Tuesday, December 11, 2007

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ALREADY

As usual knee-jerk reactions are just that. Aldermen push to test Chicago cops for alcohol after police shootings
And here is the brilliant argument presented by Carothers.
“If you work for Streets and Sanitation in Chicago . . . and you run over somebody with a truck, then you have to go take a Breathalyzer test and, in fact, a drug test as well,” said Carothers, a strong mayoral ally and chairman of the Police and Fire Committee. “So I think it’s just appropriate to do this. . . . I have a concern to just make sure that the public knows that we’re doing all that we can to make sure that police officers are not impaired.”

Well ass wipe, if the S&S guy runs someone over its an accident. We shoot someone it is because we were in fear of our life. Since when has a shooting incident been questioned as to the sobriety of the involved?
In one incident in 2000, an off-duty officer shot and wounded a man at 3 a.m. in a fight outside a South Side bar. The officer, who contended the man had pointed a gun at him, reported he had consumed 11/2 shots of cognac. But he was not given a breath test until seven hours after the incident. In a subsequent calculation, a state toxicologist estimated that the officer’s blood alcohol content was at least 0.11 and possibly as high as 0.15. A person is legally drunk under Illinois law at 0.08.

and this is what they came up with.
I'm getting so sick and tired of this bullshit!

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

The City is just trying to keep themselves out of lawsuits.

If they can prove the P.O. was drunk, they can wring their little hands and say--NOT US!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Face it, SCS. For year, in many municipalities, an officer must submit to testing after a shooting.
Im surprised it has taken this long for this to be proposed.
This is a sign of the litigation times. Everything we do, say, text on our phones and write (or e-mail) is under scrutiny and discoverable. Be careful out there.

rosco said...

A P.O. should be above being a drunken buffoon. Punish these drunks to the full extent of the law. Besides is it not against General orders to be intoxicated while armed?

Anonymous said...

Why have the aldermen take a sobriety test after they arrive for work?

Why not have the citizens take sobriety tests after voting these idiots in?

Oh and BTW,Could our esteemed union officials put down their beers and find out where our 2008 handbooks are? They come in handy this time of year. Thanks love ya

Anonymous said...

This is a no brainer. And it's going to pass. This is not a fight worth fighting, let alone worth winning.

Anonymous said...

A P.O. should be above being a drunken buffoon. Punish these drunks to the full extent of the law. Besides is it not against General orders to be intoxicated while armed?

No, it's not, it is a recommendation only, read it.

leomemorial said...

Who will test this goofball civilians out here?

I have seen what goes on here on the streets and how you're treated. Plus, I have been on ridealong in the past, and know only to well what goes on.

This city & public has way too much power over those who took an oath to serve the law & keep peace.

Anonymous said...

Rosco, The R & R states "Intoxication-On or off duty"

Anonymous said...

The City should win this one. As a long time supervisor, I know only too well that most of the off-duty shootings involve some level of intoxication. That doesn't necessarily make the shooting unjustified but it does raise questions about the officer's judgment. However, low-level intoxication off-duty should not be considered for the purpose of disciplining an officer where it can be shown that the officer was the victim of an assault or other crime.

The City will get this and it should because each of us is accountable for the use of our weapons - on and off duty. I've too often seen "bosses" cover for intoxicated officers in questionable shootings either not order a breathalyzer or delay it so long as to make the result useless. Also, a mandatory breathalyzer which is negative will be a quick end to accusations that the officer shot junior because he was drunk.

I say go for it. It may also make those officers who like to go to the tavern with their guns on their hips think twice about whether to leave the gun home or not. Lives saved all around.

Anonymous said...

Leo - you're the number one "goofball civilian" out there. You don't know squat about the police department but you sure like to be a self-appointed expert on all things police. I surely wish you'd get a life and get some business of your own.

leomemorial said...

Wed Dec 12, 03:12:00 AM

How do you know what I know? You wonder why this city is in trouble, because of people like yourself.

But here's a tip for you... if you don't like what I have to say, don't click on it.

Now take a Xanax and chill out

Anonymous said...

Leo is on our side and supports us. That's all I need to know. Thanks Renee.

Anonymous said...

don't get mad at the sheep, thats what they are SHEEP. they don't know better.

Please keep in mind that this is an open blog
that can and is read by people other than Chicago Police Officers.