Threaten to kill shopkeeper and burn down his business, get a vacation.

[MAC702]

I haven't seen this posted yet, so if I missed it, let me know.

A guy in Arizona twice threatens to KILL the shopkeeper and burn down his business and his punishment is a two week vacation.

I'll bet you can't guess what his job is.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...ndale-assistant-police-chief-to-be-reinstated

 

[skidmark]

Without an explanatiojn of the underlying HR rules, the article is worthless except to do just what trhe OP has done with nit - stir up emotions

Just to give some idea of what might have been driving the personnel action - the policy for the state agency where I was employed ties periods of suspension to periods of time recording. Had a high muckety-muck found to have done something very egregious and quite contrary to policy. As punishment they were suspended for 2 weeks.

Foolishly (you will see why pretty soon) they appealed their suspension. And it was overturned. The HR riule sais that suspensions must be in blocks of time equal to the time reporting for pay purposes. The muckety-muck was paid based on a 30.33-day month. They could not be suspended for 2 weeks - only in increments of 30.33 chunks of time. Since the original suspension order talked about 2 pay periods (because some jerk though everybody was paid based on a 40-hour week), the appeal ended up correcting the suspension order to two pay periods totalling 60.66 days.

But all most folks could figure out from the news report was that the muckety-muck was originally suspended for 2 weeks and had that overturened on appeal.

stay safe.

 

[MAC702]

Okay, I can understand the purity of what you are saying regarding possible failure to follow technicalities of how to do a suspension.

Let's focus on the crime being poo-poo'd away solely as "violating policy" to warrant nothing more than demotion and suspension, now leading to a reinstatement back to full seniority.

We have a confession of multiple murder/arson threats by an armed individual.

 

[Maverick9]

In fact if a regular citizen said this kind of thing, we'd see it as just venting. Nobody's gonna go to that extreme.

I had a friend say 'I'd like to punch her in the nose for doing that'. The cops were called. You think the cops would realize this is a general comment like 'smack someone silly', or 'kick someone's butt'. It's different than 'I'm going to...'.

Yet the cops threatened to arrest the guy for that.

Anyway, I think it was intemperate, but worthy of suspension? IDK. He's not showing good judgment for doing it twice. Anyway, if it's not illegal, he should be restricting his son not complaining at the store owner. His son will just go elsewhere to buy the stuff.

2 cents.

 

[MAC702]

Okay, I see your point. I actually did assume that the victim took this as a legitimate threat.

While I find it difficult to envision this being hyperbole, I see that there could be a possibility.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Okay, I can understand the purity of what you are saying regarding possible failure to follow technicalities of how to do a suspension.

Let's focus on the crime being poo-poo'd away solely as "violating policy" to warrant nothing more than demotion and suspension, now leading to a reinstatement back to full seniority.

We have a confession of multiple murder/arson threats by an armed individual.

Next week, they'll give him a commendation and a raise.

 

[Citizen]

Okay, I see your point. I actually did assume that the victim took this as a legitimate threat.

While I find it difficult to envision this being hyperbole, I see that there could be a possibility.

Times have changed. Today, mere mundanes (citizens) have been charged with making terroristic threats for similar.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I'd venture to guess, if his son legitimately had a problem, he's got a dozen contacts in his phone that he can buy from... You'd think a police veteran would know this and not be so naive as to think threatening one shop to stop selling it to him would stop his son from being able to smoke for even a 12 hour period

 

[MAC702]

I also don't know anything about the drug in question, but got the impression that it was legal drug, including sales to minors.

Part of this impression is because why else would the father have to make illegal death threats to attempt to get it to stop?

 

[eye95]

Yawn.

Nothing to get worked up about. It was an irate an frustrated father, going too far, but not criminally so. Were this a civilian, he would likely have been given a stern warning by the police or the legal system. Instead, he is a cop, pretty high up, so official action was taken. IMO, an appropriate level of action was taken.

Oh, and it was a suspension, not a vacation. The title of this thread is deceptive and, IMO, dishonest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

 

[Citizen]

Yawn.

Nothing to get worked up about. It was an irate an frustrated father, going too far, but not criminally so. Were this a civilian, he would likely have been given a stern warning by the police or the legal system. Instead, he is a cop, pretty high up, so official action was taken. IMO, an appropriate level of action was taken.

Oh, and it was a suspension, not a vacation. The title of this thread is deceptive and, IMO, dishonest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

1. Criminality. It most certainly could have been criminal. Do you know for a fact that Arizona lacks a statute against making terroristic threats? Just hunt the web for news stories of citizens charged with making terroristic threats for less.

2. Get over yourself. When I read the title, I knew instantly what he was saying. I didn't even have to read the story to know. His use of the word vacation in that context is meant to editorialize that an official received time off for something that would be prosecuted if a mere citizen had done it. Don't blame others for your inability to distinguish factual or accurate titles from editorializing titles.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

1. Criminality. It most certainly could have been criminal. Do you know for a fact that Arizona lacks a statute against making terroristic threats? Just hunt the web for news stories of citizens charged with making terroristic threats for less.

2. Get over yourself. When I read the title, I knew instantly what he was saying. I didn't even have to read the story to know. His use of the word vacation in that context is meant to editorialize that an official received time off for something that would be prosecuted if a mere citizen had done it. Don't blame others for your inability to distinguish factual or accurate titles from editorializing titles.

Went to google that for my personal info....there were many to be found....

This one in Texas made my blood boil though....http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...reat-after-making-sarcastic-comments-facebook

 

[color of law]

1. Criminality. It most certainly could have been criminal. Do you know for a fact that Arizona lacks a statute against making terroristic threats? Just hunt the web for news stories of citizens charged with making terroristic threats for less.

2. Get over yourself. When I read the title, I knew instantly what he was saying. I didn't even have to read the story to know. His use of the word vacation in that context is meant to editorialize that an official received time off for something that would be prosecuted if a mere citizen had done it. Don't blame others for your inability to distinguish factual or accurate titles from editorializing titles.

++1

This is eye95's Modus operandi. He believes that the world revolves around him. Well over 10,000 posts in 3 1/2 years, average almost 9 per day. Just one sent while on duty (on the clock for his employer) could constitute theft. Mind you, I'm not accusing him of any illegal acts. It's just a statement.

 

[Citizen]

Went to google that for my personal info....there were many to be found....

This one in Texas made my blood boil though....http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...reat-after-making-sarcastic-comments-facebook

I came across that one back when it was fresh news.

Thanks for reposting it. On this reading, I noticed the point about the kid's proximity to an elementary school. How many Americans do not live in proximity to an elementary school?

And, what is the degree of proximity that counts? Five minute walk? A person could drive to an elementary school, so maybe a five minute drive? Oh, no. The people who want to prosecute these things will say that a determined mass killer would easily drive twenty minutes or more.

How many people in this country live more than a twenty minute drive from an elementary school? Or, any school? You can bet that a determined informant would hunt up every parochial school and day care center and then say the kid could attack them because they were more convenient.

This proximity-to-a-school business is just as much a pretext as ignoring the fact the kid wrote "j/k" for joking.

 

[color of law]

Went to google that for my personal info....there were many to be found....

This one in Texas made my blood boil though....http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-po...reat-after-making-sarcastic-comments-facebook

http://www.change.org/petitions/release-my-son-justin-carter-being-prosecuted-for-a-facebook-comment


August 2, 2013

So sorry for all of you waiting to hear about Justin, but here is the update:
Due to Justin's severe bond restrictions, he cannot live with his family. At this time he is in a temporary living situation until we can find a permanent place for him. The District Attorney is still trying to punish Justin, even though he no longer sits in her jail.
So please, continue to visit: http://freejustincarter.org/ We are working on updating the site as well!
Justin has his yet another pre-trial hearing on August 12th, 2013 in The New Braunfels Courthouse.
We cannot believe that the District Attorney is continuing to pursue a case against our son for exercising his right to free speech! We haven't won yet!
Please continue to sign the petition or direct people to it as well.
I look forward to the day when we can declare Victory, when Justin will be free to return to his life and when the Texas justice system reforms its laws so that no other teen is held in jail for free speech on the internet.

 

[eye95]

++1

This is eye95's Modus operandi. He believes that the world revolves around him. Well over 10,000 posts in 3 1/2 years, average almost 9 per day. Just one sent while on duty (on the clock for his employer) could constitute theft. Mind you, I'm not accusing him of any illegal acts. It's just a statement.

No, you are just implying that I am doing something inappropriate.

I used to wonder why you and Werz would get into it so much. I understand now. You behave like an ass. I sympathize with Werz.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

SNIP No, you are just implying that I am doing something inappropriate.

No. He's agreeing with me that you will go to ridiculous lengths to prove yourself right. Including the tactic of expressly terminating the discussion by announcing you are "moving on" rather than just doing so without mention. And, that you come off as self-centered in a conceited way.

For myself, I don't see you as conceited. Yours is just rigid thinking and an unwillingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of others' ideas because you either think it implies your own ideas are wrong, or you can't tolerate the momentary destabilizing effect of a new idea.

The upshot is that to others you look self-centered because your thinking doesn't venture far from your own viewpoint, and you use a seeming iron self-confidence to protect it.

 

[color of law]

No. He's agreeing with me that you will go to ridiculous lengths to prove yourself right. Including the tactic of expressly terminating the discussion by announcing you are "moving on" rather than just doing so without mention. And, that you come off as self-centered in a conceited way.

For myself, I don't see you as conceited. Yours is just rigid thinking and an unwillingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of others' ideas because you either think it implies your own ideas are wrong, or you can't tolerate the momentary destabilizing effect of a new idea.

The upshot is that to others you look self-centered because your thinking doesn't venture far from your own viewpoint, and you use a seeming iron self-confidence to protect it.

Very enlightening insight.
And based on the number of posts he has made, you could conclude he lacks any meaningful home life.

 

[Citizen]

Very enlightening insight.
And based on the number of posts he has made, you could conclude he lacks any meaningful home life.

Hey! I resemble that remark!




<How can I spin that criticism? Think, dammit, think. Light bulb!!>

OCDO is my home.

 

[color of law]

Hey! I resemble that remark!




<How can I spin that criticism? Think, dammit, think. Light bulb!!>

OCDO is my home.

He has posted 50% more than you. And to say the least, unlike eye95's posts, your posts have substance.