Don't worry. She'll get her job back, too.

(This one probably rightfully so, from everything I have heard.)

hmmm! Rosie's been at the job now 2 years
and that's just long enough to figure out
that she's not the gal for the job. Don't
ya think we need more than a bubblehead at
the helm of PDX's most troublesome gang?

Sizer tried to fire the Lt. but was overturned by a state arbitrator. The case of the officer lying had no bearing, in part, because the management lobbyists in Salem.

A few years ago there was a uniformed standard of discipline in every department. All discipline had to be in keeping with "past practices." This ensured uniformnity within the organization.

About the time the PERS reform litigation started there was a movement in Salem to do away with the "past practice " standard. They also removed a number of things (such as grooming standards) from the list of labor issues that were mandatory subjects of bargaining.

The reason for the standard was to ensure a member that was disliked by management was subjected to the same standards as everyone else. Management has a habit of retaliating against certain members they are angry with, most notably, union representatives.

Since each disciplnary incident is different, the result of a sustained violation of rules can vary widely now. And state arbitators can ignore "past practice" of punishment in similiar incidents as they like.

I agree with Sizer, the Lt clearly should have been fired. Most agencies specifically prohibit enforcement action where a relative is involved. It appeared by the press accounts that the Lt failed to wait for adequate cover, thereby precipitating an incident wherein deadly force had to be applied. Had he waited for additional units he may not had to do so.

As far as the officer lying; Sorry, big or small. A lie is a lie, she also should be fired.

Sizer tried to fire the Lt. but was overturned by a state arbitrator.

No, Potter fired him; Sizer opposed firing him. Her opposition is part of why he was reinstated, according to press reports.

Ooops, sorry, you're right Jack. (I was thinking of another case.) It was Potter that decided on termination. But, again, the decision to reinstate was that of an arbitor. I do agree; however, firing was appropriate.

Judging from recent news reports around the area, it seems that it's now a death sentence for anyone who drives away from a policeman, whether or not he/she even knows it's a policeman. And I've not been able to figure out, if someone is allegedly trying to run you down, how pulling your gun and shooting at them while they are still behind the wheel (and maybe getting shot makes them step on the gas)is somehow more efficient timeing wise, than just getting the hell out of the way?

Why is anyone surprised this kind of s**t happens in Portland? Logic has no place within the city limits... look at the mayor-elect for instance, do you think rational-thinking individuals would elect such garbage?

killing a guy? or killing a BAD guy. Big difference. The Lt should stay!

The lady cop lied, and all cops know "ya lie ya die". If proven, you are gone. Some folks can rightfully argue it does not get proven in enough complaints.

The Lt. did the right thing, but should have been disciplined for his approach. Seems like Rozie got it right and Tommy was wrong because the arbitrator agreed with Rozie. After all, the arby is the only one who heard all sides on this.

The dead guy's testimony was pretty short.

And not everyone believes the officer's "I thought he was going to run me over" line. Even the other cop wouldn't chime in on that one. The officer's sister's story also changed.

So he gets an extended paid vacation. They probably missed him at the 7-Eleven.

I'll be glad when the CoP starts enforcing this "new" "one lie and you're fired" policy on all staff. We can see a complete clean-out of PDC ("It'll be good for PDX") and City Hall ("It'll be great to borrow more money"). Ah, a fresh new day!