“The Pennsylvania State Police must reinstate a trooper who is barred from having a gun because a female officer secured a protection from abuse order against him, a state appeals court has ruled.” One judge dissented, “arguing that Acord’s firing was justified since, without a gun, ‘he cannot perform the basic and essential duties for which he was hired as a trooper.'” [Matt Miller, PennLive]
7 Comments
This kind of s*** is why we can’t have good cops.
They self-select for those jobs. I don’t know how much “we” have to do with it.
“Acord filed a grievance when he was fired over….”
Grievance.
Anytime the left whines about cop abuse, point to stuff like this and the union contract that is likely the cause of said reinstatement.
Until the left can get over their love affair with public employee unions, this is the natural outcome.
And more.
http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/22/nyc-police-union-to-limit-get-out-of-jai
This “get out of jail free” card would seem to put the entire traffic fine problem at risk–if there is an institutionalized exception for friends of cops, how doesn’t an Equal Protection Clause argument not work? Not being a cop’s friend is not a rational basis upon which to make a fining decision.
Years ago I came across a website that listed police / state troopers that when told the person driving was either a fellow LEO or family to a LEO issued a ticket.
The people on the site – including LEO’s – were always very angry that they were not accorded what they called “professional courtesy” in letting the LEO or the family member go without a ticket.
The “family” designation extended out to uncles, aunts, cousins, etc and not just immediate family.
It was the most amazing site in that cops were furious that they were asked to be held to the same standard as the general public.
Oh the horror of driving within the law! Woe is me!
I remember the website. The ticketed LEOs would post the full name, agency, and badge number of the offending officer that ticketed a fellow LEO.