Posted on 08/02/2004 10:37:48 AM PDT by MindFire
Jul 31 - A New York City police officer is fighting for his job and his pension after refusing an order to arrest a homeless man. Officer Eduardo Delacruz was a member of the Homeless Outreach Unit, when his superiors changed the unit's policy for dealing with homeless people. Under the new zero-tolerance policy, Delacruz said that he was told to ask people if they wanted to go to a shelter, and if the person refused and lacked "proper identification," he was to arrest them.
But Delacruz said his sense of morality, dictated by his strong religious beliefs, compelled him to treat the homeless with more kindness and flexibility than his superiors demanded. "I didn't see them as homeless," he said. "I saw them as people. I'd say a majority of New York City is just a paycheck away from being homeless."
When Delacruz refused an order to process a man who had been arrested for sleeping near Union Square, he was given a 30-day suspension. He now faces a departmental trial, which could cost him his job. He is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
There are also several articles on this and claims that many officers do not agree with these 'quotas'.
So the guy was a part of a unit dedicated to dealing with the homeless and he thinks he should be able to make up his own mind about how to deal with them?
Does he think homicide detectives should be able to decide whether or not to arrest murderers?
"YOU there !! I ORDER you to STOP BEING HOMELESS !!"
i don't think it was a unit specifically designated for 'homeless patrol', but rather a new zero tolerance policy along with quotas. there was a post on FR about officers groups not agreeing with these 'quotas' because they are strictly about revenue $$$$$$$ rather than the public good.
In that respect I agree wth the officers. The job of police should not be to generate revenue for the state.
Ought to do wonders for discipline...
What's next? Allowing soldiers to decide what orders they're going to obey?
This zero-tolerance policy was all about removing people from the street who basically made nuisances of themselves -- and were often a threat to their own well-being (especially when it comes to living on the street in the dead of winter).
lol! that was one of the points the lawyer brought up.
'feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the homeless'. I don't think this was what Jesus had in mind when he said give them shelter.
it is a complicated issue though. for example, in Santa Monica, the homeless are everywhere.. especially down by the pier. I was once in court in Santa Moncia and there were several homeless people in court who had been given tickets for having 'stolen' grocery shopping carts in their possession. One guy was in there for sleeping on the beach.
The judge actually waived the fee and told him not to sleep on the beach anymore.. to 'move it on down to Venice'.. wink wink nod nod. LOL!
I'm not kidding.
"So the guy was a part of a unit dedicated to dealing with the homeless and he thinks he should be able to make up his own mind about how to deal with them? "
The horror... a police officer with a mind, who is able to use it. /<sarcasm I guess you would have shot an SS officer who declined to round up the Jews during WWII?
"Officer Eduardo Delacruz was a member of the Homeless Outreach Unit, when his superiors changed the unit's policy for dealing with homeless people."
Exactly.
If this officer was truly motivated by his "religious convictions," he would not have simply refused to arrest these people -- he would have taken them home with him.
Since he apparently never offered to do the latter, I can only concluded that his actions were motivated by something other than "religious convictions."
Lawful orders....lawful orders.
"I guess you would have shot an SS officer who declined to round up the Jews during WWII?"
Congrats you get the award for most idiotic comparison of the day. Homeless people to Jews during WWII.
Just let me know where to mail the bag of dog crap that is your trophy.
If he'd been using his mind he would have transferred to another unit instead if disobeying his superior and refusing to do his job.
How about viewing it as facing the consequences for your actions? I mean, I'm sure the SS officer who refused to round up Jews during WWII paid for his decision with either his liberty or his life. You make a stand, you must be prepared to face the consequences.
In the military, if you refuse to obey an order, you'd better be prepared to show that the order was illegal in some form. If it was not, then you're wrong and will pay the consequences for your refusal.
If this cop doesn't like the rules, he should leave the force. If he's not going to leave the force, he'd better be prepared to obey orders that he may not like.
Ooops ... sorry about that, chief ...
I think I cleared that up in #15 though ...
8')
Should I lock you up for A&B Domestic?
Ought to do wonders for discipline...
What's next? Allowing soldiers to decide what orders they're going to obey?
American soldiers have not just the right, but the duty to disregard certain orders. You are about 60 years too late for the type discipline for which you pine.
"Since he apparently never offered to do the latter, I can only concluded that his actions were motivated by something other than "religious convictions."
You know this how? He offer to take him to a homeless shelter, but was refused. Maybe the homeless guy just wanted to be left alone? not taken home? You can't force someone to accept a gift, no matter how religious you are.
It's possible. One of the things they’ll fire your butt for is “failure to work as directed” or similar language. He could be "set up" very easily if he's demonstrated a pattern of insubordination. Rule #1: Follow instruction first, grieve later (assuming it’s a grievable offence).
If he was suspended that generally means they’ve already popped him for something else (or several something-elses) prior to this.
They typically have to follow a process of progressive discipline that generally starts with a verbal warning, written warning, suspension (may be required to be repeated in terms of length or severity – paid/unpaid, etc), and finally ending with termination.
There are very few things that you can get fired for without going through the process. Unless they have language that categorizes insubordination or gross insubordination as cardinal sins, they’d have to progressively discipline him.
Unless they tell you to do something stupid like run headfirst into a wall, you’ve pretty much got to follow instructions. Especially if you’re being instructed to perform some aspect of your job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.