|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 250
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 250 |
I agree with his assessment but to put it on Facebook shows poor judgement. What happens to this guy after posting this if he's reinstated and has to shoot a black kid in self defense next week. No one would want a potential problem like this on their force. Fire him for being a dumb azz.
No, sometimes it's just not ok to say what you think.
The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that it is difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine. - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172 |
I can understand that their job necessitates a good measure of tongue-biting and a posture of neutrality. I can also understand it must be like biting a bitter pill.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4 |
[quote=Zrack656I must respectfully disagree with your statement about him getting his job back. I have dealt first hand with labor law for the past twenty years as a union representative for police officers. The case law on this is very well established and consistent. Courts have decided that police officers can be fired for exercising their first amendment rights.
If the officer has identified them self in any way as an officer on social media then anything they post is subject to department scrutiny and regulations. In essence, if you are an office your Facebook page becomes almost a public statement made as if it were on the departments' web sight. Examples of things officers have been fired for include being in Playboy, criticizing the department, criticizing the entity they work for, endorsing groups like skinheads, commenting on political hot button issues in their area and posting any material which MIGHT reflect poorly on the department.
In short any officer who posts anything even remotely controversial on Facebook or other open sources should not be surprised if they are subject to discipline. I personally have no Facebook page and am very careful about posting opinions here on the fire.
While I am no longer a union member I still advise people where I work to avoid putting any pictures or opinions online that they would not be one hundred percent comfortable talking about in uniform to the media.
-Z Having neither intent nor basis to challenge the veracity of your post, or to judge the actions of that officer, one has to wonder why police in general would stand for such abridgement of their first amendment rights. It seems that the only reason why someone posting on here would call the fired officer "stupid" would be that they are OK with the fact that a particular group of public employees can be denied a basic right - merely due to employment status or nature of job. Please explain what is OK about that. And, as a union member who also represented a police union for 20 years, what did you, and the union, do to correct the wrong? Did you challenge such abridgements? Did the union care enough to put itself on the line to protect that right? If not, what other wants and demands were so important to the union that it was willing to look the other way on such first amendment violations? Every labor union with which I have dealt voiced its purpose as "wages, benefits and conditions of work". Your post may be quite accurate regarding existing conditions, but why do unions allow such "working conditions" to exist? As a union officer I was forced to fight on this issue several times. The deck is stacked heavily against the employee. As I posted above the law is pretty clear cut. In essence the courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of employers.REALLY - IS "LAW" MADE BY COURT RULINGS? I HAVE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT LAW IS MADE BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LEGISLATURES - NOT BY JUDGES. I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR "JUSTICE" SYSTEM HAS BEEN DILUTED AND CORRUPTED BY ATTORNEYS (BY AND LARGE, JUDGES ARE MERELY ATTORNEYS WITH ROBES) TO THE POINT WHERE THEIR CLUB ACCEPTS ACCUMULATED DECISIONS AS "SETTLED LAW" - BUT IN SOME CASES THAT IS JUST ROTTEN. THIS IS ONE OF THEM. The rationale is that your free speech cannot impair the function of the department as a whole or you as an officer. Basically, if the speech makes waves or could make waves with the public that qualifies.A "THUG" IS A THUG. IF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS RUN AS A PR MACHINE, AND THE UNION COOPERATES, BOTH HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH VALUES. Unions all over the country have fought this fight repeatedly and lost. Eventually we, as a Union, made or strategy not fighting whether discipline was warranted but attempting to mitigate the severity. It got to the point where we became happy with short suspensions and ecstatic if it was just a letter. GIVE AN INCH, EVENTUALLY GIVE A MILE. THIS LOOKS LIKE COPPING OUT. I told officers in my union who PUT THEMSELVES in the position to just take their medicine and move on. Any officer who puts themselves in those situations has used extremely poor judgement. The reason we "allow" the situation to continue is an almost complete ability to effect change. Courts decide these cases and the law on the matter is very clear.LAW - REALLY? WHERE FREE SPEECH EQUATES TO A BAD "SITUATION", WE REALLY DON'T NEED POLICE. We also educated our officers about the rules when they were hired and periodically thereafter.EDUCATED - OR INDOCTRINATED? -Z [/quote]
Last edited by CCCC; 08/12/13.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,653
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 14,653 |
I can understand that their job necessitates a good measure of tongue-biting and a posture of neutrality. I can also understand it must be like biting a bitter pill. The week the verdict came out I had a lady from Infowars try to interview me at work about the Zimmerman verdict. When I declined she asked why I didn't have an opinion. I laughed and told her that I have lots of opinions, but that I bury them deep, deep, deep down inside for forty hours every week.
your flippant remarks which you so adeptly sling
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 650
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 650 |
CCCC,
From reading your post it seems you feel the situation was created, or at least tacitly endorsed, by unions. I think I can say with a fair certainty that the vast majority of unions oppose the current situation.
As to case law not being law, that sounds great, but the courts interpret written labor laws, passed by elected officials. That is just the way it works. Unions did not create this situation but have to work within the rules they are given.
As to copping out, how many officers in their twenties supporting there families need to get fired to prove a point? It sounds like you would advocate for the unions to tell officers to speak there mind, knowing they will lose there jobs. I assure you if you can figure out how to reverse the situation you will become a millionaire representing unions.
I admire your passion on behalf of free speech but I can't see giving someone advice that will cost them their livelihood.
-Z
Last edited by Zrack656; 08/12/13. Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,169 Likes: 1
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 50,169 Likes: 1 |
Nothing is free. That includes speech.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4 |
CCCC,
From reading your post it seems you feel the situation was created, or at least tacitly endorsed, by unions. I think I can say with a fair certainty that the vast majority of unions oppose the current situation.
As to case law not being law, that sounds great, but the courts interpret written labor laws, passed by elected officials. That is just the way it works. Unions did not create this situation but have to work within the rules they are given.
As to copping out, how many officers in their twenties supporting there families need to get fired to prove a point? It sounds like you would advocate for the unions to tell officers to speak there mind, knowing they will lose there jobs. I assure you if you can figure out how to reverse the situation you will become a millionaire representing unions.
I admire your passion on behalf of free speech but I can't see giving someone advice that will cost them their livelihood.
-Z Get it straight - I do not give advice to police or police unions and never would I advise anyone to break a rule - even a bad one - that might cost them their livelihood. You have construed my words to that end, which is sleazy and unfair. On the other hand, standing up to such shenanigans and PC cowardliness has cost me quite a bit at times, including one position. Have you ever considered the idea that YOU may have given the union bad advice? Nowhere did I even hint that your union had created or endorsed any such difficulty, so once again you misconstrue - sleazy and unfair. Instead, I asked you what you and the union had done about the bare-faced restriction of individual rights. Many times I have witnessed such unions stage slow-downs, sick-outs, strikes, nasty votes of no-confidence, and a host of more shady actions - but they primarily did it to gain money, personal benefits and bargaining advantages. The right of free speech must not rank so high. My passion for individual rights is not limited to free speech. Your sarcasm is wasted - I have no interest in earning a dime - let alone a million - protecting rights for someone who won't fight hard on his own behalf.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 650
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 650 |
CCCC,
I was not being sarcastic. I have most certainly considered the fact that my advice might have been bad. I have lost sleep and spent hours at home agonizing over these decisions.
I will concede I may have misunderstood your post. I apologize if I offended you.
As to slow downs, blue flu and the like, they would not be effective in these situations. It is actually illegal virtually everywhere and more likely to turn the judge against employees. I have been involved in a vote of no confidence twice and neither time was this issue a part of that. Those really only affect the Chief/upper management and these decisions are often made by THEIR bosses.
-Z
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,567 Likes: 4 |
-Z
No personal offense taken - thanks for your note - no aplogy in order. You would really understand that were you to know me and that which I have encountered and confronted.
After all that, I suppose it must be impossible for me to compromise on certain values and principles.
You are a good guy - sleep well.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,517
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,517 |
another reason why I am NOT on FB.
"wanna hear God laugh? Tell Him you have complete control now!"
|
|
|
|
|
117 members (6mmbrfan, 3333vl, 300_savage, 1_deuce, 673, 16 invisible),
1,916
guests, and
1,121
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,626
Posts18,492,894
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
