By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Clark County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant John Rodgers has faced public scrutiny after suggesting in Facebook posts that caller’s voting preference would influence how he responded to emergency calls. Rodgers reportedly stated that he would not help those who supported the Democratic Party and indicated people would need to show proof of who they voted for before he would assist them. Chief Deputy Mike Young said the comments were highly inappropriate and did not represent the Sheriff’s Office’s policy of serving all residents impartially, regardless of their voting preference. Rodgers, who claims not to remember publishing the posts, is reported to be on medication that can cause communication to be ‘out of character’. Rodgers has been given a written reprimand for violating the Sheriff’s Office’s social media policy.
Read the original article here
The Ohio Sheriff’s Lieutenant finds himself in deep trouble after making public social media posts declaring, “I am sorry. If you support the Democratic Party, I will not help you.” This blatant refusal to serve a significant portion of the population is appalling. The notion that a public official, particularly in law enforcement, would prioritize political affiliation over their sworn duty to protect and serve is a direct affront to the very principles that underpin our society. It’s astonishing to think that we are witnessing such a divisive mentality in a position that’s supposed to embody neutrality and fairness.
The posts didn’t stop there; he further stated that individuals would need to provide proof of their voting record before receiving assistance. Imagine being in a crisis situation, desperately needing help, only to be faced with an interrogative about your political beliefs. It’s a jarring reality that speaks volumes about the deteriorating state of public trust in law enforcement. We have always been told that the police are there to protect everyone, regardless of their political stance. Yet here is a lieutenant who openly professes a willingness to leave those who don’t share his views to fend for themselves. It raises serious questions about the integrity and professionalism in our police forces.
This type of behavior is emblematic of a broader problem in law enforcement agencies across the country, where political biases can skew the application of justice. If this individual retains his position, what message does it send to the community? That there are conditions to aid? That political loyalty takes precedence over a duty to protect life? It not only undermines the faith citizens should have in their law enforcement but also places those in critical situations at unimaginable risk.
We also have to consider the absurd defense he’s attempting to employ, stating that medications caused his erratic behavior and memory lapses. The idea that one can hide behind claims of medication issues when it comes to fulfilling the sacred duties of a peace officer is outrageous. If these medications are influencing his judgment to the point where he is unable to carry out his responsibilities, then he shouldn’t be in that role. It’s not just disheartening; it’s a matter of public safety. Law enforcement requires a level of mental acuity and moral responsibility that this lieutenant has seemingly abandoned.
The fact that he is still employed raises serious concerns about the values and standards upheld by the Clark County Sheriff’s Department. It’s no secret that many in law enforcement are held to varying standards, often emerging unscathed from actions that would hurt the average citizen. In light of these events, a thorough reevaluation of who we allow to serve in law enforcement needs to happen. There should be a comprehensive reckoning of accountability, especially when public servants show such blatant disregard for their duties.
The assertion that a police officer, sworn to protect all citizens, would only act on behalf of a faction rather than the entirety of a community is a grim reality to face. It’s not just a reflection of his character but a systemic issue that needs addressing. Elected officials are supposed to serve everyone, not just the ones whose ideology aligns with theirs. The foundation of our democratic society relies on the belief that every individual deserves protection under the law, free from prejudice or bias.
We are living in a time where trust in public institutions is waning, and situations like this only exacerbate the problem. When someone in a position of power chooses to politicize their duties, it significantly erodes the community’s trust, and once that trust is gone, it becomes increasingly difficult to restore. The notion of “to protect and serve” loses all meaning. We should not be viewed as potential adversaries depending on our political affiliations; we should be recognized as citizens deserving of equal treatment and support.
This lieutenant’s statements and attitude are indicative of a troubling trend in public service. The expectation should always remain that those in law enforcement are there to serve the public with honor and integrity, regardless of one’s personal beliefs. If there are no consequences for this behavior, what’s next? Are we going to see more frontline responders making determinations about who is worthy of help based on arbitrary criteria? This is not the world we should accept. It’s time for accountability, and it’s crucial for our communities to demand it. We need to start advocating for a law enforcement system that reflects the diversity and complexity of the communities they serve, one that prioritizes duty over personal bias.