Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zeronaut81 t1_jdshc5e wrote

It’s a double standard to not want to pay for a criminal who betrayed the public’s trust?

Why shouldn’t these people be held to a higher standard? Cops uphold the law, they shouldn’t be allowed to be above it.

2

Artanthos t1_jdskh2e wrote

It’s a double standard to expect someone else to lose a retirement the have spent a lifetime paying into for a minor offense while everyone else gets to theirs.

1

Zeronaut81 t1_jdskrsm wrote

This doesn’t sound like a minor offense.

2

Artanthos t1_jduqk9v wrote

He was sharing information.

No information provided about what information or to whom.

1

Zeronaut81 t1_jdus631 wrote

Well, it’s enough to know that whatever information he shared merits a criminal investigation. It’s super weird how some people just go to bat for the worst of us. It’s also weird seeing people rush to lick boots.

If this guy did nothing wrong, cool. But the fact that a criminal investigation has been opened on this guy immediately after retiring says that his pension should likely be at risk if he in fact did some crime.

We should expect better from those who wear the shield. Simple as that.

1

Artanthos t1_jduu0fz wrote

It’s weird that you automatically assume it’s something major without any supporting information.

It could just as easily be leaking information to the press or something else minor. We don’t know, nothing has been divulged.

An investigation could find a potential crime, or it could clear him. We don’t know because the investigation has not happened.

Even if the investigation finds a potential crime, it still has to go to trial. You would impose punishment without a trial? Imagine the outrage if this was the other way around.

1

Zeronaut81 t1_jduvjr0 wrote

Nope, I would just expect a person, regardless of their profession, would go to trial and defend themselves against a criminal accusation. If that person is found guilty, go from there.

All that I’m expecting is for this person to get treated like any other. And if this is being treated as a criminal investigation, that means that a crime has been suspected. This person possibly chose to act outside of legal areas in sharing that info. That info could have been used to harm others. Who knows what it was shared for, but it was deemed inappropriate enough to raise a criminal investigation.

A god-damned police captain shouldn’t be playing cute games. But let’s see what the investigation has to say, and what a trial in front of a jury of his peers would find.

That’s all that I want, no more people above the law.

1

Artanthos t1_jdwyhd6 wrote

And a trial may, or may not, happen, depending upon the investigation results.

If so, he will answer for anything he may have done.

But that’s not the same thing as taking away a retirement he worked a lifetime for over an allegation.

1