- Reaction score
I actually have a bit of a problem with this type of statement. While it is often known to be true by pretty much every regular player in the criminal justice system, somebody standing in the dock is there facing whatever the state says they did, this time. Any weight of previous probably-got-away-with, likely-did-before or is-the-type of person-who is, to me, dangerous. If there is a provable history of similar acts, there is a legal way to get that into evidence or it may come out at sentencing.This is exactly why CAF members should be in uniform when they goto court.
Where there is smoke there is fire and the people who finally get caught very often have a laundry list of times they got away with shit.
Let the public see CAF members being held accountable. And if it's a senior ncm or officer with a history of this behavior let people start asking how they got to this point. Call out leaders that let subordinates get away with stuff time and time again. Ask why they were covered for for so long.
Accountability is a wonderful thing, but in the civilian criminal justice system, the accountability for a domestic assault by a baker or a CAF member should be similar. Employer accountability by the CAF or baker's guilt may undoubtedly be diffferent.