker is wrong.