72 Philly Police Officers off patrol after Racist Posts

[Scomagia]

I don’t think the police force is a private company though? It’s run at the state or local level. I don’t know about things like cities or towns but I do know that the Bill of Rights is something that the states have to abide by.

As far as know its not. That doesnt mean the department has tolerate bigotry. Some of the posts are beyond disturbing. I went through the link in the Slate article and its hard to get through.

Yeah and some aren't.

[Purpelia]

As much as I can understand why this was done I feel it is fundamentally wrong for a business to punish its employees for something they do on their own free time.

Its perfectly ok for police officers to post racist, xenophobic comments online?

If they do it in their free time yes. Because the moment they get off work they are free independent human beings that have a right to have opinions. And we must defend that right even if we disagree with how they use it.

Bottom line is that it is a massive and intolerable encroach to have ones employer control what one can do in ones time off. These people, reprehensible as they are, are not slaves but free men. And they deserve all the rights that come with that.

Now, of course they absolutely should be put under higher observation to check if these views spill over into the execution of their duties. And if they should misbehave at work they can be punished. But as long as the two are kept separate it is morally wrong to punish them for what they say and do in their time off.

[Scomagia]

If they don’t lose their first amendment rights then the department does have to tolerate bigotry if said bigotry doesn’t negatively impact the performance of the officer.

This is an oxymoronic proposition. Even if a bigoted person consciously attempts to "leave their prejudice at the door" so to speak, they will still be subject to subconscious prejudice that influences how they treat individuals from groups they are bigoted against. A police officer who voices prejudicial views (whether publicly or in private) absolutely cannot be trusted to conduct themselves in a matter that is completely divorced from their prejudice, and is thus unfit to act as an unbiased enforcer of law.

Bodhisattva police when?

[Zurkerx]

Hmm, I sense this will go the Supreme Court. It's bound to happen.

[Kowani]

This is an oxymoronic proposition. Even if a bigoted person consciously attempts to "leave their prejudice at the door" so to speak, they will still be subject to subconscious prejudice that influences how they treat individuals from groups they are bigoted against. A police officer who voices prejudicial views (whether publicly or in private) absolutely cannot be trusted to conduct themselves in a matter that is completely divorced from their prejudice, and is thus unfit to act as an unbiased enforcer of law.

Bodhisattva police when?

There is a difference between being human and having innate bias, and being bigoted.

[Scomagia]

Bodhisattva police when?

There is a difference between being human and having innate bias, and being bigoted.

Not according to the post to which I was responding.

[Ors Might]

If they don’t lose their first amendment rights then the department does have to tolerate bigotry if said bigotry doesn’t negatively impact the performance of the officer.

You are held to a higher standard as an officer than a member of the public. Joe Q Public could get away with shit like this but an officer wouldn’t

Then you would say that police officers do lose their first amendment rights, correct?

If they don’t lose their first amendment rights then the department does have to tolerate bigotry if said bigotry doesn’t negatively impact the performance of the officer.

Said bigotry could cause an officer to, say, unlawfully assault someone in the process of an arrest.

Then that’s a case of bigotry negatively impacting their performance.

If they don’t lose their first amendment rights then the department does have to tolerate bigotry if said bigotry doesn’t negatively impact the performance of the officer.

This is an oxymoronic proposition. Even if a bigoted person consciously attempts to "leave their prejudice at the door" so to speak, they will still be subject to subconscious prejudice that influences how they treat individuals from groups they are bigoted against. A police officer who voices prejudicial views (whether publicly or in private) absolutely cannot be trusted to conduct themselves in a matter that is completely divorced from their prejudice, and is thus unfit to act as an unbiased enforcer of law.

I’m calling nonsense here. This post is built upon the assumption that holding any sort of prejudice, whether or not that prejudice is objectively negative, should bar you from holding a job such as that of a police officer. That would bar anyone with strong political views or beliefs. Unless somehow only racial prejudice can influence how one would act.

[The New California Republic]

Give the lot of them the boot.

[Kowani]

There is a difference between being human and having innate bias, and being bigoted.

Not according to the post to which I was responding.

If they don’t lose their first amendment rights then the department does have to tolerate bigotry if said bigotry doesn’t negatively impact the performance of the officer.

This is an oxymoronic proposition. Even if a bigoted person consciously attempts to "leave their prejudice at the door" so to speak, they will still be subject to subconscious prejudice that influences how they treat individuals from groups they are bigoted against. A police officer who voices prejudicial views (whether publicly or in private) absolutely cannot be trusted to conduct themselves in a matter that is completely divorced from their prejudice, and is thus unfit to act as an unbiased enforcer of law.

Not quite a very clear distinction, but a line is drawn.

[Ors Might]

Bodhisattva police when?

There is a difference between being human and having innate bias, and being bigoted.

They specifically said prejudice, though. Can you name a single person that doesn’t have some sort of prejudice, racial or otherwise?

[The South Falls]

Hmm, I sense this will go the Supreme Court. It's bound to happen.

Class-action lawsuits, here we come.

[Kowani]

There is a difference between being human and having innate bias, and being bigoted.

They specifically said prejudice, though. Can you name a single person that doesn’t have some sort of prejudice, racial or otherwise?

quote="His Excellence";p="35833390"]

If they don’t lose their first amendment rights then the department does have to tolerate bigotry if said bigotry doesn’t negatively impact the performance of the officer.

This is an oxymoronic proposition. Even if a bigoted person consciously attempts to "leave their prejudice at the door" so to speak, they will still be subject to subconscious prejudice that influences how they treat individuals from groups they are bigoted against. A police officer who voices prejudicial views (whether publicly or in private) absolutely cannot be trusted to conduct themselves in a matter that is completely divorced from their prejudice, and is thus unfit to act as an unbiased enforcer of law.[/quote]

They also drew a line about where prejudice becomes untenable.

[The South Falls]

There is a difference between being human and having innate bias, and being bigoted.

They specifically said prejudice, though. Can you name a single person that doesn’t have some sort of prejudice, racial or otherwise?

Such prejudices can be unimportant (negative against people with horn-rim glasses, versus those with prejudice against, say, black people.

[Scomagia]

Not according to the post to which I was responding.

This is an oxymoronic proposition. Even if a bigoted person consciously attempts to "leave their prejudice at the door" so to speak, they will still be subject to subconscious prejudice that influences how they treat individuals from groups they are bigoted against. A police officer who voices prejudicial views (whether publicly or in private) absolutely cannot be trusted to conduct themselves in a matter that is completely divorced from their prejudice, and is thus unfit to act as an unbiased enforcer of law.

Not quite a very clear distinction, but a line is drawn.

What are you even talking about? That isn't a clear distinction, it's saying that bias is unacceptable the moment it is spoken at all and speaking makes them unfit. It's a bogus assertion, to boot. People can be prejudiced and not act on it, even if they discuss their prejudice with others.

So again, Bodhisattva police when?

[Ors Might]

They specifically said prejudice, though. Can you name a single person that doesn’t have some sort of prejudice, racial or otherwise?

quote="His Excellence";p="35833390"]

If they don’t lose their first amendment rights then the department does have to tolerate bigotry if said bigotry doesn’t negatively impact the performance of the officer.

This is an oxymoronic proposition. Even if a bigoted person consciously attempts to "leave their prejudice at the door" so to speak, they will still be subject to subconscious prejudice that influences how they treat individuals from groups they are bigoted against. A police officer who voices prejudicial views (whether publicly or in private) absolutely cannot be trusted to conduct themselves in a matter that is completely divorced from their prejudice, and is thus unfit to act as an unbiased enforcer of law.

They also drew a line about where prejudice becomes untenable.[/quote]
Not really. In the part you bolded, they said that an officer that “voices prejudical views (whether publicly or in private)” should more or less be sacked. Now keep in mind that prejudice is not synonymous with racism, sexism, etc.

[Scomagia]

They specifically said prejudice, though. Can you name a single person that doesn’t have some sort of prejudice, racial or otherwise?

Such prejudices can be unimportant (negative against people with horn-rim glasses, versus those with prejudice against, say, black people.

Holding a prejudicial view doesn't condemn one to act on it. It's only important if acted upon.

[Ors Might]

They specifically said prejudice, though. Can you name a single person that doesn’t have some sort of prejudice, racial or otherwise?

Such prejudices can be unimportant (negative against people with horn-rim glasses, versus those with prejudice against, say, black people.

Political prejudices then? Say, a police officer despises fascism and white supremacists and says that in public. Can they be trusted to protect and serve every member in their community?

[Scomagia]

Such prejudices can be unimportant (negative against people with horn-rim glasses, versus those with prejudice against, say, black people.

Political prejudices then? Say, a police officer despises fascism and white supremacists and says that in public. Can they be trusted to protect and serve every member in their community?

Yes.

[Kowani]

Not really. In the part you bolded, they said that an officer that “voices prejudical views (whether publicly or in private)” should more or less be sacked. Now keep in mind that prejudice is not synonymous with racism, sexism, etc.

Yes, and? I’m not them, but I’m pretty sure that they were referring to those kinds of prejudice.

Such prejudices can be unimportant (negative against people with horn-rim glasses, versus those with prejudice against, say, black people.

Holding a prejudicial view doesn't condemn one to act on it. It's only important if acted upon.

That’s completely false.

[The Two Jerseys]

I miss Frank Rizzo.

[Ors Might]

Not really. In the part you bolded, they said that an officer that “voices prejudical views (whether publicly or in private)” should more or less be sacked. Now keep in mind that prejudice is not synonymous with racism, sexism, etc.

Yes, and? I’m not them, but I’m pretty sure that they were referring to those kinds of prejudice.

Holding a prejudicial view doesn't condemn one to act on it. It's only important if acted upon.

That’s completely false.

That’s silly though. To the best of my knowledge, racial prejudice isn’t any more or less likely to show through than political prejudice.

[Scomagia]

Not really. In the part you bolded, they said that an officer that “voices prejudical views (whether publicly or in private)” should more or less be sacked. Now keep in mind that prejudice is not synonymous with racism, sexism, etc.

Yes, and? I’m not them, but I’m pretty sure that they were referring to those kinds of prejudice.

Holding a prejudicial view doesn't condemn one to act on it. It's only important if acted upon.

That’s completely false.

Do you have an actual argument besides "nuh uh!"? It's demonstrably true that the contents of people's thoughts don't inherently cause them to act those thoughts out.

[Aeritai]

This is just messed up it seems almost every police department is having racist issues. From Detroit to Phoenix, and now here. There should be a major reform for all police departments so this doesn't happen again.

[Kowani]

Yes, and? I’m not them, but I’m pretty sure that they were referring to those kinds of prejudice.


That’s completely false.

That’s silly though. To the best of my knowledge, racial prejudice isn’t any more or less likely to show through than political prejudice.

Ah, my bad. I thought you were going to pull something absurd out of the bucket, such as “people named Frank.”
But no, you’re right.

[San Lumen]

I miss Frank Rizzo.

Who?