Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Jun 9, 2009
If there is "no merit" to this accusation, then why is the officer still on paid administrative leave where he has been continuously for the past 2 and a half months? Would the administration like to answer this?
I agree with Mr. Wagstaffe's comment about police agencies not being permitted to investigate cases involving their own officers, for obvious reasons.
Why then is a police agency, and Atherton is an example of one, permitted to investigate its own citizen's complaints?
The truth of the mater is, though, that prosecutors never press charges against police officers unless there is literally a video tape of wrongdoing. There was one in the Oakland BART shooting, and another in Atherton's own police theft of a resident's golf clubs (that video being of the officer turning in the clubs to be sold at a golf store). Short of that, they turn a blind eye. The optimist would say it's all part of upholding a law and order society, which would be undermined by prosecuting police officers. The pessimist would say someone like Mr. Wagstaffe wants and expects endorsements of police unions and police chiefs as part of his political career. Because of this, his statement about the charges being baseless could well be true, but not necessarily. If you don't believe this, talk with some of the people Mr. Wagstaffe has prosecuted who also have their own explanations of why it was a misunderstanding or confusion over something small.
Regarding the first comment, how do you know when someone is on paid leave, is that public knowledge, aren't these personnel issues?
I am curious why the department has allowed a sexual harasser to work in the city when the case is being criminally prosecuted but this officer is on paid leave for something that has "No foundation" and was "Exonerated"
Put him back to work and fire the other guy.....cities pay millions each year for much less cases of sexual harassment but Atherton apparently doesn't stand behind the federal laws and regulations it is required to uphold.
How does the Mercury News not pick this up or the San Francisco Chronicle? Sounds like we are entering into the Steve Cader years again.
Continuation of Office Cap Discussion
By Steve Levy | 9 comments | 2,660 views
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,932 views
"Itís Not About the Nail"
By Chandrama Anderson | 3 comments | 1,328 views
Ramen shop replaces Muracciís in Los Altos
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 1,326 views
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,171 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Menlo Park
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
Mountain View Voice
© 2015 The Almanac
All rights reserved.