The wife of a Louisville Metro Police Lieutenant who says he beat her two weeks ago while on vacation in Florida has filed for divorce. Sheri Fifer filed the papers for dissolution of marriage in Clark Superior Court on Monday.
WAVE 3 has obtained a copy of the petition for dissolution of marriage and it shows that Shari Fifer as asking for full custody of their three children including child support.
Jerald Fifer is being charged with false imprisonment, domestic violence and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
The story brings up some questions for me. When we talk about 50 million or 80 million lawful gun owners, are we including cops? Are we including security guards? How does that work?
If they're included, a guy like this, if he's guilty, would be a good example of the 10%ers who so often go bad. Wouldn't he?
Another question occurred to me about this. Are policemen held to the same standard as other citizens as far as losing their right to bear arms, and therefore their jobs, when convicted of domestic violence? In some states even a misdemeanor of this type can result in the loss of rights. What about for the cops?
One part of the article made me sceptical. It sounded so outrageous as to be incredible.
According to court documents he allegedly pulled out a weapon and then hit, kicked and strangled his wife while she was driving.
What do you think? What's your opinion? I think the normal procedure is for the department to conduct an investigation to determine if there is merit to the charges, then to decide on suspension or some other administrative interim solution. It's during that process that they erect the "blue wall of silence" and strive to find a way to circumvent the usual and sensible conclusion. Or, do you think that doesn't happen at all and I'm just biased against cops?
Maybe it would help if Officer Jerald Fifer attended religious services at Pastor Pagano's church. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.
with the McNair killing on Saturday night in Tenn, what type of killing is this going to be classified under. From the news report it looks as if McNair was married but had a young 20 year old mistress on the side. Looks like that can be a factor. interesting the cops say there is no suspect yet....
ReplyDeleteEvery time someone passes a gun restriction of some kind, their is usually language in the law that exempts police officers. Take California's microstamping scheme for example. The sponsors claim that it is a necessary safety feature--but not for the police, guess they don't need to be safe. Or how about smart-gun laws that are written to guarantee that only the gun's owner can fire the weapon. We are told this will save countless lives and even stop cops from having their gun taken away from them used against them. Except every state that has written or passed such legislation exempts the police.
ReplyDeleteThen we come to the law that affects this post, the Lautenberg amendment.
"Another question occurred to me about this. Are policemen held to the same standard as other citizens as far as losing their right to bear arms, and therefore their jobs, when convicted of domestic violence? In some states even a misdemeanor of this type can result in the loss of rights. What about for the cops?"
The Lautenberg law says that anyone convicted of even misdemeanor domestic abuse or has a restraining order against them, cannot possess a gun. Gun control folks as well as anti-gun Chiefs of police thought that it was a good idea. Thing is, Lautenberg forgot to exempt the police and no one caught it. Police unions and department spokesmen were outraged when they found out it applied even to cops. Some even claimed that exemption for the police is "understood". Wrong.
Too often in this country the police get a pass just for the fact they are police officers. They would like to be, and are sometimes counted as, an elite class for some reason. If convicted, this cop will not get to remain a cop. However, how many of these domestic abuse cases go on to be unreported when they involve a cop? Or how many are diffused through pressure or intimidation from fellow police officers?
Like the cop that beat the woman in the bar in Chicago gets off free, so often cops protect each other that are engaged in criminal activity as well as often getting a pass from the courts.
If they're included, a guy like this, if he's guilty, would be a good example of the 10%ers who so often go bad. Wouldn't he?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "so often go bad"? Even if we buy your fanciful "10%" figure, that means 9 out of 10 (or "vast majority," in other words) don't go bad. That 9 out of 10, of course, being the innocent people whose rights you want to curtail for the misbehavior of the supposed other 1 out of 10.
Another question occurred to me about this. Are policemen held to the same standard as other citizens as far as losing their right to bear arms, and therefore their jobs, when convicted of domestic violence?
Any regular reader of War on Guns, specifically, The "Only Ones" files, could tell you that no, they're not, and there are more than a few gun owners who find that to be far from acceptable.
In some states even a misdemeanor of this type can result in the loss of rights.
Actually, that's a federal law, and does apply, at least in theory, to cops. Yeah--I know about using Wikipedia as a source, but it's convenient, and they seem to have gotten this entry just about right.
So are we to believe that you are under the impression that 10% of police officers shouldn't be police officers?
ReplyDeleteSurely there is some data to show the percentage of cops that go bad. I mean this is the Louisville Police Department, if the number of officers to the general population is similar to the US as a whole, there should be at least a couple thousand officers. So at least 200 Louisville police officers shouldn't be police officers? Now is your chance to actually show that you can back up your "theory". The number of officers dismissed should be public information. How many from Louisville have been dismissed in the last year, 10 years, and 30 years?
After you dig up that, maybe you can explain how such lax standards at our police departments allow 10% of the officers to be criminals waiting to happen.
Reputo asked, "So are we to believe that you are under the impression that 10% of police officers shouldn't be police officers?"
ReplyDeleteActually I would guess it's far higher among the police.
Your example of how few actually get dismissed misses a point I've made a few times now. The 10% folks are not all committing crimes. These are people who shouldn't have guns because the possibility that they will misuse their guns is just too high. You remember my categories.
So MikeB, when are we going to see you come out and call for the disaramament of the police?
ReplyDeleteI suppose you think they shouldn't be allowed to carry guns either?