…in the town, village, or city that you live in.
Should he be charged?
Even if he’s not, should he resign?
If he doesn’t resign…does he have any credibility?
Of course he should be charged. He committed a felony.
Yeah. What an odd question. The law applies to everyone.
You mean, now? Not just, he committed a crime, served his time, rehabilitated himself, and eventually became police chief?
Isn’t “commit a crime” -> “get arrested, tried and imprisoned” pretty clear in the law? AIUI only a very few people (the head of state, visiting ambassadors) are immune to the process. There is SOMETIMES an argument to say that “this group of people are sufficiently trusted we don’t mind if they break the law in a good cause”. But you can’t just hand out carte blanche to the police to rape and murder at will. Because if you do, even if the current police force is a paragon of virtue who will only use those loopholes for good (which is entirely possible) it will act like flies to shit for succeeding generations of psychopaths to become police officers in order to get power and abuse trust. That’s happening now, why on earth would anyone want it?
It depends on the context.
If it happened a long time ago, it depends on the crime (keeping in mind that a 3rd-4th DUI in some locales is a felony).
If it happened in the course of his duties as police chief he should be nailed to the wall.
Of course he should be charged and the rest of the police force should be leading the charge. If the chief law enforcement officer doesn’t feel a need to obey the law then the rest of us certainly shouldn’t.
Is this a serious question or random opinion seeking?
Maybe pkbites will come back and give more info. It sounds like there’s an actual situation lurking around this question, which prompted the hypothetical-sounding OP.
The OP is or was a police officer, if memory serves.
This.
Of course the law should apply to him. Now, not all laws are just and blah blah blah, but that applies to him as well as anyone else.
Of course, here in Illinois, we’d probably vote him Governor.
Exactly. I think we should wait until we hear the rest of the OP.
He was (I believe he’s now retired). There seems to be a common belief among police officers that they should be, if not completely above the law, at least given more leeway when they break it, and so many police corps frown on investigating their officers. To me that’s nothing but good ol’ boyism, and an attitude which we must stamp out. Still, it’s not uncommon, and for this reason:
(bolding mine)
I’m not sure I agree with this. Yes, he should be charged, but I’m not sure I trust his force to investigate the charges. Another police corps should probably be in charge of the investigation.
Why is this even a question? This takes the concept of “no-brainer” to a new level.
No, no, we agree. I should have used another phrase.
… the rest of the police force should be leading the denunciation of the law breaker. Yes, someone other than the chief’s team should be doing the investigation. Anything else would be a conflict of interest.
Anyone else who obstructed a criminal investigation would be frowned upon by the police, perhaps even charged with a crime. Police officers should be no different just because they are paid out of the public coffers.
Who does he admit it to? Are they credible? Assuming the admission meets the standard of evidence needed to charge a civilian, then of course he should be charged. If it happened a long time ago, then presumably the relevant statute of limitations has expired, so no.
Nitpick: The Chief of police is just that, the Chief of police. The CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) is the Sheriff.
25 years full time. I retired, then took a position with another department part-time.
Does it matter if the felony the Chief admits to is a law that is rarely enforced, ergo the average person usually isn’t charged for committing it either? But it’s still on the books and is still a felony. The D.A. announces he will not charge the Chief for the violation. Should the Chief still step down?
Yes, I think it matters, but now we’re into extra sticky levels of ethics, like should the DA have the power to not enforce laws at his whim. There have certainly been cases I thought the DA shouldn’t try when he did, and others I thought he should when he didn’t.
From a theoretical perspective, however, I think even bad laws should be enforced, so there’s some motivation for the legislature/courts to change them so we don’t have situations like this (Chief or not). If Lawrence hadn’t been charged in Texas, the sodomy law wouldn’t have been changed.
Still not sure what type of factual answer you are seeking here. Seems like the wrong forum.
Police Officers, by virtue of the power given to them, should be held to a higher standard.
If he committed the felony while a police officer, he should prosecuted to the full extent of the law.