According to the news source, some of the posts stated, “I am sorry. If you support the Democratic Party, I will not help you” and “The problem is that I know which of you supports the Democratic Party, and I will not help you survive the end of days.”

In another post, according to WHIO, Rodgers wrote that people would need to “provide proof of who you voted for” before rendering aid.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

    And nothing will be done about this literally fascist. Please send help America in trouble and us leftist need to get arned.

  • NutWrench
    link
    fedilink
    English
    139 months ago

    Fire his ass and replace him with someone who takes his oath of office seriously.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      48 months ago

      sure. wait on government to fix the problem.

      OR

      take the matter into your own hands. we’d have fixed the police problem by now if they were scared of us.

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19 months ago

      They always help the wealthy, unless the harm was against another wealthy person and then it comes down to connections.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    119 months ago

    Sounds like an endorsement to take the law into your own hands and shoot the marauders yourself

    Sheriff is an elected position so nobody should be shocked that a bastard cop would go there

  • EleventhHour
    link
    fedilink
    English
    59 months ago

    The entire concept of sheriffs should be abolished. They hold outrageous amounts of unchecked power that does not come under the same level of scrutiny as a normal municipal/state police officer.

  • fmstrat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    139 months ago

    Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

    As soon as a democrat voter has an issue woth a police response, all they have to do is claim bias.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      78 months ago

      I’ll bet every convict that went to prison after being arrested by this guy now has a reason to get their case reviewed.

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      69 months ago

      Come now, he was given a written reprimand, isn’t that enough?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      159 months ago

      He got a write up because his meds cause out of character behavior

      If it’s exhibiting as bigotry based on politics he’s unfit because of how the drugs affect him at a minimum and needs to resign or be given his little retirement

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          109 months ago

          They mentioned it in the article that a documented side effect is out-of-character actions or remarks.

          I didn’t catch the drug itself but it does NOT say anything about memory loss and he’s claiming not to recall making or deleting any posts.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          89 months ago

          Well, it’s not Ambian. They’ve already made it well known that Ambian does not cause racism as a side effect.

    • Diplomjodler
      link
      fedilink
      English
      149 months ago

      After your implying that what was a suitable system for an 1850s border town is somehow not ideal for a city in the 21st century? What kind of far left radical are you?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 months ago

        No, but it is easier to shield shit like this if the position is elected, vs just having to comply with policy as a general employee

  • goferking (he/him)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    20
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Daily reminder police in USA don’t have to do anything to protect people

    https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/

    The answer is no.

    In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general “public duty,” but that “no specific legal duty exists” unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005’sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.

    Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.