Uhhh, are you having a problem commenting here at IFz? Or are you talking about something else. Please send me an email if you’re having problems commenting here.

And just to let you other EX-Annonymous whatever nobodys my brother is doing GREAT! He is not in solitary confinment, hes with the trustees (special privledges) work release everyday, and he gets good time.
Honestly I have never been more proud to call him my brother than I am now! When he worked for BONNEVILLE county I was a bit embarressed. The word speaks for its self!!!

I’m guessing by your name that you were once a former cop. Whether that’s true or not really isn’t relevant I guess to the point I want to make. You talked about professional courtesies to family members, fixing tickets, stroking extra tickets to someone who pissed them off. You can’t tell me that these called “gratuities” don’t go on in any other jobs out in the world. You can see it from a Presidential Pardon, the man whom we hold to the “highest standard” of all can clear anyone he wants from any wrong doing, to the man behind the fast food counter giving his friend extra fries than he would any other customer. I do however, find it interesting about the comment of stroking extra tickets to someone who pissed the officer off. As far as I care an officer can be pissed off all he wants. That being said if you didn’t commit a crime, infraction, he can’t write you any additional tickets no matter how pissed off he is at you. If he did then there’s the “bad cop” we wouldn’t care who lost his job.

My point being is this. Gratuities happen in every single job, “It happens all the time. None of it is right. But it goes on everyday.” I agree that officers’ do let their friends, or family members off. If you were a cop at one point and you caught your wife, family members, best friend, I wouldn’t be surprised if you let them go. I know if I was a cop, or anyone else for that matter, we wouldn’t give our spouse’s a ticket. I can even relate to a time of when I know I was speeding. The cop told me I was going 12 miles over the speed limit. To my much astonishment he gave me a verbal warning to slow down. I didn’t know this cop nor did I know why he let me go. Do you consider that, “It happens all the time. None of it is right. But it goes on everyday.” Since he let a stranger off with a slap on the wrist, should he not be allowed to do the same for family or friends? To the expectation of cops being held at a “high” standard I do agree. That being said the only reason I agree with that is because not only are they suppose to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God, but we shouldn’t expect them to be at a “high” standard if we ourselves aren’t willing to do the same. You know the old saying, “Do as I say not as I do” If you can’t agree with that, then your life boils down to nothing but a lie and your comments don’t have much standing no matter who you are.

And you’re right, if called back during that time, which boss would have to lose out?

Thanks for making it more clear.

I guess the point that was made was that it was his ‘lunch’ hour that he used. Getting paid lunch, then using that time to work another job, doesn’t seem so much like theft for me because it’s a paid benefit, not a time when you are expected to be working for that boss. You can’t really be working both jobs at once, but you could be on a paid lunchbreak and working for another job, I think. Your lunch should be your time to do what you want, even if that is to work for another job during that time.

But maybe I don’t know all the story.

At least, if the boss didn’t like the behavior, he should have been written up and told it wouldn’t happen again or he’d be fired. That seems reasonable for such a grey area as working another job while getting a paid lunchbreak at the end of your first job’s day.

On the other hand, a good friend I know tells me that lunch breaks are designed to help you get away from the job for a short time, to come back refreshed and rejuvenated and ready to go for the second half of your shift. He tells me that because I don’t go to lunch as I should, instead I continue to work, then I leave an hour early because I’m wiped out.

If you’re not taking advantage of that opportunity to take a break, you’re likely depriving your boss of the very best work you could be doing. Maybe that’s kinda like stealing from your employer, in a way.

You can’t just pretend like the other ten or so years of his career never happened and label him “bad cop.” You can’t ignore the fact that he just earlier in the month had been issued a major commendation award for risking his life to save someone else. Like you can’t ignore his numerous officer of the month awards. Like you can’t ignore his stellar arrest record. Like you can’t ignore his lack of excessive force complaints despite the fact he had one of the highest arrest rates on the department. Like you can’t ignore everything else about his otherwise good performance.

He made a mistake and it was a doozy. But that doesn’t make him a bad cop overall. It makes him a good cop who screwed up. Which is why he already has offers from other local police departments to hire him once its settled at POST, the police training board, on whether or not he’ll lose his certification over this or not.

My personal opinion on this cop is that he should have been suspended for a few months and then not allowed to work any secondary employment. That would have been a huge punishment and served a message to all others not to do it. And Idaho Falls wouldn’t have lost one of its better cops.

In other words you had a cop committing theft, possibly from two employers at the same time. Cops are supposed to catch thieves, not act like them. Sorry, but that’s the ultimate truth as far as the police are concerned. He may have been a good person in your opinion, but he was definitely not a good cop.

But for some reason I want to hold them up to a higher standard, just as we all want to do with politicians.

Someone who wants a politician fired (make him quit) for what he did, surely wants a cop to be fired for the same reason, right? They broke the law, or went over the line, once too many times.

It’s sad but true, we tend to hold them up to a higher standard and we expect more, when really, they’re just as human as the rest of us and make mistakes, too.

In one case you had a very good cop with a stellar record. He got caught double dipping when he was taking his lunch break the last hour of his shift to start working his second job in order to make ends meet. Livsey fired him for this despite him being in all other aspects a very good, hard working cop. Coincidentally, or maybe not, Livsey was then fired by Fuhriman a couple days later. I don’t excuse what this cop did but I bring this up to show that cops are held to a very strict standard.

In another case last year you had a cop who is one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet. His heart was truly in the right place and he truly wanted to help people and make the community better. But he had the common sense of a toddler on crack and under stress he would panic and start doing questionable things including several questionable uses of force. The IFPD tried hard to train him out of this but finally after the worst incident to date he was fired. Point is that he wasn’t trying to abuse anyone or harm anyone, he just was one of those people who aren’t cut out to be a cop.

Point is there are good people who are cops and who make mistakes and I’d lump these two cops I mention in this category. And there are bad cops who sometimes do good things which is where other cops sometimes fall. But we shouldn’t lump them all into one category. And we should also remember that cops are human and will make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are not worthy of being fired for and can be corrected. Those mistakes do not necessarily make someone a bad cop. It merely makes them human. Moulton is a good cop who may have made a mistake. But as the story goes, I don’t see that its an offense worth firing him over. Remember Moulton is the guy who would have had every legal right to shoot and likely kill James Rauch a few years ago after Rauch shot Officer Brent Guymon as Rauch was still fighting for the gun when Moulton arrived. Instead Moulton used lesser force and was able to restrain Rauch and this is what led to Moulton earing the Medal of Valor from the governor. Now maybe we should punish Moulton for saving Rauch’s life because now we have to feed and house him in prison for 30 years but I’m being sarcastic. If Moulton was the abusive cop some cop haters paint him out to be he would have put his gun to Rauch’s head and blew him away. And Moulton would have been justified in doing so because as I said Rauch still had Guymon’s gun and was still struggling with Guymon over it at the time.

Sounds like the bases were covered as far as entry is concerned. There must be more we don’t know about though as either example given here seems cut and dried as far as allowable procedure.

On the one hand, I’d have said, go get him. On the other, I’d have said, doesn’t the homeowner have the right not to admit anyone without a warrant?

Even though the homeowner was obstructing a law enforcement officer in the pursuit of a criminal, aiding and abetting, etc etc, I wonder, would I think it was okay, if a law enforcement officer forced his way into my home because he was certain someone was there that he had a warrant for?

I used to work for a man who liked to take things to the extreme. He’d stretch things way out of proportion, to make a point. It helped me to see the big picture, sometimes.

So I guess when it’s all said and done, it appears that Moulton should have called for backup, gotten the search warrant or whatever legal thing would let them in to get the bad guy. Then charge the heck out of the fool who tried to harbor the fugitive, etc.

Do it legally and the insurance company won’t be paying anyone off. And the person won’t get off in court, either.

Of course it’s really easy for me to take that view now, sitting here safely in my home and not on the streets risking my life, trying to keep this town safe for people like me. Armchair cop, without having a clue.

Forget the 4th amendment because what people don’t realize its not the constitution that matters on these things, rather its he mountains of case law pertaining to the constitution that matters as the 4th amendment only means what the courts say it means. What Moulton did is a grey area and depending on which case you cite what he did was legal or it may have been illegal. An arrest warrant is viewed in some cases the same as a search warrant only here you are going to go seize a person which is what Moulton did. Moulton also fell under the legal doctorine of what is known as fresh pursuit since he personally witnessed the wanted guy enter the house. On the other hand Moulton entered a house against a homeowners wishes. As I said, its a grey area with conflicting case law. Even if you say it was illegal the overall harm to the homeowner rights was minimal.

The insurance company, not Moulton, settled the subsequent lawsuit. Moulton was not happy about it nor was the brass at the IFPD. But they don’t have a say in the matter.

I have had a personal situation with insurance carrier that wanted me to say the other person was also at fault for an accident. I had to yell and scream for them to understand that the accident was MY fault only and they needed to pay for the repairs to the other person’s vehicle (taht is what I pay them for). It seemed to me that they will do anythin they can to save a penny. Could this be the same situation as the Moulton case?

I simply made a comparison between Moulton’s reason for settling his civil suit and a criminal defendant settling his legal case. The reasons for settling appear on their face to be similar – financial concerns, but the outcome is totally different. Moulton will not carry a criminal record for the remainder of his life which will be read out over the dispatch airwaves every time he’s pulled over for a broken turn signal. The criminal defendant will.

I realize you will argue the difference between civil and criminal matters. I didn’t say they were exactly the same, I said they bore similarities. I would challenge you to remember one thing, our constitution guarantees that we are innocent until proven guilty. As a criminal defendant is “guilty” when he settles his case, I say Moulton should be “guilty” when he settled his case. The same argument should apply to both cases. If the criminal defendant was innocent, he should have fought to clear his name. Shouldn’t Moulton be held to the same standard of belief?

You scoff at the notion that lawsuits are settled because its cheaper than fighting it. But this is common practice all the time in the legal world in every type of torts and lawsuit, not just ones involving the police. But don’t let facts blind you to your police bias.

Also, the lawsuit you mention didn’t cost the taxpayer anything. The IFPD like nearly all police agencies are covered by an insurance fund that pays for such settlements in such cases. Some of your tax dollars go to buy this insurance but that happened before the lawsuit and still happens today.