Texsox Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Linked A judge ruled that the Highway Patrol unfairly fired a state trooper for having extramarital sex with a woman in his car and at a district station because the patrol let troopers who did the same or worse remain on the force.Monty Steven Poarch, a trooper for 18 years who was based in Alexander County, was fired in 2003. But evidence in the case showed that another trooper who also had an affair with the woman was suspended without pay for five days. That trooper had left his loaded gun in her car while having sex, where young children later found it, and also had affairs with two other women. Another trooper was demoted after having sex with his ex-wife while on duty, and making more than 20 threatening phone calls to her. A third trooper was demoted and transferred for having an affair with a subordinate's wife while on duty. Administrative Law Judge Melissa Owens Lassiter's decision this week, which calls for Poarch to be reinstated with back pay, could have far-reaching ramifications. Another administrative law judge and a Wake Superior Court judge both ruled in the case that fired state employees seeking their jobs back can explore whether agencies are consistent in applying discipline. More. much more than this, at the link. What I find interesting about this is the old slippery slope. By the time someone woke up and said enough is enough, many mistakes had been made. Now that department is seemingly stuck with those mistakes. There has to be room to say, we're not going to take this anymore. Have sex on your own time, in your own car. Any more here will result in firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 07:51 AM) Linked More. much more than this, at the link. What I find interesting about this is the old slippery slope. By the time someone woke up and said enough is enough, many mistakes had been made. Now that department is seemingly stuck with those mistakes. There has to be room to say, we're not going to take this anymore. Have sex on your own time, in your own car. Any more here will result in firing. Yikes. First, since when is "because other people did it" a legal mitigation? I'd be surprised if that judgement didn't get reviewed by an Appelate board or something. Here is the thing - at pretty much any job anyone has, if they had sex in their office or on their desk while on duty or at work, they'd almost surely be fired. I don't think Troopers should be any different, and in fact, they should probably be held to a higher standard. So why weren't ALL these guys fired? Particularly the one who made 20+ "threatening phone calls" to an ex-wife? And before anyone brings up my stance on the screaming and yelling cop recently, remember two things. One, yelling and threatening to get someone in trouble will often NOT get you fired from other jobs. And two, I would consider sex acts to be a lot more pre-meditated, and far less caused by the job itself, than the yelling episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 07:51 AM) Linked More. much more than this, at the link. What I find interesting about this is the old slippery slope. By the time someone woke up and said enough is enough, many mistakes had been made. Now that department is seemingly stuck with those mistakes. There has to be room to say, we're not going to take this anymore. Have sex on your own time, in your own car. Any more here will result in firing. They would have probably been fine if they had issued that as a policy BEFORE he got caught. They need to issue a written statement to that fact now, so that the next one caught should have no excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Hey if Bill gets to do his job of Middle East peace while getting someone slobbering on his nob, can you really hate on a cop for needing a little love? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 08:34 AM) They would have probably been fine if they had issued that as a policy BEFORE he got caught. They need to issue a written statement to that fact now, so that the next one caught should have no excuses. That would be good. But honestly, they could easily have been fired in any case. The department was probably just afraid to for various reasons (dealing with the union, etc.). I mean, the guy with the threatening calls, that could be assault, or at least stalking. And sex in the car while on duty, from a work point of view, could be dereliction of duty, not to mention improper use of the equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 I understand treating everyone the same is good policy, but just because there were mistakes before shouldn't be allowed. Basically those guys "got off" and this guy received the appropriate punishment. I'd rather the courts said, go fire those guys also you dumb ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) That would be good. But honestly, they could easily have been fired in any case. The department was probably just afraid to for various reasons (dealing with the union, etc.). I mean, the guy with the threatening calls, that could be assault, or at least stalking. And sex in the car while on duty, from a work point of view, could be dereliction of duty, not to mention improper use of the equipment. I believe that is the proper use of that equipment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts