Hacker News Reader

Comment by teddyuk | Hacker News Reader

It is great that in this case the policeman was sacked but I get the impression it was because he lied afterwards.

Police in the UK and US continually treat citizens as beneath them and with contempt - he should have been sacked because he was rude and wrong, not because he lied.

View on HN

There was substantially more than just mere lying. From TFA:

"Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any other officer in the department). The sheriff's letter says that Saulet repeatedly was told to improve interactions with the public, and provided with remarkable investments of coaching and counseling. Saulet underwent three performance-improvement plans, two training sessions, and two multi-visit sessions with a social psychologist, coaching sessions with supervisors, and 80 hours of time off without pay. Saulet was demoted from sergeant to deputy for another incident in August"

In that incident "Saulet accosted a family that made a wrong turn into a Metro transit station last December [due to following their GPS]. Saulet reportedly threatened to arrest the parents in the car—including a visibly pregnant woman—and then suggested the couple's 18-month-old daughter would be seized by government authorities"[1].

Its also worth noting that the reporter filed a complaint against a 2nd officer who was also found guilty, but that officer was just given a day off without pay.

So the conclusion seems to be this was a problem officer who had been given many opportunities to improve and this was merely the last straw on the camels back.

[1] http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/08/19/king-co...

Getting rid of the worst performer of any organization has a tremendous effect. They're usually the one most disengaged, the least reliable, and the one who sucks up the most resources.

Also, by getting rid of the "bad apple" you improve morale.

It's a shrewd political move by the sheriff to fire the officer for this particular offense. It sends a signal to the other officers while remaining completely safe from any legitimate internal criticism or controversy. If you were a leader in the police who wanted to set the record straight on the legalities of filming police officers, this would be the way to do it.

If being rude and wrong were a sacking offence, hardly anybody would have a job. This police officer should be fired for abusing his authority.

Being rude and wrong in a position of power is, in this case, an abuse of authority.

There are bad eggs everywhere, but it doesn't help the conversation when you project the minority onto the whole.

By and large the police I have met in the UK are helpful and diligent. And I say that having been arrested, searched and locked in a cell for 3 hours by the police for no good reason, so have felt violated by them before.

I don't live in the US, so can't comment, but I imagine it's the same.

In the US, at least, I hold that outside of a few small rural departments, there are no good cops, full stop.

Because the so-called good cops defend, with silence at minimum, all but the most extreme behavior of the really bad cops.

Agreed. Good cops cease being good as soon as they look the other way and keep quiet when a bad cop does something wrong.

Bullshit. One, it's a major generalization based on, well, nothing, and two, it's not that simple. You can stand on your moral high ground all you like, but what you are suggesting is that all of the cops who do their job properly leave because they don't have the power to stop those who don't. Well, what's the result of that? More bad cops. Only bad cops.

You overly simplistic view doesn't work in practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com