The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police should be congratulated on their out-of-the-box thinking and their adherence to higher principles |
While local newspapers like the Post-Gazette and others continue to rag on the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police regarding officers with histories of domestic abuse, we here at 2 Political Junkies believe that it's high time for someone to stand up and defend the top brass in the department.
The P-G bemoans the bureau's "mostly hands-off policy" when it comes to police officers who are accused of domestic violence including those who have had petitions for protection-from-abuse orders (PFAs) taken out against them.
Apparently the P-G thinks that it's just fine and dandy for our own city to merely ape the behaviors of other police bureaus in some sort of blind allegiance to "best practices" completely discounting the fact that Pittsburgh is a unique city with its own distinctive customs and history.
The P-G cites so called "experts" who recommend "a range of approaches by departments, including temporarily putting alleged abusers on desk duty, taking away their guns or forbidding contact with their accusers."
They quote some guy from Newark who is "surprised" that our top brass aren't more "proactive" when it comes to handling officers accused of domestic violence.
But, we must ask what is wrong with reinventing the wheel?
Just because the International Association of Chiefs of Police says that police applicants and officers up for promotion should have a "clean record" with "no arrests, suspended sentences, diversion programs, convictions or protection from abuse orders related to child abuse, sexual assault, stalking or domestic violence" doesn't mean that we have to slavishly follow such a policy here in the good ol' Burgh.
What are we talking about anyway?
Bruises fade, broken bones mend, hair ripped out at the roots grows back.
Why would we want to handcuff our top brass and our mayor from being able to choose those officers who they obviously believe are the best suited for the job over officers who don't happen to have any history of, say, punching their teenage daughter in the stomach or breaking their wife's nose?
Let's be frank here: it would seem that there are those out their who are in favor of the pussification of our police.
If you call 911 don't you want to know that an officer will respond who is man enough to beat a woman or child down?
Don't you want junior officers to be able to know that it takes a real man to achieve a promotion within the department? Don't they need role models? Don't they need to understand that the top brass will change or break any silly rules about rank to promote officers out of order to get the very best men as lieutenants and commanders?
What about the principle of innocent until proven guilty? What exactly is the problem with swearing in a recruit last month who has already had two PFAs out against him? Don't all recruits have an absolute right to become police officers as long as they've never been actually convicted of an assault or murder? I mean, you wouldn't try to deny Britney Spears or Michael Jackson the right to baby-sit your kids when they've never been convicted of abuse in a court of law, would you? It's only small minds and conventional thinkers who have some sort of sick need to obsess over every little pimple and hiccup on an officer's record and deny them their right to walk around amongst the public with a loaded weapon.
And what about the so-called "victims?" We've seen time and again that when push comes to shove, these women and children will back down and drop charges against their loved ones when they are confronted with the power and might of the system, as well they should.
While we do not necessarily advocate punishing these women and children outright for their whining complaints, we do think that they could benefit by following the example of the following women in this hard hitting reality check of a fair and balanced news report on domestic violence:
Pittsburghers, please, ignore the nay-sayers.
Do not condemn our police chief and mayor to live in fear of being stalked by any past or future consent decrees or any questioning on their priorities and good judgment. They must remain free to operate on the principle that caving to women's and victims' rights groups and a biased MSM will only make them appear weak and womanly -- and that's not the sort of thing that we want from our leaders in a town "made of steel, made of stone".
Brilliant. Thank you, very glad you're back.
ReplyDeletepussification? :-)
ReplyDeleteI did wonder about writing that...should it have been a 'y' instead of an 'i'?
ReplyDeleteI like it with an "i"
ReplyDelete"Let's be frank here: it would seem that there are those out their who are in favor of the pussification of our police."
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea how on-target this comment is.
I almost posted that Onion video yesterday, but didn't have the nerve. Sort of like not being able to tell an ethnic joke unless you're of that ethnicity.