Difficult Civil Rights Question
[SIZE=2] State fights to fire trooper tied to Klan[/SIZE]
This brings up interesting questions about rights as a citizen and rights as a public servant. Everyone knows that gays can be barred from the military (and until recently the FBI) and that the code of conduct restricts other rights while in uniform.
Are police in the same position? Can an officer be held to a different standard of conduct as a civilian? Considering the a police officer has power to arrest, detain, and even assault citizens, can an officers off-duty interests be used as a reason to fire them or not hire them?
Would the same be true of a public official. If someone was hired as a government employee and this became known, could/should they be fired?
It sounds like this guy was dealing with his frustrations over his personal life and made a bad decision. It's hard to judge whether his apology was sincere. The question is whether this disqualifies him for the rest of his life.
OMAHA, Nebraska (AP) -- Robert Henderson was not fired as a state trooper because he belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and another white supremacist group, authorities said.
Instead, he was ousted because he could not uphold public trust while participating in such groups, they said.
An arbitrator disagreed, ordering the State Patrol to reinstate Henderson within 60 days and pay him back wages. The state went to court Friday to keep him off the force.
He said Henderson was entitled to his First Amendment rights of free speech and that the state violated the troopers' contract, in part when it fired Henderson "because of his association with the Knights Party ... and the Ku Klux Klan."
According to a copy of Caffera's ruling, Henderson was interviewed by a patrol captain in February. He confirmed he had been a member of the Knights Party since June 2004 and made postings on its members-only Web site while off-duty.
Henderson also said he had joined the KKK, according to the arbitrator's report. He did so, he said, for two reasons: His wife had "divorced him for a minority" and the KKK gave him an avenue to vent his frustration.
Valentino said Henderson has resigned his Knights Party membership and apologized to the State Patrol commander, Col. Bryan Tuma. The attorney also said Bruning and Tuma blew Henderson's membership and activities out of proportion.
"Bob Henderson wasn't running around in a sheet and hood," he said.
Besides, Valentino said, "State employees have a right to think in private what they think."
Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.
"There were no concerns whatsoever that he was engaged in any profiling or any biased treatment of any minority," he said.
Nonetheless, Bruning said, "This trooper can join the KKK, but he can't remain a trooper while he is a member."
I voted to reinstate him if he stays out of the Klan and, subsequently, keeps his nose clean (not discriminating against whoever he is pissed at on the job or off) and has counseling. He did a stupid thing but everyone deserves a chance to turn it around.
I'd say his membership of that organisation shows that he views the citizens he is supposed to protect differently depending upon their racial heritage. He isn't just a member of one white supremacist organisation, but two. That suggests a belief system rather than an isolated act of stupidity.
The fact that he claims his membership of these groups was based solely on the fact that his wife left him for a member of a minority is indicative of his inability to differentiate between a personal hurt and a political stance. I'd have had more sympathy had he gone loco on the guy for whom his wife left him. I wouldn't trust a man, who could feel anger at an entire demographic because one of them 'stole' his wife, to uphold the law in a fair and unbiased way.
If you serve the public, you should serve all of them. By joining two groups avowed to the supremacy of the 'white race', he has in my opinion made himself unfit to serve as an arm of the law which affects all the races who live under it.
DanaC eloquently put my feelings on the subject into words.
Nothing I can add to DanaC's post. I agree 100%.
Erm...the poll is worded a bit oddly. "No matter what he does off-duty" is a bit extreme, donchathink? That would include baby raping. But exactly how do we justify firing a cop for his political beliefs? This "he can join the Klan but he can't stay a cop if he does" begs the question of exactly what the justification for firing him actually is. It really means "He can do anything he wants but we can fire him if we don't like his beliefs".
For example, try "He can be gay if he wants, but he can't be a cop if he is."
Where's the ACLU? They will defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, but not the rights of a Klan member to be a cop?
Just for the record, the Klan is anathema to me, and so are the Nazis. But somebody needs to explain to me why this guy can't be a cop, The instant he violates somebody's civil rights he should be out on his ass, and prosecuted to boot, but I didn't know we had a thoughtcrime statute on the books. This man's job is enforcing the law, not enforcing political correctness. That's also the job of his superiors, but they seem to have forgotten that.
But somebody needs to explain to me why this guy can't be a cop, The instant he violates somebody's civil rights he should be out on his ass, and prosecuted to boot, but I didn't know we had a thoughtcrime statute on the books.
He can't be a cop anymore because he automatically puts every other white male cop in increased danger. If the public knows a KKK member can be a cop, minority criminals are more likely to assume the worst and shoot/stab/take hostages when they might otherwise have cooperated.
I guess I'm just a lefty liberal. I don't think we can judge all white supremists on the actions of a few. I mean, just because white supremists call for the eradication of one whole race, dedicated to 'wiping them off the map', etc. is any reason to judge them all harshly.
;)
What if it was a black officer who had joined the
Nation of Islam. Same answer?
What if it was a black officer who had joined the Nation of Islam. Same answer?
Oh, no. Not same answer. That would be the black officers RIGHT.
I'm being bitchy, I know, but I have been wondering what the feelings are for the rights of neo-Nazi's and Klanners since we're all so OK with militant Muslim's calling for blood and beheadings.
I wouldn't say it's a reason generally for someone to lose their job. What they do in their own time is their own affair......but not when the job in question involves them looking to the wellbeing of the public. Policemen, Judges, Public officials. These are people who have to stand above our differences and be there for all citizens, regardless of our colour, religion or race.
It would be impossible to ascertain for sure whether his views had resulted in his being less effective/ even-handed in the carrying out of his duties. After all, how could we quantify how many white people he was less eager to arrest rather than give a warning as compared to the number of black men he arrested rather than considering a less serious response. These are very difficult to measure in anything smaller than largescale trends.
Other people who serve the public: Doctors, nurses, lab techs, mental health techs, firemen and women, parking meter enforcement, tour guides... All these people have the right to be Klanners or neo-nazi's.
What they do in their own time is their own affair......but not when the job in question involves them looking to the wellbeing of the public. Policemen, Judges, Public officials.
So, you wouldn't have allowed
David Duke to run for public office? Would you have a list of forbidden political parties or beliefs, or simply let higher officials discriminate based on their own judgement?
You're in quicksand here...I recommend not struggling.
I would have severe misgivings about a policeman who had joined any political group which espoused a lack of rights for any demographic within the community they were supposed to police.
Do the Nation of Islam espouse the violent removal of, or aggressive countering of particular groups within America?
If they argue merely that the Black man should live separately that is different to arguing for the violent removal/destruction of the white race. If the KKK was arguing merely for separation between the races on an equal footing, then I wouldn't like em much but I wouldn't consider them as dangerous.
I don't really know much about the Nation of Islam. Other than that it was historically a militant response to the lack of civil rights of black people in America at that time.
Can't stop people running for election. If people want to vote in someone with foul and dangerous views, that's their prerogative.
I'm talking about unelected people who have the right to sit in judgement of or enforce the law under which all groups have to live.
Actually, I just realised....Judges are elected over there are they?
If so that's a different matter. I would hope that a white supremacist woldn't be voted into any kind of public office but that's the publics' right if they want to.
Unelected and therefore imposed is a different matter altogether.
I'm being bitchy, I know, but I have been wondering what the feelings are for the rights of neo-Nazi's and Klanners since we're all so OK with militant Muslim's calling for blood and beheadings.
I really would think that any policeman who avocated beheadings would be in a very tenuous position vis a vis his job:P
Erm...the poll is worded a bit oddly. "No matter what he does off-duty" is a bit extreme, donchathink? That would include baby raping. But exactly how do we justify firing a cop for his political beliefs? This "he can join the Klan but he can't stay a cop if he does" begs the question of exactly what the justification for firing him actually is. It really means "He can do anything he wants but we can fire him if we don't like his beliefs".
For example, try "He can be gay if he wants, but he can't be a cop if he is."
Where's the ACLU? They will defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, but not the rights of a Klan member to be a cop?
Just for the record, the Klan is anathema to me, and so are the Nazis. But somebody needs to explain to me why this guy can't be a cop, The instant he violates somebody's civil rights he should be out on his ass, and prosecuted to boot, but I didn't know we had a thoughtcrime statute on the books. This man's job is enforcing the law, not enforcing political correctness. That's also the job of his superiors, but they seem to have forgotten that.
I really, really, really, hate to say this, but I [SIZE="1"]agree[/SIZE] with [SIZE="1"]Maggie[/SIZE]. Ssshhhhh. And I don't feel the need to add anything or qualify anything she wrote. :eek:
Actually, I just realised....Judges are elected over there are they?
Some judgeships are elective office here.
I just don't think you can summarily fire someone from a government job because of what they beleive. Again...would you make a list of forbidden parties? Or just forbidden beliefs? Or let the supervising official make individual judgements? Because that sounds like what you're saying.
I guess I really shouldn't be surprised given how you expected speech you considered racist to be policed here on the Cellar. But I am.
What if it was a black officer who had joined the Nation of Islam. Same answer?
Absolutely.
An officer has no place in those kinds of organizations.
The reason, they take an oath to the organization above all governments... that is why.
If it was just a racist ideal, I would not like it, but would support their right to free speech and to keep their job.
Just because someone is racist does not mean they will act on it. Objectivity is the soul of the law.
I guess I really shouldn't be surprised given how you expected speech you considered racist to be policed here on the Cellar. But I am.
I never considered it should be policed. I just expressed surprise and disgust when I found racism amongst people I respect. That then led to a debate on language and racism. At no point did I think some moderator should have policed that debate or the original word that sparked it. There's a difference between my expressing surprise and arguing vehemently against the use of a particular word ....and my thinking you don't have the right to use that word or that the cellar shold be in someway policing that.
It was a debate. That's the whole point about free speech isn't it?
I agree with rkzenrage. Having been off and googled some information on Nation of Islam. I'd be very uncomfortable about an Officer being a member of that group.
Everyone has the right to use any word they like. That is the whole point of free speech.
Yes they do. And everyone has the right to object to a word if they find it offensive. I guarantee if I started a thread about 'niggers' someone would object to my using that word.
I would say that it is objectionable, but would have no issue with the fact that you used it.
I have an issue with the fact that the Cellar is so wimpy about this issue.
I saw a word which is used as a racist taunt in England and launched straight into a debate on racism. I was surprised to find a racist slur used by someone who had never struck me as racist and posted that. Does that mean i don't think she had the right to use that word? No. I found it objectionable and posted as such. As it turned out, that word does not carry the same connotations over there as it does here. But I think most brits who saw it did a doubletake. I had as much right to express my disgust at seeing that term used as the person who used it did in posting it.
Words have power. Freedom of speech does not negate that. There is a difference between legislating against words....and objecting on a personal level to particular usages.
"Sorry, Constable, you'll have to turn in your badge. We've discovered you're a belever in Islam, and we're afraid you'll start doing your job according to Sharia law. "
LoL
Good point. But
"Sorry officer, you'll have to turn in your badge, we've discovered you are a signed up member of a group advocating the overthrow of the elected government" might wash.
I'd be very uncomfortable about an Officer being a member of that group.
It's a good thing public jobs here aren't awarded or kept on the basis of the "comfort" of individuals. Criteria have to be objective.
True enough. But aren't there laws ( or contractual rules)in place about this sort of thing? If there aren't then they had no right to deprive him of his job. If there are then he made a decision in full knowledge that he was putting himself into an untenable position.
LoL
Good point. But
"Sorry officer, you'll have to turn in your badge, we've discovered you are a signed up member of a group advocating the overthrow of the elected government" might wash.
Well, you can laugh if you like, but the analogy is on point. And it's not a joke.
I agree that advocating the overthrow of the goverment is over the line; it would be illegal to do so. and that was the reasoning behind forbidding Communists in government jobs.
What about advocating the execution of homosexuals?
True enough. But aren't there laws ( or contractual rules)in place about this sort of thing?
If there were, I would have thought they'd have been cited.
That's why I prodded you about thoughtcrime laws. How would you write such a law? As a councillor, don't you have a legislative role? Here, the governing body of a municipality or county can pass ordinances.
Unless the person in queston is not going to have either power over or a duty to homosexual members of society then I would say that also makes it an untenable position. That's my own view. That wouldnt cover all members of Islam, because not all of them believe that in the same way that not all Christians believe homosexuality to be a mortal sin. However, if the person in question signed up to a political group whose express purpose was to eradicate homosexuals from the country then I would say they had no place in the policing of them.
That's why I prodded you about thoughtcrime laws. How would you write such a law? As a councillor, don't you have a legislative role? Here, the governing body of a municipality or county can pass ordinances
I wold think it to be more of a matter for the Police themselves rather than legislation at a state level. For instance, our police force have ruled that it is not acceptable for a member of the force to also be a member of the far right party BNP. This ban was decided in consultation with Civil service unions and the Home Office, but ultimately taken by the Association of Chief Constables. It was thouht that this may need legislation to back it up, but the basic ruling was that being a member of BNP breached the existing rules on diversity.
I think it all boils down to one question.
Is the employee doing the job as required?
If not, fire them. If so, don't fire them. Doesn't matter what they do in their private time.
It gets sticky when you consider what a police officer's job is. Clodfobble has a good point that the cop endangers all fellow cops by being in KKK. On that point alone, he isn't doing his job. Fire him.
Glatt you make a good point. There are aspects of membership of that particular group which by definition affect the ability of that cop to do his job.
So it is ok (in the name of civil rights) to allow the same person whose duty it is to protect and serve every citizen, to investigate crimes and to keep the peace, to ALSO be a member of a group advocating violence and whose primary goal is to oppress an entire race (or races) through terrorism, intimidation and hatred? How can one not see a conflict so great as to totally impede the proper fulfillment of one's duty to their badge? The two masters are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.
Stormie
The two masters are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable
Beautifully put!
Glatt you make a good point. There are aspects of membership of that particular group which by definition affect the ability of that cop to do his job.
That's a pretty sweeping pronouncement. I don't expect to see it stand up in court here.
It may give you a warm fuzzy to feel like you're striking a blow against racism, but your method is on extremely shaky ground.
So it is ok (in the name of civil rights) to allow the same person whose duty it is to protect and serve every citizen, to investigate crimes and to keep the peace, to ALSO be a member of a group advocating violence...
I think you'll find modern Klan organizations have been
extremely careful not to get caught openly advocating violence.
They may be racists, but they're not completely stupid.
Clodfobble has a good point that the cop endangers all fellow cops by being in KKK. On that point alone, he isn't doing his job. Fire him.
I thought that post was a joke. Wasn't it?
I wold think it to be more of a matter for the Police themselves rather than legislation at a state level.
The police can't simply do anything they feel like. They are ruled by the law and by their own regulations. If you want to fire a cop, it has to be based on a law or a regulation.
How would you write such a law or regulation? Bear in mind that here it must pass scrutiny for constitutionality. Also bear in mind that racism is not illegal. Racial discrimination, however, is.
The truth is that this is a very difficult and thorny issue. There is the question of the policeman's right to hold a particular view. There is the issue of the citizen's right to be defended/policed fairly regardless of their colour or race.
We recently had to deal with that issue here, when an undercover reporter joined up as a trainee in the police and secretly filmed police officers openly espousing racist views and advocating to the trainees the use of violence when dealing with blacks and asians. It was discovered during the investigation which followed that several police officers were active members of the BNP. Some of the officers in question were caught on film laughing about the fact that they had kicked the crap out of an asian man in their custody and telling the young 'trainee' the best ways to get away with such violence.
The problem with the BNP is that like the KKK they also try to be careful now about openly advocating violence. In the privacy of their meetings and ralllies however that is not the case.
The truth is that this is a very difficult and thorny issue. There is the question of the policeman's right to hold a particular view. There is the issue of the citizen's right to be defended/policed fairly regardless of their colour or race.
And that is the reason there's a bright line between
beliefs and
behavior. You can't fire a cop for what he believes. And that's the crux of the case in question.
Becoming a member of the KKK was a shift from belief to behaviour. What he feels in his heart is his own affair. By signing up to such a group he takes on the collective responsibility for what they are and do.
Becoming a member of the KKK was a shift from belief to behaviour. What he feels in his heart is his own affair. By signing up to such a group he takes on the collective responsibility for what they are and do.
And what they do
is not illegal...or they would have been shut down. Remeber; these criteria must be
objective; it's not a matter of what you personally are or are not "comfortable" with.
When you join the Klan, the Order, the Nation Of Islam, or anything like them, you take an oath, a binding oath, that your allegiance is to that order... above all else, ESPECIALLY the government.
I believe in anyone's right to feel that way, speak about it (short of incitement), but not to serve in ANY government capacity, as you [B]cannot[/B] do both with a clear conscience.
I'm pretty certain that there are gov't officials who do repugnant things and have a very clear conscience about it.
When you join the Klan, the Order, the Nation Of Islam, or anything like them, you take an oath...
Really? Which one of those have you joined?
And how would you define "anything like them"?
Would that include the Masons?
How about Skull and Bones?
[QUOTE=glatt]
Clodfobble has a good point that the cop endangers all fellow cops by being in KKK. On that point alone, he isn't doing his job. Fire him.
I thought that post was a joke. Wasn't it?[/QUOTE]
It wasn't. His behavior damages the public trust in the police, and thus endangers both policemen and civilians. I agree that he's welcome to think whatever he likes as long as he can effectively do his job--but in this case, by simply allowing the information to become public, it has affected how effectively not only he, but the rest of the police force, can do their job.
Really? Which one of those have you joined?
And how would you define "anything like them"?
Would that include the Masons?
How about Skull and Bones?
I have family in both the Klan, the Order and more secret organizations & we have had this, exact, conversation. They place people in government jobs intentionally.
The Mason's oath does not supersede governments and, yes, I know it.
I define "anything" as anything that places itself above civil government, especially those diametrically opposed to the civil government. It ain't hard... having to spell things out for you that are patently obvious to everyone else is getting very tiresome.
It ain't hard... having to spell things out for you that are patently obvious to everyone else is getting very tiresome.
It's only patently obvious to Klansmen, Members of the Order and the Nation of Islam, Masons and their confidants. (Ah...just found
The Order on Wikipedia their oath is reproduced there in part.)
Sorry, I'm not any of those. The only oath I've ever taken was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true and faithful allegiance to the same.
As for Skull and Bones, we'll have to wait for someone here to 'fess up.
I have family in both the Klan, the Order and more secret organizations & we have had this, exact, conversation
Man would I like to be a fly on the wall for some of your conversations :P
I vote for DanaC, even if she can't read a calendar.
Erm...the poll is worded a bit oddly. "No matter what he does off-duty" is a bit extreme, donchathink? That would include baby raping.
I sort of took it as a given that we were working in the realm of 'legal' activities. Felonious conduct is obviously grounds for dismissal.
You can't be persecuted or fired for your beliefs.
You CAN be fired for neglecting your duties.
If you're in the KKK, there's a preeeeetty good chance you arent being fair and upholding the law like a good cop.
Its only a matter of finding the instances of discrimination.
If he hasnt done anything racist or discriminatory, ever, then he can't be fired. But if he has, which is most likely given his KKK membership, then he's out.
Man would I like to be a fly on the wall for some of your conversations :P
We have had some "interesting" Christmas'.
You can't be persecuted or fired for your beliefs.
You CAN be fired for neglecting your duties.
If you're in the KKK, there's a preeeeetty good chance you arent being fair and upholding the law like a good cop.
Its only a matter of finding the instances of discrimination.
If he hasnt done anything racist or discriminatory, ever, then he can't be fired. But if he has, which is most likely given his KKK membership, then he's out.
The article states that they could not find any instances of discrimination. The officer maintains that this was a poor choice on his part caused by the stress of a personal situation.
Legally speaking, the Klan has in the past been labelled a terrorist organization, but in the 1920's it was a huge almost mainstream organization that paraded in Washington.
Also, it seems to have become decentralized, where any local group can adopt the name. This means that there is not one large Klan that can be put on a list.
The two questions are can any employee be fired for legal off-work activities which embarass his or her company and are police any different? Military service members voluntarily accept a code of conduct which does to some degree cover private legal activities. Public figures accept morals clauses in contracts covering private behavior.
Should police be held to a higher standard considering the power they wield and the public trust they hold?
The two questions are can any employee be fired for legal off-work activities which embarass his or her company and are police any different?
Yes.
Yes. Police are different. They should be held to an even higher standard.
When I ran a business I made hiring decisions. I would not have hired anyone involved with the Klan unless it was in their past and they had decided it was a mistake and maybe made amends.
I don't think it should be any different in hiring someone to be a police officer. As a citizen and taxpayer I want the best hiring decisions to be made on my behalf. Everything in a person's past is fair game.
When I ran a business I made hiring decisions. I would not have hired anyone involved with the Klan unless it was in their past and they had decided it was a mistake and maybe made amends.
I don't think it should be any different in hiring someone to be a police officer. As a citizen and taxpayer I want the best hiring decisions to be made on my behalf. Everything in a person's past is fair game.
You running a business is a quite different situation...there's little dispute possible about what are "the best hiring decisions" in that case. A private employer has considerably more leeway in hiring decisions.
But besides that, this isn't a hiring decision, it's a firing one. Would you have fired a twenty year employee for becoming a Klansman? Do you think the unemployment compensation people have backed you up as to it being "for cause" if you did? Certainly the arbitrator didn't think so in this case, and the court has ordered the arbitrator's decision be enforced. We'll see if the Nebraska AG is able to come up with a theory that the courts will buy, here.
I recall some cases during the last presidential election where people were fired for having the wrong party's sticker on their car in the company parking lot. That doesn't sound too much different from this, unless the issue is actually which parties you think are "legitimate" because you find their platforms acceptable.
Racism in any form is disgusting and should be punished. Members of the KKK advocate racism. Any person with those types of view and who thinks they have a right to hold a position of authority in any community either needs punishment or psychological help.
As a mother of mixed race children, I shudder to think how they will be treated if and when they ever are involved in conflict where a racist police officer is required to act.
Racism in any form is disgusting and should be punished. Members of the KKK advocate racism. Any person with those types of view and who thinks they have a right to hold a position of authority in any community either needs punishment or psychological help.
You'll need to get some laws passed, then. Because as I said, racisim isn't illegal; although many forms of discrimination are.
And if you establish that kind of precident for
thoughtcrime here, you'd better hope you
stay in political control of the country...because I think there will be some outcomes you really, really, really don't like otherwise.
The only thing that might possibly be worse is blurring the distinction between criminal behavior and mental illness any more than it already is.
"You have been convicted of having criminal thoughts, and have been sentenced to drug and behavioral therapy until such time as your thoughts are completely legal once again."
Road to hell, good intentions, etc. Don't you see how dangerous this line of reasoning is?
I've been thinking about this and doing some research into the history of the KKK. Actually, I think MaggieL is correct. Legally, you cannot fire a police officer simply based on his membership in a questionable group, ala the KKK. They could have refused to hire him if he admitted to it on his initial application as most police employment applications ask if the applicant is a member of any racist group (in addition to any subversive group). However, firing based simply on his membership isn't really legal. In all actuality, there are probably quite a few police officers in the KKK (based on information I ran across detailing firings as a result of harrassment and racist mistreatment of fellow employees and/or citizens).
That said, I know of very few people who don't act on their strongly held beliefs. Someone who believes that Catholics, Asians, Jews, blacks and women are sub-human will be unable to hide that fact for long. Once an officer's superiors are aware of his affiliation with a racist hate group, they can monitor his activities closely and doubtless gather adequate grounds with which to fire him.
I do believe that any officer who is sworn to serve and protect (each and every citizen of our country) and who has also sworn allegiance to a group historically dedicated to denigrating non-white citizens will find himself in a conflict he will be unable to resolve. The KKK is not known for being all talk and no action.
Unfortunately, knowing he won't hold this position of power indefinately doesn't help the victims of his racism in the meantime.
Oh!! Shouldn't wife beaters be barred from re-marrying too? /nod
Stormie
Racism in any form is disgusting and should be punished. Members of the KKK advocate racism. Any person with those types of view and who thinks they have a right to hold a position of authority in any community either needs punishment or psychological help.
As a mother of mixed race children, I shudder to think how they will be treated if and when they ever are involved in conflict where a racist police officer is required to act.
I hope you mean punished if you are a police officer... legislating anti-racism just makes you what they are. Hating a hater is the same... it IS moral equivalence.
The European nations that have done so have become what they sought to avoid, fascists.
Once an officer's superiors are aware of his affiliation with a racist hate group, they can monitor his activities closely and doubtless gather adequate grounds with which to fire him.
Interestingly enough, that was part of what decided the case. The state police didn't follow their disciplinary procedures within the timeframes provided in the procedures. This was taken as evidence that they didn't really believe that there was a serious risk of public harm from having this guy continue to be a cop.
It's more like some politican is covering his ass.
... Actually, I think MaggieL is correct...
Hey! Apologise when you say that! ;)
What if it was a black officer who had joined the Nation of Islam. Same answer?
NOI is ostensibly a religious organization ... so the basis of the answer would be different.
Let's say a black officer chose to join the Black Panther Party ...
I don't think anyone would even try to touch him.
The case of the trooper in the Klan is a racial discrimination issue, but won't be referred to as one because the race in question is white.
As a mother of mixed race children, I shudder to think how they will be treated if and when they ever are involved in conflict where a racist police officer is required to act.
No one has actually established that the officer is racist, or at least to the extent that it would impact his job performance. You can make a lot of assumptions about what he believes or how he might treat people, but we don't actually know.
Edit to add quote from article:
Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.
"There were no concerns whatsoever that he was engaged in any profiling or any biased treatment of any minority," he said.Sure... he joined the Klan for the life insurance plan.
Well, as far as the legality of it is concerned, I'm not overly interested. I'm simply stating my opinion as to how I feel about the subject.
rz...I don't agree with US views on what should be tolerated and what shouldn't as far as what rights a person has to join an evil organization. In my opinion, someone who discriminates against another person on the basis of their race - something someone has no control over - shouldn't have the same rights. Full stop. People can't change the colour of their skin, but they can change the way they think.
To add to that, if one supports the US school of thought on this one, what in the hell are you trying to democratise the whole planet for? Surely people from for example, communist countries have the 'right' to choose how to live??? Surely it's not up to someone else to impose their 'way of life' on the people. Surely if the situation is that bad, it's up to the people to revolt. How do you know the people want your particular brand of democracy? Keep in mind that for every 'we love america' statement you can come up with, there are an equal number of 'we wish america would stay our of our business' statements.
The argument just doesn't work.
Aren't sworn peace officers, like sworn military members, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States (no exceptions for Amendments 13-15) against all enemies foreign and domestic? This seems to me to mandate no association with the Klan or any group pushing for violent overthrow of the Constitution. Empowering oppressors and oppressor-wannabes like the Nation of Islam runs counter to the 14th Amendment.
Aliantha, your thinking is hopelessly mired in "moral equivalency," and if you've ever spent a significant amount of time living inside a totalitarian system, as I have, you've never mentioned it. I've tasted liberty and I've tasted totalitarianism, and totalitarianism, while not without its uses in constructing damage-tolerant organizations, is NOT a way to model an entire society. There is no moral equivalency. Totalitarianism must not merely go, not merely die, but it must go utterly and forever extinct. Democracy is the only worthwhile way, and the more libertarian it is, the more I'm likely to like it. Every stable society, though, is a blend or perhaps an array of counterpoises. Extremely anything -- that doesn't last.
Well, as far as the legality of it is concerned, I'm not overly interested.
Then maybe you should be commenting in some thread that isn't about a legal case, where you can get stroked for having your heart in the right place without being troubled by fiddly little details like "the law".
This seems to me to mandate no association with the Klan or any group pushing for violent overthrow of the Constitution.
As I said before, the Klan (mostly) isn't dumb enough to get caught doing that, because it would serve as an excuse to shut them down.
I don't agree with US views on what should be tolerated and what shouldn't as far as what rights a person has to join an evil organization. In my opinion, someone who discriminates against another person on the basis of their race - something someone has no control over - shouldn't have the same rights.
Again you're confusing beliefs with actions. And within consecutive sentences, too.
Then maybe you should be commenting in some thread that isn't about a legal case, where you can get stroked for having your heart in the right place without being troubled by fiddly little details like "the law".
Maybe you should take your head out of your arse and put it somewhere useful?
This thread is philosophical. My thoughts are as valid as anyone elses and your condescending attitude is quite frankly, pretty boring. You have no right to tell me where I should and shouldn't post. If you don't like my comments then comment on them. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to tell you to talk about the post and not the poster.
UG...perhaps my views are 'mired in moral equivalency' but I have seen my children suffer at the hands of racist people and the children of such people. I have no sympathy for any misfortune suffered by a person because of their racist beliefs, thoughts or actions.
... if you've ever spent a significant amount of time living inside a totalitarian system, as I have,...
The repubican party?:stickpoke
My thoughts are as valid as anyone elses.
That kind of mindless relativism is what makes liberal politics such a joke these days. Your thoughts are as valid as the logic behind them, no more and no less. Simply
having them does not embue them with some kind of birthright of validity.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to tell you to talk about the post and not the poster.
I did.
Your post isn't about the
legal issue that the thread is about. Civil rights is a legal issue.
That kind of mindless relativism is what makes liberal politics such a joke these days. Your thoughts are as valid as the logic behind them, no more and no less. Simply having them does not embue them with some kind of birthright of validity.
Main Entry: val·id
Pronunciation: 'va-l&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French valide, from Medieval Latin validus, from Latin, strong, potent, from valEre
1 : having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3 : appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods>
4 of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification
2b is the only part of the definition that's in your favor. That's 1/2 of 25% of the definition, making you 87.5% wrong.
Her thoughts may be inaccurate or incorrect, yet valid. They were executed with proper authority and formalities, are relevant and meaningful, and are appropriate to the end in view. That's 2 1/2 parts of the definition in her favor, making her 62.5% right. :p
They were executed with proper authority and formalities, are relevant and meaningful, and are appropriate to the end in view.
You're seriously arguing that her statement that she doesn't care about legalities meets meaning "having legal efficacy or force"?
Congratulations, in trying to establish 1 you've completely abandoned your own claim to 2b.
And 2a requires
both meaning and relevance. Surely they must mean
something, but my original point was they had no relevence.
If thoughts are somehow "valid" simply because someone has them--which is the claim behind "as valid as anybody else's"--then "valid" has become an empty tautology.
Do you usually expect every usage of a word to comport with
all the glossed meanings? In that case there are some words you won't ever be able to use at all.
This seems to me to mandate no association with the Klan or any group pushing for violent overthrow of the Constitution.
I think you're thinking of the old Klan. The new Klan does want political power, but they want to get it the old fashioned way ... by getting elected.
What Wolf says above is partly why I backpedaled a bit on my stance. Although I despise bigots and racists, they aren't technically illegal. I Do believe that a police officer or other person of public power will eventually trip over the discrimination laws if they hold racist beliefs.
A big part of the issue here is that the KKK cannot be classified as a 'subversive' group which is defined as a group whose intent is to violently overthrow the goverment. In fact, the KKK proports to be strongly 'pro' constitution/government/god and their actions are intended to eliminate the less-than-aryan elements in their country because that is what is best for it (in their distorted view). So it would be impossible to fire someone based on their membership because belonging to the KKK isn't illegal (since the KKK isn't illegal). But watch them closely. They WILL slip up and treat someone with discrimination, THEN you can fire them.
I did. Your post isn't about the legal issue that the thread is about. Civil rights is a legal issue.
Civil Rights is also a moral and social issue. If I choose to post on the moral or social issue rather than the legal issue, that is MY right and you have NO right to tell me that I don't have this right because you have no authority over me.
If one is to only consider the legality of any issue, then one would be in a very tenuous position, particularly if the issue affects different people in different ways. Laws are created, ammended and rewritten entirely on the basis that society is constantly evolving and viewpoints changing. If people in said society do not express their personal views on social issues, the law remains the same and it is likely that some sectors of that society will be discriminated against.
So, pardon me for not arguing the law as it stands now. Perhaps I should simply have said that the law is wrong and I believe that no person who is a member of a group which advocates discrimination against another [group] should be entitled to hold a position of authority in any capacity for a government office.
You can argue the legality of the issue all you like as it stands now. It would probably be more beneficial if you decided to have the courage to simply state that racism is wrong in any form and that people need to be taught that there are better ways of living.
Civil Rights is also a moral and social issue. If I choose to post on the moral or social issue rather than the legal issue, that is MY right and you have NO right to tell me that I don't have this right because you have no authority over me.
I have the right to rag on you about it, which is exactly what I did.
"Civil Rights"-- which was the 1960's code word for antidiscrimination--is in fact a legal issue. And, despite what too many people seem to believe,
the purpose of law isn't to enforce ethics or morals. It's a system to make it possible for people who hold
differing values (and hence hold different beliefs about ethics and morality) to live in the same society without killing each other. You can't find sufficient agreement on ethics and morality to run a society bigger than one or two dozen people. (Those are usually called "cults", by the way).
To scale bigger than that you need a system for regulating behavior that most folks can agree on and that most folks interpret in something like the same way. Notice that I said "regulating behavior" not "regulating beliefs" or "regulating thoughts".
If one is to only consider the legality of any issue, then one would be in a very tenuous position...
Unless one is a judge, in which case one is doing exactly what one should do. That's what the original post was about.
Perhaps I should simply have said that the law is wrong and I believe that no person who is a member of a group which advocates discrimination against another [group] should be entitled to hold a position of authority in any capacity for a government office.You can argue the legality of the issue all you like as it stands now.
I don't need to argue the legality; it is what it is. and the arbitrator, the judge in the case, and several of the posters in this thread understand that.
It's you that has the argument, because you want the legal power to pillory people for what they think.
Orwell called that thoughtcrime. The sad thing is that you seem to have exactly zero appreciation for how dangerous that would be.
Of course, as long as it's only thoughts
you disapprove of that are forbidden, everything's OK.
Your argument is that it's wrong for me to think that people who act or could act in a discriminatory manner should not be eligible for public positions of authority.
Seems like a contradiction to me that this officer can be protected because he only thinks that white races are superior to black.
Well, as far as the legality of it is concerned, I'm not overly interested. I'm simply stating my opinion as to how I feel about the subject.
rz...I don't agree with US views on what should be tolerated and what shouldn't as far as what rights a person has to join an evil organization. In my opinion, someone who discriminates against another person on the basis of their race - something someone has no control over - shouldn't have the same rights. Full stop. People can't change the colour of their skin, but they can change the way they think.
To add to that, if one supports the US school of thought on this one, what in the hell are you trying to democratise the whole planet for? Surely people from for example, communist countries have the 'right' to choose how to live??? Surely it's not up to someone else to impose their 'way of life' on the people. Surely if the situation is that bad, it's up to the people to revolt. How do you know the people want your particular brand of democracy? Keep in mind that for every 'we love america' statement you can come up with, there are an equal number of 'we wish america would stay our of our business' statements.
The argument just doesn't work.
The US is not a Democracy and never has been and I sure hope we never are.
Sure, stay out of the business is no problem, while they are at it don't buy our goods, don't use our tech (pharmaceutical, medical, agricultural, textile, military, etc, etc, etc...) don't come running to us every time someone bigger than them starts to kick their assess, don't send their kids here for school, don't come here when they get sick, don't, don't don't... that blade cuts both ways.
I'm sick of how bad we are to everyone while they use and use and use... don't like the US, fine, fuck-ya', stay the hell away from
every aspect of the US. They bitch when they say we are the world police,
then bitch when we don't get involved in everything... personally, I think we should just pull-up all roots, come home and take care of our own from now on.
If one discriminates against fascists they are EXACTLY like them... they ARE one. It is so simple.
The laws of the UK, Italy, Germany and the others are facism... the hilarious thing is that it empowers the hate groups. They thrive on adversity and being the "underdog". Being given that kind of attention is validation for them. The "outlaw" status it gives them adds attraction to them for the kinds of youth that they seek and attract... so incredibly stupid, so predictable. They might as well have put them in office.
rksenrage...I see your point and agree totally. I wish the same were true here in Australia. I see many problems that should be attended to here and wonder often why our country is involved in conflicts simply because someone said, come and help us out. Why not help our own citizens instead?
I believe it's because we're part of the global community and in short, what happens in other countries affects us if not directly then indirectly; whether we're involved or not.
My point previously to you was that there are different schools of thought on everything, and for every positive there's a negative. There has to be balance. Without evil there cannot be good. Without positives there can be no negatives.
I don't claim to have a broad knowledge of politics. The only thing I do claim to be is thoughtful about the effects political actions can have on individuals. In my view, it's the individuals that matter most, but it's the individuals that get lost in the crowd.
I also agree that the 'political correctness' evident in some policies of some countries is crazy.
The thing with me is that I don't believe in evil.
I don't see racists/fascists/anti-Semites as evil. Just flawed, misguided, humans in need of compassion.
I have, personally, seen that is the way to show them the different path, more than once.
Your argument is that it's wrong for me to think that people who act or could act in a discriminatory manner should not be eligible for public positions of authority.
You're working really hard here to erase the line between thought and action, and it's not working.
If you want to punish cops who "
could act in a discriminatory manner" instead of just those who "
do act in a discriminatory manner"...you're advocating punishment before a crime has been comitted.
I can think of whole bunches of people who *could* commit a crime. Shall we lock them all up, just to make sure it doesn't happen?
MaggieL...I'm not working hard to do anything here except express my point of view on an issue which is highly controversial to begin with. When it all comes down to it, how does any person define racist behaviour anyway? Everyone has different places to draw the line on different issues. In this particular one, I took the risk of sharing my personal viewpoint and even shared the reasons for doing so with you and the other members of this site. If you want to continue on this path then go ahead. I'm not going to proceed any further with you. If you need the last word, go ahead and have it.
Ultimately, no matter what you say to me, I'll have no time for racism because I've seen my children suffer at the hands of racist people. That is my reason and the only reason you'll get from me for my views. I don't care if you think my views are unreasonable. Ultimately what you or anyone else thinks has little or no bearing on my life or how I live it.
Pardon me for taking the risk of sharing something personal with you and the other members here about what I really think without trying to promote my higher intellect.
When it all comes down to it, how does any person define racist behaviour anyway?
This is why we have laws that define "discrimination"....so it's not up to the whims of "any person". I'm no more interested in "promoting racism", than I am in "promoting homophobia". But trying to create
laws to punish people for their thoughts or beliefs isn't a smart way fight either racism or homophobia. And it opens the door to an incredible range of abuses that won't be good for anybody.
As far as being a member of an organisation which openly espouses racist views.....that I think is incompatible with being a policeman. That said, I do find myself agreeing with some of what Maggie is saying here. There is a danger in legislating against certain ways of thinking.
In the UK we have a law against incitement to racial hatred. Calling someone a 'paki' is not illegal. Standing up in a public meeting and saying Pakis are a cancer on society which should be cut out is.
Dana, just for the sake of argument--it's illegal to stand up in a public meeting and say Paki's are a cancer on society but it IS legal to have a public demonstration in which beheadings are prescribed for the 'cancer' that is 'europe'-? Do I have that right?
Yup. If they'd referred to a specific race it would be different.
As far as being a member of an organisation which openly espouses racist views.....that I think is incompatible with being a policeman. That said, I do find myself agreeing with some of what Maggie is saying here. There is a danger in legislating against certain ways of thinking.
In the UK we have a law against incitement to racial hatred. Calling someone a 'paki' is not illegal. Standing up in a public meeting and saying Pakis are a cancer on society which should be cut out is.
But you
can say that racists are a cancer on society, right?
yep. People choose to be racist or not. People have no choice as to their ethnicity.
Not the point... the point is that you feel it is ok to single-out and ostracize one type of person publicly and not another. That makes you the same as them.
That kind of law makes the people exactly what they are trying to avoid. They become what they are trying to fight.
It is impossible to legislate morality.
Part of freedom of speech is hearing unpleasant speech.
Yup. If they'd referred to a specific race it would be different.
When did "Pakistani" become a race?
Since "ethnism" isn't as easy to pronouce as "racism."
Republican Party? You wish, Spexx. And wishes like that you don't get. Which prospect makes me feel like :)ing.
This is why we have laws that define "discrimination"....so it's not up to the whims of "any person". I'm no more interested in "promoting racism", than I am in "promoting homophobia". But trying to create laws to punish people for their thoughts or beliefs isn't a smart way fight either racism or homophobia. And it opens the door to an incredible range of abuses that won't be good for anybody.
OK...for one thing, unless the process of becomming a police officer is much different in the US than it is here, there's a huge number of people involved in employing each new recruit, so it would certainly be far from the 'whims of any person' to exclude or include any one person during the process.
One further comment. I don't know what you really feel about this situation because you've not shared with us why you think the way you do, but even if your view is 'constitutional', I would never agree that it's ok for a police officer to be an active officer and be a member of a hate group at the same time. It takes something very special to be a cop, and someone who can believe that it's ok to feel superior to another whole race doesn't have that special thing that you need to have to be a cop.
To add to that, the state has a responsibility to act in the best interests of all citizens. How can the state be acting in the best interests of all citizens if it allows some of its citizens to be put in a position where they are open to victimization?
OK...for one thing...
One further comment...To add to that...
So much for "the last word". :-)
I don't know what you really feel about this situation because you've not shared with us why you think the way you do,
Actuially I have. You're just not freaking
listening. You've worked yourself into such a lather screaming "RACISM!" that you're willing to completely overlook the issues I've raised.
...I would never agree that it's ok for a police officer to be an active officer and be a member of a hate group at the same time...
I think we've got that now. I don't expect you to agree. You're so wrapped up in special-interest identity politics that the
principle I'm saying is at stake here escapes you completely.
It takes something very special to be a cop, and someone who can believe that it's ok to feel superior to another whole race doesn't have that special thing that you need to have to be a cop.
That sounds noble and high-minded, but you can't just fire a cop for "not having a special thing", any more than he can arrest you and charge you with "looking suspicious".
To add to that, the state has a responsibility to act in the best interests of all citizens. How can the state be acting in the best interests of all citizens if it allows some of its citizens to be put in a position where they are open to victimization?
That's "begging the question". Obviously the state can't "act in the best interests of all its citizens" all the time, because those inteterest are so frequently in conflict.
That is why we have laws...to try to settle those conflicts equitably, and using objective standards that most people can understand.
Here's the bottom line. You can't tell people what to think or believe in.
If laws are passed telling Joe Blow and Susy Sweet that
they can't believe in X, then laws can be passed telling you that
you can't believe in Y. Once you start regulating what beliefs are allowable, you deny people their humanity. You will lose the basis for all of our other freedoms which renders them useless. As distasteful as it may be, if Joe Blow wants to believe that certain races are sub-human, that IS his right...just as you have the right to believe they are equal.
From the international human rights law, the UDHR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights, article 18:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
The
laws we have are anti-discrimination. These give all men the right to equal treatment, regardless of race, sex, religion, age, etc. Joe Blow can still 'think' certain citizens are sub-human but legally, he cannot treat them any differently than anyone else.
So this policeman does have the right to belong to a hate group, such as the KKK (because it is NOT an illegal ie: subversive group), but should he put those 'beliefs' into practice, he can get fired for discrimination.
Stormie
I suppose we can anticipate the "but some beliefs are reprehensible and incompatible with being a cop" response now.
I suppose we can anticipate the "but some beliefs are reprehensible and incompatible with being a cop" response now.
Well they are (in my personal opinion) :p , but that's irrelevant. I firmly believe that racists can't help but behave in discriminatory ways. My hope is that this man fucks up quickly and is fired for discrimination.
The thing is...we all have prejudicial thoughts. If you say you don't I simultaneously salute and disbelieve you.
I cannot help being who I am--and that is the product of my experiences (to a large part)--to continually whip me with a red cord and then ask me to worship and believe the red cord a benevolent god is probably not going to happen. At least not with ME. Statistically other people will fall to the belief and start kissing red cord ass for all it's worth.
My hope is that this man fucks up quickly and is fired for discrimination.
After all this brouhaha, I bet the only discrimination you have to worry about from this guy is reverse discrimination. He's going to be under a ultramicroscope.
I don't disagree that true racism (as opposed to the bloody shirt that liberals invoke at the drop of a hat) is reprehensible. But that's not the point of this case.
It takes something very special to be a cop, and someone who can believe that it's ok to feel superior to another whole race doesn't have that special thing that you need to have to be a cop.
In the United States only Black, Brown, Red, and sometimes Yellow people are allowed to feel superior about themselves.
What you fail to understand that for cops there are two colors. Blue and everybody else (perhaps three, Blue, Citizens, and Perps). That's where the lines are really drawn.
I understand a lot more about cops than you give me credit for wolf, but that's ok. You don't know me. Just try not to assume that's all.
I've always considered it easy to fire an employee who isn't performing as expected, but I forget that with cops and some other jobs, there are unions involved.
From today's
washington post, we hear that the Metro train operator who fell asleep in 2004 and crashed his train into another one, injuring 20 people and causing $3.5 million in damage, was improperly fired. He is being rehired and given two years of back-pay.
Nobody is contesting the fact that he crashed the train, and was almost certainly asleep at the wheel. The reason he was fired improperly is that there's a certain schedule to follow when firing someone, and Metro messed up the sequence of dates for firing this guy.
At least they won't let him drive a train again. He'll be paid to stand around on the platform with a clipboard.
[QUOTE=glatt]... we hear that the Metro train operator who fell asleep in 2004 and crashed his train into another one, injuring 20 people and causing $3.5 million in damage, was improperly fired. He is being rehired and given two years of back-pay.[QUOTE]
Ya gotta love unions.
I've dealt with two unions in my nursing life: an independant that represented steel workers and the IUE (international union of electricians). The IUE was surreal. I hated dealing with them.
The reason he was fired improperly is that there's a certain schedule to follow when firing someone, and Metro messed up the sequence of dates for firing this guy.
And that's what happened in the case of the KKKop, too. The Staties claim that the guy was too dangerout to be a cop was completely undercut by the way they failed to meet their own defined schedule for the papwerwork moves necessary.
Perhaps the only thing more dangerous than a trainman asleep at the controls is a bureacrat asleep at the pen.
...completely undercut by the way they failed to meet their own defined schedule for the papwerwork moves necessary.
We should call this idea by its proper name, due process, if we want support for it. If we want due process everyone else has to receive it as well. In union situations due process is often drawn out too far, but if we have rules we have to play by them. My brother tells a story about having to defend an incompetent teacher. It was fortunately just a ritual since everyone wanted the dope off the payroll. Now we need to start due process for the bureaucratic idiot that opened the door for a sleeping train driver to work for metro again.
What you fail to understand that for cops there are two colors. Blue and everybody else (perhaps three, Blue, Citizens, and Perps). That's where the lines are really drawn.
I believe there is a fourth....people with pull, politically connected. ;)
After all this brouhaha, I bet the only discrimination you have to worry about from this guy is reverse discrimination. He's going to be under a ultramicroscope.
I don't disagree that true racism (as opposed to the bloody shirt that liberals invoke at the drop of a hat) is reprehensible. But that's not the point of this case.
You obviously know little of the Klan.
Again, they take an oath, the white race comes before all others in all things. That action alone says to me that his loyalty is in the wrong place.
Again, they take an oath, the white race comes before all others in all things. That action alone says to me that his loyalty is in the wrong place.
I'd say after all the attention he's gotten, if he visibly discriminates against somebody, his ass is
gone..
I won't try to contradict your claimed authority on Klan internals, but this guy is under such incredible scrutiny that his loyalty is a non-issue; one step out of line and he's history. Happens I've had privileged access to state police disciplinary records (in another state), so that's a process *I* know something about.
Again, they take an oath, the white race comes before all others in all things.
Generally, you believe that before you take the oath, otherwise you wouldn't have shown up. I have less concern of someone who is publically affiliated, although he is going to do a great job of drawing the focus away from the rest of the Nebraska State Police Troopers, that's for sure.
Ya gotta love unions.
Unfortunately, unions exist in response to misbehaving employers.
Generally, you believe that before you take the oath, otherwise you wouldn't have shown up. I have less concern of someone who is publically affiliated, although he is going to do a great job of drawing the focus away from the rest of the Nebraska State Police Troopers, that's for sure.
The difference is just having prejudices, which all people have, and taking an oath to take specific action to act on your racist prejudice views as well as your political views... the Klan is not just a racist organization. It is Xenophobic, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, internationally separatist, homophobic, non-integration minded, and many other, VERY specific outlooks that are REQUIREMENTS for their members to believe in. When you are in a position of public service, it is
expected of you to advance the organization's agenda.
Again, everyone has their prejudices, we can all try to be objective in our jobs and lives even if we don't wish to overcome them... we can even try to overcome them as we become better adults.
What someone who takes an oath to the Klan or the like does is swear never to do that, but to do the opposite, to encourage that in themselves and others. There is no place for that on any police force or public office...
That is saying a lot from me, because I believe that anyone, regardless of their belief system deserves an equal start...
But, public service requires loyalty, and once one takes an oath to another organization that supersedes that, they cannot be trusted, in anything, and should not be allowed to serve. It ain't hard.
If they do can him, others in the same situation will be much more careful to hide it. They will also be at risk of being blackmailed, or pressured for special consideration, being threatened with exposure and job loss.:2cents:
I think the poll results on this thread are interesting considering the discussion. It would seem that the majority of people think it's inappropriate for a cop to be a member of the KKK.
I'd love to know what other people's reasons are for thinking the way they do.
rkzenrage articulates it best I think. Merely being racist isn't enough. This is a very specific set of circumstances. Essentially, the police officer in question has prejudiced himself through membership of a group whose stated aims are incompatible with his job description and whose required oath is in direct conflict with the loyalties expected of him in his duties as a public servant.
I think the poll results on this thread are interesting considering the discussion. It would seem that the majority of people think it's inappropriate for a cop to be a member of the KKK.
I'd love to know what other people's reasons are for thinking the way they do.
A person's beliefs should not impact his job status. Only his behavior and actions when he is working should impact his job status. A corporate executive may be a misogynist. Whether he belongs to an organization, or not, if he hires, promotes women based on the same standards that he uses for men, and treats men and women the same, he would be considered an effective executive. If he discriminates against women, he should be fired. If this cop treats people of color differently than he treats whites, he should be fired. Until then, I don't see any reason for his beliefs to impact his job status. Would it be ok to fire someone because they are attracted to someone of the same gender?
Would it be ok to fire someone because they are attracted to someone of the same gender?
If that person were a card carrying member of an organization which takes an oath and a clear stance against those who are not attracted to someone of the same gender, and yet they are in a position to protect and serve everyone, then perhaps yes.
Excerpt from a Ku Klux Klan Oath of Allegiance
I swear that I will most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve by any and all justifiable means and methods the sacred constitutional rights and privileges of free public schools, free speech, free press, separation of church and state, liberty, white supremacy, just laws and the pursuit of happiness.
White supremacy is kind of hidden in there, is it not?
If I say 'I fucking swear, I'm gonna murder him in his sleep!" it doesn't mean I should go to jail, it means I need a punching bag or something. Saying, believing, even swearing something is not grounds for persecution, because as maggie says, that's thought policing. The moment something is DONE, then there's hell to pay. I think Spexxvet has it right. I PERSONALLY think the guy SHOULD be fired and done away with, but "he's in the KKK!", while a good reason, is not a VALID reason for it, because that's saying its not legal to be racist. That isn't true. It ISN'T legal to DISCRIMINATE, therefore, it is a simple matter of proving that his obvious racism resulted in unfair treatment.
If the KKK didn't make him swear an oath which runs contrary to his duties as a police officer then it wouldn't be valid. It isn't illegal to be racist. It isn't a reason for dismissal. He shouoldn't be dismissed for racism. He should be dismissed for taking an oath which runs contrary to his duties.
NAMBLA has a right to exist, but their members shouldn't be working in day care.
NAMBLA has a right to exist, but their members shouldn't be working in day care.
Excellent point.
It would seem that the majority of people think it's inappropriate for a cop to be a member of the KKK.
I didn't vote in the poll because I think it is defectively framed. I'm sure some others felt the same way.
I'd love to know what other people's reasons are for thinking the way they do.
You sure you don't just mean "I'm not done arguing about this yet."?
what is NAMBLA?
A pedophile organization in the US.
That's paedophile, to you. :-)
He should be dismissed for taking an oath which runs contrary to his duties.
That he has done so is an unproven proposition. I don't think the oath quoted here makes the grade.
...will most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve by any and all justifiable means and methods...white supremacy...
Lots of loopholes in that one. On purpose I'm sure.
A pedophile organization in the US.
That's paedophile, to you. :-)
(and not
paediatrician)
NAMBLA has a right to exist, but their members shouldn't be working in day care.
I was thinking along similar lines. Would this be a "difficult civil rights question" if the officer in question had joined NAMBLA? Their right to free speech has been supported by the ACLU, too.
I didn't vote in the poll because I think it is defectively framed. I'm sure some others felt the same way.
You sure you don't just mean "I'm not done arguing about this yet."?
I was interested in the 60% or so of people who agree that he should be kicked out. I've made my case quite clearly thanks Maggie, so I don't intend to argue about it any further. You seem to one of the few who don't seem to understand it, but that's ok. Perhaps a few remedial classes might help? :)
I was interested in the 60% or so of people who agree that he should be kicked out. I've made my case quite clearly thanks Maggie, so I don't intend to argue about it any further. You seem to one of the few who don't seem to understand it, but that's ok. Perhaps a few remedial classes might help? :)
Well, you stated badly who you were interested in hearing from. Having claimed that a majority agree with you (unsupported, given how defectively the poll question was worded), you said wanted to hear from "other people", which I took to mean people on the other side of the issue rather than "other people who agree with Aliantha"...which seems kinda pointless. Disappointingly, it turns out that you're interested in the opinions of those who
agree with you, so you can stroke each other's outrage and moral superiority, I suppose.
I understand your "case" just fine: you're willing to sacrifice an important legal principle for your pet "identity politics" victim issue. As for remedial classes, I'd suggest you read Orwell's
1984 again. (Assuming you read it once...it *used* to be required reading in high school.)
If I say 'I fucking swear, I'm gonna murder him in his sleep!" it doesn't mean I should go to jail, it means I need a punching bag or something. Saying, believing, even swearing something is not grounds for persecution, because as maggie says, that's thought policing. The moment something is DONE, then there's hell to pay. I think Spexxvet has it right. I PERSONALLY think the guy SHOULD be fired and done away with, but "he's in the KKK!", while a good reason, is not a VALID reason for it, because that's saying its not legal to be racist. That isn't true. It ISN'T legal to DISCRIMINATE, therefore, it is a simple matter of proving that his obvious racism resulted in unfair treatment.
If you told me you were going to harm me I would have no choice but to choose believe you and take appropriate action. How would I
knowthat you are telling the truth or not?... best to err on the side of caution.
best to err on the side of caution.
So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.
Just to clarify things for those here who seem to have difficulties with simple comprehension, people may be of the same opinion but for different reasons Maggie. There are quite a substantial number who happen to agree with my perspective and yet more of the people who disagree have stated their reasons for doing so. I'm interested in knowing why.
Your attitude is offensive. I suggest you spend a bit more time in reality. Perhaps it'd teach you some common courtesy, or is it that your own sense of self worth is so low that you have to act with such condescension to boost yourself up a bit? Your posts attempt to ridicule and belittle anyone who disagrees with your point, and while this is your 'right' legally, it suggests that you have serious social issues which you should address.
I suggest you spend a bit more time in reality.
I'd suggest you stop confusing your opinions with reality.
So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.
So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on a direct mortal threat rather than any actual crime.
Damn straight.
Considering your background, I suspect you haven't happened upon people who would say that and then do it. Believe me, they are out there in greater numbers than reason would dictate. You can suspect, but never know, exactly who they are until it's to late. The only reasonable defense is assuming if somebody threatens to kill you, they mean it. :unsure:
So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.
It is not preinpitve... you took action with your threat... you assumed the stance of aggressor.
You stated that you WOULD do harm to me, not that you MAY do harm to me.
If I allowed it, I would have no one to blame but myself... quite stupid on my part when you gave me an
absolute & definite warning of your impending action.
Actually, verbally threatening to harm someone is assault, legally. Battery is actually touching a person without consent. Someone who robs a bank, for example, and threatens to blow everyone's heads off is guilty of aggrevated assault (assault committed during the commission of a crime). He may never have laid a finger on a single person in that bank, but the threat of harm is still a crime.
Stormie
Maggie and Aliantha, I swear, someone needs to bash your heads together then make you shake hands!
Maggie and Aliantha, I swear, someone needs to bash your heads together then make you shake hands!
Cooercive collectivism, eh? :-)
Maggie and Aliantha, I swear, someone needs to bash your heads together then make you shake hands!
Dana, I'm shocked and disappointed....advocating violence, what's the world coming to.:(
So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.
Here comes the fist
it's heading straight towards me
maybe he'll stop at the last moment and not connect
WOW it's really close now, just a few millimters away, I bet he doesn't have time to stop now
Maybe I should wait a little longer and see, he might surprise me
OOPS he didn't stop
Here come the stars
maybe he won't punch me again
At what point do you decide to take action then? It's not a crime for me to punch,
"just stay away from my fisty areas";)
Precicely...
"I was just punching, he got in the way."
Again, if they say it, you have to assume they are telling the truth.
Dana, I'm shocked and disappointed....advocating violence, what's the world coming to.:(
Yes, I'm certain that in the UK, action would be taken under the "Anti-Social Behaviour" laws.
No, I'm
not kidding.
No, I'm not kidding.
Those goddamn tree climbing flyposters have completey ruined the neighborhood. What's next, organized outdoor parties?
What's next, organized outdoor parties?
If so, you can be certain they'll be Mandatory... :-)
[Quote=rkzenrage]
best to err on the side of caution.
So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.[/QUOTE]
The point you're missing 9th, is that you and rkz disagree on what the original action is. You read it as having not yet happened--some physical action/threat/violence/etc. rkz reads it as having already happened--the action of communicating, specifically communicating the imminent arrival of more violence. That communication you see as a warning, a threat of violence and rkz sees as actual violence, deserving a response. A
response in this case that would both prevent a second act of violence against him, and against all others.
Your disagreement is rooted in your different interpretations of "action". You see the words as inaction and therefore the physical reply as "preemptive". rkz sees the words as the intial, or at least the preceeding action, and his reply is just that. He didn't start it. Or maybe he did, but this action he describes is not the start.
You bring up a good point with the idea of an "actual crime". But I think that's a whole different discussion. When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?
Another thought tracks this line: Is it better to seek permission or forgiveness? It could be rephrased "seek proof or judgement" just as easily. rkz is saying "I'll see your bet (threat) and raise you (deadly force, out of the game). You're gone and therefore I win."
Another discussion should be had as to the appropriateness of the response. Of course, both parties have to be alive to have a discussion.
When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?
The definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear. When a conviction happens is clear too. And when appeals are exhausted.
These are all distinct events.
So for example...
Did Ken Lay commit a crime?
Please be pretty clear.
The point you're missing 9th, is that you and rkz disagree on what the original action is. You read it as having not yet happened--some physical action/threat/violence/etc. rkz reads it as having already happened--the action of communicating, specifically communicating the imminent arrival of more violence. That communication you see as a warning, a threat of violence and rkz sees as actual violence, deserving a response. A response in this case that would both prevent a second act of violence against him, and against all others.
Your disagreement is rooted in your different interpretations of "action". You see the words as inaction and therefore the physical reply as "preemptive". rkz sees the words as the intial, or at least the preceeding action, and his reply is just that. He didn't start it. Or maybe he did, but this action he describes is not the start.
You bring up a good point with the idea of an "actual crime". But I think that's a whole different discussion. When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?
Another thought tracks this line: Is it better to seek permission or forgiveness? It could be rephrased "seek proof or judgement" just as easily. rkz is saying "I'll see your bet (threat) and raise you (deadly force, out of the game). You're gone and therefore I win."
Another discussion should be had as to the appropriateness of the response. Of course, both parties have to be alive to have a discussion.
Not "win" simply safe.
As a previous security associate, your attitude would have made me a very dead individual.
Not "win" simply safe.
"win" in the context of the analogy of seeing a bet in a poker game and raising it, thereby "winning" by forcing the other out of the hand. Not to be confused with any other context.
As a previous security associate, your attitude would have made me a very dead individual.
What? What do you know about my attitude? You should explain this better.
Another difficult civil rights question.
Summary:
Two American citizens are on a plane returning home to Lodi California are forbidden to re-enter the United States by the FBI for refusing to answer questions.
Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, was questioned by the F.B.I. at the American Embassy in Islamabad, but his father, a naturalized United States citizen from Pakistan, declined to participate, Ms. Mass said. Jaber Ismail has refused further interrogation without a lawyer and has declined to take a polygraph test; Ms. Mass said the men were told these conditions had to be met before the authorities would consider letting them back into the United States.
WTF?!?! Conditions of reentry are polygraphs and interrogation without a lawyer present? No charges, of course, just step into the little room.
I take it back. This civil rights question doesn't seem difficult at all. Maybe for some, but not for me.
So for example...
Did Ken Lay commit a crime?
Please be pretty clear.
bump
:crickets chirping:
So for example...
Did Ken Lay commit a crime?
Please be pretty clear.
I said "the definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear". It's not at the time of conviction, it's at the time when the act adjudged to be criminal occurred.
Or are you confusing
when a crime has been comitted with
if a crime has been comitted? The
if question is settled by the operation of the legal system
I said "the definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear". It's not at the time of conviction, it's at the time when the act adjudged to be criminal occurred.
Or are you confusing when a crime has been comitted with if a crime has been comitted? The if question is settled by the operation of the legal system
Well, this is not "pretty clear", but it moves the conversation along.
I'm sorry you're confused. Naturally, the answer to the question of "if" must precede the answer to the question of "when". That answer may be obvious, but often it is not. The answer may also render moot the question of "when". Is that clearer for you?
The definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear. When a conviction happens is clear too. And when appeals are exhausted.
Ok, these simplifications are ... somewhat helpful. Let me recast my remarks, which you selectively answered. When an "act" happens is pretty clear. When it is adjudged to criminal, what happens to that act? What happens to that "act" if the decision is otherwise? It's clear that the act doesn't change, but our decision as to it's legality is a separate process that happens later. This difference is at the heart of our system of due process. It is the manifestation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this matter. Especially concerning the part of the conversation that prompted me to jump in.
This section:
best to err on the side of caution.
[QUOTE=9th Engineer]
So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.
[/QUOTE]
is what I was responding to when I tried to give my understanding of each side's thoughts. I would like to hear your answer to 9th's proposition.
Were Ken Lay's actions re: Enron criminal?
I think there is a difference between threatening bodily harm and threats of other potentially criminal activities.
If Joe Shmoe threatens to blow my head off, he has already committed the crime of assault. If he has a gun at the time of the threat, it is assault with a deadly weapon.
The law allows a person to defend themselves if their life is threatened. The threat must be immediate and believable in order to use deadly force as a defense. Some states require a person to actually attempt a retreat before they can become aggressive in this defense, but others say the threat itself is enough. IE: If Joe Shmoe has a water gun and is squirting me with it, telling me he's going to send me to my next life, I would be unable to justify (in court) the use of a real gun to shoot HIM with because the threat was not believable. Or lets say Joe Shmoe tells me he is going to blow my head off during a bar brawl. If I go home, sleep it off, then go buy a gun and go shoot Joe Shmoe a day or two later, this won't fly because the threat was not immediate.
However, if Joe Shmoe threatens to steal all my money, it is just a threat. If I were a wise person, I would take steps to ensure my money was safe but unless he actually snatches my money away, he hasn't committed a crime.
The definition of what is and when a crime occurs varies depending on the crime itself. The Supreme court (state and/or federal) decides how to apply these definitions in cases where there is a dispute.
Stormie
Were Ken Lay's actions re: Enron criminal?
copycat. ;)
copycat. ;)
No, I was rephrasing it to avoid the semantic trap of "if, when."
No, I was rephrasing it to avoid the semantic trap of "if, when."
Nothing semantic about that. Just a matter of proper usage.
As for Mr. Lay...he got busted, he's been convicted, his appeals aren't exhausted. Things are looking pretty good for him ending up a convict.
If you're asking if I would have voted to convict were I on the jury (I was almost on a jury today, by the way...they turned out not to need me), I couldn't say, since I didn't spend umpty-leven days listening to the evidence.
BigV...what exactly was it that 9th was saying that you're interested in? I seem to recall that he was doing the "preemptive use of force" riff with Bruce. {L/l}ibertarians (especially the big-L variety) are very fond of the "non-initiation of violence" dealie...and it *is* a conforting shibboleth.
Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm. I'm comfortable with
the justification statue here in the Commonwealth and don't beleive it restricts my options unreasonably. My Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence", but people's eyes usually glaze over when she tries to lay it down.
"win" in the context of the analogy of seeing a bet in a poker game and raising it, thereby "winning" by forcing the other out of the hand. Not to be confused with any other context.
What? What do you know about my attitude? You should explain this better.
Perhaps I read it wrong... for reasons I have gone into in another thread, I am not "myself" right now... but, it seems that you advocate a wait-and-see approach when informed that you are going to be harmed.
I don't believe that one has the right to do that when others count on them.
Nothing semantic about that. Just a matter of proper usage.
As for Mr. Lay...he got busted, he's been convicted, his appeals aren't exhausted. Things are looking pretty good for him ending up a convict.
If you're asking if I would have voted to convict were I on the jury (I was almost on a jury today, by the way...they turned out not to need me), I couldn't say, since I didn't spend umpty-leven days listening to the evidence.
BigV...what exactly was it that 9th was saying that you're interested in? I seem to recall that he was doing the "preemptive use of force" riff with Bruce. {L/l}ibertarians (especially the big-L variety) are very fond of the "non-initiation of violence" dealie...and it *is* a conforting shibboleth.
Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm. I'm comfortable with the justification statue here in the Commonwealth and don't beleive it restricts my options unreasonably. My Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence", but people's eyes usually glaze over when she tries to lay it down.
First off, Ken Lay died, and any appeals he has remaining must be plead in a much higher court. Based on this:
Since Lay died prior to exhausting his appeals, according to Roma Theus of the Defense Research Institute (an organization of defense attorneys), his conviction is considered abated pursuant to precedent in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court governing the district where Lay was indicted; however a formal filing must first be made. When abatement occurs the law would view it as though he had never been indicted, tried and convicted.
I wanted to know your opinion as to the "crime-ness" of what happened. I wasn't trying to trick you, only to expand on the focus on the word "crime". 9th started it in response to rkz, and your picked it up in my post.
This:
Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm.
is pretty clear.
This
Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence",
may be clearer still, and more useful. I don't know, and I'm all out of eye glaze. Honestly, I believe the same way. Reasonable people could easily differ as to what circumstances would constitute that belief. I have never been faced with those circumstances. I'm glad for my good fortune.
I'm believe in self defense, of course. And I'm not really interested in mincing words with you or anyone else as to the :rollseyes: difference between crime conviction intention violence etc etc. I was trying to understand you. And rkzenrage, too. Understand more thoroughly than just knowing the definitions of the words displayed. That takes more effort, and is almost always worth it.
The words are important, too; don't get me wrong. But understanding the words without understanding the meaning is like seeing and smelling a delicious meal you may not taste. It does not nourish or satisfy.
Perhaps I read it wrong... for reasons I have gone into in another thread, I am not "myself" right now... but, it seems that you advocate a wait-and-see approach when informed that you are going to be harmed.
I don't believe that one has the right to do that when others count on them.
Fair enough. Thanks. And you're right--I do have a deep and wide wait and see streak. I've been informed of an intent to harm before, and the bark has always exceeded the bite. I have moderated my responses accordingly.
Nothing semantic about that. Just a matter of proper usage.
Proper usage?
Of cat skinning, the ways are many.
BigV has already pointed out that Mr. Lay (by faking his death, he's living on a compund with Jim Morrison and a few others, possibly Ayn Rand) has neatly avoided having any guilt associated with his name...
Yes, I'm certain that in the UK, action would be taken under the "Anti-Social Behaviour" laws.
No, I'm not kidding.
And
"progressive " progress marches onFirst off, Ken Lay died, and any appeals he has remaining must be plead in a much higher court. Based on this:
I wanted to know your opinion as to the "crime-ness" of what happened.
Damn...I forgot completely that he died shortly after being convicted.
He was convicted, and as you point out, if the abatement isn't pursued, the conviction will stand.
Exactly what "crime-ness" might mean I do not know. Behavior is recognized as criminal or not through the operation of the criminal justice system.
The words are important, too; don't get me wrong. But understanding the words without understanding the meaning is like seeing and smelling a delicious meal you may not taste. It does not nourish or satisfy.
Failing to understand meaning utterly precludes understanding words; they do not stand alone; they are signs pointing to meaning.
Another difficult civil rights question.
Summary:
Two American citizens are on a plane returning home to Lodi California are forbidden to re-enter the United States by the FBI for refusing to answer questions.
WTF?!?! Conditions of reentry are polygraphs and interrogation without a lawyer present? No charges, of course, just step into the little room.
I take it back. This civil rights question doesn't seem difficult at all. Maybe for some, but not for me.
Another bump. Anyone, anyone?
Civil rights are what they are. But I'm afraid that radical islamists are going to use our own squeamishness about all things race-related as a weapon to kill more of us.
And "progressive " progress marches on
Is this very different from speed traps?
Does your title insinuate that "progressive" as in "liberals" are responsible for this?
Another bump. Anyone, anyone?
Well, apparently they've been removed from the no-fly list, since the nephew/cousin who told the Feds they'd been to a terrorist training camp during the four years they'd been in Pakistan "studying religion" has turned out to be lying about other things.
I suspect that if I'd refused to answer any questions at passport control at KPHL I might well still be there, even though from a documenation POV (passport, D/L, pilot's licence, firearms licence) I'm a much better risk. I did notice that among the routine questions asked they slipped in a trick one to see if I really was the person the passport went with.
Is the Ismails' exclusion legal?
To get a reading on the feds' legal basis, I turned to William West, former chief of the National Security Section for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Miami, Florida. "It is a rare decision, but within the legal pale," he explained to me.
"Section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC 1185 allows for the 'travel control' of the entry and departure of citizens. U.S. citizens use their passports only within the rules, regulations, and proscriptions as issued and decided by the president. Travel restrictions on U.S. citizens are seldom utilized (and usually to keep criminal or national-security suspects from fleeing). The law, however, does also allow for entry control."
Well, I took a look at 8 USC 1185, and I think he's blowing smoke. The "rules, regulations and proscriptions" language refers to aliens, not citizens...if a citizen has a valid passport that is enough to enter, according to 8 USC 1185. Of course, State can pull a passport, but I see no indication that happened in this case.