Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

a reply to: FlyersFan

As an elected official he has to represent all his constituents. That includes not offending Blacks. It doesn't matter how well he does his job, anything that is offensive to the people he's supposed to look out for is grounds for dismissal. Btw, a private conversation is in private. Not at a public table.

What is said in private is exactly that, private. If we want to reverse the roles here, take a look at rap music or some interviews by some black celebrities that are PUBLIC. They don't even hide the slurs and hate for whites. Besides, it is clear Obama is racist towards "typical white people" so he shouldn't mind someone returning the talk. The PC double standard needs to stop.
Firepiston

Did Obama ever apologize for screwing us over time after time?

a reply to: LDragonFire

So dont vote for him if this is your community. End of story.

He may or may not have violated the public trust. Maybe he is an ignorant racist and is still good at his job. Maybe he takes that seriously enough to not let his personal convictions get in the way of carrying out his duty. Maybe he does. I dont know. His community should decide.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
He has violated the public's trust imo

How? He just got reelected. There have been no complaints from the police or the applicants to the police dept. He has done his job well. (his job - hiring, firing, disciplining and paying cops in town). So how exactly did he violate the publics trust by calling the POTUS a name in a private conversation? Where did he fail in his job?

In an ideal world every cop with any bias or prejudice would be fired.

Unfortunately most people are still ignoring the reality which is that these feelings are actively sought for and encouraged in police work:

distrustful of outsiders
cynical
conservative (not necessarily politically, but rather resistant to change)
suspicious
pessimistic
pragmatic
prejudicial
and holding other widely-shared attitudes about and beyond the mainstream view. (ref. 7 & 8)
...with a good policeman suspecting evil wherever he goes.

Officer.com

Waiting for them to slip up and express their prejudice is the mistake. Their own sources and internal studies show they are all prejudice and paranoid.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: kruphix
He has a right to his private conversation...but he doesn't have immunity to consequences.

If there are 'consequences' then his right to a private conversation was taken away. The waitress is going around repeating conversations she over hears her customers having. That's not exactly a good work ethic for her to have. People expect to be able to be served in a restaurant without the waitress-police repeating their private conversations. I wouldn't be surprised if the business at the restaurant suffers because of this. Who wants to go eat someplace where the wait staff won't mind their own business and just do their job?

Work ethic? You are questioning her ethics but not his? Wow.

The Constitution doesn't grant him the "right to private conversation"...it only says that Congress shall make no law limiting free speech. He had his free speech...doesn't mean other people aren't free to react.

Sorry, you can't just go around saying anything you want under the misunderstood principle of "free speech" and expect there to be no consequences. Everyone is accountable for what they say...whether it is private or public.

She is a waitress...not a slave...she is free to do whatever she wants as well. She may face consequences from her employer, but that is up to them.

The fact that you and others are defending him is just outrageous. Outdated views need to die out, defending people who hold opinions like this is just as bad as having them yourself. Only time can save us, old racist need to die so we can move on as a society. 25 to 50 years and things will start to get better.

originally posted by: intrepid
a private conversation is in private. Not at a public table.

Not even a private table in a public restaurant? A table where privacy is assumed? So no one can have a real 'private' conversation unless they are in their own home alone talking to themselves?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Now that the town knows he's a racist

They know he's a racist? Did I miss something here? I thought this was all about the use of a single word?

Actions speak a lot louder than words, y'know? Dropping "slurs" doesn't make you a racist, it just means you have some issues with tact and a personal lack of decorum (neither of which are illegal and both of which run rampant in society, manifesting themselves on many, many ways.)

This crap that gets called "racism" today is some wierd Kabuki theater version of racism. Highly stylized, highly subjective. We've apparently lost the abillity or common sense as a society to differentiate between "offensive" and "racist."

I see a cop who holds an unpopular opinion. Whoopity-damn-doo! Most people hold at least one or two, but then I suppose in some circles pointing out the hypocrisy of the average modern American is also some form of "racism", so I should probably tread lightly there. :rolleyes: #KennyPowersHandGesture

a reply to: FlyersFan

It isn't a private conversation if it is in a public space.

originally posted by: kruphix
Work ethic? You are questioning her ethics but not his? Wow.

Show me where he didn't do his job these past years. Show me the complaints filed against him. You can't. (or at least, I couldn't find any).

Now show me how a waitress is supposed to listen in at the tables she's waiting on and repeat conversations she's overhearing. Good luck with that.

The fact that you and others are defending him is just outrageous.

Ah yes .. that old ... 'tolerance unless what the person says disagrees with me' thing ...
There it is ... right on time.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Of course the right sees nothing wrong with this. It is an everyday word they use in private all the time..not to mention the other racial slurs they most likely use.

PC is a term used for common sense..but to them it is a term used to make them out to be evil because we all know, when it comes to common sense..the right has none.

This old idiot needs to be out..his views, along with the rights are stuck in the wrong century.

This century..people other than white straight males have every right to live and have rights.

By PC you are referring to the catchy trend of political correctness. PC is the downfall of this country. So, NO! "PC" has nothing to do with common sense. To go tit for tat with you sir, I lean slightly right of the center and I can tell you that I have more then enough common sense for the both of us.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Of course the right sees nothing wrong with this. It is an everyday word they use in private all the time...

ugh ... I could say ...
of course the left sees everything wrong with this. They dont' care about free speech.
But let's not do that silly dance ...

This is not a free speech issue. He is not being arrested, Congress hasn't passed a law closing his mouth.

Please understand this...this is not a free speech issue...Donald Sterling is not a free speech issue. This is an ethical issue that will be dealt with by his employer and/or the voters. Just like the Donald Sterling issue was handled by his employer/contract partner.

When people try to call things like this a free speech issue, it is like nails on a chalkboard....drives me nuts.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
They know he's a racist? Did I miss something here?

Typo. In the opening I said 'racist' in quotes ....
I missed putting that in quotes as well ...
I'll go fix the punctuation.

ETA .. I also edited 'alleged' in there just to be extra clear.
I missed that. Thanks for picking it up.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I don't think I have to define "private". Unless they are cooking and serving themselves(in a secluded area) they aren't in a private environment. They had no expectation of privacy.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
The waitress' statement is hearsay. There was no crime committed, aside from maybe liberals believing a thought crime has been committed. But so far that isn't officially a crime. Yet.

I agree there is no crime in his speech but her words are not hearsay since she is the one who heard the words. Someone claiming he said it based on hearing this from her would be.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: kruphix
Most crimes are committed privately...does that excuse the person from the crime? If a man beats his wife in the privacy of his own home, is he justified just because it was "private"?

Having a private conversation with a friend over a meal at a restaurant in which you call the POTUS a name isn't a 'crime' Well ... except to those who really don't approve of a person having a right to a private opinion.

I never said it was a crime...I was making a comparison to show that things done in private aren't granted immunity.

Talking in a restaurant is NOT a public conversation.

a reply to: intrepid

EXACTLY

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution does NOT protect speech in a public venue...

At least that part of it is a non-issue



Edit to correct my stupidity

The Salem Witchtrials continue. Let the commencement of ruining this man's life begin!

While the man may or may not be a racist, he is entitled to his own opinion and his own choice of words. We have freedom of speech for a reason and saying something (privately) to a friend is not justification to decide the man's fate.

ETA: I expect for many people defending this man to be called racist in this thread.

originally posted by: intrepid
They had no expectation of privacy.

When I go to a restaurant and have a conversation with my family, I fully have the expectation of having a private conversation and of not having the wait staff listen in and go repeat what I say. I don't think that's an outlandish expectation on the part of the customer.