Sad News From IN

[TCinVA]

The Puritanical streak in American culture, particularly as we apply it to our elected leaders, is one of the most destructive and unhealthy things about politics in the US. It's not even necessary for someone to do something which is professionally unethical (ie arranging for tickets/charges to "go away" in exchange for sexual favors) in order to see their career derailed or destroyed. All it takes is a human failing which would be a private matter between "ordinary" folks, and it's time for the scarlet A stamp and the red ink-pad to come out.

I'm sure this will be considered heresy by some, but I think Americans could learn something from how many other Western countries regard the personal issues of their elected officials: possibly amusing, but irrelevant unless it clearly interferes with their duties.

The country ignored FDR's serial adulteries. And JFK's skirt chasing...along with lots of other senators and public officials in his day.

The press is now and always has been highly selective about the things that become public knowledge and/or a "scandal". So that's not a terribly good measure.

...and more often than not public officials who are playing sexual games are abusing their office in the process of or in addition to. Doesn't appear so in this case, but this case is relatively rare...a public official who still appears capable of shame and who has a sense of honor. Don't see that too much with the Weiners or Clintons or Spitzers of the world.

Many police departments are ate up with adultery and far worse...the result of people with lots of time on their hands, relatively poor oversight, and an organizational culture where everybody covers for everybody.

Personally I'm not deeply interested in the infidelities of others because I know how common it is for people to step out on one another, and I know that a whole bunch of things can contribute to making that happen.

Unfortunately it often doesn't end there. It would be nice if people kept their bad acts nicely compartmentalized and I know of some people who have done precisely that, nevertheless they seem to be the exception rather than the rule. An example would be a chief LEO in my area who was having multiple affairs...but was also part of a clique that throughout a number of years had warped the integrity of the entire organization by promoting his buddies and ignoring their shortcuts and bad acts in addition to putting his own out there.

It took him being pulled over for DUI to get him out and get in some new blood intent on cleaning things up. The public was largely unaware of this because his clique was a subset of a larger clique of powerful people in the area including the people who own the papers. (Look up the history of the Byrds in Virginia sometime if you want to be sick)

Bad acts that actually do impact the office and the execution of its duties often accompany bad acts that many would regard as a private matter. While it's not an absolute guarantee, it's still true that character defects tend to follow the person who has them regardless of what sphere he/she is operating in.

There's more to it than just social stigmas that are a relic from a puritanical past.

[TCinVA]

Am I the only one cynical enough to wonder if a less prominent, not pro-gun, Democratic sheriff had been found in similar circumstances, it would even be a news item? The allegation of corruption is all that matters - 95% of the damage is already done regardless of what any followup investigation may show. If the investigation shows a purely consensual relationship, will that be a news item?

I feel bad for the FBI. They really love public corruption cases and they have to use something this mundane to be "fair" in the equal investigation of both parties. I'm reminded of this: http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-1...ation-kane-ali It was cancelled because the only ones to accept bribes were Democrats.

It's just a gut feeling, but I have a strong suspicion that the FBI's public corruption unit is highly selective in what they go after. Or, rather, what they're directed to go after.

Law enforcement agencies are a lot like a gun. In the right hands they protect the innocent and put bad people down. In the wrong hands...

[Stephen]

I'm sure this will be considered heresy by some, but I think Americans could learn something from how many other Western countries regard the personal issues of their elected officials: possibly amusing, but irrelevant unless it clearly interferes with their duties.

I agree. But a law enforcement official having a long intimate relationship with a career criminal isn't the same as a typical affair. If it was a regular law abiding woman, it shouldn't be anyone's business.

[BillP]

Something I haven't seen here, but should be considered: most states (mine included) contain moral character requirements for a law enforcement officer to obtain and maintain their certification. Often they include associations with known criminals. Additionally, agency administrative policy can be significantly more restrictive on these topics. My agency, for example, prohibits association or fraternization with known criminals excepting family members.
This same exact thing happened to a friend and coworker who I considered a mentor in a lot of the finer points of investigative work. In short, he was a jam-up Detective, academy instructor, honor guard member, and tireless advocate for victims. Or I should say, he was until professional standards towed his agency car to the forensics bay for processing. He immediately resigned. It seems he had been frequenting a prostitute who was under investigation by the regional task force.

It can happen to anyone if they let their guard down and make poor decisions. Simply because they're a good cop or a friend doesn't change anything, it just makes the pill that much more bitter.

I extend my sympathy to those of you who consider him a friend.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

[TR675]

I agree. But a law enforcement official having a long intimate relationship with a career criminal isn't the same as a typical affair. If it was a regular law abiding woman, it shouldn't be anyone's business.

I wouldn't even go so far as to call a prostitute a "career criminal." Cartel members, mafiosos, smack dealers - yes. Someone practicing the world's oldest profession? There's a reason they call it that...

You know what's interesting? Reading contemporary novels from the '40s and '50s or talking to old dudes from back then and seeing just how accepted prostitution was back in the day. Illegal, immoral, disapproved of, and completely tolerated.

Just an observation.

[cclaxton]

Good people shouldn't be ruined for victimless crimes or acts of immorality. Prostitution should be legalized and regulated. We used to put people in prison for gambling...now we collect taxes from legal casino's. While there should be public standards for behavior and we should encourage moral behavior, we should not criminalize it. No one wants their daughter to become a prostitute, but if she does I would want her to be as safe as possible. My heart would be broken, but that's another matter.
Cody

[GardoneVT]

In looking at this disspasionately, associating with a criminal tarnishes the credibility of a LEO. When Federal security clearances are evaluated, one criterion is moral character. It's not because Uncle Sam really cares about a mans choice in late night company, but the stiff and damaging consequences which could happen if the wrong person found out.

As bad as having a CLEOs reputation ruined via investigation and resignation is, it's a lot better then some scumbag getting the inside scoop and using it for blackmail material. It's happened before to people working for the US Government, which is why the clearance adjudication folks frown on prostitution and excessive personal debt. I'm not saying it would have certainly happened in this case, but picture the damage a compromised LEO could cause if they held a secret that serious and a connected criminal discovered the truth.

For that pragmatic reason, I have to agree with the steps taken.

[Corvus]

I am signed up for a med class being held in Boone Co. in a month or so. Not sure if I am going to cancel or not but I am about ready to write it off and take the loss.

It is true we all make mistakes but we usually make them in our teens and twenties , then grow up and move on. Someone in this position with his years should know better and be mature enough to handle things.

The thing about it that strikes me as a sign of his character is that during the time this went on I have heard him talk down two other trainers for being "unprofessional".

[Dagga Boy]

In looking at this disspasionately, associating with a criminal tarnishes the credibility of a LEO. When Federal security clearances are evaluated, one criterion is moral character. It's not because Uncle Sam really cares about a mans choice in late night company, but the stiff and damaging consequences which could happen if the wrong person found out.

As bad as having a CLEOs reputation ruined via investigation and resignation is, it's a lot better then some scumbag getting the inside scoop and using it for blackmail material. It's happened before to people working for the US Government, which is why the clearance adjudication folks frown on prostitution and excessive personal debt. I'm not saying it would have certainly happened in this case, but picture the damage a compromised LEO could cause if they held a secret that serious and a connected criminal discovered the truth.

For that pragmatic reason, I have to agree with the steps taken.

My huge issue with Clinton was not having an affair. That is a personal issue between him and his wife. What I had a HUGE issue with is doing it IN the White House, and subjecting himself to a blackmail and security issue. There is rumor that the Israeli's have the phone sex tapes of him and Monica. Even if a total myth, you can see the issues. Imagine our enemies with access to that level of dirt and the influence it could buy. While not at a Presidential level, many in trusted positions set themselves up for being victims of blackmail by their personal actions.

I have a personal standard that honor is a gift that a person gives themselves. Some folks are not as careful as others of that gift. I will give credit to Ken Campbell for not making excuses and owning his mistake and not making it worse, but it was certainly a good example of ruining your life and heavily affecting others with poor decisions. A good saying I heard a long time ago has sat in my brain and been at easy access for those times when tempted to make a moral mistake....."If you have to keep a relationship a secret, you probably should not be in".

[DocGKR]

I have a huge issue with the Commander in Chief having an affair with a subordinate...