Officer who sent 'jungle-monkey' e-mail: 'I am not a racist'

[HazelGod]

I have a huge problem with his being suspended from his jobs as a public servant for exercising his First Amendment right to free expression.

Monsieur Barrett, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Freedom of Speech does not mean you are guaranteed freedom of consequences for that speech.

The Constitution simply forbids the GOVERNMENT from censoring speech thru law.
It does not prevent your employer from censoring your speech, or firing you for speech that reflects badly upon your employer, or indicates a bias that may negatively affect your ability to do your job.

In particular... for a police officer to expound in such racist terms... if they do NOT fire him, then his employer opens themselves up for lawsuits contending that this officer's conduct is racist in enforcing the law. ( even tho that may not be true- his letters would serve as evidence that he is racist )

Further.. his letters could be used in civil actions to try and establish a Pattern of racist attitudes within the entire police force...

Either way... for an officer to make this kind of statement shows wanton disregard for his employer's exposure to litigation.

That alone is grounds for firing.

You are free to yell fire in a crowded theater.
And the folks who get trampled as a result are free to sue your ass for the damages they suffer due to your conduct.

Freedom of Speech is not freedom from responsibility.

You are not free to yell fire in a crowded theater.
Speech that results in harm to another person is not protected under the 1st Amendment, hence my previous reference to inciteful speech.

Being racist is not against the law, nor does it preclude anyone from performing professional duties. Office Barrett's conduct as a law enforcement officer has been exemplary with no instances, much less a pattern, of misconduct, therefore, any lawsuits brought against the police force at this time would be frivolous.

As stated previosly, the suspension of Barret is already unjustified, further action, such as firing, would be a violation of his right to the freedom of speech when not acting in an official capacity.

I have a huge problem with his being suspended from his jobs as a public servant for exercising his First Amendment right to free expression.

Monsieur Barrett, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire.

I felt so all alone. :09:

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I have a huge problem with his being suspended from his jobs as a public servant for exercising his First Amendment right to free expression.

Monsieur Barrett, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire.

I would agree with this if he wasn't doing this under the guise of the Boston Police.

Grant it, he should have the right to say what he wants as a human being. But as a Boston Policeman or any kind of authority, there needs to be some kind of everyday expectation to live up to. I'm not expecting authority figures to always have the right thing to say and to never make a bad judgement call, but there are limits to this lenience. I don't want my cops, on duty and in the public eye, calling black people "jungle monkeys" the same way I wouldn't want any other public figure, also in the public eye and on duty, calling an Asian a "chink", or a Jewish person a "kike" or whatever.

I'm sure if I walked to up a cop right now, exercised my right to "free speech" and insulted him racially I would probably be beaten and put in hand cuffs. That has nothing to do with the color of my skin, but due to the fact that he has more authority to do it AND get away with it. If policemen have this kind of power, then we should hold them accountable and punish them when they really screw up.

And I don't know French... :biggrin:

 

[Principessa]

The e-mail was sent from his personal account and computer, and he is entitled to his opinion, negative or otherwise, of Gates or anyone else.

What matters is that he conducts himself in a professional manner as a police officer, if he does, whether he is racist or not in his private life is irrelevant. He should be reinstated immediately, imo.

Are you a law student here to play devil's advocate or are you really that stupid? The fact he wrote the e-mail at home is not an issue, the problem other than him being a racist is that he sent it to a public newspaper!!! Technically anything on the internet is part of the public domain once you click send. :duh:

He is entitled to say what he thinks about Gates in a way that is not racist.

He showed poor judgement in sending out a racist message over the net. That would directly call into question his ability to exercise proper judgement in a crisis situation. Fire him.

Finally someone with a functioning brain!

He can say whatever he wants to say, whether it be racist or not, as long as it is not inciteful hate-speech, that's his right in this country.

Okay, and what country are you from that calling a black person "a banana eating jungle monkey" isn't considered inciteful hate speech?

Regarding Officer Barret's professional judgement, as his judgement in the private sphere is his own, he has been an officer for two years and never been associated, cited, or reprimanded for bad conduct and that is the standard by which his professional fitness should be evaluated. His suspension is already baseless, firing him would be impulsive and beyond excessive.

Including the minorities? :shrug:

There have been numerous cases where dobermans, pitbulls, chow-chows, and rottweilers were playful and docile for 10 years before they went berzerk and mauled a child or the owner. His having been a 'good cop' for 2 years means jack shit. Not to be rude, but what is your ethnic heritage? What island are you from? I'm gonna guess Dominican Republic, or possbly Trinidad or Jamaica. The only black Americans I know of who think like you are Uncle Tom's. However, it is not uncommon for those who originate from Carribbean islands and who have light skin to be considered and treated as white . . . until they get to America. :smile:

I don't think all cops are racist. I think that the way that the police force is put together is built on racism.

Since I don't know the history of the organizational structure of the police department I can't really argue with you. Yet, something about your statement rubs me wrong. Will have to do some research.

Dave Chappelle commonly uses the N-word in his shows - is he racist against blacks?[/QUOTE] No, and I am really getting sick of having to explain this. I am also sick of the furor that erupts after I speak the truth. :irked:

I disagree, a suitable consequence of expressing his private viewpoint would be increased scrutiny if allegations of misconduct surface in the future, and perhaps, an apology, which has already been given.

I think he was joking and making an attempt to be outrageous and shocking, but, so what? It was his personal communication and not something the public should have been privy to, much less the PD comment upon in public.

WRONG! He chose to make his private viewpoint public by sending it to the Boston Globe! He opened himself as well as the Boston PD, and the city of Boston to ridicule and litigation.

Additionally, as stated above, whether Barret is racist or not is irrelevant.

Only his actions matter, and, to this point, he has acted appropriately in uniform.[/QUOTE] Has he? How do you know that? Are you his girlfriend?

What do you call a cop who is bias because he just doesn't like someone's personality he is dealing with? How do you qualify that? He's a "I-don't-like-that-personality-ist."

No, but as a police officer if someone is a jackass of any race that is not a reason for them to be brutalized or arrested. It's still a free country, being a butt head is not against the law. Using your position and power in a negative way is a BIG problem.

How do you prove that someone is mistreating someone because of one's race if the person doesn't clearly say "I'm being mean to you because you are whatever color, race?"

:261: Trust me, there is a difference. You know it, and I know it; and anyone who has ever been discriminated against knows it. Racists are rarely Rhodes scholars, they always have a traceable pattern.

By the way, what do you call that when a woman manager won't hire blondes at the her office because she is jealous of them?

I call that stupid and insecure. Most of them probably aren't natural blondes anyway. :tongue:

Freedom of Speech does not mean you are guaranteed freedom of consequences for that speech.

The Constitution simply forbids the GOVERNMENT from censoring speech thru law. It does not prevent your employer from censoring your speech, or firing you for speech that reflects badly upon your employer, or indicates a bias that may negatively affect your ability to do your job. *SNIP* Freedom of Speech is not freedom from responsibility.

Thank you, well stated.

What this officer said was wrong, but he shouldn't be fired for it IMO.

You're a 20 year old white kid from Massachusetts, I'm not surprised you feel that way. :frown1: I'm not inferring you are a Brookline brat :wink:, for all I know you reside in North Adams, MA. It's just a typical opinion of one who has not experienced life yet.


My french is extremely rusty but I think what HazelGod said roughly translates as: "Mr Barrett, I hate what you write, but I will give my life so that you can continue to write."

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Are you a law student here to play devil's advocate or are you really that stupid? The fact he wrote the e-mail at home is not an issue, the problem other than him being a racist is that he sent it to a public newspaper!!! Technically anything on the internet is part of the public domain once you click send. :duh:

He expressed his opinion as a private citizen, not acting in any official capacity, he is entitled to state that viewpoint whether anyone likes it or not.

Okay, and what country are you from that calling a black person "a banana eating jungle monkey" isn't considered inciteful hate speech?

"Kill the niggers" is inciteful hate speech, calling someone a "banana eating jungle monkey" is just stupid and insulting, but not inciting.

WRONG! He chose to make his private viewpoint public by sending it to the Boston Globe! He opened himself as well as the Boston PD, and the city of Boston to ridicule and litigation.

Litigation for what, exactly? Barret, the police officer, and I would argue the man, has not done anything wrong.

Are you a law student here to play devil's advocate or are you really that stupid? :duh:

Not to be rude, but what is your ethnic heritage? What island are you from? I'm gonna guess Dominican Republic, or possbly Trinidad or Jamaica.

The only black Americans I know of who think like you are Uncle Tom's. However, it is not uncommon for those who originate from Carribbean islands and who have light skin to be considered and treated as white . . . until they get to America. :smile:

Has he? How do you know that? Are you his girlfriend?

You're a 20 year old white kid from Massachusetts, I'm not surprised you feel that way. :frown1: I'm not inferring you are a Brookline brat :wink:, for all I know you reside in North Adams, MA. It's just a typical opinion of one who has not experienced life yet.

Thought you were better than that, NJ. :no:

 

[Principessa]

He expressed his opinion as a private citizen, not acting in any official capacity, he is entitled to state that viewpoint whether anyone likes it or not.

You cannot separate the man from the uniform. Hence the phrase "conduct unbecoming an officer," which is used in the military.

The fact he was off duty and at home does not give him the right to behave in any way he chooses. If his full-time job were stocking shelves at Walmart that would be different. People don't hold stockboys to a higher standard.

"Kill the niggers" is inciteful hate speech, calling someone a "banana eating jungle monkey" is just stupid and insulting, but not inciting

That's your opinion, but it's wrong. :biggrin1: If it were right it would never have become an issue. Hell, even David Duke would recognize the hateful racism behind that statement.

Litigation for what, exactly? Barret, the police officer, and I would argue the man, has not done anything wrong.

I pray you are being intentionally obtuse.

Thought you were better than that, NJ. :no:

I have merely stated the truth as I see it.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

You cannot separate the man from the uniform. Hence the phrase "conduct unbecoming an officer," which is used in the military.

What form of conduct warrants disciplinary action in a military setting?
Is personal opinion in private life included?

That's your opinion, but it's wrong. :biggrin1: If it were right it would never have become an issue. Hell, even David Duke would recognize the hateful racism behind that statement.

Racism wasn't the issue, NJ. The topic was whether it is inciteful or not, and it is not.

I pray you are being intentionally obtuse.

There has to be an actionable offense for a lawsuit - hurty feelings do not fall into that category. Although, I am certain we are headed in that direction.

I have merely stated the truth as I see it.

And you, my dear, are entitled to your opinion.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

He showed poor judgement in sending out a racist message over the net. That would directly call into question is ability to exercise proper judgement in a crisis situation.

Fire him.

This is the same argument being used against the confirmation of Sotomayor. She did in fact say that maybe a wise latina woman could make a better decision than a white male. That in and of itself is racist and sexist. Even if she said it on her own time, it is cause for some to oppose her confirmation.

Now, is it okay for her and not for him? Is it okay for him and not for her? Where does the justice begin, and the hypocrisy end?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

However, there should be no knee-jerk, public initiated consequence for a rightfully expressed opinion through private communication on personal time. Officer Barret expressing his personal opinion is not a reasonable or defensible basis for reprimand. Especially when in his professional life he has acted in an honorable manner without a hint of or association with misconduct.

Debatable.

A professional, even one acting on his own time, who knowingly uses a very public forum to utter epithets strongly at odds with his employer's code of conduct is showing poor judgement and is courting potential consequences. Taken in the immediate context of the Gates episode its even more unprofessional, even if intended as a "joke" (ahhh, how often that word is used as a cover).

 

[TheRob]

Debatable.

A professional, even one acting on his own time, who knowingly uses a very public forum to utter epithets strongly at odds with his employer's code of conduct is showing poor judgement and is courting potential consequences. Taken in the immediate context of the Gates episode its even more unprofessional, even if intended as a "joke" (ahhh, how often that word is used as a cover).

well to be fair whenever someone is punished for something they do in thier private life that should make us ALL uncomfortable

 

[Phil Ayesho]

You are not free to yell fire in a crowded theater.
Speech that results in harm to another person is not protected under the 1st Amendment, hence my previous reference to inciteful speech.

SORRY you are WRONG.
I AM free to yell it. There is no law against it. And laws against 'inciteful speech" will ALL fail Supreme Court testing.
( legislatures OFTEN pass laws that are unconstitutional )

When Speech RESULTS in HARM- as in the crowded theater scenario, you can be prosecuted for causing that harm. But NOT for Speaking.

What the Constitution forbids is PRIOR RESTRAINT by the Government, of the citizens.
That is, laws that criminalize speech independent of any consequence.

For example- walk into a theater that has only YOU and a COP in it and yell FIRE.
HE can not arrest you, because what you did is not against any law.

In the crowed theater scenario, what you would be arrested for is reckless endangerment, NOT what you said.

Being racist is not against the law, nor does it preclude anyone from performing professional duties. Office Barrett's conduct as a law enforcement officer has been exemplary with no instances, much less a pattern, of misconduct, therefore, any lawsuits brought against the police force at this time would be frivolous.

Again, WRONG.
Studies and case law have proven that racist attitudes AFFECT how professional people treat other people.
I don't fucking care HOW exemplary his conduct has been...
His employer has a right to set guidelines for conduct, and if he violates those guidelines, he, and you , can be fired.

As I stated... police departments are subject to billions of dollars in litigation each year over issues of police misconduct.
REGARDLESS of the officer's personal conduct... his public statements can be used in court as evidence of bias and that exposes the police force or municipality to damage awards and legal costs.

Not only CAN they fire him, but FAILURE to fire him after making such statements can be used to argue a systemic disregard for racial issues.

The Police Chief and all his blue buddies may stand shoulder to shoulder to back him up... but the final say will come down to the city council of however funds their police department.

Sorry. You take the badge and the gun, just like you take the military uniform and gun, and you SURRENDER certain things...
As a cop you get to drive as fast as you please and carry a lethal weapon.

And in return you have to watch your fucking mouth.


Try it. try exercising your freedom of speech in terms that expose YOUR employer to litigation... and see how fast that door hits you in the ass.

As stated previosly, the suspension of Barret is already unjustified, further action, such as firing, would be a violation of his right to the freedom of speech when not acting in an official capacity.

Wrong. Once again, he's not being suspended or fired for speaking... he is being punished for exposing his employer to legal attack.
For embarrassing his office and his uniform.

Sorry honey... there is no law anywhere saying he can't say as he pleases...
and there is no law anywhere saying he can't be fired for saying something his boss doesn't like.

Once more, freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences.
The first amendment says only that government can not IMPRISON him nor charge him with a crime for his speech.

he has NOT been charged with any crime.

The Constitution says nothing about you getting to keep your job after saying something stupid.

 

[TheRob]

Few racists believe themselves such.

you can't be a racist and not notice it man
you can lie about it, but you can't be showing up at Klan rallies and not realizing how the hell you keep winding up there

I think the term you are trying to use is prejudice as opposed to racist

 

[TheRob]

He is entitled to say what he thinks about Gates in a way that is not racist.

He showed poor judgement in sending out a racist message over the net. That would directly call into question is ability to exercise proper judgement in a crisis situation.

Fire him.

in fact, racial slurs are protected by free speach
he did show poor judgement (why would the Boston Globe, or anyone else, give a damn what he thought?)
still, the Government cannot fire someone for utilizing Free Speach, they can try but they will lose that case every time it hits a Federal Judge

 

[SpeedoGuy]

well to be fair whenever someone is punished for something they do in thier private life that should make us ALL uncomfortable

Agreed.

But if we use a mass emailing, including to a newspaper, to make our private views very public it may be a different story.

 

[TheRob]

The fact that he felt comfortable sending that message out to collegues, even though he wasn't even at the incident, shows that the entire Boston police force are a bunch of racists. Doesn't surprise me. The fundamental construction of the American police force is based on old fashioned White anglo saxon racism and Babylonian judaeo Christian values.

I see, so for racists to judge a race by the action of one is bad but for YOU to judge a group by the action of one is...ok? or are you as prejudicial as him? hmmm?

He can say whatever he wants to say, whether it be racist or not, as long as it is not inciteful hate-speech, that's his right in this country.

Regarding Officer Barret's professional judgement, as his judgement in the private sphere is his own, he has been an officer for two years and never been associated, cited, or reprimanded for bad conduct and that is the standard by which his professional fitness should be evaluated. His suspension is already baseless, firing him would be impulsive and beyond excessive.



Including the minorities? :shrug:

He expressed his opinion as a private citizen, not acting in any official capacity, he is entitled to state that viewpoint whether anyone likes it or not.

"Kill the niggers" is inciteful hate speech, calling someone a "banana eating jungle monkey" is just stupid and insulting, but not inciting.

Litigation for what, exactly? Barret, the police officer, and I would argue the man, has not done anything wrong.

Thought you were better than that, NJ. :no:

sweety you will need to lower your opinion of NJ, she's a really nice person but if there is any chance whatsoever that a black person is being persecuted she jumps right to the conclusion that this is what is happening
I mean she thinks that the entire city of Boston is open to litigation because a man wrote an email on his own....wtf, it's like as soon as she gets a chance to crusade against racism, even if it isn't really THERE in the situation she is talking about, her brain shuts off
she also thinks that black people with open minds are all islanders or uncle toms
intersting that jungle bunny is so bad but uncle tom is all good
I'd be curious to see if NJ would write an email to the Boston Globe explaining her Uncle Tom theory...or to try to defend it against an open minded Black person in an open forum...
I'm betting she'd backpedel like hell and sound a lot like this particular cop we are talking about.

the bottom line is, if you find yourself insulting people for being open minded, you are pretty much in the wrong 100% of the time
that dosn't impact the majority of the population on the planet but hey

 

[TheRob]

You cannot separate the man from the uniform. Hence the phrase "conduct unbecoming an officer," which is used in the military.

The fact he was off duty and at home does not give him the right to behave in any way he chooses. If his full-time job were stocking shelves at Walmart that would be different. People don't hold stockboys to a higher standard.

That's your opinion, but it's wrong. :biggrin1: If it were right it would never have become an issue. Hell, even David Duke would recognize the hateful racism behind that statement.

I pray you are being intentionally obtuse.

I have merely stated the truth as I see it.

define Inciteful for me...really. cus you arn't getting her point
also out of curiosity, and I bet you won't answer this question, if a black officer calls a white person cracker what penalty should he face...?
mind you he does this in his personal life not in the line of duty

 

[SpeedoGuy]

in fact, racial slurs are protected by free speach
he did show poor judgement (why would the Boston Globe, or anyone else, give a damn what he thought?)
still, the Government cannot fire someone for utilizing Free Speach, they can try but they will lose that case every time it hits a Federal Judge

Not so.

I can't speak for local governments but I've been through several training classes for managers of federal employees. I was instructed that all employees must be warned and then disciplined, up to and including firing, for speech contrary to workplace standards of conduct. I was specifically told this applied whether on duty at the workplace or even at after-hours social functions away from the workplace.

I'm not saying I necessarily agreed with it but was told to enforce it or find another employer.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Debatable.

A professional, even one acting on his own time, who knowingly uses a very public forum to utter epithets strongly at odds with his employer's code of conduct is showing poor judgement and is courting potential consequences. Taken in the immediate context of the Gates episode its even more unprofessional, even if intended as a "joke" (ahhh, how often that word is used as a cover).

Again, WRONG.
Studies and case law have proven that racist attitudes AFFECT how professional people treat other people.
I don't fucking care HOW exemplary his conduct has been...
His employer has a right to set guidelines for conduct, and if he violates those guidelines, he, and you , can be fired.

Do the rules of conduct extend to legal activity in his private life? No.
Therefore, there is no basis for disciplinary action against Barret, other than public outcry.

/snip
When Speech RESULTS in HARM- as in the crowded theater scenario, you can be prosecuted for causing that harm. But NOT for Speaking.

Officer Barret's words do not fall into that category.

/snip
As I stated... police departments are subject to billions of dollars in litigation each year over issues of police misconduct.
REGARDLESS of the officer's personal conduct... his public statements can be used in court as evidence of bias and that exposes the police force or municipality to damage awards and legal costs.

The evidence could be used to show an instance of biased attitudes within the department, but not a pattern, and there would still have to be a legal basis to bring a lawsuit.

Sorry. You take the badge and the gun, just like you take the military uniform and gun, and you SURRENDER certain things...
As a cop you get to drive as fast as you please and carry a lethal weapon.

Not the right to speak freely in your personal life.

Sorry honey... there is no law anywhere saying he can't say as he pleases...

I agree. :smile:

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

well to be fair whenever someone is punished for something they do in thier private life that should make us ALL uncomfortable

When we are not discussing issues of illegality, I agree, what someone does in the private sphere is their own business.

 

[TheRob]

Not so.

I can't speak for local governments but I've been through several training classes for managers of federal employees. I was instructed that all employees must be warned and then disciplined, up to and including firing, for speech contrary to workplace standards of conduct. I was specifically told this applied whether on duty at the workplace or even at after-hours social functions away from the workplace.

I'm not saying I necessarily agreed with it but was told to enforce it or find another employer.

if you read over your own post, WARNED and then disciplined, obviously if you discipline someone by firing them right away it dosn't make any sence to warn them, still tho reguardless of what you were instructed to do, if the government tries to fire someone for exercising free speach it is GOING to get rough