1:35pm | I don’t know if Long Beach Fire Capt. John Hines committed the crime of which he is accused — getting behind the wheel of his Chevy truck and drunkenly driving it into a bicyclist, then fleeing the scene instead of attending to the injured rider.

In reading the comments generated by the story as covered by the Long Beach Post, I am struck by two things. One is that there seems to be a general feeling that factors related to his job — the city, the union, etc. — will provide him (again, if he is guilty) with at least some cover or clemency. The other is a comment made by “Paul 3rd District”:

… I can say with complete honesty that the Hines family has probably given more to the community th[a]n you ever will. John has risked his own life countless times to save someone he doesn’t even know. Unless you’re a fire fighter, I doubt you’ll ever understand.

Before I go further, let me say that if Mr. Hines is innocent of the charges against him, obviously he is being grievously wronged by the accusations, legal and otherwise.

But contrary to the way the concept is often bandied about, it is untrue that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. What is correct is that in American jurisprudence the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The actual guilt or innocence of an individual is determined at the moment an alleged crime is committed (or not committed).

If the bicyclist was indeed injured by a driver who then fled the seen, that driver is guilty, and the legal question will be that of proving such guilt in a court of law.

With that said, I find myself disturbed by the implication of the “Paul 3rd District” comment, to wit, that the job and employment history of an individual should somehow factor in to how we deal with whether that person has driven drunk and committed a hit-and-run.

Typically I would advocate justice’s being more or less blind to the wrongdoer and consider only the wrong done. But perhaps there is at least one case where an alleged perpetrator’s profession should be taken into account.

Specifically, I feel that if a firefighter, police officer, etc., commits this sort of crime, perhaps he or she deserves a harsher penalty than would be meted out to an individual not earning a municipal paycheck for, in some way, protecting and serving the community.

And if any such employee union were to lobby for leniency for such a perpetrator, that union would be insulting the spirit of the professional individuals the union is designed to aid.

There is a sacred phrase that appears in some doctors’ oaths: First, do no harm. Why this credo is so seminal to medical practice is self-evident. But it is just as applicable to any vocation whose raison d’être is to in some way help or preserve well-being (individual or communal).

The reason for this applicability is simple: If you’re causing harm, not only are you not fulfilling your duty, but you are also undermining it.

If on top of that you also happen to be a city employee, your harm-causing existence is being financially supported by poor slobs like me, whose tax dollars are paying you a salary so you’ll help us.

Being a firefighter is (to reuse the adjective) a sacred job. We pay you literally to risk your life in order to save ours — or even just our land and property — should the terrible need arise. Anytime, anyplace. You deserve your money (and probably more). You deserve our respect. One of the reasons we live in a metropolitan environment is so we can have services like organized, professional, well-equipped firefighting ready at hand.

But you owe us something. By becoming a firefighter you have implicitly sworn to help us, to defend us, to preserve us. You owe us that because this is the life you’ve chosen. You owe us that because it’s your job.

And so when you cause harm, you betray your community in the deepest way.

Such betrayal should be taken into account. Since your obligation not to cause harm is, by virtue of your profession, even greater than the average citizen’s, so too should the penalty be for such an act of betrayal.

Then there’s the betrayal of your entire profession. Firefighters — most of whom I want/have to believe are people who care enough about the rest of us to not act with wanton disregard for our well-being and safety — should feel this betrayal by one of their own even more strongly than the remainder of our community. And so no firefighter —individually or in union — should support any one of their own who has engaged in such an egregious wrong. Anyone who would drive drunk, hit a bicyclist and then leave that person to suffer or die should be shunned. For a start.

I really don’t know if there is anyone currently employed by the Long Beach Fire Department who is guilty of such crime.

But if so, dude.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Long Beach Post or the official policies of the Long Beach Post.