08-09-2019, 03:34 PM
(08-09-2019, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not the only thing as I'll explain below (again).
I didn't even tap my feet.
I certainly didn't make it up because I literally never said it. If you disagree please pull the quote.
I've literally said everything I'm about type in this thread. I will repeat it here for your benefit.
When Strzok said what he said he opened himself to allegations of bias. Once this perception of bias is created it now taints every decision Strzok made, past and present and any he makes in the future. His own words state he cannot be trusted to act impartially. He may never act on this bias, he may make unbiased decisions in this regard for his entire career. The problem is there is no way to prove that. At the very least he is wide open to accusations of implicit bias, i.e. bias he acts upon without even being aware of it. I made the comparison before and oddly enough no one has actually addressed it; if he made disparaging remarks about a ethnic or religious minority would not any decision he made involving such a person be suspect? Would you have no problem with it then?
In the LEO profession you cannot be perceived as having a bias and be expected to conduct your business in a fair and impartial manner. Again, even the appearance of bias is just as bad as blatant displays of it as it introduces the same doubt as to your ability to fairly conduct your job. If his conversation had never come to light he would not be perceived as being biased and therefore would have no problems in this area. But he did and he is and that's the fact.
So lets break this down in its most simple form.
A LEO sharing a political opinion in private is grounds for termination.
Ha. Scary to think there are people on board with cleaning house of anyone who disagrees with the dear leader. And all they need to prove it is a vague comment made in private.
What a joke.
