One, the "officer" in question isn't an officer; he's an aide with a criminal record that bars him from being armed, but nevertheless was carrying at the behest of his employer (who no doubt would vote to ban all our guns).
Alternatively, he is an officer, but has failed some basic qualifications and by any rational measure shouldn't have been allowed on duty, unarmed or armed.
In either case, I wonder if he is someone who shouldn't have been there -- or been armed -- that day, and therefore publicly identifying him places a huge liability on his employer, whoever that turns out to be.
Two ideas rolling around my noggin:
ReplyDeleteOne, the "officer" in question isn't an officer; he's an aide with a criminal record that bars him from being armed, but nevertheless was carrying at the behest of his employer (who no doubt would vote to ban all our guns).
Alternatively, he is an officer, but has failed some basic qualifications and by any rational measure shouldn't have been allowed on duty, unarmed or armed.
In either case, I wonder if he is someone who shouldn't have been there -- or been armed -- that day, and therefore publicly identifying him places a huge liability on his employer, whoever that turns out to be.
Just a thought.