Discussion
  • Read More
    I can't believe I signed up for thisBrendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:40am

    I know this won’t be a popular opinion, because racism sustains Gawker and its commenters, but uttering a derogatory racial term one time isn’t grounds for termination. It’s grounds for discipline, certainly. But not termination. Not for a first offense.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      CnslrNachosI can't believe I signed up for this
      6/17/16 10:44am

      Maybe where you’re from, but anywhere decent people congregate, being a racist is grounds for termination and public ridicule. But I’m glad you think a police officer calling the president a n****r is worth a slap on the wrist. It’s helpful when you people out yourselves.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Emerald D.V.I can't believe I signed up for this
      6/17/16 10:46am

      Maybe when you’re some schmo in an office manipulating computers it isn’t, but when you’re sworn to serve and protect all people (yes, I know, the police aren’t really, but work with me here), maybe it should be.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    WhatthefoxsaysBrendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:40am

    ::waits for person who does not know First Amendment jurisprudence to claim this is a violation of the First Amendment::

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      fronsyGigawattWhatthefoxsays
      6/17/16 10:48am

      Waits for person who knows art history to point out similarities between the officers painting and a Basquiat

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      CharitybWhatthefoxsays
      6/17/16 10:51am

      It's a clear Third Amendment violation and that officer should take the city to the mat fighting for his rights. #betyouhavetoGooglethisright #powertothepeople

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ReburnsABurningReturnsBrendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:43am

    I’m not sure why this is “troubling”. Not in the sense that “not snitching” is a good culture to have in any environment, but in the sense that this shouldn’t have been shocking in the least that police officers wouldn’t want to be known as the guy who got another cop fired.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      CharitybReburnsABurningReturns
      6/17/16 10:55am

      I think it’s troubling because the legal system frequently relies on police officers being willing to speak candidly and truthfully under oath when questioned about things they have done or thinks they have witnessed. When officers choose to lie or play dumb in other contexts — such as administrative hearings — it calls into question their integrity. It is possible that these officers wouldn’t lie in court; it may even be possible that a lot of them really weren’t there and didn’t see anything. But it’s still worrisome that too many police officers think they can just opt out of testifying truthfully when it is inconvenient for them.

      (Besides, telling the truth isn't what will get the officer fired. The officer could get fired because of what he did, not what other people did).

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BloopCharityb
      6/17/16 11:03am

      that cops lie under oath is not news. is it? does anyone really think it is not absolutely normal and approved official behavior?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    StenchofaburnerBrendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:40am

    At every job I had, discriminatory remarks were coded in HR manuals as fireable offenses. We got a yearly training that included numerous reminders about this. None of the jobs I had were critical to the well being of vast segments of the population and yet, the fucking police which is supposed to function at much higher standards than “regular office drone” requires a “recommendation” from a commission (the amount of funds involved in this is probably ridiculous) to do what civilian employers have been doing for years.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BreakerBakerStenchofaburner
      6/17/16 10:46am

      Were you ever a member of a union? Generally, it’s difficult to fire anybody based on misconduct, especially if the proof of misconduct isn’t very strong, and that’s the case whether you’re a member of a union or not. If you’re a member of a union, particularly a union with some power, it’s really difficult to be fired without going through a this kind of process.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      StenchofaburnerBreakerBaker
      6/17/16 10:53am

      From the way I understand it, if it’s coded into the employee’s manual and the union has accepted it (there are negotiation for this), membership cannot save you from the axe. Apparently, one exception is for “racist remarks made in a picket line” (!!!), which is protected by free speech. Though it’s not like unions themselves don’t have “an ugly history of racism”.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Quasar FunkBrendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:40am

    “Several department members were present when the remark was uttered, and reacted in such a way to indicate that they overheard the remark.”

    Translation: They laughed and high-fived him.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BgrngodQuasar Funk
      6/17/16 5:28pm

      I’d probably highfive him too. He doesn’t need to know I am celebrating having the means to report his ass for termination, but highfives anyways.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Honey Bee's Roundhouse KickBrendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:43am

    Let me get this straight, this board doesn’t have any actual power does it? It’s merely there to do what exactly? Make recommendations that the police department is free to ignore?

    So we won’t be seeing this cop fired is what you’re saying.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Eustache DaugerHoney Bee's Roundhouse Kick
      6/17/16 11:03am

      I don’t know about that.

      Moreover, when interviewed, the department member who made the remark identified several other officers who had witnessed the incident.

      They lied their asses off to cover for him and he threw them under the bus. They wouldn’t fire him for being a racist, but they take a hard stance against cops telling the truth in any way that will get other cops in trouble.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Honey Bee's Roundhouse KickEustache Dauger
      6/17/16 11:59am

      You may well be right we shall see. But from what I’m reading I get the impression that this is an independent board who can make suggestions but the police department is free to do what it wants and it feels like if not for that embarrassing bit of information the likelihood of the racist cop being fired would be nil despite the suggestion.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BaggyTrousers3Brendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:57am

    “The Chicago Police Department has zero tolerance for racism or misconduct...

    As a guy who grew up in Chicago and lived there for more than 40 years, lived in the projects for a time, worked at a newspaper as a crime reporter and been stopped and frisked after getting off work at my state job, I’d like to say...

    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ARP2BaggyTrousers3
      6/17/16 11:41am

      Lived in Chicago most of my life. If they fired a cop every time they did or something racist, you’d have about 10 cops on the force.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Dave Brendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:43am

    Let me get this straight, and I am not saying he shouldn’t be fired for being a racist dick, but it’s OK to fire someone for saying something about a Black Man but firing them for shooting an unarmed Black man is right out? I ask merely for information.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      burps25Dave
      6/17/16 10:52am

      but it’s OK to fire someone for saying something about a Black

      a black? I’ll assume it’s a typo. Making a racial slur has no purpose, unless it is quoting another in an official statement or testifying. It is otherwise indefensible.

      Shooting a person can be argued as having purpose and/or justifiable, in that it is necessary to protect the life of the officer or bystanders.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Dave burps25
      6/17/16 10:54am

      Jesus yes TYPO! Thankfully still in the edit window.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    I'll take Neoliberalism over Trump any day of the weekBrendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 10:43am

    A police officer, like a teacher, doesn’t have unlimited 1st Amendment rights while on the job. You have to watch what you say, or you risk endangering the community in which you serve. This guy needs to find another line of work.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Deadly the EternalI'll take Neoliberalism over Trump any day of the week
      6/17/16 10:51am

      I hear Trump could use more security...

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    a seahorseBrendan O'Connor
    6/17/16 11:08am

    The remark was made “while on duty in front of a group of officers,” said one of the officers who filed a complaint with the Independent Police Review Authority.

    we found the one good apple in the barrel full of shit

    Reply
    <