Rookie Officer Ramon Perez was fired from his position as an officer with the Austin Police Department for being “so impaired by his moral convictions that he is incapable of taking in and processing information – especially that which may be in conflict with his already-held beliefs. Perez is “defensive” and not able to take in “feedback” from supervisors, she wrote.”
Wow. So, what happened to cause this guy to get fired? Well, it seems that he refused to Taser an old and frail man for fear that it could send the man into cardiac arrest.
On Jan. 15, Perez responded to a domestic-violence call where he met a woman who said her husband had pushed her down and hurt her arms. While interviewing the woman outside her home, Perez said her husband came outside, keys and coffee in hand, and headed to his car in an attempt to leave. Perez told him to stop, he said, but before he could direct the man further, his backup, senior police Officer Robert Paranich “lunged” at the man from behind, causing the man to lose his balance. “I considered that an escalation of force,” Perez said, and not a controlled way to get the man under control with the least amount of force possible – as is required by APD policy. While the man struggled to regain his balance, Perez said Paranich ordered him to use his Taser on the man; Perez refused because the man wasn’t resisting arrest, and Perez was sure the man could be placed under arrest with lesser force. Additionally, Perez said, the man appeared to be in poor health and a likely candidate for a heart attack – two additional factors APD’s Taser policy asks officers to consider before using the weapon.
In the end, Perez and Paranich were able to get the man on the ground and in cuffs with no more force than soft-hand control, Perez said – a fact that proves the Taser was not needed: “If more force were necessary, then we wouldn’t be able to take him down,” he said at a press conference. “That means I did the constitutionally correct thing” and followed APD policy.
Not only did he follow Austin Police Department policy, he did the constitutionally correct thing. Uh oh… He was then transferred to night-shift and was again brought forth to his superiors for assessment after another soft-hand tactic.
Just two months later – shortly after Perez again questioned his supervisors, Lt. Daniel Zahara and Sgt. Jesse Brown, in this case about their apparent disapproval of his handling of a high-risk car stop in connection with APD Gang Suppression Unit detectives – Perez said Brown ordered him to report to APD psychologist Carol Logan for a meeting designed to help facilitate “better communication” between Perez and Brown. Perez said he was told the session with Logan would be spent practicing “word games” – a fact he said Logan confirmed – but that in fact, unbeknown to Perez, the meeting was intended as a fit-for-duty review, the outcome of which could bolster the supervisors’ desire to terminate Perez.
Officially, the reason they terminated the officer was based upon his job performance, yet the report from the APD psychologist was based almost entirely upon his religious and moral beliefs.
Indeed, Logan’s four-page report mentions nothing about word games and instead focuses almost entirely on Perez’s moral and religious beliefs, which Logan concludes are so strong they are an “impairment” to his ability to be a police officer.












…oh, and I forgot to mention – fuck what the citizens want, too. Especially the citizens, those dirtbags who are the Real Cop’s enemy…
THAT’s the attitude that has to be overcome, and only by cleaning house of those corrupt Nazi dinosaurs can it happen. But guess what? It ain’t gonna happen, because those same old warhouse cops have accumulated dirt on everybody over the years, especially everybody who might otherwise be inclined to clean house. After all, that’s how they rose to where they are today.
Now you know why those attitudes don’t change, and why they’re not gonna change, either.
#10 I wouldn’t want to have a cop with extreme moral convictions policing the streets.
Really? Just “follow orders”? Taking it to the ridiculous (to make the point), ever hear of Nuremberg? Moral convictions are exactly what public servants like police officers should have.
#15, OFTLO,
You missed my point. The police enforce the law, the courts decide the law.
We’ve seen parents prosecuted for creating child pornography after snapping a pic of their 4 year old playing in a bath tub.
Would you care to point me to such a case? Child pornography, as with most laws, also include mens rea, or intent. If there are several photos of the child in various nude poses besides in the tub, then the charge of pornography may be upheld. If that is the only nude photo among many clothed pictures, then there is no intent and no cop or prosecutor would touch it.
Further, cops are not forbidden to have opinions or enter into civil discussions in their daily life. A cop can support marijuana legalization on his own time as long as he applies the law in the execution of his duty.
Very true and they should have their own opinions. But they shouldn’t let those opinions interfere with their job. If a cop get assigned to guard an Abortion Clinic, yet his beliefs are strongly anti-abortion, would you want the cop to follow his conscience or his oath? If the cop doesn’t have enough evidence may he torture a prisoner to extract a confession because he believes the accused is guilty?
Police must follow the law even when the law is wrong. They cannot be both the enforcers as well as the arbitrators.
Let me tell you something, Fusilade, in case you did not come across my post elsewhere on this very matter:
Cops not only can, but do – every officer on the street, every single work day – decide for themselves which violations of law to take official notice of and which to ignore.
In the course of duty, a police officer in modern, urban America, witnesses an endless, continual stream of violations. She or he cannot possibly intervene in but a fraction of the violations they witness, and therefore must exercise informed discretion in setting priorities. The Supreme Court has ruled affirmatively that this is the case.
So let’s not hear any more nonsense about cops’ inability to ignore infractions and violations they don’t deem important enough to pursue. They do it all the time and they are expected to do so.
cops = cowards, media = whores (and their supporters)
Watch and respond to this, please. See if your experience prepares
you for it. You may have trouble watching all 5 parts in correct
sequence. – John Boanerges
From: Contempt-R-US (28 seconds) : The Killing of Fouad Kaady – In the
early afternoon of September 8, 2005, police encountered Fouad Kaady
shortly after he was in an accident that left him in shock and bleeding,
burned over much of his body. Rather than calling for medical help, the
police commanded him to lie on the pavement, even though they could see
the burned flesh hanging from his body, and even though they said he
appeared to be “in a catatonic state.” When he did not comply with their
orders, but instead continued to sit on the ground in a daze, they
tasered him repeatedly. And then, they shot him to death.
Gut wrenching… incompetence beyond comprehension. Tasers are only
part of the issue quite obviously.
http://www.videosif t.com/video/ Cops-shoot- burnt-injured- man-who-crawled- from-burning- wreck
I would have to agree that Austi PD suks. They have no compassion, they are rude and would it hurt to ask someone how they are before starting to write the ticket. I dont know ,,maybe just maybe give a guy a break and ask what the reason for their speed? Who know maybe they just found out that someone died or better yet they just found out that there daughter might die…..Hey ART have a Heart, teach compassion not ticket ticket ticket…or are you gunning for a raise?