The article says nothing about Krawetz’s chief wanting him gone after the first conviction (which was for misdemeanor assault which could mean anything). And in the end, Krawetz lost his job.
The other 3 officers mentioned in the other article also lost their job.
Police officers get these ‘special rights’ because their job comes with inherent risks and special situations. And these ‘special rights’ were negotiated upon by the government and their Policeman’s Benevolent Association.
The goalposts have been solidified in their position, it’s just your scope is so completely off that you can’t comprehend your own inaccurate delusions.
First of all yes it does say that. Keep scrolling down the page or use ctrl-F. I even quoted the salient portion. You need to work on your reading skills.
And again you are missing the point. The cops mentioned were finally convicted outside of their jurisdictions and it had not been there first assaults. There were many more than 3 cases too.
And no one is arguing that the police unions did not lobby hard for LEOBOR laws. I was talking about equal protection issues which you repeatedly dodge.
And you are desperately trying to win a point of fact as if it is a trump card and ignoring the larger context. All I really am getting from you is you did not read the article I posted in the first place past a paragraph where you furiously started googling. The following paragraphs are where they start talking about police unions and their role.
BTW what is your take on teacher's unions?
