Why doesn't the officer have to prove there won't be a similar incident in the future?

In my town an officer was suspended for arresting someone in a public park for filming them. It was later revealed that the officer was suspended without pay for 5 days and had to forfeit 5 vacation days. People keep telling me that there was obviously some sort of reprimand  ybst further discipline would be taken if something similar happens again. My question is why is it on the employer and the town when the officer was the one who screwed up? Why doesnt the officer have to prove there won't be a similar incident in the future? If losing 10 days without pay isnt going to stop bad. Behavior shouldnt the chief move towards termination? By the way This officer was a nice lady. However, I agree she shouldnt be arresting people for a crime they didnt committed. Her explanation was "It was a spur of the moment action fueled by anger". Nothing for nothing but if the incident is going to happen again anyway it erased the whole point of waiting to fire them. I mean how would you feel if your arrested for s crime that wasnt even committed and the town knows that officer already has a history of abuse? And for those saying it only happened once. So did 911. So did pearl harbor.

8 Answers

  • james
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago
    Favorite Answer

    She acted in anger against a person breaking no law. Then & there her fire arm permit should be pulled. She is to mental to have a gun or weapon. 

  • 4 weeks ago

    Ridiculous. You can't prove that something will not happen again.

  • 4 weeks ago

    How does one prove "prove there won't be a similar incident in the future"?

  • 4 weeks ago

    Explain how you could prove that? It's impossible.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Yes, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 only happened once and there is NO WAY to prove they won't recur.  But what we can do is be vigilant to prevent it from happening again.  In your mind the only way to overcome making sure the police officer from falsely arresting someone again is to fire her, but how does that prevent her replacement from doing the same thing?  It doesn't.  Instead what does is provide better oversight (supervision) and give the officer good reason to not repeat their mistake (penalties suffered) and that isn't nothing for nothing. 

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Nothing has changed since the last 10 times you asked this.

    Your, you're, there's a difference.

    "Behavior shouldnt the chief move towards termination?"  Can you repeat that in English?

    Are you the same person upset 10 years later because a teacher took a photo of her (the girl's) butt?

  • 1 month ago

    How would anyone "prove" that something isn't going to happen again in the future? That's impossible.

    Watch Live PD- the police officers on that show have infinite patience with people who act in the most disgusting ways. I'd probably arrest them- or shoot them!

    • Michelle1 month agoReport

      I have no issue with cops arresting people who committ crimes. Arresting someone just because you dont like something they're doing. The officer admitted in court the arrest was a spur of the moment action fueled by anger.

  • 1 month ago

    Well...if it were to happen again with the same guy you'd have a pretty solid civil rights suit against not only him (he can be sued now) but also the town.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.