Domestic Violence By Law Enforcement Officers
Read Tom Clouse's article headlined Deputy suspended after domestic call in the Tuesday, October 4, 2005, The Spokesman Review. Pay particular attention to the paragraphs which note the deputy pushed his wife (among other things), but the assault charge was dismissed.
Note also the comment in the fourth paragraph by sheriff's flack Dave Reagan who expressed frustration that this crime was newsworthy only because it involved a police officer. Reagan is only partially right.
When a police officer is accused of a crime amounting to domestic violence, it is newsworthy. That's because some of Washington State's law enforcement agencies had a nasty habit of trying to cover up domestic violence committed by their sworn, firearms-carrying employees. That was well-documented in a special series entitled Badge of Dishonor published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in July 2003. Pay particular attention to the first story headlined Cops who abuse their wives rarely pay the price in the series.
What you will learn from the P-I's series is that with concurrence from prosecutors, Washington State law enforcement agencies had been very careful to avoid charging their employees with any crime amounting to "domestic violence". Why? Because federal law prohibits anyone from owning or possessing a firearm if that person is convicted of a crime amounting to domestic violence. The federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968) includes language applying this prohibition explicitly to law enforcement officers convicted of domestic violence. In other words, law enforcement officers convicted of crimes amounting to domestic violence are forbidden by federal law from owning, possessing, carrying, or using firearms.
The P-I's series noted that Washington State legislators were working on legislation that would require the state's law enforcement agencies to deal more effectively and definitively with domestic abuse within their ranks. I wonder if the Spokane County Sheriff got the message.
Note also the comment in the fourth paragraph by sheriff's flack Dave Reagan who expressed frustration that this crime was newsworthy only because it involved a police officer. Reagan is only partially right.
When a police officer is accused of a crime amounting to domestic violence, it is newsworthy. That's because some of Washington State's law enforcement agencies had a nasty habit of trying to cover up domestic violence committed by their sworn, firearms-carrying employees. That was well-documented in a special series entitled Badge of Dishonor published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in July 2003. Pay particular attention to the first story headlined Cops who abuse their wives rarely pay the price in the series.
What you will learn from the P-I's series is that with concurrence from prosecutors, Washington State law enforcement agencies had been very careful to avoid charging their employees with any crime amounting to "domestic violence". Why? Because federal law prohibits anyone from owning or possessing a firearm if that person is convicted of a crime amounting to domestic violence. The federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968) includes language applying this prohibition explicitly to law enforcement officers convicted of domestic violence. In other words, law enforcement officers convicted of crimes amounting to domestic violence are forbidden by federal law from owning, possessing, carrying, or using firearms.
The P-I's series noted that Washington State legislators were working on legislation that would require the state's law enforcement agencies to deal more effectively and definitively with domestic abuse within their ranks. I wonder if the Spokane County Sheriff got the message.
posted by Bill McCrory | 9:04 AM
1 Comments:
Newsworthy? Of course. Law inforcemnt officers are held to a higher standard. If they can't follow the law themselves then they shouldn't even be involved with inforceing the law. Why do you think they only take citizens with clean records into the police academy. I don't care who you are. You commit a crime you should do the time. These O.J. cererios I just don't get it.
Post a Comment
<< Home