Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="OK Corgi Rancher" data-source="post: 3720723" data-attributes="member: 45773">I dunno about a double standard in this case.&nbsp; The SO fired him.&nbsp; That&#039;s pretty serious.&nbsp; I think the supervisor that ordered him brought to the station screwed up.Also, by taking him away and forcing him to undergo a compulsory breath test I believe they committed the equivalent of failing to &quot;Mirandize&quot; him.&nbsp; When officers are compelled to provide testimony or evidence that may incriminate them they are required to receive a Garrity warning.&nbsp; If they&#039;d performed a DUI investigation on scene and processed him, like they should&#039;ve, it would&#039;ve been a more fair and just outcome.&nbsp; On the other hand, most non-law enforcement people aren&#039;t fired for a DUI.From only reading the one link it seems more like a huge fuster cluck instead of favoritism.&nbsp; Regardless, the outcome is wrong in my opinion.&nbsp; But rules still have to be followed in the legal world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="OK Corgi Rancher, post: 3720723, member: 45773"] I dunno about a double standard in this case. The SO fired him. That's pretty serious. I think the supervisor that ordered him brought to the station screwed up. Also, by taking him away and forcing him to undergo a compulsory breath test I believe they committed the equivalent of failing to "Mirandize" him. When officers are compelled to provide testimony or evidence that may incriminate them they are required to receive a Garrity warning. If they'd performed a DUI investigation on scene and processed him, like they should've, it would've been a more fair and just outcome. On the other hand, most non-law enforcement people aren't fired for a DUI. From only reading the one link it seems more like a huge fuster cluck instead of favoritism. Regardless, the outcome is wrong in my opinion. But rules still have to be followed in the legal world. [/QUOTE]

Verification