Buy The Book
... in the most advanced society in the world. Or so that society tells us.
This is what happened, including police video. And this is where she stands today. Maybe Seinfeld was right, that depraved indifference is better than being a good samaritan.
What gets me is that the NJ AG moved both the prosecution of the trial and the investigation into the police matter to the same prosecutor’s office! How hard could it be to have put them in separate counties?
It’s not a question if there is a conflict of interest, but if there’s the possibility of the appearance of conflict of interest. I’m pretty sure there’s no Chinese Wall in the prosecutor’s office.
I don’t see this as any unusual or remarkable situation. There are bad cops and good ones. This appears to be a bad cop, at least in this circumstance.
Of course the lady cannot participate in an investigation of the police officer until if and when the charges against her are dropped, regardless of who handles each investigation.
My guess is that the charges will be dropped. They almost always are in these situations.
Did a quick google search—there are articles and editorials about this case dating back to late July. Apparently the initial publicity didn’t result in the dismissal of the case that it should have.
It’s a shame that the actual arrest happened off-camera. Video of the policeman tackling the woman as she was trying to borrow a cell phone would have resulted in a heck of a lot more attention that this case has gotten thus far.
The conflict of interest at the prosecutor’s office is mind-boggling. -j
Nah, what should happen is that a bored, aggressive lawyer should take her case on a nice contingency and take the various authorities for all they’re worth. Her case wasn’t that egregious, so my guesstimate is that they’ll pay a nuisance fee of a couple hundred grand to make her go away, but even after the lawyer’s and the IRS’s take, that should make for a nice college fund for her kid.
A few of those eating into the local budget is the only real way to discipline poor policing. Nobody ever seems to care if it doesn’t hit the bottom line.
Charges have been dropped:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bob_braun/2007/10/wronged_woman_gets_good_news_n.html
More samaritan punishments:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/10/hat_bandit_tipster_gets_10k_re.html
The Bank of America teller who helped police catch the notorious “Hat Bandit” responsible for 19 area robberies in 10 months was handed $10,000 in reward money from law enforcement this afternoon - but said he had to give up his job to collect it.
Steven Gomez, a 21-year-old junior at Rutgers University, said his employer told him he had to forfeit the job if he took the money publicly. Gomez said he chose to leave the bank and portrayed his departure as a resignation rather than being fired.
He said his Bank of America bosses were not happy with him because he defied company procedures when he trailed the robber out of the building after the bandit demanded $3,000.
Basically, the company policy must read something like: “please, we don’t want to be liable for anything that happens, so you must not get involved… we are afraid of other lawyers… signed, someLawyer”
It is not clear in the article why he was fired. Apparently they (BOA) did not want him to accept the money publicly, whatever that means.
That is different from them being “unhappy” (whatever that means) with him trailing a robber out the bank.
I don’t see any problem with that (the bank being unhappy). Tango, you are getting too cynical in your old age! Of course a bank does not want its employees trying to foil or capture robbers. It puts their lives and the lives of others in jeapordy. If he worked for me, I would have said, “Nice job kid, but what you did was stupid (which it was). Don’t do it again.”
But again, I don’t think he got fired for that (although I don’t even think that would be out of line). So I don’t understand what the beef is. As I said, it is not clear at all why they did not want him to accept the money “publicly.” First you have to find out what that is all about before you criticize anyone.
If I wait to criticize anyone, I’d never end up criticizing anyone. What fun is that?
Technically, he resigned, not fired. Since $5000 of that reward came from BoA, they probably couldn’t by policy give it to its employee.
And yes, what he did was stupid. That doesn’t mean he was wrong. It’s like the guy who jumped into the Manhattan tracks to keep the guy from being run over by a train, by letting the train go over both of them. Dude is a father and had his kid with him. He rolled the dice, and he won. It may be stupid, but it’s also courageous.
Who knows… these guys may have taken calculated reasonable risks in applying their courage. What the ordinary person might have done would probably have bungled it, which is why you have these corporate policies. Courage can be mistaken for reckless abandon. The kid likely showed courage.
Stealing 3B with 2 outs is stupid, and if he’s safe and ends up scoring on an infield single, he looks like a hero. Read him the riot act of course. That was reckless abandon. But, give him the ring, too.
To put yourself in peril to save someone else’s life is courageous and heroic and not necessarily a stupid thing to do.
Chasing after bank robbers who just stole a few thousand dollars (or whatever) from a multi gazillion dollar company is stupid.
Reckless abandon can be mistaken for courage as well.
He didn’t chase the guy. From the account I read, he waited until he left the bank, he took off his uniform, and carefully hid behind a car to note his licence plate number as the robber sped away.
The bank teller he did it all based on instinct.
FWIW, the prosecutor and chief both hailed his performance as heroic, and BoA corporate lackeys did not.
Wow. Hopefully the newspaper column and the ensuing publicity will help matters. This is just awful.
-j