It’s official…
It’s a mad out there.
An off-duty poiliceman, a 20-year sergeant driving his personal car, rear-ended another car at an intersection. He then drove off, only to be apprehended a short time later.
The officer was found to have a Blood Alcohol Level of 0.17, over twice the legal limit. Here, 0.08 is the legal limit to drive. He was arrested and eventually charged with a DUI.
Because of his clean criminal record, he received deferred prosecution. As part of that, he was forced to install an Ignition Interlock Device in any car he drove.
That became problematic when it came to whether he would have to install the device in his police cruiser.
The police chief would not allow a police vehicle to have that interlock device and would not allow him to drive a city vehicle without that device. Eventually, the Chief fired the officer.
Shortly after his termination, he brought a $4 Million claim against the city alleging wrongful termination.
His lawyer says more could have been done to keep Thoma’s job, including an office position. His lawyer also claims discrimination because his client is an alcoholic.
A few opinions:
1. If a cop breaks a law…he should be fired. Drunk driving and hit & run seem to qualify in my book.
2.The city should npot be forced to put expensive interlock devices in squad cars just so this creep can keep his $91,000 a year job.
3. The attorney really should be run out of town for having the nerve to take this case.:D
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th January 2010 at 20:34
Yes, perhaps you’re right, police should set an example, what he did was inexcusable. 😎
By: old shape - 8th January 2010 at 20:04
The cop should have been fired after the event.
He wasn’t. That means he has full rights as an employee.
Therefore, what followed can only be described as constructive dismissal.
He is right to sue the City in employment terms. The city however should have fired him in the first place.
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th January 2010 at 18:29
Get this: In this third world place that I am stuck in for the moment, if you want the cops to “investigate” a burglary, you have to pay for their taxi to come out. And all you will get is a docket number, they cannot lift fingerprints or anything like that. They usually hang around on the streets harassing law abiding motorists for money. The later it gets at night the more drunk they get and the more ridiculous the “charges” they trump up to get money out of you. No kidding, one day a cop told me that he was gonna take me in because my car was dirty and “it is illegal to drive on a tar road with a dirty vehicle”. You can buy off every single cop here without exception.
Getting back to the cop above, given his clean record, he should have received a suspension, had his pay docked or similar for a first offence, and been put behind a desk for 6 months whilst receiving counseling. And he probably would have been better off had he stopped after the accident.
As for his attorney, there is a dead attorney and a dead skunk lying in the road. What is the difference?
There are skid marks in front of the skunk.:D
By: BSG-75 - 7th January 2010 at 18:50
stunning !
so, as an alcoholic should he get subsidised drink and also be allowed to drink on duty and carry out his duties (while armed??)
Sign In
January 7, 2010 at 5:20 pm