# Fired for Threeway?



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?ID=80616



> Two Washington County Sheriff&#8217;s deputies caught drinking and having sex at a U.S. Forest campground are now off the county&#8217;s payroll.
> 
> Sheriff Ed Graybeal said Tuesday he dismissed Deputies Chris Adkins and Scarlett Dennison from their positions as patrol officers for the sheriff&#8217;s office because their conduct was unbecoming of officers, which violated the department&#8217;s general orders.
> 
> ...



I'm sort of in a conundrum on this one. Sure, what they did is sort of a PR problem for the department. But is what they were doing in the middle of the night, off-duty (and caught by off-duty's), in a forest really a "fireable" offense? 

And the forest rangers were standing around watching for a while and only did anything when another camper approached and they stopped? That seems interesting.

I wonder what this "campground" was like. Was it in the middle of the woods or was it one of those park your car and camp with all sorts of other people around affairs? 

And what makes this a "post their faces" major news story? Their jobs? Would three accountants have gotten the same treatment? Were these officers "problem children"?

Interesting and sordid incident.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 7, 2010)

The nature of their job calls for very high moral standers. They should have stuck with the donut shop.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2010)

Police officers are not supposed to be breaking the law.  They were charged with crimes, it appears.  In addition, most PD's have a CUBO provision or a 'moral turpitude' provision.  They would have known that.

On the other hand...


----------



## crushing (Sep 7, 2010)

Three-way?  



> The three were charged with possessing alcohol in a prohibited area, public nudity and public intoxication. Adkins had an additional charge of child endangerment because his 2-year-old son was asleep in a tent at the campsite.


 
Doesn't look like three-way was the reason.  Accountants and others probably would have got this plus have to register as sex offenders.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

All true. But why termination vs suspension or other sort of administrative punishment?

Im not really arguing the depts authority to do so. Just interested in opinions on this one.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Police officers are not supposed to be breaking the law. They were charged with crimes, it appears. In addition, most PD's have a CUBO provision or a 'moral turpitude' provision. They would have known that.
> 
> On the other hand...


Toooo much. :rofl:


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

My kids sleep in the house when my wife and I...well...have some more "conventional" recreation than this.

Endangerment?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 7, 2010)

> The event that led to the firings happened on a Friday night when the deputies were off duty. The U.S. Forest Service office and a Carter County deputy, working off-duty with the forest service at the time, came upon Adkins, Dennison and a third person, Jamie Walsh, 32, of Butler, around 11 p.m. July 30 at Cardens Bluff Campground.


 
Sounds like a foursome to me.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

LOL. Caught em "single handedly".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2010)

seasoned said:


> Toooo much. :rofl:



If you've never seen the movie 'Super Troopers', it's a classic.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Sounds like a foursome to me.



In the Marine Corps, they were known as a cluster #*@&.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

Let's get back on topic _meow_!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> LOL. Caught em "single handedly".



Anybody else notice was reported in _"Johnson City?"_  It almost had to happen.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 7, 2010)

> No one has been able to say how long U.S. Forest Service Officer Scott  Cairnes and Deputy Derek Hamm stood watching the trio, but in Cairnes&#8217;  report he wrote that he saw Dennison and Adkins engage in *three sex acts*  and then Adkins and Walsh began to fondle Dennison.



So, either these guys are quick on the draw and reload, or else the Forest Service was there a loooong time.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

was that divided by 3...or would there be a specific equation?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 7, 2010)

I've never liked these morality clauses as a condition for employment.  Not for teachers, and not for cops either.  It shouldn't be your employer's business what you do in your spare time, even if that employer is the public.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I've never liked these morality clauses as a condition for employment.  Not for teachers, and not for cops either.  It shouldn't be your employer's business what you do in your spare time, even if that employer is the public.



It's the way of things. I don't mind that they exist, and signing is of course voluntary (don't want to sign, don't work there).  I wish we had them for elected officials.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 7, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's the way of things. I don't mind that they exist, and signing is of course voluntary (don't want to sign, don't work there).  I wish we had them for elected officials.



I understand that, and of course they are voluntary.  Assuming that every employer won't eventually demand one.  I just don't agree with it.  In my experience, public adherence to an arbitrary set of social norms we call "morality" is a very poor predictor of job performance.  Now, if you want to go to the realm of true harm and true crime where people actually get hurt, then I agree.  I just don't think that sleeping with other consenting adults (or drinking or going to strip clubs or whatever) in a non-socially acceptable manner means anything for how you perform your job.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?ID=80616
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The "off duty" who caught them was working a paid/contracted off duty detail, it sounds like.  That said... I've got a serious question here, based on this:


> According to the federal citations charging the three, the forest  ranger saw the three at a camp site drinking alcohol in the open and  then engaging in sex.
> No one has been able to say how long U.S. Forest Service Officer  Scott Cairnes and Deputy Derek Hamm stood watching the trio, but in  Cairnes report he wrote that he saw Dennison and Adkins engage in three  sex acts and then Adkins and Walsh began to fondle Dennison.
> Cairnes and Hamm made their presence known after the campers were  startled by a camper at another site closing a truck door and the three  stopped what they were doing.



How long were they watching?  They saw the trio engage in "three sex acts" -- depending on what that means, we're talking watching for more than just a few minutes.  They only took action when someone disturbed them...  

OK, I'm going to figure it's an open secret that cops working midnights, especially with secluded areas to patrol, come across people doing things that one might ordinarily feel should be confined to the privacy of one's bedroom.  I'll even grant that not every cop that comes across this sort of thing necessarily interrupts right away.  Why, some may even wait for a telling moment to approach...  But you make yourself look kind of bad when you then tag the couple/trio/whatever for it after waiting.

According to the article, they were charged with "possessing alcohol in a prohibited area, public nudity, and public intoxication."  One was also charged with child endangerment because his 2 year old was in a nearby tent, alone.  I suspect the real problem here was the intoxication...  I'm wouldn't be at all surprised if the conduct of the fired deputies created a situation forcing the working LEOs hands.  (Of course, their reaction when suddenly confronted, while in a state of undress, might be somewhat justified...)

This is a classic conduct unbecoming charge -- though it wouldn't regularly lead to termination without there being more to the story.  And, no it probably wouldn't be news if it was accountants or janitors.  I don't know what their job history is like, nor do I know what anything else covered in any internal investigation might have included (were they cheating on spouses, for example?).  LEOs are held to a higher standard -- but, from what I've seen, this would be more likely to lead to things like days off, or demotions... unless there were other factors that made it more problematic.  I don't know if sheriff is an elected office there, though, and that definitely could effect the actions taken.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

Im with your step for step there JKS. I really wonder just how "public" this area was? That really changes the equation. If this was a "KOA" sort of camp that would be different than if it was somewhere in the deep woods IMO.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Im with your step for step there JKS. I really wonder just how "public" this area was? That really changes the equation. If this was a "KOA" sort of camp that would be different than if it was somewhere in the deep woods IMO.


Well... they were close enough to be disturbed when someone closed a car door nearby.  I just did some hunting; Cardens Bluff Campground is in the Cherokee National Forest, and it sounds like it's a pretty typical tent campground.  Based on the map I found here, the sites aren't completely secluded, but at the same time -- let's be real.  It was late at night.  And the prohibition on alcohol at those campgrounds isn't exactly heavily observed...  So, I kind of have to assume that there was something more to the story, that's not getting out.

Granted, you got deputies in a threesome.  That is sort of news, especially on a slow day.  And maybe the writer had an issue with the department; he certainly seems to make a big deal over a handful of firings over a couple of years.  Most fair sized departments end up with a few over the course of a couple of years...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I understand that, and of course they are voluntary.  Assuming that every employer won't eventually demand one.  I just don't agree with it.  In my experience, public adherence to an arbitrary set of social norms we call "morality" is a very poor predictor of job performance.  Now, if you want to go to the realm of true harm and true crime where people actually get hurt, then I agree.  I just don't think that sleeping with other consenting adults (or drinking or going to strip clubs or whatever) in a non-socially acceptable manner means anything for how you perform your job.



*I agree.*  However, society is still the great arbiter of what is *'decent'* and what is not, regardless of how unrealistic their demands or how little individual adhere to those ideals themselves *televangelist* *cough*  *Falwell* *Clinton* *cough*.  Most departments not only forbid impropriety but also the appearance of it.  It's 19th century stuff, but it's unlikely to go away anytime soon.  If you take the king's gold, you're the king's man.  That means you kowtow to the rules, no matter how arcane.


----------



## David43515 (Sep 8, 2010)

I`ve got to agree with Bill on this one. When you work with the public you are the recognizable face of the dept. You can`t ever really be off the job because people assume you _are _the job. Even if you`re doing nothing wrong, you can`t risk the appearance of doing something wrong. 

It sucks. Believe me, I know. I`m a small town school teacher now, and I was a missionary 20 years ago. Everywhere I go and everything I do has to be considered through that light. One of the reasons I have this job now is because  the guy before me used to relax after school with a few beers on his porch......right in front of the main school bus stop. The teachers here like to drink. We have organized parties with the PTA nad the BOE with open bars......but you don`t drink where the kids can see.

The only thing in this story I`d have to question is the child endangerment charge. If having a few drinks and having sex while your kid is asleep nearby is a crime, I`m willing to bet that most people in the US are crimminals.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 8, 2010)

David43515 said:


> I`ve got to agree with Bill on this one. When you work with the public you are the recognizable face of the dept. You can`t ever really be off the job because people assume you _are _the job. Even if you`re doing nothing wrong, you can`t risk the appearance of doing something wrong.
> 
> It sucks. Believe me, I know. I`m a small town school teacher now, and I was a missionary 20 years ago. Everywhere I go and everything I do has to be considered through that light. One of the reasons I have this job now is because the guy before me used to relax after school with a few beers on his porch......right in front of the main school bus stop. The teachers here like to drink. We have organized parties with the PTA nad the BOE with open bars......but you don`t drink where the kids can see.
> 
> The only thing in this story I`d have to question is the child endangerment charge. If having a few drinks and having sex while your kid is asleep nearby is a crime, I`m willing to bet that most people in the US are crimminals.


 
My only complaint with police department's "Code of Conduct" is that they have you sign it, then they never talk about it or actually review it like other polices and they never enforce anything out of it until it goes public and then they use that to justify termination.  It should be called the,  "If you embarass us, we will fire you" clause.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 8, 2010)

If I was the park management, I think I would be having some serious conversations with their park rangers.  To me, this sounds like nothing was going to be done about it, the park rangers sat and watched for awhile enjoying the show.  Then suddenly THEY get caught watching and that person probably made a big deal about it and then they jump into action acting all offeneded to in an attempt to get themselves out of trouble for not doing anything.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> My only complaint with police department's "Code of Conduct" is that they have you sign it, then they never talk about it or actually review it like other polices and they never enforce anything out of it until it goes public and then they use that to justify termination.  It should be called the,  *"If you embarass us, we will fire you"* clause.



Well, there you go.  Don't do that, and you probably won't get fired.

Seriously, police work is a thankless job in a number of ways - most cops know that.  It's unfair; cops are under a microscope, their every decision second-guessed by civilian elected leaders and criticized by press, public, and in some cases, DA's, judges, and juries.

I know it sucks. It is not the only reason that I am no longer in law enforcement, but it's one of the smaller reasons.  I sympathize, but these are the rules of the game.  Life sucks, wear a helmet.


----------



## MJS (Sep 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?ID=80616
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I have to laugh, because I've read stories of worse things, and those people still have their jobs.  Go figure. LOL.  Anyways...fired?  Sounds a bit extreme IMO, but thats just me.  Unless there's more to the story, you'd think this would be nothing more than a susp. w/o pay for a week or so.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, there you go. Don't do that, and you probably won't get fired.
> 
> Seriously, police work is a thankless job in a number of ways - most cops know that. It's unfair; cops are under a microscope, their every decision second-guessed by civilian elected leaders and criticized by press, public, and in some cases, DA's, judges, and juries.
> 
> I know it sucks. It is not the only reason that I am no longer in law enforcement, but it's one of the smaller reasons. I sympathize, but these are the rules of the game. Life sucks, wear a helmet.


 
For the most part, I agree with your first statement of not doing it in the first place.  I should have been more specific.  I have seen people disciplined for percieved actions that weren't wrong, but the department felt were embarassing and used it as a catch all.


----------



## crushing (Sep 8, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> *If I was the park management, I think I would be having some serious conversations with their park rangers.* To me, this sounds like nothing was going to be done about it, the park rangers sat and watched for awhile enjoying the show. Then suddenly THEY get caught watching and that person probably made a big deal about it and then they jump into action acting all offeneded to in an attempt to get themselves out of trouble for not doing anything.


 
Yes, the park rangers probably don't even know about the "get out of jail free card" program.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 8, 2010)

I concur with a lot of what others have said above.  

My honest opinion is that I can't believe that they got fired for what has been reported. It might be 'conduct unbecoming' but the last time I looked, police officers were still men and women, with the normal capacity to indulge in inappropriate liaisons.

What they did wasn't 'illegal enough' to warrant dismissal in my book.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2010)

What I see often in Law Enforcement is the "FIRE HIM!!!!" phenomena. 

In this job, almost any officer indiscretion is shortly followed with FIRE HIM! FIRE HIM! FIRE HIM! chants by the torch and pitchfork carrying mob. If the officer is given a suspension and retained all the "thin blue line"..."protecting their own"..."cops can get away with anything" ditty's get trotted out.


----------



## K-man (Sep 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> was that divided by 3...or would there be a specific equation?


 Sounds like an 'ímproper' fraction to me!  :rofl:


----------



## Carol (Sep 8, 2010)

punisher73 said:


> If I was the park management, I think I would be having some serious conversations with their park rangers.  To me, this sounds like nothing was going to be done about it, the park rangers sat and watched for awhile enjoying the show.  Then suddenly THEY get caught watching and that person probably made a big deal about it and then they jump into action acting all offeneded to in an attempt to get themselves out of trouble for not doing anything.



This is how it reads to me as well.   At least in my own experience as a hiker, the park rangers tend to not get involved for minor infractions...they focus on the more serious matters such as illegal campsites, illegal fires, or hikers in trouble.  Granted, I've never been on their bad side.  

I especially don't get the child endangerment one.  I've seen families take small kids on a trail with little or no food or water with them...IMO this potentially endangers a child more than a child sleeping while one of the parents has some adult fun nearby.


----------



## sgerhardt45 (Sep 8, 2010)

This thread made my day


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2010)

seasoned said:


> The nature of their job calls for very high moral standers. They should have stuck with the donut shop.



LOL!  Glazed donuts...


----------

