· Super Moderator
But in many cases and many places, the rules have changed. Not the laws, well maybe some, but the rules of engagement are being changed by the cities.You can refer to it as petty, but the reality of the situation is, the officers are doing less enforcement of the law than they previously were. That's a bad precedent.
No, I would not be willing to do it. That's why I'm not a cop. That's why he shouldn't be a cop either.
When you agree to do a job, and you refuse to do that job, you should find a different job.
And no, I'm not going 20+ miles over the speed limit multiple times a day. They don't chase ANY speeder. 5 miles over, or 40.
I'm not taking an anti-cop position here. Your history will bias your view of what I'm saying. I'm being as objective to the situation as I can be.
If a person cannot fulfill the duties of their civil service role, they should not simply be able to ignore their public duty. They should accept that the job changed, and they are no longer suited to it.
Yes, that can mean sacrifice.
And say what you will, but those nearing retirement age do what they need to do. They've worked hard to be where they are, and just because the rules of engagement have changed, they do what they need to do to survive. I didn't agree with the rules in my last job, but I had no control over the rules, so I did what I needed to do in order to retire. I had a number of friends there also who did the same thing. We got out as quickly as we could.
Imagine if you will, you've worked a lifetime doing your job. The rules get changed, you are close to retirement, and you quit on principle. Now you're too old to get another job, you can't pay your mortgage or taxes, buying food and medication is becoming harder. No, I can't fault what they do. And regardless of what the law says, many employers frown on hiring older folks.