Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This incident occurred in a nearby county and I want your opinion as to what you would do if you are the officer's superior and this was brought to your attention? It is much too unethical to post such as this but a decision must be made. Pursue it as a personnel matter or ignore it? I am glad that this officer is not one of my troops. Is it a First Amendment matter or is it just plain cruel and nothing can be done?

We have some lawyers on SGW. Help me form an opinion as to what should or should not be done. The officer has been suspended without pay. Good decision or not? Should he be fired?

http://www.wwaytv3.com/2016/09/26/first ... book-post/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,021 Posts
I'd give him some time off for being grossly stupid and posting ANYTHING of FB that might even hint at anything inappropriate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,617 Posts
One's 1st Am rights do not guarantee employment. You say it , you own it.

See In Re: McCool (La Sup Ct--2016) where a lawyer got disbarred for "exercising her 1st Am rights" but did so falsely and in violation of a court order. You don't get it both ways.

B/c it is posted on the Intermess is no defense. You can post it; they can fire you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,136 Posts
That officer is going to have a rough time if he testifies in court against someone with a 74% illigitamacy rate.

IF that becomes a problem, i would guess that letting him go would be real easy.I can empathize with his anger over the blm gangs. But a professional needs to rise above their emotions .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,292 Posts
Terminal stupidity on the officer's part.

As OT says above, he's a dead letter any time he arrests / tickets / testifies when the "unknown minority" is involved. If I was his boss I'd regard him as a liability in court and a corrosive and divisive influence around the station, and so wouldn't keep him on.

Twit.

Eug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,617 Posts
EV: The internet has created the interactive model which most em'ers have no tolerance for. There seem to be no limits and crazy people thrive when they have no accountability for what they post.

I go to the law school to teach the students about how the openness of the Internet is NOT your friend and once you join "our" profession , you will be held to a higher standard. Some folks missed the memo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
sera said:
EV:There seem to be no limits and crazy people thrive when they have no accountability for what they post.
No accountability?.......nobody is 'unknown' on the internet to the NSA or GCHQ in the western world. To believe otherwise is unwise in extremis, nevertheless there are still some folks who do not understand or believe that :wink: .

Here's one high profile public domain case involving social media that ended in tears without the need for the use of 'special' resources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,434 Posts
He should be seriously talked to (Old fashion butt chewing) about NEVER put anything on FB other than saying Hello to your kids!!! His comments reflect badly on his department!

Even if what he says is absolutely true he cannot say it on FB or in public without being responsible. The people being referred to in his post won't read the post in any case - he was shouting into the wind!!! Too bad...he had a rant!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
30,821 Posts
Here is a case you need a lawyer who practices employment discrimination law.

It's beyond Internet advice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,268 Posts
I may be a young buck here compared to other members here, but there was a time in my life where people actually took responsibility for their actions. If you made a comment about someone's family then you had to own up to it when confronted. Social media has made it so that NO responsibility needs to be taken for the crap people post online. People also forget that when you post someone on the internet, it's there for life. No taking it back.

So, what would I do if I was the cop's superior officer? As his employer, he is paid to be a cop and nothing else. His opinions that could/would negatively have effects on how the department is viewed by civilians needs to be kept to himself. He would be fired and all surrounding counties would be alerted by me not to hire this guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,180 Posts
There is likely a lot missing in the report, as is typical of newspaper stories. Context is missing as is previous writings and actions. Evidently, the rest of the page in question was not printed which raises questions that need to be considered before an appropriate action can be determined.

In the best case scenario (for the officer) a good chewing out and some "coaching" on how to act on the Internet would be least he could expect. If these posts/actions are part of a pattern, then firing may be a consideration. At worst, a few sessions of one on one sensitivity training with regular follow ups would be mandated. For anyone who has undergone government mandated/sponsored diversity training in a group setting, firing would be preferable to one on one. Those counseling for the government seem to be very poor, unimaginative, and humorless instructors compared to those I've met in the private sector. It is punishment to sit through the former.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The officer was terminated yesterday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,197 Posts
For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone rants on social media of any sort. What possible benefit is there in doing that? Just go out back and yell at the dog, at least then something (someone, if a Lab :wink: ) is paying attention, but not recording it for posterity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
The 1A is meant to protect offensive speech. I didn't realize police officers abdicated their constitutional rights when they put on the uniform. I bet that"ll play well for recruitment purposes. Departments are playing right into liberal and BLM hands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should, even if it is the truth. when in doubt use the old test of "...honey does this dress make my butt look fat?" You married guys know the deal.

This is part of the reason I will NEVER do facebook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts
How about "Honesty is the best policy"? The truth should always be expressed regardless of who might be offended. It's a very short leap from "that shouldn't be said cause it's offensive" to "that's hate speech, we're gonna lock you up!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,617 Posts
The 1st protects your right to say it. It does not guarantee a job when you do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,292 Posts
The 1A is meant to protect offensive speech. I didn't realize police officers abdicated their constitutional rights when they put on the uniform.
Of course the 1A protects free speech; what it doesn't do is protect individuals from adverse social and personal consequences when they say stupid and offensive things.

You have a perfect right to say that someone's sister is a bone ugly milch cow who shouldn't be allowed out of the house without two paper bags over her head. However you should be unsurprised if there are some moments of unpleasantness when you meet her brothers in the pub.

Eug
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top