Race-baiting police officer sues, claims his rights dun bin vi-o-lated.
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to, dude. If it walks, talks, and wears a sailor suit like Donald Fucking Duck, it probably IS a fucking duck.
:mad:
Would someone please remind this feculent stigma on the face of the BPD that he has the right to shut the fuck up, and if he’s soooo worried about his rights, that maybe he ought to avail himself of at least that one?
It was almost in a weird way funny watching news readers read his email out loud, particularly if they’re white females. For those who don’t know he didn’t use the phrase “banana-eating jungle monkey” once but several times, hence the news readers have to and by the end they’re blushing while blinking out “P-L-E-A-S-E–I--H-A-V-E–T-O” with their eyes.
This guy’s problem goes way beyond racism. Watching him on shows he is a total nutcase who I wouldn’t be the least surprised has an automatic weapon and a Wendys in his future. Another irony- and one that his lawyer seems to be oblivious to- is that he’s suing for losing his job and lost wages (among many other things)- AND HE HASN’T EVEN LOST HIS JOB OR HIS WAGES! He’s on leave with pay awaiting a hearing (where almost certainly he’ll be fired) but insists repeatedly on TV that he’s fired and without pay because of the mayor saying “he is Gone, G-O-N-E!”
What a nitwit. Based on the language he used, there is no way this guy will be able to convince anyone he’s not a racist. He is. The only question is if the BPD has the right to fire him for being racist. I would think they would, as it would be impossible for them to have any confidence that he could do his job without bias, jeopardizing the work of the department.
I do wonder, in general, if someone could be fired for being a racist, even if they are not dealing with the public. A truck driver, say. How much latitude is one given via the first amendment? Lawyers?
I like that his lawyer’s name is Peter the Pig. 
The first amendment doesn’t protect your job. If you work for McDonald’s, they could fire you for saying “Burger King,” let alone “banana eating jungle monkey”. The first amendment protects your right to free speech, not your right to a job.
But since he works for the government, a broader set of Constitutional protections apply.
There was a case in New York City not too long ago (or maybe it was long ago) where a bunch of cops were on a parade float and … and did something. Something offensive. (seeming more and more like it was very long ago) They got fired or suspended, they sued, and won. If this grossly underwhelming description triggers a memory in anyone’s mind, a link would clear things up.
Gotta love Google. Found it. Happened in 1998, resolved in 2006. (I don’t believe it went any further, but I can’t be sure.) Basically a bunch of police and firemen bounced around on a parade float in blackface and with fried chicken props. Guliani fired them, they sued on First Amendment grounds.
Looks like I was wrong or only remembered/was aware of the initial verdict. That one went in their favor. But on appeal it was held that the city can fire a police officer for ostensibly offensive/racist conduct. This was at the Federal Appeals level, I don’t know if Massachusetts provides additional protections.
Or narrower, potentially. For instance at the federal level, the Hatch Act bars federal employees from certain forms of political speech or activity, because of the potential for a perception of political bias in the government’s operations. There may be some similar provision of state law that restricts racist speech by police this officers. But I have no idea one way or the other.
I too am shocked at how this man has been judged. First of all, everyone has a god-given right not to be called a ‘racist’ no matter what they do or say. Yes, his words were chosen poorly. If he wanted to be able to pull off plausible injured innocence, “jungle monkey” was a poor choice indeed. Both words have long association with slurs against the very racial group at the heart of the controversy. An audience would have to believe he was epically stupid for him not to realize this. Now, had he written “gentleman” in quotes, then his protestations could have gotten some traction. We would all know what range of skin tone the aforesaid “gentleman” was accused of flaunting, but he’d get a lot further claiming he was just talking about the man’s behavior and trying to paint the opposition as oversensitive.
Follow me for a bit here:
I don’t actually have a solid kick against racism, per se - I can’t tell another person what to think - That jumps straight into the whole ‘thoughtcrime’ bucket of muck. I swore an oath not to go there, and to protect, with my life if necessary, people’s rights to have unpopular opinions. I can, however, demand that racism be kept out of official business.
Back in the bad ol’ days, when I wore The Uniform, it was made abundantly clear to me that I could express any private opinon or political affiliation I wanted, so long as 1) no one was advocating treason, 2) that my opinions and affiliations were in no way identified with the government or my official positions, 3) did not bring discredit to my service or the nation, and 4) were on my own time.
This guy sent a mass e-mail. Did he identify himself as an officer of the law at any point in that e-mail? I daresay that most of the people recieving it knew his status - But that’s less important than the next question: Did his e-mail bring discredit upon his uniform? You betcha! That makes his racism officially part of the public’s business.
Squash him like a bug.
God, I wish there was a provision in Massachusetts law under which a defendant could countersue a plaintiff on the grounds of clear and present stupidity.
It’s not just the racism that makes him unfit to be a Boston cop, although that’s huge – his effectiveness as an officer in dealing with any minority is kaput now, both in direct dealings and under cross-examination at trial. There’s also the contemptuous misogyny directed at the Boston Globe columnist to whom he’d sent the email.
Then there’s Barrett’s panting eagerness to break out the pepper spray at the least hint of defiance:
This guy is a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen. The City of Boston and its police force don’t need him. I think it’s telling that he was ratted out by fellow officers who’d seen the email and were disgusted.
Never mind Barrett’s effectiveness as an officer of the law - He’s seriously damaged minority-police relationships for the entire BPD. And, frankly, reenforced long-standing perceptions about police across the entire nation. Every officer of the law has been harmed, to some degree, by this petulent microcephalic twit.
I don’t understand why he keeps talking. His lawyer is dumb*, but Barrett is really dumb:
Uh, you weren’t charged with a crime. So no fair hearing for you, fuckwit.
I am a little concerned by this, though:
They’re going to “look into” officers who received the e-mail? That smacks of a bit of a witch hunt. I highly doubt Barrett organized his mailing lists into groups, although I suppose “racists”, “not racists”, and “like a good nigger joke” are fairly useful as pigeonholes go.
*His lawyer’s stupidity speaks for itself:
See, this is what I’m getting to. This jerk feels his rights dun bin ab-ro-gated.
Fine. Take your rights, Mr. Barrett, and use them - Exercise your right to BE SILENT. Excercise your right against self incrimination, too, while you’re at it, Mr. Barrett - 'Cause every time you flap your lips, you convict yourself of gross, and grotesque, idiocy.
Fucking moron. How could he possibly argue that he isn’t racist? “I just said his actions were like those of a ‘slur historically directed at blacks and intended to portray them as sub-human’! I didn’t say he was one!”
What I’ve been wondering all along is why, oh why, did he send this email to the Boston Globe? I understand he was pissed off about this uppity black woman writing a column (how dare they?), but what the hell did he think was going to happen? The Boston Globe responds and says “oh, shit, you’re totally right - we should fire this columnist right away!”
Fucking idiot.
Very true. I suspect that Sgt. Crowley, among others, would love to throttle him.
ETA: The email was sent to Yvonne Abraham, the columnist who wrote the column that sent him into a frenzy of furious emailing.
I found an image file of the whole e-mail here… and it’s worse than the reporting makes it sound.
Here’s some stuff they didn’t mention in the article:
English teacher? I hope that’s a joke. He begins almost every sentence with a preposition, for one thing. There are a couple of sentences in his e-mail with at least 10 clauses in them, for another.
Presumably the reporters all thought he was talking about actual insects, but given the context, I don’t.
That email was really a piece of work. Had that appeared on the SDMB, I suspect that most people would decline to read it until some kind soul re-posted it, with paragraph breaks.
The sender did mention in his text that he was a police officer, but where does he identify himself as a member of BPD?
He can say anything he wants; that’s free speech. The public can hire anyone it wants.
If he wants to say things that bring discredit upon his employer, he can be fired.
