FWIW, that’s actually meaningless. The only time you can legally run a red light is when instructed to by a peace officer directing traffic. It wouldn’t matter if the Pope waved you through.
As I said, I think the cop should have mailed him the ticket.
Suspended with pay. He’s, the man who made a father miss the last moments with his daughter, tried to make a daughter miss her last moments with her mother, and the son in law as well so he could power trip to compensate for his micropenis, getting a free paid vacation out of this.
You think that’s just? From his myspace he’s clearly an unrepentant scumbag.
Have you read the transcript? He’s a fucking sociopath.
He took something that can never be replaced. I hope the family takes him to the courts and ruins him financially for life, and that’s mildest wish I can think of.
The point is your claim “he could have caused in accident” is clearly bullshit.
I didn’t claim it was legal; I claimed it was safe – and only because you threw in the line about causing a wreck and killing three people.
The father was shooting at somebody and Powell made him miss? And he got suspended for saving somebody’s life? That’s totally unfair - he should have got a medal.
I suppose it’s possible that I don’t have all the facts here. I just read the first line of your post and I was so outraged by what I read that I didn’t go on to read the rest. But I’ll assume that it didn’t contain any information that contradicted my first impression.
So what possible facts might come to light that could excuse this sociopathic fuck nugget? There’s a fucking video of it.
Name one fact. I dare ya, you’re so smart. Do you think the PD faked the video? His mother in law wasn’t really dieing? Someone was secretly holding a gun to his head to act like that?
Because those are the only facts that could really change this.
Do you think he deserves [del]paid vacation[/del] paid suspension? If so why?
I think you’ve been wooshed.
haha I hope so. If I was he got me good. Let’s find out.
On the topic I do think actual punishment should be done an orderly way, but with something as outrageous and clear as this paid leave is a bit much.
If they elusive black mailing gun toting stealth ninja is found they can give back pay.
Well played!
Y’know, getting such a big-assed tattoo of a badge all over your upper arm tells me you have too much of your sense of security in your identity and self-worth invested in visibly branding yourself as a cop, Rob, my boy.
Maybe we don’t want him fired. Maybe we want him kept on and marked forever as the official departmental fuckup. His job to be getting trotted out before every class of every police academy in the state of Texas for "Lesson Of The Day: Don’t Be THIS GUY". Amend the training curriculum so that every example of “What Not To Do” identifies the officer doing the wrong thing as “Rob Powell”.
And make him work to try and even make a dent in that…
Right of law? Innocent until proven guilty? Due process? Fair trial? Any of these ringing a bell for you?
Those things apply only if you’re accused of a crime. This guy is not. This is a job performance issue, not a criminal charge. Since he’s a public employee, the public has every right to evaluate him. That’s why dash cams exist.
As far as “proof” that he performed badly, the incident is on videotape. He did admit it. His chief did apologize for him. What facts do you think are in question?
Whether or not he can be fired for it without the city being sued.
So for those of you that advocate summary punishment without a trial could you explain exactly how that would work? What would be the standard of proof that you feel is sufficient that there’s no point in even having a hearing? And, out of curiousity, did any of you work for the Gonzales Justice Department?
And as evidence of that fear being rightly justified, I give you this:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/033009dnmetbolton.1434ac9.html
This ruling came fully 6 years after they guy was fired. You think that didn’t cost the City of Dallas a nice sum to defend against?
There is no legal condition under which the city cannot be sued. Anybody can TRY to sue anybody. In the case you cited, the plaintiff lost. The city was found to be rightful. So how does it have any relevance here? All it proves is that a city can still get sued even if it’s in the right to fire somebody.
And my question was about the facts of the incident itself. We have videotape of the entire thing. We have the police chief saying it was wrong and we even have the officer in question admitting he was wrong. What is left to be determined?
Who’s charging him with a crime? Since when did you need a jury trial to fire somebody from a job?
It should have been apparent to the officer that the vehicle’s driver was responding to an emergency. He was driving directly towards the hospital with hazard blinkers flashing. The other drivers seemed to get it and slowed down to wave him past.
The video offers no justification for the policeman’s aggressive conduct towards the family. The situation didn’t warrant a drawn gun in front of the emergency room. I mean, what did this cop think? They drove to the emergency room instead of a crack house? After the desperate refrain: My mother’s dying, the policeman knew it was a crisis, but he didn’t care. The driver had to stay and listen to the overbearing cop’s patronizing pep talk about attitude.
It was heartbreaking to watch the policeman disregard the family’s death and grief, while intentionally exerting little effort to get the driver back to his wife. It was harassment and unconscionable.
I hope psychological screening to protect the public from belligerent, ruthless egomaniacs with Tasers and guns is still in the budget.
The police are a government agency and work under civil service laws.
So what? They still aren’t charging him with a crime. Do you think there has to be a jury trial to fire somebody from a civil service job?
You’re outraged at what this cop did. So am I. Justifiably so.
But now, slow down and think for a second. Do you really think it would be a good idea if there was a law that said “The Commissioner of the Dallas Police Department has the right to fire any police officer at any time for whatever reason he deems sufficient. The officer will not have the right to defend himself or appeal this firing.” Looking beyond the heat of the moment, can you not see how such a law would easily be abused?
I think Powell should be fired. But I believe he’s entitled to a fair hearing first. Even guilty people deserve their rights. Because when you give some authority figure the power to say “guilty people have no rights” combined with “I get to decide who’s guilty” you end up with enemy combatants getting waterboarded in Guantanamo.