When Does "Crime Fighter" Cross The Line Into "Reckless Vigilante"?
Printer Friendly
Look, I admire the Chief's willingness to battle the criminal element as much as the guy printing those ridiculous bumper stickers, but at some point Mr. Duffy is going to find himself in jogging pants and a t-shirt facing a couple of desperate drug addicts who are locked and loaded.
Thus, I am going to respectfully dissent from the council's adulation last night and suggest that Chief Duffy put some kind of policy in place as to when he should participate in active crime fighting and when he should not. It seems as though he is starting to play Icarus and it is only a matter of time before those wings melt at the hands of somebody who doesn't respect his intentions and he crashes tragically to earth.
This is not "Death Wish". Mr. Duffy's increasingly reckless behavior is creating both a potential liability for the city and a personal disaster for him and his family. Mr. McGoff was incorrect in not qualifying his over-the-top commendation at the meeting. The supermajority should have been the saucer to cool the minority member's coffee.
I'm not backing down on this one. The chief's intentions are admirable, but he is putting himself at risk unnecessarily. You trust these people not to pull a gun, knife, or needle?
The reasonable point to debate here is whether or not the Chief is taking unnecessary risks. I get that. The unreasonable point is the insane notion that his stopping crime off-hours should be used as a cannon ball against the Mayor. This whole episode makes the union officials look like a bunch of whiny junior high school girls.
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.