The Ku Klux Kop?

[Doc]

So is this a justified firing or not? (LINK) (http://www.katc.com/story/29948195/lake-arthur-police-officer-fired-after-controversial-picture-surfaced?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KATC-TV_3:_Acadiana_s_Newschannel)



A Lake Arthur police officer is now out of a job over a controversial picture on Facebook.
The photo was apparently taken at a Ku Klux Klan meeting last summer in North Carolina.
At Wednesday's council meeting, the Lake Arthur council unanimously voted to terminate Raymond Mott.
Mott said his termination is illegal and that he has an explanation for the photo that cost him his job.
The former officer said the picture is being taken out of context.
"The picture speaks for itself," said Mott. "I'm standing at a rally against illegal immigration. There's not much to be said about the picture. I've never denied it was me."

I'm a bit mixed on this one. Clearly I don't want officers who attend Klan meetings. However what one does in their free time is their own business. Having others decide who we associate with is not a good precedent IMO. After all, the current administration has labelled conservatives as terrorists and a bigger threat than ISIS. And while I'm anti-illegal immigration (assuming that is what this rally was), having an officer attend it show really bad judgement for an individual who protects and serves the people.

[KeithKSR]

I tend to agree with you, Doc. I think it was extremely poor judgement, but I find the way civil liberties are being quashed in this country at this time to be quite disturbing.

[kingcat]

The klan, isis, nazi party, etc..should not be allowed to infiltrate the police force of this great nation. Unless it was official police business or a terrible accidental appearance, his job is forfeit.

I have always been under the impression that the klan is not very supportive of civil liberties. But that said, I agree with you Keith. Both major parties have failed the American people when it comes to that, since 9/11

[CitizenBBN]

I never watch the sunday news shows, but woke up today and one was on, caught 5 minutes while waking up.

George Will referenced a Mass. case from the 1800s with the majority opinion written by Oliver Wendel Holmes about an officer who sued for the right to engage in politics, which was restricted by the police department. As Holmes observed, he has a Constitutional right to participate in politics, he doesn't have a Constitutional right to be a cop.

if one of my employees did something like this they'd be fired so fast they'd get whiplash, and IMO that's my absolute right. Such things would reflect badly on me or in this case on the police force. he has a right to attend such things, I have a right to not have them represent my business and IMO the town has a right to not have them represent them or their law enforcement agencies.

This wasn't an anti-immigration rally (which may have been its own issue depending on department rules with him in apparent uniform), but was a Klan rally about immigration and likely other things.

The only caveat is they do have to be consistent. For example anyone going to a Nation of Islam rally gets the same termination. Any hate group would have to be treated equally.

I'm very concerned about the treatment of our civil liberties by the government, but in this case I don't see it as a civil liberties issue. This is an employment issue and it's a LONG standing principle of good government that public servants will be restricted from engaging in activities outside of work that may be a conflict of interest or even give the appearance of such conflict of interest. that's perfectly reasonable and part of having a good and non-corrupt civil service in this country.

For example, the guy who set up Hillary's email server was supposed to be reporting the outside income of them paying him while he worked at State. That's not a violation of his privacy, that's a law in place to protect the civil service from corruption and if you don't like it you dont' have to be a civil servant.

He's a civil servant who IMO took action to make us doubt how he would perform in that role, and was terminated for same. No different than requiring he not campaign for a candidate, etc.

This is about maintaining a professional, unbiased civil service. Him at a Klan rally, apparently in uniform no less, undermines faith in that service, and is absolutely grounds for removal.

[Doc]

So who decides what organizations are and are not OK? Is BlackLivesMatters alright? What about Code Pink? Or Westboro Bapist Church? The Tea Party?

If it's my business then I decide but if we are a city employee who make the call?

[CitizenBBN]

So who decides what organizations are and are not OK? Is BlackLivesMatters alright? What about Code Pink? Or Westboro Bapist Church? The Tea Party?

If it's my business then I decide but if we are a city employee who make the call?

It does need to be a consistent policy, and one stated as clearly as possible, but in this case in the end the city council decides.

Now if he can show that an officer was allowed to attend a Nation of Islam rally, another group that has called for racial segregation and also murder (arguably NoI is more radically violent in that way than the current day Klan) then this guy can go to Klan rallies. It does have to be consistent, and I agree completely that can be hard to define for every instance in advance, but it doesn't mean we allow such things simply b/c it may be hard to draw the line. There must be such a line, it's critical to the civil service that we have one and we have had one in this country for a very long time.

They do need a policy against such things in place. You and I don't (at least not in at will states like kentucky), we can fire people for it without having to draw that line clearly, but good government requires they have a more detailed policy manual than we might use.

in this case language about participating with groups that support racial supremacy or segregation ought to cover a lot of them.

[kingcat]

A liberal view to be sure, but I say any group or entity that stands in opposition to equal rights under the law is unfit for public service

[Doc]

A liberal view to be sure, but I say any group or entity that stands in opposition to equal rights under the law is unfit for public service


Would that include a religious organization that opposed equal rights to homosexuals (gay marriage)?

[kingcat]

Would that include a religious organization that opposed equal rights to homosexuals (gay marriage)?

Nope. I am also opposed to gay marriage and do not consider that a moral or a legal right. Individual rights only..not couples..not groups, only individual rights. those undeniable and clearly defined rights endowed by our creator which are self evident

I'm sorry if I offend anyone. But that's my stance.

[CitizenBBN]

A liberal view to be sure, but I say any group or entity that stands in opposition to equal rights under the law is unfit for public service

Gotta go with Doc, that could be a dangerous line. One could argue several faiths would meet that criteria depending on the point of view.

This is a classic conundrum that goes back to Justice Stewart's famous comment about pornography that "I'll know it when I see it." Try to write a single definition of porn that couldn't be read to apply to what many may consider art. You can't do it.

Likewise any definition of groups in which a civil servant can't participate is going to be impossible to get perfect, but better to live in that gray area and let the questions be settled by city councils and judges than to not have any such standard.

[kingcat]

Imo, there is no self evident "right" to marry. To me, marriage is a religious union and not the business of the state. Secular couples have their civil unions, or whatever we want to call it.

But more to the point..equality under the law no matter one's race, creed, or religion about sums it up as it pertains to the KKK, and other similar organizations relative to this discussion

[Doc]

Nope. I am also opposed to gay marriage and do not consider that a moral or a legal right. Individual rights only..not couples..not groups, only individual rights. those undeniable and clearly defined rights endowed by our creator which are self evident

I'm sorry if I offend anyone. But that's my stance.

So those groups who opposed Obama care would be taboo, since according to some on the left, health care is a "right".

Of course there is no comparison between religious organizations and the KKK to a reasonnable person. But then I never thought a reasonable person would see fit to ban the confederate flag from government monuments so what do I know. But the KKK is an organization with a long history of hate and discrimmination. My concern comes not in the identifying of the KKK because that is an obvious one. My concern comes in the less obvious cases. My concern comes when politics plays into the decisions of what groups one can and can't belong to. To some BlackLivesMatters isn't an evil hate filled group even though in my book they encourage killing police officers. To some Code Pink isn't a hate filled group of nut jobs. To me it is. PETA, same thing. Westboro Baptist Church/Fred Phillps-ditto. Some on the right believe Planned Parenthood is run by Lucifer himself, and any person giving money to them is the devil's henchman who advocates killing fetuses and selling off the parts. What about the NRA? The left sees them as a bunch of loons who want to every citizen in the country running around with a 6 shooter on his hip and an M-16 in his closet. At what point is a group OK? What is the determining factor? The left will have one standard while the right another.


PS: I agree with you on gay marriage, and always have. There is no right to marriage for either gays or straight. I've always stated marriage is a religious act and should be left for the church. Never could figure out why anthiest and agnostics got married. Sort of like why they celebrate Christmas. Of course the Goverment got involved because the could TAX it (see marriage license).

[kingcat]

Any group opposed to the obvious rights afforded all men and women regardless of race, creed, or color would be included. Health care is not an obvious right, the right to have an abortion is not, nor is a right to life for the unborn. But if two men of differing color or a man and a woman stand in front of a judge, each has equal rights under the law regardless of their ethnicity or gender.
Those are obvious rights in a free society.

Subjective rights, though they can exist for the good of society (and do exist by moral conscience), shouldn't apply here imho.

Again, I'm only offering my view on how to judge what affiliations a public servant can have. And i believe law enforcement should have even more stringent guidelines. But attending a right to life meeting, or a save the whales event, or a gay marriage ceremony, doesn't cross that line.

The kkk does

[suncat05]

Off duty and in plain clothes? As long as he does not say or do anything that brings his employer into the meeting, then he should be able to do whatever he wants. However, attending that meeting in uniform makes his agency look very, very bad.
Not sure termination is the correct call, but surely a suspension of some sort would be in order. And possibly reassignment to other duties.
There is a reason why there are rules against political activities in uniform during duty hours in most agencies.

[KeithKSR]

I tend to want governmental agencies to tread lightly when trying to restrict anyone's civil rights.

[kingcat]

A police officer attending a kkk meeting is worse than one attending a Black Panther meeting back in the day. The kkk had/has a "storied" history. I'd label it an anti-American rally

[KeithKSR]

A police officer attending a kkk meeting is worse than one attending a Black Panther meeting back in the day. The kkk had/has a "storied" history. I'd label it an anti-American rally

I'd label them equally abhorrent, but equally within their civil rights.

[UKHistory]

Citizen said this so well. A real or perceived appearance of a conflict of interest. Attending a rally that based on the picture shows a law enforcement officer at an event with individuals who use fear and intimidation to deny the rights of others is a real concern.

For instance how many minorities has the officer arrested in the past and how does his association with this group impact those cases.

In my capacity in the Federal government, I can not run for Congress while still employed at my job. That is a little frustrating to me. But all I have to do is resign or wait until I retire.

If there are more pictures maybe that will shed more light on the case. But what I am seeing and reading of this story, I am concerned about this man's ability to perform his job properly.


This is an employment issue and it's a LONG standing principle of good government that public servants will be restricted from engaging in activities outside of work that may be a conflict of interest or even give the appearance of such conflict of interest. that's perfectly reasonable and part of having a good and non-corrupt civil service in this country.

For example, the guy who set up Hillary's email server was supposed to be reporting the outside income of them paying him while he worked at State. That's not a violation of his privacy, that's a law in place to protect the civil service from corruption and if you don't like it you dont' have to be a civil servant.

He's a civil servant who IMO took action to make us doubt how he would perform in that role, and was terminated for same. No different than requiring he not campaign for a candidate, etc.

This is about maintaining a professional, unbiased civil service. Him at a Klan rally, apparently in uniform no less, undermines faith in that service, and is absolutely grounds for removal.

[Doc]

As I stated in the OP, I'm a bit mixed on my opinion here. I don't see this as any worse than an African American officer who is a Black Panther. I also believe in a persons right to belong to any group or organization he or she wants, so long as it does not affect how they do their job. This reminds me of the role that Matt Dillon played in the movie Crash where he was the racist police officer yet when the black lady he assaulted was about to die, he saved her life. Does that happen in real life or is that just something that happens in Hollywood?

My fear, and I believe it is a real one, is that regulation of this type can be used politically. We have seen the IRS being used against political opponents. Never thought that would happen. We have seen our president label far right wing conservatives as terrorists and a bigger threat to this nation that ISIS. Now you don't think that if the President holds that opinion, that it would be used in any manner to thwart their activities? I can guarantee you this administration doesn't see the Black Panthers like you and I do. When they stood out in front of voting stations with clubs that wasn't seen as intimidation, that was protecting the voting rights of blacks. Now if white folks in hoods did that, its a hate crime (which it is IN BOTH SITUATIONS). My concern is what is the standard for what organizations you can belong to, and who decides. I know that a police officer who is a klansman is wrong. I have no doubt about that. I also believe that one who is a black panther is wrong too. I question if everybody holds that same opinion.

[suncat05]

I don't care for the KKK or the Black Panther Party. BOTH are hate groups that have committed numerous crimes against American citizens over the years. And the only difference between both is the fact that the KKK has been around a lot longer, that's it.
It was in extremely poor taste and decision making that this man chose to attend that meeting in his police uniform. What his purpose was for being there is dubious. But the fact that he was there in uniform and admitted to being there shows 1)poor decision making skills, and 2)honesty. Yes, I said honesty. He admitted it was him, never denied being there.
This decision to terminate his employment with the Police Department was most likely a policy decision, made by either the city manager or higher. Like I stated earlier, bad decision making to wear his uniform to the event, but not sure it rises to a termination level response by the city.

[Doc]

I don't care for the KKK or the Black Panther Party. BOTH are hate groups that have committed numerous crimes against American citizens over the years. And the only difference between both is the fact that the KKK has been around a lot longer, that's it.
It was in extremely poor taste and decision making that this man chose to attend that meeting in his police uniform. What his purpose was for being there is dubious. But the fact that he was there in uniform and admitted to being there shows 1)poor decision making skills, and 2)honesty. Yes, I said honesty. He admitted it was him, never denied being there.
This decision to terminate his employment with the Police Department was most likely a policy decision, made by either the city manager or higher. Like I stated earlier, bad decision making to wear his uniform to the event, but not sure it rises to a termination level response by the city.

He wasn't there in uniform. That is KKK regalia he is wearing. He was there as a private citizen, off the clock, on his own time, with nothing to denote that he was a police officer.

[suncat05]

Okay, I never saw a picture, but thought I saw somewhere that he was there in uniform for the event.

So, he was there off duty as a private citizen? And they fired him? Now there's an issue. It's none of the city's business what he does in his off time, especially concerning his Constitutional right to participate in an open assembly. Whether he is a member of the KKK or not (and I have never heard of any law anywhere stating that if you belong to the KKK that you're a criminal participating in a criminal enterprise), he still has a Constitutional right to attend an open and peaceable assembly.

It's still poor judgement on his part, but last I heard it's not against the law to be dumb.

[kingcat]

Would you include even the American nazi party as within his rights as a public servant??

I honestly could not respect that officer knowing he participated in any of the three discussed here. And I, justifiably so imho, would never count on him to either protect or to serve.

Anything that might cause a segment of society to legitimately distrust an officer of the law should be cause for dismissal.

[CitizenBBN]

suncat, I respect where you're coming from, and my instinct is to be right where you are on things as a Libertarian, but civil servants have long had to live with a somewhat different standard. There are a lot of employment benefits that go with the position, but there is a price too.

For example, re freedom of association, would it be OK if he associated with known mafia members or cartel leaders in his off time? Just going to their clubs and bars and hanging out, not doing anything illegal?

He may be doing nothing wrong at all and keeping his job and private life 100% separate, but the civil service of America is rare in the world (and in history) for its low levels of corruption, and a big reason why is that it sets a high standard of overall behavior that does impose on one's private life.

Fair or not if an officer is going to KKK rallies his ability to do his job impartially will be called into question, and it exposes the city and himself to legal action as well as possible violence. it's going to be hard on the department and hard on the principles of an unbiased civil service.

That restriction isn't new. The case I cited by Holmes was in 1892. I think we have to be careful, and some of these situations will have to be decided by a judge, but there have to be restrictions of some kind.

FWIW your Black Panther example I agree with 100%, which is why I mention Nation of Islam. the standard, whatever it may be, MUST be consistent. Ban the KKK, have to ban the Panthers et al.