Wyandotte

RE: Officer Pleds Guilt

Keiko apparently does not know how our wonderful judicial system works. ANYONE and that means Cops also, who has no PRIOR conviction for drunk driving and is arrested for that, gets the oppertunity to plead guilty to the lesser charge of Impaired and most of the time, any other charges are dropped. But I can see that Keiko has an apparent erection against police officers and that is why he/she makes clear to everyone that this particular officer appears to have gotten treatment that no one else gets.

Do some research Keiko before you open your mouth.

You See...

When a PO is killed or intentionally shot the Liberal cry is give 'em the crimial mandatory life or the death penalty. And probably a good idea.

When the Police Officer Intentionally Violates the Law, or peoples rights of due process, ( Josepete) are you listening ? ) drunk driving is an intnetional act, the Liberal cry is ...hey treat me like everyone else reduce it to impatred driving...hey I am a POLICE OFFICER, I might even want to Landshark my partner staff this afternoon...to lick her kneecaps!

Hey it's not fair to hold me to better, to a higher standard than you , I am a ''Benevolent Dictator''

How about a ZERO Tollerance for Law Enforcement Officers who intentiaonally break the law, DRUNK driving is an intentional act, to RAISE the Standard of Performance not reduce it to the Lowest Common Denomenator?

WEhen the ''impaired'' recividist police officer hoots down your residential street off duty at 80MPH with a loaded gun in the car, at 2 x the legal alcohol limit, remember the Liberal Judge who let 'em go,

Remember him on Election Day . take away his $ 140,000 Judicial job, AND WATCH THE IMPROVED RESULTS!

Not fair?

If you want zero tolerance for law officers who intentioanlly break the law, it is only ''fair'' to have zero tolerance for anyone who intentionally breaks the law, including you. We are all supposed to abide by the law, not just police officers. You can't make a separate punishment for them. It must include everyone. Fair is fair. Sure no one wants drunk drivers on the street, but picking on certain people isn't the solution. If you want something done about drunk drivers, do something instead of complaining about it. And enough already of the ''knee licking''. How many times do you have to bring that up? I think we've all heard about it already.

NO Gun reported!!

I have read the article at least 6 times to see if I missed what you had reported about the officer having a ''loaded gun'' in his car when arrested. There was no such statement.How did you come up with that? As for the felony charge being dropped, there was lack of evidence. Isn't that the just and fair thing to do when there is lack of evidence? Let's just keep the focus on what this really was...someone driving under the influence. Forget about trying to drag our law enforcement officers through the mud. That must be something personal you have going. Again, I saw NO MENTION of a ''LOADED GUN'' in the article. Why did you say that? Talk about planting ''false stories''...