AnthonyRSS
Member
Its funny yet slightly disturbing that some members condone this.
Sigh.
Anthony
Sigh.
Anthony
Officer suspended after Cheektowaga gun-firing spree
- Thread starter mikeb3185
- Start date
- Status
geegee
Member
Hey...Cheektowaga is where I grew up!
Sounds like you've been there.
Think it is being exaggerated because they were cops and because they were women. Still say if a couple of male cops pull over and fire a few, not against my grain at all, but would wonder at the logic of it and consider it dumb perhaps. If women did it, would leave me amazed if not stupefied...not angry.
Of all folks, cops would know to fire in a safe direction. I believe in fewer encumbrances, not more, but enforce the ones that really matter and remove the other. Now, what else can I be in total disagreement about? If we were all on the same page it would indeed be a dull world...unless of course everyone agreed with me . Lighten up, that last is a joke.
Of all folks, cops would know to fire in a safe direction. I believe in fewer encumbrances, not more, but enforce the ones that really matter and remove the other. Now, what else can I be in total disagreement about?
If we were all on the same page it would indeed be a dull world...unless of course everyone agreed with me . Lighten up, that last is a joke.fecmech
Member
I think the officer should be disiplined and it's a shame that her lack of judgement will put a pretty big stain on a good record. I do wonder what would happen to one of us NY state pistol permit owners for the same offense? I'll bet we would not be owning any handguns in NY after Mr. Clark got done with us.
gunsmith
member
They were on a case
you know, they were on a case...a case of beer
you know, they were on a case...a case of beer
gee I wish I could get liquered up and go pop a few rounds into a neighbor hood, I won't get charged with anything.
no reckless endangerment
no reckless discharge of a firearm
no operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, (yeah yeah, can't prove it, didn't test, how convenient)
sounds great.
I can understand professional courtasy being extended to a degree, but if the department isn't willing to hold the black sheep acountable for their actions, then they are allowing people like this to be the ambassidors to the community.
no reckless endangerment
no reckless discharge of a firearm
no operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, (yeah yeah, can't prove it, didn't test, how convenient)
sounds great.
I can understand professional courtasy being extended to a degree, but if the department isn't willing to hold the black sheep acountable for their actions, then they are allowing people like this to be the ambassidors to the community.
Cops often do not see things the way we do though.
To some it is "us" (cops) against "them" (everyone else).
To others there is so much loyalty built up to the group that it clouds their judgment regarding their fellow cop's behavior. This is not all that unusual in a (para)military organization.
There is also a lot of issues with police management. They are really the ones at fault, since they actively or passively condone it. Their motive is often to keep their political masters clean. That is a huge deal with people running police departments. Do nothing that brings heat on the politicians.
There is also a huge financial penalty if you end up having to replace a cop. There is cop school, and then the apprenticeship. And while you are in the process of training a replacement, you have to pay OT to fill the patrol slots, or reduce coverage. Neither of which will gain a police manager much favor with the politicians.
Then there is the government worker who belongs to a strong union issue, making it very difficult to get rid of even the worst offenders in many cases.
It is easy to say get rid of problem cops, but there are a lot of reasons it is much harder to do it then to say it.
"It is much harder to do it then to say it"
So What.
My personal belief is that it's a matter of principle that the "authorities" have to live and work under the same law as the rest of us.
As a pragmatic matter in a union shop you have to take disciplinary action then or your lack of response becomes the standard for the next time the offense happens.
pete
So What.
My personal belief is that it's a matter of principle that the "authorities" have to live and work under the same law as the rest of us.
As a pragmatic matter in a union shop you have to take disciplinary action then or your lack of response becomes the standard for the next time the offense happens.
pete
Uh, did I misread the part where they were charged with 2nd degree reckless endangerment and that their court appearances were soon? And since no one tested for DUI, (for whatever reason) you can't charge them with it. They recklessly fired their guns and were charged with reckless endangerment.
I do find it questionable that the trooper did not issue field sobriety tests.
- Status
Similar threads
