Difficult Civil Rights Question

[Aliantha]

I think the poll results on this thread are interesting considering the discussion. It would seem that the majority of people think it's inappropriate for a cop to be a member of the KKK.

I'd love to know what other people's reasons are for thinking the way they do.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I think the poll results on this thread are interesting considering the discussion. It would seem that the majority of people think it's inappropriate for a cop to be a member of the KKK.

I'd love to know what other people's reasons are for thinking the way they do.

A person's beliefs should not impact his job status. Only his behavior and actions when he is working should impact his job status. A corporate executive may be a misogynist. Whether he belongs to an organization, or not, if he hires, promotes women based on the same standards that he uses for men, and treats men and women the same, he would be considered an effective executive. If he discriminates against women, he should be fired. If this cop treats people of color differently than he treats whites, he should be fired. Until then, I don't see any reason for his beliefs to impact his job status. Would it be ok to fire someone because they are attracted to someone of the same gender?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Would it be ok to fire someone because they are attracted to someone of the same gender?

If that person were a card carrying member of an organization which takes an oath and a clear stance against those who are not attracted to someone of the same gender, and yet they are in a position to protect and serve everyone, then perhaps yes.

Excerpt from a Ku Klux Klan Oath of Allegiance
I swear that I will most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve by any and all justifiable means and methods the sacred constitutional rights and privileges of free public schools, free speech, free press, separation of church and state, liberty, white supremacy, just laws and the pursuit of happiness.

White supremacy is kind of hidden in there, is it not?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It would seem that the majority of people think it's inappropriate for a cop to be a member of the KKK.

I didn't vote in the poll because I think it is defectively framed. I'm sure some others felt the same way.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I'd love to know what other people's reasons are for thinking the way they do.

You sure you don't just mean "I'm not done arguing about this yet."?

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I didn't vote in the poll because I think it is defectively framed. I'm sure some others felt the same way.

You sure you don't just mean "I'm not done arguing about this yet."?

I was interested in the 60% or so of people who agree that he should be kicked out. I've made my case quite clearly thanks Maggie, so I don't intend to argue about it any further. You seem to one of the few who don't seem to understand it, but that's ok. Perhaps a few remedial classes might help?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I was interested in the 60% or so of people who agree that he should be kicked out. I've made my case quite clearly thanks Maggie, so I don't intend to argue about it any further. You seem to one of the few who don't seem to understand it, but that's ok. Perhaps a few remedial classes might help?

Well, you stated badly who you were interested in hearing from. Having claimed that a majority agree with you (unsupported, given how defectively the poll question was worded), you said wanted to hear from "other people", which I took to mean people on the other side of the issue rather than "other people who agree with Aliantha"...which seems kinda pointless. Disappointingly, it turns out that you're interested in the opinions of those who agree with you, so you can stroke each other's outrage and moral superiority, I suppose.

I understand your "case" just fine: you're willing to sacrifice an important legal principle for your pet "identity politics" victim issue. As for remedial classes, I'd suggest you read Orwell's 1984 again. (Assuming you read it once...it *used* to be required reading in high school.)

[DanaC]

rkzenrage articulates it best I think. Merely being racist isn't enough. This is a very specific set of circumstances. Essentially, the police officer in question has prejudiced himself through membership of a group whose stated aims are incompatible with his job description and whose required oath is in direct conflict with the loyalties expected of him in his duties as a public servant.

[Ibby]

If I say 'I fucking swear, I'm gonna murder him in his sleep!" it doesn't mean I should go to jail, it means I need a punching bag or something. Saying, believing, even swearing something is not grounds for persecution, because as maggie says, that's thought policing. The moment something is DONE, then there's hell to pay. I think Spexxvet has it right. I PERSONALLY think the guy SHOULD be fired and done away with, but "he's in the KKK!", while a good reason, is not a VALID reason for it, because that's saying its not legal to be racist. That isn't true. It ISN'T legal to DISCRIMINATE, therefore, it is a simple matter of proving that his obvious racism resulted in unfair treatment.

Originally Posted by Ibram

If I say 'I fucking swear, I'm gonna murder him in his sleep!" it doesn't mean I should go to jail, it means I need a punching bag or something. Saying, believing, even swearing something is not grounds for persecution, because as maggie says, that's thought policing. The moment something is DONE, then there's hell to pay. I think Spexxvet has it right. I PERSONALLY think the guy SHOULD be fired and done away with, but "he's in the KKK!", while a good reason, is not a VALID reason for it, because that's saying its not legal to be racist. That isn't true. It ISN'T legal to DISCRIMINATE, therefore, it is a simple matter of proving that his obvious racism resulted in unfair treatment.

If you told me you were going to harm me I would have no choice but to choose believe you and take appropriate action. How would I knowthat you are telling the truth or not?... best to err on the side of caution.

[9th Engineer]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

best to err on the side of caution.

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on a direct mortal threat rather than any actual crime.
Damn straight.

Considering your background, I suspect you haven't happened upon people who would say that and then do it. Believe me, they are out there in greater numbers than reason would dictate. You can suspect, but never know, exactly who they are until it's to late. The only reasonable defense is assuming if somebody threatens to kill you, they mean it.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

It is not preinpitve... you took action with your threat... you assumed the stance of aggressor.
You stated that you WOULD do harm to me, not that you MAY do harm to me.
If I allowed it, I would have no one to blame but myself... quite stupid on my part when you gave me an absolute & definite warning of your impending action.

[Stormieweather]

Actually, verbally threatening to harm someone is assault, legally. Battery is actually touching a person without consent. Someone who robs a bank, for example, and threatens to blow everyone's heads off is guilty of aggrevated assault (assault committed during the commission of a crime). He may never have laid a finger on a single person in that bank, but the threat of harm is still a crime.

Stormie

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

Here comes the fist
it's heading straight towards me
maybe he'll stop at the last moment and not connect
WOW it's really close now, just a few millimters away, I bet he doesn't have time to stop now
Maybe I should wait a little longer and see, he might surprise me
OOPS he didn't stop
Here come the stars
maybe he won't punch me again


At what point do you decide to take action then? It's not a crime for me to punch,
"just stay away from my fisty areas"

[BigV]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

The point you're missing 9th, is that you and rkz disagree on what the original action is. You read it as having not yet happened--some physical action/threat/violence/etc. rkz reads it as having already happened--the action of communicating, specifically communicating the imminent arrival of more violence. That communication you see as a warning, a threat of violence and rkz sees as actual violence, deserving a response. A response in this case that would both prevent a second act of violence against him, and against all others.

Your disagreement is rooted in your different interpretations of "action". You see the words as inaction and therefore the physical reply as "preemptive". rkz sees the words as the intial, or at least the preceeding action, and his reply is just that. He didn't start it. Or maybe he did, but this action he describes is not the start.

You bring up a good point with the idea of an "actual crime". But I think that's a whole different discussion. When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?

Another thought tracks this line: Is it better to seek permission or forgiveness? It could be rephrased "seek proof or judgement" just as easily. rkz is saying "I'll see your bet (threat) and raise you (deadly force, out of the game). You're gone and therefore I win."

Another discussion should be had as to the appropriateness of the response. Of course, both parties have to be alive to have a discussion.