Another softsoaping of a "professional"

A father takes his 5-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son to a strawberry festival in California. While there, the father notices a man taking close-up pictures of said daughter while she is climbing in and out of a wagon.

The father chases and tackles the man, who is apparently trying to delete pictures from the camera the entire time he is running away. The father confiscates the camera, as well as a concealed Commander-length 1911 pistol.

You see, it turns out that the probable pedophile is an off-duty police officer. Of course, we don't get to find out exactly who it is, unlike if the suspect was just a regular citizen:

"Garden Grove police confirmed Dornan's story, but refused to identify the officer. Dornan said the man he tackled was a Los Angeles Police officer, but Garden Grove Police would only say that he was "a Los Angeles County law enforcement officer." Though the man was not arrested, police confiscated his camera. They gave back the his weapon as the officer is licensed to carry a gun."

So there was enough probable cause to take away the camera, but not enough to give out the officer's name, or put him on leave until the investigation is complete? Do you think that if on-duty officers had found you or I at the same festival doing the same things, that we wouldn't be taken into custody and have our names plastered all over the media, and rightly so? What this man was doing is the same sort of sketchy behavior that perverts get arrested for all the time, so why wasn't he identified, as well?

"Right now, this whole thing is getting blown way out of proportion," Garden Grove police Sgt. Jim Fischer said."

Is that so? I think not, Sgt. Fischer. The law enforcement "professional" was taking close-up photos of children that he had no connection with, without parental permission, and then tried to run and erase the evidence when confronted. What's out of proportion? He seems pretty darn guilty to me.

If you ask me, the characters should be reversed here. It's the father, Mark Dornan, who should be in law enforcement, given his great situational awareness and quick reflexes and action, not to mention his success in quickly disarming a trained "professional".

As always, I'm not bashing law enforcement in general. The vast majority of street officers are ethical, hardworking people who follow the same laws they enforce, often under extremely difficult circumstances, and it is much appreciated. The Achilles heel of the profession, in my layman's opinion, has always been the administrative "closing of ranks" around an officer, regardless of what he or she is accused of, or how blatant the evidence is. See my posts about the officer assault of a bartender in Chicago, as well as what happened in the aftermath of his arrest, for a good example.

No matter how highly trained they are, officers are citizens just like the rest of us, and should be subject to the same standards, whether they be firearm carry laws, media coverage, or arrest justification.

Incidentally, I think that Mr. Dornan showed great restraint in his handling of the situation. Had that been my daughter, I would have beaten that officer to within an inch of his life.