Rule number 1: never, ever point a firearm at a target unless you have the intent to pull the trigger. Rule number 2: firearms are not toys; treat every firearm with the respect due to a loaded one that is off safety. When I instructed firearm safety to young people, any violation of those two rules resulted in dismissal from the class. She should have been fired but I disagree with the criminal bit. The law is too quick to hang a criminal rap around people's necks for what, in most cases, is a lack of judgment or just plain stupidity. A lifetime ban on owning or firing a weapon would be far more fitting imho. That is unless someone was injured because of the prank or stupidity in which case a criminal negligence would be justified. The officer by her actions demonstrated that she does not possess the maturity required to be entrusted with a weapon.
What to Do When You Have a Bad Boss
- Thread starter daftandbarmy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,109
- Points
- 1,160
Link to written decision, grab a coffee and read:
decisions.rcmp.gc.ca
Constable Kristine Roesler - Royal Canadian Mounted Police
decisions.rcmp.gc.ca
- Reaction score
- 5,616
- Points
- 1,160
Seems decently reasoned. It sounds like there was a lack of maturity all 'round in that room, perhaps a function of recruiting and staffing; several players need to grow up. That decision is going to haunt her as a future court witness (R. v McNeil)Link to written decision, grab a coffee and read:
Constable Kristine Roesler - Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,858
- Points
- 1,140
A firearms ban didn't seem to have much adverse impact on this Chatham-Kent police officer convicted of uttering threats to cause bodily harm, assault and several Police Services Act charges. He still gets to use his duty firearm, the very one his spouse alleged that he threatened her with.
Weinie
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,606
- Points
- 1,140
Well, OK then.Link to written decision, grab a coffee and read:
Constable Kristine Roesler - Royal Canadian Mounted Police
RCMP: In our summation, she will probably never do something like this again, (and she will soon be relatively free of the stressors that seemed to have predicated this behaviour). But if she does display recidivist tendencies, we have left enough space in the report between causation and actualization that you can never blame us.
Me: Hmmmmm. No
HIs case fits into the conditions I listed. The criminal charges resulted from maliciousness not stupidity. I can appreciate that the constable will probably never pull such a stunt again but I question the maturity of a person that would pull a firearm in jest or to prove a point. Firearm safety should be permanently embedded to the point where breaking the rules is unthinkable. Is there not enough emphasis put on the basic rules of gun safety in our police training or is that training more focused on the sidearm as just another tool rather than the lethal but necessary instrument that it is?
And the coffee and the easy chair were great. Thanks for the link. His response was definitely well reasoned. I just wonder if there is a real cure for immaturity.
- Reaction score
- 36,571
- Points
- 1,090
The cure for immaturity should not involve giving such people access to weapons and authority to employ them..
- Reaction score
- 3,011
- Points
- 1,040
Still much too light a punishment. Again a civilian would have been charged with pointing a firearm. Even ignoring that charge, in my civilian job (and I suspect most civilian jobs) if you even threaten someone your up for immediate firing (the running joke is if your going to threaten to hurt someone you might as well fight them as your losing your job either way).
I do suspect it is a one off, but actions should have consequences and they need to be at least proportionate (if not more severe) to what a civilian would receive. There is a much higher standard expected of the police simply due to the nature of the job. If you can't meet it you need to go.
I do suspect it is a one off, but actions should have consequences and they need to be at least proportionate (if not more severe) to what a civilian would receive. There is a much higher standard expected of the police simply due to the nature of the job. If you can't meet it you need to go.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,646
- Points
- 1,160
There's no excuse, really....
Stop Making Excuses for Toxic Bosses
Far too many people have worked for a boss who has bullied or belittled them. This behavior takes many forms: insulting direct reports in public, invading their privacy, or gossiping about them behind their backs. Toxic actions such as these contribute to not only employee dissatisfaction and stress, but even more harmful outcomes such as alcoholism, family conflict, and health complaints. Yet, abusive bosses continue to wreak havoc and leave destruction in their wake. Why, then, does it seem that organizations and employees put up with toxic bosses?
In a recent study published in Personnel Psychology, we examined one possibility: After a run-in with a toxic boss, the tendency of many people is to heed what Abraham Lincoln called the “better angels of our nature” and forgive the indiscretion, especially when the boss appears to be making amends for their uncivil behavior. For example, former U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson was notoriously ruthless toward his staff, constantly berating them in public, calling for favors at all hours of the night, and throwing objects at them when they did not work as quickly as they wanted. George Reedy, a long-time aide of President Johnson, wrote in a memoir about how Johnson’s cruelty extended “even to people who had virtually walked the last mile for him.” However, it seemed that whenever Reedy considered resigning, Johnson would present “a lavish gift” or do something else that made it so Reedy “forgot his grievances” and kept working for Johnson. However, Johnson’s abusive behavior toward Reedy persisted — and even worsened — during the 15 years they worked together.
It may be that bosses, like Johnson, are not really trying to make nice with employees after an abusive tirade, but, rather, are attempting to fake nice in order to manipulate their social image without actually changing their behavior. In other words, some bosses are skilled at looking good after an episode, leading employees and higher ups to forgive and forget — until the next tirade occurs and the cycle continues. If this is true, employees and organizations may be unknowingly enabling toxic boss behavior by being too forgiving of it.
We found that when bosses reported having abused their employees, they viewed their social image as being damaged, with this effect being especially pronounced among those who reported at the outset of the study that it was important to them that they appear moral to their employees. In other words, among those bosses who were highly focused on having an image of adhering to a strict moral code, engaging in abusive behaviors, such as ridiculing employees, made them feel more concerned with their social image.
As a result, the offending bosses reported taking multiple steps to repair their social image. Specifically, they reported that they engaged in impression management behaviors, such as doing small favors for employees with the express purpose of getting employees to view them more favorably, while also engaging in self-promoting behaviors like highlighting how hard they work or showcasing past successes. However, these bosses did not admit to engaging in behaviors aimed at genuinely repairing the damage done by the prior-day abuse, such as offering a sincere apology.
Consequently, even though abusive bosses may appear on the surface to be considerate to their victims following one of their abusive episodes, the bosses in our study reported behavior that was instead a superficial attempt at impression management. As a result, toxic bosses were not likely to change their ways, mainly because their focus was on covering up their bad behavior through manipulative ingratiation and self-promotion behaviors, not on actually changing their toxic behaviors.
That said, a boss’s behavior can never be fully regulated by organizational policy; in the end, whether a boss fails to exhibit common decency and civil behavior to his employees is ultimately up to them. Sincere apologies and reconciliations on the part of the offending boss are the only sustainable way of regaining credibility and moving forward from a lapse in civil behavior. Further, engaging in these surface-level efforts to manipulate employees’ perceptions can be draining for supervisors; as such, acting genuinely is imperative. The best course of action for offending bosses is to be cognizant of their own motives and behaviors in the aftermath of an abusive outburst.
Some have recommended that bosses take time each day to reflect on their motives in order to stay motivated. Indeed, we urge the same type of reflection when it comes to behavioral lapses. If bosses take time each day to honestly appraise their own behavior and motives, and to carefully reflect on the impact of their behavior on their subordinates, they may be able to really make nice instead of fake nice in the wake of a transgression.
https://hbr.org/2021/01/stop-making...utm_content=signinnudge&deliveryName=DM115372
Stop Making Excuses for Toxic Bosses
Far too many people have worked for a boss who has bullied or belittled them. This behavior takes many forms: insulting direct reports in public, invading their privacy, or gossiping about them behind their backs. Toxic actions such as these contribute to not only employee dissatisfaction and stress, but even more harmful outcomes such as alcoholism, family conflict, and health complaints. Yet, abusive bosses continue to wreak havoc and leave destruction in their wake. Why, then, does it seem that organizations and employees put up with toxic bosses?
In a recent study published in Personnel Psychology, we examined one possibility: After a run-in with a toxic boss, the tendency of many people is to heed what Abraham Lincoln called the “better angels of our nature” and forgive the indiscretion, especially when the boss appears to be making amends for their uncivil behavior. For example, former U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson was notoriously ruthless toward his staff, constantly berating them in public, calling for favors at all hours of the night, and throwing objects at them when they did not work as quickly as they wanted. George Reedy, a long-time aide of President Johnson, wrote in a memoir about how Johnson’s cruelty extended “even to people who had virtually walked the last mile for him.” However, it seemed that whenever Reedy considered resigning, Johnson would present “a lavish gift” or do something else that made it so Reedy “forgot his grievances” and kept working for Johnson. However, Johnson’s abusive behavior toward Reedy persisted — and even worsened — during the 15 years they worked together.
It may be that bosses, like Johnson, are not really trying to make nice with employees after an abusive tirade, but, rather, are attempting to fake nice in order to manipulate their social image without actually changing their behavior. In other words, some bosses are skilled at looking good after an episode, leading employees and higher ups to forgive and forget — until the next tirade occurs and the cycle continues. If this is true, employees and organizations may be unknowingly enabling toxic boss behavior by being too forgiving of it.
How Bosses Act After Abusing Employees
In our study, we examined this possibility using a daily survey approach; this enabled us to uncover the motives and behaviors of abusive bosses in “real time” with a sample of people that past studies argue have the keenest insight into those motives and behaviors: the bosses themselves. In particular, we surveyed 79 bosses that volunteered to participate in our study via an online platform. Their responses were anonymous so that they would be more candid about their abusive behaviors and feelings at work. These bosses — who worked across various organizations and industries, such as consulting, education, healthcare, and retail — were surveyed twice per day for 15 consecutive workdays across three weeks to understand how they felt and responded when they abused their subordinates. Specifically, each morning we asked supervisors about their abusive behaviors the day before by inquiring about whether they told their subordinates they were incompetent, invaded their subordinates’ privacy, or made negative comments about their subordinates to others the day before. At the same time, we asked the bosses how they felt their prior-day behaviors impacted their current moral and social standing. Finally, later that same day, we asked them how they subsequently behaved toward their subordinates throughout the day.We found that when bosses reported having abused their employees, they viewed their social image as being damaged, with this effect being especially pronounced among those who reported at the outset of the study that it was important to them that they appear moral to their employees. In other words, among those bosses who were highly focused on having an image of adhering to a strict moral code, engaging in abusive behaviors, such as ridiculing employees, made them feel more concerned with their social image.
As a result, the offending bosses reported taking multiple steps to repair their social image. Specifically, they reported that they engaged in impression management behaviors, such as doing small favors for employees with the express purpose of getting employees to view them more favorably, while also engaging in self-promoting behaviors like highlighting how hard they work or showcasing past successes. However, these bosses did not admit to engaging in behaviors aimed at genuinely repairing the damage done by the prior-day abuse, such as offering a sincere apology.
Consequently, even though abusive bosses may appear on the surface to be considerate to their victims following one of their abusive episodes, the bosses in our study reported behavior that was instead a superficial attempt at impression management. As a result, toxic bosses were not likely to change their ways, mainly because their focus was on covering up their bad behavior through manipulative ingratiation and self-promotion behaviors, not on actually changing their toxic behaviors.
Stemming the Cycle of Abusive Leadership
In the end, our research offers a word of warning: by giving bosses a pass when they abuse employees but act nice afterwards, organizational leaders and employees end up reinforcing the cycle of mistreatment that pervades so many companies. Unfortunately, it appears from our research and that of others that toxic bosses don’t change as much as we would like them to — instead, the bad behavior tends to continue or, oftentimes, gets worse. Even when abusive bosses may appear genuinely repentant after a tirade, they usually have ulterior, self-interested motives. Our research shows that there is little organizational leaders can do to break the cycle of self-centered, manipulative, and uncivil behaviors, other than implementing zero-tolerance policies for toxic supervisory behavior and consistently adhering to those policies, even when bosses appear to strive to make up for their bad behaviors. Sanctions, rather than forgiveness, are important, especially since past research has indicated that sanctions curtail abusive behavior.That said, a boss’s behavior can never be fully regulated by organizational policy; in the end, whether a boss fails to exhibit common decency and civil behavior to his employees is ultimately up to them. Sincere apologies and reconciliations on the part of the offending boss are the only sustainable way of regaining credibility and moving forward from a lapse in civil behavior. Further, engaging in these surface-level efforts to manipulate employees’ perceptions can be draining for supervisors; as such, acting genuinely is imperative. The best course of action for offending bosses is to be cognizant of their own motives and behaviors in the aftermath of an abusive outburst.
Some have recommended that bosses take time each day to reflect on their motives in order to stay motivated. Indeed, we urge the same type of reflection when it comes to behavioral lapses. If bosses take time each day to honestly appraise their own behavior and motives, and to carefully reflect on the impact of their behavior on their subordinates, they may be able to really make nice instead of fake nice in the wake of a transgression.
https://hbr.org/2021/01/stop-making...utm_content=signinnudge&deliveryName=DM115372
- Reaction score
- 4,109
- Points
- 1,160
The ultimate toxic boss just got his ass handed to him!!
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,646
- Points
- 1,160
Bluebulldog
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 152
- Points
- 680
Once worked for a Director in a Municipal setting, that should never have made it to the C suite.
Undereducated, and suffering from ego, everything that he didn't understand was a challenge, and those that disagreed with him were his enemies.
Routine abuses of power, embezzlement, and fraud were the norm. ( Small community, home town hero type). Whenever he got called out, he acted like a petulant child on a tantrum.
They forced him to retire, and he died two years later.
I can't say I shed too many tears for the guy. His wife and kids, maybe.
Undereducated, and suffering from ego, everything that he didn't understand was a challenge, and those that disagreed with him were his enemies.
Routine abuses of power, embezzlement, and fraud were the norm. ( Small community, home town hero type). Whenever he got called out, he acted like a petulant child on a tantrum.
They forced him to retire, and he died two years later.
I can't say I shed too many tears for the guy. His wife and kids, maybe.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,646
- Points
- 1,160
And sometimes it's not just the staff...
Councillors behaving badly
Is there an epidemic of municipal councillors behaving inappropriately?
In recent years, news stories have told increasing tales of offside behaviour by councillors and heads of council toward municipal staff, fellow councillors, and the public. Offences range from yelling and disrespectful conduct, to demeaning language and sexual harassment.During a recent series of lunch meetings with the Ontario Municipal Administrators’ Association, attendees were polled regarding the extent of the problem. The numbers tell the tale of a problem that has escalated to a critical level: 77 percent of respondents reported harassment and bullying by elected officials, with 76 percent stating that they had personally been at the receiving end of harassment by a member of council. These startling statistics show just how big the issue has become.
Legal Remedies for Harassment by a Council Member
Most, if not all, municipalities have a policy that addresses harassment for its employees. But, what do you do if the offending conduct is at the hands of a member of municipal council?One question that frequently arises is whether councillors can or should be held accountable in the same way as a municipal employee – perhaps being held to an even higher standard, given the principles of integrity and accountability that underlie their elected positions. However, councillors fall outside the employer-employee relationship, which has created difficulties when a councillor’s conduct offends municipal harassment policies. Although many of these policies stipulate that they also apply to councillors, municipalities have, historically, been unable to impose sanctions on councillors for their misconduct.
Councillors behaving badly - Municipal World
Is there an epidemic of municipal councillors behaving inappropriately? In recent years, news stories have told increasing tales of offside behaviour by councillors and heads of council toward municipal staff, fellow councillors, and the public. Offences range from yelling and … [...]
www.municipalworld.com
- Reaction score
- 1,994
- Points
- 1,260
The union brought that up during an arbitration into the dismissal of a co-worker for unprofessional ( non-criminal ) behavior - off duty.
The union told the arbitrator we had an out of control mayor.
Arbitrator said because he was a politician, not an employee, the mayor could not be fired.
To their credit, as a matter of public safety, council removed the mayor's power to govern the city in a state of emergency.
( The firing, and election of the mayor in question, both happened after I retired. )
How Do You Boot a Mayor Who’s Admitted to Smoking Crack?
The Rob Ford scandal, one columnist writes, reveals “everything that’s wrong with Canadian democracy.”
www.theatlantic.com
Why Toronto Can't Fire 'Crack Mayor' Rob Ford
Rob Ford still mayor of Toronto and refuses to step down, but there's not much the city can do to remove him, and Toronto does not allow for recall elections.
www.businessinsider.com
Similar threads
