In City of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission (Carter), 895 A.2d 87 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 589 Pa. 732, 909 A.2d 306 (2006), the Commission concluded that the City had erred in dismissing an employee of a city youth detention center for his convictions for driving under the influence of a controlled substance and carrying a loaded firearm, based upon its conclusion that those convictions did not constitute just cause. The trial court affirmed the decision, but we reversed on appeal. The Court proceeded in Carter to summarize the factors to consider when just cause is an issue, stating as follows: In deciding whether a public employer has established just cause for dismissing a civil service employee, this Court has identified a number of factors relevant to this determination. First, the nature of the job is an important consideration; an employee in a 'sensitive position' may be subject to dismissal if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety whereas an employee in a non-sensitive position may not. Stone v. State Correctional Institution at Graterford, 55 Pa. Commw. 188, 422 A.2d 1227, 1228 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (holding that a corrections officer was in a 'highly sensitive' position). A second relevant factor is whether the conduct in question demonstrates a lack of judgment that erodes confidence in an employee's character. Commonwealth, Office of Attorney General v. Colbert, 142 Pa. Commw. 657, 598 A.2d 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (holding that dismissal for arrest on 40 unpaid parking tickets constituted just cause). A third factor concerns safety. An employee whose job it is to protect the safety of others is expected to behave in a manner consistent with this goal even while off duty. Doerr v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 88 Pa. Commw. 610, 491 A.2d 299, 303 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (loss of service revolver by Liquor Control Board officer in the course of off-duty altercation constituted just cause for dismissal). Further, in considering the conduct of law enforcement officers, extenuating circumstances will not excuse the off-duty dangerous conduct. Feliciano v. Borough of Norristown, 758 A.2d 295, 297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (officer's concern that children were exposed to drugs at estranged wife's house did not excuse his driving wrong way up a one-way street with service weapon and nearly hitting a child). Carter, 895 A.2d at 92-3. The first factor indicated in Carter concerns the nature of an employee's job.