NOPD Deserters: Do we want these people?

[N. A. Corbier]

Alot of people are being terminated from NOPD. Some may decide to try their hand in security, thinking its easier but similiar to LE, or maybe so they still get a badge and gun. They're spread out everywhere else.

Desertion is not a crime, last I checked, just grounds for dismissal from employment. Some may have charges of misprison of office, or perhaps obstruction of justice, etc. But the majority will probally not.

So, under what circumstances would you hire someone who was fired from NOPD, or really any LE agency? Would you hire someone who was terminated from NOPD or another agency for desertion? What would your insurance carrier say about this, and your general counsel? Does your state even allow you to deny them employment?

Think about these questions now, especially what you'd tell the state employment or federal EEOC, before you start getting people coming in either putting down NOPD or hiding their previous employment with NOPD.

[Bill Warnock]

N.A. their fleeing in this manner should preclude their being hired by either another police agency or in private security. Some would argue that past performance does not mean future actions would be the same. Those who will be charged with looting may stand a far better chance of obtaining employment in these two crafts.
In the military, cowardice before the enemy can get you shot, removed. Since police and security forces are quasi military, the same rules should apply, minus the death penalty.
I am sure insurance carriers and corporate counsels would spend sleepless nights over this one.
What courts would decide in the event of repeated behavior is for us, someting worth pondering.
Harken back to our Civil War. One young Union soldier was asked why he was running after the first battle of Bull Run? He answered "because the couldn't fly." Is that what we face in this instance, unresoned fear that overwhemed the senses?
N.A., you raise excellent issues. What do the other readers think? Please, join in this discussion. I for one would love to hear (read) your thoughts
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Mr. Security]

Depends. It's a 'case-by-case' decision. Much in the way of security does not require one to take an oath. Many s/o's are employed under state law that says their employment is "at will," meaning that both the s/o and security company have the right to terminate employment w/o notice or cause.

[N. A. Corbier]

Depends. It's a 'case-by-case' decision. Much in the way of security does not require one to take an oath. Many s/o's are employed under state law that says their employment is "at will," meaning that both the s/o and security company have the right to terminate employment w/o notice or cause.

While they are employed at will, there's something else to consider, especially from the security management position: Your company is under a contractual obligation to provide services. If you hire someone who has a professional history of abandoning his post, as a sworn officer of the law, then what guarantee do you have that he will not abandon his post again - as he is a non-sworn employee and thinks he isn't liable for his actions.

If the individual does abandon their post, the company may be at fault with NO DEFENSE for any liability issues that arise out of the abandonment of post. After all, what defense is there "We gave him a second chance?"

[Mr. Security]

..... what guarantee do you have that he will not abandon his post again - as he is a non-sworn employee and thinks he isn't liable for his actions.

If the individual does abandon their post, the company may be at fault....

You're right. There are no guarantees and yes, the security company may be found negligent. Thus the part where I said "case-by-case" basis. If the former LEO had mitigating circumstances for his/her decision and was committed to not repeating his mistake, then it may be acceptable to hire him/her. After all, what guarantee do you have that a new hire, who is likely less qualified than the former LEO, would not desert his post under similar circumstances?

[N. A. Corbier]

You're right. There are no guarantees and yes, the security company may be found negligent. Thus the part where I said "case-by-case" basis. If the former LEO had mitigating circumstances for his/her decision and was committed to not repeating his mistake, then it may be acceptable to hire him/her. After all, what guarantee do you have that a new hire, who is likely less qualified than the former LEO, would not desert his post under similar circumstances?

None. Alas, its generally up to your corporal counsel, on touchy matters like that. "You think we'll lose everything if we hire this guy?"

[Mr. Security]

I agree. I just want avoid a 'blanket judgement' against these former LEO's.

[N. A. Corbier]

I agree. I just want avoid a 'blanket judgement' against these former LEO's.

That's what I'm wondering, actually. Will our liability insurance carriers and our litigeous society REQUIRE a blanket judgement?

[Arff312]

im not a management person but i want to put this out there. First of all the city was ORDERED to be evacuated. Also if you were placed in a situation like that would you really stay. I also would like to state that there are some officers who maybe single parents and have to take their kids out of the city or even mentally disabled care takers who need to take care of these people. I feel that this issue should be dealt on a case by case basis. Dont get me wrong I am not saying that desertion is right i am just saying that in certain circumstances it may have been warrented. I am not aware of every little thing that happened down there or that was going on with each officer so therefore i do not feel that myself or anyone else who does not know all the details is fit to judge. Even with what the news is saying i still can not see anyone fit to judge these officers with out speaking to them personally to get the facts. Thats just my 2 cents.

[doughesson]

Having been left hanging by someone too scared to take their assigned job on too many occasions,I would never trust anyone who left his post like the NOPDs did.They're supposed to be in the job and expect to place it above other concerns.
I will trust someone as long as they do their job.Once that trust is blown you don't get it back.Ever.

[Mr. Security]

It's easy to play 'Monday-morning-quarterback' after an incident like this. I find it hard not to believe that at least a few of these officers have a valid reason for making the decision that they did. No one should be denied the opportunity to make a defense for his or her actions before judgment is pronounced. Just treat them the way you would want to be treated. If a NOPD officer wanted to work security and merited a second chance, I would hire him/her.

[N. A. Corbier]

It's easy to play 'Monday-morning-quarterback' after an incident like this. I find it hard not to believe that at least a few of these officers have a valid reason for making the decision that they did. No one should be denied the opportunity to make a defense for his or her actions before judgment is pronounced. Just treat them the way you would want to be treated. If a NOPD officer wanted to work security and merited a second chance, I would hire him/her.

When managing a company, I've found that your corporate counsel and insurance carrier do nothing BUT "Monday-Morning-Quarterback," then charge you 35-100 dollars per hour to tell you what they figured out.

[Mr. Security]

When managing a company, I've found that your corporate counsel and insurance carrier do nothing BUT "Monday-Morning-Quarterback," then charge you 35-100 dollars per hour to tell you what they figured out.

Even so, some of these NOPD officers WILL find employment in the security or even LE sector. If you allow your insurance carrier to dictate a blanket policy against hiring any of these individuals, you are no longer managing your company--the insurance company is. Also your legal woes may overshadow your insurance concerns when it's time to deal with the discrimination fallout.

I could see a jury empathizing with some of these individuals, especially since they might have done the same thing.