Police Chief May Lose Job Over Wife's Nude Pics

The Indy Channel ^ | September 6, 2006 | AP

[absolootezer0]

the problem i see is: how is what his wife does relate to his job as sheriff?
i think, before i passed judgement, i would want to look at job description. if part of being sheriff involves a moral high ground, he's probably in the wrong.
of course, opinions on morality will vary drasticly by location. there's a porn star that ran for gov in CA against ah-nold, and i think one running up in nevada now. less concern with that type of thing in those places.
also, when is he up for re-election, or is he appointed?

[wideawake]

Perhaps the Police Chief and his wife have a different arrangement.

And the terms of that arrangement may bring his judgment into question.

[Stone Mountain]

Perhaps the Police Chief and his wife have a different arrangement. That would be their right, as long as they don't break the law, correct?

You would think so, wouldn't you. But no... there is a large subset of people who must make it their business to know and condemn the legal personal decisions of others... and oddly enough, many of them call themselves conservatives...

[Stone Mountain]

For every skank piece of bread there is a skank piece of cheese to go on it.

Sniff.... that's beautiful, man...

[Stone Mountain]

Is what she's doing against the law? That should be what the police chief is judged on.

No, the question is, is what HE'S doing against the law? He shouldn't be punished for the actions of his wife.

[scott7278]

Is that the chief?

[GulfBreeze]

Only in short bursts...

[MineralMan]

"And the terms of that arrangement may bring his judgment into question.
"

How so? It might bring his wife's judgment into question, but assuming that their relationship does not prohibit such activity on her part, I don't see how it affects his judgment. He's not the one taking his clothes off.

This reminds me of the minister from my old church in high school. He was very good, and the parishioners liked him very much. But, his wife had an affair with one of the deacons of the church. So, what did they do? They fired the minister. He didn't know his wife was fooling around with the deacon. The deacon's wife didn't know either.

Last time I checked, and it was several years after this, the deacon was still there, still married to his wife, and the minister was long gone. I have no idea what ever happened to his wife.

Firing the minister for his wife's behavior was the wrong thing to do. Firing the deacon would have made more sense, but he continued, and remained a deacon of that church.

Amazing, huh?

[GulfBreeze]

"He shouldn't be punished for the actions of his wife."

Not that I've been to her sight but I have "heard" that's one of the buttons. "Press here to punish my husband"

[wideawake]

It makes no sense to fire a man for behavior by his wife of which he had no knowledge and which he would not approve of.

That's different from a man who knows full well what his wife is doing and approves of it.

It is amazing that the deacon remained in place after what he did. I assume that he had more worldly advantages working for him.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Not really. You have to be very careful in choosing a spouse. The number one requirement: good values.

The smug part of your post was your insinuation that your values are clearly and demonstrably superior to other peoples' values.

"You have to be very careful in choosing a spouse?" Quick, stop the presses! Who'd a thunk?

[jerry639]

If that was my wife I would make a deal with the Mayor. Let me keep my job and I get rid of my disgusting fat wife.

[CzarNicky]

"He's done more drug arrests, solved more crimes than anybody else in town has ever done," Moore said.

in the absence of any other crime being committed That is all I needed to know.

[wideawake]

The smug part of your post was your insinuation that your values are clearly and demonstrably superior to other peoples' values.

What a person values are the things that he believes to be true and good. If they were neither true and good but simply indifferent and of no higher value than anything else, then there would be no point in having values.

I am definitely not a relativist. I believe that there is right and wrong and that my parents raised me to know the difference. Yes.

Quick, stop the presses! Who'd a thunk?

I know many people who choose their spouse based on how fun that person is, or how physically attractive that person is or how successful that person is. I think it's hard to argue against the fact that many, perhaps most, people are not careful in choosing.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The smug part of your posts are your insinuations that your values are clearly and demonstrably superior to other peoples' values.

[wideawake]

Again, if you believe something is right then you believe that is better than something you think is wrong.

It is the better, more moral, superior behavior to not stand for your wife being a pornographer and standing for such behavior is the worse, less moral and inferior manner of acting.

If someone believes in a clear difference between right and wrong, perhaps to you that means smug.

OK.

[fanfan]

Not your type?

;-)

[wagglebee]

And now I'm definitely going to puke!

[Hemingway's Ghost]

It is the better, more moral, superior behavior to not stand for your wife being a pornographer and standing for such behavior is the worse, less moral and inferior manner of acting.

If someone believes in a clear difference between right and wrong, perhaps to you that means smug.

No, its smug to assume, as a matter of course, that your interpretation of what constitutes right and wrong is superior to everyone else's interpretation of what constitutes right and wrong. Why is this so hard for you to understand?