Despite being a recruit at Chicago Police Department I am a not entitled to the discount that I was given by the lady cashier in the local hotdog stand because I am not yet an active officer but a recruit. I would in this case opt to refund the extra $ 1.80 that I received out of $ 2.80 after the discount and inform the lady that I am a police officer in the making but not yet qualified to enjoy the benefit because it is a violation of the training rules and principles which a violation of would see me out of the police academy. It is only active police officers and the duty military as well as the fire fighters who are supposed to receive the discount as a fringe benefit for the hard work that they are involved with and the challenges that they do face in the line of duty. More over being the security keepers of these outlets when they are closed at night qualifies them to enjoy the advantage.
Only Police officers that are actively engaged in the security concerns of the hot dogs outlets both during the day and night due to the high risk of having buglers pop in anytime aiming to steal from the operators are supposed to enjoy the advantage. More to this, this hot dog stand is located in Ohio yet I am a police recruit in Chicago and I am further more not on a police mission in Ohio but private family encounter. A recruit is not a police officer yet, and I am not entitled to enjoy the benefits. The fact that the Eye witness news reporter is on site makes my presence in the Hot dog stand public and the lieutenant as well as other high ranked officer’s in the stand at that time would stand as witnesses of my early seek to enjoy the benefit I am not entitled to if I opt to take the advantage.
I would be very contented to refund the Hot dog stand its extra money that I was given as a discount simply because I wore the police department T-shirt as I visited my relatives in Ohio. I hand no intension of getting the discounts and the attractiveness of the price cut and I was driven to the restaurant by my son’s and I hunger as we did a walk in the streets of duty and academy. It was unfortunate as I may say that the other high ranking officers were at the stand the time I too went for the snack as well as the Eye witness reporter who was very keen at pointing the camera at me. In addition upon realizing the change amount that I was given, a public person does argue that “police officers get everything for free” (Kinnaird 72). An evidence of the Eye witness news alone is sound enough to support my “greed” for the benefit enjoyment having ignored the fact that I am just a recruit who don’t even have a union to talk for my side incase of any misunderstandings related to violations of law.
I would thus in this context, get back to the cashier and ask her to charge me the whole amount for the purpose of evidence tat I did not enjoy the benefit and as a honest and royal recruit I offered to return the extra money. This would not amount to the violations of law as the Chicago police Academy stipulates to govern the conduct of all police trainees in the academy.
A publicly responsible for careless driving spouse of mine is grilled and law has to take its course according to the police codes of conduct (Brockmann 52). Family aside and let the rule of law take its course. For the duration that the fellow was jobless I was sufficiently supporting my family without any aches whatsoever. It is a big burden on a single shoulder but a mistake by the drunk driver should not land me into a jobless corner after I am sacked on grounds of law violations. As a police officer, I would take the necessary action that is required by law and the ethics of the public prosecution and protection act. I would not fall for family relations while am discharging my job an action that would ship me into troubles due to the compromise of integrity and wit. Despite having the back up of my FTO, I would not fall for the trap that the FTO himself or her self would be set to get me into. No man is to be trusted and getting to favorism practice on the family basis against the law is an occurrence that the FTO himself would not dare to try to be engaged with. I would instead get the law violator arrested and delivered to the police custody for further action and let him or her carry a personal cross which a decision to clutch was individually formulated.
A person who was already suspended for two years from the place of work could not have acted the way this did if at all he or she was really in need of the job. I declare that the feller was a fool who was even tricked by a fellow coworker into drunken driving well knowing it is against the commercial piloting principles to be involved in careless drinking and not to mention driving because to pilot a reasonable number of flight passengers with a carelessness and drug induced characteristic is intolerable. As a police officer these are the matters that I should be dealing with to ensure that the public safety is not compromised even at one minor instance.
To sum it up in this case, I was justified to withhold to the doctrines of law and make an arrest of the drunken driver in the line of duty that was even ignorant at responding to the flashing of lights of the police vehicle as I and my colleague did alert after realizing the kind of driving he or she was practicing. This shows despite being my family accomplish, the person was not yet reformed to the extent of being restated into commercial piloting a thing that would result to causing of numerous deaths to innocent passengers. From my perspective the only action that I could have taken was to make an arrest and forward the victim to the respective department for disciplinary action against the offence that was committed;; careless driving, drunken driving and ignorance of police calls to stop the vehicle. This is an action that is supportive of the lawfully enacted principles of governance and behavior in the police department and I could not afford to compromise (Rahtz 24).
Being a basic police officer who has expressed his concerns to the fellow officers who are above me and both the FTO and the Sergeant have shown a cold shoulder on the issues that are affecting me in the job, I would opt at letting the sleeping dogs lie. It is unethical to have police officers chart with women on mistake and debate on the way out of the mess at any particular instance as well as letting them to skive their work stations for joints where they will enjoy women. According to the stipulated police codes of conduct, all officers should be at their workstations till their shift is over and a compromise is never tolerable but these fellow workmates seems to have external influence to an extent that the FTO declares openly that they are associated to high ranking officers a factor that makes them more powerful and anyone who might mess with their presence would be punished. Sergeant does in black and white command me to “give them a break” and mind my business. As a royal police officer I would not go on persisting on the misconduct of the two fellow officers but I would instead take the action further. It is risky to be doing a double job because I am not related to the “big fish” in the police department.
The appropriate action that I would take is to forward my regards to the senior most officer who are responsible for work relations and two disciplinary action (Angela 34). The reason as to why I would reach out to the work relations officer is to outline the unfavorable working conditions that I am subjected by the virtue of having police officers related to the big bosses. Cooperation should facilitate good performance in the police department but doing double work should be paid for as well due to the misdeeds of the fellow colleagues. I would as well reach out to the disciplinary committee section doe ensure that the skiving police officers shall be made to pay for their actions and facilitate the police responsiveness to exertion performance and roles execution. This would ease my work and make the police department more related to the roles that they should be playing to the better security concern dos the citizens in general.
As a police officer who is charged with the role of ensuring violations of law do not unpunished, I could not have as well sat and saw the violations by the police colleagues as well be allowed to prevail by my accolades and heads. The action that I decided to take was based on the law stipulations and I was justified at the matters which were affecting me in the roles fulfillment. Justice should be held for all people equally no matter their family relations.
Free Essay Sample «Response»