[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 44°F  
High: 76°F ~ Low: 52°F
Wednesday, May 4, 2016

A very peculiar thing

Friday, June 24, 2011

There is no other occupation, save the military and then only in times of war, that comes closer to being a true brotherhood than police work. It's a family that is often closer and more tight-knit than your own. I learned this early and often during my service with the Tulsa police department. This concept was so important and vital it was even taught in the Tulsa police academy. We were taught to care about our fellow officers more than anyone else because our safety was in each other's hands and that our obligations to fellow officers and them to us was the only thing we could absolutely, positively depend on.

This theory became reality soon after I graduated and went out into the field. People changed their behavior when I was around, even personal friends I had known for many years. They didn't act, talk or behave the way they did before I became a police officer and so I found my circle of friends slowly contracting until it contained only other officers and their spouses because we could only truly be ourselves when we were with each other.

This has always been a difficult concept for the general public to understand. A motorcycle cop wrecked his cycle one day causing him serious injury and a phalanx of police cars and motorcycles escorted him to the hospital with sirens blaring. Doctors, nurses and a stretcher were waiting for him in the emergency room driveway when we arrived and as he was being placed on the stretcher, one of the nurses said to an officer standing next to me that we really looked out for each other. The officer replied that yes ma'am we do, because nobody else gives a damn.

That's a common sentiment for police officers to have because it often seems that way. We didn't come in contact very much with respectable, law abiding people. Instead, we patrolled the cesspool of crime and criminals and because of that, a sentiment developed that crime and criminality was what the world was all about because it's all we ever saw. And that made us even more dependent on each other.

An officer would never snitch on another officer and that included testifying in court. In fact, if a police officer even thought about doing such a thing, he knew he would immediately become an outcast in the department. The spirit of dependency and camaraderie was so high that this was simply not an option and so a code of silence permeated the entire structure of rank and file police officers.

Once a patrol officer stopped at a downtown bar after work, still dressed in his uniform, and began to drink. The drinking became heavier with time and when it was suggested that he go on home by the owner of the bar, he became belligerent and confrontational. When that happened, the bar owner called the police department and an officer was dispatched to the scene but wouldn't go. Several more attempts were made to send an officer to the bar but everyone declined. Finally, the shift commander, a captain, had to go because no patrol officer would.

I know this concept is difficult to grasp for those who have never been in law enforcement or the military because we tend not to have intense relationships like that with anyone outside our family but for law enforcement to work effectively for all of us, it's a spirit that's absolutely crucial. Regardless of the size of the city, an officer never knows what other officer might be in a position to save their life someday or vice versa.

That's why the story of a local cop arresting and handcuffing another cop for a misdemeanor offense was a very peculiar thing indeed.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I find this article to be very interesting. I know Mr. Hendricks was a Police Officer and I agree that there is this brotherhood thing. However, I must reply. I work as a nurse in a hospital in Colorado. I too see this brotherhood or sisterhood that exists between nurses. My father was a firefighter. I spent alot of time with him at the firehouse when I was growing up. I witnessed true brotherhood there also. I would imagine that there are several other occupations out there that have some sense of brotherhood or sisterhood. I'm not discounting the relationship that exists in the public safety sector of our society as Mr. Hendricks refers to. I do, however, have an issue and disagree that one public safety professional should "cover" for the other, especially our law enforcement officers. Their job is to see to it that our laws are not broken. If they are, they are to enforce the law. If a law enforcement officer arrests an impaired driver, in my opinion, that arrest is a potential life saved. How is it right for that law enforcement officer to go out and violate the very law they have sworn to enforce? I do find the last statement by Mr. Hendricks to be peculiar also. However, I have seen the results of what a drunk driver can do. It doesn't change anything if that drunk driver is a truck driver, a lawyer, a store manager, or a college dean. But to have a law enforcement officer that we rely on to protect us get arrested for drunk driving is simply unacceptable and offensive.

-- Posted by McCook Supporter on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 8:12 PM

Hey Mike, having spent a considerable amount of time in the Military, I understand the concept of a "tight knit brotherhood." But, some of the main virtues taught and enforced was integrity, credibility, and reliability, along with capability. Without the first two the third one was doubtful and totaly unacceptable. That concept holds true even today in every job, project or profession. Would you have not come forward if you were involved with the "Fast and Furious project" and saw that it was possibly a "set-up"? Or how about the Whitey Bulger case? If you had been aware of those goings on in the Police Force/FBI, would you have kept quiet? Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior/actions. Do they not teach integrity, credibility and reliability in the Police Academy?

I have the utmost respect for our Law enforcement officers, but I do expect total unswerving integrity, credibility, reliability and capability from them, as well as from our Military, as we all do. Without the integrity, credibility and reliability are out the window.

-- Posted by Chief Gun on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 11:37 AM

Mike, I absolutely agree with Da Chief,from this old Chief, here. I have had some affiliation with both Firefighters, Police, Medical, and Academic folk. If we do not hold each other, in the group to the highest of standards, and turn a blind eye to their backsliding, we create an organization not worth being a Tight Organization, but a group of lawless overlords. When that happens, the respect and support of the "Lawful Folk" evaporates, and the Force, is worse than those they are sworn to arrest. No Law, = , No Freedom. I've seen what you call brotherhood, and I fear I must call it a Gang, in Blue (and I was only on the Fringe, looking in).

-- Posted by Navyblue on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 11:55 AM

Well said, Navy and Chief. Thank you for your respective services as well. Thank you for keeping us free. On that note, if I go to work tomorrow under the influence of ANYTHING, I fully expect that my closest colleague would call me on it. No doubt I would be angry for awhile until I got outside of my egocentric box and saw the bigger picture.

If you are in a public office in a small town or any town, you are accountable for your actions. You are accountable at the ball fields, you are accountable at a karaoke bar, and you are accountable at a local restaurant. In a small town, as we all know, it takes a matter of minutes for word to reach most everyone you know before you even realize you're in for it. That said, each person has a responsibility to themselves and to the public to act in a manner becoming.

Bad choices are easy to make, but because of the freedom people like Navyblue and Da Chief have provided, we get to make them each and every day.

Navy, you're exactly right: when a group of people act as you described, it does take on more characteristics of a gang than of a brotherhood.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 10:00 PM


I agree with your perspective on Law Enforcement as a stronger than average bond. I do believe at times that this bond can be stronger than one you share with your loved ones.

I think there are some statements that you made in your article that you either need to: 1. rethink or 2. research.

As a recent graduate from the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center (Class 175) there were many things that I learned in order to become a Law Enforcement Officer. (I am currently serving as an officer and have been for two years). One thing that was stressed to us in the academy was that of the brotherhood and respect in Law Enforcement. Part of that brotherhood and respect that was stressed was to have the respect to never place a fellow officer in a position where he/she is forced to do something that by definition of their job is uncomfortable to them. What I am referring to is the fact that as a Law Enforcement Officer you should have the morals and ethics instilled in you to never break the law, thus forcing another officer into an awkward position as he or she has the duty to uphold and to enforce that law.

From my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, you served with the Tulsa Police Department in the 1970's. Times have changed in Law Enforcement and the public demands more integrity out of its officers. You referred to an instance from your experience where an officer went to a bar after work and created an unnecessary and might I add disgraceful disturbance. Maybe in your days of law enforcement this would be acceptable and swept under the rug. In the 21st century this instance would be widely spread throughout the news and related media. That officer would have been a shame and a disgrace to his department. I understand where no street officers would respond to this call. I myself would have hesitated to take it. I'm glad that the supervisor had the guts to do what needed to be done. Understand that all officers are people too. Understand that we all make mistakes. That being said we also need to own up to our mistakes and accept the consequences that come from them. In this society that officer would have faced suspension if not termination of duty. He would also have faced revocation of his certification as a law enforcement officer. I ask you why should he not have been terminated, suspended, or revoked?

Law Enforcement Officers are trusted with one of the most difficult jobs in the civilian world. We on a daily basis face situations that are life threatening and dangerous. We face an almost impossible task of keeping the peace in the cities, departments, counties, and country that we have sworn to serve and protect. When an officer steps outside of his/her duties and chooses to become part of the problem this becomes a clear and distinct issue. Becoming part of the problem not only allows that problem to become bigger but it also portrays to the public that it is acceptable to continue doing the things that we have taken an oath to stop. Public perception then becomes, "Well if he/she can do it I can do it too." If everyone held that belief to be true would crime and violence then become the norm? I like to believe that there are people out there that still know right from wrong. I like to believe that this would not be true; however it would give those individuals who do not abide by the law an excuse to then commit the same crime that someone else has. When this becomes an officer committing the same exact crime it opens a can of worms and excuses if you will. This very scenario has presented itself to me in my short career. "But Officer, I saw officer "X" doing the same thing?" I would like to hear what your response would be in that situation. What do you say to someone who says that? I have responded in the past by asking them if they would like to file a formal complaint. I'm not sure how else I could respond.

It truly baffles me how this instance did not seem to make you even the least bit appalled and disgusted. I'm sure you know some of the facts of the case as you clearly stated some of them in your article. If you understood the true brotherhood and the true bond shared between members of the law enforcement community I think that you as well would have felt some disgust. (I am speaking of disgust for the off duty officer that placed the on duty officer in an unnecessary and difficult situation)

To address your disgust for the on-duty officer handcuffing the off-duty officer I implore you to do some research into the subject. As I have been taught, Law Enforcement Officers are some of the most dangerous people to arrest. This is held true by the fact that they are trained the exact same way every time. (Granted a Massachusetts Officer may not have had the same training that a Colorado Officer may have had, but in this instance we're discussing two Nebraska trained officers) That off-duty officer knows and expects what is going to happen next. We are taught in the academy how to counteract the same tactics that we are taught and use. This being said, that off duty officer could have become very dangerous to the arresting officer. Without this knowledge this officer could very easily have been involved in a dangerous and deadly situation. How is every officer instructed to affect an arrest? In the end it all comes to the same conclusion. The arrested person is placed in handcuffs and taken to jail. In order to adequately subdue the suspect and insure the safety of himself/herself, other officers on scene, and the remaining public I believe the officer in this situation did what needed to be done. One thing that was stressed more than that of the respect of another officer in my academy was that of "I am going home at the end of the night". We are taught to protect ourselves first and foremost.

Media propaganda is also an important part of your opinion. You did not report on what this off-duty officer was arrested for. You made it sound like they merely committed some small misdemeanor crime that really affected no one. Sure it's an opinion! I respect that you have an opinion. In due regard did you consider the circumstances of the alleged misdemeanor? Did you consider that written in the law is the order that "You Shall Arrest"? Are you even aware of the fact that there are directions to officers in the law of the appropriate course of action? The Nebraska Revised Statutes are available online for everyone and their dog to read. So Mike, I implore you to read this statute that you refer to. I implore you to research the appropriate response in a situation as presented. I believe that it is your duty as a criminal justice professor at the college to understand and know these laws. After all, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

My final point is: I was asked everyday in the academy to recite an oath. In this oath there is a particular section that constantly to this day floats within my head. It said in essence that "I will hold myself and others accountable". Did this local officer not hold himself and others accountable in this situation? Did the arrested officer hold themselves accountable in this situation?

-- Posted by bing on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 1:41 AM

I've been in law-enforcement nearly 13 years... (not teaching it, but actually doing it) and given my background, experience, qualifications, training and accomplishments as I look back, I cannot see how the arresting officer has ended up at the point end of your dart, Mr. Hendricks. Sure, I've heard of the "brotherhood" and similarly the "line of silence" and all that other CRAP I believe you're referencing to as once been/has been. But lets call an Ace and Ace here - because what you're truly saying is that police officers are above the law and should not be accountable for their actions, right? Or are you saying "how dare he have the ability to place handcuffs upon another peace officer?" as if the arresting officer broke some unspoken rule that you somehow think was more monumental over credibility. Is this what you're trying to portray as acceptable behavior? Are you seriously asking these questions and condoning this behavior? Really?

Has it ever occured to you what type of police officers started and encouraged those mentalities, Mr. Hendricks? Has it ever occured to you why? It's no wonder that the screening process, background checks, and other pre-employment tests have become more lengthy, stringent and challenging. Are you not fearful for that type of stigma (especially considering you're not a police officer anymore?) but even as a normal "Joe" citizen? I'm amazed at what I read from you! I'm even more amazed that you teach these young, impressionable minds into probably believing what you're dishing out. Todays police officer is not that of what you refer to except for this... We are a brotherhood! You're right in that. We are a brotherhood of peace and good; with the desire and ability to do what's right in our profession. Our brotherhood relies on and is fueled by exceptional morals and ethics - with the capability and determination to do what's expected of us by our peers, supervisors, the public, and more importantly, ourselves. Our brotherhood faces challenges, but we can look to our lefts and our rights and plainly see other officers we work with who stand behind our legitimate, and might I add legal, decisions. We are a brotherhood, yes, and those of whom their behaviors have to be shushed, quieted, overlooked, lied about, or otherwise ignored... are not invited. The job is tough enough as it is, but I'm sure it's much easier just doing it properly from the start. You think about that, sir.

-- Posted by SWHUSKER on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 6:52 AM

A big loud BRAVO! to "Bing" and "SWHusker". It is very comforting to have a couple of Officers that are "in the trenches" to speak up and confirm that morals and ethics are still the password of the day. Thanks for being there when we need you.

-- Posted by Chief Gun on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:27 AM

She was an officer with the Sherrif's department pulled over by McCook Police officers and I've heard of far more petty offenses that have been pursued when the two sides clash, vigorously (one serving in the role as a law enforcement officer and the other in their personal life, as in this case). I see little "brotherhood" between the two departments that would result in this not being pursued by the other department. Now, "brotherhood" within their own departments is certainly possible and not at all unlikely. That's why I don't find it peculiar at all.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 1:13 PM

Wow. All I can say is, "Wow." "Wow," (stated incredulously) to the perspective offered by Mike. Misdemeanor or not, Mike, surely in your years as an officer you also saw the results of this offense? And a truly impressed "WOW" to the responses on this page. First and foremost, I am proud and delighted to see the unified reaction. Additionally, no one can dispute the intelligence of those responding and everyone has kept it clean and respectful. Everything I wanted to say has already been said by the respondents, probably far better than I could have done myself -- so I offer a hearty AMEN!

I'm in a couple of brotherhoods myself, Mike, but I guarantee I would sacrifice my membership before I would turn a blind eye and sacrifice my morals and values. The brothership of law enforcement, fire, and EMS (to name a few) has a backbone of INTEGRITY and HONOR that most are proud to uphold. To imply that the arresting officer should have turned a blind eye to either offending party in this incident or have placed his own life in jeopardy to support a "good ol' boys club" is irresponsible and reprehensible. I'd trust that arresting officer to guard my life any day.

Regarding your statement that, "...an officer never knows what other officer might be in a position to save their life someday or vice versa." In my humble opinion, the officer at fault owes a "thank you" to the arresting officer. Drinking and driving is dangerous. By stopping them, he may have done just that-- saved their lives.

-- Posted by TrailMix on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 1:30 PM

The first thought that comes to my mind is REALLY!!!!! pretty much everything that I would have said has been said, with the exception of, ethics, values, morals, responsibilities, that is what is missing in todays world, the "good ole boy system" must still be at play with an attitude like that, wrong is wrong, illegal is illegal, it does not matter who is doing it, if it is wrong it is wrong....I am not in law enforcement, but I do believe they must have a strong bother hood, they do have to rely on each other daily, but to let one of the "brothers/sisters" do something illegal, wrong, unethical. REALLY......everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that is what freedom is all about. So speak your opinion that is your right. To teach our upcoming professionals our young adults to turn a blind eye on anything wrong or illegal, not really so cool. As a life long resident of this area I have seen the "good ole boy" system at it's finest. I personally am glad to see that someone has the courage to do what is right, and by potentially saving the life of the driver and possibly the life of an unsuspecting victim my hats off to the arresting officer. Way to go, that's protect and serve at it's finest, it doesn't matter who you are or where you came from, if you are wrong or breaking the law, guess what there are consequences for your actions. Be accountable.

-- Posted by ruby4 on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM

I stand by my column.

The only thing that has changed since I was actively engaged in law enforcement is technology, not people. Law enforcement officers still enter the profession for the same reasons as criminals enter their "profession." In Tulsa today, a college degree with a GPA of at least 2.5 is required to even apply for the police department, one of the highest educational standards in the country, and they still get some bad eggs.

Everyone has missed the central message of the column and that was law enforcement officers protecting each other and covering each other's "backs." I never suggested that felony wrongs should be overlooked and, for the most part, they aren't.

I was only referring to this one particular arrest and the circumstances that prompted it. The responses to this column have been ideological rather than practical.

Do you really think the world has gotten that much better in the years that have passed since my service that now all the officers are upstanding, honest, and live by the code taught to them in the police academy? Not unless there has been a seminal change in the basic personalities of people in general and there's absolutley no evidence that has happened.

If you are or have been a law enforcemnt officer, you undestand what I'm talking about, even though you may not want to admit it. If not, you don't. I teach not only what ought to happen but what DOES happen and why. There are several of my former students who are currently law enforcement officers from the Nebraska State Patrol to local and county offficers who will tell you the same.

If you think my thoughts, methods and teachings are corrupt, ask them.

-- Posted by mikeatnight on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:05 PM


To say that the only thing that has changed is technology is by far the most uneducated statement I have ever heard come from an ex-law enforcement officer, teacher, and one who supposedly knows what is going on in Law Enforcement.

Let's take a look at the Criminal Law system that you teach in the past 40 years sir!

Oooooh I know!!! How about the tons and tons of case law that has passed down showing that LAW itself has changed?

AND TO SAY, that I ENTERED LAW ENFORCEMENT, for the same reasons as a CRIMINAL entered theirs is asinine! I did not enter my profession for the money, to steal, to hurt, to rob, to in anyway place anyone in danger. No sir you are completely mistaken. I know of NO criminal that entered his/her "profession" to help, serve, protect, and to uphold to civil liberties that were granted to us within the Constitution of the United States of America. I certainly did not enter my profession for the money. If I had I think I would need to be committed. I make less money that those that work at Valmont!

I would like to see you pass the tests it takes to get into law enforcement as a certified peace officer in this state.

I implore you to take a ride-along with your local law enforcement (several agencies) and really take a look at the trenches. FORGET your seventies mindset and take a good hard look at what is happening in today's world.

GO LOOK at policeone.com, lawofficer.com, and the numerous other websites provided to help educate, inform, and instruct other law enforcement professionals. There are nearly daily posts of officers being arrested and convicted of crimes. Yeah maybe the mindset hasn't changed in other parts of the country, but I can assure you sir, that the mindset has changed here.

Forgive me sir, I believe you are totally out of line.

-- Posted by bing on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:43 PM

In the trenches! In McCook. Are you kidding me?

-- Posted by mikeatnight on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:16 PM

Ideological rather than practical? I feel it was quite practical for an officer to make an appropriate arrest, regardless of who was behind the wheel. Admirable for him to do his job and stand behind his oath even after he was aware it was a colleague that had made a bad decision. If voicing my support for this officer makes me ideological in your eyes, then so be it. Yes Mike, brotherhoods exist and can only be understood by those who are a part of them. Is every member a model citizen, morally upright and full of noble intent? Of course not. It would be foolish to think so. But I agree with bing - things have changed since the 70's and I believe that includes the mindset of the police brotherhood.

Also, as I am friends with, related to, and interact professionally with law enforcement officers AND have worked with many, many people who choose to stand on the other side of the law, I can assure you, Sir, that their motives for entering their respective professions are in no way similar. In fact, I find it ironic that many people with lengthy legal records will say that they originally wanted to enter the Criminal Justice field. Criminals undermine the very tenets that law enforcement officials swear to defend. I do not understand what you meant by that statement, but I am intrigued if you would care to explain.

-- Posted by TrailMix on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:28 PM

I didn't mean that law enforcement officers and criminals enter their chosen fields for the same reason. I meant that law enforcement officers enter their field for a reason and criminals enter their field for a reason, even though though those reasons are wildly divergent. I thought everyone would understand that difference but I appreciate the question so I could make my statement more clear, hopefully.

And, by the way, nothing has changed since the 70's. We target those people we want to arrest and sometimes we get it wrong. You know that as well as I.

-- Posted by mikeatnight on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:39 PM


Maybe I am misreading your opinion piece and your follow up posts. If I am not, I am very glad you are not a police officer anymore. It seems to me that you are saying that all police officers become police officers to abuse their power. I find it hard to believe that you can know the motivation behind folk's reasoning. Are there some police officers are motivated toward thuggery? Of course. Are all or even a great percentage of them? I doubt it. All professions that put someone in a position of authority over someone else have that flaw. Doctors, law enforcement, judges, psycologists, even teachers. I find it chilling that you seem to feel that most people are motivated to subjegate or prey on the people that they have authority over. It is sad, to say the least. I find it telling by your last post, and I quote.

"And, by the way, nothing has changed since the 70's. We target those people we want to arrest and sometimes we get it wrong. You know that as well as I."

-- Posted by mikeatnight on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 4:39 PM

Try not to use your mind reading powers for evil....

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:04 AM


I'm glad you stand behind your column, someone has to. I would hate to see what your column would read had the officer allowed the other to continue this "misdemeanor" crime and end up killing someone. I would encourage you to visit the Nebrask Law Enforcement Training Center in Grand Island. You might be surprised to see what all has changed since the 70's. I am curious as to what "circumstances" you are speaking of because the way I am understanding it the arresting officer observed a violation of the law and did the job he was sworn to do. As far as handcuffs, pretty standard equipment for someone who IS GOING TO JAIL! With your statement about the arresting officer ever relying on the arrested as backup? Well I for one would not want someone with that poor of judgement anywhere near me with a loaded gun. Yes, everyone chooses the profession they do for a reason, that was very insightful, but I still don't see how comparing Law Enforcement to criminals drives that point home.So Mike, please feel free to tell me that I have misunderstood the things you have said, and continue to tell me what I know and dont know. Oh, and yes Mike, McCook, no one is kidding you, bad things happen everywhere, that was proven earlier this year.

-- Posted by 1forMcCook on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 2:55 AM

I get the need for comeraderie, I do. I get the need for a tight-knit team, I get that. I also fully get the feeling police officers must feel when patrolling that the world is nothing but a bunch of criminals and miscreants (sp?) because that is all they see. Heck, we can apply that feeling to say, nurses or teachers. They begin to feel like the world is full of medicaid patients who don't keep appointments and don't take care of themselves and full of BD students whose parents don't care and leave them at school for the teacher to babysit all day, respectively. I think I get all that. Moreover, I get that the "crime" committed was probably (if we are going to devolve into putting crimes into shades of grey) not that big of a deal. It was also a lapse in judgement by someone who is probably very good at what they do for a living. We are all capable of that. As I said before, we can all make a bad choice any day of the week. However, we are accountable for those choices. A little bad or a lot bad, it was a punishable crime and like other posters wrote, one that put others at risk. I don't want my doctors covering for each other if one of them is under the influence of something and working on me. I don't want teachers covering for each other if one is under the influence and influencing/teaching my children.

One last thing, if the law enforcement in McCook do not take their job seriously and go out into the "trenches" each day/night, then what is the point. I think we have to take a place, even little ole McCook, just as seriously as anywhere else.

-- Posted by speak-e-z on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 8:48 AM

I have read the letter from Kevin Darling, and I realized that about one month ago Mike Sr. wrote an article about teaching and bewailing how maligned it is. Then one month later he maligns a different difficult profession? Shame on you, Mike. I had a better opinion of you. Not so much now.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:47 PM

So let me get this right, IF an officer commits an offense of any sorts because of this brotherhood other officers are to turn a blind eye? Shouldn't that brotherhood actually be to not turn the blind eye and hold each other and themselves accoutable to all? If an officer commits a particularly cruel crime of assault, murder, drugs are the other officers to say "well he's an officer, I won't do anything"?

I, for one, have more respect for an officer arresting their own, regardless of what agency they work for. It tells me they are applying the law fairly no matter who is at the source of the offense. If I were an officer seeing this happen would make me trust my fellow officer and foster the brotherhood more. It should not be used as a cop out, pardon the pun, to let someone off the hook of any type of offense. I really think you need to bring your thinking up to date and realize that times have changed.

-- Posted by love2liveinmccook on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 11:53 PM

Wait, when did Mike start replying to comments?

-- Posted by npwinder on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 12:37 AM

mikes a jerk, I've seen it we have all seen it. He has just got away with is for so long he thought he was invincible. Glad to see that everyone that don't know him can see him for what he is.

-- Posted by remington81 on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 8:17 PM

I'm just surprised it took this long to bust her...

-- Posted by marlin on Tue, Jul 5, 2011, at 7:42 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Mike Hendricks
Mike at Night