Freedom of speech? Not for our police officers

[MaryL]

Cops are not the enemy. What can I say? This goes deep into our psyche. What? Are we going to let the Crips or the Bloods dictate laws now? Let the criminals dictate laws? I am a proud snitch, I HATE prison culture mentality.

 

[MaryL]

Cops are not the enemy. What can I say? This goes deep into our psyche. What? Are we going to let the Crips or the Bloods dictate laws now? Let the criminals dictate laws? I am a proud snitch, I HATE prison culture mentality. And that is what liberal groupthink has become. The lowest common detonator , fill in the blank.

 

[MaryL]

Cops are not the enemy. What can I say? This goes deep into our psyche. What? Are we going to let the Crips or the Bloods dictate laws now? Let the criminals dictate laws? I am a proud snitch, I HATE prison culture mentality. And that is what liberal groupthink has become. The lowest common denominator , fill in the blank.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, as most employers, not just police departments, have policies that can allow for termination for any statements that bring discredit or dishonor, or even embarrassment to the company. A few months ago, a Security Guard was fired for failing to assist a Police Officer who was struggling with a suspect. The problem there is that the Security Guard isn’t required to arrest, or assist in an arrest of anyone. By law, they are trained and expected to Observe and Report.

Yet, this is acceptable, teaching her a lesson to assist and respect Police. Employees who make derrogatory comments about police are regularly fired. People who refuse to allow police to dine in a resturant are fired, and the company rushes out to make a statement disavowing the comment and announcing proudly that the person was fired.

They brought discredit, disgrace to their companies, and paid the price. People on line who say that cops should die are investigated for making threats against the police. They are held accountable for their comments, and it is considered a Law Enforcement failure that the shooter in Florida was not stopped despite threats he made and the fact that Law Enforcement knew about them.

But when a cop is held to the same standard, months later, when it would have taken at most hours for anyone else to feel the wrath, that is a total violation of the First Amendment. Cops you see, are supposed to be above the law because they are cops.

Pfui. I’m glad this idiot was fired. What I wonder is how he managed to become a cop in the first place. How many times did he allow his idiotic personal views to interfere with his work? How many times did he stretch the truth to take care of someone who deserved it in his opinion?

How is having an opinion interfering with your work?

The instances you gave are in the private sector. Your employer does not have to provide you constitutional rights, only the government does. An employer can make any policies they desire provided they're legal.

What would you say if I made the same comment and the government fined me for doing so? Would that be okay in your book, and if not, why not?

He wasn’t fined, he was fired. As is common practice all over. You don’t seem to have a problem with private citizens being penalized for exercising their first amendment rights, but a Government employee should be exempt. Why? What about a Government Employee gives them greater rights than the average citizen.

Can You Be Fired for Hate Speech? Doesn’t the First Amendment Protect Speech?

People are not guaranteed employment. Thankfully we have not reached that level of Socialist Utopia. They may have certain protections because of Union Contracts, or legal authority, but those protections have limits as well. Obviously the Department felt that his statements, and probably the interview he went through demonstrated that he could not be trusted to carry out his duties. Rather than celebrating this rare instance of the Department holding someone accountable for their actions, you decry and denounce it. No surprise. I would argue that as Police are given greater authority under law, they must be held to a higher, not lower, standard. You obviously think they should be held to a lower standard than the citizens they are empowered over.

No, I feel that all citizens should be held to the same standard, and that is having constitutional protections and rights. The Constitution doesn't protect you everywhere, just from government. In this case, the officer was working for the government, and the government fired him for exercising his right to free speech. Unless somebody can prove he did it from a city computer, on city time, as a spokesman for the department, he has the same rights as you and I do.

Bah. Preposterous. Being terminated from your Government job, just like any other employee, for something you said, is not a violation of the First Amendment.

Ohio Police are always “On Duty” and have a responsibility to act as Police whenever they see any crime. That is the position of the Fraternal Order of Police by the way.

Ohio FOP Backs a Bill to Allow Off-Duty Officers to Carry Guns in Gun-Free Zones

That was their statement when they were pushing for Off Duty Cops to be allowed to carry concealed in a gun free zone. Cops are always on duty. Yet, on duty and off duty seem to matter regarding what they say. At least according to you. This wasn’t Government punishment. It wasn’t a Government fine, nor a Government sentence for violation of the First Amendment. It was an employer who terminated a substandard employee.

What a minute......substandard employee? Where did you get that from?

The officer said (about Louie) that he's surprised nobody offed him yet. What is substandard about that? Louis Farrakhan is an anti-Semite white hating bigot. His rants offend millions of people. Is it not reasonable to say that it's surprising that somebody didn't take such offense to his rhetoric that they didn't respond with violence?

Yes, a police officer can respond to a crime even off duty, but doesn't mean he or she should be following department policy 24/7. So again I ask: if a police officer cannot exercise his constitutional rights in the privacy of his home, off duty, then can a building inspector or city maintenance worker? And if they do, should they be fired because of it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You do that voluntarily so you don't give up anything. .

which is the same thing they do when they agree to abide by the personal conduct rules which apply to off duty hours as well.

No, that's different.

With the institutions I"m involved with, I didn't agree to give up my rights. I still have Fourth Amendment rights. I just gave them permission to do a background check on me. Now if they said I must allow them to search my home, do a background check anytime they desired, agree that all my social media can be monitored, my phone calls, my email, then they violated my rights.

As an employer, the city of Akron can dictate what policies are on duty. They don't have to provide constitutional rights on duty, however they cannot deny your rights once you are off duty. That is entering into your personal life--not professional.

 

[JoeB131]

There is this anti cop sentiment that has become popular now. This current generation is overly critical of police to the point of being self destructive. And they don't apply this same level of criticism to anything else as far as I can tell.

Not any other profession kills 1200 civilians a year.

I think 99% of cops are great guys who do a difficult job.

And 1% are your Wilsons, Van Dykes, Loehmanns, Slagers - bullies with badges and guns who show really shitty judgement in dealing with the public, specifically people of color.

The problem is, the 99% feel a need to build a wall of bodies to protect the 1% of bad actors.

Take Van Dyke. Before he shot LaQuan McDonald 16 times, most of them when he was lying on the ground, he had been cited 20 other times for abusing civilians, including one case where he dislocated a suspect's shoulder and the city had to pay out half a million. and he still had a job.

After he shot McDonald, three other police officer filed false reports (for which they were acquitted). He was put on desk duty for a year, until the tape of the shooting became public, when he was finally fired and indicted. He then got a job at the FOP union hall pretending to be a handyman.

Four years later, they FINALLY convicted him, and he got a whopping 6 years (will probably be out in three.)

 

[JoeB131]

Cops are not the enemy. What can I say? This goes deep into our psyche. What? Are we going to let the Crips or the Bloods dictate laws now? Let the criminals dictate laws? I am a proud snitch, I HATE prison culture mentality. And that is what liberal groupthink has become. The lowest common denominator , fill in the blank.

Cops aren't the enemy, but we should really demand better behavior from them, because their bad behavior can be so darned expensive.

Just look at the settlements cities have to pay for police brutality every year.

LaQuan McDonald's family got $6 MM
Tamir Rice's family got $5MM
Walter Scott got $.6.5MM

 

[JoeB131]

What a minute......substandard employee? Where did you get that from?

The officer said (about Louie) that he's surprised nobody offed him yet. What is substandard about that? Louis Farrakhan is an anti-Semite white hating bigot. His rants offend millions of people. Is it not reasonable to say that it's surprising that somebody didn't take such offense to his rhetoric that they didn't respond with violence?

I think you are seeing this the wrong way. Cities already have to pay out millions every year for shitty racist cops. So now they have a racist cop who self identifies before he shoots a kid playing with a toy or something. Awesome. Let's get rid of him now before he kills someone.

 

[justoffal]

A police officer eventually lost his job because he said "I'm surprised that nobody offed him yet" in reference to Calypso Louie on Facebook. He never said he'd like to.....or that somebody should.......just the he was surprised nobody hasn't.

He was suspended several months ago and now our local Fox affiliate claims he was recently fired for the comment. So that begs the questions: if this officer made a similar comment about a white radical, would he still be on the job today? Does this officer have a case for a Fourth Amendment violation lawsuit?

Nope.

We are all held accountable for what we say on social media under our own names... It's why we all use aliases here.

Isn't a first amendment issue.

Thanks for pointing out I had the wrong amendment. I made the correction.

The people of this country are provided protection from government retaliation when it comes to speech. I don't care if you are a police officer, a lineman, a snow plow driver. We are all protected.

This officer made no threat against anti-semite Louie. He didn't say somebody else should off him. He simply said he's surprised it hasn't happened yet given the fact this anti-American is hate monger.

He has a case.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

What a minute......substandard employee? Where did you get that from?

The officer said (about Louie) that he's surprised nobody offed him yet. What is substandard about that? Louis Farrakhan is an anti-Semite white hating bigot. His rants offend millions of people. Is it not reasonable to say that it's surprising that somebody didn't take such offense to his rhetoric that they didn't respond with violence?

I think you are seeing this the wrong way. Cities already have to pay out millions every year for shitty racist cops. So now they have a racist cop who self identifies before he shoots a kid playing with a toy or something. Awesome. Let's get rid of him now before he kills someone.

Your use of the word racist is typical of
of most radically saturated morons.
Failure to use any kind of real thought
is what leads to this dysfunction, substituting it instead with protozoan reflex. I have no doubt that the city was motivated by fear of financial loss.... Firing the officer does not prevent anyone from claiming that the city
Threatened Farrahkahn...which of course is rediculous. But this same society will tolerate a female comedian suggesting that we behead the POTUS.

JO

 

[bripat9643]

Police officers are held to higher standard by their employment contract which have been found to be immune to most 1st amendment challenges.

That would be fine if what he said was actually covered by the contract.

 

[JoeB131]

Your use of the word racist is typical of
of most radically saturated morons.
Failure to use any kind of real thought
is what leads to this dysfunction, substituting it instead with protozoan reflex. I have no doubt that the city was motivated by fear of financial loss.... Firing the officer does not prevent anyone from claiming that the city
Threatened Farrahkahn...which of course is rediculous. But this same society will tolerate a female comedian suggesting that we behead the POTUS.

Again, imagine this.

Officer McRacist shoots a black kid on patrol. The family comes back and sues the city, and then they find out he's on Facebook saying racist shit. The question immediately becomes, "Why did you keep this guy on the street knowing he was a racist?"

Should point out, Kathy Griffin lost her job, too.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is this anti cop sentiment that has become popular now. This current generation is overly critical of police to the point of being self destructive. And they don't apply this same level of criticism to anything else as far as I can tell.

Not any other profession kills 1200 civilians a year.

I think 99% of cops are great guys who do a difficult job.

And 1% are your Wilsons, Van Dykes, Loehmanns, Slagers - bullies with badges and guns who show really shitty judgement in dealing with the public, specifically people of color.

The problem is, the 99% feel a need to build a wall of bodies to protect the 1% of bad actors.

Take Van Dyke. Before he shot LaQuan McDonald 16 times, most of them when he was lying on the ground, he had been cited 20 other times for abusing civilians, including one case where he dislocated a suspect's shoulder and the city had to pay out half a million. and he still had a job.

After he shot McDonald, three other police officer filed false reports (for which they were acquitted). He was put on desk duty for a year, until the tape of the shooting became public, when he was finally fired and indicted. He then got a job at the FOP union hall pretending to be a handyman.

Four years later, they FINALLY convicted him, and he got a whopping 6 years (will probably be out in three.)

That just doesn’t make sense. The 99% good cop thing just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t possible.

Let’s say that 1% of the cops were corrupt, brutal, dirty in other words. They wouldn’t be doing anything, living in mortal fear of being found out. Like a Pedophile, who knows that if anyone figures out what he’s up to, it’s only a matter of time before someone kills him. Either in the arrest, or in prison. It is going to happen. So he hides, knowing he is hated and feared.

While other criminals might be willing to cover the actions of the bad guy, most people wouldn’t. Here is where your theory falls down. It is never just one cop. Others see things, and cover it up. They write reports to cover the actions of the bad cop. They lie under oath to cover the actions of the bad cop. How can you be a good cop if you regularly commit perjury to cover up a bad cop? The excuse we used to hear is that good cops were afraid to come forward. That was what we heard when Serpico told us about the rampant corruption in the NYPD.

His argument seemed to bear fruit when he was shot and left to die while his partners, three of them rushed after the bad guy. The cops who carried him to the Hospital were overheard saying if they knew it had been Serpico, they would have left him there to die.

The cops may not be “on the take” as they were so frequently in years gone by, but that does not mean that anywhere close to 99% are “good”. Otherwise the bad cop would be found out long before he murdered someone in the street, or demands sexual favors from a woman in exchange for forgetting the criminal activity.

The entire system is set up to protect corrupt and bad cops. It is like Harvard Medical School. Hard to get into, but once you are in, it’s hard to get thrown out of. They don’t want to admit they made a mistake in hiring you in the first place.

So no, it isn’t 1% who are bad. It is 1%, or less, who are sacrificed to the public to pretend that bad cops are hated by good cops.

 

[JoeB131]

That just doesn’t make sense. The 99% good cop thing just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t possible.

Let’s say that 1% of the cops were corrupt, brutal, dirty in other words. They wouldn’t be doing anything, living in mortal fear of being found out. Like a Pedophile, who knows that if anyone figures out what he’s up to, it’s only a matter of time before someone kills him. Either in the arrest, or in prison. It is going to happen. So he hides, knowing he is hated and feared.

While other criminals might be willing to cover the actions of the bad guy, most people wouldn’t. Here is where your theory falls down. It is never just one cop. Others see things, and cover it up. They write reports to cover the actions of the bad cop. They lie under oath to cover the actions of the bad cop. How can you be a good cop if you regularly commit perjury to cover up a bad cop? The excuse we used to hear is that good cops were afraid to come forward.

Um, I think that was the sentiment i was trying to get across. I just didn't do it in the "I hate Cops" mentality that you seem to have. Most of us take the position that 'He's a jerk, but he's our jerk!" in our lives. We might think our brother is an asshole, but we'll spring to his defense if someone outside the family attacks him.

The entire system is set up to protect corrupt and bad cops. It is like Harvard Medical School. Hard to get into, but once you are in, it’s hard to get thrown out of. They don’t want to admit they made a mistake in hiring you in the first place.

I don't disagree... part of the problem is the FOP and organizations like it that defend the bad cops to the hilt. But the alternative would be what most of us have to deal with, being the potential victim of office politics with no one to stand up for us, not sure if that is really better.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, that's different.

With the institutions I"m involved with, I didn't agree to give up my rights. I still have Fourth Amendment rights. I just gave them permission to do a background check on me. Now if they said I must allow them to search my home, do a background check anytime they desired, agree that all my social media can be monitored, my phone calls, my email, then they violated my rights.

That would not be a violation of your rights as long as you agreed to let it happen. And if you were told that all those things would happen if you took the job, then taking the job would be agreeing to let them happen,

As an employer, the city of Akron can dictate what policies are on duty. They don't have to provide constitutional rights on duty, however they cannot deny your rights once you are off duty. That is entering into your personal life--not professional.

They are not denying anyone their rights, they are just not obligated to keep paying people that exercise those rights in a way that is against their behavior standards.

 

[SavannahMann]

That just doesn’t make sense. The 99% good cop thing just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t possible.

Let’s say that 1% of the cops were corrupt, brutal, dirty in other words. They wouldn’t be doing anything, living in mortal fear of being found out. Like a Pedophile, who knows that if anyone figures out what he’s up to, it’s only a matter of time before someone kills him. Either in the arrest, or in prison. It is going to happen. So he hides, knowing he is hated and feared.

While other criminals might be willing to cover the actions of the bad guy, most people wouldn’t. Here is where your theory falls down. It is never just one cop. Others see things, and cover it up. They write reports to cover the actions of the bad cop. They lie under oath to cover the actions of the bad cop. How can you be a good cop if you regularly commit perjury to cover up a bad cop? The excuse we used to hear is that good cops were afraid to come forward.

Um, I think that was the sentiment i was trying to get across. I just didn't do it in the "I hate Cops" mentality that you seem to have. Most of us take the position that 'He's a jerk, but he's our jerk!" in our lives. We might think our brother is an asshole, but we'll spring to his defense if someone outside the family attacks him.

The entire system is set up to protect corrupt and bad cops. It is like Harvard Medical School. Hard to get into, but once you are in, it’s hard to get thrown out of. They don’t want to admit they made a mistake in hiring you in the first place.

I don't disagree... part of the problem is the FOP and organizations like it that defend the bad cops to the hilt. But the alternative would be what most of us have to deal with, being the potential victim of office politics with no one to stand up for us, not sure if that is really better.

I do not hate cops. A common refrain that is meant to delegitimize my arguments. I applied simple logic, and history, to the question. It is simply not possible.

Look at the case you started with. Three cops lied on their reports, and were acquitted of Perjury. If we were to use the 1% of cops were bad statistic, then somewhere, there were 496 good cops who just happened not to be at that scene at that time. What are the odds of that? One was a murderer, and three were Perjurers. Four felons all in the same place, at the same time, as a random occourance just when it was needed?

Before you can fix something, you have to figure out what is broken. I have many times demanded reform of the Police, the Judicial System, and the societal beliefs that enable the abuses that those systems hand out regularly. Figuring out what is broken is step one, and to do that you have to be honest. That isn’t hating cops, that is hating the system that pressures cops, and perverts the system into what we have today.

Serpico exposed the corruption in the NYPD. Yet the same abuses still happen, and when a Cop, a Good Cop, comes forward, and says that this is still happening, what happens to that good cop? Read the NYPD Tapes to find out. The good cop was locked into an insane asylum by his fellow cops, to keep him from talking, and discredit his assertions. Thankfully he recorded much of what he was seeing, so he had proof that he wasn’t imagining this widespread corruption, and abuses.

Figuring out what is broken, so we can fix it isn’t hating cops, and isn’t wishing for anarchy. It is striving for something better, what we should have, what was promised to us by our Ancestors, the founders of this nation, in that awesome document known as the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I find violations of those rights to be intolerable. And I will always argue that the protected rights should be valiantly defended for all, no matter what. Because those rights are only as strong as our determination to defend them at all costs.

I don’t hate the police. I hate the abuses, the lies, and the culture that protects it. I have never wanted to see a dead cop. I have even written long tirades about what kind of changes I believe are required. One of those changes, was Polygraph testing for cops. Ten minutes and they’re done for another six months. Just a few simple questions. Have you lied on any reports or lied under oath? Do you know of anyone who has done those things that you haven’t reported? Have you planted evidence or have reason to believe that evidence was planted? Have you seen any abuse of a suspect, or have you abused a suspect?

If the cop failed the polygraph in my suggestion, even then I didn’t want him fired. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Give him/her two weeks to address the personal issue that may be throwing off the test. If they fail that one, I’m not saying lock them up. But they’re not leaving with their badge and gun.

We do the same sort of integrity testing for people with Top Secret Clearances. We don’t lock them up for failing, but we do take their access card and disallow them to have access to Top Secret material. How is being a cop any less of a trustworthy assignment than handling the nations secrets?

No, we wouldn’t find all the dirty cops. Some sociopaths can beat the Polygraph with ease. But we would find most of them very quickly, and we would keep the rest honest, so the sociopaths would become exposed as the good cops, actively worked to root out the now 1% of cops who were bad. The bad cops then, would be like the pedophiles of my first response. In hiding, afraid to act, knowing they are hunted.

I don’t hate the cops, I just want them to live up to the hype. If they can’t then drop the hype and admit they are little more than a gang.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That would not be a violation of your rights as long as you agreed to let it happen. And if you were told that all those things would happen if you took the job, then taking the job would be agreeing to let them happen,

Correct, but it doesn't affect my personal life, only my professional life. You are comparing apples and oranges. That's like saying when you fill out a job application, that information is protected by the Fourth which they are asking for your permission to give up. No. The information they are requesting has nothing to do with the Fourth. It's simply information they need to make sure you are qualified for the job. A job interviewer cannot say in order to take this job, you have to give up your right to vote. That''s a violation.

They are not denying anyone their rights, they are just not obligated to keep paying people that exercise those rights in a way that is against their behavior standards.

This officer gave an opinion on FB. He was suspended for several months and then fired. His opinion had nothing to do with his job nor was he speaking in an official capacity. His First was violated because the government retaliated for him exercising his rights.

 

[Lesh]

That would not be a violation of your rights as long as you agreed to let it happen. And if you were told that all those things would happen if you took the job, then taking the job would be agreeing to let them happen,

Correct, but it doesn't affect my personal life, only my professional life. You are comparing apples and oranges. That's like saying when you fill out a job application, that information is protected by the Fourth which they are asking for your permission to give up. No. The information they are requesting has nothing to do with the Fourth. It's simply information they need to make sure you are qualified for the job. A job interviewer cannot say in order to take this job, you have to give up your right to vote. That''s a violation.

They are not denying anyone their rights, they are just not obligated to keep paying people that exercise those rights in a way that is against their behavior standards.

This officer gave an opinion on FB. He was suspended for several months and then fired. His opinion had nothing to do with his job nor was he speaking in an official capacity. His First was violated because the government retaliated for him exercising his rights.

YOU however don't understand the Constitution or the difference between the states and the Federal government

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This officer gave an opinion on FB. He was suspended for several months and then fired. His opinion had nothing to do with his job nor was he speaking in an official capacity. His First was violated because the government retaliated for him exercising his rights.

If his Facebook page identified him as a member of the police department then they have every right to do what they did.

When the government is acting as an employer they have all the rights of any other employer. What you are asking for is that government employees be given special protections that the rest of us do not get. That would be against the equal protection clause.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That would not be a violation of your rights as long as you agreed to let it happen. And if you were told that all those things would happen if you took the job, then taking the job would be agreeing to let them happen,

Correct, but it doesn't affect my personal life, only my professional life. You are comparing apples and oranges. That's like saying when you fill out a job application, that information is protected by the Fourth which they are asking for your permission to give up. No. The information they are requesting has nothing to do with the Fourth. It's simply information they need to make sure you are qualified for the job. A job interviewer cannot say in order to take this job, you have to give up your right to vote. That''s a violation.

They are not denying anyone their rights, they are just not obligated to keep paying people that exercise those rights in a way that is against their behavior standards.

This officer gave an opinion on FB. He was suspended for several months and then fired. His opinion had nothing to do with his job nor was he speaking in an official capacity. His First was violated because the government retaliated for him exercising his rights.

YOU however don't understand the Constitution or the difference between the states and the Federal government

The difference is irrelevant in this instance.