Should trooper be fired?
- Thread starter badbob
- Start date
Sorry to take so long getting back with you, Don.
Don,
Look back on page 2. You commented that the cop's record indicated that he didn't have a history of bias, and that this should indicate that he might be able to perform his duty without racist misconduct. (I don't know how to block-quote on this forum...)
This is the EXACT argument that was made in the Matt Hale case, namely, that the law graduate who wanted to join the Bar did not have any history of legal ethical misconduct toward black people. Hale testified at his disciplinary inquiry that, should he be assigned a black client by the courts, that he would represent the black client to the best of his ability. But, the court STILL denied his admission to the bar, and here's WHY:
Lawyers and cops are officers of the court. They exist to assist with the administration of justice. The sick irony about it (thanks alot, Framers!) is that, ultimately, the decision about guilt or innocence belongs to the jury, NOT to the experts in the legal field. The courts knew something about Matt Hale (as I know about this cop). They knew that if the jury gets wind that Hale was a white-supremecist, the jury would AUTOMATICALLY assume that everything Hale did was cued to racial motives. If Hale said the black guy was guilty, then it would appear to the jury that he was only saying so because Hale is a racist. If Hale said the black guy was not-guilty, then it would appear that Hale was only saying so to AVOID beeing SEEN as a racist!
(I'll separate and capitalize this part, because it's important.) In other words, CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU ARE PART OF THE COURT SYSTEM. AFFILIATION WITH A HATE GROUP TAINTS YOUR CREDIBILITY.
It doesn't matter whether this cop INTENDS to be prejudicial toward people or not. It doesn't even matter if he actually IS prejudicial against his perps. What matters is whether his involvement in this organization impairs his ability to perform his job. One of the duties in his job is to maintain the appearance of impartiality to the courts. His involvement in the KKK negates this appearance of impartiality. He should be fired. Period.
Don,
Look back on page 2. You commented that the cop's record indicated that he didn't have a history of bias, and that this should indicate that he might be able to perform his duty without racist misconduct. (I don't know how to block-quote on this forum...)
This is the EXACT argument that was made in the Matt Hale case, namely, that the law graduate who wanted to join the Bar did not have any history of legal ethical misconduct toward black people. Hale testified at his disciplinary inquiry that, should he be assigned a black client by the courts, that he would represent the black client to the best of his ability. But, the court STILL denied his admission to the bar, and here's WHY:
Lawyers and cops are officers of the court. They exist to assist with the administration of justice. The sick irony about it (thanks alot, Framers!) is that, ultimately, the decision about guilt or innocence belongs to the jury, NOT to the experts in the legal field. The courts knew something about Matt Hale (as I know about this cop). They knew that if the jury gets wind that Hale was a white-supremecist, the jury would AUTOMATICALLY assume that everything Hale did was cued to racial motives. If Hale said the black guy was guilty, then it would appear to the jury that he was only saying so because Hale is a racist. If Hale said the black guy was not-guilty, then it would appear that Hale was only saying so to AVOID beeing SEEN as a racist!
(I'll separate and capitalize this part, because it's important.) In other words, CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU ARE PART OF THE COURT SYSTEM. AFFILIATION WITH A HATE GROUP TAINTS YOUR CREDIBILITY.
It doesn't matter whether this cop INTENDS to be prejudicial toward people or not. It doesn't even matter if he actually IS prejudicial against his perps. What matters is whether his involvement in this organization impairs his ability to perform his job. One of the duties in his job is to maintain the appearance of impartiality to the courts. His involvement in the KKK negates this appearance of impartiality. He should be fired. Period.
Mad Martigan
New member
That sounds like grounds to throw out the jury.
Sam,
Outstanding post! Well thought out and cogent.
One of the important differences between the Matt Hale case and this is that Hale was seeking admittance to the bar - not a member with a track record seeking to retain a long-term membership. That's a vital difference. In HR matters, veteran employees with good records are generally given a latitude that is absent for a potential new hire. In other words, non-members/employees are held to a higher standard than established members/employees.
My assumption that the trooper in question has a good record is mainly based on the apparent lack of a laundry list of shortcomings to be trotted out by the plaintiffs. Of course, the article that this entire discussion is based upon is less than comprehensive.
While credibility is an important asset for a police officer, I don't believe that any courts have ruled that it is an absolute necessity to maintain a job as a police officer.
Got to go - duty calls.
Outstanding post! Well thought out and cogent.
One of the important differences between the Matt Hale case and this is that Hale was seeking admittance to the bar - not a member with a track record seeking to retain a long-term membership. That's a vital difference. In HR matters, veteran employees with good records are generally given a latitude that is absent for a potential new hire. In other words, non-members/employees are held to a higher standard than established members/employees.
My assumption that the trooper in question has a good record is mainly based on the apparent lack of a laundry list of shortcomings to be trotted out by the plaintiffs. Of course, the article that this entire discussion is based upon is less than comprehensive.
While credibility is an important asset for a police officer, I don't believe that any courts have ruled that it is an absolute necessity to maintain a job as a police officer.
Got to go - duty calls.
Camp David
New member
johnbt said:
I disagree... I thought we had free speech in this nation? What's next... firing government employees for belonging to Republican Party? Elks Lodge member? Fired?
Did this police officer do anything hostile? Seems like no. Therefore why was he fired?
The Klan is no worse today than that NAACP on the other side of the fence... is their a clause in police restrictions that forbids 1st Amendment freedoms?
Marko Kloos
Inactive
If that trooper had been fired because he joined NAMBLA, or if he was a black trooper getting fired for joining Nation of Islam, would you still stand up for his right to free speech and free association?
This is off topic. Feel free to move it to some other applicable thread.
Martigan,
First off, excellent "Willow" reference!
Second, you're absolutely right. There DOES exist a pretty good argument for elimination of juries. This is a debate that is usually engaged in by most first-year Civil Procedure classes in law school. (And, I'm sure there's a thread about it somewhere on TFL.)
In old-fashioned English Common Law, there were very few trials by a jury of peers. It was believed that issues of legal justice were too complicated to be understood by the common folk. (Remember, the VAST majority of English commoners at the time were illiterate.) The English justified the elimination of layperson involvement in the legal system by simply stating, "Best leave this to the legal experts." As a result, English Common Law was VERY difficult to understand. Most of the terms were kept in Latin. There were very few hard-line definitions; everything was open to debate and argument. And, in the end, the question of guilt or innocence really was left to the judge.
The problem with this, as Jefferson and Adams pointed out, is that judges in England typically sat alone. In other words, there was only one judge per trial. A single person can be corrupted. He can be biased. He can be bought. Or even worse, he just might be completely unenthusiastic and disinterested in the particular facts of any particular case, such that he will not even listen to what the parties have to say. (Judge Judy would make a GREAT English Common Law judge!)
Juries consist of multiple people. And, although a jury can be tampered with, it is MUCH more difficult to influence the outcome of an ENTIRE jury than it is to influence a SINGLE judge. Jefferson and Adams thought that a "jury of peers" would be a more secure way to insure administration of real justice. And, I agree with them.
But, I feel that the jury system has moved quite far away from Jefferson's intentions. What Jefferson and Adams meant by "a jury of peers" was that they wanted to be judged by all the OTHER rich, white, slave-owning, aristocratic, tax-dodging, male landowners in the Colonies. In their day, if you wanted to be on a jury, you had to be a landowner. Only men could own land. Land was EXPENSIVE. So, this was a way of ensuring that everyone who served on a jury was well-off, educated, in a word: LITERATE!
Now, by no means do I claim that only landowners should serve on a jury. But, I do feel that we would all be served well by the institution of some minimum level of intelligence and/or education on the part of our jurors. In any case, the current system of letting anyone who posesses a scintilla of education be recused from jury service for "professional reasons" is quite flawed. The doctors and lawyers are the ones we MOST NEED to be serving on juries.
Martigan,
First off, excellent "Willow" reference!
Second, you're absolutely right. There DOES exist a pretty good argument for elimination of juries. This is a debate that is usually engaged in by most first-year Civil Procedure classes in law school. (And, I'm sure there's a thread about it somewhere on TFL.)
In old-fashioned English Common Law, there were very few trials by a jury of peers. It was believed that issues of legal justice were too complicated to be understood by the common folk. (Remember, the VAST majority of English commoners at the time were illiterate.) The English justified the elimination of layperson involvement in the legal system by simply stating, "Best leave this to the legal experts." As a result, English Common Law was VERY difficult to understand. Most of the terms were kept in Latin. There were very few hard-line definitions; everything was open to debate and argument. And, in the end, the question of guilt or innocence really was left to the judge.
The problem with this, as Jefferson and Adams pointed out, is that judges in England typically sat alone. In other words, there was only one judge per trial. A single person can be corrupted. He can be biased. He can be bought. Or even worse, he just might be completely unenthusiastic and disinterested in the particular facts of any particular case, such that he will not even listen to what the parties have to say. (Judge Judy would make a GREAT English Common Law judge!)
Juries consist of multiple people. And, although a jury can be tampered with, it is MUCH more difficult to influence the outcome of an ENTIRE jury than it is to influence a SINGLE judge. Jefferson and Adams thought that a "jury of peers" would be a more secure way to insure administration of real justice. And, I agree with them.
But, I feel that the jury system has moved quite far away from Jefferson's intentions. What Jefferson and Adams meant by "a jury of peers" was that they wanted to be judged by all the OTHER rich, white, slave-owning, aristocratic, tax-dodging, male landowners in the Colonies. In their day, if you wanted to be on a jury, you had to be a landowner. Only men could own land. Land was EXPENSIVE. So, this was a way of ensuring that everyone who served on a jury was well-off, educated, in a word: LITERATE!
Now, by no means do I claim that only landowners should serve on a jury. But, I do feel that we would all be served well by the institution of some minimum level of intelligence and/or education on the part of our jurors. In any case, the current system of letting anyone who posesses a scintilla of education be recused from jury service for "professional reasons" is quite flawed. The doctors and lawyers are the ones we MOST NEED to be serving on juries.
I guess I ought to jump in with my opinion. No, he shouldn't be fired. What he does on his own time is nobodys business. BUT, he has been compromised. Everybody that can is going to use the race card, fair or not. The trooper should be moved to a job that doesn't involve so much interaction with the public. Just my .02
badbob
badbob
Marko,
If the trooper belongs to a legal group (no matter how distasteful) that is not engaged in illegal activities, firing him for that association is just an exercise in political correctness.
As I noted earlier, who determines what is an unacceptable group? An argument can be made, and has by some, that the Boy Scouts discriminate against a segment of the population due to sexual orientation and are thus a hate group. All this within the last 5 years. Should any troopers associated with the Boy Scouts be fired to placate those with a grievence with the Scouts personnel policies? How about troopers with a past association with the Scouts?
If the trooper belongs to a legal group (no matter how distasteful) that is not engaged in illegal activities, firing him for that association is just an exercise in political correctness.
As I noted earlier, who determines what is an unacceptable group? An argument can be made, and has by some, that the Boy Scouts discriminate against a segment of the population due to sexual orientation and are thus a hate group. All this within the last 5 years. Should any troopers associated with the Boy Scouts be fired to placate those with a grievence with the Scouts personnel policies? How about troopers with a past association with the Scouts?
I'm of mixed feelings about this.
But given the amount of attention that this guy has received, there is NO WAY that he could ever perform his duties as an LEO again. Put this in the OJ context: If your loved one were murdered and the police had a minority suspect in custody, would you want the state's case against the murderer to be jeoparodized by this guy having worked on the case and gathered evidence? I'll bet that the Browns and the Goldmans would give anything for Detective Mark Fuhrman not to have been employed by LAPD, 12 years ago. Furhman just had used the "n" word a few times on tape (well, he lied about it, too). Imagine the furor and the inevitable race card that would used against this fellow, who joined the KKK.
No thanks. It undermines the mission. The mission is not to give people the "right" to employment-- it's to serve and to protect the public. The man had the right to join the Klan, but also should have had the foresight and good judgement to understand that he was risking his job.
But given the amount of attention that this guy has received, there is NO WAY that he could ever perform his duties as an LEO again. Put this in the OJ context: If your loved one were murdered and the police had a minority suspect in custody, would you want the state's case against the murderer to be jeoparodized by this guy having worked on the case and gathered evidence? I'll bet that the Browns and the Goldmans would give anything for Detective Mark Fuhrman not to have been employed by LAPD, 12 years ago. Furhman just had used the "n" word a few times on tape (well, he lied about it, too). Imagine the furor and the inevitable race card that would used against this fellow, who joined the KKK.
No thanks. It undermines the mission. The mission is not to give people the "right" to employment-- it's to serve and to protect the public. The man had the right to join the Klan, but also should have had the foresight and good judgement to understand that he was risking his job.
I tend to agree that a man's associations off duty per se are not necessarily sufficent reasons for firing him. BUT, that I would say is up to the supervisor and should be up to him alone, not to political correctness or the will of political organizations. The Klan would disturb me. I would probably fire him, because the Klan is a hateful organization with no fruitful purpose beyond just malice towards other people and is not something that ought to be associated with law enforcement.
I read an article a year ago in college in which some knucklehead was defending on the class forum a cross dresser who got fired from Walmart in Louisiana for dressing like a woman while off the job. This man sued Walmart saying they had violated his "civil rights." The airhead student started defending this man with the usual relativism common in our day. "that's discrimination, what he does off the job is none of their business, it is an alternative lifestyle."
I about fell out of my chair and just said, "This is asinine! We are talking about a man that dresses like a woman.......need I say more? I would have fired him too. This should be laughed out of court a judge shouldn't even waste valuable docket time with this."
I read an article a year ago in college in which some knucklehead was defending on the class forum a cross dresser who got fired from Walmart in Louisiana for dressing like a woman while off the job. This man sued Walmart saying they had violated his "civil rights." The airhead student started defending this man with the usual relativism common in our day. "that's discrimination, what he does off the job is none of their business, it is an alternative lifestyle."
I about fell out of my chair and just said, "This is asinine! We are talking about a man that dresses like a woman.......need I say more? I would have fired him too. This should be laughed out of court a judge shouldn't even waste valuable docket time with this."
Would you care to point out where I equated the KKK to the Boy Scouts? I thought not.
However, the Boy Scouts have been singled out by some as a discriminatory group, contributions have been witheld for that, meetingplaces have been curtailed, etc. SOME people do consider them a hate group. SOME people do consider the KKK to be a hate group. Heck, some people consider the major political parties to be hate groups.
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Stop it don, just stop it. It just is! Same reason why lesbians are infinitely more awesome than 2 dudes makin out...
It's a called a double standard because it's twice as true.
It's a called a double standard because it's twice as true.
JuanCarlos
New member
Yeah, this is an obvious reason why, even if he does everything he can to keep his racial viewpoints from affecting his actions while on duty, he would still be unable to perform his job due to his affiliations with such groups. His affiliation alone would be all a competent defense attorney would need to conjure reasonable doubt in a case involving a minority defendant.
I'm actually curious if this is the case...in the Nebraska State Patrol specifically, as well as if it's common in police departments in general.
I do know that such restrictions aren't unheard of in another government organization; the military. It was many moons ago, so it's kinda hazy...but I do seem to remember being asked if I was a member of any "extremist" groups, to include white supremacist groups when I enlisted. I'm also pretty sure that soldiers are, in theory, required to disassociate with such groups before being allowed to enlist. Refusing to have tattoos affiliated with such groups (as well as gang tattoos...unrelated but interesting) removed is grounds for seperation. I see no real reason police departments couldn't institute the same policy.
Also while the KKK doesn't exactly have nearly the teeth that it had back in the day, comparing it to the Boy Scouts or the two major political parties gets the ol' double
from me. You must view such groups (the Boy Scouts are a great example) in the context of what other purposes they serve other than the discriminitory.