DST's

I have a question: why would a trainee get terminated when other trainees have been passed for the same thing? Did we not give this guy a fair chance? The FTO that terminated him must have forgotten where he came from. One day he's going to get his.

Who is the DST you are referring to? What was the reason, if any, given for the termination? Just curious. :?:

Mad Woman...We are all sorry that a friend of your's got their feelings hurt when they were asked to turn in their gear, but the truth is, no FTO ever terminates a trainee. There is a proceedure for identifying problems, and doing the best to get the trainee over them. When a trainee has been given a reasonable amount of additional training, and is still showing the inability to meet standards, it is up to command staff to make the final call. The fact is, some people are just not cut out for the job. Have some of these made it through in the past ? Sure they have. But is it fair to the trainee, the public, other officers, and the agency to keep an officer that cannot show the ability to meet minimum standards ? The SRSO FTO program has the goal to work as hard as it can to get trainees through the program, but in the end, it is the trainee that determines success or failure.

Glad to see that our agency has designated Sgt. Enterkin as the spokesman for the FTO program!!! Again, who was the DST involved?

According to Sgt. Enterkin..."it is up to command staff to make the final call. The fact is, some people are just not cut out for the job." Just curious how this same almightly "command staff" allows a supervisor who openly admits to having SEX on duty retain his rank, and even his JOB for that matter?

At least he has the courage to post his name and give an intelligent response. As for ME and you...? I guess we're just cowards hiding behind anonymous postings! Then again, I haven't offered any criticism.

What the heck does that have anything to do with a trainee being let go??? Why is that people insist on displacing blame on other people when things don't go the way they would have liked them to? The sergeant's actions and that of the trainee are two totally different issues and to exploit the sergeant's indiscretions on this board seem nothing more than exploitative.

Do I need to back off for some reason??? If so, please, by all means let me know!!! Am I afraid to post my name? No, I am just smart enough not to attach my name to a reply that seems to imply that I might be an "authorized" spokeperson for our agency's FTO program and its procedures.

Not trying to displace any blame. Just merely pointing out that our "command staff", who some supposedly give so much credit to for making the "right" decisions, sure do seem to waiver quite heavily when delivering their recommendations!

Glad to see that our agency has designated Sgt. Enterkin as the spokesman for the FTO program!!! Again, who was the DST involved?

Nobody has "designated" me to do anything. The purpose of my post was to address the implication that it is somehow the FTO's fault a trainee did not make it. Speaking as an FTO and a new supervisor, I find it insulting to imply an FTO should pass someone just because someone else made it before and the FTO in question will, "get his". I have no idea who this trainee is, but the last few the have been let go, all had been given additional time with different FTO's. I've said all I wanted, I am done with this thread.