Same. Plus it leads to awkward conversations on barricaded subject command post.Originally Posted by CWM11B
"Hey look, there's your ex husband in law"......one male captain to another male captain referring to second male captain's current wife's ex husband walking by the command post.
Yes....you probably need a flow chart to keep up with that last part but .......that's police for you.
Thank goodness this was all pre-social media days. LOTS of debauchery back in the day.
Regards.
I want to know what you guys think regarding the involved parties' POST certifications.
I’m guessing, purely speculation, that the sheriff wasn’t passing the opportunity to get rid of one of them up, and if he had to gig 2 others, well that’s just what happens when a squeaky wheel gets greased.
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're probably right.
So just for the record:
I've been to the inkwell.
I've been personal witness to at least a dozen others who have done it too.
Thus far, I can count on one hand with four fingers left over, the number of times I've seen dipping into the company inkwell work out. It can work out, but it so rarely does.
My default advice is, "Don't."
Followed by, "If you do. Be transparent, clear, and smart."
I’ve seen this sort of behavior result in some very unpleasant complications for the participants. Such drama is very unprofessional and distracting for an agency, to say nothing of the moral problems.
This apparent reversal is pretty funny:
Transparency and clarity, or absolute silence? (Not that I’m soliciting advice.)
Sorry, should have been clearer. Transparent, clear, and smart between the two consenting parties who are hooking up. And quiet about it with anyone else in the workplace. If you are caught, being transparent, clear, and smart with each other, helps you keep from fucking lying about it to cover it up.
When asked, "Why didn't you report it?"
Your response is an easy, "There was no conflict of interest and we kept it out of the workplace, by doing X, Y, and Z."
___
It should also be noted - if there IS a conflict of interest it should be reported to HR immediately to avoid issues.
At one point, I worked in an office where only one of the female admin/managers on the floor wasn't hooking up with her boss. She was also the awesome and intelligent one, and thankfully, the main one I worked with directly. "We" knew this, because the women all talked to the gay guy, who talked to the metro guy, who talked to the rest of us.
I got tired of the world of b.s. around that company and bailed. Six months later, a bunch of higher-level people were gone. It was kinda like walking out of the building and having it implode behind me.
https://youtu.be/R03Dtu1r6nk?t=62
The rule I was taught is, "Don't crap where you eat."
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
I am a huge libertarian, the Department should keep its freaking nose out of my life type, but if they lied in the investigation, burn them down. Honesty and integrity is all I have, at the end.
In my state lying during the IA (regardless of what was being investigated or if the party was guilty of the allegations being investigated) would get the dishonest party on our state-wide list of officers with credibility (Brady) issues. Once on the list, even if their certification hasn’t been pulled, they are nearly unemployable outside a couple problem agencies. I don’t know how or why some end up being decertified and some retain their cert given similar dishonestly. I suspect it has to do with how their employer files the paperwork with PSTC.
Without regard to what the underlying case is about- dishonesty by officers in an official matter cannot be tolerated. The profession has enough challenges as it is and we’re nothing if we’re not credible.
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.
Reply With Quote