I specifically said that the employer indicated that he was fired for reasons unrelated to the tie.
I agree with this.
Before I worked in the county court system in California, I worked for our local Public Defender’s office. Most are liberal to the bone, but I have no doubt this behavior would have been frowned upon. Two reasons:
-
At what point do you draw the line when you open the door to the expression of personal opinions in the workplace? BLM may be fervently embraced by some members of the office and may be abhorred by others. Few offices want to deal with this ongoing challenges resulting from allowing the practice.
-
As a representative of the justice system, it is imperative that all players present an impartial face to their clients, judges, opposing side, jurors and the public. Sure, BLM seems innocuous enough if you agree with it. What happens when the Deputy DA wears his “NRA Forever” tie? It’s just not a good practice when the goal is to appear uninfluenced by any consideration other than the case(s) at bar. For example, if he wore it to an arraignment calendar, I can see all kinds of inflamed reactions from defendants and/or their family members: “I want that guy!” and “I don’t want that guy!”
That said, the tie incident alone resulting in the firing your acquaintance appears excessive. A reprimand seems more appropriate. But as Poysyn points out above, you’re entitled to engage in free speech. What you’re not entitled to is protection from the consequences for it. Puts me in mind of County Clerk Kim Davis in Kentucky.
If the other allegations re the gun and recording colleagues are true, then yeah… firing is appropriate.
Seconded. The Bureau had it first!
Only if he pulled the trigger.
But that’s not what you said in the thread title?
It’s kind of weird when “cops shouldn’t be shooting black people in such high numbers” is considered a “political statement,” the merits of this particular incident notwithstanding.
True. But as I said in the OP, I think the tie was in fact a contributing factor at the very least, based on the PD’s (boss’) comments. He claimed that it was not a consideration but went to some lengths to explain why it was inappropriate; if it was irrelevant, why address it at all?
Presumably because the reporter asked if it was a factor.
Regards,
Shodan
I would guess because that’s what makes the most headlines. The former employee is playing that angle up because it’s sympathetic. Fired over a tie is a lot more contestable from the employee point of view than fired over leaving an unsecured firearm in an office or recording co-workers without permission in a 2 party consent state.
That’s a contradiction in terms. All law is politics. And in turn, the whole of politics is about making or unmaking law.
I completely agree. Unfortunately, the fact that it has become politicized is a symptom of our dysfunctional society, and not a reflection on this particular practice of our court system.
Not really. While politics certainly plays a role in who gets elected and/or appointed to various positions within the judicial system, the rules that apply to individuals who practice or participate in the law in any fashion have never been permitted, in my experience. Judges have some discretion about the extent to which they may practice politics within their courtrooms and once appointed and/or elected to serve, can get away with some behaviors that have pretty obvious political biases. But no one who enters their courtrooms can.
Of course, If you were going to be fired because of numerous lapses in judgement/ethics, the smart thing to do is to make some overtly political statement such as wearing a BLM tie, so later you can plausibly say you were fired for your politics and not because you were a shitty employee.
That’s not actually relevant. The law is the result of politics. That’s why we have separation between courts and parliaments. Law-making resides in the latter; law enforcement in the former. Courts should be politically neutral and just apply the law. The exception is juries, who are free to decide as they may.
Gun left laying about, posting office recordings on Facebook, trash talking about his employment on Facebook, politicizing the courtroom outside of evidence and argument – no wonder he was shit-canned, not withstanding that he might have been bounced by the bubbas. Terminating employment forthwith rather than dragging it out, and having the ex-employee escorted off the premises, is SOP for many organizations, and makes a lot of sense in the matter at hand, given that there was a lot of confidential information on the premises and given that he was known to carry a gun.
$43K per year while working in an environment that he did not like? No longer working there might be the best career move he has ever made. Hopefully once he gets his own practice up and running he’ll be earning more, have much more ability to decide with whom he works and which cases he takes on, and have a hell of a lot more fun. It’s unfortunate that he did not take charge of his career earlier, rather than be flung out into the big wide world with burnt bridges rather than collegial ties for support. I hope he is wise enough to put his effort into building his career, rather than fussing over spilt milk.
Bingo. It helps keep the focus on the evidence and the argument, rather than bringing the judge or jury’s attention to things that are not properly in evidence or discussed in formal argument, and it helps the administration of justice appear to be impartial. In the courtroom a political lapel pin or tie would be a prop being used as a rhetorical device in a venue which is supposed to confine itself to facts in evidence and formal argument so as to better administer impartial justice.
Robes etc. also lend gravitas to the courtroom, which tends to quell the rabble. I practice the using the same substantive and procedural laws in the same courthouse in two distinctly different courts (Superior Court of Justice v. Ontario Court of Justice): one in which we wear robes, and one in which we do not wear robes. There are more distractions caused by the public in the court in which we do not wear robes – think bus station v. monastery.
When I started to practice, I did not like the embuggerance factor of robes that would catch on posts and edges, and how they were far too hot in non-air-conditioned courtrooms on sunny summer days, but after enough nonsense ranging from the public arguing with each other, shouting at the judge, and on one occasion pegging the judge in the forehead with a used tampon, I would be quite happy if all courts were to require gowning.
You do practise in the wild north-west!
Good point!
Yup. I know of one judge up here who carries in the courtroom. The first judge north of Superior learned about law by his having been charged for executing land pirates down Windsor way. We have a foot in two worlds. One in which on one day the judge, court staff and lawyers break for a few minutes to piss on the back wall of the building used to hold court in a fly in community (the one where on another occasion our plane was shot down), and the next day some poor bastard in the city get’s convicted for pisisng on the back alley wall of a dive bar after closing time.