Dubuque sheriff's department hires new deputy previously arrested for sexual assault

[ISUBryce]

It was dismissed due to immunity issues. You can admit it. That’s fine. You’re judging him based solely off the charge. You don’t want to have trials. You want people to be convicted in the court of public opinion. Let’s just judge everyone based off what the newspaper says.

There are thousands of police officers out there with alcohol arrests. Thousands. That’s what he’s been convicted of.

Sometimes you look at the details of a case and you make that choice, yes.

For example - Iowa State had a basketball player named Bubu Palo who was found not guilty on rape charges, but was kicked off the team.

Some people viewed that as some gross injustice.

However, if you read the details of the case I was 100% in support of him being kicked off. I don’t want a guy like that representing the university.

I didn’t want him thrown in jail. I didn’t think he should be kicked out of school. But you can have higher standards for those who want to have wear the jersey, or a badge.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Yes. It’s job-dependent; but for a law-enforcement officer, I think it’s obvious he has a history of poor decision-making. I would like to think that would disqualify him for this position even without a conviction.

If he wants to go work for the DMV or drive a snowplow for the county or something… go for it.

Let’s go with a hypothetical. A guy is charged with rape. DNA says it wasn’t him. Because he was charged would he not be allowed to serve as a police officer a. I would think not right. I mean he didn’t do it. In this case maybe she recants. What’s the difference. You’re left with the alcohol stuff which every police officer either did and didn’t get caught or perhaps had a conviction.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Sometimes you look at the details of a case and you make that choice, yes.

For example - Iowa State had a basketball player named Bubu Palo who was found not guilty on rape charges, but was kicked off the team.

Some people viewed that as some gross injustice.

However, if you read the details of the case I was 100% in support of him being kicked off. I don’t want a guy like that representing the university.

I didn’t want him thrown in jail. I didn’t think he should be kicked out of school. But you can have higher standards for those who want to have wear the jersey, or a badge.

Playing basketball is not the same thing as being a public employee.

 

[torbee]

Sometimes you look at the details of a case and you make that choice, yes.

For example - Iowa State had a basketball player named Bubu Palo who was found not guilty on rape charges, but was kicked off the team.

Some people viewed that as some gross injustice.

However, if you read the details of the case I was 100% in support of him being kicked off. I don’t want a guy like that representing the university.

I didn’t want him thrown in jail. I didn’t think he should be kicked out of school. But you can have higher standards for those who want to have wear the jersey, or a badge.

Pierre Pierce pled to a misdemeanor and was not convicted of rape. Just a youthful indiscretion like drug use, underage drinking and public intox.

Iowacowtipper would be cool with having him on the ICPD. In fact, it would be totally unfair for them to not hire him.

 

[ISUBryce]

Playing basketball is not the same thing as being a public employee.

Precisely. The public employee should be held to a higher standard.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Another fantastic point.

It would be wildly irresponsible to bring someone with this background in, particularly if you are arming them and sending them out to enforce the law.

By that standard we should never ever hire a police officer that was convicted of speeding. He might get into an accident. Silliness. You guys will go to endless lengths in order to judge someone with little to no, or at least one sided evidence.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Pierre Pierce pled to a misdemeanor and was not convicted of rape.

Iowacowtipper would be cool with having him on the ICPD. In fact, it would be totally unfair for them to not hire him.

He was convicted of a sex crime and went to prison. There are no circumstances in which I’d be ok with him being hired. It’s apparent when someone is losing an argument when they make up things others say.

 

[ping72]

You are embarassing yourself at this point.

This is about a hiring decision.

I have chosen not to hire someone based on bad vibes or just not trusting them. If someone comes in with a background of booze and assault and drug arrests, their name goes directly on the NOPE file, period the end.

If you aren't just playing devils advocate and truly are tasked with selecting candidates to be future paramedics, I have grave concerns.

I’ve thrown many many resumes into the trash for misspelling words. Seems much less egregious than this guy’s mistakes.

 

[Pinehawk]

Speeding...Sexual Assault....close enough.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Precisely. The public employee should be held to a higher standard.

Ok. So we are on the same page. If a person is EVER charged with a sex crime they are forever forsworn from being in law enforcement. It doesn’t matter if they are convicted acquitted or charges dropped. What other jobs should they not be able to hold.

 

[torbee]

He was convicted of a sex crime and went to prison. There are no circumstances in which I’d be ok with him being hired. It’s apparent when someone is losing an argument when they make up things others say.

Want to know how to know you are actually losing an argument?

When you keep making it and everyone you are talking to his in awe at how dense you are being.

See this thread for a clear example.

 

[torbee]

Ok. So we are on the same page. If a person is EVER charged with a sex crime they are forever forsworn from being in law enforcement. It doesn’t matter if they are convicted acquitted or charges dropped. What other jobs should they not be able to hold.

No one has said anything remotely close to that.

Read the court docs. Read the background check results. See what else is on their record (in this case, public intox/open container in a vehicle) and make your call.

If this is the best candidate you have, you should probably start the process over.

 

[ISUBryce]

Ok. So we are on the same page. If a person is EVER charged with a sex crime they are forever forsworn from being in law enforcement. It doesn’t matter if they are convicted acquitted or charges dropped. What other jobs should they not be able to hold.

Honestly I really wouldn’t care about any other job. I don’t think people would care if their tax accountant was involved in something like this.

Again, the details of the case matter, and yeah, I think the details are enough I wouldn’t want him serving in this capacity in my community.

 

[theiacowtipper]

No one has said anything remotely close to that.

Read the court docs. Read the background check results. See what else is on their record (in this case, public intox/open container in a vehicle) and make your call.

If this is the best candidate you have, you should probably start the process over.

Did they release the background check results?

 

[theiacowtipper]

No one has said anything remotely close to that.

Read the court docs. Read the background check results. See what else is on their record (in this case, public intox/open container in a vehicle) and make your call.

If this is the best candidate you have, you should probably start the process over.

And bullshit. This is all about the SA. The alcohol stuff cops get hired with every day. I’m sorry they do. This is about people seeing that a person was charged and judging them without knowing the facts.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I am of mixed minds on this. It is probably good that he isn't gonna be a sheriff on the balance but it's more complex.

First this clearly looks like a nepotism hire due to his father and brother.

The sexual assault thing was dismissed with prejudice, so honestly I don't think that should be taken into account. It is a really steep slope if we take the accusation as equaling guilt when it comes to hiring for a job.

However he clearly admitted to sex with her and maybe gave her alcohol. How old was he when this went down?

I am more towards the don't hire him view but I don't think the sexual assault accusation should be taken into account.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I am of mixed minds on this. It is probably good that he isn't gonna be a sheriff on the balance but it's more complex.

First this clearly looks like a nepotism hire due to his father and brother.

The sexual assault thing was dismissed with prejudice, so honestly I don't think that should be taken into account. It is a really steep slope if we take the accusation as equaling guilt when it comes to hiring for a job.

However he clearly admitted to sex with her and maybe gave her alcohol. How old was he when this went down?

I am more towards the don't hire him view but I don't think the sexual assault accusation should be taken into account.

If you’re going to make the call you’re not going to hire him based on the alcohol charges, I’m fine with that. If you’re going to base it on the fact he was charged I’m not. That’s silly. He was 17 and she was 16. If we are going to start charging that lol

 

[Huey Grey]

And bullshit. This is all about the SA. The alcohol stuff cops get hired with every day. I’m sorry they do. This is about people seeing that a person was charged and judging them without knowing the facts.

Cops enjoy immense power. Hiring bottom rung candidates isn't the way to go. And as far as I can tell he is bottom rung.

 

[McLovin32]

And bullshit. This is all about the SA. The alcohol stuff cops get hired with every day. I’m sorry they do. This is about people seeing that a person was charged and judging them without knowing the facts.

Fun fact. One of the guys I know that I mentioned earlier that became a cop and passed his polygraph despite drug usage is no longer a cop. He also had a few alcohol convictions when he was underage. All things combined can often prove someone has bad decision making skills.

These are some of his bad choices as a public servant. Police officer and DNR officer.

IC police change policy in wake of black teen arrest

The Iowa City Police Department has made a policy change after an officer forced a teenager to the ground.

www.press-citizen.com

Coralville man to receive settlement for wrongful arrest

Hunter 07/12/22 A Coralville man who lost his apartment and job due to a reported wrongful arrest will receive a settlement from the cities of Iowa City and Coralville for damages. The Gazette reports that Anthony Watson

www.1630kcjj.com

Now works for the DNR and still doesn't have great decision making.

DNR officers cleared of wrongdoing in breaking up of Des Moines fight

A video posted in a Facebook group shows parts of the bar-district fight between two women before one officers hits a woman in the face with his elbow.

www.desmoinesregister.com

Moral of the story: Sometimes it's best to just nip it in the bud right from the get go if there's any doubts whatsoever.

 

[torbee]

If you’re going to make the call you’re not going to hire him based on the alcohol charges, I’m fine with that. If you’re going to base it on the fact he was charged I’m not. That’s silly. He was 17 and she was 16. If we are going to start charging that lol

Just say you have lower standards and expectations than most people and call it a day then.

Every one else posting in this thread looked at the situation and came to the same conclusion: bad hire.

You are entitled to thinking we are all wrong and you are right. Still a free country, for now.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

If you’re going to make the call you’re not going to hire him based on the alcohol charges, I’m fine with that. If you’re going to base it on the fact he was charged I’m not. That’s silly. He was 17 and she was 16. If we are going to start charging that lol

Oh, ok then my only issue with it is it seems to be nepotism.

Sexual assault was dismissed, they were both minors.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Just say you have lower standards and expectations than most people and call it a day then.

Every one else posting in this thread looked at the situation and came to the same conclusion: bad hire.

You are entitled to thinking we are all wrong and you are right. Still a free country, for now.

Well the question is why is it a bad hire?

I don't think people should be judged on dismissed charge or judged for under aged drinking when they were 17. Nor for trying to have sex for that matter. And I say that as someone who was squeaky clean as a teen. I never drank under aged save for a wine cooler with my parents. I didn't sleep around, lost my virginity at 24 and my first traffic ticket came when I was 28. (For the record I have had a grand total of 2 warnings and one fine at age 42, started driving at 16)

The nepotism is a concern but we should care about who a person is now, not what they did at 17.

 

[torbee]

Well the question is why is it a bad hire?

I don't think people should be judged on dismissed charge or judged for under aged drinking when they were 17. Nor for trying to have sex for that matter. And I say that as someone who was squeaky clean as a teen. I never drank under aged save for a wine cooler with my parents. I didn't sleep around, lost my virginity at 24 and my first traffic ticket came when I was 28. (For the record I have had a grand total of 2 warnings and one fine.)

The nepotism is a concern but we should care about who a person is now, not what they did at 17.

He also pleaded guilty to public intox and open container. I believe there was an admittance of drug use as well.

I don't feel it's unreasonable at all to want a LEO candidate to have a better background check than that.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

He also pleaded guilty to public intox and open container. I believe there was an admittance of drug use as well.

I don't feel it's unreasonable at all to want a LEO candidate to have a better background check than that.

Was that recent? Sorry I haven't read through the whole thread.

 

[torbee]

Was that recent? Sorry I haven't read through the whole thread.

Open container and public intox was 2019.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Open container and public intox was 2019.

So when he was 19???

Seems like we're grasping at straws here. IMO seems like people are grasping for those straws because of an unproven accusation.

 

[theiacowtipper]

He also pleaded guilty to public intox and open container. I believe there was an admittance of drug use as well.

I don't feel it's unreasonable at all to want a LEO candidate to have a better background check than that.

If you want to disqualify someone for the alcohol stuff I have no issues. That’s not what happens in many departments but I have no issue.

But that’s not what’s happening in this thread. He’s being disqualified for the alleged SA. A charge that was dismissed with prejudice. Which means to me that the prosecutor found information that the charge was unfounded. I choose not to judge someone when the charge was unfounded. You, and other in this thread choose to judge based off unfounded allegations. The alcohol is just a pretext.

 

[theiacowtipper]

So when he was 19???

Seems like we're grasping at straws here. IMO seems like people are grasping for those straws because of an unproven accusation.

Get ready to be accused of coddling rapists. You must also agree that Pierre P. Should be allowed to be an FBI agent.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Get ready to be accused of coddling rapists. You must also agree that Pierre P. Should be allowed to be an FBI agent.

I would have to read up on his case. But the dismissed with prejudice thing to me is big. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds to me like that means they charged him but the judge found so little evidence in support that he wouldn't even let it proceed to trial.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I would have to read up on his case. But the dismissed with prejudice thing to me is big. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds to me like that means they charged him but the judge found so little evidence in support that he wouldn't even let it proceed to trial.

Much more likely the prosecution but yes. Something like she came out and said she made it up because she was ashamed she had sex with him.

 

[torbee]

If you want to disqualify someone for the alcohol stuff I have no issues. That’s not what happens in many departments but I have no issue.

But that’s not what’s happening in this thread. He’s being disqualified for the alleged SA. A charge that was dismissed with prejudice. Which means to me that the prosecutor found information that the charge was unfounded. I choose not to judge someone when the charge was unfounded. You, and other in this thread choose to judge based off unfounded allegations. The alcohol is just a pretext.

My entire point the whole time is that he has demonstrated a pattern of poor decision making and there is no reason a better candidate with less baggage shouldn’t be considered.

 

[OILCHECKER]

Why? Because he was charged? That’s all it takes? A charge? We are going to start denying people the right to be a public servant because they were charged? Should he have fought the dismissal of the charges so he could have a trial with an acquittal?

So if OJ applied for a job with the LAPD after his trial you wouldve been ok with that?

 

[Bulldogs1974]

I have no idea. Certainly the position of his father played a role in the hiring. That doesn’t matter. He wasn’t convicted. He passed a polygraph. Convicted criminals have a huge hurdle to overcome when the integrate into society. Now we are going to make people who weren’t even convicted overcome those same hurdles?

Jesus. Who administered the polygraph. And what questions were asked.
Besides this is for a law enforcement job not some factory job.
The whole story stinks and you know it.

 

[theiacowtipper]

So if OJ applied for a job with the LAPD after his trial you wouldve been ok with that?

The smartass answer is yes I’d be fine with that, you can apply for anything. In general, I don’t think a charge disqualifies someone from employment.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Jesus. Who administered the polygraph. And what questions were asked.
Besides this is for a law enforcement job not some factory job.
The whole story stinks and you know it.

All I can say is this. The charges were stopped with prejudice. They can never be brought again. The prosecutor found something out that precluded prosecution.

Did it occur to anyone that he might actually be innocent? That she set him up? Something about the charges stink, but it doesn’t seem to be him. It seems to be her.

 

[Pinehawk]

People keep saying the case was dismissed with prejudice. Is there proof of that somewhere?
I think that was the excuse of the Sheriff, but his credibility is questionable at this point.
He has good reason to lie.

 

[Bulldogs1974]

All I can say is this. The charges were stopped with prejudice. They can never be brought again. The prosecutor found something out that precluded prosecution.

Did it occur to anyone that he might actually be innocent? That she set him up? Something about the charges stink, but it doesn’t seem to be him. It seems to be her.

I think that given the job, the accusations, the fact that he likely never would have had a prayer if not for his dad and brother is what makes this stink.