Should this State Trooper keeps his job

[royalfan5]

http://journalstar.com/articles/2006/08/26/top_story/doc44f0b27626e4e837217526.txt

NE State trooper joins white supermacy group so the state want's to can him, now they are in arbitration.

I would just assume let him go because he will be nothing but a liability to the state police as a know white supremacist.

[jk the sooner fan]

are there black people in nebraska? i mean besides on the football team?

yes, he should be canned

[sanantoniosooner]

I knew jk would respond quickly :)

[royalfan5]

are there black people in nebraska? i mean besides on the football team?

yes, he should be canned
In Omaha there is. Folks like Malcom X, Bob Boozer, Johnny Rogers, Gale Sayers, Bob Gibson, and Ahman Green are all from Omaha.

[jk the sooner fan]

dude, my wife is from grand island....i know there are blacks in nebraska, it was a joke

however , nobody who's job it is to serve the public, should be allowed to belong to a group that espouses the ideals of superiority over a minority group - how on earth would minorities in his jurisdiction be secure in knowing they'd get fair treatment from him?

we tried the "white supremacist cop" thing in mississippi in the 60's, it was a failed experiment

[royalfan5]

dude, my wife is from grand island....i know there are blacks in nebraska, it was a joke

however , nobody who's job it is to serve the public, should be allowed to belong to a group that espouses the ideals of superiority over a minority group - how on earth would minorities in his jurisdiction be secure in knowing they'd get fair treatment from him?

we tried the "white supremacist cop" thing in mississippi in the 60's, it was a failed experiment
I know you were kidding, I just felt like tossing some names out there.

[jk the sooner fan]

I know you were kidding, I just felt like tossing some names out there.

sad that you could only come up with 5 ;)

[royalfan5]

sad that you could only come up with 5 ;)
That was just off the top of my head. If I though about I might get to ten.

[afs]

no. so long as his private life doesn't spill over into the work environment, then his employeer has no right to tell him what he can/can not do during his off time. provided that he is not breaking the law.

I know lots of people who are very religious and are public servants. In their off time they are extreme evangelists / missionairies but would never imagine projecting that image while on duty.

:pop:

[mrowl]

if he hasn't done anything agaisnt the law, then he should keep his job.

I am sure there are lots of racists in public jobs, this just means he may be a racist who pays his monthly dues

[crawfish]

In Omaha there is. Folks like Malcom X, Bob Boozer, Johnny Rogers, Gale Sayers, Bob Gibson, and Ahman Green are all from Omaha.

Football players and one guy who became very, very bitter. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Thorny issue.

On the one hand, there's the First Amendment right to free expression association and assembly.

On the other hand, that First Amendment right affords no protection to employment-except by the government, which is his employer.

Were I arguing from the standpoint of canning this dude, I'd begin from the standpoint that his testimony would be almost worthless in any case involving a person of any color but white. If a jury knows that cop is a racist and the cop testifies at all against a person of color, the jury is going to immediately discount what he has to say.

Since his beliefs and membership in a white supremacist group inhibits his ability to effectively perform his duty, no EEOC protection should be afforded unless reasonably accomodation can be made to ensure that the officer will never have to give testimony.

[85Sooner]

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

[royalfan5]

Football players, one of the most dominant pitchers ever, and one guy who became very, very bitter. :D
fixed

[SicEmBaylor]

As long as the state troopers are tax-payer funded there's no way in hell he should be canned unless it's found that he participated in an illegal activity with said organization.

If this were a private company then you bet your *** he should be canned.

[Sooner24]

If he hasn't broken any law and it isn't in any contract he signed as a condition of his employment then no he should not be fired.

[jk the sooner fan]

well, its illegal to be an active member of any association while a member of the military ....you can be a passive member (i.e. receive brochures, literature, etc) but thats it

i'm floored by the responses.....

[Ike]

A private employer can fire an employee for any reason...even something as trivial as that employee smoking...even if they don't do so at work. (this was a thread once)

The government on the other hand has to be more careful in its firing practices. Firing people willy-nilly scares people because suddenly they might see the government as being itself prejudiced in some way. However, In this case, if the government can't fire him, I would think they can certainly demote him to Janitor or something. The last thing they should want is to have him running around with a gun and a badge. That should scare the crap out of people.

[rebmus]

1. i think the guy's an idiot for joining a "white supremist" group.

2. (IF he's fired), would the same thing happen if an african american cop joined an african american supremist group?

i wonder if the aclu will represent this white cop if he's fired?

[Tiptonsooner]

I know the OHP doesn't allow troopers to even campaign for thier choices in who are running in elections. A cetain amount of decorum is expected, it comes with the job. IMO, the guy should be fired.

[jk the sooner fan]

let me put it in these terms

if a cop of any color, while on duty, espouses some sort of obvious racial discrimination - whether it be unfair treatment, or racial slurs, or making an unwarranted arrest against the opposite group - would you be in favor of that officer being fired?

i'd hope so

whats the difference? seriously, ok yeah we have alot of closet racists all over the country in a variety of jobs......hell a sports coach can make a "non PC" comment and be done with.......and so we have a state trooper who joins a white supremacist group - you know, the ones that want all the black people gone

and the lot of you are against him being fired.....

incredible

[rebmus]

let me put it in these terms



and the lot of you are against him being fired.....


i'm not against him being fired at all... i do wonder if he'd be fired if the "shoe were on the other foot (so to say)"

[whatsername]

“The department was not able to point to a single instance on the job — or for that matter at any time, including his off-duty hours — where the grievant’s actions exhibited any hatred, anger, disgust or discrimination towards any minority group,” the arbitrator wrote in a recent decision.



-- how about when he joined the white supremacist group with links to the Ku Klux Klan???

[Frozen Sooner]

let me put it in these terms

if a cop of any color, while on duty, espouses some sort of obvious racial discrimination - whether it be unfair treatment, or racial slurs, or making an unwarranted arrest against the opposite group - would you be in favor of that officer being fired?

i'd hope so

whats the difference? seriously, ok yeah we have alot of closet racists all over the country in a variety of jobs......hell a sports coach can make a "non PC" comment and be done with.......and so we have a state trooper who joins a white supremacist group - you know, the ones that want all the black people gone

and the lot of you are against him being fired.....

incredible

Hey, now-some of us are in favor of termination.

And calling someone a "good n----r" goes pretty far beyond the "non PC" line, if that's to what you were referring.

[Frozen Sooner]

I can't wait for the first time this dude gets called to testify against a black defendant.

"Officer Forrest, when investigating this case, did you have any preconceived notions as to what the perpetrator might look like?"

"No, I cannot say that I did."

"Officer Forrest, do you believe that black people are more likely to commit crimes than white people?"

"No, I don't believe so."

"Officer Forrest, may I remind you that you are under oath. Do you now belong to a group called 'Black People are Bad?'"

"Um, yes."

"Is it not one of the stated tenets of this organization that black people are, in fact, genetically predisposed towards crime?"

"I don't know."

"Again, Officer Forrest, you ARE under oath."

"Er...."

Yeah, that's not going to go over well.

[rebmus]

I can't wait for the first time this dude gets called to testify against a black defendant.

"Officer Forrest, when investigating this case, did you have any preconceived notions as to what the perpetrator might look like?"

"No, I cannot say that I did."

"Officer Forrest, do you believe that black people are more likely to commit crimes than white people?"

"No, I don't believe so."

"Officer Forrest, may I remind you that you are under oath. Do you now belong to a group called 'Black People are Bad?'"

"Um, yes."

"Is it not one of the stated tenets of this organization that black people are, in fact, genetically predisposed towards crime?"

"I don't know."

"Again, Officer Forrest, you ARE under oath."

"Er...."

Yeah, that's not going to go over well.
copy and pasted from the OJ case? :P

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. Actually, the OJ case is the first thing I thought of when I read this.

[rebmus]

Heh. Actually, the OJ case is the first thing I thought of when I read this.

and it's a VERY valid reason why this idiot should be fired. i don't care how MUCH evidence he may have against an african american criminal... the criminal will end up getting away with the crime b/c of the "race card".

while i think the whole furman (sp?) deal was overplayed... just imagine if THIS trooper was on trial in the OJ case!

[sanantoniosooner]

well, its illegal to be an active member of any association while a member of the military ....you can be a passive member (i.e. receive brochures, literature, etc) but thats it

i'm floored by the responses.....
at the risk of agreeing with you twice in a short period of time.......

I do lend more weight to your opinion since you have in law enforcement and have a greater grasp of the ramifications of being part of a group like that.

[jk the sooner fan]

at the risk of agreeing with you twice in a short period of time.......

I do lend more weight to your opinion since you have in law enforcement and have a greater grasp of the ramifications of being part of a group like that.

i always considered myself very fair to everybody that i dealt with, regardless of race, etc etc

but regardless, i cant count how many times a black subject in the back seat would say 'you're only arresting me because i'm black"

my response "you're only saying that because i'm white"

no way in hell would i want a member of a supremacist group carrying a badge along side me

[Okla-homey]

http://journalstar.com/articles/2006/08/26/top_story/doc44f0b27626e4e837217526.txt

NE State trooper joins white supermacy group so the state want's to can him, now they are in arbitration.

I would just assume let him go because he will be nothing but a liability to the state police as a know white supremacist.

Such beliefs have been used to justify not granting bar admission. I don't think people who have such beliefs should be cops either. It sets them up on a collision course with someday, scruing someone over really bad.

[Killerbees]

Well its obvious that the guy shouldnt be in any position where he would be interacting with civilians. So I would think that they could fire him or at the very least demote him to some type of desk job because he has made himself unable to carry out the job he was hired to do.

Yes there is freedom of speech but that doesnt mean freedom from accepting the responsibility of what you speak.

[Killerbees]

The military is entirely different. When you join the armed forces you give up certain rights (freedom of speech, civilian trial, freedom to go where you want, freedom to assemble and etc) whereas a policeman is still technically a civilian. They may be held to higher standards but they are still effectively civilians.

[jk the sooner fan]

The military is entirely different. When you join the armed forces you give up certain rights (freedom of speech, civilian trial, freedom to go where you want, freedom to assemble and etc) whereas a policeman is still technically a civilian. They may be held to higher standards but they are still effectively civilians.

really? i never gave up my right to free speech....there is no such thing as "total free speech" without consequences...... the rights afforded an accused in a courts martial are no different than they are in a civilian trial - the trial procedures are a tad different.....but the rights under the constitution are still there

and i had the freedom to assemble, so long as it did not prejudice good order and discpline against the Armed Forces

state police are still "state employees" - the principle is the same

[yermom]

first off, playing devil's advocate here, ideally this guy should not be in this job

but... just because you are a member of a group does that mean you agree with everything they stand for? if being in this group is so bad, and they are inciting violence, etc... then why not arrest them?

what if a jew or Tuba was a cop and had to deal with Muslims? what then?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

what if a jew or Tuba was a cop and had to deal with Muslims? what then?

Bingo.

SHOULD the guy be a trooper?

No.

Should they fire the guy because of his affiliation?

No.

Should they watch this cat like hawk and bounce him on his butt the first time he stubs his toe?

Bet your sweet cherry-pickin' hiney they should.

They can him now and he'll smoke 'em like a doobie at a Grateful Dead concert in court.

[jk the sooner fan]

first off, playing devil's advocate here, ideally this guy should not be in this job

but... just because you are a member of a group does that mean you agree with everything they stand for? if being in this group is so bad, and they are inciting violence, etc... then why not arrest them?

what if a jew or Tuba was a cop and had to deal with Muslims? what then?

oh for the love of all that is holy.......1) i dont think the white supremacists group has a dallas sized phone book of "things they believe in".....what they believe in is pretty simple and straightforward....2) why on earth would you belong to a group if you didnt believe in what they stand for?

he's in a position of authority to exercise what the group believes in because he's out patrolling.......often unchecked

and for the fireman that states they should watch him like a hawk......well what in the hell is the purpose of that? thats NOT how a police force operates....yes you supervise but you cant watch every cop every minute of the day.....there HAS to be some (not some, ALOT) trust instilled in the members of your force while they're out and about

most police departments require all applicants to take a mental aptitude test...and those who dont score well, arent hired.....using the logic of "the devils advocate", we should just open up the police force to any rooty poot who wants the badge and gun

no offense, but you guys are dead wrong on this

[Tulsa_Fireman]

and for the fireman that states they should watch him like a hawk......well what in the hell is the purpose of that?

To eventually find grounds to bring him to termination.


thats NOT how a police force operates....yes you supervise but you cant watch every cop every minute of the day.....there HAS to be some (not some, ALOT) trust instilled in the members of your force while they're out and about

Couldn't agree more, my friend. Just like trust is instilled to an extent in every other form of employment. But my position doesn't involve sitting in the back of his squad car with a legal pad and a pair of binoculars. It's administrative, as you'll also find in every other form of employment. And violations of SOPs come in every flavor and color under the sun. And everyone, at one time or another within the pursuit of their duties, has bent or even broken one, possibly by the most liberal of interpretation, but bent or broken nonetheless. To say otherwise is simply falsehood. Point being...

You fire the guy. But you let him put the rope around his OWN neck before you do. Once he does, and he will, given an inordinate amount of scrutiny from administration, pop. You got him. And the 1st Amendment never comes into play.

I think we're seein' the same outcome here, just a different means of gettin' there. We can both agree he's not fit for duty. But considering this is a news story and he hasn't been bounced yet means there's no standing SOP in place for such a thing and no law on the books to prohibit it. Therefore if you can the guy, the guy rolls the state into court, slaps 'em across the chops with wrongful termination, THEN gets to sit in an ivory tower under the protection of the court because in haste, the administration acted on the right thing, but at the wrong time. Would you rather see that?

Or would you rather see this guy get hosed for something like misfiling a report with no grounds whatsoever for wrongful termination? The state and the people both win in that scenario.

[jk the sooner fan]

if you followed him around simply because he belongs to this organization, hoping to find that "rope to hang him with"......its the same thing, the union will file a grievance that he's being treated unfairly as the other officers arent being followed around and watched under a microscope.....then he's got the same argument

employers get to determine what is suitable for employment and what isnt....i can assure you that a state police force has some code of ethics that is latched to remaining employed ...and i'd bet money that belonging to this type of organization is in violation of that code of ethics

this is a state trooper we're talking about, out on the highways, not a city cop...the logistics of keeping somebody like that under the microscope are enough to warrant canning him

i dont think he'd be successful in a wrongful termination suit....he's not being fired because of his race, religion, sex, nationality, etc.......he's being terminated because he's displayed behavior that is outside the acceptable norm for employment as a trooper

freedom of speech doesnt come without its consequences

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Which is kinda sad, because our end result is the same for the guy.

What would rip my guts out about the thing is if it DID go down like you say, the guy DID whip out his herd of ACLU monkeys (who by the way, if they show up to help this guy, I'm sellin' the debbil a ski coat and gloves ;)), and the guy DID win a wrongful termination suit. The only people that would hurt are the People themselves. And the potential of that happening, which in my opinion is pretty high, is worth going a different route in the matter to ensure the end result is the one the people want and need.

Fact is, that's where violations of SOP comes into play. When you got a guy, you got a guy. There's no grey area. There's the violation of whatever law or operating procedure, the procedure defining the actions permissible by the administration upon violation of said procedure, and the following benefit of secondary and tertiary offenses of law or SOP. Again, it's not an issue of Magnum P.I. stalkin' the guy with a video camera and a tape recorder. It's administrative. And maybe that's the first step, if SOP has permissions to place officers under administrative review for fitness of duty, finding through records and pertinent past history a violation or offense, then taking pre-termination action. Essentially, pen-whip the guy. And keep him on the radar if the pen-whippin' you got isn't a defined offense that can lead to termination.

And last time I checked, "outside the acceptable norm", unless defined in SOP, isn't a catch-all argument to the problem. They need specifics. They need details. They need documentation. They need bullets in their gun. Not just "omg he hates t3h blax0rz" and the following hamhanded firing.

[Frozen Sooner]

If the department uses the line of reasoning I've given above, the ACLU probably won't get involved as no violation of civil rights occurs.

[Okla-homey]

The military is entirely different. When you join the armed forces you give up certain rights (freedom of speech, civilian trial, freedom to go where you want, freedom to assemble and etc) whereas a policeman is still technically a civilian. They may be held to higher standards but they are still effectively civilians.

I disagree. You don't give up any constitutionally protected rights when you join the military. No American court has ever so ruled. It's fine yet a very important distinction, but more precisely, the command must show very compelling purposes for limiting a soldiers' rights to do things in the areas you cite.

Courts then balance the needs of the national security establishment with individual soldiers constitutional rights and if those limits are narrowly tailored and can be shown to be necessary for the effective order and discipline of the military -- the soldier must comply.

Although it didn't involve a reaction to a civil rights suit, that is why racially segregated military units were struck down during the Truman administration and long before civil society was desegregated. HST knew the military could demonstrate no real benefit of segregated units. He ordered it and the military followed orders.

Actually, as a retired GI, I'm pretty proud of the fact the military has led civil society in doing some very progressive things like that peacefully and without a whimper.

So far, the ban on openly gay soldiers remains, and I'm personally in favor of leaving it in place, but realistically, I expect it will go away someday when the time is right b/c most of the arguments favoring the continued ban are IMHO pretty shallow and sketchy.

[Killerbees]

Sorry JK and Okla-homey, normally I agree with you but on this you are both wrong.

When you join the military you do not get

A trial by jury
to say what you want without fear of criminal prosecution
to become directly involved with elections or protests
protection from double jeopardy
the right to privacy or unreasonable seizure

Now you can dance around the subject and tell me about various court decisions on this but the fact remains that you do lose some rights. I know I did.

[jk the sooner fan]

Sorry JK and Okla-homey, normally I agree with you but on this you are both wrong.

When you join the military you do not get

A trial by jury
to say what you want without fear of criminal prosecution
to become directly involved with elections or protests
protection from double jeopardy
the right to privacy or unreasonable seizure

Now you can dance around the subject and tell me about various court decisions on this but the fact remains that you do lose some rights. I know I did.

funny, i was a CID agent for 15 years in the Army and was involved in numerous courts-martial - except for the few "judge alone" trials.....there were trials with "panels" (military for jury)

you cant say what you want without fear of criminal prosecution anywhere - if you say "i want to kill the president".....the secret service will be knocking on your door

you can protest as long as you are not in uniform and do not bring discredit against the service.....you can be involved in an election as long as you are not in uniform

i dont know what "double jeopardy" you're talking about, but if you're referring to being tried by a courts-martial and then by a civilian court - that is NOT double jeopardy as they are two SEPARATE jurisdictions

every search warrant i ever executed had to be authorized by a judge after presenting probable cause and an affidavit

i dont know what experience you had, but I can say that in my 21 years of service, I never lost any of my constitutional rights

[Okla-homey]

Sorry JK and Okla-homey, normally I agree with you but on this you are both wrong.

When you join the military you do not get

A trial by jury = Court Martial
to say what you want without fear of criminal prosecution Depends on what you say...you can't yell "the commander is a d*ck" in the PX
to become directly involved with elections or protests in civilian clothes its okay. I did
protection from double jeopardy Were you tried, found innocent, and then retried for the same offense? That's double jeopardy and I never saw that happen to anyone in 23 years in.
the right to privacy or unreasonable seizure As a commander, I had to jump thru hoops in order to search barracks rooms. I had to have probable cause just like civilian cops.
Now you can dance around the subject and tell me about various court decisions on this but the fact remains that you do lose some rights. I know I did.

What rights did you lose?...just go ahead and run down the list in the Constitution.
:pop: