spin

You read the script wrong. The newer sergeants worked hard to get where they are and were good at their jobs. They are to be looked at as those who succeed. I don't agree with the promotions but I can see the reasoning. No discipline-check. Always at work-check. Produce a good work product-check. Looks like a good prescription to me. Take two of these and call me in the morning.

Who cares....it is moot, we will be green and white soon enough

You read the script wrong. The newer sergeants worked hard to get where they are and were good at their jobs. They are to be looked at as those who succeed. I don't agree with the promotions but I can see the reasoning. No discipline-check. Always at work-check. Produce a good work product-check. Looks like a good prescription to me. Take two of these and call me in the morning.

"No discipline".....you are wrong. Need to verify your facts. And I'm not talking about SWAT 2000 guy either.

Then please share. Because one has none and the other hasn't been here long enough to have any. Check your facts.

Well, by process of elimination it’s clear that this could only be one of a few people who wrote this as more than half the department is aware that a significant amount of letters actually were written as well as aware of the content in the letters. Sounds to me like someone has a guilty conscious and is trying to justify it to himself – but don’t think for a second that any other fellow “real” or “non-real” cops in the department who know what you did find it justifiable.

Brothers and sisters in blue beware, there’s a ginger snake in the grass that especially likes to prey on rookie rabbits.

Hey Animal Control... I think you missed the point through your incessant scorekeeping of who wrote letters and who didn't. And I see you quickly formulated a prime suspect. Well now we all know why your still stuck in patrol.

I WAS one that wrote a letter on "your" friend's behalf. I even came out of the enchanted forrest to speak in person in his defense and favor. I didn't see you upstairs though. And I believe that was the spirit behind a previous post.

You were so adamant on helping "your" friend ala post tragedy but why didn't you intervene through the early warning systems. You weren't there for him when you let him drown his sorrows alone on your back patio as you selfishly slept the afternoon away in the comfort of your home (but you thought enough of him to drive him home). You weren't there for him when he was doing drunken naked backflips into your pool (to your amusement). You weren't there for him after his first accident went undetected by the admin. You were more concerned about protecting what's yours and covering that mark in your hairline from yet another one of life's failures. But you WERE there after all his chips had been cashed in to pen a Haiku to the Chief. It was so nice of you to circle the wagons for "your" friend but it was a war cry that was barely noticed due to the ingenuiness of your own motives. This was a classic example of creeping determinism. How dare you cowardly call him "your" friend during your attempt to grab a small piece of awkward ownership in this little tragedy. You're guilty of rubbernecking your way through his life without the courage to stop and intervene.

You should look around first before you sling mud; It just might find its way right back to you.

It's over. The former employee has been replaced and a lesson has been learned. The insults written on this forum are hurtful and unnecessary.

no lessons learned... I drove drunk last night but I have yet to crash. Maybe I will soon though