1) We don't hate police. I personally hate how police officers are seen as above the law, instead of as its executors held to at least the same standards as ordinary citizens while off-duty. There's argument for expecting somewhat more out of officers of the law, that they should as virtue of hopefully being adequately trained and having more knowledge of the law than the average citizen, but in the criminal responsibility portion the most we can Constitutionally ask for is equal treatment and standards for officers as citizens. Particularly when off-duty, but that's when its most vital.
2) To have a trial, charges had to be filed. 72 hours before arrest? Would that have happened had Dallas PD not started officer-involved shooting protocols, which might have included union agreements to not be questioned or taken into custody for a certain amount of time, despite her being off-duty? Would alleged witnesses have been making their statements to the media before officers, allowing their information to potentially contaminate the interview with the unquestioned suspect? Why, when the Dallas PD dropped their OIS protocol at noon Friday, did they not immediately move into the same processes they would use -- at least giving her the opportunity to turn herself in Friday, vs delay until Sunday?
3) Recently there have been multiple reports of officers who mixed their on and off-duty roles. The officer who essentially held an innocent family hostage with his gun, threatening to shoot them and claiming it was "his house" when he mixed up his AirB&B with another home is a prime example. Any other person would have been arrested as soon as proof was available that confirmed their identity, given the chance to obtain a lawyer, and put up bail. They didn't do anything of the sort. And in the context of what is both Constitutional and responsible about holding officers of the law to a slightly higher standard, there shouldn't have been caginess from the NYPD about his duty status and investigation. That time nobody died, but an innocent family was terrorized. That IS a crime, drunk and on vacation or not. Where's the accountability?
4) Part of the issues surrounding perceived "special treatment" of officers is that it leads TO such speculation. If Dallas PD had arranged arraignment for Friday after dropping their OIS protocol, she'd probably still have been free, but bailed -- aka, committed to coming to court. If unions want to put up bail money in mixed situations where it might seem to potentially violate the union rules, especially if the off-duty officer acts in an on-duty manner and may seek that defense (and no citizen must speak so delaying the interview beyond union limits would still be fine), I don't see a problem. But she was perceived to be given special treatment by delaying that necessary consequence of getting caught doing something potentially illegal -- the free fingerprinting and photography, then paying for your physical freedom and promising to appear in court. Even if you're found innocent in said court.
5) I gave my unvarnished opinion of her behavior in this post, and you may feel some "cop-hate" in it, as well as "cop-prejudgment" -- expecting more out of people we give guns to and ask to maintain the peace. But FFS, even I am not so much of an idiot to go inside my home to confront a burglar inside it. And I have carried. I certainly can say that shooting at "a dark silhouette" in an allegedly completely dark apartment is NOT following the fourth rule of gun safely. Therefore NOT an accident. It was pure negligence in the best possible view, recklessness in the view of the law per her charges finally. When you have someone trapped in an apartment, backing out so you are able to have the door in your sights and calling 911 is the safest, smartest option for any armed person.
= new reply since forum marked as read
