|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Conviction v. Convenience: Where is the acceptable division?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This story irritates me for more than one reason. But what I want to explore here is the convenience factor.
Synopsis: Cop makes racist remarks and generates outrage. Instead of firing him, he is allowed to retire. The result is he could work in law enforcement elsewhere. The reason given for allowing this is to save resources. Given that the Baton Rouge police dept. have issued a statement condemning the texts, are they justified in compromising their principles to save money?* Is the acceptable? Allowing someone to essentially get away free, and to send a bad message about accountability, to save money?
We live in a practical world, compromises are part and parcel of our laws and interactions. We draw a line demarcating our standards, how far from that line can we stray before the stated standard is meaningless? Where does the practical outweigh the moral, ethical or responsible?
*Accepting the statement at face value for the sake of the discussion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
He has been held accountable for his obnoxious and unprofessional behaviour - he's been fired.
How much of a punishment that is depends on labour market conditions. But that's just part of the general unfairness of life.
Seems to me that anyone seeking to employ him in a responsible position will seek a reference from his previous employer ? Which will provide a check that he's told the truth to a prospective future employer. So I don't immediately see a huge problem.
What I find more disturbing is those who not only want to brand him on the forehead with a big R for racist (or the bureaucratic equivalent), but think that his employer has some sort of moral duty to do so.
If he can't keep his personal prejudices from interfering with his professional conduct then he's no business being a policeman. But no need to make a crusade of it.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
He has been held accountable for his obnoxious and unprofessional behaviour - he's been fired.
He's not actually been fired, he was allowed to retire. The difference is he is free to apply to another law enforcement agency.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
I agree that racism within the police force is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
But I'm speechless that this event sparked enough controversy that the officer was forced to retire.
And I'm completely baffled by why lilbuddha would think that allowing the officer to retire compromises the principles of the Baton Rouge police department.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is the acceptable? Allowing someone to essentially get away free, and to send a bad message about accountability, to save money?
What do you think the appropriate punishment for someone's exercising their right to free should be?
Loss of career, check. Possible displacement from home, check.
Are you looking for jail time?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
First, I did not explicitly say what I though a fitting punishment should be. But I will make my opinion clear.
He should have been fired. This would make further career in law enforcement more difficult.
Note that, according to the article, he would still have received a pension.
As far as free-speech; in America, he is free to say anything he wishes, for the most part. But his stated opinion calls into question his ability to do his job properly. Especially in a majority black city.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
