some of it off none of it was accidental it was all intentional at the time she did it she knew right from wrong and her witness said at the hearing that she was culpable for her conduct so the we had two police officers working for the same police department who violated all orders on the same day it was the same time we were and their boss of the same battle circumstances remember we had one officer was fired one very very close circumstances and one of the supreme court say those two situations were not so viciously similar to offer any kind of meaningful comparison if you have to offer say police departments say w had agreed just facts but i think that's sort of what he said i think what they did was awful words not right and that's the basis for his decision but with respect to our that is thousand and six and the spring of two thousand and seven the issue in this case is whether the marriage or got it right with the penalty it in as we understand th i think it's important to understand the judge kevin i didn't and righteously indignant manner all right away say you're wrong or work i'm setting aside this charge is a penalty i'm three separate occasions he considered the merits were this charge penalty the first time he said you don't have any findings of fact supporting the penalty it doesn't comply with given this creative procedure are substantially then any of the penalties assessed in the eleven cases that were before the american were there just situations not in this case unusual situation i won't get into the detail where it was romantic relationship came to an end without any opportunity closure the third piece of undisputed evidence is that ms robins acknowledged her misbehavior she underwent a criminal interview for i s p investigators she didn't have to do it she was trying dyes and sharing knowledge but she did  it was not one or two officers there were over eleven instances of of serious misconduct conduct involving felonies conduct involving accused to a minor con great we we spoke to the cases mr maggio this site and if one reads the cases there is no case which says in all circumstances and if we were talking about one instance of discipline involving another i asked the officer i think his argument would be better made in this case we're talking about a one of an instance of some let me let me tell you why i believe that is significant here detroit in order to be sustainable past be related to the requirements of the service and if you look at it in first instance it would be the employer that should make the determination as to whether the requirements of the service like discipline and with respect to state police officers the merit work and assessing discipline ha from writing multiple orange tickets eavesdropping criminal assault to a minor and other very serious forms of misconduct and according to my from totally separate incidents and backgrounds i don't i don't think there is one case that says that but i think if you look at the landing us case which has been cited by consul that dealt with one situation in which the court enough the local issue as i see it is whether the requirements of the service weren't just charge for ms robbins and it seems to me that it's difficult to reconcile this charging  what she did but the most serious penalty assessed against any of these eleven other instance was a forty five day suspension out of the state police before the american worker had an opportunity a chosen to elected to explain why this one was was warranted in the form of this charge and her case but not in the others and they never did that the by the director that's true that's true in one of the cases the murder were together assessed for approve the discipline and the other case some of them at least one of those was a settlement right off it was a settlement but if you look at the stipulations your honor they were very clear that it was subject to the approval of the marriage four and under the state police act any discipline which police is probably in the best and michelle instance of determining whether penalty was required by the service and in this case he said it was discharge and all the other cases it was something significantly less than bush so basically is that given the other disciplines either approved by the map work or not and well by the marriage wor breakdown her friends called it a meltdown she really wanted the pot and dr laura diagnosed her to be suffering from severe depression which which she attributed to the demise of her relationship with any opportunity for closure and it was his opinion that anger is a predominant feature of that question that is true that dr low case from the conclusion of a case that a court or of an agency in considering discipline should consider when warranted the the nature of to got it if she suffered from this condition the the reality is that there was no issue in this case involving her use or nonuse of the fire on it almost seems that that's kind of an arbitrary or any excuse for this regarding her her psychiatric condition the second we want to talk about and that is she knew the difference between right and wrong and i don't think that really gets to grips with a psycho therapist and they wanted a two year fuck it takes time and to go therapy and and mrs robin situation there was a significant issue with her and her inability to see closure in her relationship with her former companion and back so sure occurred when they were able to have a face to face meeting in the spring of two thousand and seven after cour testimony indicated that to the extent ms robins did not tell them certain things that impaired their beauty relationship and in her course of treatment from from arbitrary part of it has nothing to do with anything that serves the world fundamentally more fundamentally you get to the same place if you're comparing apples and oranges you're comparing apples and oranges but i can't determine the needs of the service