Freedom of speech? Not for our police officers

[rightwinger]

What makes you think that Police Officers were ever able to say any shit they think?

Everyone is accountable for what they say

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No I don't think so because the government is paying the employee and has to adhere to the rules set forth. After work, no citizen should be stripped of their rights.

So, let me see if I get this straight...

you are ok with the government stripping citizens of their rights while they are on the clock, but not after work? Is that correct?

That is correct. It's just like I have to take a drug test if an officer pulls me over in my truck and decides to send me in for a test. He cannot do the same if I'm driving my car and he has no reasonable suspicion that I"m driving impaired.

Every time I get pulled over, I ask the officer what I did wrong. He usually responds "Oh, nothing is wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." He then proceeds to check out my entire truck, look inside of the trailer, demands my paperwork, and on a few occasions when they couldn't find anything, look under the hood of my vehicle.

If a cop did that to me in my car, I would have a Fourth Amendment violation lawsuit.

Ok, so you are good with the the government stripping citizens of their rights, your only disagreement is when they are allowed to do such thing.

My disagreement is when a citizen is punished for exercising their rights. If this is permitted, then what's the point of having rights if they only apply to some people?

Yet you are ok when a citizen is punished for exercising their rights as long as they are on the clock. So, it is not about citizens being punished for exercising their rights, it is just a matter of when it is ok for it to happen

If you want to exercise your rights, you are free to do so on your own time. In this case, what's being said here is that this officer is never allowed to exercise his rights on the job or off. So there is a big difference there.

I have the right as an American citizen to vote. I cannot stop at the polling place on company time and vote. I can vote before I go to work or after, therefore the company is not interfering in my right to vote, just not on their time.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure you read a lot of things pretty easily that were never there.

Ray, you are the one who gets on here and spews racist shit every day... probably because you want to feel better about yourself living in a slum working a bottom feeder job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What makes you think that Police Officers were ever able to say any shit they think?

Everyone is accountable for what they say

What does he have to be accountable for?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm sure you read a lot of things pretty easily that were never there.

Ray, you are the one who gets on here and spews racist shit every day... probably because you want to feel better about yourself living in a slum working a bottom feeder job.

If you read racism no matter what somebody says, of course you think people spew racism every day. I could print Mary Had a Little Lamb, and the way your mind works, you would find racism in the poem.

 

[Dragonlady]

A police officer eventually lost his job because he said "I'm surprised that nobody offed him yet" in reference to Calypso Louie on Facebook. He never said he'd like to.....or that somebody should.......just the he was surprised nobody hasn't.

He was suspended several months ago and now our local Fox affiliate claims he was recently fired for the comment. So that begs the questions: if this officer made a similar comment about a white radical, would he still be on the job today? Does this officer have a case for a Fourth Amendment violation lawsuit?

Nope.

We are all held accountable for what we say on social media under our own names... It's why we all use aliases here.

Isn't a first amendment issue.

Thanks for pointing out I had the wrong amendment. I made the correction.

The people of this country are provided protection from government retaliation when it comes to speech. I don't care if you are a police officer, a lineman, a snow plow driver. We are all protected.

This officer made no threat against anti-semite Louie. He didn't say somebody else should off him. He simply said he's surprised it hasn't happened yet given the fact this anti-American is hate monger.

When coming from a law enforcement officer, it could easily be construed as giving permission for someone to off the guy, He knew the rules when he signed the contract. He should have said nothing.

I've been barred from publically saying or doing anything or expressing my opinion because of my job. We all sign confidentiality agreements, and that extends to saying stupid things someone could take the wrong way.

You don't have a Constitution that guarantees all citizens rights--we do. Our right to free speech is not for speech people agree with. If that were the case, there would be no protection of free speech. Free speech is to allow those who's opinions we don't want to hear as well as the ones we do.

This officer made no suggestion of killing somebody, hoping somebody kills him, asking that somebody kill him. He simply said he was surprised that it didn't happen yet.

Yes we do. You're not the only country in the world which protects the right of free speech. But your right to free speech is only the right to criticize the government without recourse from the government. It's a very limited right really, but one that Americans seem to think allows them to say anything at any time, which is simply not the case.

The officer made no suggestion that someone should kill the guy, but his comment could be construed as him thinking he's a bad guy who should be offed. It would give someone the idea that even the police think he should be offed.

I had a situation at work which directly affected my neighbourhood, and not in a good way. The neighbours formed a committee to fight a proposed massive development which would have been a disaster for our residential area. I could not even speak to a member of that committee, because I had been assigned to the legal team working on the acquisition of this property for the people we were opposing. I had to stand silently by while this played out.

That's what a conflict of interest is. Police can't publically suggest that a guy is a waste of skin, and I couldn't help my neighbourhood committee fight this development.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If you want to exercise your rights, you are free to do so on your own time. In this case, what's being said here is that this officer is never allowed to exercise his rights on the job or off. So there is a big difference there.

I have the right as an American citizen to vote. I cannot stop at the polling place on company time and vote. I can vote before I go to work or after, therefore the company is not interfering in my right to vote, just not on their time.

what you do not have the right to is a job, so if the people paying you have the right to fire you if they do not like the way you exercised your rights.

 

[Thinker101]

A police officer eventually lost his job because he said "I'm surprised that nobody offed him yet" in reference to Calypso Louie on Facebook. He never said he'd like to.....or that somebody should.......just the he was surprised nobody hasn't.

He was suspended several months ago and now our local Fox affiliate claims he was recently fired for the comment. So that begs the questions: if this officer made a similar comment about a white radical, would he still be on the job today? Does this officer have a case for a Fourth Amendment violation lawsuit?

Nope.

We are all held accountable for what we say on social media under our own names... It's why we all use aliases here.

Isn't a first amendment issue.

Thanks for pointing out I had the wrong amendment. I made the correction.

The people of this country are provided protection from government retaliation when it comes to speech. I don't care if you are a police officer, a lineman, a snow plow driver. We are all protected.

This officer made no threat against anti-semite Louie. He didn't say somebody else should off him. He simply said he's surprised it hasn't happened yet given the fact this anti-American is hate monger.

When coming from a law enforcement officer, it could easily be construed as giving permission for someone to off the guy, He knew the rules when he signed the contract. He should have said nothing.

I've been barred from publically saying or doing anything or expressing my opinion because of my job. We all sign confidentiality agreements, and that extends to saying stupid things someone could take the wrong way.

You don't have a Constitution that guarantees all citizens rights--we do. Our right to free speech is not for speech people agree with. If that were the case, there would be no protection of free speech. Free speech is to allow those who's opinions we don't want to hear as well as the ones we do.

This officer made no suggestion of killing somebody, hoping somebody kills him, asking that somebody kill him. He simply said he was surprised that it didn't happen yet.

Yes we do. You're not the only country in the world which protects the right of free speech. But your right to free speech is only the right to criticize the government without recourse from the government. It's a very limited right really, but one that Americans seem to think allows them to say anything at any time, which is simply not the case.

The officer made no suggestion that someone should kill the guy, but his comment could be construed as him thinking he's a bad guy who should be offed. It would give someone the idea that even the police think he should be offed.

I had a situation at work which directly affected my neighbourhood, and not in a good way. The neighbours formed a committee to fight a proposed massive development which would have been a disaster for our residential area. I could not even speak to a member of that committee, because I had been assigned to the legal team working on the acquisition of this property for the people we were opposing. I had to stand silently by while this played out.

That's what a conflict of interest is. Police can't publically suggest that a guy is a waste of skin, and I couldn't help my neighbourhood committee fight this development.

Great, do you protect free speech in your country?

 

[rightwinger]

What makes you think that Police Officers were ever able to say any shit they think?

Everyone is accountable for what they say

What does he have to be accountable for?

Suggesting a citizen be assassinated

 

[rightwinger]

Nope.

We are all held accountable for what we say on social media under our own names... It's why we all use aliases here.

Isn't a first amendment issue.

Thanks for pointing out I had the wrong amendment. I made the correction.

The people of this country are provided protection from government retaliation when it comes to speech. I don't care if you are a police officer, a lineman, a snow plow driver. We are all protected.

This officer made no threat against anti-semite Louie. He didn't say somebody else should off him. He simply said he's surprised it hasn't happened yet given the fact this anti-American is hate monger.

When coming from a law enforcement officer, it could easily be construed as giving permission for someone to off the guy, He knew the rules when he signed the contract. He should have said nothing.

I've been barred from publically saying or doing anything or expressing my opinion because of my job. We all sign confidentiality agreements, and that extends to saying stupid things someone could take the wrong way.

You don't have a Constitution that guarantees all citizens rights--we do. Our right to free speech is not for speech people agree with. If that were the case, there would be no protection of free speech. Free speech is to allow those who's opinions we don't want to hear as well as the ones we do.

This officer made no suggestion of killing somebody, hoping somebody kills him, asking that somebody kill him. He simply said he was surprised that it didn't happen yet.

Yes we do. You're not the only country in the world which protects the right of free speech. But your right to free speech is only the right to criticize the government without recourse from the government. It's a very limited right really, but one that Americans seem to think allows them to say anything at any time, which is simply not the case.

The officer made no suggestion that someone should kill the guy, but his comment could be construed as him thinking he's a bad guy who should be offed. It would give someone the idea that even the police think he should be offed.

I had a situation at work which directly affected my neighbourhood, and not in a good way. The neighbours formed a committee to fight a proposed massive development which would have been a disaster for our residential area. I could not even speak to a member of that committee, because I had been assigned to the legal team working on the acquisition of this property for the people we were opposing. I had to stand silently by while this played out.

That's what a conflict of interest is. Police can't publically suggest that a guy is a waste of skin, and I couldn't help my neighbourhood committee fight this development.

Great, do you protect free speech in your country?

Free Speech in America still has consequences

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A police officer eventually lost his job because he said "I'm surprised that nobody offed him yet" in reference to Calypso Louie on Facebook. He never said he'd like to.....or that somebody should.......just the he was surprised nobody hasn't.

He was suspended several months ago and now our local Fox affiliate claims he was recently fired for the comment. So that begs the questions: if this officer made a similar comment about a white radical, would he still be on the job today? Does this officer have a case for a Fourth Amendment violation lawsuit?

Nope.

We are all held accountable for what we say on social media under our own names... It's why we all use aliases here.

Isn't a first amendment issue.

Thanks for pointing out I had the wrong amendment. I made the correction.

The people of this country are provided protection from government retaliation when it comes to speech. I don't care if you are a police officer, a lineman, a snow plow driver. We are all protected.

This officer made no threat against anti-semite Louie. He didn't say somebody else should off him. He simply said he's surprised it hasn't happened yet given the fact this anti-American is hate monger.

When coming from a law enforcement officer, it could easily be construed as giving permission for someone to off the guy, He knew the rules when he signed the contract. He should have said nothing.

I've been barred from publically saying or doing anything or expressing my opinion because of my job. We all sign confidentiality agreements, and that extends to saying stupid things someone could take the wrong way.

You don't have a Constitution that guarantees all citizens rights--we do. Our right to free speech is not for speech people agree with. If that were the case, there would be no protection of free speech. Free speech is to allow those who's opinions we don't want to hear as well as the ones we do.

This officer made no suggestion of killing somebody, hoping somebody kills him, asking that somebody kill him. He simply said he was surprised that it didn't happen yet.

Yes we do. You're not the only country in the world which protects the right of free speech. But your right to free speech is only the right to criticize the government without recourse from the government. It's a very limited right really, but one that Americans seem to think allows them to say anything at any time, which is simply not the case.

The officer made no suggestion that someone should kill the guy, but his comment could be construed as him thinking he's a bad guy who should be offed. It would give someone the idea that even the police think he should be offed.

I had a situation at work which directly affected my neighbourhood, and not in a good way. The neighbours formed a committee to fight a proposed massive development which would have been a disaster for our residential area. I could not even speak to a member of that committee, because I had been assigned to the legal team working on the acquisition of this property for the people we were opposing. I had to stand silently by while this played out.

That's what a conflict of interest is. Police can't publically suggest that a guy is a waste of skin, and I couldn't help my neighbourhood committee fight this development.

I don't know much about Canada, but according to Wiki, free speech is limited by the government, so it's really not the same thing as our constitutional rights. No, our free speech is not limited to just criticizing our government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What makes you think that Police Officers were ever able to say any shit they think?

Everyone is accountable for what they say

What does he have to be accountable for?

Suggesting a citizen be assassinated

Comprehension problems or something Winger? Nowhere did he suggest anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you want to exercise your rights, you are free to do so on your own time. In this case, what's being said here is that this officer is never allowed to exercise his rights on the job or off. So there is a big difference there.

I have the right as an American citizen to vote. I cannot stop at the polling place on company time and vote. I can vote before I go to work or after, therefore the company is not interfering in my right to vote, just not on their time.

what you do not have the right to is a job, so if the people paying you have the right to fire you if they do not like the way you exercised your rights.

This has nothing to do with rights to have a job. It has to do with rights to free speech.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This has nothing to do with rights to have a job. It has to do with rights to free speech.

He still has his freedom of speech, he can say whatever wants.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This has nothing to do with rights to have a job. It has to do with rights to free speech.

He still has his freedom of speech, he can say whatever wants.

He did, and he got fired for it. I hardly call that freedom of speech.

 

[Lesh]

He did, and he got fired for it. I hardly call that freedom of speech.

And the Federal government (which is what the Constitution is about) had nothing to do with it

 

[rightwinger]

What makes you think that Police Officers were ever able to say any shit they think?

Everyone is accountable for what they say

What does he have to be accountable for?

Suggesting a citizen be assassinated

Comprehension problems or something Winger? Nowhere did he suggest anything.

Afraid he did
Hypothetical is still suggesting it

 

[Likkmee]

A police officer eventually lost his job because he said "I'm surprised that nobody offed him yet" in reference to Calypso Louie on Facebook. He never said he'd like to.....or that somebody should.......just the he was surprised nobody hasn't.

He was suspended several months ago and now our local Fox affiliate claims he was recently fired for the comment. So that begs the questions: if this officer made a similar comment about a white radical, would he still be on the job today? Does this officer have a case for a First Amendment violation lawsuit?

Akron police officer relieved of duty after Facebook post about Farrakhan

Sounds like a sprained ankle. Was he relived WITH PAY ?

 

[rightwinger]

This has nothing to do with rights to have a job. It has to do with rights to free speech.

He still has his freedom of speech, he can say whatever wants.

He said whatever he wants
He just got fired for it

 

[SavannahMann]

I do not hate cops. A common refrain that is meant to delegitimize my arguments. I applied simple logic, and history, to the question. It is simply not possible.

Uh, guy, I get a lot of flack here for criticizing police misconduct, but I look at your stuff and even I'm saying, "Damn, notch it back a few, 'kay?"

Look at the case you started with. Three cops lied on their reports, and were acquitted of Perjury. If we were to use the 1% of cops were bad statistic, then somewhere, there were 496 good cops who just happened not to be at that scene at that time. What are the odds of that? One was a murderer, and three were Perjurers. Four felons all in the same place, at the same time, as a random occourance just when it was needed?

I put those other three cops in the category of the 99% who felt the need to cover for the one percent. Two of them were forced to retire despite being acquitted.

One of those changes, was Polygraph testing for cops. Ten minutes and they’re done for another six months. Just a few simple questions. Have you lied on any reports or lied under oath? Do you know of anyone who has done those things that you haven’t reported? Have you planted evidence or have reason to believe that evidence was planted? Have you seen any abuse of a suspect, or have you abused a suspect?

Polygraphs are voodoo science... you might as well bring in the Witchfinder General as an office.

First, how can you be a good cop if you regularly commit felonies to protect a bad cop? But I suspect that horse has been beaten until it is little more than bone and dust.

The Polygraph is in use at the CIA, DIA, and all the other Intelligence Agencies we have. It isn’t perfect, and nobody is about to claim that it is. However, it is a tool used by Law Enforcement on suspects whenever they can get the individual to agree to it. The FBI uses it on suspects. If their lawyers are dumb enough to agree. And although it is not admissible in court it is used to rule out individuals as suspects.

But back to those with access. The CIA and DIA and other Intelligence Agencies do routine and special checks on their own people with access to highly classified material. This is to insure that the individual is not pulling an Aldrich Ames, or a Walker Family bit of spying. When information does get leaked to the press from the CIA, or NSA or any of those, an immediate determination is made who had access, and anyone on the list gets put on the box.

I never said it was perfect. I don’t expect it to catch everyone, and any it does catch, are not facing any jail time in my scenario. They are only going to be restricted from utilizing police powers, just as the people who fail the Polygraph at the NSA or CIA are not thrown into prison, but locked out of the building. A later investigation may see them tossed into jail for violating whatever laws they may have been doing, but that is irrelevant to the question of access, and authority.

That is all I want from the Polygraph. The cudgel there to keep those three “good cops” from writing a report to cover a “bad cop”. Knowing that within a few months of this incident, they’ll have to get on the box, and pass it to keep their badge and authority. Some can lie and beat the box. It is certainly not unheard of. But most can’t, and those telling the truth, will see the bad cops reach that theoretical, and even highly desirable 1% of legend.

But for now, roughly speaking it is at least one in five cops who are bad, and probably far more than that.