Can a policeman chime in here?

[whamonkey]

Ok, I'm confused about something in this Jesse Davis case in Ohio. The suspect they arrested, a police officer named Bobby Cutts Jr. had 2 questionable incidents in his history with the Canton force. The earlier one involved his breaking in to an ex girlfriend's apartment resulting in disorderly conduct charges (in which he pleaded no contest and received 3 years probation) and the later one involved him giving his weapon to his cousin which was found during a drug raid. (He lied about the weapon being stolen). Why was this guy still a police officer? In an era where you can fired from a job for saying something offensive, doesn't an actual crime warrant dismissal, especially from law enforcement? Somebody help me out here......

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Scott]

I have edited the title of your thread. Glock'em Down requested that his account here be closed, so he will not be replying to your thread.

[HotGuns]

Not enough information to make an informed decision.

If you are getting your information from the media, then chances are high that you are either getting wrong info, or not enough info.

They tend to fill in the gaps and"'allege" alot of things...whether they get their facts right or wrong is irrelevant to them.

Getting tried by the media and tried in a Court of Law often have different results.

[mcp1810]

Good lawyers and strong unions and the law enforcement officers bill of rights can make it a challenge to get rid of an officer. Unfortunately in some cases the courts will plea bargain a case down from a felony to a misdemeanor. That makes it even more difficult for an officer to get terminated because a lot of the union contracts or county/city personnel regulations don't allow you to terminate an officer unless they are convicted of a felony (off duty ) or specified acts while on duty.

[ispcapt]

Also don't discount the possibility that some chiefs just don't have the "hangy-downs" enough to fire someone. Some people want the title of chief but they don't want the responsibilities nor do they have the desire to do the hard things that go with those responsibilities. Instead, it's easier for them just to overlook sub-standard employees. Don't know if that's the case in this particular situation but in my 35 yrs in LE I've seen it far too often. Chiefs and sheriffs will complain about sub-standard employees but they won't take the action necessary to fire them.

[Sergeant Mac]

Sadly, I think we'll be seeing many more such instances.

LE agencies are seeing fewer and fewer applicants for entry-level LE positions. It's just not an attractive career field for the current generation.

In ANY hiring situation, ESPECIALLY in LE, you're going to have only a certain percentage of applicants who meet your standards.

I can think of two ways to remedy this: a more attractive pay/benefits package, or lowering standards. Personally, I believe that the first is preferable to the second, but this is politically unpalatable in most places.

It could be made affordable by reducing manpower, but that would necessitate reducing services as well. Frankly, I believe that much of what police officers do nowadays SHOULDN'T be done by them anyway, so this works for me.

That being said, there are enough politicians protecting their little fiefdoms, and enough citizens who believe that the proper role of government is to step in to resolve every conceivable issue they may face from cradle to grave, to prevent this from happening in most places.

So, we're back to lowering standards, which in LE tends to result in some percentage of criminals, crazies, knuckleheads, do-nothings, and otherwise ill-suited folks wearing badges and batman belts.

[whamonkey]

Not enough information to make an informed decision.

If you are getting your information from the media, then chances are high that you are either getting wrong info, or not enough info.

They tend to fill in the gaps and"'allege" alot of things...whether they get their facts right or wrong is irrelevant to them.

Getting tried by the media and tried in a Court of Law often have different results.

I don't believe the media is speculating on the breaking and entering charge (the case was tried already) which in my book is good enough for termination. He also admitted to lying about the gun.

Pretty strong stuff.

[Sig 210]

From America's Most Wanted

http://www.amw.com/features/feature_...?id=1955&mid=0

"According to documents from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, from the United States Government, we have learned more about the firing of Bobby Cutts from his job as a police officer in 2003

Here's what we know: on October 16, 2002, Michael Meadows (Bobby Cutts' cousin) was arrested following a raid on his home. During the raid, investigators found seven ounces of cocaine, and a .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol hidden under a mattress. According to Federal Mediation the .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol found is registered to Bobby Cutts.

"He (Bobby Cutts) testified that it was his practice to keep a handgun in each of the three vehicles he owned for personal protection. As a police officer he was entitled to keep a weapon on his person when he was off duty," according to the report.

On October 17, 2002, just one day after his cousin was arrested, Bobby Cutts reported his gun stolen to his police supervisor. This was after he learned of his cousin's arrest. Cutts said he suspected his cousin had taken the gun from his car, according to the report, "He checked the Jeep Cherokee vehicle, and found the gun missing."

According to Cutts he testified that on the evening of October 15, 2002, he let his cousin Meadows borrow his vehicle, and the vehicle was returned at an undisclosed time. Cutts claims that's when he checked his car, and discovered the gun missing.

A police Internal Affairs investigation into this crime was well underway. On December 16, 2002, Cutts was advised in writing that Internal Affairs was conducting a criminal investigation. A senior investigator from the department interviewed Meadows who, "...admitted stealing the .22 caliber gun from the Grievant (Bobby Cutts)," according to the report. But, following Meadows sentence he served for this crime, reports state that Meadows now contended he did not steal the gun, but it was given to him by his cousin Cutts.

On March 7, 2003, Bobby Cutts was indicted by a Grand Jury for making a false statement under oath. This charge was brought forth because investigators claim he lied about how the weapon came into the possession of his cousin Meadows. Also, Cutts was found guilty of giving a weapon to a convicted felon. Michael Meadows has been in and out of trouble with the law since the early 1990's, and carries a long rap sheet.

According to the reports, two of the facts in dispute in this case are how Meadows got the pistol, and Officer Cutts did in fact tell the truth at the Preliminary Hearing. Internal Affairs claims it has enough evidence to find Cutts guilty of the charges, and guilty of perjury in connection with his testimony at the November 2002 preliminary hearing. In turn, Patrolman Bobby Cutts was terminated from employment with the Canton police department. According to the Federal Mediation documents, "The Union contends that the Employer (Canton Police) has opted to accept as credible the testimony of a convicted felon and a woman with whom he had an ongoing relation rather than that of Grievant (Bobby Cutts), a police officer for over three years with an unblemished record."

Cutts' lawyer believes the Sergeant investigating the case against Cutts was racially motivated because Cutts married a white woman.

Based on the analysis of the report, the decision rests upon the credibility of the witness. The evidence presented does not show "just cause" for termination, and within a matter of seven months, Bobby Cutts was promptly reinstated with full back pay to his position with the Canton Police department on September 16, 2003.

AMW has also learned that in 1998, according to the Massillon Municipal Court, a trespassing complaint was filed against Bobby Cutts by his former girlfriend Nikki Giavasis.

Niki says, "A year and a half after we had broke up he had been out one night drinking. He came to my house and he saw that there was someone there with me. He tried breaking in the house any way that he could. By the time the police had arrived he had kicked down my door. I was upstairs holding my daughter. I don't know what he would have done if the police hadn't come at that exact time."

According to official court documents, Bobby pleaded No Contest to the charges, and there was a motion to amend the charges and change them to Disorderly Conduct. Cutts paid $180.00 in court fees and he was released."

[nn]

Re: Sgt Mac

I can think of two ways to remedy this: a more attractive pay/benefits package, or lowering standards. Personally, I believe that the first is preferable to the second,

Amen brother. Some years back the military had project 100,000;
Basically we had lower standards for a large number of recruits.
The results were problems, many being disciplinary.

[Sig 210]

"Amen brother. Some years back the military had project 100,000;
Basically we had lower standards for a large number of recruits.
The results were problems, many being disciplinary."

Was a senior NCO in the US Army at the time of Project 100,000. McNamara's pet project was an abject failure. McNamara was so screwed up that the very few good troops out of the bunch were not allowed to re-enlist. A good troop absolutely could not stay in the US military even if he wanted to.

[ron8903]

I don't know all of the facts in this case, but low standards and
low pay = BIG PROBLEMS

[retsupt99]

I don't know all of the facts in this case, but low standards and
low pay = BIG PROBLEMS

where you have no standards and high pay = Congress...

Low standards and low pay = a number of today's professions...(education is a good example).

ret