This is the link
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10574680
And another; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29431231/
The abridged version is this. A state trooper, that?s a law enforcement officer who usually just deals with traffic laws, highways, and things of that ilk, joined the Klu Klux Klan. For this activity the 18 Year Veteran was fired.
For those who don?t know, as I?m not sure how well the KKK is known outside the USA. The Klan is a white supremacy group that advocates the removal of all non White Protestant Christians from the United States. They have a long (over 130 years) legacy of violence particularly against blacks. (But they hate Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, pretty much everyone)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
The cause of him joining the KKK?
[blockquote] An internal investigation found that he joined the party in 2004 and posted four messages to an online discussion group for party members. Henderson said he joined as a way to vent his frustrations over his wife leaving him for a Hispanic man. He resigned his membership in 2006.[/blockquote]
This is also the extent of his activities 2 years with 4 internet posts; nothing very major.
I?m not sure how I feel about this; On the one hand yes anyone with a badge should not be connected to any sort of violence group. As stated?
[blockquote] "We hold that Nebraska public policy precludes an individual from being reinstated to serve as a sworn officer in a law enforcement agency if that individual's service would severely undermine reasonable public perception that the agency is uniformly committed to the equal enforcement of the law and that each citizen of Nebraska can depend on law enforcement officers to enforce the law without regard to race," the majority opinion said.[/blockquote]
People holding authority and public power should not be part of any other group that seeks to subvert the government. Yes
But at the same time; the first amendment is tantamount and as a nation part of our most sacred document the bill of rights. Freedom of speech. There is no indication that he acted on these thoughts and this time and while on duty did anything less than be a professional.
[blockquote]"In my view, this apparent subordination of individual constitutional rights to the 'greater good' poses a far greater risk of harm to the public policy of this state than reinstating one misguided trooper and reassigning him to some mundane position well behind the front lines of law enforcement," (Dissenting Judge Kenneth) Stephan wrote.[/blockquote]
Speech must be protected even unpopular speech. Yes.
So fellow escapists, thoughts? Keep in mind all he did was join and make internet posts and allegedly (which is in different articles) go to one rally in another state. He engaged in no criminal activity in his time in the Klan.
edit: Is this not a 'slippery slope'? Every supreme court case sets precedent. If we say one form of speech is not allowed what will be next?
I'm not saying you can condone what he's saying; but his right to say it.
EDIT RIGHT UP IN HERE: ON the TV they pointed out that he was eligible for retirement. Would forced retirement be a viable punishment (rather then taking his pension)
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10574680
And another; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29431231/
The abridged version is this. A state trooper, that?s a law enforcement officer who usually just deals with traffic laws, highways, and things of that ilk, joined the Klu Klux Klan. For this activity the 18 Year Veteran was fired.
For those who don?t know, as I?m not sure how well the KKK is known outside the USA. The Klan is a white supremacy group that advocates the removal of all non White Protestant Christians from the United States. They have a long (over 130 years) legacy of violence particularly against blacks. (But they hate Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, pretty much everyone)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
The cause of him joining the KKK?
[blockquote] An internal investigation found that he joined the party in 2004 and posted four messages to an online discussion group for party members. Henderson said he joined as a way to vent his frustrations over his wife leaving him for a Hispanic man. He resigned his membership in 2006.[/blockquote]
This is also the extent of his activities 2 years with 4 internet posts; nothing very major.
I?m not sure how I feel about this; On the one hand yes anyone with a badge should not be connected to any sort of violence group. As stated?
[blockquote] "We hold that Nebraska public policy precludes an individual from being reinstated to serve as a sworn officer in a law enforcement agency if that individual's service would severely undermine reasonable public perception that the agency is uniformly committed to the equal enforcement of the law and that each citizen of Nebraska can depend on law enforcement officers to enforce the law without regard to race," the majority opinion said.[/blockquote]
People holding authority and public power should not be part of any other group that seeks to subvert the government. Yes
But at the same time; the first amendment is tantamount and as a nation part of our most sacred document the bill of rights. Freedom of speech. There is no indication that he acted on these thoughts and this time and while on duty did anything less than be a professional.
[blockquote]"In my view, this apparent subordination of individual constitutional rights to the 'greater good' poses a far greater risk of harm to the public policy of this state than reinstating one misguided trooper and reassigning him to some mundane position well behind the front lines of law enforcement," (Dissenting Judge Kenneth) Stephan wrote.[/blockquote]
Speech must be protected even unpopular speech. Yes.
So fellow escapists, thoughts? Keep in mind all he did was join and make internet posts and allegedly (which is in different articles) go to one rally in another state. He engaged in no criminal activity in his time in the Klan.
edit: Is this not a 'slippery slope'? Every supreme court case sets precedent. If we say one form of speech is not allowed what will be next?
I'm not saying you can condone what he's saying; but his right to say it.
EDIT RIGHT UP IN HERE: ON the TV they pointed out that he was eligible for retirement. Would forced retirement be a viable punishment (rather then taking his pension)
