• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

wasn't asked, didn't tell, but lesbian sergeant still fired?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The Military should suspend DADT until the current policy is decided upon. It seems pretty much a given that it will cease to exist soon, why continue enforcing it?
 
sandorski said:
The Military should suspend DADT until the current policy is decided upon. It seems pretty much a given that it will cease to exist soon, why continue enforcing it?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it would hurt recruitment in the needed combat rates. Those dudes are macho and all that goes with it sometimes. Just a guess having been around a few.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
In fairness I don't think declining to come home from work to assist cops in serving a felony warrant against her wife constitutes "covering for" the wife, and I certainly don't think the couple's marriage was something the police needed to bring into the mix.
Click to expand...


If that is how you feel about the situation then its your opinion. Yet the police have no obligation to either censor/protect the nature her relationship with her "life partner" along with the possible motives for her non-cooperation to her employer (who would also require additional information as to why the police are seeking her cooperation for them to intervene) when they are trying to illicit her eventual cooperation.
 
Last edited:
sandorski said:
What makes you think it would?
Click to expand...

We'd have to do some polling of active duty and potential recruits to be sure. Something like "would you mind serving and living with gays" - but my intuition tells me it would go down something like the California gay marriage initiative but worse. The guys would opt not to.
 
Zebo said:
We'd have to do some polling of active duty and potential recruits to be sure. Something like "would you mind serving and living with gays" - but my intuition tells me it would go down something like the California gay marriage initiative but worse. The guys would opt not to.
Click to expand...

Your "intuition" eh?
 
DucatiMonster696 said:
Let me highlight the crux of your argument:

"Waaah...life isn't fair for people who commit felonies and those who cover for them....Waaaaah...those meanie cops!!"
Click to expand...

Where does it say that the Sergeant was covering for her wife?

DucatiMonster696 said:
If that is how you feel about the situation then its your opinion. Yet the police have no obligation to either censor/protect the nature her relationship with her "life partner" along with the possible motives for her non-cooperation to her employer (who would also require additional information as to why the police are seeking her cooperation for them to intervene) when they are trying to illicit her eventual cooperation.
Click to expand...

And since when is it her job to do the cops' job of serving the warrant to the appropriate person?
 
Last edited:
sandorski said:
The Military should suspend DADT until the current policy is decided upon. It seems pretty much a given that it will cease to exist soon, why continue enforcing it?
Click to expand...

The military doesn't just get to suspend rulings it finds unfair or unjust, it has to follow the rulings of congress. Congress has set forth the DADT policy and it's up to congress to repeal it, not the military, not the president, congress.
 
dammitgibs said:
The military doesn't just get to suspend rulings it finds unfair or unjust, it has to follow the rulings of congress. Congress has set forth the DADT policy and it's up to congress to repeal it, not the military, not the president, congress.
Click to expand...

By "suspend", I merely mean not pursue. Law Enforcement does it all the time.
 
Brainonska511 said:
Where does it say that the Sergeant was covering for her wife?
Click to expand...

Not helping the police arrest her partner who had a warrant for her arrest is covering up especially when the person lives in your home. Its hindering the police from doing their job period.


And since when is it her job to do the cops' job of serving the warrant to the appropriate person?
Click to expand...

I never said and no one ever mentioned it was her job to serve the actual warrant.

Yet it was her responsibility to cooperate with the police officers and do the right thing which she admits to not doing. Hence why the police went to her employer to gain the cooperation they needed so that THEY could serve the warrant without her blocking their attempts.
 
DucatiMonster696 said:
Not helping the police arrest her partner who had a warrant for her arrest is covering up especially when the person lives in your home. Its hindering the police from doing their job period.




I never said and no one ever mentioned it was her job to serve the actual warrant.

Yet it was her responsibility to cooperate with the police officers and do the right thing which she admits to not doing. Hence why the police went to her employer to gain the cooperation they needed so that THEY could serve the warrant without her blocking their attempts.
Click to expand...

You are awfully quick to throw family members under the bus...
 
These cops must have crazy good vision. They can see the license that's sitting out on kitchen table from the outside. Unless the table is very close against the window I'm impressed. the font size is generally small though reading at normal distances and the angle they are looking at it too.
 
Bitek said:
You are awfully quick to throw family members under the bus...
Click to expand...

Really? I don't call someone who would put me in a position to go up against the police via their own criminal activity a family member. If her partner really loved her she should of turned herself over to the cops instead of creating the situation in the first place which lead to this ordeal.

A decent person does the right thing even if it pains them to do so, a dishonest person expects everyone else to do the right thing for them and to cover up for their selfish acts they've committed.

What kind of family member commits a crime and then expects their husband, wife, kids, brothers, sisters, etc to cover up for them when the cops come? I'll tell you what, a douche-bag of a family member who is willing to sacrifice others do to their own selfish misdeeds.
 
Last edited:
DucatiMonster696 said:
Not helping the police arrest her partner who had a warrant for her arrest is covering up especially when the person lives in your home. Its hindering the police from doing their job period.


I never said and no one ever mentioned it was her job to serve the actual warrant.

Yet it was her responsibility to cooperate with the police officers and do the right thing which she admits to not doing. Hence why the police went to her employer to gain the cooperation they needed so that THEY could serve the warrant without her blocking their attempts.
Click to expand...

Is she really blocking their attempts? Maybe there's more but the article only mentions her not coming home right away. That a pretty low bar of what constitutes hindering police work.

a few weeks ago local law enforcement + plus fbi rounding up people who have outstanding warrants. It wasn't just one or two either. Odd how those people been able to hide out for a while. I'd head straight to their employer like in this case.
 
DucatiMonster696

You seem to have a really distorted view of the legal obligations surrounding the interaction between police and secondary civilians in the serving of a warrant.

I'm assuming that it was an arrest warrant and they did not have a warrant to search the premises or they could have forced entry. In such a case, allowing them to search the premises would have been strictly voluntary, and she had every right to decline. If she told them that she had no idea where her partner was, she had fulfilled her obligation in regard to servicing an arrest warrant.

The cops were nothing but assholes in reporting her. If there were any circumstances to justify their behavior from a legal standpoint they would surely have presented them to cover their asses from moral judgment by the public and any future legal action.

Your defense of the cops is little more than meaningless, made up mumbo jumbo with no basis in law.

Perhaps you secretly applaud the cops for outing her.
 
There's got to be more to this story than what is being told.

As for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, well, in the grand scheme of things, our military *is* currently in a part of the world which still executes people for being gay... you know, countries that right now we need to be allies with... just saying is all
 
cubby1223 said:
There's got to be more to this story than what is being told.

As for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, well, in the grand scheme of things, our military *is* currently in a part of the world which still executes people for being gay... you know, countries that right now we need to be allies with... just saying is all
Click to expand...

You've obviously never been in theater on a Thursday. They don't call it "gay" or "homosexual" but they rail each other and hold hands.
 
cubby1223 said:
There's got to be more to this story than what is being told.

As for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, well, in the grand scheme of things, our military *is* currently in a part of the world which still executes people for being gay... you know, countries that right now we need to be allies with... just saying is all
Click to expand...
Wait, are you trying to insinuate that DADT is somehow a protective measure for the troop in the middle east? Maybe we need a DADT rule on pork or alcohol consumption to help protect our troops even more.
 
Danube said:
The military is the last bastion of normal (relatively). ... just to advance culture war ...
Click to expand...

So they said at the time when African Americans couldn't serve in the military.

The military cannot and should not be exempt from cultural changes and shifts.
 
herkulease said:
These cops must have crazy good vision. They can see the license that's sitting out on kitchen table from the outside. Unless the table is very close against the window I'm impressed. the font size is generally small though reading at normal distances and the angle they are looking at it too.
Click to expand...

Or they found out by some other means and then lied about it, which seems more plausible.

Either way, I have doubts that the department's weak rationale for releasing the information to the AF will protect them in civil court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top