So are we all now in a twitter about expletives in social media now that it's coming from a cop? This kind of stupid hysteria has got to stop. I don't care if a cop is homophobic, racist, or sexist; if he keeps his professionalism in check and performs his duties with dignity afforded to all citizens - we have nothing to worry about. Our society is facing a shortage of new police recruits - I wonder why?

What's more disturbing is "thought control" now being evangelized by the left. How ironic, because the left used to be the champions of free expression.
@1, shut up you stupid fag.
I only read the article because I wanted to find out what the "oral reprimand" was. I was very disappointed...
@1 i care that anybody is a homophobic, sexist racist bigot.. but i especially care when it's a cop.
Didn't Dan Savage once use the phrase "hey faggot" as a heading to the letters in his column? It seems somewhat hypocritical to chastise someone else for using the term in the same manner when posting in a blog. This slog is full of derisive and disparaging remarks to all sorts of people.
It would be different if he said it to someone else while on duty or in uniform.
a tad tame but lets not let ron off the hook. he is the single worst thing to happen to seattle police. he is the brick wall that stops any kind of improvement in our peace officers. he's a fucking tool.
The Reagan Revolution pretty much killed off unions.... except the omnipotent unions supporting the secret-police state. Fascism does not begin to describe this lethal piggery.
@6, it was not "in the same manner" AT ALL.
@2: Do you feel you should be reprimanded by your boss for posting that?
Who gives a shit. Who cares what anyone calls anyone. Mind your own damn business and move on. If the cop calls someone a fag, so be it. Stick and stones...
@4: That pharmacist who filled your last order, the mechanic who worked on your car, the firefighter who pulled you out of that burning building, or that cop who gave you a sobriety test, are probably bigots but you never knew.

I really don't care what's in people's minds. But I do care about behavior. Lefties are becoming their own worst enemy when they conflate the two.

@10: No, because @2's boss would see that it proved my point.
@10, If I were a public servant openly displaying bigotry toward a member of the public I purportedly serve, absolutely. But you and I both know that my comment was something else, right? Just like Dan using "faggot" for many years to try to reclaim that word. (An effort which, by the way, he abandoned because dumbasses just weren't getting the point).

It's not about the actual words, you know? It's about the prejudice.


Do you understand what differences are?
Oooh, ooooh! NO! Someone, somewhere isn't being politically correct and now my wittle butt herz! Danny please touch it with your rainbow colored magic wand!
@13: I totally agree with that altruism. But such dispositions come from a good soul to be begin with. Everyone should stop using profanity or derogatory terms online. But "should" is a tyranny away from "must."
Trump/Cruz 16!
@10 - I don't know. Does @2 have a stick, a gun, and the power to detain me? Then yes.

Frankly, anyone empowered to put hands on or halt the daily activities of a man of my capacity would, in a just world, be a god. In this world, the least we can ask is that they do what they can to be angels. Power is too powerful a drug to give to some mere peckerwood.
@21: The public trust is best when a society is free to express itself - including by law enforcement - as they are the public themselves. If it's not coming from the heart, it's not genuine anyway.

Again, it's behavior - not thoughts. You have relatives or neighbors that make you cringe probably, right? Still you're sweet as pie with them anyway. Same thing.
@15 Way to make your point with racism and ableism, dude. As it happens I agree with you, but I don't conflate "ignorant asshole" with any type of disability. I assume your use of "mongoloid" was supposed to help you avoid using the R word (and I do appreciate the effort), but roping in ethnic slurs is not really the way to improve your attempt at non-oppressive abusive language. "Ignorant asshole" works just fine in my experience for people like @12.
@12 - @15 sort of answered your question. If the ones on hand are the ones I'm forced to deal with, they'd better be fucking worthy of breathing the same fucking air.
@25 - Can we call him "goatfucker"?
@26: Well, I'm sure SPD, or any police department, doesn't rise to your high bar then. Please spare them your arrogance and never call 911.
@9...Yes a different manner but still clearly a double standard. It seems that a lot of people in the slog love to dish it out but become self-righteous when it comes their way.
@28 - Civilization is far better off with me in it than without, so I'm even doing you a favor if ever I require and solicit their help. I don't see it as particularly arrogant to that power be given to those of character and restraint.
@30 should read " ... arrogant to BELIEVE that power be given ... "

See here's the difference: when you keep your bigotry in your own mind, nobody knows you're a bigot because you DON'T EXPRESS IT. When you call someone a fag on social media you're doing exactly the opposite of keeping it IN your mind; you're letting it OUT of your mind, by the act of typing your thoughts and opinions into a computer and then disseminating your statements by way of a medium that allows literally millions of people to see what you've typed. And as we all know, the way one acts and conducts themselves toward others is the very definition of "behavior", and that's what we're dealing with here. So,nobody is conflating anything, because even using your own "logic" there would be nothing to discuss about this in the first place if Officer Reynolds had possessed the modicum of discipline required to keep his bigoted opinions to himself. But he couldn't do that, could he?
Wassup, queer people?
@32: Why should he keep his bigoted opinions to himself just because he's a police officer? It should be no different than if he was a florist. Police officers are American citizens, BTW, and deserve the freedoms we all enjoy.

He's unwise and should be embarrassed about his writings. But so should should Donald Trump.
And just because it's the internet is no different than if he published a book or said it on a soapbox in the town square.
It is really a bad idea when people think that only certain people can say certain words; if a word is bad it is bad all around and should not be said by anyone. Free speech is not just for some people. It's one thing if the police officer is in uniform, on his own time is another matter; anything else becomes thought control.
@35 - Anyone who has a stick, a gun, and any power whatsoever to detain me, question me, delay me, or lay a hand on me has power that no bigoted cracker who doesn't have the good sense to hide his bigoted crackerhood from the public sphere should ever enjoy. Period.

I'm really surprised that anyone would look on it as anything but an assurance of justice and survival tobinsist that those who have power over us should at least be held to a pretense of being equals.
@37 - "tobinsist" = "to insist"
Shocked? Remember the two officers who kept getting in repeated trouble for texting racist comments to each other? Both have now been fired, but it took a lot of other shit to even get them on the radar. And thats not even counting Cynthia Whitlach.

Its not that they are doing it that is the problem, its that the SPD is a police culture full of people with that mindset that is the problem. I wouldnt trust an SPD officer around my goldfish, let another to be honest about ANY unrecorded reaction around african americans, hispanics, gay people and protesters.

The SPD lies more than it tells the truth. They arent Chicago PD bad, but thats only because they couldnt afford to rent out a blacksite to torture minority victims as the CPD was.
The media tells a lot of lies too, just look at Rollingstone magazine.
@35: We agree there, but the use of any kind of slur calls into question their ability to be impartial and fair. We know the SPD is NOT impartial or fair, so he should absolutely be in trouble.
@16, 17: How do you know this guys is not one of the people you give arbitrary permission to use the word "fag?" Maybe he is gay. Maybe he is actually liberal enough politically for you to excuse his language, you don't know.

He called a public figure a "fag" two years ago on the internet, he did not drive down to a gay bar and start harassing people. Do you know what differences are?

Ansel, please go to the blackboard and write SPANGENTHAL 100 times. I usually hold back on correcting typos, but he was former staff so perhaps a little respect in spelling his name.
@1 Let me guess, you're a straight, white male. I spell it so it's easier to look up: privilege
Sigh. Godfuckingdammit. OK, we agree to disagree. Not sure why anyone would defend a bigot's right to BE a bigot, but whatever. (And he wasn't even punished in any meaningful way; so there's that). I just think that people with unusual power over other people should be required to treat all people fairly. People who don't have the power to question, harass, beat, shoot or detain people, well they can think or do as they like.
Here is the oath they take, BTW...

The Seattle Police Department
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve humanity; to
safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against
oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect
the Constitutional right of all people to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner
which brings credit to myself and my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in the face
of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the
welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will
be exemplary in obeying the law, and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see
or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be
kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal bias, prejudices, political beliefs,
animosities, aspirations, or friendships to improperly influence my decisions. I will always
remember my shared humanity and will cultivate an attitude of compassion, respect, and
empathy toward all peoples.

With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will
enforce the laws courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will,
never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities. I will never
engage in acts of bribery nor will I condone such acts by others. I will cooperate with all
legally constituted agencies and their representatives, in the pursuit of justice and the
maintenance of integrity in law enforcement.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a
public trust to be held only so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will
constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before all I
hold sacred, to my chosen profession. enforcement.

So, to address your question: was this evidence of bigotry on his part, or just playful bromance chat? I don't know. But, the Department seems to have decided that it was evidence of homophobia. Honestly though, I'm willing to listen if you have a compelling argument as to why a police officer should be allowed to use bigoted language.

@44, no, that Uncle Tom, House Negro, Kiss-ass is gay. Can you believe that shit?

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

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