Well, no need for a jury trial is there? You have made up your mind and that's it. Glad you aren't sitting in the jury box and learning the whole story and factoring in all of the information, I mean, hell, why bother?
"Well, no need for a jury trial is there?
No one is disputing that the illegal intrusion occured.
Think of it like this: if a machinist screws up an assembly line because he was woefully negligent, costing the company enormous amounts of money for his negligence, should he be relieved of duty? If it were my company, I would surely remove him.
If a ship's captain is woefully negligent and crashes his vessel into a bridge, causing serious damage to the bridge and vessel, injuring a number of sailors, should he be disciplined and perhaps removed? I believe so.
If a trains' engineer is woefully negligent and causes his train to derail causing untold harm and injury, should he be disciplined and removed? I believe so.
So why should LEOs who are woefully negligent be immune from discipline and also subject to be relieved from duty like anyone else in the work force?
I believe they should have to play by the same rules as all the rest who hold responsible positions.
In case you didn't read that part, here it is again. The word responsible means a determination has been made; that was admitted by the Chief of Police or don't you believe him? You are too quick to take the side of the law for the sake of what their job is, and one day, let's hope you don't end up on the wrong side of that trust (as the couple sleeping in their beds at that house did when the police broke in).