JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Yes the nurse is receiving money from the working class tax payers because of a detectives choices. The detective should be paying this payout not John Q public

I would agree with that.

This incident was being swept under the rug by both the Salt Lake City police and university security.........until the body camera footage went public. :D

E
 
I could not agree with you more!

That is the one part of stuff like this that always really sets me off. When some LEO is this blatant they should have to pay out big time. Take it out of pension or such. The tax payers always take it in the shorts for this kind of temper tantrum. The LEO will hopefully lose the appeal but then sadly will just take his retirement and live happy.
 
Several times when someone gets smacked around by some idiot with a badge then gets a big pay day I have said the same. I look at that and think hell I've been hurt worse playing around. I would do that for that money :)

Exactly.
 
Personal Point Of View. May be Slanted ...

So I am wondering if she, (the RN) has been given a gag order not to talk about it? Has she been blackballed from employment in Utah? In the USA? Does she still have a job? What are her future RN job prospects? Will she be shunned by the powers that be? She will receive the bucks? What other strings are attached?

What about the "ex" cop? He has appealed? Who pays for that court expense? How much does the cop Union stand to gain or loose from this? Why didn't any settlement demand that HE pay out some bucks? Will HE be black balled? How far will the cop union go to protect this ex cop? Why do the taxpayers pay for all?

Flipping this all around what would have happened to you or me if we as civilians had gone into the hospital and assaulted a nurse in that fashion? Would we have received jail time? Would any civil settlement require us personally pay out bucks? Seems to me the cop is being protected just because he is a cop. WTF?

Should be the opposite. Cops should and must be held to a higher level of responsibility. I used to be a fire fighter. Then an RN. As a fire fighter we were held to higher standards for sub standard behavior. Particularly acts of anger and violence. As an RN we were expected just to absorb all sorts of social shiet. Part of the job

Respectfully.
 
That is the one part of stuff like this that always really sets me off. When some LEO is this blatant they should have to pay out big time. Take it out of pension or such. The tax payers always take it in the shorts for this kind of temper tantrum. The LEO will hopefully lose the appeal but then sadly will just take his retirement and live happy.

This is the base premise that all government employees / politicians work under. Well politicians don't work, but you get the idea. They can perform their jobs under the protection of unions and upper management that does not want to get their wangs in a vice over what their subordinates do. They can do pretty much anything, and if the sh*t hits the fan in any way, just pull the retirement ejection lever and you are good.

I worked at a school district about 30 years ago in the maintenance department. In the upper ranks, there were always teachers or administrators that could not keep their hands off the kids, both male and female. They were seldom charged criminally, they were brought into the administration building and given "special assignments" so they could be watched until they were able to punch their retirement tickets.

Until there are some kinds of responsibility attached to job performances, and that offenders will not be protected under union and agency protections, be subject to termination and loss of pension and black balled in their industry, as it is in private business, will there be any changes. Not going to hold my breath on any changes.

500K is a decent pay day for that and one that seems like it was set up pretty quick.
 
All I know is that if I had been one of the "patrolmen" standing there seeing what went down with that nurse, I would've interjected and gladly took any administrative "lumps" for standing down a "detective" acting like that one was doing. I'm still amazed they just nervously stood there.

:rolleyes:
 
All I know is that if I had been one of the "patrolmen" standing there seeing what went down with that nurse, I would've interjected and gladly took any administrative "lumps" for standing down a "detective" acting like that one was doing. I'm still amazed they just nervously stood there.


:rolleyes:

Look at it in this context...you are one of a group of officers at the scene, somewhat contained and controlled scene. One goes off and does something really stupid. The rest have enough sense to quickly evaluate the situation and decide that short of beating the nurse down, they best let the rogue do what he is going to do and throw his azz solely under the bus and claim zero involvement in the actual hands on offense.

Contrast that to if the nurse was some kind of violent who was assaulting the officers, then everybody is jumping in to help the fellow officer. In this situation so clearly documented, the other officers avoid a trip to look at the Chiefs carpet, and the offending officers gets his due. The rest of them walk away with their jobs and retirement intact.

When I was a firefighter, one of the others decided he had an issue with something the Chief had done and that a group of us should get together and try to demand change or oust the Chief. Under the way I was trained, I may have disagreed with it, but until I wore the white helmet, my job was to follow orders, put out fires and help sick people. We to a man told him to f off, he went it on his own and was quickly blown out and gone.
 
In your first paragraph, I say it's called being an accomplice.


As for the Fire Chief, conflicts of personality or leadership style are not justification for mutiny. "You don't have to like it, you just have to do it." Only time is if something is unlawful.
 
In your first paragraph, I say it's called being an accomplice.

In some aspects yes. Not knowing the department dynamics and all, and assuming that in some departments the detective may have a higher rank and was most likely very senior to the patrol officers, he may have expected them to lock step with him. I think the patrol officers made the right decision and stayed the f away from the rogue.

Surely in your career at some point in time you encountered that senior / higher ranking person who was grossly incompetent and managed to hang on to their position by making sure everyone under him/her was suitably held down so that there was no threat to their position ? Complete and corrupt abuse of power. Nothing pleases me more than to see those types get their due eventually.
 
Personal Point Of View ... Subjective ...

Regarding the bad cop. When I joined my small very good ISO Class One Fire Department, (you fire guys know what that means) we had no Union. We did everything except salute and we got to go home every 24 hours. Pretty much like the USMC at that time.

But ... we also were told we had a moral duty to stop any bad verbal or physical behavior that would reflect badly upon the Fire Department. This including protecting our own AT THAT TIME. Had it been us we would have stopped the bad cops actions. Quickly.

Different management styles I am sure. I also had to stand at attention wearing a Class A Uniform to be chewed out by the Fire Chief. Also to get an award. Cuts both way. It is sad that cop did what he did. A razors edge decision process. He choose poorly. Bad.

Regarding that brave RN. I have had to confront bad cop behavior. Also bad family behavior. Also gang behavior. Security not doing their jobs. But I was still in excellent physical shape at that time. Also the boss RN. Again a sad bad situation. Went way too far.

A lose lose situation for all. Respectfully.
 
In some aspects yes. Not knowing the department dynamics and all, and assuming that in some departments the detective may have a higher rank and was most likely very senior to the patrol officers, he may have expected them to lock step with him. I think the patrol officers made the right decision and stayed the f away from the rogue.

Surely in your career at some point in time you encountered that senior / higher ranking person who was grossly incompetent and managed to hang on to their position by making sure everyone under him/her was suitably held down so that there was no threat to their position ? Complete and corrupt abuse of power. Nothing pleases me more than to see those types get their due eventually.


I could tell you about a particular Army full-bird colonel (O-6) that received "remedial/corrective training" from me one time, but I agreed to never discuss it and I wouldn't get busted down to E-1 and thrown in the brig.... so there's that. ;):D
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR
Falcon Gun Show - Classic Gun & Knife Show
Stanwood, WA
Wes Knodel Gun & Knife Show - Albany
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top