Why are police who kill people (and their bosses) still employed?
It can't be just the unions. How difficult is it for a city administration to have the following conversation with the top brass:
"We want these people fired. Make it happen."
If the man refuses (because they are all men at this point), then you fire him, and explain to the next guy the following:
"We want these people fired. Make it happen."
If the man refuses (because they are all men at this point), then you fire him, and explain to the next guy the following:
"We want these people fired. Make it happen."
If the man refuses (because they are all men at this point), then you fire him, and explain ...
Eventually you should end up with the cops who "made an error in judgment resulting in someone's death and their immediate supervisors" FIRED.
If the cops are being fired for investigating city corruption, they go to the press, and the city administrators get prosecuted.
But the cops who are getting away with assaulting, killing and abusing citizens would be fired.
Are these phone calls too difficult?
I don't think the union can do much - if the police don't want to work because they don't like their fellow INCOMPETENT cops fired, fire them, too, and get good blood back into the system.
Sometimes people just aren't a good fit -- and people with the "bad judgment" that results in the death of the people they are supposed to protect, unfortunately, fall into that category. They will not have the confidence of the citizens, even if their behavior is not deemed to be "criminal" negligence.
Why aren't the ELECTED OFFICIALS firing them?
= new reply since forum marked as read