OK, try this one.

[doczinn]

http://hbwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-police-professionalism-serious.html

[vaskidmark]

So HIPAA and FOIA are terms the APD are unfamiliar with.  Failing to obey the orders of a superior, despite what the Nuremburg Tribunals said, is still a grave offense for government employees.  And we all understand that anyone who becomes "defensive" when their moral standards which do not fully comport with those of The Powers That Be are challenged is psychlogically unstable and probably about to snap and go on some sort of rampage.

But the worst offense this individual committed was not being a team player.  He did not exhibit a "good fit" with the rest of the gruop, and his actions might cause other members of the team to question why someone was not fully on board, or worse yet move over to his position.

Additionally, anybody who is sent to see the company headshrinker ought to know better than to believe they are "going to play word games."

I empathize for his current plight, but fully believe that just about any lawyer could get him a large settlement.

stay safe.

skidmark

[Manedwolf]

I work for a medical products company. Failing to obey HIPAA will get you squashed like a bug under a lawyer's mirror-polished Prada.

[K Frame]

Zampolit?

Nuremberg?

Nazis?

God, I love a good screed that decries the CommuNazi tactics of massive, heartless, atheistic government...

[Len Budney]

God, I love a good screed that decries the CommuNazi tactics of massive, heartless, atheistic government...

Fiery rhetoric aside, they fired him for refusing to tase a frail old man--and they did it by having him declared psychologically unfit for duty.

[Werewolf]

Assuming the article is factual:

Article written by an author straining to make a case for the officer being fired because he was a Christian.

He was fired for disobeying an order from a superior that was unconstitutional and illegal by the department's own standards.

In other words he was really fired because he refused to act as a JBT in the city's service. Maybe his Christian ethic played a minor role but the Officer himself says:

When it's possible to arrest a suspect without resort to violence, Perez later said, doing so is the constitutionally correct thing.

The order to taze the old guy crossed an abuse of civil liberty line the officer correctly refused to cross.

Would that there were more officers like Perez. Sadly it seems that doing the right thing and taking the correct and moral stand is not a quality the Austin, PD is looking for in its recruits.

The ramifications of that don't bode well for the citizens of Austin, TX.

[K Frame]

God, I love a good screed that decries the CommuNazi tactics of massive, heartless, atheistic government...

Fiery rhetoric aside, they fired him for refusing to tase a frail old man--and they did it by having him declared psychologically unfit for duty.

No, that's what they're claiming is the reason for his firing.

Something tells me that there's another side of this story, and it's quite a bit different from what this website has to say.