Social Virginia police officer fired for donating to Rittenhouse defense fund

Should this be grounds for termination?


  • Total voters
    147
I doubt it was just the donation. A law enforcement officer making a public statement that someone awaiting trial “did nothing wrong” aka is innocent, is probably against the rules.
from his police email it is, if he had just used a personal email none of us would even know about it or if we did it would have just been some doxing bullshit which I would not agree with. This shit it getting to the level of taking nude selfies or recording yourself having sex, I can understand the first few people that got burned and have sympathy for them, but after the first couple, people should be smart enough to learn from precedence.
 
Those are separate things you can charge him with.. His reason for being there was more noble than the criminals and pedo that violently attacked him.. So in the “who should have been there” department he’s on equal footing with the rioters. It’s a wash.

The rioters were subhumans... And I'm not surprised at the Left cheering for this kid's demise after he was attacked for defending a friend's property. No one was around to help these businesses... No one is going after these real criminals... Clown show

As demonstrators left the Civic Center, they began smashing and burning their way through town. They spray-painted the city’s parole office with “convict Rusten Sheskey” and then set it on fire with vindictive good cheer. They looted a Mexican restaurant, a Hispanic grocery, a beauty-products emporium owned by Korean immigrants, and a cell phone store run by a man of Palestinian descent, as well as a gas station and a payday lender, all of which were then burned. (The Kenosha Area Business Alliance would ultimately count about 40 businesses destroyed and at least another 40 damaged.)

When the throng attacked a two-story brick building with commercial space on the ground floor, Nick Dennis yelled at them, “Do not burn that! There’s houses at the top!” But the crowd was beyond all control. Nearby, a 70-year-old-man tried to defend the mattress store where he worked and the historic Danish Brotherhood Lodge 14, where he was a member, by spraying rioters with a fire extinguisher. A young man slammed him in the head with a Gatorade bottle petrified with hardened concrete, breaking the older man’s jaw and leaving him unconscious in the street. “These weren’t people out to represent Black Lives Matter,” Dennis said. “They were out to burn shit.”

Fuck these assholes and the braindead idiots who support them...
 
That makes it ok to fire him? Its a simple mistake to make. He made an anonymous donation; he didn't know the email list was going to get hacked.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...donate-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund-n1264343

Funny that NBC could wait to publish this guy's name and his hacked info. You know, after spending all summer refusing to cover Hunter Biden because they didn't want to distribute hacked materials...

it wasn’t really a mistake, you don’t by pure accident type in the wrong email address. It was poor choice. Along with commenting on the kid’s innocence and trusting some gofundme type website to protect his information being poor choices.
 
Sure, but what about say... Klansmen.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/florida-town-stunned-by-news-of-police-kkk-ties/2189339/

Now you have to tell residents that even though they have VERY good reason to feel unsafe and that the police officers are overtly biased, they will have to just blindly trust that these Klansmen won't abuse their authority, because you can't fire someone over a political affiliation. Moreover, you can't let go of an officer who can also basically never make a conviction stick (because it will be no problem to undermine reasonable doubt in the courts).
I don't believe in firing someone simply because they are a klansman, on their own time.

OK, so if I understand now, we are no longer talking about protecting political speech from other people's right to free association, we are talking about allowing companies to limit association based on speech but only treating affiliation as a protected class.

In that case yes, if you can still let people go over their speech, but not discriminate on affiliation you wouldn't have a problem.

We can go back to general free speech if you want. You had asked what my solution was. I threw out an idea to start and told you I don't have all the answers. I think adding political affiliation to the protected class list would be an easy and straight-forward way to get ball rolling back in the right direction. I don't think it is the perfect and final solution.
 
from his police email it is, if he had just used a personal email none of us would even know about it or if we did it would have just been some doxing bullshit which I would not agree with. This shit it getting to the level of taking nude selfies or recording yourself having sex, I can understand the first few people that got burned and have sympathy for them, but after the first couple, people should be smart enough to learn from precedence.

That just dodges the bullet though. The police chief said he was fired for his comments. His email is just what let them dox him. Making those comments would still be a fireable offense, the only difference is he would have maybe got away with it.
 
I actually am not a fan of people like Rittenhouse. I can even agree that maybe he had no reason to be there.
I can't agree that him being there should have endangered his life. 2 people tried to murder him and got what they deserved.
The thing is, this situation is in my belief similar to a stand your ground situation. If you inject yourself into a situation where you create the danger, you don't get carte blanch freedom to kill people. Again, this kid had a weapon he was not legally allowed to possess without adult supervision, traveled across state lines, established himself as "armed security" for property he had no ties to or employment, walked off to an area where someone was lighting a dumpster on fire away from the place he was supposedly guarding when the turn of events happened. Again, if it weren't for the fact he made a series of horrible choices, he wouldn't have been in that position. Another thing I have a problem with is the kid shot the people then walked by the police with his hands up. If he truly were trying to act as a surrogate to law enforcement he should have flagged down one of the cop cars and told them "I had to fire on individuals that were charging me, we need medical services here immediately" but instead he just walks by with his hands up. This kid jumped into a situation where he quickly got in way above his head, now I'm not saying he's a horrible person, in fact I feel sorry for the kid, from what I've seen he has some issues and his affinity for law enforcement was a coping mechanism.
 
The thing is, this situation is in my belief similar to a stand your ground situation. If you inject yourself into a situation where you create the danger, you don't get carte blanch freedom to kill people.

So what do you do when they try to kill you? Say the KKK has planned a protest at a local George Floyd memorial in my town. The previous night, the KKK burned down some black-owned business and the cops didn't do anything about it. A black friend asks me to come and stand around outside his store just as a deterrent. I oblige and show up, just hoping the KKK rioters will just move along or that the cops will arrest them. Suddenly, some skin head calls me a racial slur and then attacks me. I try running away, but he is faster and catches me. What do I do?
 
That just dodges the bullet though. The police chief said he was fired for his comments. His email is just what let them dox him. Making those comments would still be a fireable offense, the only difference is he would have maybe got away with it.
I don't agree that it would have been a fireable offense if he used a personal email. Hacking and doxing are a part of modern life, you better be prepared to answer for your "anonymous online actions". The Chinese developed the J20 fighter after hacking details about the F 35 and F 22, that's shitty and they shouldn't be allowed to use that information, but guess what, they did. So personal information is going to get out there. People bitch about the actions of the press, and reminisce about the "good old days of journalistic integrity, completely forgetting between Hearst and Pullitzer (yeah the Pullitzer prize guy) the US was duped into a war with Spain among other things, the press has always had a shady side, now it is more obvious because of competition which in some ways is good and others bad. The good is they can and are quick to call bullshit from one of their peers/competitors to bad, they are all in a rush to get the scoop and it was bad enough when you had to compete with ABC, the AP, NBC, NYT, WSJ, WAPO, etc. Now you have to complete with every person with a podcast, blog website. Just look how quick news is posted on here and dissected, most times before all the facts are in. In other words, the member berries are kicking in for too many people.

I think he would have a great lawsuit for wrongful termination if he used a personal email account, but using a work account, the dude was either stupid or lazy and he's paying the price for it. Now I know that seems harsh to punish someone for being stupid or lazy or making a mistake, but hey, we just had a cop shoot a dude while yelling "tazer tazer tazer", she did everything right except she used the wrong tool with disastrous consequences.
 
I don't believe in firing someone simply because they are a klansman, on their own time.

I think it’s incredibly problematic to allow anyone who belongs to an organization like the klan to hold a position in which they’re expected to remain impartial and unbiased, even if its off the clock. If you work for a private company, then fine, but as a representative of the law and the government it would be highly inappropriate.
 
I think it’s incredibly problematic to allow anyone who belongs to an organization like the klan to hold a position in which they’re expected to remain impartial and unbiased, even if its off the clock. If you work for a private company, then fine, but as a representative of the law and the government it would be highly inappropriate.

You could fire someone for acting partial and biased, and I am completely for that. But if someone just as unpopular political views, yet there is no indication that affects his work, he should not be fired. I'm pretty batshit insane with my political views; I unironically believe the unabomber was right about everything and I support the collapse of industrial society. If you sent my post history to my employer, I would absolutely be fired...yet by all metrics at my job I am one of the top employees in the company. If this police officer was a shitty police officer, then by all means fire him for being a shitty police officer. But I refuse to accept that him believing Kyle Rittenhouse was engaging in self-defense based on what he saw means that he is unable to execute his duties as a cop. As evidenced by this thread, his view on that isn't even fringe.
 
So what do you do when they try to kill you? Say the KKK has planned a protest at a local George Floyd memorial in my town. The previous night, the KKK burned down some black-owned business and the cops didn't do anything about it. A black friend asks me to come and stand around outside his store just as a deterrent. I oblige and show up, just hoping the KKK rioters will just move along or that the cops will arrest them. Suddenly, some skin head calls me a racial slur and then attacks me. I try running away, but he is faster and catches me. What do I do?
You tell your friend to hire an armed security service to stand outside, someone that is licensed and insured. Or you tell your friend you will, but you will be inside the property as a "guest". If you go out there armed and get into an armed confrontation you run numerous risks, number one you are acting as an unlicensed uninsured armed guard, since in your case your friend asked you to be there, he would also assume liability for anything you do. Let's say mr skinhead does have Usain Bolt speed and catches you, you turn and fire, let's say an 5.56 or 7.62 caliber weapon and he hit the skinheads kid who happens to be standing back watching daddy, is that a "ooops, soowwwyyy!" I don't think so, I'm sorry but while I support the 2nd amendment and am a gun owner myself, I don't think private citizens should be going around as armed supplements to the police. If an armed security guard has to go through a licensing class and be insured, then so should someone protecting some random persons property. If it's your own house, hell shoot them once for me if they come breaking in, but you standing in front of the local hardware store or whatever, nope I can't support that. Too many things can go wrong.
 
Funny that NBC could wait to publish this guy's name and his hacked info. You know, after spending all summer refusing to cover Hunter Biden because they didn't want to distribute hacked materials...

<{anton}>
 
You tell your friend to hire an armed security service to stand outside, someone that is licensed and insured. Or you tell your friend you will, but you will be inside the property as a "guest". If you go out there armed and get into an armed confrontation you run numerous risks, number one you are acting as an unlicensed uninsured armed guard, since in your case your friend asked you to be there, he would also assume liability for anything you do. Let's say mr skinhead does have Usain Bolt speed and catches you, you turn and fire, let's say an 5.56 or 7.62 caliber weapon and he hit the skinheads kid who happens to be standing back watching daddy, is that a "ooops, soowwwyyy!" I don't think so, I'm sorry but while I support the 2nd amendment and am a gun owner myself, I don't think private citizens should be going around as armed supplements to the police. If an armed security guard has to go through a licensing class and be insured, then so should someone protecting some random persons property. If it's your own house, hell shoot them once for me if they come breaking in, but you standing in front of the local hardware store or whatever, nope I can't support that. Too many things can go wrong.

But say I grant you all of that first part: Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been acting as a security guard and should not have owned that gun. I'll concede all of that for the debate. Now lets say that he is a retarded 17 year old who ignored your advice and decided to do it anyway. And while he was out there, being a dumb ass, someone attacks him, he tries to flee, they chase him and they catch him. What should he do? Should have laid down and let the mob beat him with skateboards and steal his gun?

No one has to forfeit their right to self-defense. It is just a simple fact that no matter what actions Kyle did that were wrong, he didn't attack anyone who didn't attack him first. He even tried his absolute hardest to turn and run away, and only fired when the people chasing him caught up to him. If Kyle could do the night again, I'm sure he would tell himself to not go, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right to defend himself against the people who attacked him. Nothing he did gives someone the right to chase him down and beat him. If bystanders felt he was not legally allowed to own the firearm, or felt that he was acting as unlicensed security guard, they should have phoned the police and reported him.
 
You could fire someone for acting partial and biased, and I am completely for that. But if someone just as unpopular political views, yet there is no indication that affects his work, he should not be fired. I'm pretty batshit insane with my political views; I unironically believe the unabomber was right about everything and I support the collapse of industrial society. If you sent my post history to my employer, I would absolutely be fired...yet by all metrics at my job I am one of the top employees in the company. If this police officer was a shitty police officer, then by all means fire him for being a shitty police officer. But I refuse to accept that him believing Kyle Rittenhouse was engaging in self-defense based on what he saw means that he is unable to execute his duties as a cop. As evidenced by this thread, his view on that isn't even fringe.
Someone's political views could be considered a partial or biased view. "unpopular political views" are subjective, 150 years ago believing slavery should be abolished was an unpopular political view, don't believe it was political, look at the all the shit that went on during the election of Lincoln and the secession of the southern states. What is popular today will not be tomorrow, so that fluid metric is horrible for determining what should or shouldn't be acceptable.
On some levels I agree with you about the industrial society, but then you need to consider that a lot of people would die off, which might not bother you, but then at least one person will fall back on the "old ways" to gain an advantage. It's like the movies where "all guns are banned" and everyone has great sword or hand to hand skills. What are the chances someone doesn't at some point say "fuck it, I'm using a gun because I can't fight with my hands or a sword". Basically you're bucking against human nature, we are always looking for the next advantage. So while the pre-industrial world sounds very romantic, I don't consider it practical.
Now to your last statement, let's switch it around a bit, let's say ole Kyle there went to a lawyer and said "hey, if I go across state lines with my trusty AR to "guard" some businesses and I shoot some people that threaten me, am I alright doing that?" and the lawyer says "yeah, sure you're doing nothing wrong". That attorney would be in deep shit because he dispensed legal advice that helped create the situation. Now on the flip side to this situation. The cop is basically doing the same thing after the fact from an official police email account. Now if he did it from his personal email account "chunkylover68@aolcom" (little Simpsons gag for everyone) it would have just been another dude stating whatever, especially since he didn't state "as a member of the law enforcement community you did nothing wrong". The second he used the work email, he sealed his fate.
 
Is Rittenhouse going to be the next trial the right wing obsesses over?
"He will win on appeal I promise!!!"
"Video evidence means nothing!!!"
 
But say I grant you all of that first part: Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been acting as a security guard and should not have owned that gun. I'll concede all of that for the debate. Now lets say that he is a retarded 17 year old who ignored your advice and decided to do it anyway. And while he was out there, being a dumb ass, someone attacks him, he tries to flee, they chase him and they catch him. What should he do? Should have laid down and let the mob beat him with skateboards and steal his gun?

No one has to forfeit their right to self-defense. It is just a simple fact that no matter what actions Kyle did that were wrong, he didn't attack anyone who didn't attack him first. He even tried his absolute hardest to turn and run away, and only fired when the people chasing him caught up to him. If Kyle could do the night again, I'm sure he would tell himself to not go, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right to defend himself against the people who attacked him. Nothing he did gives someone the right to chase him down and beat him. If bystanders felt he was not legally allowed to own the firearm, or felt that he was acting as unlicensed security guard, they should have phoned the police and reported him.
For the reasons you stated, it will be a very interesting trial. This is not a surefire conviction like Chauvin. A key point will be he was committing an illegal act when people died. If he wasn't there, those people don't die. Period.
 
But say I grant you all of that first part: Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been acting as a security guard and should not have owned that gun. I'll concede all of that for the debate. Now lets say that he is a retarded 17 year old who ignored your advice and decided to do it anyway. And while he was out there, being a dumb ass, someone attacks him, he tries to flee, they chase him and they catch him. What should he do? Should have laid down and let the mob beat him with skateboards and steal his gun?

No one has to forfeit their right to self-defense. It is just a simple fact that no matter what actions Kyle did that were wrong, he didn't attack anyone who didn't attack him first. He even tried his absolute hardest to turn and run away, and only fired when the people chasing him caught up to him. If Kyle could do the night again, I'm sure he would tell himself to not go, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right to defend himself against the people who attacked him. Nothing he did gives someone the right to chase him down and beat him. If bystanders felt he was not legally allowed to own the firearm, or felt that he was acting as unlicensed security guard, they should have phoned the police and reported him.
sorry but dismissing all the things you just conceded as fact is tantamount to saying it's acceptable for someone to say "well so what if I ran into the hood yelling the N word with a gun" and claimed that it was my self defense right to kill anyone that came to whip my ass, don't put yourself in that position in the first place. Or let's include a real world case, there was the guy in Clearwater Florida (so proud to be from Florida where all the fucked up shit happens) he was acting as the handicapped parking cop at a Walgreens, he got into a confrontation with a woman that was in the handicapped spot and got confrontational with her and her boyfriend saw it, he came out and the guy started with the boyfriend, the boyfriend shoved the guy and he fell down. The guy pulled out a gun and shot the boyfriend in the chest. The guy tried to pull a "stand your ground" defense. The guy was found guilty because he created the situation. Again, the way the law works is, you can't go out and start trouble and play the victim. The situation with the girl that got shot by the cop four times and died, apparently she called the police that she was being harassed and threatened, they show up. Unfortunately for her, they show up just as she's about the shank another girl, sorry she died but as of the facts at this point, I'd call it a justified shooting. For all I know the girl that was about the get stabbed was the instigator, she may have been the aggressor but that didn't give that girl the right to out with a knife and take the people on, especially as a cop is pulling up gun drawn.
 
Someone's political views could be considered a partial or biased view. "unpopular political views" are subjective, 150 years ago believing slavery should be abolished was an unpopular political view, don't believe it was political, look at the all the shit that went on during the election of Lincoln and the secession of the southern states. What is popular today will not be tomorrow, so that fluid metric is horrible for determining what should or shouldn't be acceptable.
On some levels I agree with you about the industrial society, but then you need to consider that a lot of people would die off, which might not bother you, but then at least one person will fall back on the "old ways" to gain an advantage. It's like the movies where "all guns are banned" and everyone has great sword or hand to hand skills. What are the chances someone doesn't at some point say "fuck it, I'm using a gun because I can't fight with my hands or a sword". Basically you're bucking against human nature, we are always looking for the next advantage. So while the pre-industrial world sounds very romantic, I don't consider it practical.
Now to your last statement, let's switch it around a bit, let's say ole Kyle there went to a lawyer and said "hey, if I go across state lines with my trusty AR to "guard" some businesses and I shoot some people that threaten me, am I alright doing that?" and the lawyer says "yeah, sure you're doing nothing wrong". That attorney would be in deep shit because he dispensed legal advice that helped create the situation. Now on the flip side to this situation. The cop is basically doing the same thing after the fact from an official police email account. Now if he did it from his personal email account "chunkylover68@aolcom" (little Simpsons gag for everyone) it would have just been another dude stating whatever, especially since he didn't state "as a member of the law enforcement community you did nothing wrong". The second he used the work email, he sealed his fate.

The cop never intended for his statement to be an official declaration from him as a police officer. It was meant to be anonymous and it only isn't now because the database was hacked.

But even if he did say "As a cop, I think this was self defense"...that would be pretty normal. Cops are asked all the time to weigh in and give their perspective as a cop on things. Go on youtube and you can find millions of videos of "Why I as a cop support Joe Biden", "Why I as a cop support Donald Trump". You can go look up George Floyd analysis and find tons of cops giving their opinions on it with a wide variety of conclusions. It has never been the standard that cops can't weigh in on whether or not they thought something was illegal.
 
Back
Top