So I came across an unusual story about an officer who decided to get himself some nookie while on duty:
The jury quickly came to a unanimous verdict as the policeman proved he was able to respond to all emergencies as he was equipped with an earpiece tuned in to the police radio frequency.
“If there was a call for me, I would have answered it and I would have dealt with it,” he told the court, according to the Times newspaper.
His lawyer Kevin Baumber believes that the inspector certainly misbehaved, but his bad decision is not a crime. – [Yahoo/AFP]
So here’s my issue. I am not sure what he was being charged with, but how, in the name of all things holy, did this officer prove that he was on duty? To my knowledge an “on-duty” police officer is supposed to be on patrol right? It may just be me, but I find it difficult to see how he could have been on patrol while engaged in the horizontal mambo.
A police officer in the sack is one less officer on the street, or on patrol, or wherever they are supposed to be. Yes, perhaps this is no different from playing golf, but that would still mean he was off duty. Unless he is trying to tell us that he gets paid to play golf whenever he feels like it. Sure he could have responded to a call, but how many crimes are prevented simply because a cop was physically present at the scene?
Even if we disregard the ethically and morally dubious nature of this case, there is a very big difference between being present on the street as a physical, visible deterrent to crime, and being retroactively available to assist after the crime has been committed. How did these jury members not see that?
I’m beginning to think that part of the problem with the world today is that nobody is holding anyone else accountable for their irresponsible actions. Probably because they don’t want to be held accountable for their own actions either. At this rate we will all be going to hades in a hand basket…
British cop proves he was still on duty during sex romp – [Yahoo/AFP]