They're idiots....unless they were laughing at you. That's the job you had for two days when a prisoner escaped wasn't it?
So anyone that disagrees with the chattering class here about things I've done is an "idiot". Right. And no I worked there a lot longer there a lot longer than two days. But go ahead El Chup. Believe whatever you want.
No, they're idiots for the very same reason I said your attitude towards it was immoral. It is not a laughing matter. That they thought it was funny seriously draws into question their professionalism. How long did you work there and when did you stop?
I don't know how local law enforcement deals with minor traffic matters in United Kingdom El Chup so I'll cut you some slack in this regard. But by and large in the United States, local law enforcement (LEOs) absolutely hate bothering with minor traffic issues where damage is negligible and no one is injured. Like me, most of them think obsessing over vehicle scratches is stupid.
Strictly speaking, strictly legalistically yes. But the law doesn't operate in a vacuum El Chup nor or laws absolute. I do not know about United Kingdom, but laws in the U.S. put heavy emphasis on results of an offense and not just strict legal interpretation. That is the problem with lawyers. You place way too much emphasis on procedures and process.
I agree law enforcement officers hate dealing with minor traffic accidents. But that's not what this is about. Dayton had a legal duty to stop and ensure the other driver was ok and exchange insurance information. For some reason Dayton thinks a hit and run was doing LEO a favors and that the favor was more important than ensuring to his legal And moral duty.
You're truly stupid. "Emphasis on procedures and process" is exactly what bough you another year at your last school. Do you not remember the many, many times you've bragged about getting around the system?
Not really. And even if it did that doesn't mean I have some kind of infinite obligation to support or endorse such measures in the future.
He had cancer IIRC. He died three years later. I think he went into remission at some point after my encounter with him anyway. At any rate, his biggest mistake was that he didn't expect serious opposition. Two years later his daughter did not make the same mistake and I paid for it. Despite being in opposition to me he seemed like an okay guy. A year later when he came to the school board meeting to oversee their firing of the head football coach he sat in my classroom while the school board was in executive session and joked with me. .
Ah yes. I see the good honest discussion on Wordforge continues on well into the future. Bravo. Here's to real conversation.
He didn't get serious opposition. You delayed the inevitable based on a technical mistake made by his client, not him. You manhandled nobody and you were fired in accordance with the result the school sought. It was simply delayed because of an error on the part of the school staff, who obviously did not fully understand the procedure they had to follow. They fixed that error, and as a result you spent over a year out of work. How dare you pretend you did anything remotely impressive at any point.
Oh, it's true. It's just your denial that claims it isn't. I'll remind you yet again that we have read the proceedings for ourselves. How is it not true?
Go back and reread it El Chup. The board actually voted IN FAVOR of the reasons given by the Superintendent for recommending my contract nonrenewal. But they voted to ignore that recommendation and rehire me anyway.