Zeronaut81

Zeronaut81 t1_jduvjr0 wrote

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

Zeronaut81 t1_jdus631 wrote

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

Zeronaut81 t1_jdpbsc5 wrote

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