It was at least the fourth weapon confiscated by Newark police in three days, authorities said
Share ideas that matter on the social web and experience
the benefits of curating the world's best content.
I don't have a Facebook, a Twitter or a LinkedIn account
Your new post is loading...
Maximillian Anderson's comment,
Today, 8:38 PM
It is sad to see that an officer felt so much physical pain that he killed himself. It is more common to read about officers that have mental health problems that lead to their suicide but this was a little different. Ultimately, it sounds like the job is what lead to his needing multiple surgeries because he was a street cop. The article said that he was planning to retire in about five years and that he was living with his most recent knee pain for three years. I wonder if he was going to physical therapy for his most recent knee replacement in April. It seems like a little over a month and a half after a knee replacement surgery is too soon to give up hope.
Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
Maximillian Anderson's comment,
Today, 8:57 PM
The article says, "Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told a Philadelphia Daily News columnist in February of last year that he believed he had made a mistake in granting the former officer's request to go back to work too soon after he was shot." This officer was shot in 2007 and retired from the department in 2011. I am not sure why they try to connect his shooting, coming back so quickly, and the charges against him. I do not think that his shooting and coming back quickly have anything to do with what he did to the two women. It is incredible to see someone who was so high up-once invited to sit with the First Lady at a Presidential address to congress- fall so far and do what he did to the women.
Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
Mandy Burris's comment,
April 29, 9:44 PM
Rob, I agree. It is not easy to "turn off" the policeman side at the end of the day and so stopping to help someone stranded on the road is second nature in addition to kind and generous. It's terrible to think that two officers have been lost in different ways to a kind act and a driver attempting to prevent an accident. I think that both officers should be considered "on-duty" in this situation and the incident should be treated with the same support and reverence had they been wearing their uniforms and badges.
Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
Koty Emery's comment,
April 28, 4:54 PM
From my understanding, smelling marijuana from the suspect's vehicle is enough probable cause to warrant a search. However, I believe the cavity search was completely unwarranted (not to mention the S.O.P. was completely butchered by the female officer) as if no marijuana is found in the car, then they should be handed a citation for littering and then everyone continues on there way. Now, there is always the chance that the suspects may have acted suspiciously, or given the officer some provocation to perform the test, but even then I don't believe the cavity search should have been conducted.
Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
|
Maximillian Anderson's comment,
Today, 9:06 PM
It is unfortunate that an elderly black man was put on the spot by an officer. I hope that the officer had more of a description to go off of than a "black male." I feel that profiling is okay as long as it is specific. For example, a victim describes the suspect a thin hispanic with a white shirt and blue shoes on and the officers stop and question any people in the area that fit that specific description. But a vague description of a "mexican guy" or something is not an adequate reason to stop all hispanic people. If the officer's inquiry was in fact without basis, I hope that he is made to apologize to the old man.
Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
Koty Emery's comment,
April 28, 4:40 PM
I understand that Alcoholism is under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but an officer convicted of a DUI seems to violate the police department's need to accommodation for the disability. "The ADA has provisions in it, across the board, to not require employers to subject other people to unreasonable risk to accommodate a disability," Then again, I guess the real question is if he should lose his job because he was off duty.
Rob Duke's comment,
April 28, 5:36 PM
I guess he has a right to have a chaufer drive him around in his undercover car because his alcoholism makes him disabled. He would be the cop verion of Arthur...
Mandy Burris's comment,
April 29, 9:59 PM
If an officer can be fired for stealing off duty because it is behavior unbecoming of a law enforcement officer then being convicted of a DUI is also grounds for dismissal. His alcoholism did not force him to get into the vehicle and drive home when he had been out drinking. If the decision was made to drink then a plan should have been in place for a designated driver or a hotel within walking distance, etc. These are the things that he should have been teaching the public about drinking and he ignores them when it comes to himself? Any other crime and the officer would be seen as hypocritical and the department would have caught no end of grief if they would have kept him on. Blaming the job for why he was drinking in the first place? Fine. Not taking responsibility when your personal choices endangered lives and cost your department money is not acceptable. If he had come forward about wanting to seek treatment and had not been convicted of a DUI then he would have more of a right to sue, but as it stands he is abusing the classification of his circumstances as a disability. In addition, if Oregon is like Alaska, his refusal to provide a breath sample (assuming he made it to the actual official stage and refused, not just the PBT) is a felony charge and if he is now a convicted felon he cannot have firearms, therefore he cannot legally continue to do his job.
Delete the scoop?
Are you sure you want to delete this scoop?
Yes
|