Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

macross1984 t1_jdo35ju wrote

The former captain probably thought he got away. Surprise!

−11

uofwi92 t1_jdo3zsl wrote

Good. Too many cops evade accountability by retiring.

−10

ithaqua34 t1_jdo40zx wrote

I assume his pension is alright now though. Nice of them to let him wait.

736

JustZonesing OP t1_jdo5zxw wrote

Replying to ithaqua34 (#2,359,524)

Right?? The reporter had been investigating for months. Wouldn't be inconceivable he had been protected. Particularly after the condescending remark by the City spokesperson. Note the charges were announced during Friday news dump. Just my opinion. One other thing - City Manager a regular Barron Von Fiefdom. IMHO.

331

ShyElf t1_jdo7z4c wrote

Brief writeup, but it sounds like he's being prosecuted for whistleblowing on police abuses.

671

gdgriz t1_jdocaiv wrote

In most places charges are delayed so cops can retire and not lose benefits.

190

gdgriz t1_jdoi83f wrote

Replying to Flexo-Specialist (#2,360,877)

Most of the time they don’t really have to. Because they are invariably found not guilty on reason of that they were a cop, and have privilege. So they sue, get their backpay plus money for mental anguish, pain and suffering. If they reach a deal with the town to keep their benefits they just go to another town and get a new job there.

45

jetbag513 t1_jdp0cph wrote

Full pension and bennies, of course.

12

EntertainedRUNot t1_jdp3x13 wrote

Replying to WestwoodRK0 (#2,360,113)

> The “property” listed with the counts include WPD DEA KNR reports, gang bulletins, WPD morning reports, WPD shooting reviews, WPD emails, an AXON (body cam) recording, a WPD information bulletin and a WPD Professional Standard Bureau document.

Doesn't seem questionable. Why else would he take or share information like this?

108

Takir0 t1_jdp92bu wrote

Damn...he was just one day into retirement too..

21

Zeronaut81 t1_jdpbsc5 wrote

Replying to Artanthos (#2,363,963)

No, because social security is a taxpayer-funded retirement plan that all Americans pay into. A city pension is a further tax burden on the citizens of a city or county. Why should they pay for the retirement of a criminal if he or she was posing as a cop while engaging in crime?

The former cop would still get SS payments, and the citizens of the city/county wouldn’t have to continue to pay money to someone who betrayed their community’s trust.

51

itsthreeamyo t1_jdpnusd wrote

That's insane. Don't they realize that once a LEO retires it basically absolves them of any crimes they committed while employed as a LEO?

Oh /s because it's probably needed there.

7

bigFnNope t1_jdpqe0z wrote

Replying to gdgriz (#2,360,332)

In this case it is likely he is being charged for whistleblowing / sharing internal police information on police (likely to be bad behaviour) activities. So wise to not judge this case fully until the facts are in imho

13

Morgenstern20 t1_jdpqz5b wrote

Considering what he was arrested for, I will reserve judgment for now.

75

mattchinn t1_jdpu4s7 wrote

This sounds like he has information on someone and they want him punished for it.

42

GraDoN t1_jdq1qsm wrote

Replying to JustZonesing (#2,359,718)

> Wouldn't be inconceivable he had been protected

Given that it's the norm to secure their pension when they break the law I'd change that to "it would surprise me if they didn't protect him".

24

Michblanch t1_jdq5ad4 wrote

This was a forced error. They didn’t want to arrest him.

If they wanted to then he would have been arrested before retirement. Now he keeps his pension.

7

shewy92 t1_jdqoke4 wrote

Damn, he was -1 days from retirement.

4

PreslerJames t1_jdrdxcv wrote

I had to stop reading this after the 10th mention of Fact Finder 12

3

Yitram t1_jdrfo0n wrote

Replying to NerveOk6614 (#2,365,997)

So you're telling me that the Russian and Chinese intelligence services didn't take advantage of an on the run former employee of the US IC on their territory? Cute that you think that.

−10

Zeronaut81 t1_jdshc5e wrote

Replying to Artanthos (#2,377,242)

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

Thr0waway3691215 t1_jdtmej7 wrote

Replying to christhomasburns (#2,382,041)

Yes and no, a good chunk is disbursed, but the remainder is put into Treasury bonds. But even if all of the money went out to current recipients, that's still not a Ponzi scheme. At best, you could call Social Security underfunded in that case, but there's no attempt to defraud anyone.

1

Zeronaut81 t1_jdus631 wrote

Replying to Artanthos (#2,387,861)

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

Replying to Zeronaut81 (#2,388,078)

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

Replying to Artanthos (#2,388,313)

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

Replying to Zeronaut81 (#2,388,522)

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

Thr0waway3691215 t1_jdyk21k wrote

Replying to christhomasburns (#2,407,929)

No, it's really not, it's been paying out its obligations as promised. I get what you're trying to say, but that just makes it underfunded. There's nobody running off with all the money, it's going to people it's supposed to, so that immediately eliminates it being a Ponzi scam.

1