Funny, all these faux abuse cases have one thing in common. Thug scum resisting arrest. Our overcrowded prison system proves it is entirely possible to be arrested without dying, yet these imbeciles all seem to somehow screw that up. Suicide by cop is not really a cop problem, its a thug problem.
Police Officer Fired For Donating $25 To Kyle Rittenhouse
- Thread starter MadChemist
- Start date
Funny, all these faux abuse cases have one thing in common. Thug scum resisting arrest. Our overcrowded prison system proves it is entirely possible to be arrested without dying, yet these imbeciles all seem to somehow screw that up. Suicide by cop is not really a cop problem, its a thug problem.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
What about Ashly Babbit? What was her criminal record?
FA_Q2
Gold Member
No, it would not.
The ability to practice your freedoms, rights or actions are not mitigated by who may or may not agree with them.
MarcATL
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2009
- 44,201
- 23,376
- 2,605
She was in the act of committing a crime when she was put down.
Mustang
Gold Member
>The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.There has to be more to the story. I can't believe he would not be able to sue and clean up after this.
It seems the Guardian was the one who traced the e-mails back to the donators.
This is acceptable....why ?
I also have a work email, and everyone at work knows that the email is for official business ONLY. In addition, everyone at work knows that your outgoing and incoming emails are not private and can be viewed by supervisors and security. The fact that the email address is for police and government employees makes the transgression worse than it would otherwise be for business employees.
No.
The email address was not supposed to be publicly viewable; it was hacked. There was no appearance to the public that the opinion was blessed by the Norfolk Police Dept.
It was an anonymous donation...
Virginia cop is fired for giving $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal fund
Norfolk Police Lt. William K. Kelly lost his job after a hack revealed the names of those who gave money to help with the 18-year-old's legal costs. Rittenhouse is accused of killing two protesters.www.dailymail.co.uk
You actually think it's just to fire a cop because he used his work email to register an account at the donation site? Goodness grief.
He was fired for "eroding public trust." That's complete BS. It's a wrongful termination.
The lieutenant should have used his own private email and done it from home. While the donation may have been anonymous, the email address was not anonymous. The message he included made matters worse because it undermined the authority of the state of WI by casting doubt on their authority to prosecute Rittenhouse.
Conservatives used to talk about accountability, but it always seems that they want exceptions for themselves. My bet is that there is an automatic posting on every email that states that it is to be used for official gov't business only.
Let him sue. The chances are good that it will be thrown out of court. But if it goes to trial, he'll lose, and he'll be on the hook for court costs.
I'm pretty sure the city is not going to relent and say, "Oh, we're sorry. While thousands of other gov't employees are complying with this policy, you can just do whatever you damn well please,"
Last edited:
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
So you believe the police can shoot anyone committing a crime? George Floyd was committing a crime, including resisting arrest.
You're a fucking moron.
FA_Q2
Gold Member
Those here supporting privately, secretly donating and giving encouragement is friable are only doing so because he was not supporting the sacred cow, BLM.
When cops support BLM openly then it is just fine. When they openly kneel in supplication while in uniform, that is to be lauded.
When cops support BLM openly then it is just fine. When they openly kneel in supplication while in uniform, that is to be lauded.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
Democrat NAZIs will always find a way to excuse their blatant partisan persecution of those who don't support their agenda.>The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.There has to be more to the story. I can't believe he would not be able to sue and clean up after this.
It seems the Guardian was the one who traced the e-mails back to the donators.
This is acceptable....why ?
I also have a work email, and everyone at work knows that the email is for official business ONLY. In addition, everyone at work knows that your outgoing and incoming emails are not private and can be viewed by supervisors and security. The fact that the email address is for police and government employees makes the transgression worse than it would otherwise be for business employees.
No.
The email address was not supposed to be publicly viewable; it was hacked. There was no appearance to the public that the opinion was blessed by the Norfolk Police Dept.
It was an anonymous donation...
Virginia cop is fired for giving $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal fund
Norfolk Police Lt. William K. Kelly lost his job after a hack revealed the names of those who gave money to help with the 18-year-old's legal costs. Rittenhouse is accused of killing two protesters.
You actually think it's just to fire a cop because he used his work email to register an account at the donation site? Goodness grief.
He was fired for "eroding public trust." That's complete BS. It's a wrongful termination.
The lieutenant should have used his own private email and done it from home. While the donation may have been anonymous, the email address was not anonymous. The message he included made matters worse because it undermined the authority of the state of WI by casting doubt on their authority to prosecute Rittenhouse.
Conservatives used to talk about accountability, but it always seems that they want exceptions for themselves. My bet is that there is an automatic posting on every email that states that it is to be used for official gov't business only.
Let him sue. The chances are good that it will be thrown out of court. But if it goes to trial, he'll lose, and he'll be on the hook for court costs.
I'm pretty sure the city is not going to relent and say, "Oh, we're sorry. While thousands of other gov't employees are complying with this policy, you can just do whatever you damn please,"
My bet
MarcATL
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2009
- 44,201
- 23,376
- 2,605
George Floyd was not in the process of committing any crimes nor was he resisting arrest when he was essentially tortured to death by that unhinged, sadistic & racist son-of-bitch Chauvin, this is why a jury of 12 of his peers convicted him of 2nd & 3rd degree murder, w/a manslaughter conviction for good measure.
You are a proven liar, but that's old news.
^^ don’t you just love these hypocrites? OMG we must fire a police officer for using his email when donating to a cause. Yet Hillary Clinton can use email in an illegal manner with classified information and she is never held accountable. Rules for thee, and not for the Elite.The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.There has to be more to the story. I can't believe he would not be able to sue and clean up after this.
It seems the Guardian was the one who traced the e-mails back to the donators.
This is acceptable....why ?
I also have a work email, and everyone at work knows that the email is for official business ONLY. In addition, everyone at work knows that your outgoing and incoming emails are not private and can be viewed by supervisors and security. The fact that the email address is for police and government employees makes the transgression worse than it would otherwise be for business employees.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,372
- 2,180
Of course he was committing crimes. He tried to pass a counterfeit $20 bill. He was high on illegal drugs. He was resisting arrest. If a police officer tells you to get in his squad car and you do not comply, then you are resisting arrest.
The jury convicted him only because they were afraid they would become the target of mob violence.
You are the forum's biggest dumb fuck.
Mustang
Gold Member
And employers can be sued for wrongful termination too.
Yes. Regardless of your opinion, your actions reflect on the company you work for whether they are performed in or away from work. There's no written law that says an employer can't fire you if you make them look bad. IE..bad publicity, affect company income or profits, cause them to lose customers. In fact, just the opposite. They can terminate you for just about anything for any reason. You can thank Republicans for that.
During the hiring process, it's standard procedure for employers to notify (in writing) their employees what is required of them while on the job and what is prohibited. The employee is given a sheet of paper with the list and is required to sign (or initial) that they understand. Then that paper is placed in their employee file.
Like I say, let him sue. He will lose.
there4eyeM
unlicensed metaphysician
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,979
- 5,514
- 280
As a police officer, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Attacking the Constitution would nullify his oath and his employment.
It seems he did not use the proper channels for his contribution, and that may change the conclusion my previous post inferred.
And employers can be sued for wrongful termination too.
Yes. Regardless of your opinion, your actions reflect on the company you work for whether they are performed in or away from work. There's no written law that says an employer can't fire you if you make them look bad. IE..bad publicity, affect company income or profits, cause them to lose customers. In fact, just the opposite. They can terminate you for just about anything for any reason. You can thank Republicans for that.
During the hiring process, it's standard procedure for employers to notify (in writing) their employees what is required of them while on the job and what is prohibited. The employee is given a sheet of paper with the list and is required to sign (or initial) that they understand. Then that paper is placed in their employee file.
Like I say, let him sue. He will lose.
Not only that, but for public employees they often have to under go "ethics training" and such as well as part of the job at intervals. It was probably a dumb mistake, but a costly one in that it could affect the appearance of impartiality - he should have known.
Turn on Zee ovenz Marc...turn on zee ovenz! .......'I will mutha ph ka '!
jbrownson0831
Diamond Member
- Jul 27, 2020
- 26,739
- 24,571
- 2,288
Huh? Whomever I donate to is my business not the Gestapo's.>The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.There has to be more to the story. I can't believe he would not be able to sue and clean up after this.
It seems the Guardian was the one who traced the e-mails back to the donators.
This is acceptable....why ?
I also have a work email, and everyone at work knows that the email is for official business ONLY. In addition, everyone at work knows that your outgoing and incoming emails are not private and can be viewed by supervisors and security. The fact that the email address is for police and government employees makes the transgression worse than it would otherwise be for business employees.
No.
The email address was not supposed to be publicly viewable; it was hacked. There was no appearance to the public that the opinion was blessed by the Norfolk Police Dept.
It was an anonymous donation...
Virginia cop is fired for giving $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal fund
Norfolk Police Lt. William K. Kelly lost his job after a hack revealed the names of those who gave money to help with the 18-year-old's legal costs. Rittenhouse is accused of killing two protesters.
You actually think it's just to fire a cop because he used his work email to register an account at the donation site? Goodness grief.
He was fired for "eroding public trust." That's complete BS. It's a wrongful termination.
The lieutenant should have used his own private email and done it from home. While the donation may have been anonymous, the email address was not anonymous. The message he included made matters worse because it undermined the authority of the state of WI by casting doubt on their authority to prosecute Rittenhouse.
Conservatives used to talk about accountability, but it always seems that they want exceptions for themselves. My bet is that there is an automatic posting on every email that states that it is to be used for official gov't business only.
Let him sue. The chances are good that it will be thrown out of court. But if it goes to trial, he'll lose, and he'll be on the hook for court costs.
I'm pretty sure the city is not going to relent and say, "Oh, we're sorry. While thousands of other gov't employees are complying with this policy, you can just do whatever you damn please,"
Mustang
Gold Member
Huh? Whomever I donate to is my business not the Gestapo's.>The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.There has to be more to the story. I can't believe he would not be able to sue and clean up after this.
It seems the Guardian was the one who traced the e-mails back to the donators.
This is acceptable....why ?
I also have a work email, and everyone at work knows that the email is for official business ONLY. In addition, everyone at work knows that your outgoing and incoming emails are not private and can be viewed by supervisors and security. The fact that the email address is for police and government employees makes the transgression worse than it would otherwise be for business employees.
No.
The email address was not supposed to be publicly viewable; it was hacked. There was no appearance to the public that the opinion was blessed by the Norfolk Police Dept.
It was an anonymous donation...
Virginia cop is fired for giving $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal fund
Norfolk Police Lt. William K. Kelly lost his job after a hack revealed the names of those who gave money to help with the 18-year-old's legal costs. Rittenhouse is accused of killing two protesters.
You actually think it's just to fire a cop because he used his work email to register an account at the donation site? Goodness grief.
He was fired for "eroding public trust." That's complete BS. It's a wrongful termination.
The lieutenant should have used his own private email and done it from home. While the donation may have been anonymous, the email address was not anonymous. The message he included made matters worse because it undermined the authority of the state of WI by casting doubt on their authority to prosecute Rittenhouse.
Conservatives used to talk about accountability, but it always seems that they want exceptions for themselves. My bet is that there is an automatic posting on every email that states that it is to be used for official gov't business only.
Let him sue. The chances are good that it will be thrown out of court. But if it goes to trial, he'll lose, and he'll be on the hook for court costs.
I'm pretty sure the city is not going to relent and say, "Oh, we're sorry. While thousands of other gov't employees are complying with this policy, you can just do whatever you damn please,"
I never made any comment about his right to donate money to any cause he so pleases.
how about EVERYONE take a step in the right direction?
jbrownson0831
Diamond Member
- Jul 27, 2020
- 26,739
- 24,571
- 2,288
Well you listed specific conditions to make it "acceptable" or maybe you meant undetected what's the difference?Huh? Whomever I donate to is my business not the Gestapo's.>The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.The lieutenant did something both foolish and knowingly against what was clearly stated city and department policy. By using his city email to send his message, it gives the appearance of having the 'official' blessing of the Norfolk, VA police department, which clearly did not approve it.There has to be more to the story. I can't believe he would not be able to sue and clean up after this.
It seems the Guardian was the one who traced the e-mails back to the donators.
This is acceptable....why ?
I also have a work email, and everyone at work knows that the email is for official business ONLY. In addition, everyone at work knows that your outgoing and incoming emails are not private and can be viewed by supervisors and security. The fact that the email address is for police and government employees makes the transgression worse than it would otherwise be for business employees.
No.
The email address was not supposed to be publicly viewable; it was hacked. There was no appearance to the public that the opinion was blessed by the Norfolk Police Dept.
It was an anonymous donation...
Virginia cop is fired for giving $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal fund
Norfolk Police Lt. William K. Kelly lost his job after a hack revealed the names of those who gave money to help with the 18-year-old's legal costs. Rittenhouse is accused of killing two protesters.
You actually think it's just to fire a cop because he used his work email to register an account at the donation site? Goodness grief.
He was fired for "eroding public trust." That's complete BS. It's a wrongful termination.
The lieutenant should have used his own private email and done it from home. While the donation may have been anonymous, the email address was not anonymous. The message he included made matters worse because it undermined the authority of the state of WI by casting doubt on their authority to prosecute Rittenhouse.
Conservatives used to talk about accountability, but it always seems that they want exceptions for themselves. My bet is that there is an automatic posting on every email that states that it is to be used for official gov't business only.
Let him sue. The chances are good that it will be thrown out of court. But if it goes to trial, he'll lose, and he'll be on the hook for court costs.
I'm pretty sure the city is not going to relent and say, "Oh, we're sorry. While thousands of other gov't employees are complying with this policy, you can just do whatever you damn please,"
I never made any comment about his right to donate money to any cause he so pleases.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Kash Patel is using polygraph test to find FBI leakers — NYT is (definitely) not pleased.
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 1
-
Fox News Correspondent Bill Melugin reporting Bolder CO attacker is an Egyptian national here illegally .- Started by yidnar
- Replies: 4
-
Stephen Miller's deportation machine is failing -- and he's furious- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 1
-
Will President Trump be remembered as the worst President to set foot in the White House.??!!?
- Started by 52ndStreet
- Replies: 10
-
