The KKK took my trooper away...

[traceur_]

"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."

this sounds very logical, the whole point of a police force is to protect everyone, though he may not have been a full fledged racist, he could have been influenced by the other racist bastards who have done nothing to help anyone in the history of their organization, so i think it was right to fire him.

 

[ace_of_something]

As a law enforcement official myself. I do believe he should have been removed from active duty. At the same time there is no reason he couldn't be moved to say.... a tool and key department. Where his job would be maintaining radio equipment; not interacting with the public or at least letting him (see: forced him to) take his partial retirement; although I'm sure his dumb ass would've refused that.

 

[ButtonedDownParadox]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Ku Klux Klan is officially recognized as a terrorist organization.

Sooo...yeah. He should have been fired. This isn't even close to something like being fired for simply being a bigot (A bigoted police officer?! Go on!) or what have you. First amendment does not apply.

 

[Knight Templar]

The KKK used to be a terroist group, I don't think the USA lists them as one anymore but they do want to remove or kill a lot of people from the US. Not all members are crazy but its not a good group to be conected to.

He should have known better, I don't see his treatment as fair but he was a fool.

 

[Ace Jackson]

Freedom of speech isn't the issue, it's that someone in authority was associated with a known racist group, so there would be no way that they would know if he was upholding the law in a fair and unbiased way, free of any kind of racial profiling or junk like that.

I agree. A police officer should perform his duties impartially, and associating with a group known for its bias against minority groups would call his impartiality into question. (Especially in court, if he ever had to testify in front of a jury! And that goes double if the defendant actually does belong to a minority group.)

This dismissal wasn't an issue of freedom of speech, this was the dismissal of an officer unable to perform his duties.

-- Steve

Allow me to conjure up a hypothetical scenario...

Say there was a flag-making company, which produces American flags. It has a vested interest in its image being one of patriotic fervor and respect for the country, because this company's theoretical customer base are largely of the patriotically fervent type. One of this company's employees goes out one day, and at a nationally televised protest rally burns an American flag, and then a copy of the Constitution. They company immediately fires him, because his actions are inconsistent with their image and would be detrimental to the company. And let's go a bit farther and say that this employee has never had any legal trouble, his right to burn that flag was uncontested and completely lawful, and he was otherwise a model employee.

Is it right for him to have been fired? And if not, how is it fundamentally different from this situation?

If he stole the flags to burn, yeah, sure, but the fact that he burned flags and copies of the Constitution doesn't have an effect on his flag-sewing skills, so no, he shouldn't have been fired. The difference is that the police officer's extra-curricular activities and affiliations have an effect on what he does. You can't be part of the KKK and be completely impartial to matters of the law when race is an issue, and you don't have to be tolerant to make flags.

 

[SilentHunter7]

His affiliation was provoked by anger at a hispanic, so we can assume he didn't go 'to find out'.

It muddies his arrests, allows for criminals to revoke charges because 'the racists just has it in for me' and brings negative stigma on the force. Since when should they be forced to suffer for someone's stupid mistakes? He has proven he is unsuitable, and made himself unsuitable. That's why he was fired.

You can live without the stigma of your past, but instead of doing that he decided to brood on his wife leaving him and join a racist cult. His disposition is not one the police want, and as such he was justly fired.

Who says he has to be in the field? Relegate him to office work, or somesuch. Even then, it's up to a judge to decide if there's enough evidence to go to trial, and a jury to convict. A judge can't revoke the charges if there is evidence, and it's the DA's job to assure that he has enough evidence to prove to a jury the man is guilty, and it's the jury's job to look at the evidence placed before them.

Oh, and one more thing, I dont think anyone pointed this out: Shouldn't they have noticed this when he first signed up? What about during his 18 years on the force? Noone noticed any racist tendencies? Only when it became public, and they were embarrassed by it, did they do anything.

 

[Ace Jackson]

If he stole the flags to burn, yeah, sure, but the fact that he burned flags and copies of the Constitution doesn't have an effect on his flag-sewing skills, so no, he shouldn't have been fired. The difference is that the police officer's extra-curricular activities and affiliations have an effect on what he does. You can't be part of the KKK and be completely impartial to matters of the law when race is an issue, and you don't have to be tolerant to make flags.

Well you hardly have to be tolerant to pull someone over for speeding, do you? I mean, has this police officer ever made an arrest that was motivated out of bigotry? Or is he simply being fired because he's an embarassment?

No, you don't have to be tolerant to pull someone over for speeding, but if the guy who was speeding was non-white, who's to say the cop won't plant something illegal on him and arrest him? It'd be his word against a cop's. And even if he hadn't made an arrest that was racially motivated until then, that doesn't mean he won't, now that he's a member of the KKK, there's more reason than before to suspect some notsogoodness. It's like going to a party where there was heavy drinking, and everything is fine, then you leave, and come back dressed up as Woodrow Wilson and expecting everyone to be cool with it, and be surprised when they kick you out.

 

[SilentHunter7]

No, you don't have to be tolerant to pull someone over for speeding, but if the guy who was speeding was non-white, who's to say the cop won't plant something illegal on him and arrest him? It'd be his word against a cop's. And even if he hadn't made an arrest that was racially motivated until then, that doesn't mean he won't, now that he's a member of the KKK.

Who's to say he would? It has yet to be proven he's done it before. You can't know. None of us can.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Say there was a flag-making company, which produces American flags. It has a vested interest in its image being one of patriotic fervor and respect for the country, because this company's theoretical customer base are largely of the patriotically fervent type. One of this company's employees goes out one day, and at a nationally televised protest rally burns an American flag, and then a copy of the Constitution. They company immediately fires him, because his actions are inconsistent with their image and would be detrimental to the company. And let's go a bit farther and say that this employee has never had any legal trouble, his right to burn that flag was uncontested and completely lawful, and he was otherwise a model employee.

Is it right for him to have been fired? And if not, how is it fundamentally different from this situation? Admittedly this man was a public employee, but does being a servant of the government imply that you are forfeiting certain rights by taking their money? And let's remember, in both the hypothetical scenario and this real one, people are being fired for no actual, tangible reason other than perception.

The difference is actually quite marked between the two. Firstly, the police officer's primary duty was to interact with the community; like it or not, there has to be some sort of trust in him by that community or he's at best less effective at his job. The flag maker, probably not. (Maybe if he was in sales... but I doubt an exemplary salesman would so compromise his rapport with his customers.)

Secondly, the police officer (as I noted above) has to testify in court. With a known association to the KKK, whose racial policies are widely known and even acknowledged by the organisation itself, the officer's testimony would be called into question every time someone whom the KKK views as inferior comes to court. Again, the flag maker's ability to make flags is not so impeded.

I don't see the two as similar cases.

-- Steve

 

[Ace Jackson]

No, you don't have to be tolerant to pull someone over for speeding, but if the guy who was speeding was non-white, who's to say the cop won't plant something illegal on him and arrest him? It'd be his word against a cop's. And even if he hadn't made an arrest that was racially motivated until then, that doesn't mean he won't, now that he's a member of the KKK.

Who's to say he would? It has yet to be proven he's done it before. You can't know. None of us can.

He's a member of the KKK and a cop, it's like hiring a Nazi to be in a band at a Bar Mitzvah and expecting him to not set the place on fire. The danger is there, and it must be dealt with. There can't be chances taken with stuff like that.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Who's to say he would? It has yet to be proven he's done it before. You can't know. None of us can.

He's a member of the KKK and a cop, it's like hiring a Nazi to be in a band at a Bar Mitzvah and expecting him to not set the place on fire. The danger is there, and it must be dealt with. There can't be chances taken with stuff like that.

Except the Nazi has been playing at Bar Mitzvahs for 18 years and has yet to burn one down.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Who's to say he would? It has yet to be proven he's done it before. You can't know. None of us can.

He's a member of the KKK and a cop, it's like hiring a Nazi to be in a band at a Bar Mitzvah and expecting him to not set the place on fire. The danger is there, and it must be dealt with. There can't be chances taken with stuff like that.

Except the Nazi has been playing at Bar Mitzvahs for 18 years and has yet to burn one down.

So when he does, we can say 'sorry parents of the dead, we never thought the nazi might want to kill jewish children', right?

What's with this talk that he has rights? (Not you specifically Silent, but it's a related point) What about the people he is supposed to protect? Don't they have the right to an officer who hasn't displayed a tendency to use race as an excuse to persecute people and has been part of an organization that actively wants them deported or worse? I think he forfeited his right when he joined the Klan, why make other people forfeit theirs for his mistake?

 

[SilentHunter7]

It's a conflict of interest as you are burning something the company stands for, you are burning their image.

If you burn the flag as an employee of that company, then yes they have a right to fire you. If you burn it as a civilian peacefully protesting, then they can't touch you.

It's the same in the Military, and even police and fire departments. You can do whatever you want on your own time, as long as it's lawful, but when you are in uniform or announce yourself as a member of the Armed Forces/Police Force, you're representing them, and are required to behave in a certain way. Example; you're not allowed to go to a bar in uniform.