Should this trooper be fired?

"Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Not according to the article. There was no delay in response time.

>
> 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?

Uh... no? A pistol without a bullet in the chamber and the safety on
doesn't do much good. The snap might be a problem unless it was in
preparation for use.

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

jaybird wrote:

> "Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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.
>
>
> Not according to the article. There was no delay in response time.

IOW, the guy got lucky twice. He should be thanking his lucky stars
that a) they can't prove a delay in response time and b) the guy was on
his way out no matter what, otherwise I'd expect a massive civil suit
from the deceased's family. And rightly so. Therefore, the PD, if they
were thinking along those lines, would have already canned the guy so as
not to expose the whole DEPARTMENT to such liability. As it is the guy
is a proven loose cannon and the next time he pulls a stunt like this
they may not be so lucky. God help 'em then, 'cause nobody else will -
because their slap on the wrist response to this will definitely brought
up in court should this ever happen again, you can bank on it.

>
>
>>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?
>
>
> Uh... no? A pistol without a bullet in the chamber and the safety on
> doesn't do much good. The snap might be a problem unless it was in
> preparation for use.

You don't leave your safety on...?

nate

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

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Nope...it was a statement of fact for using idiotic analogies/comparisons in
both of your posts.

>
> I win, you lose.
>

No...you don't.


> --
> Sloth Kills!

So does stupidity. Be careful out there, Sloth.

> http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

"paulb" > wrote in message
news
> 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.

Or that the person attacked is not still an idiot

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> "Cartlon Shew" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Not according to the article. There was no delay in response time.
>
> IOW, the guy got lucky twice. He should be thanking his lucky stars that
> a) they can't prove a delay in response time and b) the guy was on his way
> out no matter what, otherwise I'd expect a massive civil suit from the
> deceased's family. And rightly so. Therefore, the PD, if they were
> thinking along those lines, would have already canned the guy so as not to
> expose the whole DEPARTMENT to such liability. As it is the guy is a
> proven loose cannon and the next time he pulls a stunt like this they may
> not be so lucky. God help 'em then, 'cause nobody else will - because
> their slap on the wrist response to this will definitely brought up in
> court should this ever happen again, you can bank on it.

Good point, but hopefully this is a one time deal since he hadn't had
anything prior and he won't make the same mistake twice.

>
>>
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>> Uh... no? A pistol without a bullet in the chamber and the safety on
>> doesn't do much good. The snap might be a problem unless it was in
>> preparation for use.
>
> You don't leave your safety on...?

My pistol doesn't even have a safety. The standard practice is to carry one
in the chamber, no safety (if so equipped). That way, you just draw and
shoot. Some carry the 1911 version with the thumb safety, but the weapon is
already "cocked and locked". Glocks have no safety.

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

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>jaybird wrote:
>>
>> Uh... no? A pistol without a bullet in the chamber and the safety on
>> doesn't do much good. The snap might be a problem unless it was in
>> preparation for use.
>
>You don't leave your safety on...?

I believe most police sidearms don't have a manual safety.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:27:57 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"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??

See my earlier posts to which you responded with your own crass and
illogical defense of a fellow pig.

Note that I didn't use any profanity until you showed that you were
unable to discuss this case rationally.

I'm very glad that Peasely was not the 911 operator who answered the
call from the 5 year old girl whose parents had been murdered.

Can you imagine the backlash from the public if the 911 had told a 5
year old girl "Too bad" and hung up on her?

Of course, you would probably argue that there was nothing the cops
could do to save her parents since they were already dead. Besides,
the kid's only 5 - she'll get over it, right?

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:54:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>>> Not according to the article. There was no delay in response time.
>>

No - that was according to the cops who are upset that he got
suspended at all.

>> IOW, the guy got lucky twice. He should be thanking his lucky stars that
>> a) they can't prove a delay in response time and b) the guy was on his way
>> out no matter what, otherwise I'd expect a massive civil suit from the
>> deceased's family. And rightly so. Therefore, the PD, if they were
>> thinking along those lines, would have already canned the guy so as not to
>> expose the whole DEPARTMENT to such liability. As it is the guy is a
>> proven loose cannon and the next time he pulls a stunt like this they may
>> not be so lucky. God help 'em then, 'cause nobody else will - because
>> their slap on the wrist response to this will definitely brought up in
>> court should this ever happen again, you can bank on it.
>
>Good point, but hopefully this is a one time deal since he hadn't had
>anything prior and he won't make the same mistake twice.

In the private sector, there very often is no second chance.

And he did make the same mistake twice - he hung up on 2 people.

We have NO assurance that he won't do something like this again.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:02:28 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Tim Kreitz" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>> Dave Swanson wrote:
>>
>>> There are thousands of unemployed
>>> citizens who could perform much better than this
>>> pitiful asshole.
>>
>> Sign the petition to have him fired:
>>
>> <http://www.petitiononline.com/Peasley/petition.html>
>>
>> There are thousands of signatures thus far. Add yours and pass the URL
>> along.
>>
>> My article:
>> <http://superbikeblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/attention-motorcyclists-cops-only-care.html>
>
>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.

We should expect MOST cops to have "spotless records".

Are you saying we should reward him just because this is the first
time he ever did something serious enough to be reprimanded?

In most professions, a "spotless record" isn't something to brag about
- it's just something that's expected.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 06:09:20 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>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.
>

Indeed, it should.

>This trooper's crime was rudeness and unprofessional behavior,

And "inefficient action", which is merely a euphemism for putting the
public at great risk because of his failure to perform his duty.

Firing would fit the crime perfectly.

>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%.

Or maybe people would learn not to be rude or unprofessional,
especially when lives are at stake.

Remember, he didn't even know there was only 1 victim, and the mere
presence of an accident on a road is a hazard in and of itself.