Comments

1
I'm not so sure a social media "gag" is what SPD needs. That's just treating the symptom, not the problem.
2
If police want to post stuff demonstrating that they are unfit to perform the duties of their job, they are free to do so and should always be free to do so. Also, the SPD should be assessing whether their cops are fit to perform the duties of their job and firing those who are not.
3
Classic example of the right-wing rednecks that make up the majority of the SPD. They hate the people they are policing - that's obvious.

I don't trust anyone in the SPD. When I see a SPD officer, I turn the other way, not because I've done anything wrong, but because they have proven to be racist, homophobic and violent and need NO provocation to arrest you, treat you like shit and throw you in jail.

ENOUGH OF THE SPD! ENOUGH!
4
Seriously SPD officers you can say whatever you want with repercussions towards your employment if you post anonymously. Or you can be like everyone else in the world and have to deal with the repercussions of your actions when you attach your name and job title to them. I'm not a fan of hiring practices being linked to political affiliations, etc... But when you demonstrate you don't actually want to serve the vast majority of your employers (the blacks, liberals, etc... of Seattle) it's really hard for your employers to overlook that.
5
I don't want a social media policy that prevents them from showing us their true colors. Instead, I want a policy that they must post this stuff under their real names and affiliations. So we know who the bigots are and who to fire.
6
Hey look, another right-winger who doesn't understand the first amendment.

And yes, this is a symptom, shutting them up doesn't make them any less unqualified for thier jobs.
7
Sam Bird with "sb" as part of his handle? Any attachments relation to Seattleblues?

Anyway, assuming it's his account and he was at the precinct: was he playing with Facebook while on the job?
8
@7

Sorry. Just meant to say, "Any relation to. . ."
9
Oh, I'm sure a few days of sensitivity training will fix this problem right up. (eyeroll through the roof).
10
Let them post whatever they want.
11
It's perfectly fine to have a racist, homophobic, police officer, or garbage collector, or EMT, or fireman, or teacher, or any other vocation as long as they treat other people well, behave well, and do their job well.

You can dictate people's behavior, but not their attitudes, dispositions, philosophy, or freedom of expression.
12
What an Orwellian Rabbit Hole the SLOG is going down.

We are now not going to punish officers for racist deeds (or even racist speech while on duty), which we should, but racist thoughts and opinions? Whatever happened to the liberal tradition espoused by Voltaire when he said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it." Whatever happened to libertarian tradition of the SLOG and its readers to think and say what you want, when you aren't operating on someone else's payroll? Are the Facebook and Twitter posts offensive. In my opinion, deeply so, but does that justify turning into the thought police of North Korea? Where does it stop? Should your employer have the right to fire you, for thoughts or deeds outside the job, that they, or a majority of the customers employers might disagree with? The implications of this line of reporting and comment are more terrifying than the alleged deeds of Whitlatch. She is having to defend against allegations around her actions. This line of reporting is now implying consequences for what people think, believe, and say, on their off time. How very Stalinesque.
14
@ 11, if only racists and homophobes were capable of that.
15
Biased is as biased does. @11, you are really this dumb?
17
@12:

I don't see anyone here (or in Ansel's OP for that matter) suggesting SPD officers don't have a right to speak their minds, however bigoted and hate-filled they may be. But, as @4 quite correctly points out, they also don't have the right to be protected from the consequences of doing so.

So, let them spew as much bigoted speech as they please, but let them never forget they are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and that WE THE PUBLIC have a right to choose not to employ people who express such views, particularly when those views are directed at the very public they've been hired to serve.
18
Tempted to make a sweeping remark about a particular group of people right now, something that would suggest they're all the same, a bunch of crybaby whiners who expect special treatment, holding back society with their poor choices and thug mentality. But I don't want to assume all cops are like that, you know? It would be bigoted of me.
19
@16: A registered child molester is guilty of a crime. A drunk driver is guilty of a crime. That's behavior and actions, not their thoughts.

What I'm saying simply is that one interacts with all sorts of people every day providing good or services or public safety such as police and fire, and many of those people are not fit for polite society -- still they do their job and behave well and are entitled to their freedom of speech jus as much as you and I. Read @12 again.
21
@ 12, you ought to be reminded that "Orwellian" is an adjective that can only apply to government. The actions of the free press are never Orwellian.
22
@17: I see your point. Obviously, an employer has the right to fire or not hire based on a person's social media so it's in the person's best interest not to tweet or FB stupid things and keep their personal opinions private (as that's what we did before computers and the internet).

You may think I just contradicted myself, but I didn't.
23
@ 22, care to discuss why you believe a prejudiced person can perform public duties without prejudice, to paraphrase your remark @11? If you contradicted yourself anywhere, it was there.
24
A "social media policy" is such a stupid thing to be pushing for. All it'll do is make it less obvious which SPD cops are noxious bigots. Let the cops post whatever they want wherever they want. And if they post stuff like officer Whitlatch or this asshole did, you fire them.

Whitlatch should already be fired.
25
The First mendment right relates to censorship of citizens by the government. The employment relationship is a different deal, even when the government is the employer. Subject to any specific statutes or contracts (e.g., union agreements), employers have latitude to condition employment on specific conduct. I don't know what the SPD union contract says about some of this social media stuff, but barring some limitations there, it seems like somebody could probably be shit-canned for that, just as an Amazon or Microsoft employee might be shit-canned for that sort of stuff.

It's telling about the level of invincibility they must feel under their union contract that it didn't occur to these cops that they might put themselves at risk of getting fired by posting this stuff on social media.

That said, I agree that it's probably better that these cops just let it all hang out on social media, so we know what they're about. This kind of stuff does more to forward the cause of police reform than just about anything I can think of.

Nevertheless, if I was in charge of SPD (and its union), I'd be doing my damnedest to reign that shit in, because it's a PR nightmare.

@12: I think you misread what others were saying. Nobody can punish people for what's in their head, and I don't think anyone is advocating trying to do that. If they are, they're misguided.

What we're seeing is a certain kind of white entitlement loss playing out in public. An entitlement loss happens when one can no longer say something out loud (or act on it) without sanction.

This is what critics of "political correctness" hate. In essence, they are objecting to having certain unspoken, embedded, entitlements called into question.

Don't call me "boy", I'm a "man." I'm a "woman" not a "girl." You don't get free reign to call me anything you want. That is not your entitlement. It's mine. I get to tell you what to call me, and it's your job to be paying enough attention to respond appropriately to that information, even if I decide I want to be called something else down the line, because that's what mutual respect looks like. You are no longer entitled to dictate what you call me. Social mores now require that you behave a different way. If you don't, you may face social sanction.

This applies to the police also. Just because you ostensibly serve the societal interests of justice and security as a police officer, that doesn't mean that you get to decide what those terms mean or how those ends will be achieved. You are a public servant. You serve at the behest of the public and subject to a set of socially and politically determined rules. Sorry if that makes your job harder. The legitimacy of your exercise of state power depends upon you working subject to these rules. When you don't do that, people are going to complain and do their best to hold you accountable. That's the deal.

If you say crazy racist shit on social media, people are going to question whether you are sincere about serving the societal interests of justice and security. This questioning could lead to sanctions against you, including the loss of your job. Full stop. End of story.
26
@12, I think an attitude that indicates a police officer hates the black and gay citizens he is sworn to protect is a problem. THAT'S HIS JOB. It's like a doctor posting that he doesn't believe in germ theory or viruses, or a history teacher who believes the Holocaust never happened: he's not able to do his job properly.

I do think that officers like Sam Byrd should be forced to take a week's antiracism training, just like Cynthia Whitlatch. Chances are, considering what he's written, he'd say "no thanks" and leave the force. But if he stayed, and took the training, he might change his mind.

I know a lot of you are skeptical, but I have seen it happen with my own eyes.
28
@16. Should someone convicted of a DUI on their vacation, one time, not be allowed to drive a fire truck because of that conviction? Where you do you draw the line?

@17. At one time, people said the same things about gays. If you are gay, you are more likely to pray on a child as a teacher, teach something inappropriate, teach kids that the vast majority of society, that held that view, including their parents, were bigots, etc., etc., etc. Yet in spite of having views in contrast to the society around them, when they were at work, they conformed to the requirements of a teacher (even if they disagreed with it). When they were found out, they were fired, not for their conduct or speech on the job, but for private views and conduct off the job.

It is a dangerous precedent you are calling for. You seem to suggest that the 1st Amendment does not apply to public employees. Where does it stop? Most Californians or New Yorkers are overwhelmingly Democrat. Should they be able to tell all Republicans, because Democrats find what they think reprehensible, that they need not apply? That they can be fired for going to meeting of the John Birch Society? How about Republicans in Wyoming that find Democrats or libertarians to be whacky? Should they be able to deny tax dollars to liberal or Democratic applicants? You are stepping onto a dangerous, steep, and very slick slope.
29
@ 28, ROFLMAO. Fire departments already won't hire people convicted of DUI's. Where have you been the past 30 years?
30
BTW, George, why don't you head on over to the post about SPOG's email to its members about social media postings? It includes a link to the very jurisprudence covering the First Amendment rights of public employees. Instead of running on about what they oughtta be, you can learn what they really are.
31
Where does SPD find these ignorant, hateful bastards? ...is there any screening process during hiring? ...or any training whatsoever?

It's impossible to blame the current chief, who does seem to be trying hard to set the ship right. But any reforms had better include a change in hiring practices.

To Officer Byrd: Just as you seem to have contempt for a large portion of Seattle residents—who it is your sworn duty to "protect and serve"—we don't want your kind "serving" us. Please do the honorable thing ...don't go away mad, just go away!
32
Better to hear what the pigs are spewing than not.
33
@21 These ignorant, hateful bastards are the only people to whom a career waging violence against working people for the benefit of the rich appeals. They're ignorant, hateful bastards because policing is inherently ignorant and hateful.
34
what we are dealing with is sub kkk ignorance at least they have the sense to wear hoods
35
@30.

Kennedy wrote for the majority in the case you cite, "precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job."

The key to the ruling you cite, was that Cabellos speech and actions were in the "course of doing his or her job."

Public Defenders defend abhorrent people that they know are guilty. Their strong private disagreement with the views and actions of their clients does not stop them from doing their job, or if it does, they get fired.

Law enforcement officers enforce laws they disagree with or even have testified or written op-eds against and that the legislature passed anyway.

They, like other adults, can hold and express reprehensible views, at odds with their employer. They can set them aside when they walk through the door. If they can't do that, then fire them.

@29. SFD does not hire people with DUI convictions. But they don't reassign or fire them for such a conviction, off-duty. KIRO has recently reported on this.

36
Some fucking stupid comments in defense of cops being publicly racist here.
37
@36. A cop, or other public employee, can't have an abhorrent opinion, or one that their employer disagrees with on their off time? It isn't about whether you think a cop or anyone else should be allowed to be publicly racist. It's about freedom of thought and speech. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire (Writing against the back-drop of the French Revolution where mobs were murdering people in the street for merely disagreeing with them. The mob had become the government)

Once you allow the government to hire and fire citizens for what they say, outside of the performance of their duties, then it is open season on the government coercing the portion of the public that works for them into silence.

For a bunch of libertarians, a good deal of the posters here, are advocating an Orwellian State.
38
As long as someone has free time and a negative outlook on the world, they will always find something to gripe about.

As sad as it may be that he needs social media to feel good about his negative outlook.. there is little reason to quiet him. Move on... focus on the things that make a difference in this world. Perhaps he'll come around, but don't hold your breath. There are far better things to focus on in this world.
39
@35, I didn't cite it, SPOG's president did.

@ 37, I already pointed out you were misusing "Orwellian." Knock it off already.
40
@37, where'd you get the idea that we're all libertarians?

@26, you posit two reactions of a racist cop being told to take anti-racism training: 1) saying "no" and quitting; 2) taking the training and changing their mind. There's also 3): taking the training, not changing their mind, but not saying so because they don't want to give up the job. And no one would know that until the next time they prove, on the street, that they're racist. Such an improvement.
41
Ansel, you have a duty to parse racist speech from political speech. What does this officer's opinion of Seattle's minimum wage have to do with racism? Let's call these bastards out when they say something that proves they can't perform their job in a professional manner. If you want to disagree with political statements, let's have a separate discussion for that. Disagreeing about the Mike Brown case is not overtly racist, it's political. Calling Al Sharpton racist is political speech too; Al definitely feeds off racial controversy and has built quite a career and bank account as a 'reverend'.

Now, calling social justice racism is blurring the lines a bit....

These tweets are mild compared to Whitlatch.
42
This will not be a popular opinion here, but this man did nothing wrong. As a free human being, he is entitled to his opinions, and he is entitled to freely express them.
He said, in substance, that:
- He doesn't like our President
- He objects to illegal aliens
- He does not think the Ferguson protestors/rioters had a legitimate beef
- He thinks he is being muzzled.

None of this adds up to anything close to a firing offense. Nowhere does he say anything like:

- Negroes should be assumed guilty of crimes
- Hispanic lives are worth less than white lives
- Police officers are not obliged to protect women from rape unless they dress like nuns

Or anything else that directly affected the conduct of his job.

Cops are rednecks. Get used to it. Deal with it. I can't be the first to notice that the rednecks are far, far more respectful of your rights, than you are of theirs. Have you seen anyone trolling Facebook looking for excuses to hound liberals out of their jobs - say, posts declaring that illegal immigrants should be sheltered from the law, or that drugs should be legalized, or that cross-dressing is fine and fun?

Taking the standard you apply to conservative opinions, and applying it across the board to liberal opinions, would mean millions of teachers, public servants, and yes, even cops, would be driven out of their professions.

I would much prefer to have my rights being protected by the likes of Mr. Byrd, than by any one of the people on this board. He would be a hundred times more respectful of any persons he met that he did not agree with.
43
Riley - you just talk talk talk, you just talk too much ...not to mention, you are full of shit.

In Seattle, as in any civilized city, we don't have to accept that cops are redneck bastards, like you seem to be. And we never will. Begone, redneck asshole sympathizer!
44
@21
What would the "screening process" look like?
"Do you like President Obama?"
"Do you support the rioters in Ferguson?"
"Do you think illegal immigrants should be sheltered from law enforcement?"
"Do you think the UN is the cat's jammies?"

Wrong answer means no hire.

Gee, I guess we need to do this. Can't let politics creep into our police force, now, can we?
45
Its better NOT to have a social media policy because there are few ways that we can get a sincere temperature gauge on the kinds of BS these cops are thinking. I think preserving their transparent speech is in the best interest of the public and it should NOT be withheld so that WE in the public can be FULLY aware of the blatant disregard for social justice that pervades our law enforcement system. "social media policy" is in the interest of the police department, NOT in the interest of the public
46
@42
Cops are rednecks. Get used to it. Deal with it. I can't be the first to notice that the rednecks are far, far more respectful of your rights, than you are of theirs. Have you seen anyone trolling Facebook looking for excuses to hound liberals out of their jobs - say, posts declaring that illegal immigrants should be sheltered from the law, or that drugs should be legalized, or that cross-dressing is fine and fun?


*Snort*

For heaven's sake, Charlie, come on down to my neck of the woods. Georgia. Employers routinely TELL employees to watch their social networking posts. 'Wrong thinking is punishable.'

Rednecks respectful of my rights? Jesus Fucking Christ. Just what planet do you live on?
47
Look, cops are never going to be the social justice warriors you wish them to be. Policing is a profession where people without specialized skills and education can be productive, well paid and active economic citizens. The pool of applicants does not include people with degrees in the liberal arts, or people with hugbox tumblr pages.

These people are going to have personalities and opinions you do not like. That is how the world works. That is why training exists. The teach these people to suppress that crap on the job and be professionals. The problem is the training and the lack of consequences. The individuals are not going to change.

Focus on the structure, not the individuals. Attacking facebook posts is just the easy path with no payoff.
48
Based on my interactions with the cops (more than 10 years past at this point) I would place the break down as about 80% thoughtless domineering jerks to 20% people who are interested in helping their fellow citizens. The 'good' ones could have just been better at playing me of course but they seemed earnest.

What kind of individuals actually want to be cops? Probably a similar breakdown, perhaps a slightly higher % of naive folk who think that they will be able to promote the greater good and make a decent living at the same time. After joining they learn the truth, they aren't there to enforce the law.

Cops aren't there to enforce the law and they certainly aren't there to promote justice. The police exist to preserve order. A specific order that is in essence unjust and often illegal as well. I would speculate that the vast majority of poster here, myself included, have through our lives benefited from this order. It is hard to live in the country and not benefit from it. We are , after all, the 1% of the world or at least a large % of that 1%.

So do we need the cops? If we do how do we get them? Last I heard they were having trouble filling their ranks. If we eliminate from the pool the 70% to 80% that are domineering assholes then it becomes obvious that there won't be enough people to fill all the positions. What then? Do you want to be a cop? I know I don't. Do we have a cop draft? Should every citizen be required to preform a certain amount of time on cop duty?

Please understand that this is not me saying that, because of this situation, we have to accept as inevitable the presence of these individuals. Personally I think we could do with 70% to 80% fewer cops. Of course in order for this to work we would have to move towards a significantly more just social and economic order, something I don't see much support for. Any earlier poster indicated that these individuals are fit for jobs 'digging ditches and busing tables at McD's (one really should bus ones own table at fast food joints, have a little worker solidarity for Marxs sake.) The implication I took from this statement (possibly in error, if so I'm sorry) is that these are shit jobs for shit people. Well in a just society there would be no shit jobs or if there were you'd get more than a sub-living wage for doing them.

Where does racism come from? It may reflect my polyannish nature but it is my belief that assholes aren't born they're made. My guess is that the average racist thought train is something like this; 'I may be a worthless piece of shit but at least I'm a white, male, het. worthless piece of shit which makes better than all these... Etc.' So yes, the isms come from fact that people have poor self images and it helps them to feel better about themselves, or so I have to believe to keep myself alive and saneish. It happens all over the thought spectrum; 'I may be a worthless piece of shit but at least I'm not a racist worthless piece of shit.'

Obviously more could be said on this topic (believe it or not) but enough for now.
50
@49, get down off the cross. He's a public servant and it's the public's right to know about his irresponsibly expressed opinions if he says them publicly. And to judge him accordingly.
52
A social media policy?!?! No way. What we need are police officers who don't hate the people they are supposed to be serving and protecting. Better recruitment and training.

People can think snd say whatever they want, sure. And as a resident of the East Precinct I can think and say that I don't feel very comfortable with my neighborhood being policed by a force that thinks gay people have special rights and has nothing but contempt and hostility for African Americans. Can the department offer assurances that a clear culture of racism and homophobia isn't impacting people's job performance? Are officers truly able to check those views at the station house door and treat everyone respectfully? Right now I'm not buying it.
53
@ 51, or those stats provide evidence of systematic racism that result in violent crime, as well as a system that punishes African Americans harder than people of other races guilty of the same crimes.

But go ahead and view it with biased eyes, and confirm that bias as you wish.
56
@ 55, hardly. But given how many wrongly convicted prisoners have been African American, you can safely say that they do their shoddiest work on those cases, for racist reasons.
58
@ 57, because of institutional racism.
59
did any of these folks use their first amendment right and make these views known during the hiring process,
60
Two weeks as a cop in any American city would make a racist out of Mother Theresa.
62
George isn't worth responding to at this point, he thinks anything that prevents cops from being able to do whatever they want to us a slippery slope into despotiv communism.

@42 - Next you'll tell me it's the liberals who hang people from trees or beat them and tie them to fence posts because they want to send a message.

@51 - Since the large majority of serial killers are white men, do homicide detectives who work those cases end up thinking that all white men are the enemy? Do cops who patrol college campuses think that college kids are the enemy?

@61 - You have no idea what the first amendment actually says or guarantees.
63
@ 61, the problem is that his rights are not being violated. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, which is contrary to your argument. And any comparison of a civil sevice job to a private sector job is fatally flawed.
64
Guess first ammendment rightsdont apply to everyone after all
65
Test comment... Main page says 64 comments but only 63 displaying despite numerous refresh attempts...
66
I got a kick out of someone comparing a bigot losing his cop job as being philosophically the same as a cop losing his badge for being gay. That's hilarious.

1) Being a cop (IMO) has a few hardline requirements : Physical Fitness, good judgement, calm nerves, and a belief in equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Bigots fail that last one, gay people don't.

2) The sort of person who was actually doing the firing of gays are now the sort of person who is getting fired. If you think those previous actions were wrong (they were, because bigotry is bad), then removing that sort of person(bigots) from the force will lead to a more fairly hired and fired police force.
67
The "they can be professional anyway" argument rings hollow to me. I mean, sure, its possible. But the evidence is that the SPD has been treating the citizens of Seattle with undue force and aggression. So says the DOJ, the Police Chief, and the Mayor, as well as lots of "just folks". It seems unreasonable to think that prejudicial attitudes among the officers has not helped create this situation in any way.

68
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, however as long as he is not representing the SPD, or lets his opinions affect his work and professionalism, I don't see how what he does in his off time or says in his off time should be of concern to his employer.

If I worked for a movie theater, and on my personal twitter, which was in no way connected to my employment, I said anyone who likes romantic comedies is an overly emotional, illogical sap who shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are obviously morons, I would have a stupid opinion. But as long as I treated those moviegoers buying tickets to romantic comedies with the appropriate respect and professionalism, my personal thoughts expressed outside my workplace should have little bearing on my employment. Not because it is illegal, which I can't speak to as I'm not a lawyer, but because it is wrong.

You shouldn't have to agree with the views and feelings of your employers to be able to work for them. But you should have to behave according to their standards while you work.

None of that should be different because he is a police officer. His stupid, ignorant views should not be the SPDs business unless they can show they are affecting his work.
69
@68
The difference is the level of power. It would be like if the theater worker could actually arrest those rom/com loving people for no reason, lie to the court, seek a conviction, and therefore actually deny those people the right to vote. If the worker had the chance to actually do that stuff, those comments would matter a lot to the public frequenting the theater.

Cops exercise state power in very coercive ways. Its thier job, and that job HAS to be done impartially. If cop is giving the public the impression that they arent impartial, thats a big problem.

How would you like it if a judge were to say something like " OMG white people are the worst! Im so tired of your complaints!" on twitter. Would you feel comfortable in the courtroom with that judge if you were a white businessman suing a black businessman?

Bottom line, if it could be used to disqualify you as a juror, police should not say it.
70
@ 68, maybe your hypothetical theater employee shouldn't be fired, but you can bet he would be if his manager finds out. It's nothing new; if you badmouth customers, it can harm the business and managers and employers have long been granted the power to fire such employees, even before the Internet ensured that they got to read those opinions verbatim.

But @69 succinctly points out why the comparison of a public servant to a private sector employee is flawed.
71
Jon @69 gets it.
72
@69, I get that and it makes a lot of sense, and the things he has said (mentioned in the article) can infer some racism, but nothing listed that he said sounds any different from any other republican I know. the gays have more rights thing, the Ferguson PD support, the redskins thing, the entire get-over-it mentality of white republicans... but nothing suggesting he specifically thinks minorities are criminals or that he would be biased against them. He just sounds like a Republican. Like every other republican. I bet he is not a fan of the ACA and has a bunch of guns. But him being a Republican in a liberal city is not a reason that he should lose his job or get essentially gagged on his own twitter feed. A Republican might take issue with a very liberal-sounding cop because they would infer he/she would be too scared of hurting a potential minority assailant's feelings to stop an active threat. They would be wrong, of course, in the same way assuming this man's right leaning views would make him show worse judgement or less professionalism.

I agree with @41, I don't see any overt racism, just political views. And I am no police apologist. I hate the militarization, the excessive force, and racial profiling that is running rampant through our country's police forces. But let's get officers out based on their actions, not their political views.
73
Ugh, why are Beck's and Limbaugh's disciples trolling Slog? They're all over the NYT & Salon comment threads too. How do they have so much free time? Don't their jobs, family and friends take up any time in the day?
74
People say "They should just hire better cops" like it's as simple as that. Here's the deal: There really aren't that many "better cops" to go around. The legal, physical, mental and psychological profiling that makes a person eligible to be a police officer are very rigorous.

But this excludes a large pool who could probably be pretty good cops, and makes for a pretty homogenous group of people, many ex-military, team sports kind of guys. And these guys put the team first, they will stick together and lie through their teeth to keep the story straight.

But just inventing this whole new race of supercops out of thin air - sensitive, intelligent, thoughtful, creative, very Zen cops, where do you get them? SPD already has a recruitment problem, get even pickier, wanting only that which is extremely rare, and pretty soon you'll have no police at all.

So be thankful for the gang of goons who hate you, that there is anybody to keep order at all. Sure they are lousy cops, and they hate pantywaist liberal fucks and all the ethnic crap
but at least they keep all holy shit from breaking loose.

And don't think police are eager to work in Seattle, they know everyone hates them, they get it. The pay isn't so good, and there is zero support from above, it rains all the time. Or you could move to Yakima, make more money, live in a community that supports your values and honors the police? Hell, even Yakima has trouble finding new cops, and it's damn near a jackbooted thug nazi hell paradise.
75
@73 ugh, your reading comprehension is lacking. Few to none are supporting that idiot cop's views. Because they are painfully stupid. I work almost entirely with people who think and talk like him, and it makes my blood boil, and has me regularly in an argument. However, no matter how much it bothers me, I would never seek to remove their ability to say those stupid things. You're not arguing with conservatives or police apologists, you're arguing with people who value freedom of speech, and not just freedom from legal ramifications. We think a person's personal and political views are beyond the scope of what an employer should be trying to control. The people who are offering reasonable responses are saying those views, however personal, cannot help but cloud the person's professional behavior, and as they are in a position of power and authority, their personal and political views are relevant to their employment. I would say both are reasonable arguments. You are the only troll here, offering nothing to the discussion.
76
Who here is volunteering to become a cop and show us how it's done?
78
Please let people "air their grievances." It's how minds get changed...
79
@ 77, non sequitur comment of the day.
81
Not picking up the trollbait, JF. Go pound sand somewhere else.
83
^ says the guy with the hidden comment history. LOL
84
You're allowed to say whatever you want, IN PRIVATE. Make your Facebook PRIVATE so they whole world can't see it.

When I was looking for a job recently (after being self employed for 9 years) I made Facebook private and deleted my Twitter feed (which I used for my former self-employed job). There we go. All nice and private. So only people I know can see what I write on Facebook.

And that is called "common sense."
85
So, the position of the SPD leadership is: We don't care if you are insensitive to minorities (as is the case here)…or perhaps even secretly harbor a deep seated desire to return to drawing and quartering, lynching or crucifying minorities…just don't let people know and you will always have a job with us.

I believe that the public is better informed by allowing officers to freely share their opinions…how would we know anything otherwise? Perhaps these are discussions that the public (and the police department) very much need to have in order to come together under a comprehensive partnership for the sake of the community?
86
I, for one, would love to hear Byrd elaborate on his views of how lgbt folks have more rights than himself, am sure it will shed light on an opinion that I am sure is privately held by other officers.
87
The Seattle police department defrauded this entire city for a system of accountability at the direction of its union. No one has been held accountable for this coruption and fraud. No one has been held accountable for all the abuse and lies revealed by the federal investigation. How much in Millions has this fraud cost the taxpayers of Seattle since? There isnt even money for the upkeep or our parks while they announce new vehicles, new uniforms, a new logo for the entire department and all the other new toys. Budgets have been cut across the board effecting everyone in this city while the entire SPD received retroactive raises going back to 2011 the year of the federal investigation. Then we find out that the SPD isnt even doing investigations into burgluaries or rape kits and crime has rizen 10 percent. This new chief has no effect in the city already held hostage by its police department and their union. And they dont even live in this city. Nothing has changed and this entire mess is a god damn disgrace. Wake up Seattle. The SPD is the new Mafia and we are all paying dearly for it.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.