Posts
Mike Wooten, the 36 year old trooper who has admitted to bad judgement in the past, seems to fly under the radar whenever troopergate is mentioned these days. Mike Wooten has already been married and divorced four times by the age of 36 while also fathering 3 children. Mr. Wooten apparently drinks excessively and in a moment of admittedly bad judgement, tasered his 10 year old son (at the mildest setting) because his son wanted to know what it felt like to be tasered.
Isn't it ironic that politicians get labeled as being fence sitting, indecisive, spineless "which way is the wind blowing" enablers, who, when they try and be assertive, can easily be charged with abuse of power?
Do state troopers get paid well enough to afford Mr. Wooten to continue his current lifestyle that includes 4 divorces, drinking issues, and possibly other issues that are still unknown to the public? If the job of State Trooper pays well enough to allow for unethical behavior by Mr. Wooten to continue, that is reason enough to terminate Mr. Wooten as we don't need this type of behavior linked to the operation of any vehicle.
Does it make sense to allow Mr. Wooten to keep a job that relies on driving, if he drinks excessively? If drinking prior to work excessively impairs Mr. Wooten's judgement skills, should he still be a state trooper?
By choosing not to terminate Mr. Wooten, the since fired Commissoner Walt Monegan made a decision that not being intimidated by a politician meant more to him than the reality of the situation; that Mr. Wooten actually posed future financial threat to the state of Alaska because of his past behavior. Mr. Wooten's case history is a rich lawsuit waiting to happen should he ever be found guilty of behavior that injures another while on duty.
Let us not forget that Sarah Palin was found to have not broken any laws in trying to get Mr. Wooten removed from his job.
I respect Mr. Monegan not wanting to be told what to do, and I also respect Sarah Palin for trying to remove a state trooper from a position that could easily have cost the state of Alaska millions of dollars the next time Mike Wooten made a repeat "mistake", such as being inebriated while on duty, all it takes is for this behavior to cause an injury and the state of Alaska could be opening its wallet up big time.
Mr. Wooten remains a walking time bomb of liability to the state of Alaska and it appears to be a fiscally responsible move to have wanted him terminated. I guess it's ok to take action AFTER a train wreck kills 25 people in Southern California because of text messaging, but it's wrong to try and PREVENT similar misguided situations like letting someone uphold the law while inebriated?
I'm starting to understand how states go over budget, they are responsible for the actions of their own employees but they have very little lee way in removing them from their jobs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree with this. It's the cronyism that shields people from the consequences of their actions. This trooper also had repeatedly threatened to murder his father-in-law.
The fact that this guy still has a badge and a gun is the real crime.
It's amazing to see the double standard. Usually the far left likes to get cops fired.
"Let us not forget that Sarah Palin was found to have not broken any laws in trying to get Mr. Wooten removed from his job."
Actually you are incorrect and you should read the report yourself. Governor Palin did not break any "criminal" laws, but she WAS found to have broken Alaska state ethics laws.
Breaking ethics law results in civil penalties, not criminal ones, and no doubt this is going to be something she ends up in court over unless she decided to opt for a settlement.
Make sure to do your research!
Lets also make sure we don't fall into the trap of forgetting what the original actions were that led up to this situation.
Mike Wooten is a prosecuting attorney's worst nightmare if Mr. Wooten were one of the expert witnesses in a case.
If in a couple of years we find out that prosecuting attorneys in Alaska did not want to go to court over any case that involved Mike Wooten as a key state witness specifically because of his own behavior issues, what will the excuse be then?
It looks like there is cause for trying to get Mr. Wooten removed from his job, and that is the key issue in this situation.
The more bad publicity that Sarah Palin receives, the more publicity that Mr. Wooten should receive. Then it is up to the media and the agenda seekers to decide how far they want to go to try and ruin two careers.
This can never just be about Sarah Palin, that is the entire point of this article.
You are by far the most illogical writer I have read lately. You are saying that he should be fired because of a hypothetical case that may happen in the future?
Wooten is not running for VP, Palin is. See, she is the one that needs to be vetted, not him. We are interested in PALIN'S behavior. Lots of bad people may surround her if she became VP, and it's how she handles herself that is the issue.
And this will always be about Palin, as long as she is asking us to vote for her for VP. Comes with the territory.
Mark
No Mark, that is not what I am saying. I am saying Mr. Wooten IS a liability waiting to happen. His expert testimony in any case that needs him to testify is already tainted.
The longer he stays employed, the more cases get tainted. If I was a lawyer and Mr. Wooten had previously testified against my client and it influenced the case, I would be asking the case be reopened.
"....most illogical writer ever", hmmm, I wonder if that would boost my resume if I used that quote...?
Sarah Palin Exonerated, just as I predicted.
Post a Comment