Oakland reinstates serial killer cop using the I was only following orders defense...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/killer-criminal-cop-in-oakland-invokes-nuremberg-defense-gets-reinstated/

After Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen was struck in the head by a lead-lined beanbag round during an October 25 protest in Oakland, Officer Robert Roche fired a CS tear-gas canister into a crowd of people who had gathered to help him. This act of self-indulgent sadism is hardly out of what passes for Roche’s character: As a SWAT operative, Roche has been involved in three fatal shootings, and has posted a photograph boasting of his accomplishments as a killer.

“That’s the last thing many of the more observant people I’ve `met’ have ever seen,” gloated a caption Roche composed for a photograph of himself in a prone sniper’s position. “Consider yourself fortunate.”

In response to public outrage over Roche’s criminal actions during the October 25, 2011 incident, the Oakland PD fired the officer. Last March, the city hit up the tax victims within its jurisdiction to underwrite a $4.5 million settlement with Olsen. The following month, Roche filed for arbitration to get his job back. He has now been reinstated on the force, and his attorney says that he will resume his occupation as a state-licensed killer “with all enthusiasm, with all alacrity.”

Roche was placed on paid vacation prior to his termination. He will receive two years’ back pay once he rejoins the force.

It is outrageous.
This is what makes other cops look bad and the code of silence that defends other cops no matter what they do is outrageous too.
If police want to regain the respect of most of the public there has to come a time when officers are punished when they go too far in the line of duty. They need to quit protecting each other when they actually know a fellow officer has done wrong.
Watching shows like "caught on camera" and "blue light" only convince me that something I once heard was true- bullies grow up to be either criminals or cops. And yet I know officers who are not like that at all and who I would trust with my life any day of the week. Those officers don't deserve the lousy publicity they get from incidences like this. But to stop it, the good cops have to rat on the bad cops and that just very rarely happens.

Wow, did we read the same article? It sounds to me like the Oakland PD most certainly tried to do the right thing... They fired the guy. He sued and got his job back. This was a miscarriage of our judicial system, which tries -- some might say too hard -- to protect the innocent, not a case of a police department protecting their own or some code of silence issue.

Because our system is designed to protect the innocent, sometimes the guilty go free. That's the way it works.

No, here's the thing. Roche relied on his superior to back him up and apparently his superior did so.
Yet his superior received no punishment either because he wasn't the one who fired the shot.

This is the statement that got me:

This is a case of self-reinforcing police impunity: Roche is exonerated because he was just following orders; Figueroa, for his part, isn’t responsible for Roche’s crime because he was just ordering followers."

That's where it becomes a matter of police being able to get by with anything because they back each other up. Who knows whether Figueroa actually ordered the man to shoot into the crowd or not? Roche gets to use that excuse and he isn't punished but neither is the officer in charge. It all works out well except for the guy who received the bullet wound.

Then we should agree to disagree.

riceme wrote:

Then we should agree to disagree.

Or disagree to agree!!!!

Whichever. I do see your point that he was originally fired, but in the long run he's right back on the force and I'll bet he will be welcomed back with open arms.
And yes, I guess it is the fault of the justice system for accepting such a ridiculous defense. Nobody can make you fire your weapon if you don't want to.

The problem, as I see it, is the personnel system that is structured so that they had to rehire that guy back. Whatever they call it... tenure? Is it a too-powerful union with contract language that did it?

Eric wrote:

The problem, as I see it, is the personnel system that is structured so that they had to rehire that guy back.  Whatever they call it... tenure?  Is it a too-powerful union with contract language that did it?

That probably has something to do with it too, but hard to tell from the information in the article.

The core issue is public unions... even fdr saw the fundamental flaw with public servants bargaining with elected officials for our services. We the people don't wind up with a seat at that table. Just another instance of influence peddling and collusion subverting public interest.

PkrBum wrote:

The core issue is public unions... even fdr saw the fundamental flaw with public servants bargaining with elected officials for our services. We the people don't wind up with a seat at that table. Just another instance of influence peddling and collusion subverting public interest.

Although I disagree with the whole premise of what you said it does appear that a union may have been responsible for his rehiring. Apparently, if it went into arbitration, that state must have binding arbitration laws. In those cases when an arbitrator makes a decision both sides have to abide by it. That's not the case here in Florida. Our public service unions really have no power at all since we don't have binding arbitration in Florida. An arbitrator can come out completely on the side of the union and the State doesn't have to comply with the decision.
On the whole I wish we did have binding arbitration but it looks like in this case it was a colossal ___Up.

Be sure and don't fill in that blank with the "F" word because this is Eric's forum. LOL