LogFAQs > #885910301

WastelandCowboy posted...

Fired, no. Reprimanded and reeducated on how to act when collecting evidence.

I was going to point out that there was no option for this.

Seeing the entire world solely in black/white, yes/no, and either/or options only is a large part of why everything is so fucked up in the first place. A gradient of options exist, and shades of grey are often far better than immediately knee-jerking to the most extreme side of any argument (in spite of the fact that the Internet and modern politics both encourage that sort of thinking).

And I'm not even saying I'd vote for that option. But as is anyone who thinks there should be lesser penalties would be forced to vote no, which makes it look as if they sanction his behavior even if they don't (and gives ammunition to the usual brand of anti-police fanatics, some of whom have already graced the topic with their presence).



darkknight109 posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

Fired, no. Reprimanded and reeducated on how to act when collecting evidence.

It wasn't his behaviour that has people upset (though that, obviously, was pretty shitty as well); the guy attempted to illegally collect evidence, despite several medical professionals explaining to him - and providing him written proof - that what he was doing was against the law, and when that didn't work he made an illegal arrest on spurious charges.

To be fair, literally everything you just described WAS his behavior.

The point I assume he was trying to make was that, perhaps, depending on the officer's prior history, it would be entirely possible to emphasize acceptable behavior for the future and reinforce the idea of patient privilege (which it's entirely possible he and other officers in his region haven't been sufficiently educated about - which in itself should spur an investigation of its own), especially if it IS determined that he was being explicitly ordered by a superior to take the actions he was taking (in which case disciplinary action should go higher than simply throwing one scapegoat to the masses and fucking him over when the real fault lies elsewhere).

And before some clever ass in the topic decides to pull the Hitler card and sarcastically point out that "I was only following orders" isn't a valid defense, when placed in a position where you are being asked to accept what your superior is telling you versus what you are being told by a civilian in a situation where you may have no prior reason to believe what they're telling you DOES make that scenario a hell of a lot murkier.

Ultimately no one on the Internet is going to know every detail of the story (and when people posting links to the story are linking to a source like Huffington Post you're already risking potential bias, or at least accusations of same), so it's entirely reasonable to feel like more information is necessary before a conclusion is reached, rather than immediately leaping to "String the fucking pig up, god damn fascists! Grr!"


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family