To your point: I have several times opined to my spouse, “How many of these people were simply doing their job and got pulled into this whole mess as victims of circumstance?”
I believe the vast majority of EMS and LE were doing just that—their jobs. But somehow, they’ve been ensnared in a greater web of deceit woven by a few rogues. Those rogues just happen to be in positions of authority above those just doing their jobs. Further, those authority figures have their own personal relationships within and amongst themselves.
I can’t speculate as to how deep those relationships run, but testimony thus far has allowed us to see the links. Those established links make me believe Trooper Proctor should’ve let the next guy on duty at 7:00 am take this case. Bukhenik testified that Proctor wasn’t even supposed to be on duty when OJO was pronounced. His actions, even at that point, invite scrutiny. Why was he so keen to take this case on when, by all rights, he should be signing off duty after a 12-hour shift? Why wouldn’t he recuse himself, knowing he had personal relationships with the families involved (the same reason Canton PD recused themselves)? I could possibly see Proctor wanting to be involved if he was seeking justice for a fallen officer, but, IIRC, Troopers were responding to what was essentially a “man down.” They didn’t yet know that OJO was LE. So again, why so keen, Trooper Proctor?
I’m from a small town in Vermont, just a few hours north of Canton. And like Canton, our police force regularly relies on Troopers for investigations of this magnitude. Local PD and the Troopers will inevitably have interpersonal relationships within LE circles and with local citizens. I can absolutely understand the reality of that. What I can’t get past is why Proctor didn’t come forward and just say, “Hey, this is a little too close to home for me, so I shouldn’t be involved.” It would’ve been such an easy thing to do.
Bukhenik, his supervisor, seems to be a level-headed guy. He may have backed him on that point by assigning someone else—say, the next Trooper on the duty roster. If that had happened, we might not be where we are today in this trial.
Disregarding evidence shoddily gathered by Canton PD, sadly, most of the tainted (for lack of a better word) “evidence” has Proctor’s name all over it. While I don’t believe there’s a widespread conspiracy involving every person called to testify, I do believe a few bad apples have ruined the bunch by placing those involved in the precarious position of going with the flow to save face for agencies serving the public and protecting the livelihoods of all families of those involved.
Lawyers have parties where to which they invite lawyers, doctors have parties where they invite doctors, politicians have parties, etc. Hence, it is OK to expect from the policemen to have “inner circles.” It is social behavior and there is unreasonable to think that our police is different from all groups/classes. It is human nature if the sister of one policeman marries another one because this is the group she understands.
Hence, I think it is unrealistic to expect that our policemen don’t “form” relationships. Everyone does.
What is realistic: to remind our policemen that they, essentially, serve our cities. Here is where things have changed: if waiters and hairdressers’ tips used to be a “thank you for good service”, now they are expected, never mind the quality of the service. Same with the police, the idea that they serve the society has disappeared, the behavior and level of “in control” showmanship may get incredible. This is what CW is paying for, essentially.
So while on one hand, I do want to ask the policemen how low funds contribute to being overworked or burned out, because I think we have to hear their voices, on the other, I also want to draw the line at the level of “look, the money = the service.” If Proctor during his work time discusses a job-related situation with two random friends and, pay attention, describes - not just a woman, not a professor, but to start with, a taxpaying citizen! - in derogatory terms, then it is “bad quality of service. No tips, no perks.”
However, it is interesting that during this court, the “professionalism” is clearly expected from one side. How should we view Alan Jackson, the famous lawyer, addressing Trooper Bukhenik “Trooper Proctor”? Does his memory fail him? Or, should we get into why he can’t spend the time to learn how to pronounce the witness’s name correctly? Or simply, as long as the client pays, he/she determines the level of professionalism? But we, the viewers, also would like to hear speeches worthy of the Cicero, not TB-level razzle-dazzle. JMO. Otherwise, we’ll stop following the case, it will be one-sided opinion, and one-sides opinions self-implode.
