According to the news source, some of the posts stated, “I am sorry. If you support the Democratic Party, I will not help you” and “The problem is that I know which of you supports the Democratic Party, and I will not help you survive the end of days.”
In another post, according to WHIO, Rodgers wrote that people would need to “provide proof of who you voted for” before rendering aid.
Fire him. Anything less is unacceptable.
He got a write up because his meds cause out of character behavior
If it’s exhibiting as bigotry based on politics he’s unfit because of how the drugs affect him at a minimum and needs to resign or be given his little retirement
Wtf? What kind of drugs may include extreme partisanship as a side effect?
They mentioned it in the article that a documented side effect is out-of-character actions or remarks.
I didn’t catch the drug itself but it does NOT say anything about memory loss and he’s claiming not to recall making or deleting any posts.
He probably drinks mightily too. That’ll do it.
Maybe alcohol is the ‘medcation’
Well, it’s not Ambian. They’ve already made it well known that Ambian does not cause racism as a side effect.
Republican koolaid
Come now, he was given a written reprimand, isn’t that enough?
*out of a cannon
Into deep space.
(Because he’s not worth the dV to launch into the sun.)
I’m starting to think we might have a law enforcement problem in the US.
Conservatism should immediately disqualify a candidate from any position of authority.
Conservatism + Power = Fascism
This has been true throughout all of human history.
Sheriff should absolutely not be elected.
This is why.
After your implying that what was a suitable system for an 1850s border town is somehow not ideal for a city in the 21st century? What kind of far left radical are you?
Do you vote for lieutenants as well?
No, but it is easier to shield shit like this if the position is elected, vs just having to comply with policy as a general employee
Gee, let’s see how this plays out [FTA]:
Chief Deputy Mike Young sent a statement to the news station that said, in part, the Office agrees the comments made were highly inappropriate and do not reflect the Sheriff’s Office’s delivery of service to all residents, regardless of their voting preference. He stated that the station and Lt. Rodgers would work especially hard to regain the public’s trust.
“Lt. Rodgers would work especially hard to regain the public’s trust.” As in, ‘regain it in the future’? So, pretty much no consequences then.
It is also suggested that a possible medical issue is involved in Rodgers’ actions.
Of course there’s some kind of excuse - that’s not what I meant, you’re taking it out of context, you’re twisting my words - or, in this case where there’s no ambiguity, ‘It must have been the drugs - but only the legal drugs, not any illegal drugs that might impact my career!’
WHIO obtained an investigative file and discovered in an inter-office communication with supervisors that Rodgers wrote, “I do not remember writing these posts or deleting any posts.”
Of course he doesn’t. If he “remembered”, he’d have to explain why he didn’t clean them up afterward.
The file also indicates that Rodgers is prescribed sleeping medication, which Rodgers documented, “It does cause some of my communication to be ‘out of character’ which is a documented side effect.”
Here’s the thing: afaik, sleep aids don’t change your character, they just remove filters, so it’s likely be does feel this way and just doesn’t want to face the consequences of what he says. Secondly, again, he didn’t clean it up afterward. If you know it ‘causes some communication to be out of character’, then wtf aren’t you double-checking what’s been posted? And aren’t the posts written a little too coherently for someone spaced out on sleep meds?
According to WHIO, the Sheriff’s Office apologized for Rodgers’ behavior and said he received a written reprimand for violating the department’s social media policy and will remain on duty.
Oh, no! Not a one hour meeting and a written reprimand! The horrors!!
Politically motivated threat of violence? What was the term for this again?
mentally ill lone wolf!
Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
As soon as a democrat voter has an issue woth a police response, all they have to do is claim bias.
I’ll bet every convict that went to prison after being arrested by this guy now has a reason to get their case reviewed.
Fire his ass and replace him with someone who takes his oath of office seriously.
That will never happen.
sure. wait on government to fix the problem.
OR
take the matter into your own hands. we’d have fixed the police problem by now if they were scared of us.
Sounds like an endorsement to take the law into your own hands and shoot the marauders yourself
Sheriff is an elected position so nobody should be shocked that a bastard cop would go there
The entire concept of sheriffs should be abolished. They hold outrageous amounts of unchecked power that does not come under the same level of scrutiny as a normal municipal/state police officer.
The “end of days”? So sick of these deranged religious fanatics.
The end of days for Trump’s political career hopefully
Don’t they need to take some kind of Oath?
It has been found in court that police have no responsibility whatsoever to serve or protect the public.
Which court case?
Multiple over 40+ years
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
Oath, shmoath, they’re getting a paycheck. I never took an oath to write good software, but I did it.
Yeah that’s not actually how a “job” works, Bubba.
Daily reminder police in USA don’t have to do anything to protect people
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
The answer is no.
In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general “public duty,” but that “no specific legal duty exists” unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005’sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.
Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
He sure has been happy taking money from the government throughout the Biden administration though
