Difficult Civil Rights Question
 

State fights to fire trooper tied to Klan

This brings up interesting questions about rights as a citizen and rights as a public servant. Everyone knows that gays can be barred from the military (and until recently the FBI) and that the code of conduct restricts other rights while in uniform.

Are police in the same position? Can an officer be held to a different standard of conduct as a civilian? Considering the a police officer has power to arrest, detain, and even assault citizens, can an officers off-duty interests be used as a reason to fire them or not hire them?

Would the same be true of a public official. If someone was hired as a government employee and this became known, could/should they be fired?

It sounds like this guy was dealing with his frustrations over his personal life and made a bad decision. It's hard to judge whether his apology was sincere. The question is whether this disqualifies him for the rest of his life.

I voted to reinstate him if he stays out of the Klan and, subsequently, keeps his nose clean (not discriminating against whoever he is pissed at on the job or off) and has counseling. He did a stupid thing but everyone deserves a chance to turn it around.

I'd say his membership of that organisation shows that he views the citizens he is supposed to protect differently depending upon their racial heritage. He isn't just a member of one white supremacist organisation, but two. That suggests a belief system rather than an isolated act of stupidity.

The fact that he claims his membership of these groups was based solely on the fact that his wife left him for a member of a minority is indicative of his inability to differentiate between a personal hurt and a political stance. I'd have had more sympathy had he gone loco on the guy for whom his wife left him. I wouldn't trust a man, who could feel anger at an entire demographic because one of them 'stole' his wife, to uphold the law in a fair and unbiased way.

If you serve the public, you should serve all of them. By joining two groups avowed to the supremacy of the 'white race', he has in my opinion made himself unfit to serve as an arm of the law which affects all the races who live under it.

DanaC eloquently put my feelings on the subject into words.

Nothing I can add to DanaC's post. I agree 100%.

Erm...the poll is worded a bit oddly. "No matter what he does off-duty" is a bit extreme, donchathink? That would include baby raping. But exactly how do we justify firing a cop for his political beliefs? This "he can join the Klan but he can't stay a cop if he does" begs the question of exactly what the justification for firing him actually is. It really means "He can do anything he wants but we can fire him if we don't like his beliefs".

For example, try "He can be gay if he wants, but he can't be a cop if he is."

Where's the ACLU? They will defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, but not the rights of a Klan member to be a cop?

Just for the record, the Klan is anathema to me, and so are the Nazis. But somebody needs to explain to me why this guy can't be a cop, The instant he violates somebody's civil rights he should be out on his ass, and prosecuted to boot, but I didn't know we had a thoughtcrime statute on the books. This man's job is enforcing the law, not enforcing political correctness. That's also the job of his superiors, but they seem to have forgotten that.

He can't be a cop anymore because he automatically puts every other white male cop in increased danger. If the public knows a KKK member can be a cop, minority criminals are more likely to assume the worst and shoot/stab/take hostages when they might otherwise have cooperated.

I guess I'm just a lefty liberal. I don't think we can judge all white supremists on the actions of a few. I mean, just because white supremists call for the eradication of one whole race, dedicated to 'wiping them off the map', etc. is any reason to judge them all harshly.











;)

What if it was a black officer who had joined the Nation of Islam. Same answer?

Oh, no. Not same answer. That would be the black officers RIGHT.


I'm being bitchy, I know, but I have been wondering what the feelings are for the rights of neo-Nazi's and Klanners since we're all so OK with militant Muslim's calling for blood and beheadings.

I wouldn't say it's a reason generally for someone to lose their job. What they do in their own time is their own affair......but not when the job in question involves them looking to the wellbeing of the public. Policemen, Judges, Public officials. These are people who have to stand above our differences and be there for all citizens, regardless of our colour, religion or race.

It would be impossible to ascertain for sure whether his views had resulted in his being less effective/ even-handed in the carrying out of his duties. After all, how could we quantify how many white people he was less eager to arrest rather than give a warning as compared to the number of black men he arrested rather than considering a less serious response. These are very difficult to measure in anything smaller than largescale trends.

Other people who serve the public: Doctors, nurses, lab techs, mental health techs, firemen and women, parking meter enforcement, tour guides... All these people have the right to be Klanners or neo-nazi's.

So, you wouldn't have allowed David Duke to run for public office? Would you have a list of forbidden political parties or beliefs, or simply let higher officials discriminate based on their own judgement?

You're in quicksand here...I recommend not struggling.

I would have severe misgivings about a policeman who had joined any political group which espoused a lack of rights for any demographic within the community they were supposed to police.

Do the Nation of Islam espouse the violent removal of, or aggressive countering of particular groups within America?

If they argue merely that the Black man should live separately that is different to arguing for the violent removal/destruction of the white race. If the KKK was arguing merely for separation between the races on an equal footing, then I wouldn't like em much but I wouldn't consider them as dangerous.

I don't really know much about the Nation of Islam. Other than that it was historically a militant response to the lack of civil rights of black people in America at that time.

Can't stop people running for election. If people want to vote in someone with foul and dangerous views, that's their prerogative.

I'm talking about unelected people who have the right to sit in judgement of or enforce the law under which all groups have to live.

Actually, I just realised....Judges are elected over there are they?

If so that's a different matter. I would hope that a white supremacist woldn't be voted into any kind of public office but that's the publics' right if they want to.

Unelected and therefore imposed is a different matter altogether.