Deanimator
Member
But that's EXACTLY what I want to do. If the department can't control its personnel, it's a menace to society anyway. We're always going to have private sector criminals. Why keep additional criminals on a publicly funded retainer?
Remember what happened to Chi Chi's? They killed a few people with their food, and now I don't see any of their restaurants, at least not where I live.
What do you think would happen to Denny's if they had some employees who displayed a propensity for randomly robbing, raping and murdering the patrons, and Denny's KNEW it and refused to even TERMINATE those engaging in these behaviors? They'd be sued out of existence. Why should a police force which does not punish officers who commit gross felonies (the Oregon-Navarro and Dorismond shootings, for instance) be treated differently? The only difference is that in the case of the police, it's the VICTIMS who pay their own judgements. The perpetrators simply go on with their lives. And if you claim otherwise, please take a few lines to tell everyone what happened to the cops who broke into Pedro Oregon-Navarro's home without a warrant and shot him to death. You might also tell everyone what contraband they found in his home.
Given the choice between out of control police and no police, I'll choose the latter every time. I can take care of myself, and I certainly don't have to worry about holding myself at gunpoint, ordering myself to stand up, then shooting myself for having done so.
